Difference between revisions of "Talk:Magic contamination"
(→"Relatively harmless") |
(→"Relatively harmless") |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The "History" section should be revised - after all, we don't want newbies misinterpreting the statement "relatively harmless glow from Sticky Flame" and thinking that Sticky Flame is useless (player spell) or harmless (monster spell)! [[User:Jwoodward48ss|Jwoodward48ss]] ([[User talk:Jwoodward48ss|talk]]) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (CEST) | The "History" section should be revised - after all, we don't want newbies misinterpreting the statement "relatively harmless glow from Sticky Flame" and thinking that Sticky Flame is useless (player spell) or harmless (monster spell)! [[User:Jwoodward48ss|Jwoodward48ss]] ([[User talk:Jwoodward48ss|talk]]) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (CEST) | ||
| + | :I think the sentence indicates pretty clearly that the glow from Sticky Flame is a side effect, and if a newbie wants more detail about it, they can just click the link, and the Sticky Flame page explains very well why it's a powerful spell. Then again if you want to rephrase it you're always free to do so. -- [[User:Fingolfin|Fingolfin]] ([[User talk:Fingolfin|talk]]) 10:52, 3 September 2016 (CEST) | ||
Revision as of 10:52, 3 September 2016
"Relatively harmless"
The "History" section should be revised - after all, we don't want newbies misinterpreting the statement "relatively harmless glow from Sticky Flame" and thinking that Sticky Flame is useless (player spell) or harmless (monster spell)! Jwoodward48ss (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2016 (CEST)
- I think the sentence indicates pretty clearly that the glow from Sticky Flame is a side effect, and if a newbie wants more detail about it, they can just click the link, and the Sticky Flame page explains very well why it's a powerful spell. Then again if you want to rephrase it you're always free to do so. -- Fingolfin (talk) 10:52, 3 September 2016 (CEST)
