Talk:Winterborn (3.5e Prestige Class)

Abandonment

Page is not abandoned, I just don't have the time to finish it at the moment. Also, I'm realizing that I somehow missed the notifications for these pages being marked for deletion. --Salasay ♄ 16:33, 14 February 2021 (MST)

On the deletion

Im working on getting it converted to a Knight PRC. When I change it, I'm going to make the armor bonus a strait up bonus to armor, and make it only work in heavy armor, as well as define most of the other abilities better. The Promise Me ability is going to modify the existing knight code of conduct, as well as add in some penalties for breaking it. When I started it, i put a lot of the stuff down to just remind me of what the ability would do when i got around to finishing the class. I'll make getting this class up to snuff a priority. (i've been going through all of my classes over time to fix a lot of these kind of issues). --Salasay Δ 14:42, 22 April 2013 (MDT)

Some issues I have with this right off the bat (also if you intend to work on it you can remove the delete tag - the delete tag is suppose to give it a grace period for someone to decide to save something.) 1. Armor bonus for the prestige class is high (+2/3 would be the absolute max and more likely +1/2 would be better. As it is a straight armor bonus (doesn't translate to touch) this just makes you a little beefier for physical and flat footed attacks. 2. DR 3 is pretty high if it stacks either lower it to DR 2/ stackable or a flat DR 5/adamantite. 3. His other DR adds should be an additional +1 to the existing DR (making the flat DR 5/adamantite more realistic) as his high AC will already mitigate a lot of damage (Currently you could wear a mithral shirt and have 14 AC with a max dex of 6 which is before the really high DR.) 4. Increasing DR as he loses HP would need for the DR to be pretty low to start; as is you could potentially reach upwards of 14 (if you stack for HP) on your DR prior to hitting 0. Hit die will need to be 1d10 as d12 is reserved for light armors since they tend to take more damage (its the HP for armor trade off.) Essentially as it stands you can actually top more than 20 DR/- before hitting 0 hit points without much problem and unless they have adamantite it will be DR 25. That is insanely high pre epic especially when you can theoretically have this by level 15 since most 10 level prestige classes are desgined to be entered at level 5. Tivanir (Speak to me) (talk) 11:59, 24 April 2013 (MDT)

Forgot to put in that Armour has to be done with heavy armor. also, this class is only enterable at level 10+. i forgot to add in the reqs and what two of the abilities do. Also, assumeing 203 HP, he gets 7/- from armour, 8/- from being at 3 HP, 3/a from not moving, and 5/a from armour, he would have 23 without adamantine wep.s, 15 with. If I made Final Stand +1/- instead of +2/-, made "T.i.m.p.t.s.!" be +2/a, and made armour be strait 9/(- or a), i would have 15 without, 13 or 4 without. Would that be acceptable, or should I reduce his Armour bonus? As for the d12s, the knight, which this class is going to be a PRC for (the reqs and the two abilities were the primary knight related stuff, and i forgot to save my edit that added them) has d12s.

P.S. Thanks for the heads up about the delete tags. --Salasay Δ 16:46, 24 April 2013 (MDT)

probably reduce the overall reduction. The class features are nifty it just makes it exceedingly difficult to even attempt to kill this character through non magic means. 15 dr is still nothing to sneeze at per epic. Tivanir (Speak to me) (talk) 20:52, 24 April 2013 (MDT)

Maybe i could make Armour only a 7/- or 6/-. That would bring it down to 13/- or 12/-. The DR/- and armor bonus is supposed to be made up for by the complete lack of offensive abilities (aside from the buffs from a few knights challenge abilities). --Salasay Δ 15:44, 25 April 2013 (MDT)

Changes

This page has been sit with problems for years. If you don't want other users to completely change your article, just fix the issues with it. Anastacio (talk) 17:26, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

A) see the top comment. The class is perfectly playable as a 3.5e PrC I just haven't finished the fluff. If you would like to fix some of the specific issues the class has, that are called out in the top, try your hand, but what you did has nothing to do with that.

