Talk:Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class)

My two cents (under contruction)

Classes generally stay away from having a spell and saying the material component is FREE, without a good justification. Animate Dead is a huge spell in the world of DnD. Simply saying it's "free" is problematic.

Rating

Power - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the blood points seem overpowered in some instances. This is mainly with regard to fast healing and that one has a lot of blood points which cost little to use, possibly leading to more uses than a spellcaster could cast in a day. The "becoming a vampire" is not very detailed (+8 LA still?). --Green Dragon 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The "becoming a vampire" is much better now, and I helped clear it up a little more. --Green Dragon 14:30, 22 November 2010 (MST)

Power - 4.5/5 I give this class a 4.5 out of 5 because a few issues are present.

Summon bat swarm disregards the vampire's children of the night in some regards. Is this intended?

Animate dead seems to be not terribly vampire-esque. Vampires do not seem to have much to do with undead just for being undead, and I wonder if this class should. Vampires seem more to have enslaved individuals, such as vampire spawn, or command over lesser being of the world. Thoughts on this?

Undead are "[n]ot at risk of death from massive damage, but when reduced to 0 hit points or less, it is immediately destroyed.". How does this work with taking on the vampire template? --Green Dragon 12:00, 23 November 2010 (MST)

I made taking on the vampire template work with dying, however the balance of the special abilities and so needs to be looked at, so the balance remains. --Green Dragon 23:54, 2 December 2010 (MST)

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it seems much better now. Also, I switched hellfire blast with contagion. --Green Dragon 23:17, 5 January 2011 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it reads through well. The class features, however, do not use Wizards' format (the level repeated, description (I believe), etc). --Green Dragon 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it reads through well and uses the correct wording format. --Green Dragon 23:17, 5 January 2011 (MST)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it is missing links throughout. Everything which can be linked should be linked (within reason, the standard is one per term per paragraph). Also each class feature is not designated. A few things could be touched up on, of course. --Green Dragon 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is formatted correctly. --Green Dragon 14:30, 22 November 2010 (MST)

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it is missing an example NPC. Nice flavor though, and I like the implementation. I also wonder if the Special Abilities should have more options. Once could simplify them to five spells, two variations of Combat Expertise, a taunt , and an improvement of Intimidate. It works, yes, but maybe something else could be added, more vampire-esque. --Green Dragon 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it is not missing any areas. --Green Dragon 14:30, 22 November 2010 (MST)

Also, what is this based off? And if these issues get fixed, or at least discussed, I find that this could be nominated for Featured Article status. And is everything on dndmedia:File:Blood-knight-1.jpg accurate? --Green Dragon 19:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It's a conglomerate of ideas found in several works. I borrowed elements from Warhammer Fantasy Battle Vampire Count Blood Knights, the World of Darkness-based Vampire: The Masquerade, and the "Blood" talent tree of World of Warcraft Death Knights. The image is accurate to the best of my knowledge; I came across it on a Google Image Search of the term "blood knight". Will hopefully have time to fix it up this weekend. Dude Bob 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article became a featured article! --Green Dragon 18:24, 7 January 2011 (MST)

I nominate this for featured article status as I find that it is well written and comprehensive. Although how stable this is, is unknown to a degree it should be stable enough based off the its rating. It's formatted correctly, has an appropriate image, and uses SRD rules appropriately, and its variant rules are well-worded and understandable. For these reasons this article deserves to be a featured article. --Green Dragon 12:59, 6 January 2011 (MST)

Balance and Wording

I see that this was nominated for only about 30 hours before being confirmed. While I'm not opposed to the confirmation, as it is a very well written article, I have to ask if this was long enough. Personally, I have some questions. For instance:

• "Crossing running water not in his coffin home or aboard a ship" can cause a Blood Knight to lose powers, but later on the page it says Blood Knights have "no concern for a coffin home". Which is it?
• Why is "Blood points resonate with vampires" (a sentence which doesn't make any sense to me) in a paragraph about vampire weaknesses, and not in the paragraph about blood points?
• "Taking on the vampire template" isn't nearly as fluff-y as some of the other names on the features. Maybe consider something like "vampire apotheosis" or "vampiric ascension"?
• The 10th level ability says "vampire(by which I assume you mean Blood Knight) gains 2 temporary hit points and 1 blood point". Is that on top of the 5 temp hit points you get from the vampire template blood drain ability, or instead? Can you choose which you want?
• Smelling garlic or seeing a mirror causes him to lose all his powers for 2 days. That may be a little harsh, dontcha think?

Again, I know some of these are really nit-picky, but I think when it comes to FA status, all your t's should be crossed, and your I's dotted... --Badger 19:28, 7 January 2011 (MST)

I just thought no one was going to respond, so I finished the FA. I was wrong, and this is not to say I do not appreciate your response. I do.

"Crossing running water not in his coffin home or aboard a ship" can cause a blood knight to lose powers, but later on the page it says Blood Knights have "no concern for a coffin home" is like that to take into consideration when the blood knight is a vampire.

"Blood points resonate with vampires" is meant to describe their similarities to vampire abilities; I could not figure out a way to word it better. If you do know of a better way please fix it. It is not in the class features since the special abilities describe the specifics, not a generalization wording to describe the blood points. Does this make any sense, or would something else work better with this regard?

"Apotheosis" infers a worship aspect, something which does not relate well to this class. I changed it to "ascension", thanks for the idea.

I fixed the vampire wording to say blood knight. Hm... Does gaining temporary hit points stack inherently?

I based the things which effect blood point's availability off SRD:Vampire#Vampire Weaknesses. What is your opinion on the time frames? I started at 2 and then incrementally upward at 3, as vampires cannot even do such things (and blood points which "resonate" (for lack of better wording) relate). --Green Dragon 20:01, 7 January 2011 (MST)

Alright, well, let me begin by saying I honestly have no idea what some of your comments mean. Let's just go through in order, shall we?

• Coffin homes: A blood knight doesn't need a coffin until he becomes a true vampire. Fair enough. I would make that clear somehow.
• "Blood points resonate with vampires"": Understood. However, I think if you flat out removed the sentence, everything would still make sense. It adds nothing but confusion, in my mind.
• "Apotheosis" is defined as "ideal: model of excellence or perfection of a kind; one having no equal", but if you want to go with the other suggestion, that's fine by me. I just recall the SRD prestige class Dragon Disciple uses "dragon apotheosis" as it's keystone ability name.
• Traditionally, no Temp hit points don't stack, you take the higher source, if I recall correctly. Does that mean you get 5 temp hit points and a blood point? I don't care if you do, I just want to be clear.
• I don't know, I mean, do you think it's fair that if a Blood Knight walks past an Italian restaurant he loses all class abilities for 2 days? I get being repulsed by garlic, and even being adversely affected by it, but I think nothing more than "shaken until the bad thing is gone, and for 1d4 rounds after", or "frightened/cowering/panicked until the bad thing is gone" seems more fair. I know I would be upset if one commoner holds up a mirror and suddenly I've got no class abilities.

