Talk:Satori (5e Race)
About the Third Eye
Okay. Please. There is a reason I have the Empath design disclaimer on this race. The satori's ability to read minds is passive, and more importantly, permanent. I've tried to power it down as much as I can manage, but this is really the best I can get it without completely deviating from what I want this race to be. Maybe you could explain to me in more detail why you think it's still unbalanced? - Alice-chan 10:28, 22 November 2018 (EST)
- If it helps clear anything up, the idea I had for the current version of the trait is that the character has to be looking at a creature for the mind reading to take effect. If your problem is the vague wording, maybe you could suggest a way to change the wording to make that intention more clear? - Alice-chan 10:33, 22 November 2018 (EST)
- Edit: I've reworded the trait slightly. Hopefully that's enough to clear things up. - Alice-chan 10:39, 22 November 2018 (EST)
- The wording can be fixed by using the wording for the detect thoughts spell and tweaking it accordingly for use as a racial trait. Another way of doing this is saying that spell is always active unless they are unconscious. Once that is done it should be "fine". Lastly, on the wiki maintenance templates when put on a page, are generally discussed then removed not the other way around. Try to follow this practise as it is generally frowned upon. —ConcealedLight
- You should add a bit at the end of "You read the mind of any creature you are currently perceiving" that says, "as per the detect thoughts spell" as reading the mind of another creature isn't a defined term. You should do the same for the other race that uses this trait. —ConcealedLight
- Alright, I've gone and done as much. - Alice-chan (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2018 (MST)
- The wording can be fixed by using the wording for the detect thoughts spell and tweaking it accordingly for use as a racial trait. Another way of doing this is saying that spell is always active unless they are unconscious. Once that is done it should be "fine". Lastly, on the wiki maintenance templates when put on a page, are generally discussed then removed not the other way around. Try to follow this practise as it is generally frowned upon. —ConcealedLight
- Edit: I've reworded the trait slightly. Hopefully that's enough to clear things up. - Alice-chan 10:39, 22 November 2018 (EST)
Restrict Edit Access
I would like to request that anonymous users be disallowed from editing this page, as I've noticed in the edit history that an anonymous user had attempted to make an unbalancing edit to the traits. In fact, the exact same edit was made twice, on two separate occasions by two different anonymous users, and then reverted by yet another two anonymous users. Regardless of the fact that the current version is identical to my most recent version, I would like to nip this problem at the bud before it has the chance to perpetuate. - Alice-chan (talk) 11:46, 1 December 2018 (MST)
- Gotcha dudette! Quincy (talk) 11:52, 1 December 2018 (MST)
- Much appreciated. I noticed the restriction seems to have an expiry date. I won't make a fuss about it right now, but if more unbalancing edits are made sometime after the expiry, I'll probably prefer an indefinite restriction next time. - Alice-chan (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2018 (MST)
Flat bonus's and universal (dis)advantages should be avoided. I'd recommend changing them to something else. —ConcealedLight