Talk:McChicken (5e Race)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Featured Article Nomination[edit]

No mark.svg.png — This article did not become a featured article. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2018 (MST)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

I believe that this article exemplifies the collaborative mission of D&D Wiki. Starting out as an unusable stub, it was quickly transformed into a usable race. And when flagged as a stub, did the page remain a stub? No! One of our users heeded the call for article improvement and improved the article to the satisfaction of our most active and well-respected members. It also shows that even humorous articles can have a place in a campaign as a fleshed-out race with its own well-written lore and balanced traits. I would be honored to have this race played in my own campaign. Thank you.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2018 (MDT)

Support Sure, why not. (Varkarrus (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2018 (MDT))
Oppose Okay, for real, though... I would not be against an april fools article making it to the FP. Heck, I want there to be at least one! But, I think for it to happen it has to be a really funny page, an absolutely exemplary april fools article. This one's okay but, not really FA material. (Varkarrus (talk) 07:01, 24 May 2018 (MDT))
Neutral Now that more has been added to the page, I wouldn't mind it being an FA, but it's not quite at the point where I'd downright support it. (Varkarrus (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2018 (MDT))
Oppose While I could write a paragraph's worth and more to why this page doesn't stand a snowballs chance in hell, I will instead simply say that this nomination is fundamentally unfounded as the nominated page doesn't even meet the benchmark criterium that all FA nominations should abide by before nomination. As it was an administrator that nominated this page I would expect them to abide by this criterium most of all. --ConcealedLightThis user is an administrator (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2018 (MDT)
Please review our Behavioral Policy. Insulting other users is not cool.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2018 (MDT)
Administrators, although examples for users, make mistakes. Luckily, users who want their advice should ask for it, since perfection is a farce. This nomination should be regarded as any nomination, with applicable discussions focusing around it. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2018 (MDT)
Support To elaborate a bit, I think that the lore on this page is surprisingly good. It manages to take a chicken sandwich and bring it to life in a way I never thought possible. It's evocative and easy to fit into most D&D campaigns. I just adore it. And the mechanics are flavorful (no pun intended), capturing the essence of what it would mean to be a sentient chicken sandwich in a D&D game. I am not nominating this as an April Fools FA, but just a regular FA. And I think that it is at least as good as most other FAs, but is also unique and captures the whimsical spirit of the game in a way that few FAs do. When I read this article, it takes me back to a simpler time at the beginning of RPGs, before everything was about serious high-fantasy. It was deadly, tactical, pulpy, sci-fi and occasionally silly. But most of all, it was fun! :D --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 08:26, 24 May 2018 (MDT)
I really hope you're joking. --ConcealedLightThis user is an administrator (talk) 09:20, 24 May 2018 (MDT)
Please review our Behavioral Policy. Insulting other users is not cool.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:30, 24 May 2018 (MDT)
Please leave constructive comments. Trying to read your thoughts is not possible. Although these points are very well applicable, no one can use them. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2018 (MDT)
Comment Relax team, let's stop slingin' blows and let's talk facts. This page is good, but needs a few improvements yet before it would be a suitable FA.
  • The writing is decent, but could use a touch up all around, I wouldn't call it of professional quality just yet.
  • Sections such as physical description need fleshing out. This should be undebatably complete.
  • The image is too big, it should be sized as per policy.
  • Mechanics need clarifying, does Poisonous effectively kill anyone who ever eats this race? What are the mechanical implications of False Appearance?
I feel these are the major issues at the moment. With these addressed (and I may jump in and do some of it myself, if no-one do), I believe I would be happy to support this nomination.
Votes and their justifications are welcome, but for the future please assume good faith, and consider giving some constructive input. --SgtLion (talk) 16:11, 24 May 2018 (MDT)
I totally agree. Reading this page makes me wonder a lot, like how are they made, where are the preservatives from, why are they produced like they are, etc. Try reading this page like you don't know anything about a McChicken, and you will see how confusing it is to many people. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2018 (MDT)
Support Based on the pages merits alone for quality lore and relatively balanced I see no reason to oppose other than the taboo nature of it. I would also very much like to get me a McChicken now. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2018 (MDT)
Oppose While the page itself isn't bad, and its history supports a spirit of collaboration, there otherwise isn't anything about it which seems to be of "featured" quality to me. I say this even as someone who has contributed to the page several times. I fear featuring a race like this could cause a negative effect. Although only a minority of 5e Races are good, I'm sure at least a few have seen more work, feature more collaboration, are more creative, and are written even better than this one. That's not even considering the vast array of other content on this wiki outside of 5e races. I feel like featuring this page in its current form would be an insult to those pages, would discourage their creators, and would deter passionate effort. If anything it would only encourage even more April Fools pages, the majority of which are practically unusable. - Guy (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2018 (MDT)
Oppose While April fools pages are funny, I don't believe we should encourage people to make a bunch more of them. They can be very well constructed, but at the end of the day, 99% of them cannot be used. Had the lore of this page been more in-depth / better fleshed out, I might have felt differently butat this point in time I don't believe it is fA worthy. On the subject of 'collaboration' - this is not something that most users can see at first glance and as such, I don't believe it is a valuable factor when considering an article for fA. --ConcealedWife (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2018 (MDT)

Comment

In Blindsight it says they have no eyes which presumably means they are blind which should be specified, especially since in the physical description it says they have eyes if you order them with tomatoes

In Poisonous it does not say exactly when you deal the damage on their turn.

It also claims to be "certain death to any who eat you" but because the damage occurs on your turn, you don't have a turn when you are dead and creatures that can swallow tend to have enough hit points that you would die before they do so it is actually unlikely to kill them, you could improve this by saying the damage occurs on their turn until the DM decides your body is digested.

Another thing is that the name is "poisonous" but they don't get the poison condition which would be appropriate because, narratively, they are getting food poisoning and it wouldn't be unbalanced as it is fairly rare to be swallowed.

And finally "You may escape from being swallowed by winning a Grapple contest" should probably be something like "As an action, you have a grapple contest with the creature that swallowed you, if you succeed you are no longer swallowed"

It should specify if you have arms, legs and other body parts while in your sandwich form and what happens to your equipment where you transform, presumably the same way polyform deals with equipment.

With Thingspeech it says "You can speak to ... objects" does that mean you can only talk to inanimate objects in which case what is the point of having it or is it only for sentient or animated objects which is very niche, or that they become sentient when you are talking to them which doesn't fit with saying it is telepathy or that you can actually talk to creatures in which case "objects" is misleading.

Babosa (talk) 17:58, 6 August 2018 (MDT)

Without improvements, this FA nomination will not succeed. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2018 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system ref. documents


admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors