Talk:White Guard (3.5e Class)

Talk Page

• All comments go below. Please remember to indent and sign your posts. Thank you. --Jay Freedman 03:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why?

• A use-able alternative to the SRD: Fighter for any campaign. --Jay Freedman 03:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Int or Cha?

• Change the Spells key-ability from Intelligence to Charisma to get a different type and feel of Character. I completely encourage this for your own personalized Character Creation needs.

Updates

• This section is for updates from the articles original author. --Jay Freedman 03:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Article created. --Jay Freedman 03:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Added the "Shield Bash" class feature. Some may say it is lame-strong to alleviate the -10 penalty for gaining another attack this way. I say having to take the Two-Weapon Fighting feat as a shield-user is equally lame-strong. Besides this a completely logical way of fighting for this type of defensive soldier. This will also help them to remain a consistent threat to their enemies, rather than being ignored as simply an annoying pest. Bring the pain! --Jay Freedman 06:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

How to Review this Class?

• Just click on the link on the article front page and replace the <<<#>>> with your rating. Remember to include a brief summary of way you gave the class the the review you did. Thank you. --Jay Freedman 03:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Media Repository

Is currently offline. That's why the picture placement is strange. Once the Media Repository is fixed it will be placed correctly. Thank you. --Jay Freedman 04:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Discussion moved from User talk:Green Dragon#3.5e Class White Guard. --Green Dragon 17:43, 10 January 2011 (MST)

I'd like to request a Protection from IP's be placed on my White Guard (3.5e Class) article. Thanks GD. --Jay Freedman 04:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You actually don't have to request this, just find a page that has it and look at the source code. --Vrail 05:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, good idea. Hehe. --Jay Freedman 06:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There isn't a source code for protection, it's an additional tab that only certain users (on this wiki, I imagine only admins) have access to. JazzMan 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I protected it from IP edits. And yes, only admins have access to the tab. --Green Dragon 17:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ummm..... GD, I don't know whats going on, I may be mistaken as to what you were asking, however I just tried getting it from the source code of another page for IP protection and it worked... Orion (3.5e Campaign Setting)--Vrail 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's just a template to let IPs know they are unable to edit the page. They still can edit it, unless an admin has actually protected a page. Think of that source code (the template you copied) as a sign saying "road flooded", but you need an admin to actually add the flood water. --Badger 22:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ahhh. Ok, thanks for the clarification. However this can still be useful. If a sign reads 'road flooded 10 km ahead', most cars wouldn't test it. :) --Vrail 22:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because because it is as good as any other fighter or paladin class. I want to play this class. --174.52.158.50 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording is good. I can read it easy. --174.52.158.50 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because I think it meets the standards for formatting. --174.52.158.50 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because it just a different paladin class. But I like it more. --174.52.158.50 06:38, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the class is very well balanced.

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because the wording in general is good, proper grammar and word usage.

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the general format is properly done, but could use a few minor tweaks.

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because I found this class basic but a good foundation for new players and veterans alike.

--Anonymous User That Forgot To Remove NoWiki Tag