Talk:Elemental Bender, True (3.5e Class)

Deletion

Don't delete it!!! I am not done making it yet! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eonir777 (talk • contribs) 13:31, 21 July 2008 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

When more content gets added I'll remove that template. --Green Dragon 18:36, 22 July 2008 (MDT)

Prestige Class

I always thought that benders would make a great monk prestige class. I don't think there is enough solid stuff to make a full base class. but keep up the good work. --T G Geko 16:22, 26 July 2008 (MDT)

actually, i finished out the class on microsoft word, it worked out as a base class. of course making it a prestige would work to. i really need to figure out how to get it from WORD to dndwiki tho....--Eonir 15:47, 8 October 2009 (MDT)

Helping out

terribly sorry if i am breaking protocol or something or if i have just pressed some sort of self destruct button, but i like your idea presented here and have indeed already been designing a class like this (mine was prestigious, as discussed early both work good) but i have only just sign up to this site... long time watcher though.

anyway i would like to help with this class. Signed Messah

What the hell,

are you thinking, I appreciate you wanting to bring this class to life, but, it's not a class, it's not usable in the least, I mean, leaving some room for editing is one thing, but, there is nothing here, and until there is, it should not be here.

Agreed, there is no way any DM/GM would allow this. It is impossible. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.108.50.5 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts.

I would like to take over the creation of this class

Hello, I would like to take over the creation of this class. If any one minds or disagrees with this please let me know. I have some good ideas for this class. -Sarrow 18:45, 16 September 2008 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 3.5/5 This class could own it own without dying, I guess it is playable yet no perfect. A bigger damages outcome would be welcome indeed. --Lord Dhazriel

The balance of this has been changed and this rating has been nullified as such. --Green Dragon 20:21, 10 August 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 Rather clean, nothing needing intensive rework. Could be cleaner however. --Lord Dhazriel

Formatting - 4.5/5 Some bugs in the table, otherwise nothing else. --Lord Dhazriel

Flavor - 3/5 Im not really in this element thing, the flavor is rather generic which is a good or bad thing depend on how you view the concept of a base class. Otherwise there a example NPC lacking. --Lord Dhazriel

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this class could do more than hold its own in combat, and can dish out some serious damage. --Henk da Barb

The balance of this has been changed and this rating has been nullified as such. --Green Dragon 20:21, 10 August 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording is pretty okay. Only some minor grammer errors, and the explanations only get a little bit choppy. --Henk da Barb

Formatting - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because the only thing wrong is the little bar under "bends per day". --Henk da Barb

Flavor - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because I think its a great idea! Just wish the bending could be a little more intensive. --Henk da Barb

thoughts

I always invisioned a bender class as a sort of monk type variant and as such would make use of wisdom, not charisma. An alternative would be to have each element use a different ability. Earth benders (who would have the same hit die) would be sturdier than others and use Con, while fire benders are a bit quick to anger and are headstrong and use strength, air benders are typically lithe and agile therefore use dex and waterbenders are usually quiet but very persistant and use wisdom.

--Ruike 03:55, 8 August 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because this class, while having a way to supliment damage output beyond the insubstantial monk (from which this class was supposedly modeled on) the damage output does not rival the rogue or most spellcasters, and does not have the stability and consistancy of the fighter, though it is better than any bard and most monks. --RurikDankill 15:53, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

The balance of this has been changed and this rating has been nullified as such. --Green Dragon 20:21, 10 August 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the ideas are all well thought out and well presented. Even though there are a decent amount of typos, there are always typos so all in all everyone can understand what is meant. --RurikDankill 15:53, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because while i am uncomfortable in giving too low a score for this, as pretty much all of the formating is well done, there are a few abilities that are not on the table that instruct to reference the table (ie: the movement ability) there is also an unnecessary collumn in the table that could be placed in the description with a few words. --RurikDankill 15:53, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because this is something that i have been looking for and have begun construction of myself. I like the idea of the element bender and it fits into many types of campaigns. it is a possibility for many types of characters and doesn't fit a role that exists already, which adds to the overal flavor imo. --RurikDankill 15:53, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

I guess making sure it's fine is more important

The author of this page seems awfully against any edits on his article. I was just wondering if there were any objections to fixing a couple grammar and spelling mistakes I've noticed.
I'm probably being too cautious here, but I don't want to make anyone annoyed. --SgtLion 04:41, 28 October 2009 (MDT)

I have no problem with you fixing grammar and typos. Thats cool. --Eonir 17:41, 28 October 2009 (MDT)

Somethings missing

Hey, I really like this, alot of people are being huge jerks, and that's crap. Anyway, just wanted to point out that there is no indication to what damage type a bender does before earning greater bend. Also, please don't have the greater bend of earth benders be ballistic, that doesn't exist in D&D outside of futuristic campaigns. Oh, and you don't have the increased speed amount >.> I wanna use this class, so hurry!