B) you're more than welcome to make a variant, or adapt it to 5e as a separate article (in fact I would encourage it, I love that you like the class well enough to want to adapt it to 5e), but taking the class, effectively deleting it, and replacing it with a 5e version is unacceptable. --Salasay ♄ 17:36, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

I don't think it is unacceptable. My assumption for pages that have the "Abandoned" template is that they are...well, abandoned, and thus, other creators can have a level of freedom with the changes. I would never make such drastic changes on a page that was only incomplete, or a work in progress. I understand that changing your creation may upset you, but you must concede that my assumption that the page was not being worked on anymore was valid. Maybe change the template on your page to Work in Progress if you intend to complete it. Anastacio (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

I expected that a comment explaining that the page is not, in fact, abandoned would prevent it from being marked abandoned again, but apparently I was wrong. A page marked abandoned is welcome to being taken over and fixed, but that isn't what you did--you deleted my work and made your own 5e version. That's not okay. Either the page warrants deletion, in which case it would have a deletion tag, or it doesn't, in which case it should be at most edited into compliance as it stands. Please make your class as a separate work, but until and unless I let my work stay marked for deletion, don't delete it. --Salasay ♄ 17:52, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

I'm not touching this class again, you can rest assured on that. But yes, i do believe that leaving a page abandoned when is not in fact abandoned, is not the correct way to prevent your page from being messed with. Peace! Anastacio (talk) 17:55, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

My issue is not that you treated my page as abandoned, as I missed that it had been re-marked. My issue is that your edits were inappropriate for an abandoned class. A class being abandoned is an invitation for completion/editing, not deletion of the work that has been done on it. --Salasay ♄ 18:02, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

They only were "inappropriate" because the page was not truly abandoned (and even that is debatable). Many pages i work in that way would be otherwise deleted, but making a conversion to 5e maintaining the fluff retain them on the wiki, and don't erase their past history, since you can easily look for the past versions. I take no issue with you returning the page to its original version, but i take issue with your assumption that one shouldn't change the page. Abandoned classes are not an invitation, but are also not a deterrent to edits. Anastacio (talk) 18:11, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

Again, my issue is not with the fact that changes were made, even extensive changes. My issue is that the changes made amounted to throwing out "Winterborn the 3.5e PrC" and replacing it with "Winterborn the 5e Subclass", a de facto deletion the class that didn't even adress what is wrong with it as it stands--it preserves the incomplete Fluff at the expense of the fully complete and functional Crunch. Yes, if someone chose to look they could still find the original class, so it was not a de jure deletion, but that doesn't mean that the 3.5 PrC "Winterborn" wasn't functionally deleted as far as a browser of the wiki who wasn't specifically looking for it would be concerned.

So yes, I believe this would be inappropriate even if the class had been genuinely and authentically abandoned. If this type of preserving edit is to be done, it should be explicitly treated as an alternative to deletion, or at most an alternative to switching the tag from "abandoned" to "marked for deletion", not something you do as an alternative to editing the page up to standard. Because it is, effectively, the deletion of a page that has not been marked for deletion. --Salasay ♄ 20:10, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

Image

So the image is apparently by a Christos Giannopoulos. I don't think his work would qualify under fair use. There are other images of spartan hoplites under CC and stuff so the image should probably be changed to something the wiki can actually host (though I'm not sure if it has to be reuploaded entirely). Alternatively, an external holder can be used. It's just a bit distracting that the image parameter was built into the wiki template since that encourages a lot of uploads without vetting it for copyright.--Yanied (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2022 (MDT)

I'd love to get the image traded out to something fitting with wiki policy, but it's been a while since I've delved for images. Plus, to be fair, even when I was doing that more regularly, I was godawful at making sure that the art was something I was allowed to use. I'd love some help, if you'd be willing to render it. --Salasay ♄ 09:00, 25 April 2022 (MDT)

No problem, I've removed the copywritten one and replaced it with public domain. Wikipedia is a very handy source since they license all their images. --Yanied (talk) 09:20, 25 April 2022 (MDT)

That works--thank you --Salasay ♄ 09:51, 25 April 2022 (MDT)