--Badger 20:27, 7 January 2011 (MST)

I cleared up the confusion with the coffin home.

I am getting a lot of things relating to gods with "apotheosis", and did before. That's actually why I changed it before. I like ascension however, but you are right that the SRD uses apotheosis. Dunno. Any strong thoughts one way or the other?

"Resonate" is in the class features as well. I forgot I added that there too. Does it not make sense there? Is it something which inherently makes little sense (should I change it to "nature" like the lore section?)

Sorry, I did not mean temp hit points stacking (as it's one or another attack; "he drains blood with blood drain or blood point blood drain"). I meant fast healing. Do you know about that?

What do you think about the time frames of the special ability now? I don't know about making him become shaken/frightened/cowering/panicked, as then blood points have more of an effect then vampire weaknesses do (just can't go near it). Although maybe only within the five feet? Thoughts? --Green Dragon 20:59, 7 January 2011 (MST)

As far as apotheosis, I don't really care one way or the other, whatever works for you is fine.

I think my sticking point with "resonate" in the class features, is I'm not sure what it means. Sure, blood knights are like vampires. I get that. I think the reader will get that. I don't think you need that sentence there if all it is doing is saying "things in Blood Knights are kinda like things in Vampires", know what I mean?

I think I like the changes made to the holy symbol/garlic rules. That seems a lot better, and a lot less upsetting for players. And to be clear, when a blood knight is pinning an opponent, and he choses to drain their blood, he has to declare whether it's a "blood point blood drain" or just a generic vampire "blood drain", as detailed in the vampire template. To make thing less confusing, maybe even consider renaming the vampire ability to something grimdark like "death fang" or "Death's kiss"? "Blood point blood drain" is quite a mouthful, and sounds too close to "blood drain" in my mind. I would make it clear in the class ability description that you choose the blood knight or the vampire ability. Maybe something like "If a blood knight pins a foe, he may choose to drain the victim's blood with the vampiric template's blood drain ability or the blood knight's "death fang" ability."

Thoughts? --Badger 00:05, 8 January 2011 (MST)

I removed resonate from the class features.

What do you think about "blood fang"? Also, I tried to clear up the wording to make that class feature more understandable. Is it good?

Also, do you know about fast healing stacking? As thing inherently do not stack, I assume it does not, however as DR states it inherently (and both relate to hp) it may. Do you know? --Green Dragon 11:14, 8 January 2011 (MST)

I think removing resonate from class features helps. I'm going to make a small edit to what you have for "blood fang", but it's much better than before, in my opinion. If you want to just declare "the Blood Knight's fast healing ability stacks with other sources of fast healing" I think it would be fine. I would make a sentence that clearly rules one way or the other. The epic feat "fast healing" stacks with itself, as well as other permanent sources of fast healing, so I'd probably allow it. Considering entrance requirements, you're going to be level 6 or 7 before getting the pre-reqs met, you will have to wait another 5 levels for fast healing, so it's not really a worthwhile way to game the system. --Badger 16:05, 8 January 2011 (MST)

I removed that blood fang is related to the blood knight (as one is one this page) and cleaned up the wording a bit.

I added information about stacking. --Green Dragon 22:26, 8 January 2011 (MST)

I think that is a whole lot better, don't you agree? --Badger 23:05, 8 January 2011 (MST)

Yes. What are your thoughts on the balance? --Green Dragon 23:54, 8 January 2011 (MST)

I've never had a very good eye for balance, but my first instinct is to say this gets too weak at higher levels. While all the special abilities are pretty cool at the first 2 or 3 levels of Blood Knight, at level 10 (about ECL 16, by my best guess) most of them just seem kinda silly. I mean, why bother summoning a pack of wolves at level 16? Sure, I could think of a few reasons, but it's hardly worth it. Plus, a bunch of the special abilities are weaker than/identical to abilities gotten when you reach vampiric ascension. All in all, I can't imagine anyone really wanting to spend more than about 2 levels of this class. Bottom line, getting bitten by a vampire would be faster, and all in all almost as good. I'd probably rate balance at a 3.5 or 4 out of 5. I just don't think it has the awesomeness we like to see at higher level prestige classes. I mean, compare it to spider rider, which has enough interesting things at high levels to make me want to take all 10. I guess this falls into flavor as well as balance. While the ability to cast vampiric touch 8 times a day at level 16 is pretty powerful, we have to remember it's only 5d6 per touch. An equal level wizard can cast it 6 times a day, and deal 8d6 per touch. Granted, a blood knight is much more likely to hit, but it still doesn't even out, I don't think. Life force strike seems to be pretty powerful, however. +5 to all attacks for 10 rounds at level 15? Couple that with the DR 15/Silver, Magic he can get and for 2 blood points he's dealing a bunch more damage than your average fighter, with a bunch of DR as well. I don't know, I feel like you're only ever going to use like 2 or 3 different abilities from the 10 you have access to. --Badger 00:36, 9 January 2011 (MST)

I based the balance off two things. The first is 20% recourse expenditure per encounter, meaning the EL they encounter should give enough blood points through HD for the blood knight to use 20% (considering they only use their portion, which may not be the case more the it is). This is what the DMG recommends.

The other thing I based it off is the arcane archer's enhance arrow. Although enhance arrow is present 100% of the time for non-magical ranged combat, these abilities are not. I considered the 1 minute to work in that regard because a blood knight gains and can use multiple abilities. I found the additional attack bonus and damage enhance arrow gives and made the numbers (close to) the same for AC, attack bonus and damage, fast healing's bonus, and DR. Then, as a blood knight uses many spells, I had to find one which worked with the same balance. I considered greater magic weapon's duration to counter the enhancement, and be the "same balance". I then made sure all the spells which relate to vampire's nature to where the same level, and considered it balanced. I then based the abilities which do not fit into either off spells which relate, such as summon monster III.

