Talk:Archivist Tradition (5e Subclass)

First of all, you need to change everything after level 6. These are stolen from the ranger subclasses, and if you want to use that power, be a ranger.

Second, the bonus to ability scores is stupidly overpowered. As a general rule, never double ability score bonuses. Also, don't deal with ability scores that don't benefit wizards.

Third, your "Student of the Gods" feature is useless for wizards, because wizards do not benefit from such spells.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 0.205.203.133 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

You also shouldn't be able to concentrate on two spells at once.--Blobby383b (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2018 (MST)

I disagree with not being able to cross features between classes. Please read Cross-Class Subclasses (5e Variant Rule) for interesting theories and consideration on this topic. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2018 (MDT)

This subclass is already cross classing with clerics so it defiantly would suit what looks like the intended purpose to replace the rangers favoured enemy and maybe the skill proficiency with some cleric/paladin feature like divine sense because the favoured enemy feature is really random.

A possible feature is; pseudo divine power, your next spell if has an attack roll it is made with advantage and if it forces a saving roll they have disadvantage. Babosa (talk) 00:23, 19 October 2018 (MDT)

Complete Overhaul

I simply couldn't abide by this class sitting unattended for so long without being fixed, so I rewrote it with the intention of being more true to the title and first sentence of the lore description. Everything else has been rewritten completely. --TheStoryEnthusiast (talk) 02:27, 13 December 2018 (MST)

I very much like the overhaul. Much more archivy. Right away, cum laude hits the mark for what I'd expect with this flavor. Arguably, expertise is unnecessary too. I could see moving it to level 6? and giving two languages instead? Or level 2 being History expertise and 1 language? see what other think

Magna cum laude I like sort of. I was excited to see the title because of cum laude's details but then its like hmmm what am I going to use this for. I also do not like the sacrificing part. not that I can't be sold on it, just doesn't sit right in my perception of scholarly knowledge collectors. I'd also consider rewording for Invoke/Invoking being like the keyword and that way it can be written that after you invoke, you must finish short or long rest before doing so again. Helps maintain that 5e style.

I like all of "belong in a museum" except the name. doesn't really give any punch to combat features but it is certainly a boon feature to have.

Suma Cum Laude is another interesting and great effect, including the saving throw advantages you get.

I really like the rework Enthusiast. I look forward to others' opinions on it and happy someone changed this. much better in flavor realm. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:06, 13 December 2018 (MST)

Hmm, looking at it, 2 languages would do better, and I'll look at restricting expertise to be more thematic. Magna was a tough one to sort out, because I wanted to imply some of the dark and powerful knowledge you've gained by empowering the rituals you cast. Any help with that feature would be greatly appreciated. Also I guess my Indiana Jones reference fell on a deaf ear, I'll see if I can whip up a different name, but might just leave it as-is. Thank you so much for your review, it really means a lot! --TheStoryEnthusiast (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2018 (MST)

I had thought about Indi Jones with the sacrificing stuff. I'm not saying remove that bit, just not something I would have added or would use (I think). Another player may love it. Anyhow, if you can't tell-loving the changes and glad someone polished this up. Kudos! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:39, 13 December 2018 (MST)

I changed a few things, the main changes are changing Invoking Duality to cast the spell multiple times and removing Invoking Connection, this is because rituals very rarely target creatures, and never have direct negative effects so Invoking Connection was almost useless and you might as well cast the spell twice instead of Invoking Duality and that in The Sacred Texts I swapped the spellbook being invincible for being able to get it back like with warlocks pack of the tome. Otherwise, I like what you've done with the subclass, it is a lot more interesting now. Babosa (talk) 00:46, 16 December 2018 (MST)

Removing Edits

I am removing the edits I have made to this page, reverting it to its original state. I no longer want my work shown on this forum, thank you. --TheStoryEnthusiast (talk) 23:24, 26 February 2019 (MST)

If the idea is to edit pages so that they are better, I cannot see reason to undo edits you've made if they would make the page worse. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:38, 27 February 2019 (MST)

I am not suggesting we make the content worse, I am telling you that I no longer consent to having my contributions posted to this forum, including this page. The "quality" of the page has nothing to do with it. --TheStoryEnthusiast (talk) 09:36, 27 February 2019 (MST)

Also, how can it be that I am not the primary contributor to a page I have rewritten and stocked with my own creative labor? While wording and mechanics have been tweaked by others, saying that any of that is equivalent to rewriting literally everything except the title. Please respect the personal decision I have made over my contributions. --TheStoryEnthusiast (talk) 09:43, 27 February 2019 (MST)

Whenever you edit a page, there is a little warning at the bottom:

"Please note that all contributions to D&D Wiki are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.3 (see D&D Wiki:Copyrights for details). If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."

I'll see if Green Dragon can help any further explaining this and/or a compromise. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:05, 27 February 2019 (MST)

TheStoryEnthusiast, since users other than yourself have made non-trivial edits to this page, unfortunately it does not qualify for deletion under user request, and reverting the page to the state it was in before you edited it is also problematic since other users have built upon your edits. All your edits are released under the GFDL 1.3 since you did not specify otherwise (and to my knowledge, it is not legally possible to revoke that license from your edits retroactively). Quite unfortunate, but this is the way the site has worked for 13 years now. You're always free to just not continue contributing to the site, if you wish, though I believe I speak for everyone when I say that we'd rather you continue editing and improving the site. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:20, 27 February 2019 (MST)

What the other admins have been saying is correct. The "complete overhaul" uses this page as it's base, and the collaboration on what this page should be does not warrant a revert, or in any way a deletion based off a sole contributor. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:37, 1 March 2019 (MST)