Talk:Aztec Warrior (3.5e Class)

Deletion

Please delete. nvjnvfbv or-ekrf=-,4oprekfmce--Sam Kay 08:15, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

You sure you don't want to put it for cleanup and wikifying? I don't think DnD Wiki has an Aztec class yet, so it may be worth keeping what you do have. --Aarnott 08:17, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

What you could always do is take your name off it (remove Template:Author) and add Template:Base Class Stub and have it go from that point. However, as always, it is your choice. --Green Dragon 11:43, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

Well, I might get back to it at some point. For now though, anyone is free to adopt it (just keep it within aztec culture, otherwise there is no point in its existance). --Sam Kay 12:10, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

Do you want Template:Author removed and this made into a stub then? --Green Dragon 12:15, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

Just make it a stub, please. --Sam Kay 14:03, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

Will do. --Green Dragon 14:07, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

I just found the notes I made for this class, so I think I will continue work on it. --Sam Kay 08:09, 1 September 2007 (MDT)

Sounds good :). --Green Dragon 12:11, 3 September 2007 (MDT)

I now have a finished version of this class saved in a text document. I will place it in this page shortly, but I need to implement some other things first. --Sam Kay 13:34, 5 November 2007 (MST)

Rating - 7/10

Not bad, not bad at all, nice job... there powerful yet not overly powerful, i look forward to playing one... 7/10 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zombiecow (talk • contribs) 07:01, 8 November 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Wait till you see the finished version. --Sam Kay 06:44, 9 November 2007 (MST)

Can someone rate the new version, please? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sam Kay (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 November 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Rating

Formatting - 3/5: I give this a 3/5 on formatting because this uses an old style table, the references do not use the wiki-references, more links could be added, and the epic section does not use the right formatting (as defined by the preload). --Green Dragon 13:31, 21 February 2008 (MST)

Overpowered?

This seems to be a composite of the fighter, barbarian, monk, and rogue. It's a neat idea, but that versatility is in itself an advantage--he has all of the upsides of those classes, with none of the disadvantages. Not to mention he has the highest possible Hit Die and BAB.

I would suggest lowering the Hit Die or BAB, or perhaps toning down a couple special abilities.

I give it a 4/5 on Power. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dude Bob (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 April 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

Versitality does not automatically make a class overbalanced; it can do alot but it cannot do what the other classes do as well. He has a weakness in that he lacks the power of the others in a single area. He does not match the fighter for bonus feats, cannot rage as well as a barbarian, cannot fight as well unarmed as a monk and nowhere near matches the rogue for sneak attack. That, in itself, is a weakness. In most cases, you're better off with either one of those classes. I used the CCS when constructing this, so it should be fine. --Sam Kay 12:05, 14 April 2008 (MDT)

it may have all the advantages, but they aren't at any formidable power level! -connorpistol

Rating

Power - <<<16>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugulu the Barbarian (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Wording - <<<18>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugulu the Barbarian (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Formatting - <<<19>>>/5 I give this class a <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugulu the Barbarian (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Flavor - <<<Insert Your Rating Here>>>/5 I give this class a <<<14>>> out of 5 because <<<insert why you gave the rating and how to improve it>>> --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ugulu the Barbarian (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

Eurocentrism

This page smacks of it. Please find some way to reword, since the Aztec sacrifices were usually willing and, when freed by the Spaniards, rejected the offer of release and demanded to be sacrificed. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.246.76.83 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

What you are describing is not "Eurocentrism", it's "historical inaccuracy". Welcome to D&D. JazzMan 21:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to D&D. Historical inaccuracy is what we do best. Stereotypes as well, don't forget the stereotypes. --Jay Freedman 21:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you ought to remember, willing or not, it was still human sacrifice. No need to sugar-coat it. -- Danzig 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Balance - X/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because <<<its not very unbalanced>>> --Connorpistol (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2013 (MDT)

Wording - X/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because <<<its descriptive enough...>>> --Connorpistol (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2013 (MDT)

Formatting - X/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because <<<its organized, but you could do better>>> --Connorpistol (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2013 (MDT)

Flavor - X/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because <<<it captures most of the feel of the aztecs, except that they wen't as brutal as this describes, and they used weapons, not unarmed attacks>>> --Connorpistol (talk) 15:51, 29 September 2013 (MDT)