Talk:Zora (5e Race)

Balance

This race seems really strong, both in general and compared to the other races in the Hyrule setting. They just get too many abilities. The sea zora also gets a +4 ASI; not sure if that's intentional or if it's supposed to get +1 int OR cha. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 22:32, 27 July 2017 (MDT)

Huh. I always would have feared gorons or one of the flying races would be marked as OP instead. I will say that I don't think "too many abilities" is a problem if few of those features are terribly powerful or useful. Still, in light of your remark, I made the following changes:

• Sea zora now gets +1 to Int or +1 to Cha.
• River zora lost fire resistance, and sea zora lost cold resistance.
• River zora's ambush has been dropped to a flat 1 instead of 1d6, and now only works with ranged attacks.
• Sea zora's ancestral arms has been adjusted so that one needs proficiency with both spear and trident to get the damage bonus.

At this point unless a zora gets to be in an aquatic environment, it basically only gets darkvision, scale armor, a damaging cantrip, and one tiny damage buff from one of its subraces. - Guy (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2017 (MDT)

"Armor Class" versus "AC"

See page 113 of Volo's Guide to Monsters. - Guy (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

Unlikely Guy, but its Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize>WotC's formatting. --ConcealedLight (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

It says right at the top, "The following are guidelines based on general observations from official WotC D&D products."

That's not to mention that particular part of those guidelines were posted by Sledge in 2006, well before 4e even came out, let alone before D&D Beyond was even being playtested.

Even disregarding those two points, are you really enforcing your own views so adamantly that other contributors can't do what WotC does in WotC fan-works? If you are really so rigid that you will use your admin position to enforce even an issue like this, I will literally quit this wiki right now. If you want me gone, it's that easy. I'm really getting sick of this kind of thing. It's absolutely ridiculous, and it's painful to me if you can't see that. - Guy (talk) 18:05, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

The help page you listed above never states that you should use Armor Class over AC, it just says it should be capitalized. Even in 3.5e, AC was perfectly fine, see SRD:Armor Class. Either way, that seems like far too minor an issue to be nitpicking or to quit the wiki over.--Blobby383b (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

It also seems like the core rulebooks in 5e use the term, see pp. 7 of the MM and the PHB(under section 3 of the D20).--Blobby383b (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for the information Blobbly I'd assumed that was the page and vaguely recall something being said about the use of abbreviations in mechanical relevant sections but I can't remember where. --ConcealedLight (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

Guy, if you could not make such accusations in regards to me simply trying to improve the quality of another page especially when it is about something so minor. We're all here to collaborate and work together for the collective benefit of wiki after all. --ConcealedLight (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

I made my points. I then asked you a question to clarify if what you appeared to be doing was, in fact, what you were doing—and I then stated what my response would be if that was the case. I would not classify anything I said here as an "accusation." My phrasing was not on-point earlier, but I stand by what I said: enforcing that rule for that reason would be ridiculous, to the point I would not want to be a part of it in any way. It would have been the final nail in the door I sealed shut behind me. I'm glad it seems you are not enforcing this issue now, regardless of your reasons. I won't deny that you're "trying to improve the quality of another page," but clearly there is or at least was a stark disagreement there. - Guy (talk) 09:48, 18 May 2018 (MDT)