Talk:High Priest (3.5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
I don't know if anybody else have lodged this complaint yet, but I have never, ever seen an uglier and more confusing format as the one that you are being forced to use here on DanDwiki right now and mind you, I have done a lot of work on MSWork to know what rotten text formats are like. Why is it done like this? Have people even looked at this prior to implementing it in template pages? Someone edited this class all back, and it has become completely and utterly unreadable. Now, I have had another person ask me to change L4 ids back to headers with description on the same line like the following
Class Feature: Class Feature Explanation
in another class. So that's the way I made this new class. Until I see some actual reasoning behind why I am absolutely required to use these ghastly looking L5 headers, I want this class to remain exactly the way it is as I put it there. Furthermore, I'd rather have a Wikify template above this thing than see someone editing it behind my back. Because frankly, if I have to conform to this L5 header makeup I'd rather not put this class up on this site at all. For now, I've taken them away. If people really assist, I want to put them back myself. --Sulacu 22:47, 19 June 2007 (MDT)
- My main problem with the L5 headers is that it blows up the TOC to epic proportions. That's just ugly. The other issue is that Internet Explorer and Firefox seem to have a different idea about how to format L5 headers. In Firefox, it looks okay as intended, by Internet explorer does something like a first-paragraph indent. Hard to explain, just look at it yourself.
- So, all in all I agree that just using bold text for subsection heading is better. --Mkill 01:00, 20 June 2007 (MDT)
- Quite true. I'm glad I'm not the only one that has a problem with these headers. Or maybe, like you said, it's because I'm using Internet Explorer. The text underneath the header is packed behind the header in block format and the header is suspended in the middle, which makes it kind of ... uhh.. :D Anyway, thanks for your 10 cents. --Sulacu 08:34, 20 June 2007 (MDT)
- The reason for using L5s (and L6s) was discussed when we were evaluating the layout for the base classes. Odd that no one bothered to look at the layout in IE before now (though it was viewed in other browsers outside of IE and mozilla-based ones). I didn't realize how few people used IE these days. It seems IE v7.0.5730.11 doesn't fully implement the :after pseudo-element, and I imagine there's even more issues with earlier versions. The discussion will re-opened so we can take this into account. —Sledged (talk) 11:39, 20 June 2007 (MDT)
- I still use IE 6, in which it also still makes the layout go all strange. Sorry I flew off the handle a bit, by the way. I'm really peckish about format xP. --Sulacu 14:34, 20 June 2007 (MDT)
Rating - 8/10
I don't even know what's being talked about for formatting, but I'm going to rate the class on how I see it. Frankly, you've made a Cleric who's better at spell-casting, and less of a front-lien combatant. I'd give ti a 9, but I'm really a bit nervous about the Planar cohort feature. Leadership tends to be very powerful, and I can't imagine that making the leadership apply to an outsider (which is also pretty powerful) isn't at least running a slight risk of overpowering. Now, a player wouldn't be able abuse the ability to store spells for later convenience, but a DM has a lot of potential to overpower this guy by claiming he'd store more magic than a player would. do the stored spells only last a day, or until discharged? if it's until used, I could see that warranting abuse issues. It's currently 8/10, with a 7/10 for a DM because it may be a slightly overpowered NPC if I'm reading it correctly ad the spelsl last until discharged. Either way, Id' definitely use this in a campaign as an NPC, seeing as evil clerics are a bit cliche. --Theophenes 23:25, 27 June 2007 (MDT)
- Thanks for your rating. To elaborate, the imbued spell level charges are spent at the end of the day, similar to any prepared spell slot that the high priest hasn't used that day. If this gives some DMs pause, or the desire to abuse the Improved Focus ability, then you can always say on top of this that when the high priest prepares new spells for the next day, his holy symbol loses all imbued spells.
- By the way, the outsider planar cohort is generally not more powerful than a cohort granted through the Leadership feat; most outsiders' ECL is boosted severely by high Level Adjustment. I've deliberately stayed far away from the type of 'planar cohort' used by Thaumaturgists. If anything, I have warranted making the minimum difference in level between high priest and cohort somewhat bigger still (3 or 4) as to justify the convenient abilities that run between them. To be honest, the original draft for this class did not have the planar cohort ability, but one of my friends felt that a divine caster that has such a powerful bond with his deity should be granted an emissary. And on that bombshell, I rename 'Planar Cohort' to 'Divine Emissary' to avoid getting confused with the Planar Cohort of the Thaumaturgist.
- EDIT: I have made a slight change to the explanation of the Improved Focus. Hope this serves well. --Sulacu 20:59, 28 June 2007 (MDT)
I just notice an edit signing 'template guinea pig'. Are you researching the possibility of using different wikisyntax? Fine by me, but I would like to note that what you put in place of the span ids doesn't seem like it allows you to put in a reference string. That doesn't look like it's going to be pretty when you encounter reference objects that have a lot of characters in them. Well, feel free to play around anyway --Sulacu 15:07, 10 December 2007 (MST)
- You guessed it. As you've probably already figured out, the new syntax is in regards to this discussion. I don't see long strings as much of a problem, given that no one's complained that wiki headers work the same way. That's essentially all this is, with the difference that these won't show up in the TOC, nor do they have to be on a line by themselves. As for user-supplied reference strings, if a user is going to supply their own, there's little point in automating process. —Sledged (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2007 (MST)
- To be very honest, I was just getting used to making tables with the way they were laid out. It was simple, it was concise. I don't think I'll be able to work with these new templates as well as I can with the old one. I liked working with span ids once I figured them out. I like the simple 'class="even"' and class="left" arguments in tables, etc. I'm prepared to work with either, though. --Sulacu 19:48, 10 December 2007 (MST)
Power - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5out of 5 because The power of this class is very well balanced, but make the servant perhaps a bit less strong.
Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because if I didn't know better I'd say I was reading from a handbook. Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it captures the complex yet direct explanations of of DnD formatting.
Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because It is an interesting take on the cleric claass though it could use another feature. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 10 October 2008. Please sign your posts!