Talk:Whirling Eater of Souls (3.5e Optimized Character Build)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

3e Conversion[edit]

The linked material (or what was linked) has conversions for the Monster Manual and Fiend Folio, but none of the other 3.0 books listed in the build (some of which, such as the Book of Vile Darkness, have never been updated). Furthermore, those books for which conversions are given were cited for the Improved Natural Attack feat and the Soul Eater prestige class, respectively, both of which are unaffected by 3.0 to 3.5 conversion, which deals primarily with skill points and feats for monsters and damage reduction. As such, Hooper, you may stop adding the needs balance template, because you're wrong. Escalation of commitment, fail, all that jazz, don't be retarded. -- Jota 08:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Jota, this isn't GhostwheelWiki where we pretend we're the know all be all of Gaming, so just stop it. If you had read the history of the edits, you would of known why the link wasn't used (trying to stick to core, not ENworld copies, and WotC site is horrible to navigate). Furthermore, even if in the end conversion may be little or none, this article still needs that highlighted in bold at the top as few gaming groups do cross-edition gaming. That isn't just a homebrew change, its game changing. No one needs to waste time with an article just to learn they may not be able to play it for huge reasons like that. Until the article has that bolded up top, the template is appropriate. Period. End of discussion.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Nevermind, I did it myself as no one else seems capable of actually working together instead of being internet tough guys. Now you can run back and tell GW that his precious doesn't have a template. Though it still has other very valid ones.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:13, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I will direct you to the linked material you provided, where it says, one paragraph in, and I quote:
Do you need to make the changes? No.
—D&D 3.5 Update Booklet, page 3
Furthermore, this is a policy decision, and I'm pretty sure you don't decide what is policy. If Green Dragon says that such a disclaimer is necessary, I will refrain from further removal of said item, or if it is put to site-wide vote that concludes in the necessity and desirability of said disclaimer. That said, it does not take a genius to look at the References section, the first section with real content, and see 3.0 material. The redundant department of redundancy might value your contributions, but otherwise, totally superfluous. You'll also note I left the other templates alone, as they are correct, this one, however, is not. So, go troll on the WotC boards or whatever, but stop presuming to be more than you are. -- Jota 17:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
It has been brought up before on other articles, where items that are unusually homebrew should be mentioned at the beginning of the article. It is going back up, and that is that. Maybe once the wikifying is done and the references section isn't an eyesore of spaces that people will ignore, will I say its worth removing. Policy states that when a template is places, the problem the template brings up should be addressed on the talk page BEFORE the removal of the template. If you feel that the template is unnecessary, ask an admin to chime in on the subject. Stop edit warring, let an admin decide. Until that time, for the sake of the viewer's ease, it will remain.
Also, your quote is taken out of context for this discussion, but nice try. Tell GW hi.
Edit: I removed it for the time being until an Admin says so as a way to end the edit warring, because I know you people love to edit war and I don't have the time to deal with that. I can be nice from time to time. In the meantime, if you're only here as GW's errand boy to "protect his work" you could actually fix the article, instead of just blindly try to prevent it from being improved for the general user. That is all I have to say on the matter. Goodbye. Yawn.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Like you fixed the Reflexman? I'm here on my own prerogative, not because of any affiliation I have with anyone else. Blindly trying to prevent improvement? Sounds like an 'oh, let's playtest it' redux to me. --Jota 18:54, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Oh wow, thanks for bringing that up. I have playtesting notes to put on it when I get to the house. Thanks. Back to the transientwiki you can go now. You've been helpful.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
I've seen some people just be uncivil and malicious. I've been a bit mean to people myself. But it amazes me that you're tolerated here where, apparently the Wiki's own guidelines (Meta Pages) read:
  • When one does not edit with civility and etiquette one becomes a warning for each time (posted in the discussion; kept in tab with a per user (maybe templated?) system of warnings and bans combined). Warnings are given by admins; an admin should post one indent earlier then the post which is not civil with <code><!-Written reason for warning.-> (#1:#2).</code> --~~~~. Where #1 is the users warning number and #2 is the users warning ban number. After that post it should continue along the same post thread as before (two later). The ban length starts with one week at three warnings and then increases exponentially from the sixth warning (2 weeks) for each three warnings received.
I have no problem with someone getting sharp or acidic or abrasive. But pretending they're not is hypocrisy. When someone asks him for help, he supplies it, and he doesn't pretend that he isn't an abrasive person in an argument. --Genowhirl 02:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
TL;DR, and off-topic. See here for response.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   03:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Actually, a lot of people care. Just to check, I showed a few pretty much neutral, reasonable people with no prior experience with this wiki how you treat people. They independently arrived at a similar opinion to my own (which contains several words which, while accurate, violate this 'no swearing' policy). --Genowhirl 03:56, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Did you show these "people" the years of putting up with the attitude of (what I've personally called:) the "Tavern Gang" and trying to be nice, only to be treated rudely? I said long ago I would treat individuals the way they treated others for all those years. That is not hypocrisy, it is just being honest. I've kept that promise, and don't really care at all what you or your "people" think. Once again, you can go back to the transientwiki or help with the article.
Back to the real topic. Is anyone planning on actually trying to salvage this?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   04:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I did. I showed them the quotes they put up. The little bits and the like. Heck, this looked pretty salvaged when it was made. --Genowhirl 04:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Yawn. Could really care less. I'll start fixing the article.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   04:14, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
How about this: improve the article. This is a 3.5e CO (see the section and the name). This uses 3e material. Problem. Needs to be remedied; who cares if something says 3e works with 3.5e. Unfortunately it does not; that's why there are two editions. --Green Dragon 04:35, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The build needs some fixing[edit]

Elan do not qualify for Aberration Blood because they are Aberrations, not Humanoids. This keeps them from qualifying for Inhuman Reach and Deepspawn (and by extension, Rapidstrike: Tentacles). In addition, a 1st-level Monk does not qualify for Multiattack, as you will have zero natural attacks at that point.

Tail of the Dragon is a 2nd level Psychic Warrior power, and not available to a 1st level Ardent. 12:18, 24 January 2011 (MST)

Personal tools
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors