Talk:Lord of the Damned (3.5e Prestige Class)

Rating

Power - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because this class makes a good necromancer, and gets lots of little tools to help it as one. → Rith^(talk) 08:05, 24 May 2009 (MDT)

Wording - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because everything in this class can be easily understood considering the source material. → Rith^(talk) 08:05, 24 May 2009 (MDT)

Formatting - 3/5 I give this class a out of 5 because sizable portions of the preload are missing, though, interwiki linking is effectively comprehensive (though a couple of those red links need to be handled). → Rith^(talk) 08:05, 24 May 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 5/5 I give this class a 5 out of 5 because while there are a good few necromancer classes out there, none of them are as evil as this class is. → Rith^(talk) 08:05, 24 May 2009 (MDT)

Rating

Power - I give this class a 5 out of 5 because its a kick ass Prestige Class that is great for Antagonists>>> --50.35.220.121 00:40, 14 February 2011 (MST)

Wording - I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it could be worded differently to understand it more. --50.35.220.121 00:40, 14 February 2011 (MST)

Formatting - I give it a 4.5 out of 5 because it just needs a few tweaks --50.35.220.121 00:40, 14 February 2011 (MST)

Flavor - I give this class a 5 out of 5 because it has all the flavor you need in a bad guy. --50.35.220.121 00:40, 14 February 2011 (MST)

Rating

Power - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because it is very overpowered, granting four levels of a template as well as too many abilities for free. Compared to a cleric, you get five feats, four powerful abilities, and the lich template in exchange for... lower fortitude saves. Only removing every other spellcasting level would make it balanced. --71.202.252.30 11:34, 4 April 2011 (MDT)

Rating

Power - 1/5 I give this class a 1 out of 5 because it is incredibly overpowered, essentially a cleric with free feats and a weaker fort save. --207.6.227.63 04:46, 31 July 2011 (MDT)

Wording - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording is only somewhat odd in a few places. --207.6.227.63 04:46, 31 July 2011 (MDT)

Formatting - 4/5 I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the formatting is pretty good. --207.6.227.63 04:46, 31 July 2011 (MDT)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because because while there is some flavour associated with the class, it is barely represented in the class's features and is fairly generic all the same. --207.6.227.63 04:46, 31 July 2011 (MDT)

gollark: I have a rough idea. I don't know enough to narrow it down beyond physics/maths/CS/engineering.

gollark: I do university applications in about 5 months and haven't decided on anything yet. What joy.

gollark: It's a shame I don't have biology knowledge and equipment and large amounts of free time right now.

gollark: Would it actually *work*? How opaque is the relevant stuff in grass?

gollark: Hmm, maybe you could improve the photosynthesis processes in the glowy grass too so it outcompetes uncool legacy grass.

This article is issued from Dandwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.