https://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Xidoraven&feedformat=atomD&D Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-29T11:28:20ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.8https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Marasmusine&diff=936849User talk:Marasmusine2017-09-08T23:44:23Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Deleted page - return old text? */ new section</p>
<hr />
<div>Hello, to leave me a new message, click on the "+" tab just above. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:05, 5 June 2016 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8<br />
|label9= Archive 9<br />
|label10 = Archive 10<br />
|label11 = Archive 11<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== boxer talk ==<br />
<br />
hey do you have the information on the boxer class that was deleted by you on the 2 of june i was looking to using it in a custom campaign. if so could you email it to me at bencornish11247@gmail.com<br />
:Hi, I've sent you an email. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:45, 17 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Ettin Skeleton ==<br />
<br />
Hello Marasmusine. The [[SRD:Ettin Skeleton]] page has a bit of text that I'm a bit iffy about. One of the special qualities is called "superior twoweapon" and I'm not sure if it is supposed to be like that or not. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 21:11, 17 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The WotC-hosted 3.5e SRD files don't seem to be available anymore (even though the [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/article/srd35 top page] is still there), so I can't check from the horses mouth. Another site says "superior two-weapon fighting" which I guess is a feat or something, I can't remember. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:09, 18 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
:Oh, it's the Ex quality that [[SRD:Ettin|ettin]] has of course. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:11, 18 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Iron fist ==<br />
<br />
Can you send the iron fist class to my email. I started a campaign with it. Thanks.<br />
Nicky1pro@yahoo.com<br />
:I have emailed it to you. Good luck extracting something unsable from it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:52, 18 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Potentially Missing 5e SRD Page ==<br />
<br />
Hello Marasmusine, I was attempting to balance a Large race and came upon a quarry, I was unable to find any info on how much damage the unarmed strikes of Large races do in 5e. There is no info on both [[Large Races (DnD Guideline)]] and [[5e SRD:Combat]] on how much damage unarmed strikes should do for large races, but the player's handbook mentions them doing 1 + Strength modifier bludgeoning damage, but that is only for the Small and Medium sized races. A page could maybe be added in a similar style to [[SRD:Unarmed Strike]] for 5e. If there is a specific place where this info is already available, could you potentially tell me where, and maybe move it to [[5e SRD:Combat]].<br />
:You won't find it in the SRD, because 5e isn't designed for Large player races. <br />
:The only clue we have is in the DMG, for designing the damage of monsters, where it recommends that Large weapons deal double the dice in damage, Huge weapons deal double that, etc.<br />
:In practice the unarmed strike of a Large monster is usually some form of natural weapon such as a slam attack.<br />
:However, for a Large player race you could houserule that it deals 2 bludgeoning damage with an unarmed strike (and a hypothetical Huge player race would deal 4, etc). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:23, 23 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::Thanks for the explanation, finally do you believe the double damage for unarmed strikes should standard and be added to the [[Large Races (DnD Guideline)]] or to a 5e Variant Rule(houserule)?--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 12:30, 23 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::Well that guideline isn't 5e specific, but there is [[Large Player Characters (5e Variant Rule)]]. Note that with this houserule, is that I've recommended that Large PCs do ''not'' use double-damage-die Large weapons - but I don't think the unarmed strike bump is a problem. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 12:41, 23 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::Thanks for the help, I will add that to the variant rule and hopefully be done with all of this. Nevermind, you did it already thanks. --[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 12:49, 23 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Are these topics Grammatically correct, now? ==<br />
<br />
Are these topics formated and grammatically correct, now? If not, what needs improving?<br />
<br />
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Death_Knight_(4e_Class)<br />
<br />
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Death_Knight_Minion%27s_(4e_Creature)<br />
<br />
:Class names aren't proper nouns, and there are unnecessary capital letters throughout. The power fluff text should be in italics, not bold (and missing fluff needs filling in). Misused apostrophes (e.g. "This power can only be used with regular minion's, and not special minion's" isn't correct.). "Benefit" introductory texts are missing, and the header/benefit needs removing where nothing else is gained (e.g. at 8th level)<br />
:On the minion page, there are similar problems. Dice should be lower case (e.g. "1d4" not "1D4"), there are unneeded apostrophes and capital letters. It's not clear why some minions have fractional hit points: I think "1/2 Death Knight" means "half of your maximum hit points"? Some of the wording is awkward (e.g. "Ghoul's do 1D4 damage" should read "Ghouls deal 1d4 damage")<br />
:That's not even getting on to the balance issues, but it's been a long time since I last played 4e so not sure if I can help there. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:25, 26 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::Well capital letters are a matter of choice and poetic license. It's not technically grammatically incorrect to use capital letters wherever you want to. You can even type an entire sentence out in capital letters and it can still be grammatically correct. For instance, some people capitalize the word "God", even though there is not technical grammatical rule that it has to be capitalized, and some people use capitals. It's not really a written rule anywhere that you can't use capitals they way you want, and because the world of D&D has a more flexible approach to who's name qualifies as a proper noun, it isn't exactly cut and dry what should and should not be capitalized.<br />
<br />
::The reason for using "1/2 Death Knight" is to shorten things up so it isn't excessively long, as in saying "One half maximum hit points" for health would add a lot more information than is needed. Also, unfilled fluff is because there often isn't fluff to write. Not every power is going to have dynamic or in depth fluff to fill in. [[User:JohnSmith82|JohnSmith82]] ([[User talk:JohnSmith82|talk]]) 04:03, 26 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::Maybe you'd prefer to call it a [http://www.sussex.ac.uk/informatics/punctuation/capsandabbr/caps punctuation rule]. Class names are not proper nouns. This is the case in the WotC rulebooks, and we have [[Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize]] as a guideline for this. The only exception would be if the name is based on a proper noun. It ''is'' a written rule ([http://grammar.yourdictionary.com/capitalization/10-rules-of-capitalization.html] here's one of many examples). You can use substandard English with your own works if you want, but not on this wiki.<br />
:::Yes, there is a rule for whether to use "God" or "god". The former is used when it's a proper noun (e.g. when referring to God in Christianity), and the latter when its used as a synonym for "deity".<br />
:::It's not hard to come up with even some rudimentary descriptive text for a power. Summon Zombie could simply be ''You point your finger at a patch of earth, and a ragged animated corpse claws its way out, ready to mindlessly obey your command.'' [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:35, 26 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::Coming up with a ton of filler would just be tacky and unnecessary. Plenty of powers in 4e books don't have any filler at all. If it isn't engaging or doesn't explain anything important, why just add filler? I don't think that it's a formatting issue to choose not to use any kind of description sometimes. Filling it in with a ton of pointless drivel would detract from the key points.<br />
::::As far as capitalization rules, there are no requirements for not capitalizing things. You can choose to capitalize things if you want, capitalization rules of when not to capitalize things is more of a guideline. For instance, "You may use whichever policy you prefer, so long as you are consistent about it" - "Some people choose to capitalize them anyway; this is not wrong, but it's not recommended." The thing is you can capitalize if you choose. It's not a grammatic error to capitalize words that aren't normally capitalized, it's just not commonly done. But for instance, if I decided to say "AND HE SAID!" in capital letters, it wouldn't automatically be wrong. You can capitalize words emphasize them, which is essentially what I'm doing when capitalizing them. There's also the matters of appearances, in that using Death knight would look more tacky than Death Knight which clearly stands out from the rest of the words and is easier for the eye to catch on to. You can also capitalize the words of a title, so for instance "The Book of Revelations", where you capitalize the first word, and any major word that (that isn't of, and, so etc.) When my powers for instance use capitalized letters, such as "Summon Minion" or "Unholy Strength", I use capital letters because I'm capitalizing the words in the title. This is consistent with the formatting of the sight as well, which capitalizes "Utility Power" in the heading or "Ability Score Increase". Any title can be capitalized, and anything can be considered a title. As capitalization is largely based on the preferences and choices by the writer, again it is not an explicit rule that you can't capitalize certain words. [[User:JohnSmith82|JohnSmith82]] ([[User talk:JohnSmith82|talk]]) 18:33, 26 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::::Titles (books, headers) are capitalized ''because they are proper nouns''. We have a style guide, please use it. Proper nouns are capitalized. Other nouns are not. I'm not forcing you at gunpoint to make the change, but the maintenance message will remain there until its fixed. I won't say any more on the matter.<br />
:::::At least you've removed the excess apostrophes. <br />
:::::I'm looking through the player's books (PHB, HotFK, etc) and all the powers have a bit of description that visualizes what they do. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:46, 27 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::I have looked at the site rules for capitalization, and the only thing that it says you can't capitalize is the unit indicating die size. You can find this, in the article [[Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize]]. Because the only thing excluded is the unit indicating die size, I don't think there's anything actually backing up the idea that you can't capitalize certain words if you choose. That is as a function of the site rules. Also, classes are included in the list of things that need to be capitalized.<br />
::::::As for fluff, it's not make or break for me, but there are some powers without fluff, although they are exceptionally rare.<br />
:::::::"Death knight" is not a proper noun, or at least the monster's entry in the 5e Monster Manual doesn't treat it as such. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 20:18, 27 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::::Whether it is or not, it is not explicitly against the site rules to not capitalize the class name. The only thing specifically forbidden is to not capitalize the unit indicating the dice roll, such as "1d10" compared to "1D10". There is no actual rule that you can't capitalize certain words (only the dice in the dice roll), only for what you are supposed to capitalize. [[User:JohnSmith82|JohnSmith82]] ([[User talk:JohnSmith82|talk]]) 21:30, 27 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::::::::It's not against the site rules to capitalize class names, but the page you linked above says that you shouldn't unless the class name is a proper noun. The only class that I can think of for which this is the case is 5e's Purple Dragon Knight from the SCAG, because it refers to a specific organization in the world of Faerûn. Unless your death knight is a similar case, which I highly doubt, the class name should not be capitalized. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 22:15, 27 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::If it's not actually against the rules, than it isn't actually grammatically wrong according to the rule's of the site. It shouldn't matter and shouldn't therefore be considered in need of grammatical help. It also doesn't say anything in the link about about not capitalizing class names if they aren't a proper noun. I can link it again, and if you Ctrl + F for "proper noun", it's only listed once, and it says "The following should always follow the same rules for capitalization as if you were writing a term paper for class (i.e. the beginning of a sentence, titles and headings, proper nouns, acronyms, etc...)". This doesn't say that classes aren't proper nouns, and shouldn't be capitalized. So, I'm not sure where you are getting that, but it's not in that particular link. [Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize] [[User:JohnSmith82|JohnSmith82]] ([[User talk:JohnSmith82|talk]]) 03:47, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::The rules are stated simply. ''"The following should always follow the same rules for capitalization as if you were writing a term paper for class (i.e. the beginning of a sentence, titles and headings, proper nouns, acronyms, etc...)"''<br />
:::::::::::You would not write a term paper with something like "Wow, you are a real Fighter Tom. Tom really knows how to Fight with his Minions." --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:08, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::::::::I might, it would be a matter of personal preference. But fighter in that context doesn't seem to be referring to the class, rather to the verb "to fight", or the noun as a "fighter", outside of the class. On the other hand, if I were to say "Get over here, Paladin, and fight me like a man!" or "The Death Knight has been stalking us for three whole days..." or "Death Knights utilize minions to allow them to deal extra damage in the same manner as the Warlock's curse or Hunter's quarry, which puts them roughly on par with a rogue or ranger, thus balancing the..." than yeah, I might capitalize it. Because it's explicitly not against the rules and because it's open to interpretation, I don't think a very narrow view should be used to act like it's a problem according to the site function. If you want to disasgree that would be fine, but it wouldn't technically be grammatically wrong for site mechanic purposes. [[User:JohnSmith82|JohnSmith82]] ([[User talk:JohnSmith82|talk]]) 23:17, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{dir}}<br />
<br />
:Wow, you're passionate about this. Anyway, "death knight" is not a proper noun. It does not uniquely identify an individual or a specific organization; it describes an archetype seen occasionally in the fantasy genre, or a type of monster. It would be valid to capitalize it if, say, the Death Knight were a single legendary warrior, in the same vein as the Black Knight archetype, or if there were a knightly order called the Death Knights. This doesn't appear to be the case on your page, so it shouldn't be capitalized on that page. <br />
<br />
:I feel like we're both saying the same thing over and over again. It appears that you believe so strongly that you are in the right, that you believe that we're the unreasonable ones, and that nothing will change that belief. Ultimately, we can't force you to change it. But the template should remain until you or someone else fixes the issue. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 00:00, 29 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
:JohnSmith82, you've now had three people point out to you this piece of basic English grammar. You as an individual are free to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._E._Cummings stick capital letters where you like], but on this wiki we aim to meet the standards for publication quality prose. Forgive me for saying, but you seem quite confused as to what is and isn't a proper noun. I can only direct you to to a site that would educate you, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_noun <br />
:Now, please, I don't want this conversation on my talk page anymore! If you must, take it to the talk page of the style guide. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:18, 29 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== A Photo Problem ==<br />
<br />
Hey, so recently some pictures for creatures I've posted have inexplicablely stopped working. Do you know why that might be? The creatures are the *[[Afrotaur (5e Creature)|Afrotaur]], *[[Brachiosaurus (5e Creature)|Brachiosaurus]], *[[Caragor (5e Creature)|Caragor]], *[[Dingonek (5e Creature)|Dingonek]], *[[Entelodont (5e Creature)|Entelodont]], *[[Leshy (5e Creature)|Leshy]], *[[Piasa (5e Creature)|Piasa]], *[[Spinosaurus (5e Creature)|Spinosaurus]], *[[Straight Tusked Elephant (5e Creature)|Straight Tusked Elephant]], and *[[Woolly Rhinoceros (5e Creature)|Woolly Rhinoceros]]. Do you know what happened and how to fix it, or artist I can look to if it can't be fixed? For a better understanding, most of these were smaller versions of existing pictures that I made to fit the page than removed so as to avoid implications of stealing which is not what I was trying to do. [[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 27 July, 2017 (MST)<br />
:They just weren't permanent links. It looks like they were generated dynamically, like deviantArt thumbnails or something. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:29, 27 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::Okay, is there a way to fix that without replacing the pictures? [[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 27 July, 2017 (MST)<br />
:::The best way would be to ask each artist for permission to upload a smaller resolution version of the picture to the D&D wiki (in the case of those pictures that are on deviantArt. No idea about the others), remembering to note that we would provide attribution and a link to the artist's page. I have had some success with this in the past. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:38, 27 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::Okay. I'll see what I can do for most of them. Since the [[Afrotaur (5e Creature)|Afrotaur]], [[Entelodont (5e Creature)|Entelodont]], [[Leshy (5e Creature)|Leshy]], [[Piasa (5e Creature)|Piasa]], and [[Woolly Rhinoceros (5e Creature)|Woolly Rhinoceros]] all used pictures which I created, I'll take of those first. [[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 27 July, 2017 (MST)<br />
:::::Well, if you are the copyright holder of the image, go right ahead and upload them to this wiki :) You don't need to resize them yourself, as this can be done on the target page (you can set the picture width, or make it a thumbnail). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:21, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::Alright... how do I do that? [[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 28 July, 2017 (MST)<br />
:::::::In the tool panel to the left, you'll see a link "upload file". [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 06:01, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::::Ah. Thanks. You've been a huge help. [[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 28 July, 2017 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your pictures look a lot better with color! I really like the [[Woolly Rhinoceros (5e Creature)|Woolly Rhinoceros]] and would like to nominate that to be a FA (after you get the image listed) is this okay with you? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:31, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Sure! That would be cool! [[User:Dinomaster337|Dinomaster337]] ([[User talk:Dinomaster337|talk]]) 29 July, 2017 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I've updated [[Piasa (5e Creature)]] to show the uploaded image. Hopefully you can see from the code how it's done. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:29, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Perhaps there should be a feat design guide ==<br />
<br />
You know, since someone out there already wrote [http://www.downyowlbear.com/the-netbook-of-feats/nbof-feat-design-guide-for-5e/ this]. I disagree with a fair bit of his philosophy though. I think we could create a very good wiki-oriented guide using that link as a jumping off point. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 01:59, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
:Gods help us if we start enforcing "Each feat should offer substantially unique mechanics". <br />
:I can't think of anything right now, except that I think it's better when you think of a theme/name of a feat and try to come up with matching mechanics; rather than coming up with a mechanic then trying to think of a name. My favourite feat from the PHB is Dungeon Delver, because it's not Yet Another Combat Feat (tm) and its a bundle of benefits on a theme, and because it's an opportunity for the player to rub his hands together and say "don't worry guys, I got this". The UA article on weapon mastery feats also had good advice. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:19, 28 July 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Formatting ==<br />
<br />
Hey you said I could ask you questions so:<br />
<br />
Is there a way to format a page so that I can have a table on the left, center, and on the right all next to each other? I am going to be making a list and don't want it to just extend downwards forever with tons of blank space to its right.<br />
<br />
Thanks --[[User:Its just teddy|Its just teddy]] <sup>You can add your signature with four tildes(~). Try it! :)</sup><br />
<br />
:Hello, fellow wikian! I'm not Mara, but perhaps I can be of help for you. So when you make a table, you start with something like ''<nowiki>{| class="5e"</nowiki>'', right? All you need is adding more to that.<br />
<br />
:For example, if you want your table on the right side of the page, you might want to add ''<nowiki>style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"</nowiki>'' next to it. So the first line of your table will read:<br />
<br />
:''<nowiki>{| class="5e" style="float:right; margin-left:10px;"</nowiki>''<br />
<br />
:I can provide you a page that uses exactly that to make table appear on the right side of the page: [[Faith Militant (5e Archetype)]]. (Yes, it's a creation of mine, but hey, look at the table! On the right!)<br />
<br />
:It's MediaWiki stuff, you can find more on [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Formatting Help:Formatting] on MediaWiki homepage, or for table-specific, [https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Tables Help:Tables].<br />
<br />
:I hope that answers your question. --[[User:WeirdoWhoever|WeirdoWhoever]] ([[User talk:WeirdoWhoever|talk]]) 00:28, 5 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Hy teddy, is this going to be the same table but split into three sections; or three different tables?<br />
::I'll make an example for the latter. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:52, 5 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
::Okay, is this what you are thinking? [[Help:Table/Examples]] [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:11, 5 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Problem Anonymous User ==<br />
<br />
The anonymous user [[Special:Contributions/104.160.221.5|104.160.221.5]] has only made disruptive edits and has been warned several times before to stop their antics but has only continued to try make races and a few classes more broken. I am sure you saw there work on the [[Tamaranean (5e Race)]] and would suggest something be done about them.--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 19:24, 7 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Old class Crusader ==<br />
<br />
Hello, so i wanted to ask if is there a way to find a old class. It was called Crusader. I have found it here about a year ago and it was Diablo style Crusader if i remeber correctly. Now i can find only a For Honor Crusader and in history pannel is just 2017 edits.<br />
:I'll take a look. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:44, 8 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:I've made a disambiguation page, [[Crusader]], is it any of the ones listed there? If not, tell me what edition it was for and I'll check the deletion logs. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:46, 8 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
Didn't find it there. I'm 99% sure it was 5e.<br />
:I've looked at the deletion logs for pages beginning with the word "crusader", and there's only a handful of pages from 5 years ago or older. That's all I got, sorry! [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:00, 9 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
Well I suppose that class is lost... Shame, I actually wanted to play it. Only thing I remember it had something like SRD Fighter Champion "Survivor"..<br />
<br />
:Your deleted user contributions do not show anything. If you would like, I can use Check User on your user to see if any information is stored about you, which then I could use to check these deleted user contributions. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 10:46, 9 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
Well it wasnt mine. I don't think it will help. I created account now. It would have to be informations throught IP adress.<br />
<br />
::No information. It must have been too long ago. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] ([[User talk:Green Dragon|talk]]) 11:48, 9 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tamaranean ==<br />
<br />
Hey. Listen I created the Tamaranean race for use in a space campaign. You've nerfed it to the point that flying in space and in combat in completely impossible with out some major issues for the DM/GM. Not only that but it took a long time to research on since Tamaranean information is sparse. The additional fact that this was already nerfed enough. The Tamaranean race is much stronger than what I created. Also if I'm being 100% honest here. Seeing something I created, something my friends looked at and said yes this is fine, something that I showed to people who have been playing the game much longer than I have and that they say is fine. Something I posted online for the soul reason of sharing the fun my friends and I have had. Angers me to a point that I didn't know possible. Please. Just please return my race back to what it once was.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you,<br />
Demonic Fox<br />
<br />
:If you wish to access a specific revision of the race, you can do so by using the "history" tab. I believe [https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Tamaranean_(5e_Race)&oldid=915629 this revision] is what you're specifically talking about? <br />
:As it was, the race was much more powerful than the races in the SRD, which is what content is usually compared to to determine balance, and so the race was revised to better fit that standard. If you are balancing races using a different standard, then that should be noted with the use of {{tl|Design Disclaimer}}. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 01:41, 10 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Hello. So let's look at page ownership first. When you edit pages to this wiki, you are releasing it under a license that allows others to modify the work. If you want to make content to share with others, but you don't want anyone else to change it, and you are not interested in making a balanced race, then please publish on your own blog rather than here.<br />
:Secondly, the race was not presented as part of a specific space campaign. If it's not part of a [[5e Campaign Settings]] then it's been made available for anyone to drop into their vanilla D&D medieval fantasy game. Having a race that can fly and shoot at-will ranged attacks is very powerful at early levels. Now maybe your space-based game has low-CR creatures that are mostly flying or ranged critters, and you have a set of rules for fighting in space, and so forth, in which case I encourage you to make a campaign setting page (or sourcebook) page with everything that a player and DM needs to use this race. (If you do this, add the Supplement category to the race page). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:47, 10 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Tamaranean Cont’d ==<br />
<br />
Hey sorry to still talk about this but I'm confused as to why you think its more powerful.<br />
It's basically a Aarakocra mixed with a bit Dragonborn.<br />
Only they flight is 30 instead of 50, The walk speed is like a 40 instead of a 30. Jumping is a given as it is stated in the handbook I just wanted to add it to make the race sound more appealing. Also They have the disadvantage of not knowing common and having to roll of "seduction" (persuasion) to kiss someone and learn a new language. Now I'm cool with the 1 a day linguistic assimilation. That's actually how we're playing it. Also the range attacks are supposed to take up a whole turn. One action to charge attack, Second action to fire. Sorry I was actually coming back to specify that when I saw all the changes.<br />
<br />
Now I'm going to just put mine up again as a variant of the race to save and now knowing that I can choose what type of campaign setting I will be doing that. Thanks for letting me know about that by the way. As you could probably tell I'm a very new user. In fact I've never played Homebrew until this space campaign haha.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks again,<br />
Demonic Fox<br />
<br />
:I can only discuss the revision that I added the needsbalance template to [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Tamaranean_(5e_Race)&oldid=917163], I have not looked closely at how it's changed after that.<br />
:The numbers in brackets are the "values" that each feature has. A balanced race has a total score of 4.5 - this is based on my study of the PHB races.<br />
:The aarakocra has:<br />
:*standard ability score bonuses (0)<br />
:*25 ft. ground speed (-0.5) and 40 ft. flight speed (1)<br />
:*1d4 unarmed strike damage (0.5)<br />
:*Flight (3.5)<br />
:*Total = 4.5<br />
<br />
:The Tamaranean that I saw had:<br />
:*standard ability score bonuses (0)<br />
:*45 ft. ground speed (1.5)<br />
:*60 ft. fly speed (6)<br />
:*flight (3.5)<br />
:*increased jump distance (0.5)<br />
:*darkvision (1)<br />
:*a ranged attack with unlimited range and more than twice the damage of a normal at-will attack (2)<br />
:*Unlimited regeneration (I can't even rate this, it's just not something a player should have, but I'll give it a 6)<br />
:*Advantage on all Strength checks (2)<br />
:*Two skill proficiencies (1)<br />
:*Resistance to a common damage type (2)<br />
:*"nine stomachs" didn't give any game information, but presumably should have something to do with the starvation rules (0.5)<br />
:*Any number of languages (2)<br />
:*"tolerance" (presumably immunity) to extreme temperature (1)<br />
:*Unhindered by difficult terrain (0.5, mitigated by the fact they can fly anyway)<br />
:*Weapon proficiencies (1)<br />
:*Total = 30.5<br />
<br />
:Hopefully you can see that this is outrageously overpowered.<br />
<br />
:If there was a different revision you wanted me to compare the aarakocra to, please let me know. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:11, 10 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Edit:<br />
:Okay I think you may be talking about the revision before that one, so let me go through that.<br />
:*standard ability score bonuses (0)<br />
:*40 ft. walking speed (1)<br />
:*30 ft. flying speed (0)<br />
:*Flight (3.5)<br />
:*Darkvision (1)<br />
:*Energy blast doesn't have a range, and deals more damage than the equivalent cantrip (1)<br />
:*Okay, there's that enhanced regeneration again. Here's the problem: "Battle" isn't strictly defined. I can pick a battle whenever I want (against some random animals or whatever), immediately end it, and regain hit points (not "health"). It also doesn't say how many hit dice are being rolled, if they are being expended or kept or really enough information for me to rate it. Even if I'm being generous and say that it lets you ''spend one hit die'' to regain hit points, ''once'' (then you need a rest), adding your level to the result still makes this very powerful. Let's give it a lower rating of (2) pending clarification.<br />
:*Advantage and checks ''and saves'' (2) and (2)<br />
:*The remainder of the features are as above.<br />
:*Total = 19.5<br />
:Still an awful lot. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:33, 10 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== ur mesage 2 me ==<br />
<br />
thank's i will put it on my user page<br />
:Cool. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 13:55, 10 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help understanding this site and its norms ==<br />
I thought I would ask for some pointers on things since I might have missed the mark for what this site is about. I'd like to point out I think I read every rule before creating an account just to make sure I didn't get my hands slapped or cause ripples :p lol. I use dandwiki a lot and it really hits a nerve when Facebook groups put this page down and run it through the mud. I take a sense of pride when I help or edit others' work. So, in order to fit in better or get along easier with this page and admins (which I haven't had issues) can you elaborate on few things I might not understand? Or any others for that matter share too. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:55, 11 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:D&D Wiki is different from most other wikis in that it includes a lot of fan-created content (the only other wiki I can think of that is like this is the Spore wiki). This is by design and not inherently a bad thing, despite what people say. Unfortunately, there are two legitimate grievances that people have with this site. The first is that a lot of the content here is overpowered, unbalanced, and/or broken (as in, it doesn't work). The second is that people tend to make classes, races, et cetera, with the same name as official content (for example, [[Swashbuckler (5e Class)]]), which creates confusion on message boards and at the table, and until a few months ago this was further compounded by the site not being immediately obvious that it was for fan-created content primarily, which caused new players to mistake some of the content here for official content. The second problem isn't as much of a problem anymore because SgtLion implemented a banner across all pages in the main namespace that says "Homebrew!" while the first problem can only be fixed if we get a larger userbase, or if a few users become extremely dedicated (I think that's what happened with 4e).<br />
:This site has its flaws, but the format of a wiki allows players to not only share their custom creations, but also allow them to improve and build on the creations of other users relatively easily, which is a wonderful thing. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 16:14, 11 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Hi BigShotFancyMan. I think there's two main things to note:<br />
:#This is a wiki. That means that anyone can edit (almost) any page. When you put your writing on a wiki, you are giving permission for it "to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" (as the edit page disclaimer puts it).<br />
:#The aim is to make content that anyone can drop into their regular D&D game. It's not a repository for personal content solely for your own use. That means if something is unfair (by allowing a PC to much be more powerful than the PCs), it should be made balanced. If something is unclear or doesn't read well, it should be rewritten. If something unnecessarily contradicts the design standards in the core rulebooks, it should (as much as possible) be made to conform. One caveat is that we have sections for campaigns and sourcebooks that might be allowed to deviate somewhat.<br />
:As for external perceptions of the wiki, two more notes:<br />
:#There are only a handful of editors who review other's work. That means that poor quality pages might be sitting on the wiki for years before someone gets round to dealing with it. In the meantime, you get those Facebook groups you mentioned laughing and pointing at it, instead of editing the page and trying to improve it (or at least leaving a constructive message). You don't even need an account, you just press "edit". <br />
:#On the other hand, when we do try quality control, we sometimes upset the original writer, who then bemoans "the elitist admins of D&D Wiki ruining the work of others".<br />
:In short, we can't win! All I can ask is that you have fun making or improving pages; if there's a change you don't like, revert it ''and explain why on the talk page'', but take it on the chin if it gets reverted back. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:24, 12 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
::Thank you both for responses. I am not a fan of the Be Bold thing lol. I understand the need for some of what goes on. My impression was that things weren't edit whatever you like however you like whenever you like. It's a wiki though. I get it. I'll just have to keep this in mind. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 06:52, 14 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== jackalope ==<br />
<br />
One of my players wants a jackalope familiar. What should I base it off of. --Redrum 15:13, 12 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:Give him a rabbit and say it has horns? — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 15:23, 12 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::Geodudette, a mere rabbit wouldn't have cut it. --[[Special:Contributions/209.97.85.48|209.97.85.48]] 12:52, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:Someone made one, [[Jackalope (5e Creature)]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:28, 13 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Dark Weapon class ==<br />
<br />
Hey I'm looking to advance the work on this class, I like the concept but I would enjoy it more if it could be fully fleshed out so that I can play it in a future campaign. Where do you believe that progress should start on this class? I have seen your comments in the talk for that page and I realize that you are as upset as I am that it's not progressing so I made an account just to see how I could push it past the point where its been stuck at. Thank you in advance! [[User:Atlas_Sinclair|Atlas Sinclair]]([[User_talk:Atlas_Sinclair|talk]]) 02:30, 14 August 2017 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I've moved my response to the talk page at Dark Weapon. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 04:10, 14 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unanswered Plea ==<br />
<br />
Marasmusine, I had posted back in 2016 about a person editing my custom 3.5e class without consulting me.<br />
<br />
"Page Edit<br />
<br />
Hey, there. So I was checking in on some of my work, as I haven't been able to for a while due to college being a priority and it looks like my pages were tampered with. Someone put a notice on one of my page saying that it'd been abandoned and that they had tried to contact me. Neither of these statements are or were true. They stated that it hadn't been worked on in a year, which is untrue. I don't know the best way to go about reporting someone for this, but this is their IP address: 73.106.54.105. I'm sorry for the bother, but I'm not fond of people altering my pages without contacting me or for anything that's not a minor edit, such as a spelling or grammatical change, and I even wrote in the editing section of the template for people to only make those kinds of edits. This person did not. <br />
<br />
They edited these two pages: http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Swordmage,_Variant_2_(3.5e_Class) http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/3.5e_Swordmage_Incantations --Sage of Souls (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (MST) <br />
"<br />
<br />
You never responded to this. Can you please lock the Swordmage Variant 2 class from further editing? People seem to not be able to read my request of grammar and spelling corrections only.--[[User:Sage of Souls|Sage of Souls]] ([[User talk:Sage of Souls|talk]]) 23:23, 18 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Hello, I'll see if I can help. I must stress that you submitted your work onto a wiki, and released it under a copyleft license. The purpose of a wiki is to allow anyone to edit any page. At the bottom of every edit page it says " If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here."<br />
:As such, I won't protect pages in the "mainspace" as a response to good-faith edits - what if someone wanted to [[Help:When to Italicize and Capitalize#When to Capitalize|correct the capitalization errors?]]. <br />
:There are two options: You can publish the work on your own website/blog instead; or I can move the page to your "userspace" (and I'm happy to protect the page there). [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:19, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Hello. If you could please wikify the Swordmage variant and finish up its missing incantations, I'd be happy to protect it :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:47, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::In response to Marasmusine: I understand. I just figured there might be some form of elevation it might could be raised to stating that the author wished to not have any major editing.<br />
:::In response to GamerAim: Once I find some free time to get those finished, I will be happy to do so.--[[User:Sage of Souls|Sage of Souls]] ([[User talk:Sage of Souls|talk]]) 20:38, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::I understand. Your userspace is a good place for works that you do not want others to edit, I'll protect anything you like there. Page protection in the mainspace should only be a temporary response to vandalism or edit warring. I don't even protect my own pages even though I consider them complete. And people do edit them, because that's the nature of a collaborative wiki. I will consider the edit, sometimes I keep it, sometimes I revert it. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:25, 20 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Mara, don't forget that we have [[Template:Locked_Page|this template]]. See also: [[Kitsune (5e Race)|This race, which wasn't complete, had a single anonymous vandal attack, but was indefinitely locked by GD.]]--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:30, 20 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The message in the template is, well, wrong. There is no "the author". Everyone listed in the edit history is a co-author. The lock prevents non-administrators making improvements (I can see wikilinks that need adding, and capitalization and italicization that needs correcting). All that was needed for the Kitsune was a revert. Of course, if GD wants to weigh in here, I'll listen. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:29, 20 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==5e spell==<br />
<br />
I have an idea for a spell called Prismatic Bow but I'm not sure how (or where) to post it. It produces 1 arrow per color(Red, Orange, Yellow, Green, Blue, Indigo, Violet). The effects of the arrows based on the colors of the Prismatic Wall spell.--[[Special:Contributions/209.97.85.48|209.97.85.48]] 13:44, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:Sounds very similar to the [[5e SRD:Prismatic Spray|''prismatic spray'']] spell. You could try using that? But if you want to create a new spell, go to the [[5e Spells]] page if you want to make a spell for 5e, [[Add New 3.5e Spell or Power]] if you want to make it for 3.5e or [[Add New 4e Power]] if you want to make it for 4e. [[User:SirSprinkles|SirSprinkles]] ([[User talk:SirSprinkles|talk]]) 15:37, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Runestaff==<br />
<br />
About the 5e runestaff, I "created" it in a desperate attempt to give my players a means to cast certain spells. I need a LOT of help. --Redrum 13:58, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Couldn't you just give them spell scrolls? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:34, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'd argue that's no reason to deny the creation of new items on our fair site, though I grant the page could use some work.<br />
<br />
::Marasmusine, since you seemed to be concerned with the balance of the item, will you take a look at my comments in the discussion page? The object is a 3.5e magic item that should be fine in 5e, provided it is escorted across the balance differences. --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 17:22, 31 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I now don't know what page is being discussed, can you give me a link? [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:14, 1 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::You seem to have found your way to it, once again. Fortunate! --[[User:Jwguy|Jwguy]] ([[User talk:Jwguy|talk]]) 14:54, 2 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Yes, I peeped into your history :) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 16:15, 2 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Myrmidons? ==<br />