Does this knowledge change your opinion at all, or what do you recommend? Maybe CL equal to HD (more vampire vampireesque)? --Green Dragon 12:04, 9 January 2011 (MST)

Again, my eye isn't great for balance. I think it comes down to where we're trying to balance this. It's common knowledge that wizards are stronger than monks (I don't want to start this fight now, so I'm declaring this an axiom). So, are we trying to make this as strong as a wizard? As strong as a Monk? Anything in between? It's stronger than a monk, that's for sure. No question about it. So, if we're aiming for anything between monk and wizard, then yeah, it's balanced.

I would like to touch on flavor, however. It's always been my opinion that a homebrew class should be introducing new and unique content to the world. I'm ok with using some things that are pre-existing in the SRD, but I'd like to see some more original content here. My hands down favorite parts of this class are the ones that don't refer to an existing spell. Does that make sense? As of right now, this class is a collection of existing parts. Sure, this class is fluffed up and has a unique theme, but I would rate this a 4/5 for flavor, simply because I want to see new mechanics and interesting things in a homebrew class. --Badger 12:46, 9 January 2011 (MST)

I changed the CL to equal HD.

The mechanic itself, however, is unique. Just the parts use rules from elsewhere. I don't know, what do you recommend? --Green Dragon 13:09, 9 January 2011 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I don't know, I just think that it's very likely that the entire blood point mechanic will quickly be reduced to "after combat I drink all the blood I can, even if I don't say I do" and he never really has to worry about running out of blood points. Know what I mean? I don't know, how about this for a change:

Blood Points: A blood knight draws his power from drinking the blood of intelligent creatures. As long as he has drunk the fresh blood of at least one recently dead intelligent creature every day, he gets a number of blood points equal to his blood knight's level + his Cha modifier (if any). The maximum number of blood points decreases by one (to 0) for every day he does not drink the blood of an intelligent creature, and can only be restored to the original maximum by drinking blood again.

This method reduced a lot of the book-keeping, and doesn't require a player to ask a DM how many points he gets back after ever encounter. Plus, it restricts his daily allotment of uses. Before, he could theoretically cast any ability an infinite number of times, as long as he could still find a source of fresh blood. Beyond that, I would consider adding a few more unique powers. Looking back, there was one about turning into a swarm of shadow bats. That seemed really cool, flavor-wise. I don't know why it was removed, but we should figure out a mechanic to bring that back. That's what I'm talking about. --Badger 13:27, 9 January 2011 (MST)

Right, a character should drink all the blood they should. Here is where that is balanced, however.

ECL	Level	Blood Points	Party HD	Individual HD	Blood Points at 3
6	1	4 (3 Cha)	12	3	1 (oh well)
8	3	4 (3 Cha)	16	4	1 (oh well)
9	4	5 (3 Cha)	18	4	1
11	6	6 (3 Cha)	22	5	1
13	8	8 (4 Cha)	26	6	2 (oh well)
15	10	10 (5 Cha)	30	7	2

At such an amount of blood point usage I do not find that one can powergame this.

What do I think about your method? I think it resembles spellcasting too much, and is less unique then the current method. It's comparable to making certain that one starts his day drinking blood, and then is good to go (like preparing spells).

Alternate form still mentions the swarm of Diminutive batlike shadows (and relates well to vampires I find). --Green Dragon 13:50, 9 January 2011 (MST)

I have no idea what that table you've posted means. Could you better explain what it means? I have no idea what "Party HD" means, or "Individual HD" or "Blood Points at 3" means. As for my system being like spell prep, that was my plan. It has dramatically less bookkeeping than your method. I'm not saying your method is wrong or bad, I'm just saying that it would slow down the game a bit. Please, better explain your table, so I know what you're trying to say. --Badger 15:48, 9 January 2011 (MST)

The HD the party will encounter at ECL is the "Party HD" (from DMG). That, divided by 4 (party size), is the HD a blood knight can expect to get blood points from after each encounter (a party of blood knights, under servitude or something) listed as "Individual HD". The last column then shows how many blood points a blood knight can expect to receive after an encounter (assuming no fleeing and so).

This shows that normally a blood knight can only expect to get 1 blood point from most encounters, a very small amount. This is why I think this cannot be powergamed (and if they do flee...).

Yes, my method requires the DM to mention how many HD a blood knight can get (HD/4 if all are blood knights and each get blood points together) but that is as easy as checking the type and hp entry. I don't think this is too much to ask.

The reason I think this is better then a spell-like method is so this is much more unique. Thoughts? --Green Dragon 16:02, 9 January 2011 (MST)

Ahh, ok, your table makes a lot more sense now. That said, I think we can safely assume most parties (given the nature of parties) will only have 1 BK. At least, in most of my games, no one took the same class as someone else. Sure, maybe someone would take a level of wizard for a PrC, but no one took the same PrC progression as someone else. While your math works for a party where everyone needs the blood, most parties will only have 1 person who wants to drink the blood. That means that we can say a BK gets, on average, between 4 and 8 BP per encounter. That's likely more than he'll use, which makes it easily gamed. --Badger 16:48, 9 January 2011 (MST)

What are your thoughts on putting an upward limit on the amount of blood points gained in an hours (or something) time period? --Green Dragon 18:48, 9 January 2011 (MST)

I think that continues to complicate an already intricate system. Besides, I don't know about you, but game time is a very fluid thing in my games. It's sometimes hard to tell what took hours, and what took minutes. Basing mechanics off that might get tricky. --Badger 19:20, 9 January 2011 (MST)

"To gain blood points a blood knight can feast on the fresh blood, died within the last 10 minutes, of a fallen creature for 1 minute" — the goal is not to define time in anyone's game, it's to restrict the blood points gained per encounter.

It's not a complicated system. I understood it when I first read it.

Do you understand why I think that would make a big balancing change? What is your opinion on it now that I mentioned the overall goal? --Green Dragon 20:44, 9 January 2011 (MST)

Sorry if I was unclear, I get what you are trying to do is limit blood points per encounter. Let's pretend you can only get 5 BP per hour. What I'm saying is suppose the party is adventuring in a cave or forest, where passage of time isn't as obvious. The party kills a giant, and the blood knight feeds. The party adventures on, and encounters another giant. Oh noes! But, no worries, they kill it. The BK wants to feed, but wait! How long ago was the last encounter? Has an hour passed? Is he allowed to feed? That's where I'm seeing a potential problem. The Blood Knight will always say it's been long enough, because he wants more BP. Unless your DM has a good reason to say so, he should probably just let the BK feed again, in which case, why implement the rule at all? --Badger 21:48, 9 January 2011 (MST)

Metagaming issues not powergaming issues, right.

As I considered the HD to be in the middle for creature creation (×2), half one's HD equals a usable amount.