Lol ok. Dont worry i'll finish it up--Eonir 18:04, 1 November 2009 (MST)

Actually there is a lot missing from the bender's primary ability, no damage type, use per not indicated, no text concerning the selection of a focus/element... Also you have a table column for "bends known" that is completely unaccounted for.

Eonir I really like what you are presenting but you are going to have do something about the state of this class very soon to keep from being deleted either finish the class or let other get more involved.

Let me know if your interested in some help or cooperative work or otherwise just drop a line so we know your still around.--SomethingClever April 25, 2010

Rating

Power - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because this is basically a monk with worse saves, no flurry, lower speed, most of the goofy side abilities stripped out, and a limited use version of the warlock's Eldritch Blast. Only Bend Element doesn't have any status effects to tack on (like the real deal) or compatibility with the Full Attack action to make up for the pathetic damage (as the Tome curator). Additionally, there is practically no reason to pick anything but an earthbender, unless for some reason you really want d6 hit points and either heat or cold resistance. Channel Bend is hopelessly weak when you first get it, and you have to wait an incredibly long time to get Improved Trip (especially considering how monster BAB and Size scales with level...more so relative to your BAB). --Finfreeze 10:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The balance of this has been changed and this rating has been nullified as such. --Green Dragon 20:21, 10 August 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 here for many little reasons. The ranges on some of these abilities are not mentioned. The airbender's flight doesn't have a mobility assigned to it. You aren't told what kind of energy/damage type your bender wields until the Elemental Resistance ability. It seems the creator doesn't understand that Damage Reduction works differently from Resistance to Energy, as "Damage Reduction to his damage type" for earth-/airbenders (which get Bludgeoning damage from their default bends) would be better represented as "DR X/Slashing or Piercing". The example encounter is all kinds of messed up and doesn't remotely follow the actual class's progression. Primal Elemental Shape is pretty vague; what features of the elemental do you take on? Also there is mention of "Racial Standard" for the starting age, which doesn't really mean anything. "Bends Known" is misleading, as it's actually an indicator of how many bends you can use per day. Is the airbender's Death Bend useless against creatures who need not breathe? Finally, none of the class features have those little markers in parentheses that tell you if an ability is Extraordinary, Supernatural, Psi-Like, or Spell-Like, and it's not clear what exactly you lose when you become an Ex-bender. --Finfreeze 10:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because some things in the class features list are not listed in the table at all (Increase Speed, Unarmed Strike) or listed at incorrect levels (Channel Bend (full attack)). Otherwise it's good enough. --Finfreeze 10:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 3/5 U give this class a 3 out of 5 because while the flavor sections are mostly filled out (if a bit sparse and generic), the class really misses the mark in realizing the different styles of bending, such as Water's tendency towards healing and defense or Fire's more aggressive bent. --Finfreeze 10:19, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Power - 4/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<if a creature is immune to what ever element the bender uses then it should take no damage, you could change it so that half of the damage is always force>>> --Oghmios 04:43, 3 February 2011 (MST)

The balance of this has been changed and this rating has been nullified as such. --Green Dragon 20:21, 10 August 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it is easy to read and follow>>> --Oghmios 04:43, 3 February 2011 (MST)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because I would recommend switching the alignment restrictions for the waterbenders and the earthbenders --Oghmios 04:43, 3 February 2011 (MST)

Rating

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because It is a powerful character but not overpowered --141.101.70.112 18:43, 10 February 2012 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because Clear, exept for HP which was v. difficult to find --141.101.70.112 18:43, 10 February 2012 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because It is a very good class, fits D&D well --141.101.70.112 18:43, 10 February 2012 (MST)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because You could have some real fun with this class --141.101.70.112 18:43, 10 February 2012 (MST)

Rating

Power - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Egalitarian enough strength to fight Elemental Master --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because very good joob --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Egalitarian enough strength to fight Elemental Master --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because very good joob --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I thought the bending limits per day was a bit wonky and underpowered the class. I don't know how to work around that without completely overpowering the class, so I guess this is the current state of affairs. --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Wording - 3.5/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was vague and there were some missing words. For example: Benders are proficient all simple weapons --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because of some aforementioned poor grammar and run-on sentences. That should be an easy fix, and I would do it myself. --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)

Flavor - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because it was sometimes vague. In addition, the class only focused on the combat applications of bending, and none of the recreational/spiritual/other aspects of bending. It also tropified benders by outfit and alignment, which is not really all that true to the original inspiration material.

It's worth a mention that this is just a reflavored monk, as well. --Azdoine (talk) 18:30, 13 June 2012 (MDT)