<br />
Hello good sir or madam, <br />
<br />
You are responsible for the deletion of the homebrewed 5e class Myrmidon. I am not the creator of the original, and am quite new to the wiki, but I thought it fitting that you be presented with the inklings of my brew by the same name. It should also be noted that what little I have so far produced may or may not have balance issues.<br />
<br />
I present you with this class feature, which I designed to be for level 1. Note for your purposes that the Myrmidon has proficiency only with light armor, and may use both simple and martial melee weapons with proficiency. Hit dice are D8s.<br />
<br />
<br />
Anticipation:<br />
A primary tenet of the Myrmidon school of warfare is awareness of the enemy. During your turn, you may expend your move to enter a state of heightened anticipation, with the following effects:<br />
<br />
- You receive a bonus to your AC equal to the number of enemies within a third of your movement speed in feet from you.<br />
<br />
- When an enemy moves within the range requisite for the AC bonus mentioned above, you may move towards that enemy at double your speed and make a melee attack. On a hit, the target cannot use the rest of its move, though it may take actions as normal. <br />
<br />
The Anticipation state ends when you make an attack roll, take damage, or begin a turn.<br />
<br />
You will perhaps note the trouble with wording. I welcome any feedback. -- Guffguzzler<br />
<br />
:From the looks of things it looks like you're trying to emulate the Fire Emblem Myrmidon? In which case you could just use a Fighter/Rogue (Swashbuckler) multiclass, or even just straight Swashbuckler for what you're trying to do. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]]) . . 16:07, 19 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't like "expend your move". Movement isn't a discreet action anymore. It's more like a fluid in which you can distribute your turn's events. 5e takes the 4e philosophy on movement: dynamic battles are more interesting that static battles.<br />
:The AC bonus is too high. I think the highest temporary AC bonus is +5 for three-quarters cover, and of course it's dependent on the environment. The area covered by the bonus above could include more than 5 enemies. <br />
:The counter move should use your reaction. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 07:40, 20 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Classes based on Naruto ==<br />
<br />
I was looking through the incomplete classes, and found there were several classes without copyright disclaimers based on Naruto and upon further investigation found a total of 7 classes based off of the show, with several of them(mostly the ones that include Naruto in their name) having some of the same problems which include creating spells, being overpowered, and being vague about how many of the class features actually work. If you know what to do with the overabundance of classes based on the show(merge 5 of them together, delete several of them and salvage 3-4 of them as a few of them are unique). The classes in question include [[Naruto: Ninja v3 (5e Class)]], [[Naruto: Shinobi (5e Class)]], [[Naruto Ninja Class V2 (5e Class)]], [[Ninja, Variant (5e Class)]], [[Ninja: Naruto (5e Class)]], [[Ninja: Naruto 2nd version (5e Class)]], and [[Mudra shinobi (5e Class)]]. FYI, it looks like the mundra shinobi and ninja variant classes are unique, but they are not without problems.--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 12:03, 22 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I tried giving feedback at [[Naruto Ninja Class V2 (5e Class)]], and while one author was very hostile towards me, there are others trying to improve the page in good faith. That might be the one to focus on. I haven't looked at the others. If you notice problems, put a needsbalance template on it and leave a message on the talk page. People are entitled to make their own variants. If there are only minor differences, it should be merged into the original with "variant" sections. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:37, 23 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for the help, even if it is going to be a headache looking through some of the more nonsensical ones. On a side note, how does variant sections work with classes? Does it work like the [[Half-Troll_(5e_Race)|half-troll]] race?--[[User:Blobby383b|Blobby383b]] ([[User talk:Blobby383b|talk]]) 10:08, 23 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::If we were the PHB, we would have a box-out, like with the variant human. As long as the variant is clear on what it is replacing, you can present it using your best judgement. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 10:52, 23 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::Do you have an example of a class on this site that has a variant listed? I'd like to see the way it was formatted/wikified[[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 14:48, 24 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::::I mimicked the {{tl|Design Note}} template on [[OGC:Cardcaster (5e Class)]] for a box-out. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 14:59, 24 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::That looks okay. I would say it depends on how big the variant is. If it's just a sentence or two, you could use a semicolon header (like at [[Katana (5e Equipment)]]) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 15:33, 24 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
:::::::Cool, thank you both. I thought it would be a literal box on the page but really its just like any topic heading I guess. [[User:BigShotFancyMan|BigShotFancyMan]] ([[User talk:BigShotFancyMan|talk]]) 12:00, 25 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
::::::::With clever formatting, you could make it box to the left or right just like in the PHB :) [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 14:30, 25 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Soul Reaper Original Variant ==<br />
<br />
Howdy, I was using the soul reaper variant class for a campaign I'm in, and I noticed it was recently deleted. Is it possible to get it back? The specific revision that was used is the now broken link below. Thanks.<br />
<br />
https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Soul_Reaper,_Variant_(5e_Class)&oldid=760332<br />
<br />
:Certainly, I've temporarily restored it for you. It looks a bit of a mess, you might need to look back in the page history[https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Soul_Reaper,_Variant_(5e_Class)&action=history] to get the revision you want. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 11:07, 25 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Help regarding pages reading custom template rerequirsites and summery's ==<br />
<br />
Hey Guy told me I should talk to you about this issue I've noticed.<br />
<br />
<br />
<pre><br />
ConcealedLight Anyone know how to add prerequirsites and a summery to the class on this page? 5e_Special_Classes37 minutes ago<br />
<br />
Guy Depends on what template you're using on the class page34 minutes ago<br />
<br />
Guy but generally in that template "|summary=This is the summary that appears on 5e Special Classes."34 minutes ago<br />
<br />
Guy and "|prerequisites=These are the prerequisites that appear on 5e Special Classes."33 minutes ago<br />
<br />
ConcealedLight oh ok thanks ^^25 minutes ago<br />
<br />
ConcealedLight hmm doesn't seem to come up despite being on the class must be a template issue. Guy could you look into this template Template:5e_Prestige_Eight? <br />
I can't seem to find it when I compare the two templates16 minutes ago<br />
<br />
Guy Oh. Now I see what the problem is.5 minutes ago<br />
<br />
Guy 5e Special Classes pulls all pages based on their categories, but only displays prerequisites/summaries from pages that specifically use Template:5e <br />
Prestige (as opposed to Template:5e Prestige Eight).4 minutes ago<br />
<br />
Guy So, someone would either need to edit the #dpl on 5e Special Classes (which I don't know how to do off-hand), or edit 5e Prestige so it supports variable <br />
levels instead of making entirely separate templates (which would be considerably more work and should only be pursued if the prior is impossible).2 minutes ago<br />
<br />
Guy If I were you, I would consult Marasmusine regarding this matter.a minute ago<br />
<br />
Guy Since he made 5e Special Pages and presumably has a better grasp on #dpl functionality than I do.a minute ago<br />
<br />
Guy *5e Special Classes, that isa minute ago<br />
<br />
ConcealedLight ahh, thank you for you're help I'll drop in on his talk page just now<br />
</pre><br />
<br />
:I'll look into it when I get the chance. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:30, 27 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::We now have three different templates for 5e prestige classes (10-level, 8-level and 5-level) and the DPL seems to only take the 10-level template. Considering how few prestige classes we have so far, I think it'd be easier to store the parameters in an empty template and transclude ''it'' into the DPL.--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:50, 27 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mutant (4e) ==<br />
<br />
I fixed the problems except the "Proficient in 1 grade of armour or weapon higher" because I see no problem and also I am Australian so KG is what I type in. {{unsigned|Deadpoolio}}<br />
<br />
:D&D uses imperial units, so when designing content for the game you too should use imperial units. I know that sucks, but it's a consequence of adding on to existing material instead of making your own game. If it helps one kilogram is roughly 2.2 pounds. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 21:51, 29 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:D&D doesn't use the word "grade" to refer to weapons and armor, so please explain to me what that phrase means. Does it mean that, for example, if you are proficient in military weapons, you're now proficient in all superior weapons? 'Cos that's not right. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 02:30, 30 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== How to deal with plagiarism ==<br />
<br />
I was looking through the wiki wishing to change my class and delete my old ones, but oddly enough I found another class called the Chronolord (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Chronolord_(5e_Class)). So this intrigued me and I had a look, excited to see another time based class, however, upon reading it there are things in the class that are literally line for line what I have written in previous versions. This website doesn't have reporting features so I don't know what to do. <br />
<br />
There are some abilities that are original which I have no problems with, but the features that are word for word mine have me a little riled up. I'm sorry to message you about it but I don't know what to do and you seem to know this wiki pretty damn well.<br />
<br />
--[[User:Agaming|Agaming]] ([[User talk:Agaming|talk]]) 16:53, 31 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:A simple link to your class (preferably on the talk page) should clear up any plagiarism issues :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 20:00, 31 August 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:To be clear, Agaming, when you submit work on this site, you release it under a copyleft license that allows other to copy it. However they must attribute the authors of the source page (and provide a link). Unfortunately in practice this rarely happens. You can add it yourself if you like, explain on the talk page and add a wikilink to the original. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:12, 1 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== True unmade ==<br />
<br />
Ok, so I'm planning on recreating the unmade as a racial class. But I'm uncertain how to do this. [[User:ShiroYami|ShiroYami]] ([[User talk:ShiroYami|talk]]) 03:21, 1 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If the class is mandatory ,it's probably easiest if you look at another race/class (e.g. [[Angel (5e Race)]]). If the class is optional, there's a "create new special class" link at [[5e Special Classes]]. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 05:28, 1 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Mutant (4e) ==<br />
<br />
I believe my race has been fixed and balanced. I have a group of hardcore dnd players helping me to balance my ideas and they believe it is balanced, fun and fits all criteria.<br />
:It still does not work in many places. Constantly regenerating 2 hit points per round is not balanced. "Learn 25% faster" says "for campaigns that make it so you have to earn your skills..." but it doesn't explain how this works. The skill bonuses should be racial skill bonuses. Shapeshifter isn't fully explained. Many of these traits should be an encounter power. Overall balance is dubious and description is lacking.<br />
:If this is the state you want the race to be in for your own games, I suggest you make a copy, because it won't survive on this wiki in its current form. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:36, 2 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Return the Armed with Wings ==<br />
<br />
I see that you are the one who has done the misdemeanor of removing the Armed with Wings class from this fine wikipedia. <br />
While I can understand not wanting to spend the time or energy to improve it, as it is after all already at peak perfection, to do the grievous error of outright removing it all together?<br />
What are sadistic DM's supposed to use to spice up and torture idiotic players with now? Tarrasque isn't a class you fool, we need the return to form. <br />
The only remedy to this is to return that which has been lost.<br />
Choose to not obey this, and an influx of mimicries will follow suit.<br />
you have been warned, non-believer.<br />
:Just use the [[DuelSoulBlade Shadow Vampelf (5e Race)]]. — [[User:Geodude671|Geodude671]] ([[User talk:Geodude671|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Geodude671|contribs]] | [[Special:EmailUser/Geodude671|email]]) . . 00:00, 4 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Why do people always speak up ''right after'' a page is deleted and never during the two-week discussion period leading up to it?<br />
<br />
:I have temporarily restored [[Armed With Wings (5e Class)]]. Please download a copy for your personal use, it will be deleted again in a few days. [[User:Marasmusine|Marasmusine]] ([[User talk:Marasmusine|talk]]) 01:25, 4 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:This is not wikipedia, and you will be blocked if you continue threatening people in this manner. Please do not repeat this behavior. You have been warned :) --[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 05:35, 4 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== "Please sign your comments" ==<br />
<br />
How do you guys do that "preceding post was made by" thing? I've never run across a template for It, and am finding more and more situations where I'd like to credit people's unsigned comments. --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 05:12, 6 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Are you referring to <nowiki>{{unsigned|USERNAME/IP}}</nowiki>? (there's technically an unsigned IP template too, but I never bother with it)--[[User:GamerAim|GamerAim]] [[File:chatmod.png]] ([[User talk:GamerAim|talk]]) 06:57, 6 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::[[:Template:Unsigned]]. Correct usage would be, for example, <nowiki>{{Unsigned|Guy}}</nowiki>. - [[User:Guy|Guy]] ([[User talk:Guy|talk]]) 07:05, 6 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks guys! --''[[user:Kydo|Kydo]] ([[User talk:Kydo|talk]])'' 11:00, 7 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Beserker class (Again!) ==<br />
<br />
Hey, you've been looking and reviewing this class since the beginning so naturally since I've been working on it so it doesn't get deleted I'd like you to look through it and give me your thoughts and suggestions. Thanks, [[User:ConcealedLight|ConcealedLight]] ([[User talk:ConcealedLight|talk]]) 01:19, 7 September 2017 (MDT)<br />
Actually give me like a day...<br />
<br />
== King of Games class ==<br />
<br />
I have made drastic improvements to the class based on your suggestions. I think the mechanics are much smoother but the organization could be better and I still need to add flavor text. If you have the time I would like your expert opinion on the modifications I have made or any clarification issues there still might be.<br />
<br />
== Speedster ==<br />
<br />
I am the one who has been working on fixing the mistakes in the speedster class and I was wondering if you could help me out so it can be used and so it can be balanced. --''[[user:Leo speedstien ] ([[User talk:Leo speedstien ]])''<br />
<br />
== Deleted page - return old text? ==<br />
<br />
Hello,<br />
<br />
I went to one of my old pages to see about doing revisions to update it to Pathfinder RPG. [[Inath (3.5e Variant Rule)]] was 'abandoned' for over a year, but the concepts were still useful. Can it be returned to its prior state? What do I have to do to keep it up for longer without editing it occasionally?</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:3.5e_Homebrew&diff=445876Talk:3.5e Homebrew2010-01-05T04:49:39Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Search results - 'Ego' */ response and comments</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2=Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Namespace? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a nampespace (which would remove the identifiers) for all homebrew items on D&D Wiki? Thoughts on this idea? Also, any good ideas for the name of the namespace? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I keep toggling on this idea whenever I think about it. Does MediaWiki support nested namespaces? Then we could have "3e:" for all 3.x material, the 3e SRD would have the namespace "3e:SRD:", the UA would have the "3e:UA:" namespace, and the user-submitted section could be "3e:User:" or just "3e:". And if you did a search within the "3e" namespace, it would search all the pages with the "3e" parent namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I also keep thinking about this as well, and I have not been able to come up with a perfect solution, although yours would be the ideal one if MediaWiki supported nested namespaces, which I do not think it does... How about one step not as advanced as yours; 3.5e (maybe User: tagged on the end? What are your thoughts on this?) and 3.5eSRD? Also, speaking of namespaces, do you have any good idea for the publications? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:33, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::We could simulate nested namespaces. Does MediaWiki allow a colon as part of the namespace? Then we could still have "3.5e:SRD:" and "3.5:". They just wouldn't have any association with each other&mdash;which is how it is now. If colons aren't allowed, we could just use a hyphen instead "3.5e:" and "3.5-SRD:". No ideas I feel strongly enough for publication namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::We can do that. What are your thoughts on adding a mock identifier (not <tt>(DnD Class)</tt> but rather <tt>(Class)</tt>)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I was going to bring this up soon! Interesting ''':)'''. Maybe we need to think about the purposes of categories, identifiers, and namespaces. I don't know when and where to use each. What is best practice? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:57, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing about the nested namespace idea is that MediaWiki might identify "3.5e:SRD:Some Page" as the page "SRD:Some Page" in the "3.5e" namespace instead of "Some Page" in the "3.5e:SRD" namespace. We should find out before hand whether or not MediaWiki is "greedy" with identifying namespaces.<br />
::::::Identifiers exist to make a distinction between a term's two or more separate connotations, such as the feat [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Feat)|Psionic Fist]] and the prestige class [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Prestige Class)|psionic fist]]. Category vs namespace I have a harder time pinning down when one should be used over the other. Should probably research it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Okay, where does this go? ==<br />
<br />
I know some, for want of a better word, articles are. They've been stated repeatedly to be open-game content by the writers, and encompass mechanics, flavor, rule tweaks, base classes, and PrCs. Where should they go, or do we make a section for articles like them? {{unsigned|Genowhirl}}<br />
:They probably go in [[3.5e Other|Other]]. {{User:OptimizationFanatic/Signature}} 17:52, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Search Problems ==<br />
<br />
The search function doesn't work. When I type in even the most basic word, it says that it cannot find any page related to it, and I've tried words as simple as "magic." [[User:Noname|Noname]] 21:32, 18 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Below the search results (none), there is a Google search box. Use that for now. --[[User:Axaj|Axaj]] 08:26, 18 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Names? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a link to help people think of names, such as names for towns, NPCs, etc.?<br />
It could be organized into towns, worlds, continents, and characters. The geographical places could be organized by climate and overall alignment, for example, an evil desert town. The character names could be done by race, class, and alignment.<br />
<br />
[[User:68.55.33.112|68.55.33.112]] 08:11, 15 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Templates?==<br />
<br />
Where would I place a template? In the Races section? — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 12:50, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Templates are totally under the [[DnD Creatures]] heading and then onto [[3.5e Creature Templates]]. Though, yeah I often want to look for them amongst the [[3.5e Races]]. Perhaps a link to templates on that page would be handy. (I'd do it, but I'm not sure on the policy of editing those pages, plus, I checked the formatting there, and it frightens me). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 13:19, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 17:56, 3 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Add A New Page ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine]] and I want to add the [[Special:AddPage]] link to this page. What is the protocol for doing so? Also, the drop down menu on [[Special:AddPage]], how can we get the coding for that somehow? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 17:09, 2 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not completely sure, however I think that the dropdown menu is only their because of SMW. The question is: Do we want to consider preloads or forms standard? I feel that preloads grant a lot more freedom of editing, make it so people learn wiki-code, etc, but also leave a large margin of error. Thinking about it more (I know I said otherwise on [[Discussion:Flaw Addition Page is Bad]]) I feel that preloads are a better option. If we could figure out a way to make it so we could have a dropdown selection for preloads (and not just forms) then I agree - this would make a great addition to this page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:49, 4 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== DPL? ==<br />
<br />
Why in the name of all that is holy is this page made with DPL? It has things added to it so infrequently, and it is so small, that it is totally pointless. Also, as TK has pointed out with a practical demonstration, it allows easy vandalism of this page, just by adding a category to another page. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I see no reason to keep it as DPL -- I don't really think this matter requires consensus... Someone can just revert it if there is a strong disagreement. Getting started on the change now. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:18, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Done. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:35, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Name ==<br />
<br />
This page is just titled Dungeons and Dragons, and the corresponding fourth edition page is titled '4e Homebrew.' Should we change this page to "3.5e Homebrew" and perhaps have the "Dungeons and Dragons" page be an actual page about D&D in general, ala wikipedia? Or perhaps a disambiguation page that links to each edition's SRD/Homebrew? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 08:33, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ya, or do you think something like "3.5e User Submitted Content" would be better? Of course we have to wait for the double redirects. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:18, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Nah, just "3.5e Homebrew" would be fine, no need to break established convention. But yes, such a huge change should probably wait for now. Also, what's been going on with the site? It was down for most of the day, and now it keeps coming up and going down again... --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:22, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::User Submitted Content is more correct though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I say stick with "3.5 Homebrew" - most people know what you mean. Any input that would make you think otherwise? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:16, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Either way you think GD. I agree that Homebrew is specific, but also User Submitted may be more accurate - as some of the stuff - especially those articles found in the "Other" category may not qualify as "homebrew" as they may not be game-specific. If done I can clear out the double redirects using WhatLinksHere pretty easily, if someone just makes sure to MOI me so I don't miss it. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 15:20, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Alright. When one has time please feel free to fix some breadcrumbs, links, preloads, etc. It's going to look very messy for a bit. If one has time please help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Spell Points? ==<br />
<br />
Okay, I remember there being a page around here somewhere for a variant spellcasting option that used spell points in a similar way that psionics does. However, I can't seem to find this article back no matter what I do.<br />
<br />
Also, I think th search feature on this site is broken, because out of all the times I've used it, it may have gone to the exact page I was looking for twice. Maybe. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|19:25, 20 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:If looking for exact names please keep in mind that pages have an identifying tag present (e.g. "''(3.5e Class)''") which, when trying to pop up with a certain page, should be searched for as well. Additionally keep in mind that pages are sorted; so a certain unpopular page you are looking for may not show up first in the list as such. Although search works fine &mdash; it is not down. Also I have no idea what you are talking about with spell points &mdash; sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:22, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::In 3.5e [[UA:Spell Points|spell points]] are in [[Unearthed Arcana]]. --[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 22:15, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::OK, I guess I didn't explain that too well. What I meant was that most wikis have redirect pages for situations like this. For example, when you type in zimmy on wikipedia it takes you to the Bob Dylan page. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|20:47, 21 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::Right. Each page having it's own redirect page is worthless and pointless work and makes the overall page architecture unorganized and messy. It's better to just utilize the search tool. Of course, however and to note, we use disambiguation pages to the fullest. E.g. [[Player's Handbook]], [[Necromancer]], [[Living Dead]], etc. [[:Category:Disambiguation]]. Many SRD pages have a redirect which change to disambiguation pages with other editions or related things. If you know of any pages which require a disambiguation please set them up accordingly &mdash; it helps tremendously. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:02, 21 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Search results - 'Ego' ==<br />
I was doing a search for these keywords, to see where my own homebrew idea for 'Ego Rolls' would come up after the SRD pages for Item Ego, and I got neither any results for Ego or Ego Roll, and only after entering the Intelligent Item keywords did I even see the [[SRD:Intelligent Items|SRD page for Itelligent Items]] in the results. I got many searches that came back with No Results. The following keywords were searched with minimal results. Is there any way to make these pages more accessible for a search using the integrated page feature in the left hand sidebar? Can keywords be placed, or in some way make the search more apt to find results like this?<br />
<br />
:* Ego<br />
:* Item Ego<br />
:* Ego Power<br />
:* Ego Force<br />
:* Ego Roll<br />
:* SRD Ego<br />
:* SRD: Ego<br />
:* Ego Dominance<br />
:* Intelligent Item Ego<br />
<br />
I finally got results on the last keyword search, and even in that, it did not come at the top of the results. ??? Is there is a solution to this?<br />
<br />
At some point, I am going generate descriptive text for '[[Ego (Inath Roll)|Ego Roll]]' that will in many ways be equivalent to the text for Item Ego - it would be nice to have the two pages easily reached in a search for 'Ego', 'Item Ego', 'Ego Roll', 'Ego Dominance', etc. Is that possible? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:40, 17 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Oh... The search does not work with words three letters or less. I'll see if that can be changed (D&D Wiki uses [http://lucene.apache.org/ lucene search] so maybe the code can be changed to make it work). I'll see. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 07:56, 18 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Got it. Let me know what eventually happens here. I am looking to make my pages more efficient, finalized, and clean (including while searching for them). I am also interested to know how it is that an SRD page on Intelligent Items did not come up as the primary result in a search for 'Intelligent Item'. That is a strange quirk that I found while checking on this issue. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:31, 18 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Actually we don't use lucene search anymore. I got that wrong. I guess it was acting up a bit ago and, although I forgot I did, I asked someone to change it back to the MediaWiki one so that is the current one currently in use. I could get it to be in use again if we want. So I guess it is the MediaWiki one which does not search for words three words or less. I'll see what I can do to make it work with words of any size (maybe something like [[Special:Prefixindex]] could be implemented &mdash; that works with words of all sizes). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 19 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Great - if that will work, then I am all for it. I just think it's funny that an SRD item cannot be searched for, and my own homebrew item is just a variant from that... So I wondered what the deal was. It's interesting that the search has those kind of limitations on it. Merry Christmas, GD. ''';)''' -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:03, 25 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Happy winter holidays to you as well! Anyway Sphinx search has been implemented and that works with words of three characters so you can search for it now. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 03:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:::::::I did this, and saw that my own page comes up after another homebrew page for "Ego", and Inath and Intelligent Item material comes up in the first page of results. I made some comments on the other person's Ego page about reviewing and balancing that system, although I am not even sure of the author's username yet. I also made on a comment on the main Inath page about if it needs to be changed / redirected to (3.5 Variant Rule) segment...? Hopefully 2010 is a year for productivity, prosperity, and harmonious balance for all - including D&D Wiki. ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 04:49, 5 January 2010 (UTC)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:3.5e_Homebrew&diff=437632Talk:3.5e Homebrew2009-12-25T10:03:00Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Search results - 'Ego' */ reply</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2=Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Namespace? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a nampespace (which would remove the identifiers) for all homebrew items on D&D Wiki? Thoughts on this idea? Also, any good ideas for the name of the namespace? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I keep toggling on this idea whenever I think about it. Does MediaWiki support nested namespaces? Then we could have "3e:" for all 3.x material, the 3e SRD would have the namespace "3e:SRD:", the UA would have the "3e:UA:" namespace, and the user-submitted section could be "3e:User:" or just "3e:". And if you did a search within the "3e" namespace, it would search all the pages with the "3e" parent namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I also keep thinking about this as well, and I have not been able to come up with a perfect solution, although yours would be the ideal one if MediaWiki supported nested namespaces, which I do not think it does... How about one step not as advanced as yours; 3.5e (maybe User: tagged on the end? What are your thoughts on this?) and 3.5eSRD? Also, speaking of namespaces, do you have any good idea for the publications? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:33, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::We could simulate nested namespaces. Does MediaWiki allow a colon as part of the namespace? Then we could still have "3.5e:SRD:" and "3.5:". They just wouldn't have any association with each other&mdash;which is how it is now. If colons aren't allowed, we could just use a hyphen instead "3.5e:" and "3.5-SRD:". No ideas I feel strongly enough for publication namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::We can do that. What are your thoughts on adding a mock identifier (not <tt>(DnD Class)</tt> but rather <tt>(Class)</tt>)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I was going to bring this up soon! Interesting ''':)'''. Maybe we need to think about the purposes of categories, identifiers, and namespaces. I don't know when and where to use each. What is best practice? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:57, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing about the nested namespace idea is that MediaWiki might identify "3.5e:SRD:Some Page" as the page "SRD:Some Page" in the "3.5e" namespace instead of "Some Page" in the "3.5e:SRD" namespace. We should find out before hand whether or not MediaWiki is "greedy" with identifying namespaces.<br />
::::::Identifiers exist to make a distinction between a term's two or more separate connotations, such as the feat [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Feat)|Psionic Fist]] and the prestige class [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Prestige Class)|psionic fist]]. Category vs namespace I have a harder time pinning down when one should be used over the other. Should probably research it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Okay, where does this go? ==<br />
<br />
I know some, for want of a better word, articles are. They've been stated repeatedly to be open-game content by the writers, and encompass mechanics, flavor, rule tweaks, base classes, and PrCs. Where should they go, or do we make a section for articles like them? {{unsigned|Genowhirl}}<br />
:They probably go in [[3.5e Other|Other]]. {{User:OptimizationFanatic/Signature}} 17:52, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Search Problems ==<br />
<br />
The search function doesn't work. When I type in even the most basic word, it says that it cannot find any page related to it, and I've tried words as simple as "magic." [[User:Noname|Noname]] 21:32, 18 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Below the search results (none), there is a Google search box. Use that for now. --[[User:Axaj|Axaj]] 08:26, 18 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Names? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a link to help people think of names, such as names for towns, NPCs, etc.?<br />
It could be organized into towns, worlds, continents, and characters. The geographical places could be organized by climate and overall alignment, for example, an evil desert town. The character names could be done by race, class, and alignment.<br />
<br />
[[User:68.55.33.112|68.55.33.112]] 08:11, 15 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Templates?==<br />
<br />
Where would I place a template? In the Races section? — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 12:50, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Templates are totally under the [[DnD Creatures]] heading and then onto [[3.5e Creature Templates]]. Though, yeah I often want to look for them amongst the [[3.5e Races]]. Perhaps a link to templates on that page would be handy. (I'd do it, but I'm not sure on the policy of editing those pages, plus, I checked the formatting there, and it frightens me). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 13:19, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 17:56, 3 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Add A New Page ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine]] and I want to add the [[Special:AddPage]] link to this page. What is the protocol for doing so? Also, the drop down menu on [[Special:AddPage]], how can we get the coding for that somehow? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 17:09, 2 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not completely sure, however I think that the dropdown menu is only their because of SMW. The question is: Do we want to consider preloads or forms standard? I feel that preloads grant a lot more freedom of editing, make it so people learn wiki-code, etc, but also leave a large margin of error. Thinking about it more (I know I said otherwise on [[Discussion:Flaw Addition Page is Bad]]) I feel that preloads are a better option. If we could figure out a way to make it so we could have a dropdown selection for preloads (and not just forms) then I agree - this would make a great addition to this page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:49, 4 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== DPL? ==<br />
<br />
Why in the name of all that is holy is this page made with DPL? It has things added to it so infrequently, and it is so small, that it is totally pointless. Also, as TK has pointed out with a practical demonstration, it allows easy vandalism of this page, just by adding a category to another page. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I see no reason to keep it as DPL -- I don't really think this matter requires consensus... Someone can just revert it if there is a strong disagreement. Getting started on the change now. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:18, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Done. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:35, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Name ==<br />
<br />
This page is just titled Dungeons and Dragons, and the corresponding fourth edition page is titled '4e Homebrew.' Should we change this page to "3.5e Homebrew" and perhaps have the "Dungeons and Dragons" page be an actual page about D&D in general, ala wikipedia? Or perhaps a disambiguation page that links to each edition's SRD/Homebrew? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 08:33, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ya, or do you think something like "3.5e User Submitted Content" would be better? Of course we have to wait for the double redirects. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:18, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Nah, just "3.5e Homebrew" would be fine, no need to break established convention. But yes, such a huge change should probably wait for now. Also, what's been going on with the site? It was down for most of the day, and now it keeps coming up and going down again... --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:22, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::User Submitted Content is more correct though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I say stick with "3.5 Homebrew" - most people know what you mean. Any input that would make you think otherwise? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:16, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Either way you think GD. I agree that Homebrew is specific, but also User Submitted may be more accurate - as some of the stuff - especially those articles found in the "Other" category may not qualify as "homebrew" as they may not be game-specific. If done I can clear out the double redirects using WhatLinksHere pretty easily, if someone just makes sure to MOI me so I don't miss it. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 15:20, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Alright. When one has time please feel free to fix some breadcrumbs, links, preloads, etc. It's going to look very messy for a bit. If one has time please help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Spell Points? ==<br />
<br />
Okay, I remember there being a page around here somewhere for a variant spellcasting option that used spell points in a similar way that psionics does. However, I can't seem to find this article back no matter what I do.<br />
<br />
Also, I think th search feature on this site is broken, because out of all the times I've used it, it may have gone to the exact page I was looking for twice. Maybe. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|19:25, 20 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:If looking for exact names please keep in mind that pages have an identifying tag present (e.g. "''(3.5e Class)''") which, when trying to pop up with a certain page, should be searched for as well. Additionally keep in mind that pages are sorted; so a certain unpopular page you are looking for may not show up first in the list as such. Although search works fine &mdash; it is not down. Also I have no idea what you are talking about with spell points &mdash; sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:22, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::In 3.5e [[UA:Spell Points|spell points]] are in [[Unearthed Arcana]]. --[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 22:15, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::OK, I guess I didn't explain that too well. What I meant was that most wikis have redirect pages for situations like this. For example, when you type in zimmy on wikipedia it takes you to the Bob Dylan page. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|20:47, 21 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::Right. Each page having it's own redirect page is worthless and pointless work and makes the overall page architecture unorganized and messy. It's better to just utilize the search tool. Of course, however and to note, we use disambiguation pages to the fullest. E.g. [[Player's Handbook]], [[Necromancer]], [[Living Dead]], etc. [[:Category:Disambiguation]]. Many SRD pages have a redirect which change to disambiguation pages with other editions or related things. If you know of any pages which require a disambiguation please set them up accordingly &mdash; it helps tremendously. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:02, 21 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Search results - 'Ego' ==<br />
I was doing a search for these keywords, to see where my own homebrew idea for 'Ego Rolls' would come up after the SRD pages for Item Ego, and I got neither any results for Ego or Ego Roll, and only after entering the Intelligent Item keywords did I even see the [[SRD:Intelligent Items|SRD page for Itelligent Items]] in the results. I got many searches that came back with No Results. The following keywords were searched with minimal results. Is there any way to make these pages more accessible for a search using the integrated page feature in the left hand sidebar? Can keywords be placed, or in some way make the search more apt to find results like this?<br />
<br />
:* Ego<br />
:* Item Ego<br />
:* Ego Power<br />
:* Ego Force<br />
:* Ego Roll<br />
:* SRD Ego<br />
:* SRD: Ego<br />
:* Ego Dominance<br />
:* Intelligent Item Ego<br />
<br />
I finally got results on the last keyword search, and even in that, it did not come at the top of the results. ??? Is there is a solution to this?<br />
<br />