I changed it to the following. "A creature's HD determine how many blood points its corpse contains, however each time a blood knight feasts he cannot feast on more HD then 0.5 ½ blood knight's HD." Thoughts? --Green Dragon 22:59, 9 January 2011 (MST)

So a level 8 BK can feast on 4 HD of creatures, getting him at most 1 BP (depending on the source)? Is that per encounter/"feeding", or per creature? --Badger 13:55, 10 January 2011 (MST)

No. See also SRD:Vampire#Special Attacks. When it mentions "Saves have a DC of 10 + 1/2 vampire’s HD + vampire's Cha modifier unless noted otherwise." one should note no HD are gained from the vampire template. So, the HD must refer to one's full HD. The wording is the same.

And I worded it loosely, each time he feasts, so a DM determines it mostly (especially if a DM would allow something like feasting on a lot of creatures with almost no HD for their HD added together, and things like that). Do you think this makes sense? --Green Dragon 16:24, 10 January 2011 (MST)

I have NO idea what your last post means. --Badger 17:56, 10 January 2011 (MST)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

SRD:Vampire mentions "1/2 vampire's HD", however the vampire template grants no HD. This means that that wording means one's total HD. The same wording is used here, with the same intent. So someone with 6 HD (level 1 blood knight) can get 1 blood point max (feasting on 3 HD).

And the wording is "each time a blood knight feasts he cannot ... ". This wording is very open to interpretation, as mentioned above. I think, however, a DM will be reasonable and consider it the feasting's ordeal in its entirety. Do you think this makes sense? --Green Dragon 20:07, 10 January 2011 (MST)

Oh, I'm sorry, the confusion was on my end. When I said "level 8 BK" I meant ECL 8, so Cleric/6 BK/2, or whatever. So yeah, I was interpreting your rules correctly. And you've left the wording intentionally vague, so different players and DMs can interpret it differently. I think that is a bad idea. You shouldn't intentionally leave things vague. You should pick, one or the other, and write it that way. In my mind, it should be encounter based (summing all the deads' HD together), as I don't see why 5 3rd level commoners would have less blood for BP than 1 15th level fighter. --Badger 21:46, 10 January 2011 (MST)

Oh, sorry. I misunderstood what you meant by "level". Anyway, what wording would you recommend? --Green Dragon 12:25, 11 January 2011 (MST)

How about "While creature's HD determine how many blood points its corpse contains, a blood knight cannot feast on more than 0.5 ½ his HD every 10 minutes. "? I included the 10 minutes, as that's how long it takes for blood to "go bad", so you can't save blood for later in a jar or something. --Badger 16:41, 11 January 2011 (MST)

I don't think using time is good. One could powergame and feast once and say that's the end of a ten minute segment and then feast once again right after as a start of another segment. Or one could powergame and kill a creature, have his teammates keep attacking others while feasting on it, and then feast once again after the encounter (waiting 10 minutes in between while the corpse is still good). --Green Dragon 21:52, 11 January 2011 (MST)

What if you say feasting takes 10 minutes? --Badger 23:44, 11 January 2011 (MST)

I changed the wording to "To gain blood points a blood knight can feast on the fresh blood, died within the last 10 minutes, of fallen creatures for 10 minutes, however the blood does not have to be considered fresh when the blood knight is finished. A corpse grants blood points only one time, after which it is not rich in blood points. A creature's HD determine how many blood points its corpse contains, however a blood knight cannot feast on more HD then 0.5 ½ blood knight's HD. If the blood knight feasts on multiple creatures their HD are added together for the purposes of a blood knight's special ability." — what do you think about this wording?

Also, any thoughts on the non-class features wording? Is it understandable? Does it convey the class correctly? Is it readable? Any general thoughts? --Green Dragon 12:54, 13 January 2011 (MST)

Picture

Where did that picture come from? Camulus 05:25, 9 January 2011 (MST)

See Rating above. You'd have to ask Dude Bob, why? --Green Dragon 11:50, 9 January 2011 (MST)

Rating

How is this a featured article? There are grammar mistakes, capitalization errors, tense inconsistencies, a host of mechanical ambiguities, and power level inconsistency. For one, it mentions that it needs Intelligence, which is never referenced again. It gains new weapon and armor proficiencies, which is practically unheard of for prestige classes. It's got multiple-ability dependency either way, since it needs the physical three plus Charisma, the abilities are completely inconsistent in terms of strength (fear is awesome, charm animal sucks, the rest runs the gamut in between, and there's nothing influencing order of selection), lifeforce strike doesn't specify a bonus type, so there's no way to know what it does or doesn't stack with, the blanket vampire weaknesses make the class easily turned into a whole lot of BAB and nothing else, the blood draining ability is horribly worded, and then there's things like the following:

“

At 2nd level, a blood knight can store vampiric touch as well as vampiric touch into his weapon, as if it were a spell storing weapon.

”

Seriously, this is not good. How can you justify turning something like this into a featured article with such glaring mistakes? I rate the article with the numbers below, justified by what is written above for wording, and what is detailed below.

Power - 2.5/5 I give this class a 2.5 out of 5 comparing it against other gish types. There's some reasonable abilities, such as the generic attack, fast healing, and damage reduction boosts, but most of the spell-likes are essentially save or sucks (blacklight has some interesting tactical options, but it's about blindness in the end, which is incredibly capable in its own right), things like contagion are hardly worth an action when compared to things like fear, and when you're simply spamming fear you're not really a gish. That's an issue. The vampire weaknesses without save makes it really easy to go from awesome in a narrow capacity to a bunch of hit dice waiting to be slaughtered. Again, not good. Opportunities for mitigating the weaknesses would be good, or having the weaknesses not be so absolute. Abilities that make you a gish (buffing, action reducers/combiners) instead of an opponent that spams a single SLA or two would also be an improvement.

I removed this rating because it is no longer applicable. Intelligence used to be used, but as the ability was made to relate to vampires more, it no longer is. Thanks for bringing that up, and I removed it.

I removed the weapon and armor proficiency, as what you said makes sense.

The multiple-ability dependency is now at three, something which I think is okay. Thoughts?

The balance of the special abilities is as follows.

