Talk:Tevi (5e Race)

What's the rationale behind having weakness to force damage? Marasmusine (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2015 (MDT)

I confused force for thunder damage while writing it up; I'll likely change it. The rationale is that the Tevi who grew up in urban and mountainous environments have a more rigid body structure (skin like brick/sandstone, etc) and would be unusually susceptible to damage caused by shock waves and over-pressure. Massive damage from a thunder-type attack might result in a lasting injury that "cracks" them or something. It's mainly a flavor addition and somewhat necessary to balance out the inherent knowledge of cantrips and language. Thanks for asking! Any questions like this are helpful for clarifying anything I might have been unintentionally vague about. The Maharajj (Talk) 15:23 3/26/2015 (EST)

What was this based on? Just curious Hades996 (talk)

I just kind of doodled the picture one day in class and decided to make a race out of it, coming up with characteristics as I went. It's possible Tevi are based on some race from a book I once read and subconsciously remembered, but as far as I know they are mostly original. Cheers, The Maharajj (Talk) 20:51 3/9/2016 (EST)

More of a formatting thing than anything, but seeing the "coloration" trait only changes the color of the Tevi's subrace and doesn't have any game mechanics associated with it, I'd recommend removing it and instead adding a blurb right under the subrace title to explain more about the subrace, and put the information about its coloration there. --Balthazar (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2016 (MDT)

Please...?

Not sure if you're around but I want to include this race in my campaign world and I was wondering if I could get written permission for publishing purposes. Your name would be credited in the book for the race...I just think it's really interesting and I want them in my world. --Hades996 (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2016 (MDT)

When someone publishes material on this wiki, its published under the GNU Free Documentation License. You can use it without requiring permission for commercial or noncommercial work, providing it is attributed correctly. 12:51, 3 November 2016 (MDT)

Removed Templates

I have removed these two templates from the top of the page.

{{stub|Incomplete. What percentage of a race is of a particular alignment is privy to the DM and is purposely meant to be a rough estimate. Consult the 5e Race Design Guide for help.}}

{{needsbalance|This race seems questionable compared to similar first-party races, and would benefit from having less powerful and debilitating traits. For example, several damage vulnerabilities, they understand everything and anything, they can only speak one non-standard, non-first party language, +2 of choice on the ASI's, two cantrips of choice from any spell list, misc traits, flat bonus to AC, shortening long rests, "You gain +10ft. in your native environment", etc... Overall requires more work from a mechanical perspective to better compare and integrate with the first party content. Consult the 5e Race Design Guide for help and consider checking out some of the comparable Featured Articles.}}

The first, I have removed because the Alignment (And Alignment Percentage) section is not incomplete. It's, in fact, rather more complete than most. I'm not clear on what the editor meant. Of course the DM is privy to this information; the DM is privy to ALL information. Did you mean to suggest that this information should be up to DM interpretation and less exact?

The second, I have removed because the editor making this comment has made no prior edits to this page, and no effort has been made to discuss ways of making balance-based changes on the talk page... And frankly, it seems more than a little meanspirited to just drive by the article and drop a "This is unbalanced and needs fixing" in passing, particularly given that some of the things listed are important to the flavor of the race. Nobody complains about Kenku speaking through mimicry, or Elves not sleeping, or Aaracokra having a fly speed. Try to think of ways to make the concept work instead of just dropping a template decrying it, okay?

If this isn't how we do business here, feel free to revert my edit. Also, left the third template, as it's a legitimate point. 2600:1700:DAE0:EB40:8498:E620:F406:656B

... When I said "feel free to revert my edit," I did not mean "The person who posted these templates should revert my edit without discussing them." I meant "someone else is free to revert the edit if they believe that the above tags are justified." I refuse to get into an edit war over this, ConcealedLight, but I'd like someone else's eyes on this. 2600:1700:DAE0:EB40:8DE7:83B4:DF1B:4311 13:50, 4 February 2019 (MST)

The templates are valid as they are in line with policy and they outline the issues present within the page. While it is clear you disagree with them you make little attempt to discuss them, but simply have written up how another user is wrong and you are right. This isn't how collaboration works or how you get any other human being to engage with you. If you would like to outline why this page, despite it breaking several 5th edition philosophes and being stronger than other comparable first party races, is without issue then you are free to do so, however, if you edit without civility or etiquette it will lead to a ban like it would with any other anonymous editor. —ConcealedLight (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2019 (MST)

You have some good points, but these maintenance templates list some pretty fundamental flaws with how this race is structured. Take a stab and addressing each of the points on the maintenance templates, and I doubt it will ruin the core concept of this race. You don't have to remove the traits, just make minor changes so that the problem is addressed. For example, understanding a few choosen languages also works well for a race that is grown in a certain place. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:03, 4 February 2019 (MST)