Talk:Dragoon (3.5e Class)

please do not revert latest edit, that was me, it simply logged me out since i spent so much time editing. Zau 03:07, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

It was a little bit troublesome seeing this comment, not because of its content, but because of what it implies as to how you view the wiki. From the way it's written it seems to me like you think two things, one being that IP edits should always be reverted, and two, that you think edits by people other than the auther should be reverted. Both of these things are wrong. IP's actually contribute a fair bit of good articles to the wiki, while some are spammers, but the spammers are worth it to hear from the good IP editors. Also, anybody is free to edit an article. It is generally considered proper etiquette to post on the talk page before making a major change, however it is not required. Bottom line is, if they are constructive, they stay.

Just something to bare in mind for the future if you didn't already realize it. :) --Vrail 03:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

however, this being homebrew, the class should look like what the creator intended, unless the page has been abandoned (imo). i wouldnt want someone to take a page i had spent time on and completely rework it; if they want to do it their way, they should make a variant page. this page, and others like it, are based on ideas from a single person. i think for the most part, i agree that ip edits are ok, but in the homebrew section, i think most editors would rather that anything they worked on remain the way they put it. i would definitly rather have my own class pages be left with the class features the way they are, if someone thinks they should be diferent, they should ask or suggest, not just change it as they please. Zau 13:49, 28 October 2010 (MDT)

That may be your opinion and you're certainly welcome to it. I know I'm of a similar mind. I know I watch all my pages with the "watch this page" function to keep tabs on my creations, and make sure they reflect my best work. That said, no one here on this wiki makes a point to revert constructive edits. If you find edits that are not in the vein you want, feel free to change them, but no one will undo edits simply because an IP did them. --Badger 00:55, 29 October 2010 (MDT)

I will be removing the Einhander style, as I now think it does not fit the flavor of the class very well, and has little difference from the two weapon style when it comes to effect. The rodelero style replaces it, and is more unique and fits the flavor better. anyone who opposes this should speak up before the end of the month.

sorry the preceding comment was me, forgot to sign or something. Zau 14:34, 29 September 2011 (MDT)

removing einhander style, if you want it back, just tell me. also, I was thinking of bumping the class up to d10 hit die, as I think the d8s might not cut it for a frontline fighter; in the same thought, I was thinking of giving the class a good fort save. PLEASE comment, I would like everyone's input.Zau 16:32, 30 September 2011 (MDT)

Picture

If anyone has a picture they think would fit this class, I would really appreciate it if you would show it to me. Zau 11:02, 27 September 2011 (MDT)

This--Salasay Δ 18:10, 25 January 2013 (MST)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because after some playtesting it seems balanced compared to most other fighter-type core classes. There may be some small improvements (maybe increase hit-die to d10, and/or good fort save) --Zau 23:04, 25 December 2011 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because as far as I can tell, everything is there. Some things might stand for a better description, but I can't tell. --Zau 23:04, 25 December 2011 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because everything is formated to standard, and hyperlinked internally and externally to boot. --Zau 23:04, 25 December 2011 (MST)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it has been more or less fleshed out, yet could probably still stand for a little improvement. I hope to add an NPC and some better fluff over time. --Zau 23:04, 25 December 2011 (MST)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because I have seen this class in action, and it is relatively powerful, but was not too OP, and wasn't a God --Salasay 15:37, 16 March 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the grammar and clarity are good, and it is very descriptive on how the class features work --Salasay 15:37, 16 March 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it has little to no formatting issues, and follows the standards well --Salasay 15:37, 16 March 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because it has little description on why or how its class abilities work --Salasay 15:37, 16 March 2012 (MDT)

Medium Armor Mobility

This class is super interesting and I'm strongly considering asking my DM if I can play it, but there's one point I'm curious about. Under the "Medium Armor Mobility" class feature it says "in addition, he can use the Spring Attack feat in medium armor." According to RAW, Spring Attack is only disallowed in heavy armor. So is this feature granting dragoons the ability to use spring attack while wearing medium armor even if they don't have the feat?

Good catch, that was a mistake on my part. I had *assumed* that Spring Attack was light armor only, since there are so few class features that only exclude heavy armor (which is in fact part of why I made this class in the first place. I've removed that line; the class feature wasn't meant to give Spring Attack, and since the behavior of using it in medium armor already exists, that line does nothing. Zau (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2021 (MST)