“	I based the balance off two things. The first is 20% recourse expenditure per encounter, meaning the EL they encounter should give enough blood points through HD for the blood knight to use 20% (considering they only use their portion, which may not be the case more the it is). This is what the DMG recommends. The other thing I based it off is the arcane archer's enhance arrow. Although enhance arrow is present 100% of the time for non-magical ranged combat, these abilities are not. I considered the 1 minute to work in that regard because a blood knight gains and can use multiple abilities. I found the additional attack bonus and damage enhance arrow gives and made the numbers (close to) the same for AC, attack bonus and damage, fast healing's bonus, and DR. Then, as a blood knight uses many spells, I had to find one which worked with the same balance. I considered greater magic weapon's duration to counter the enhancement, and be the "same balance". I then made sure all the spells which relate to vampire's nature to where the same level, and considered it balanced. I then based the abilities which do not fit into either off spells which relate, such as summon monster III.	”
—Balance and Wording, --Green Dragon 12:04, 9 January 2011 (MST)

In accordance with what your mentioned above, however, which ability changes do you recommend? Which "gish" abilities, and so?

The the blanket vampire weaknesses are like the SRD:Vampire#Vampire Weaknesses, to make the blood points flavor-wise relate to the vampire and this class relate to the vampire. --Green Dragon 15:32, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I don't think you're right to negate this rating. You addressed two of his concerns, and one of them was just an oversight that you fixed. There are still many problems with balance. Re-quoting your rationale for balancing the class doesn't mean the class is balanced, it means now that we know where you're coming from, we can fix things. In my opinion, this still deserves the 2.5/5 for Balance --Badger 18:41, 16 January 2011 (MST)

The SRD is balanced (within reason) so that which is a fixed oversight can be so regarded. For input, input is needed of course. So, what are the thoughts on balance? Anything mentioned, of course, should be balanced. With nothing mentioned this rating cannot be considered, as it has no grounding. --Green Dragon 19:03, 16 January 2011 (MST)

The SRD may be balanced within reason (personally, I don't think so, but that's irrelevant), but that doesn't mean giving a level 1 wizard access to 9th level spells is balanced. What I'm saying is you can't rely on just saying "it's in the core, so it's fair" as your logic for balance. I have no idea what "that which is a fixed oversight can be so regarded" means. Since you want actual examples, here are a few:

• While within 5 feet of the odor of garlic, a mirror, or a strongly presented holy symbol a blood knight's special abilities cease to function and he loses all his blood points

There should be a save there. I don't know what mechanic you want to use, but there needs to be something.

• Alternate form enables a 6th level blood knight to turn into a dire wolf.

A 6th level blood knight is most likely ECL 12, and a dire wolf is CR 3. Why bother?

• At 1st level (ECL 6) blood knight can cast fear, except that it requires no material component.

Fear is a 4th level spell, available to wizards at 8th level at the soonest. At ECL 6 he can cast it 4 times a day (if he has 16 Charisma)

There are 3 problems, I'm quite sure I could find more. --Badger 21:07, 16 January 2011 (MST)

By "that which is a fixed oversight can be so regarded" I meant that the oversight I fixed (special ability) is SRD-related (relative ECL too), so it should be good-to-go. Of course a disproving would show otherwise.

The mechanic being used is the vampire weaknesses, however they do require a standard action to keep the vampire at bay. I added this mechanic in. Do you think this covers it?

Why does a vampire bother with it's alternate form? Who knows, but because vampires have it, it is here (flavor thing).

Fear is level three for bards though. I just thought that there is no reason for everything to center around sorcerer/wizards. --Green Dragon 21:47, 16 January 2011 (MST)

No, your addition of the words "taking a standard action" don't make any sense at all. If someone leaves garlic lying on a table, who is taking the standard action? Same for a mirror hung on a wall. While yes, Fear is a 3rd level bard spell, I'll remind you that bards have a different spell progression than wizards, and get 3rd level spells at 8th level (or 7th level if they have at least 16 Cha, to get bonus spells). 6th level is still a level (or two) before that. Plus, a blood knight with equal charisma can cast it 4 times if his "blood pool" is full, and can recharge it and cast it another 4 times no worries, whereas a bard can cast it exactly once per day. --Badger 23:43, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I made the wording relate even more to the vampire. To be honest, one will know where it is coming from and understand it, but it works better now I guess.

Recharging is no walk in the park. Corpses lose their richness.

I switched fear to bestow curse, you have a point and that does the same thing for the blood knight (well, a little different but still same idea). --Green Dragon 12:41, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Let's be very clear right now, recharging BP will be very easy. You walk into a town, corner some guy, drag him to a dark alley and feast. Repeat. Or easier still, you kill an enemy in combat, after combat, you drink their blood. As long as you drink enough blood to get 2 or 3 BP after every combat, you won't ever be out of BP. It's that simple. I do think the wording of weaknesses is better, but still needs work. --Badger 14:11, 17 January 2011 (MST)

No. Leveling is very easy. You walk into a town, corner some guy, drag him to a dark alley and gain experience. Repeat. Drinking enough blood for 3 blood points is not possible until ECL 18. ECL 12 is 2, and still that's only 2/encounter (unless one endangers their comrades in battle for 10 minutes while feasting, a major disadvantage and balance changer). --Green Dragon 15:57, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Is there no minimum set for BP drain? Can you drink blood from something and get 0 BP? --Badger 17:03, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Of course there is not; SRD:Basics. --Green Dragon 17:53, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Well, the page clearly states exceptions exist. This might be one of those exception. I'd clarify that. --Badger 18:58, 17 January 2011 (MST)

I clarified that. --Green Dragon 11:02, 3 April 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 2.5/5 I give this class a 2.5 out of 5 because of the issues detailed above.

I removed this rating because, for it to be applicable, please mention which grammar mistakes are present where (or something along those lines). Same with capitalization errors (this does adhere to when to italicize and capitalize) and tense inconsistencies. These issues will be dealt with, but if one cannot find them this rating holds no merit.

Lifeforce strike, like Weapon Focus does not specify a bonus type. Please explain what is meant in more detail here.

What is "the blood draining ability"? Do you mean SRD:Vampire#Blood Drain?

Please explain what is wrong with blood-drinking blade, as just saying it does not work how it is worded means nothing. --Green Dragon 15:32, 16 January 2011 (MST)

Here, I'll try to help point out some errors. Let's begin!

• An order of nongood knights dedicated to the service of vampirekind.

That is your first "sentence". I don't even know. That's like just a sentence's predicate, not a full sentence.

• Many can be found in the service of vampires.

That's sentence three. I don't know about you, but I kinda wish there was more of a thought there. Consider merging with with sentence two?

• By consuming the blood of fallen creatures, they can harness a variety of unholy powers to augment their martial abilities.

This is the last sentence of the first paragraph. At this point I'll mention that you've not used the name "blood knight" anywhere in the first paragraph.