At some point, I am going generate descriptive text for '[[Ego (Inath Roll)|Ego Roll]]' that will in many ways be equivalent to the text for Item Ego - it would be nice to have the two pages easily reached in a search for 'Ego', 'Item Ego', 'Ego Roll', 'Ego Dominance', etc. Is that possible? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:40, 17 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Oh... The search does not work with words three letters or less. I'll see if that can be changed (D&D Wiki uses [http://lucene.apache.org/ lucene search] so maybe the code can be changed to make it work). I'll see. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 07:56, 18 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Got it. Let me know what eventually happens here. I am looking to make my pages more efficient, finalized, and clean (including while searching for them). I am also interested to know how it is that an SRD page on Intelligent Items did not come up as the primary result in a search for 'Intelligent Item'. That is a strange quirk that I found while checking on this issue. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:31, 18 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Actually we don't use lucene search anymore. I got that wrong. I guess it was acting up a bit ago and, although I forgot I did, I asked someone to change it back to the MediaWiki one so that is the current one currently in use. I could get it to be in use again if we want. So I guess it is the MediaWiki one which does not search for words three words or less. I'll see what I can do to make it work with words of any size (maybe something like [[Special:Prefixindex]] could be implemented &mdash; that works with words of all sizes). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 19 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Great - if that will work, then I am all for it. I just think it's funny that an SRD item cannot be searched for, and my own homebrew item is just a variant from that... So I wondered what the deal was. It's interesting that the search has those kind of limitations on it. Merry Christmas, GD. ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:03, 25 December 2009 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:3.5e_Homebrew&diff=429914Talk:3.5e Homebrew2009-12-19T05:31:50Z<p>Xidoraven: moved my comment and responses to a new category</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2=Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Namespace? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a nampespace (which would remove the identifiers) for all homebrew items on D&D Wiki? Thoughts on this idea? Also, any good ideas for the name of the namespace? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I keep toggling on this idea whenever I think about it. Does MediaWiki support nested namespaces? Then we could have "3e:" for all 3.x material, the 3e SRD would have the namespace "3e:SRD:", the UA would have the "3e:UA:" namespace, and the user-submitted section could be "3e:User:" or just "3e:". And if you did a search within the "3e" namespace, it would search all the pages with the "3e" parent namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I also keep thinking about this as well, and I have not been able to come up with a perfect solution, although yours would be the ideal one if MediaWiki supported nested namespaces, which I do not think it does... How about one step not as advanced as yours; 3.5e (maybe User: tagged on the end? What are your thoughts on this?) and 3.5eSRD? Also, speaking of namespaces, do you have any good idea for the publications? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:33, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::We could simulate nested namespaces. Does MediaWiki allow a colon as part of the namespace? Then we could still have "3.5e:SRD:" and "3.5:". They just wouldn't have any association with each other&mdash;which is how it is now. If colons aren't allowed, we could just use a hyphen instead "3.5e:" and "3.5-SRD:". No ideas I feel strongly enough for publication namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::We can do that. What are your thoughts on adding a mock identifier (not <tt>(DnD Class)</tt> but rather <tt>(Class)</tt>)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I was going to bring this up soon! Interesting ''':)'''. Maybe we need to think about the purposes of categories, identifiers, and namespaces. I don't know when and where to use each. What is best practice? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:57, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing about the nested namespace idea is that MediaWiki might identify "3.5e:SRD:Some Page" as the page "SRD:Some Page" in the "3.5e" namespace instead of "Some Page" in the "3.5e:SRD" namespace. We should find out before hand whether or not MediaWiki is "greedy" with identifying namespaces.<br />
::::::Identifiers exist to make a distinction between a term's two or more separate connotations, such as the feat [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Feat)|Psionic Fist]] and the prestige class [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Prestige Class)|psionic fist]]. Category vs namespace I have a harder time pinning down when one should be used over the other. Should probably research it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Okay, where does this go? ==<br />
<br />
I know some, for want of a better word, articles are. They've been stated repeatedly to be open-game content by the writers, and encompass mechanics, flavor, rule tweaks, base classes, and PrCs. Where should they go, or do we make a section for articles like them? {{unsigned|Genowhirl}}<br />
:They probably go in [[3.5e Other|Other]]. {{User:OptimizationFanatic/Signature}} 17:52, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Search Problems ==<br />
<br />
The search function doesn't work. When I type in even the most basic word, it says that it cannot find any page related to it, and I've tried words as simple as "magic." [[User:Noname|Noname]] 21:32, 18 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Below the search results (none), there is a Google search box. Use that for now. --[[User:Axaj|Axaj]] 08:26, 18 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Names? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a link to help people think of names, such as names for towns, NPCs, etc.?<br />
It could be organized into towns, worlds, continents, and characters. The geographical places could be organized by climate and overall alignment, for example, an evil desert town. The character names could be done by race, class, and alignment.<br />
<br />
[[User:68.55.33.112|68.55.33.112]] 08:11, 15 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Templates?==<br />
<br />
Where would I place a template? In the Races section? — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 12:50, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Templates are totally under the [[DnD Creatures]] heading and then onto [[3.5e Creature Templates]]. Though, yeah I often want to look for them amongst the [[3.5e Races]]. Perhaps a link to templates on that page would be handy. (I'd do it, but I'm not sure on the policy of editing those pages, plus, I checked the formatting there, and it frightens me). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 13:19, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 17:56, 3 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Add A New Page ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine]] and I want to add the [[Special:AddPage]] link to this page. What is the protocol for doing so? Also, the drop down menu on [[Special:AddPage]], how can we get the coding for that somehow? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 17:09, 2 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not completely sure, however I think that the dropdown menu is only their because of SMW. The question is: Do we want to consider preloads or forms standard? I feel that preloads grant a lot more freedom of editing, make it so people learn wiki-code, etc, but also leave a large margin of error. Thinking about it more (I know I said otherwise on [[Discussion:Flaw Addition Page is Bad]]) I feel that preloads are a better option. If we could figure out a way to make it so we could have a dropdown selection for preloads (and not just forms) then I agree - this would make a great addition to this page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:49, 4 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== DPL? ==<br />
<br />
Why in the name of all that is holy is this page made with DPL? It has things added to it so infrequently, and it is so small, that it is totally pointless. Also, as TK has pointed out with a practical demonstration, it allows easy vandalism of this page, just by adding a category to another page. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I see no reason to keep it as DPL -- I don't really think this matter requires consensus... Someone can just revert it if there is a strong disagreement. Getting started on the change now. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:18, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Done. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:35, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Name ==<br />
<br />
This page is just titled Dungeons and Dragons, and the corresponding fourth edition page is titled '4e Homebrew.' Should we change this page to "3.5e Homebrew" and perhaps have the "Dungeons and Dragons" page be an actual page about D&D in general, ala wikipedia? Or perhaps a disambiguation page that links to each edition's SRD/Homebrew? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 08:33, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ya, or do you think something like "3.5e User Submitted Content" would be better? Of course we have to wait for the double redirects. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:18, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Nah, just "3.5e Homebrew" would be fine, no need to break established convention. But yes, such a huge change should probably wait for now. Also, what's been going on with the site? It was down for most of the day, and now it keeps coming up and going down again... --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:22, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::User Submitted Content is more correct though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I say stick with "3.5 Homebrew" - most people know what you mean. Any input that would make you think otherwise? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:16, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Either way you think GD. I agree that Homebrew is specific, but also User Submitted may be more accurate - as some of the stuff - especially those articles found in the "Other" category may not qualify as "homebrew" as they may not be game-specific. If done I can clear out the double redirects using WhatLinksHere pretty easily, if someone just makes sure to MOI me so I don't miss it. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 15:20, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Alright. When one has time please feel free to fix some breadcrumbs, links, preloads, etc. It's going to look very messy for a bit. If one has time please help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Spell Points? ==<br />
<br />
Okay, I remember there being a page around here somewhere for a variant spellcasting option that used spell points in a similar way that psionics does. However, I can't seem to find this article back no matter what I do.<br />
<br />
Also, I think th search feature on this site is broken, because out of all the times I've used it, it may have gone to the exact page I was looking for twice. Maybe. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|19:25, 20 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:If looking for exact names please keep in mind that pages have an identifying tag present (e.g. "''(3.5e Class)''") which, when trying to pop up with a certain page, should be searched for as well. Additionally keep in mind that pages are sorted; so a certain unpopular page you are looking for may not show up first in the list as such. Although search works fine &mdash; it is not down. Also I have no idea what you are talking about with spell points &mdash; sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:22, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::In 3.5e [[UA:Spell Points|spell points]] are in [[Unearthed Arcana]]. --[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 22:15, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::OK, I guess I didn't explain that too well. What I meant was that most wikis have redirect pages for situations like this. For example, when you type in zimmy on wikipedia it takes you to the Bob Dylan page. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|20:47, 21 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::Right. Each page having it's own redirect page is worthless and pointless work and makes the overall page architecture unorganized and messy. It's better to just utilize the search tool. Of course, however and to note, we use disambiguation pages to the fullest. E.g. [[Player's Handbook]], [[Necromancer]], [[Living Dead]], etc. [[:Category:Disambiguation]]. Many SRD pages have a redirect which change to disambiguation pages with other editions or related things. If you know of any pages which require a disambiguation please set them up accordingly &mdash; it helps tremendously. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:02, 21 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Search results - 'Ego' ==<br />
I was doing a search for these keywords, to see where my own homebrew idea for 'Ego Rolls' would come up after the SRD pages for Item Ego, and I got neither any results for Ego or Ego Roll, and only after entering the Intelligent Item keywords did I even see the [[SRD:Intelligent Items|SRD page for Itelligent Items]] in the results. I got many searches that came back with No Results. The following keywords were searched with minimal results. Is there any way to make these pages more accessible for a search using the integrated page feature in the left hand sidebar? Can keywords be placed, or in some way make the search more apt to find results like this?<br />
<br />
:* Ego<br />
:* Item Ego<br />
:* Ego Power<br />
:* Ego Force<br />
:* Ego Roll<br />
:* SRD Ego<br />
:* SRD: Ego<br />
:* Ego Dominance<br />
:* Intelligent Item Ego<br />
<br />
I finally got results on the last keyword search, and even in that, it did not come at the top of the results. ??? Is there is a solution to this?<br />
<br />
