Talk:The 4 Skinner (5e Equipment)

Is this item appropriate for the wiki? I think at the very least it deserves to have {{Adult Theme}} placed on it. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:36, 5 September 2018 (MDT)

That and {{April Fools}}, at least I found some humor in it. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:41, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

I will nominate this page for {{delete}} since its totally useless, uninformative, not funny, and simply perverse. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:31, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

I, uh, but! *sigh* there's no point. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

Would you like me to add these reasons to Template:Delete/why? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

Which reasons? My reason all explain how this page falls under the first bullet point, and are tailored to this page. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

How is it unusable? This is a weapon that does more damage as it gets bigger and can cast a spell. Just because it isn’t a “Pinocchio Blade” and flavored in a PG way doesn’t deter from its mechanics.

I think there are plenty of useless pages; which users opinion matters?

I find many pages uninformative; which users opinions matter if it gets deleted for this?

Do we only allow funny pages? Who determines what is funny?

it’s perverse, as are a handful of other pages. It’s a mature game, with violence, murder, and drugs.

I don’t want to defend the page in all honesty but there’s been many discussion about the process for deleting pages and this just circumvents all those because one user decided to take it upon themself for it. I thought pages were to receive a maintenance template, like what Mara did. If issues aren’t fixed in a reasonable timeframe (2-3 months? (I forget) then it’s abandoned and after a year it is then CfD. But if that’s changed...I’ll be sure to take note. But these kinds of pages can have ways of disappearing in due time within guidelines from discussions. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 00:06, 7 September 2018 (MDT)

Before the recent changes: It was useless because any player will just keep wielding the sword, and always having it at full size. I guess not in a few specific circumstances, but for the majority time it was useless as its written.

The weapon is uniformative since I still do not know what an "arousal point" is, why it has anything to do with a weapon, or why it (now) should be on a player's character sheet.

It was perverted since it was just about "busting a nut".

Funny was my interpretation, and still is, but if concensus does not agree then so be it.

It's okay without {{delete}} now. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:32, 7 September 2018 (MDT)

Balance

1) Mechanically it does not work well. It doesn't say how what the lightning bolt is, how it is activated or anything. It has the player making a Constitution check every turn apparently in perpetuity, with no maximum limit to arousement points, with the duration not precluding the continuation of the rolls, making the duration irrelevant. 2) It's rubbish. If I'm a two-handed weapon user, or a sword-and-shield user, I'm not going to wait three or four turns before I can use this. If I'm a light weapon user, it has no benefit and becomes useless after 2 turns when it becomes to large. 3) It's probably intended as a joke page, but it's not funny. Marasmusine (talk) 07:24, 6 September 2018 (MDT)

Changes

1. Mechanics fixed. The stats around the lightning bolt are now defined, the extraneous duration definition removed, put in a reset on leaving combat and the wording surrounding the points fixed. It might be a cooler idea to gain an arousal point every time you deal damage or something, but I'm not familiar enough to know the best choice here.
2. The numbers surrounding the use of the lightning power are now a lot better, with scaling damage making this weapon actually viable, and even maybe useful in later levels.
3. Humour is subjective, and this is subjective humour, so I've left the flavour untouched. The article doesn't even come close to being problematic policy-wise.

--SgtLion (talk) 08:49, 7 September 2018 (MDT)

Just when I think the wiki can't possibly hit a new low... Marasmusine (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2018 (MDT)

Aw. Don' make me feel bad for participating in a little childish humor~

Also, thank you, Marasmusine, for actually being constructive and giving a point-by-point breakdown. I wouldn't've known where to begin without the feedback; So thank you for still being helpful as always <3 --SgtLion (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2018 (MDT)

Image

Why does the image keep being removed? Its an improvement to the page, and as such should be kept. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2018 (MDT)

Linkmaster was the one that originally removed it; I only removed it because I accidentally rolled back the page with my fat fingers. I personally don't think the image improves the page; it's just a penis-shaped balloon, which I judged to be inappropriate. Per Template talk:Adult Theme, images which display mature content aren't permitted on the wiki, even with an {{Adult Theme}} disclaimer. At least that's my interpretation of that policy. (maybe I should include this in Help:Mature Content Policy?) — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:12, 11 September 2018 (MDT)

As long as it is not explicit it does not violate our policies. --Green Dragon (talk) 11:14, 11 September 2018 (MDT)

There a reason you think it violates policy Geodude? I’ve gotta agree it isn’t explicit (and had me laughing hard when I saw it) BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2018 (MDT)

There's no point in having the "Adult" warning at the top, when it is immediately dwarfed by a NSFW image that fills the whole page. I don't know if it's thumbnailed on your screen or what, but on mine its the full resolution. I'm removing it. Marasmusine (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2018 (MDT)

so rather than adjust resolution it’s just removed? Doesn’t seem to follow past practice but more a preference for disliking an image. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2018 (MDT)

Not a valid reason. Please be constructive, and check our policies about constructive editing. See Help:Constructive Editing. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:46, 14 September 2018 (MDT)

I don't really mind if we have the image or not, but it should be limited to width:30% as per our usual practice for images. --SgtLion (talk) 16:22, 14 September 2018 (MDT)