I don't have the energy to go through the rest of the page, but someone should. There are numerous errors, or points that, although grammatically correct, are inelegantly structured. I support this rating's intent, but would probably give it an even 3/5 for Wording. --Badger 18:41, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I fixed the first sentence. Also, to note, this is not my class. I just took the idea and continued modifying it within the initial framework (of course, though, I think it is a great idea). "More of a thought" means what exactly? And I am pretty sure the rest of the wording is much better then the initial wording. Reading through the rest I cannot find any glaring mistakes. --Green Dragon 19:03, 16 January 2011 (MST)

"At 5th level, as a free action a blood knight spends 1 blood point and gains fast healing 2 for 5 rounds" would read better as "At 5th level, a blood knight may spend 1 blood point, as a free action, and gain fast healing 2 for 5 rounds". It took me about 15 seconds to find this error. I just picked a random line and start looking; I didn't check for other errors, but I'm willing to bet I could find at least another 10 mistakes. --Badger 21:07, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I got this mistake (sorry, I did not notice how it was worded elsewhere). --Green Dragon 21:47, 16 January 2011 (MST)

There are also instances on the page where blood knight is hyphenated. That's the name of the class, it should be consistent. That is just another example of the wording problems in this article. --Badger 23:43, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I thought I got that when I read through for grammatical problems. I guess I never ended up fixing it. To make this rating applicable more then a hyphenation is needed as a problem or an example. --Green Dragon 12:41, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Ok, fine, here's another awkward sentence: "Instead of being immediately destroyed at 0 hit points or less his blood points enable him to survive and at the start of his turn while dying, as long as he has a blood point to spend he is considered disabled for that round costing 1 blood point." How many more sentences do you want me to bring up before we can agree that the entire article needs work? --Badger 14:11, 17 January 2011 (MST)

How is that awkward? It defines a very interesting mechanic, and comes from pages like SRD:Undead Type (partly). You need reasons. You can't just say "I can't read this", because to be honest reading is subjective. I asked someone (so far, I may ask others) who really enjoys reading to read this (well, not the class features just the flavor from campaign information down) and he said it's pretty good and gave some advice for grammatical changes. I'm mentioning this because, as it is harder to look over what oneself does, having another opinion is good and I did that. --Green Dragon 15:57, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Ok, maybe you're just not the best person to read this if you can't see how awkward these sentences are. --Badger 17:03, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Started working on the worst parts. Does it read through better now in your opinion? --Green Dragon 17:53, 17 January 2011 (MST)

I have made the wording much better throughout. Thoughts now? --Green Dragon 11:02, 3 April 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - 3.5/5 I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because in part of the reasons detailed above, but also because the special abilities could be listed in a bulleted format or something similarly more presentable, all the fluff is just massive walls of text, and honestly there's waaaaaaaaay too many inter-wiki links. Encounters to 3.5e Quests? Trying way too freaking hard.

I removed this rating for the following reasons. A bulleted list is not 'correct'. See also something like the hierophant. The fluff is covering the areas which prestige classes should have. The interwiki links is one per paragraph maximum for each link, the correct amount. And 3.5e Quests has encounters present. Also, which issues relate to formatting above? --Green Dragon 15:32, 16 January 2011 (MST)

As far as issues he mentioned to formatting above, he meant the spelling, grammatical, and punctuation errors that are throughout the article. As for the list style for special abilities, I would have to agree, bullets are better. I know hierophant doesn't use bullets, but that doesn't change my opinion. I think bullets make it more clear. If nothing else, indent them one tab from the rest of class abilities. And yeah, I agree about inter-wiki links. There are too many. You don't have to link to everything possible. Take some discretion and remove a bunch of them (for example, you don't have to link to the page for DC). 3.5/5 seems fine to me (except I thought you could only rate in whole numbers, so I'd give it a 3/5 for Formatting). --Badger 18:41, 16 January 2011 (MST)

Bullets are not correct. Indentation is not correct. Italics are correct. Each term in a parapgraph (which is specific) should be linked once (as discussed on spider rider I think, or the evaluational one). Formatting is not related to the things you mention above. This is why these ratings cannot be considered. --Green Dragon 19:03, 16 January 2011 (MST)

Ok, my mistake about the grammar errors. I think I've addressed them in wording at this point, so we can move past those. I don't know who decided that every term should be linked the first time it appears in a paragraph, but it's not listed on any help/formatting page I've ever seen. Furthermore, it's a terrible idea. There is no reason to be linking to 3.5e homebrew campaign settings when you say the word setting. You even have links to the the "blood knight" on the page. I don't mean subsections like "blood knight/weaknesses", but like the actual page "blood knight". Why? --Badger 21:07, 16 January 2011 (MST)

"Blood knight" is linked as a transclusion. I agree it's annoying, but what can be done about it?

Wikipedia says "As a rule of thumb, link on first reference only." and "In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. There are exceptions to this guideline, including... where the later occurrence is a long way from the first." I guess the linking used is a standardization of that. (per paragraph, and one per paragraph). --Green Dragon 21:47, 16 January 2011 (MST)

What can be done about transclusions? Well, you could remove the link for starters. That would solve the problem. I understand that Wikipedia has guidelines about linking the first occurrence of a word on a page. I think we should have different ones. Wikipedia's policies exist because they are an encyclopedia about the know world, we just talk about D&D. Anyone reading the article should know what HD means, or what a saving throw is, so these links don't need to exist. You have 6 instances of the word "setting" linking to the homebrew section about campaign settings on this page. That's ridiculous. You don't need any! --Badger 23:43, 16 January 2011 (MST)

The entire SRD has such links. It's been so implemented for a long time now, and I don't think just because this article links to setting and one "knows" what a setting is means it should be changed. This concern of yours should be brought up on SRD Talk:System Reference Document, not here, as that is much more applicable. This page will follow such standards, of course. --Green Dragon 12:41, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Ok, so let's pretend a person reading this page knows nothing about anything D&D related. They come across the word "HD" and are confused. It is the first instance of HD in the article. We link that. Three lines later, on a different paragraph they come across "HD" again. They've not forgotten what it means, there is no need to link that again. Now let's consider "setting". The word setting is not D&D specific. Anyone with a 4th grade education knows what a setting is. Furthermore, the link for "Setting" doesn't link to a definition, but rather a list of homemade settings, the bulk of which are incomplete. I don't see anywhere that this has been discussed on the SRD page you linked, but I'll add a new section with my complaints. --Badger 14:11, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Ya, potentially, but see also pages like SRD:Undead Type (for example). What that discussion decides, will dictate pages like this too of course. --Green Dragon 15:57, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Ok, so you're falling into the "other crap exists" fallacy. Just because there are pages that are bad, that doesn't mean this page isn't so bad. --Badger 17:03, 17 January 2011 (MST)

But the entire SRD uses links to such an extent... --Green Dragon 17:53, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Kinda just furthering my point here... --Badger 18:58, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Flavor - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it's boring. It's a vampire knight. Whoopdee friggin' doo. No need to beat me over the head with that information. Bland, stereotypical abilities with even blander fluff. --72.74.255.134 14:42, 16 January 2011 (MST)

The method is unique. Maybe boring, but others would say the vampire is boring. The vampires possible boredom would then be applicable, and that is SRD through things like "blanket vampire weaknesses" (and more). --Green Dragon 15:32, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I think his point is there isn't anything dramatically new and interesting in this class. I made that point earlier. I think you should try to move past the "I want to suck your blood!" and get some interesting class features that are more flavorful. New and unique. I agree with him completely, but I probably would have given a 3/5 for Flavor just because it's got something cohesive. --Badger 18:41, 16 January 2011 (MST)

Vampires such blood. This is why, without some ideas, this point cannot be regarded as the mechanic itself it unique. This is not because it is terribly flavorful per se, but because the flavor is flavor (keep in mind if one likes it or not cannot be the reason) especially as the mechanic is unique. Of course some input could help. --Green Dragon 19:03, 16 January 2011 (MST)

So you're saying the only time I can give something a low rating is when I tell you exactly what to do to make it better? That's just asinine. I don't think some elaborate (and unfinished, and imperfect) mechanic can warrant a 5/5 on flavor, especially when almost every ability is some color by numbers fill in the blank with generic SRD SLA. You need actual flavor! There exists a wealth of folklore and mythology associated with vampires, and you have got to be able to find something better than "they drink blood and do magic stuffs" if you want to be a featured article, in my mind. So here's what gonna happen. I'm going to rate this a 3/5 for Flavor and I'm going to tell the author or adopter to create more flavorful class abilities. --Badger 21:07, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I'm just saying that you can't say this "has no flavor because it's like the vampire" (as it also has unique aspects). Do things have to be considered outside of the SRD for flavor purposes? Why, right (it's a question)? What flavor advice do you have, I guess I am asking (folklore, etc). --Green Dragon 21:47, 16 January 2011 (MST)

I wasn't saying this has not flavor because it's like the vampire, I was saying you should include things that the normal vampire doesn't have. I've said it before, on this and other talk pages: "If you want to write a cool flavorful prestige or base class, it should have unique elements written specifically for the class, to make it more exciting". I'm just throwing out ideas, but how about you do something making use of the concept of Arithmomania, or rivalry with werewolves, or poison gas breath, or the ability to move between shadows, or the ability to unhallow an area, or speaking with animals? Why not make some special abilities have depth, by saying things like "If the blood knight has taken X as a special ability at a previous level, they may take Y as an ability"? Here's an example: "If a blood knight has taken gaseous form at a previous level, he may take noxious form as a special ability. Noxious form enables him to deal 1 point of constitution damage to any creature who begins or ends their turn in a square occupied by the blood knight's gaseous form". That's something I thought up in about 30 seconds, so it's not great or anything, but do you understand my point? May a blood knight more than just a vampire. --Badger 23:43, 16 January 2011 (MST)

To note, when I said "Do things have to be considered outside of the SRD for flavor purposes? Why, right (it's a question)?" I meant my contributions.

“	It's a conglomerate of ideas found in several works. I borrowed elements from Warhammer Fantasy Battle Vampire Count Blood Knights, the World of Darkness-based Vampire: The Masquerade, and the "Blood" talent tree of World of Warcraft Death Knights.	”
—Rating, Dude Bob 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of Arithmomania since it means they have an insanity aspect, and I do not think that fits vampires well.

Rivalry between werewolves is werewolf related... I am confused here.

Poison gas breath reminds me of dragons. I am confused here.

Gaseous form is an ability to move between shadows.

Unhallowing an area is stupid, since it makes some vampire abilities not function (and is so not vampire related).

Speaking with animals... Dunno, they command them. Should they also interact with them? Seems more like a druid. Help me out here please.

I do like the idea of noxious form (however no need to have it relate to gaseous form, as he could use it as a vampire too or maybe a spell, dunno). Go for it I say. --Green Dragon 12:41, 17 January 2011 (MST)

I don't know what contributions you made, and what ones were there originally, and I don't care to look it up (it doesn't matter, I'm reviewing what is there now). And for the record, every trait/ability there has roots in another vampire canon. Some are obvious (arithmomania is parodied by "Count von Count" on Sesame Street, but can be found in other works more seriously), some are more recent (rivalry with werewolves is a the central plot of the Underworld series, starring the ever beautiful Kate Beckinsale, and can also be seen in the Twilight movie series, starring the less amazing, Kristen Stewart). There is a great big list of vampire traits and abilities on Wikipedia. Maybe you could look there for more ideas to increase flavor. As for the noxious form, you're missing my point. If you make some special abilities pre-reqs for others, you can create stronger abilities (and therefore more useful at higher levels). If you don't relate it to gaseous form, he'd just take noxious form ability, and not the gaseous form. --Badger 14:11, 17 January 2011 (MST)

The contributions I made (I find) convey the same idea with better mechanics, more balance, or more explanation (as campaign information for example). The only major changes I made, flavor-wise, is () Presence of Fear to Bestow Curse, more to Bat Form, and Hellfire Blast to Contagion. Mechanical changes, such as the special abilities to spells (and others) of the (same) effect, of course happened for balance reasons.

So, am I saying is that what you are reviewing is:

“	It's a conglomerate of ideas found in several works. I borrowed elements from Warhammer Fantasy Battle Vampire Count Blood Knights, the World of Darkness-based Vampire: The Masquerade, and the "Blood" talent tree of World of Warcraft Death Knights.	”
—Rating, Dude Bob 19:02, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't do much with entertainment (I find it a waste of my time for the most part) and I have no idea what any of the things you mentioned above are.

And I cannot trust Wikipedia for research.

Building on other abilities is an idea, (like the SRD:Hierophant). Of course I wish one could see a direct reference to the vampire, otherwise how is one to know? --Green Dragon 15:57, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Well, there are tons of modern examples of vampires in entertainment. You could watch/read/play some of the movies/books/games that have vampires, or check out Wikipedia. If you don't want to trust Wikipedia for research, then I'd recommend you do some independent research. We're writing class features, not a research paper; Wikipedia should be fine. --Badger 17:03, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Of course feel free to implement something. --Green Dragon 17:53, 17 January 2011 (MST)

Rating

Power - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because 1) the powering of the abilities isn't very consistent. Who's choosing False Life, Armoring of Death or Offspring of the Night over Displacement and Charm Animal? Also, 2) the class runs into itself a bit mechanically, with the result that it's a bit underpowered. It's fighting-focused, but you also have to splash a casting class to meet the requirements (costing a BAB or so). Then you get better spell-like abilities-- much better than the spells you had. The level of cleric or arcanist becomes largely a dead level, and should probably be removed in favor of some condition like knowing a vampire. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.62.233.33 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts.

The balance is based off the arcane archer's enhance arrow. See also Balance and Wording above and the table below.

I removed the splash class; that makes sense. Instead of replacing it for knowing a vampire, I replaced it with another BAB.

What's the "bit underpowered" aspect you mentioned? --Green Dragon 15:12, 30 January 2011 (MST)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because there are a few things I had to read twice. The first body paragraph for Special Ability could be better. Also, at least one ability has a +1 1/2 progression per level, which should almost certainly be changed for the sake of clarity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.62.233.33 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts.

It is 10.5 ½ for a reason. I tried to make it as close to one with enhance arrow as possible. See the arcane archer for the AC (& attack bonus) values.

ECL	Level	BAB	Avg. Damage (<math>\approx \!\,</math>)	Avg. Damage with Enhance Arrow	Difference	Armoring of Death's Result
6	1	+6/+1	12	14	2	1
7	2	+7/+2	12	14	2	3
8	3	+8/+3	12	16	4	4
9	4	+9/+4	12	16	4	6
10	5	+10/+5	12	18	6	7
11	6	+11/+6/+1	18.5	27.5	9	9
12	7	+12/+7/+2	18.5	30.5	12	10
13	8	+13/+8/+3	18.5	30.5	12	12
14	9	+14/+9/+4	18.5	33.5	15	13
15	10	+15/+10/+5	18.5	33.5	15	15

And some specific wording problems with that paragraph would be helpful. --Green Dragon 15:12, 30 January 2011 (MST)

Formatting - 5/5 Looks good. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.62.233.33 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts.

Flavor - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because The idea's good, but has a few too many stipulations. The most obvious to me is the 8 ranks of Ride required to get in, when the class has nothing to do with riding at all: in fact, given how most mounts react to vampires and other undead, having a mount may be anti-synergistic for some Blood Knights. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.62.233.33 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts.

Makes sense. I changed that stipulation for Handle Animal 6 ranks. Thoughts? Which other stipulations? --Green Dragon 15:12, 30 January 2011 (MST)

Special Ability Wording

"He has a maximum number of blood points equal to 0.5 ½ his blood knight levels + blood knight's Cha modifier (if any), but if he has 0 blood points, consider it 1 anyway."

The wording in the quoted passage above permits a first level Blood Knight to have negative blood points--and there is no class requirement that would bar a character with a negative charisma modifier from taking the class. 98.226.241.148 14:59, 1 February 2011 (MST)

I changed it to "minimum 1". Thanks for mentioning that. --Green Dragon 17:02, 1 February 2011 (MST)

Picture

It's pretty poor form to rip copyrighted pictures from Artists website that work in the same industry you are making homebrew content for. The other thing that bothers me, is that this article was able to make it to the front page of dandwiki while containing said picture. At least give a trackback to the artist, http://www.jaestudio.com/portfolio-books2.htm - Justin Engle - and ask him if it's ok to use his work on the website. Shameless ripping of art like this is bad form - Sleaker 21:20, 3 March 2011 (MST)

I never knew the situation of the image. I assumed it was uploaded with the correct intentions. I changed the image in any case. Thoughts on the image now? Is that website, which seems to have information regarding the old images history, pretty trustworthy? E.g. would you say it's correct to delete the image as that website has it so? --Green Dragon 22:14, 3 March 2011 (MST)

Not sure what you are asking. The page I linked with the Original Picture is the actual artists gallery. I'm not sure where you got the new picture, but the best idea is to always give a back-link for where it was obtained and to attribute an author. If the author is unknown then the file description should be unknown author or a link to where it was obtained. None of this uploading of random images that people didn't create themselves because they think the image is cool and matches their concept. The Wiki operates under a GNU and people don't have rights uploading artists content here, just my 2 cents. - Sleaker 14:01, 4 March 2011 (MST)

I didn't make a mistake with the image I uploaded. It's public domain as I put on the image's page. Okay, I will delete the other image. Thanks for looking into this. --Green Dragon 14:26, 4 March 2011 (MST)

I don't recall what the page for uploading an image looks like, but is there a big message that says "Don't upload content if you don't know who owns it"? I don't mean some small line buried halfway through a paragraph, I mean like bold, colored text front and center on the page? If not, we should consider doing that. It reflects badly on the community when things like this happens. I know I feel bad about it. --Badger 14:33, 4 March 2011 (MST)

That's a good idea. As media keeps getting spammed I will see if we can merge the images onto D&D Wiki and then include something like that then too (soon, not right away though). --Green Dragon 14:42, 4 March 2011 (MST)

I am kinda shocked and can't decide to laugh or to cry by looking at this picture.

This is only the facts plus something from my heart.

The author of this picture is Viktor Vasnetsov, and I like his paintings and sketches a lot. The man drawn on the painting is Ilia Muromets; an ancient Russian hero. And despite his name covered with epic legends, he is a real historical figure. He is a real historical figure and is absolutely associated with all pure, clear, good, and he was a great christian monk. After he became a really great knight-protector he saved many lives of regular farmers and he became a monk-pacifistic, spreading light of the Bible and caring about people. He was so great, of a good heart, and loved by people that after he died the Church canonized him as a saint. He left such a good and well remembered mark in our history that there are monuments for him was in Czarizm times, during Soviet times, and even now after the USSR crumbled. The closest AD class I can think for Ilya Muromets is Paladin! But a Blood Knight? After the feast? Please choose another picture, I beg you people.

Well, I would not jump to rationalizations. Blood knights can be neutral alignments, and when the Tartars were besieging Chernigov in myth Ilya Muromets defeated them. Is this really good? Or is that a disputed area of land (that now it is not even in Russia for example) and he was doing it for his country? I would consider that action Lawful Neutral. This seems like it would also work when he killed Solovey, the highwayman. Thoughts? Do you have an idea for another image? --Green Dragon 12:34, 22 April 2011 (MDT)