At some point, I am going generate descriptive text for '[[Ego (Inath Roll)|Ego Roll]]' that will in many ways be equivalent to the text for Item Ego - it would be nice to have the two pages easily reached in a search for 'Ego', 'Item Ego', 'Ego Roll', 'Ego Dominance', etc. Is that possible? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:40, 17 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Oh... The search does not work with words three letters or less. I'll see if that can be changed (D&D Wiki uses [http://lucene.apache.org/ lucene search] so maybe the code can be changed to make it work). I'll see. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 07:56, 18 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Got it. Let me know what eventually happens here. I am looking to make my pages more efficient, finalized, and clean (including while searching for them). I am also interested to know how it is that an SRD page on Intelligent Items did not come up as the primary result in a search for 'Intelligent Item'. That is a strange quirk that I found while checking on this issue. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:31, 18 December 2009 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:3.5e_Homebrew&diff=429912Talk:3.5e Homebrew2009-12-19T05:25:38Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Spell Points? */ moving content to new category</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2=Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Namespace? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a nampespace (which would remove the identifiers) for all homebrew items on D&D Wiki? Thoughts on this idea? Also, any good ideas for the name of the namespace? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I keep toggling on this idea whenever I think about it. Does MediaWiki support nested namespaces? Then we could have "3e:" for all 3.x material, the 3e SRD would have the namespace "3e:SRD:", the UA would have the "3e:UA:" namespace, and the user-submitted section could be "3e:User:" or just "3e:". And if you did a search within the "3e" namespace, it would search all the pages with the "3e" parent namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I also keep thinking about this as well, and I have not been able to come up with a perfect solution, although yours would be the ideal one if MediaWiki supported nested namespaces, which I do not think it does... How about one step not as advanced as yours; 3.5e (maybe User: tagged on the end? What are your thoughts on this?) and 3.5eSRD? Also, speaking of namespaces, do you have any good idea for the publications? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:33, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::We could simulate nested namespaces. Does MediaWiki allow a colon as part of the namespace? Then we could still have "3.5e:SRD:" and "3.5:". They just wouldn't have any association with each other&mdash;which is how it is now. If colons aren't allowed, we could just use a hyphen instead "3.5e:" and "3.5-SRD:". No ideas I feel strongly enough for publication namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::We can do that. What are your thoughts on adding a mock identifier (not <tt>(DnD Class)</tt> but rather <tt>(Class)</tt>)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I was going to bring this up soon! Interesting ''':)'''. Maybe we need to think about the purposes of categories, identifiers, and namespaces. I don't know when and where to use each. What is best practice? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:57, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing about the nested namespace idea is that MediaWiki might identify "3.5e:SRD:Some Page" as the page "SRD:Some Page" in the "3.5e" namespace instead of "Some Page" in the "3.5e:SRD" namespace. We should find out before hand whether or not MediaWiki is "greedy" with identifying namespaces.<br />
::::::Identifiers exist to make a distinction between a term's two or more separate connotations, such as the feat [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Feat)|Psionic Fist]] and the prestige class [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Prestige Class)|psionic fist]]. Category vs namespace I have a harder time pinning down when one should be used over the other. Should probably research it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Okay, where does this go? ==<br />
<br />
I know some, for want of a better word, articles are. They've been stated repeatedly to be open-game content by the writers, and encompass mechanics, flavor, rule tweaks, base classes, and PrCs. Where should they go, or do we make a section for articles like them? {{unsigned|Genowhirl}}<br />
:They probably go in [[3.5e Other|Other]]. {{User:OptimizationFanatic/Signature}} 17:52, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Search Problems ==<br />
<br />
The search function doesn't work. When I type in even the most basic word, it says that it cannot find any page related to it, and I've tried words as simple as "magic." [[User:Noname|Noname]] 21:32, 18 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Below the search results (none), there is a Google search box. Use that for now. --[[User:Axaj|Axaj]] 08:26, 18 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Names? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a link to help people think of names, such as names for towns, NPCs, etc.?<br />
It could be organized into towns, worlds, continents, and characters. The geographical places could be organized by climate and overall alignment, for example, an evil desert town. The character names could be done by race, class, and alignment.<br />
<br />
[[User:68.55.33.112|68.55.33.112]] 08:11, 15 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Templates?==<br />
<br />
Where would I place a template? In the Races section? — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 12:50, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Templates are totally under the [[DnD Creatures]] heading and then onto [[3.5e Creature Templates]]. Though, yeah I often want to look for them amongst the [[3.5e Races]]. Perhaps a link to templates on that page would be handy. (I'd do it, but I'm not sure on the policy of editing those pages, plus, I checked the formatting there, and it frightens me). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 13:19, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 17:56, 3 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Add A New Page ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine]] and I want to add the [[Special:AddPage]] link to this page. What is the protocol for doing so? Also, the drop down menu on [[Special:AddPage]], how can we get the coding for that somehow? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 17:09, 2 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not completely sure, however I think that the dropdown menu is only their because of SMW. The question is: Do we want to consider preloads or forms standard? I feel that preloads grant a lot more freedom of editing, make it so people learn wiki-code, etc, but also leave a large margin of error. Thinking about it more (I know I said otherwise on [[Discussion:Flaw Addition Page is Bad]]) I feel that preloads are a better option. If we could figure out a way to make it so we could have a dropdown selection for preloads (and not just forms) then I agree - this would make a great addition to this page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:49, 4 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== DPL? ==<br />
<br />
Why in the name of all that is holy is this page made with DPL? It has things added to it so infrequently, and it is so small, that it is totally pointless. Also, as TK has pointed out with a practical demonstration, it allows easy vandalism of this page, just by adding a category to another page. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I see no reason to keep it as DPL -- I don't really think this matter requires consensus... Someone can just revert it if there is a strong disagreement. Getting started on the change now. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:18, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Done. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:35, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Name ==<br />
<br />
This page is just titled Dungeons and Dragons, and the corresponding fourth edition page is titled '4e Homebrew.' Should we change this page to "3.5e Homebrew" and perhaps have the "Dungeons and Dragons" page be an actual page about D&D in general, ala wikipedia? Or perhaps a disambiguation page that links to each edition's SRD/Homebrew? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 08:33, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ya, or do you think something like "3.5e User Submitted Content" would be better? Of course we have to wait for the double redirects. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:18, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Nah, just "3.5e Homebrew" would be fine, no need to break established convention. But yes, such a huge change should probably wait for now. Also, what's been going on with the site? It was down for most of the day, and now it keeps coming up and going down again... --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:22, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::User Submitted Content is more correct though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I say stick with "3.5 Homebrew" - most people know what you mean. Any input that would make you think otherwise? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:16, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Either way you think GD. I agree that Homebrew is specific, but also User Submitted may be more accurate - as some of the stuff - especially those articles found in the "Other" category may not qualify as "homebrew" as they may not be game-specific. If done I can clear out the double redirects using WhatLinksHere pretty easily, if someone just makes sure to MOI me so I don't miss it. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 15:20, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Alright. When one has time please feel free to fix some breadcrumbs, links, preloads, etc. It's going to look very messy for a bit. If one has time please help. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Spell Points? ==<br />
<br />
Okay, I remember there being a page around here somewhere for a variant spellcasting option that used spell points in a similar way that psionics does. However, I can't seem to find this article back no matter what I do.<br />
<br />
Also, I think th search feature on this site is broken, because out of all the times I've used it, it may have gone to the exact page I was looking for twice. Maybe. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|19:25, 20 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:If looking for exact names please keep in mind that pages have an identifying tag present (e.g. "''(3.5e Class)''") which, when trying to pop up with a certain page, should be searched for as well. Additionally keep in mind that pages are sorted; so a certain unpopular page you are looking for may not show up first in the list as such. Although search works fine &mdash; it is not down. Also I have no idea what you are talking about with spell points &mdash; sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:22, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::In 3.5e [[UA:Spell Points|spell points]] are in [[Unearthed Arcana]]. --[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 22:15, 20 November 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::OK, I guess I didn't explain that too well. What I meant was that most wikis have redirect pages for situations like this. For example, when you type in zimmy on wikipedia it takes you to the Bob Dylan page. {{Unsigned|205.250.76.241|20:47, 21 November 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::Right. Each page having it's own redirect page is worthless and pointless work and makes the overall page architecture unorganized and messy. It's better to just utilize the search tool. Of course, however and to note, we use disambiguation pages to the fullest. E.g. [[Player's Handbook]], [[Necromancer]], [[Living Dead]], etc. [[:Category:Disambiguation]]. Many SRD pages have a redirect which change to disambiguation pages with other editions or related things. If you know of any pages which require a disambiguation please set them up accordingly &mdash; it helps tremendously. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:02, 21 November 2009 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Mithral&diff=429716SRD Talk:Mithral2009-12-18T03:52:26Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Not quite right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tolkien's original spelling ==<br />
Actually, I'm not sure what happened between Tolkien and WOTC, but "mithril" is how Tolkien spelled it, which makes it not a misspelling. I propose scrapping the current text to say something like:<br />
<br />
"Mithril" is the spelling for the metal from J.R.R. Tolkien's <i>Lord of the Rings.</i> In roleplaying usage, its spelling was changed to "mithral." <with link to mithral page> [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 11:36, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:As much as I love The Lord of the Rings (look at [[J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (DnD Campaign Setting)|this]] for LotR), and think that it should be Mithril, we cannot change it as it is part of the System Refrence Doccument. As for the Tolkien-WOTC thing, WOTC origionally nicked lots of stuff from LOTR (hobbits, balrogs, mithril, ents), but got sued by Tolkien Enterprises for not asking and for (I think) "taking credit" for it. There is, however, a page for mithril in the LotR camaign setting (link provided earlier). --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:56, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
::My bad, Sam -- I swear I added this to the "mithril" page and not to the "mithral" page, yet here it is anyway. Thanks for the explanation regardless. See [[Mithril]] if you want to know what I was talking about. [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 09:32, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Oops ==<br />
Not sure how to move the above text, but it was supposed to end up on the "mithril" page and did not.[[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 11:38, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Not quite right ==<br />
I'm unsure whether this is what previous people were bringing up, but the external link to wikipedia should probably point to "Mithril" considering the article is about the metal and in this case we're not talking about the software company, "Mithral" --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 02:29, 11 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Has this discrepancy been resolved? (UDPATE: it has, but whom can we thank?) :) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:51, 17 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question ==<br />
<br />
If a piece of armor with a speed penalty is made mithril, is it the same speed, or is the speed changed? {{Unsigned|Froggeh|21:13, 4 December 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:The armor counts as one category lighter. So heavy armor is threaded as medium and so yea its faster. --[[User:A.D|A.D]] 06:49, 5 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::The realer answer is yes kinda sorda maybe no. For most characters, going from Heavy to Medium gets them nothing as medium has a speed penalty. Going from medium to light gets rid of the speed penalty. However, if you are a barbarian, the barbarian class feature negates that penalty, so they move as light. So a barbarian in mithril plate still moves faster than a speeding locomotive. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:34, 5 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Either way, your going to be faster ''':P''' Even if its just you being able to run again ''':O'''. --[[User:A.D|A.D]] 11:32, 11 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Pricing Question ==<br />
<br />
A mithral dagger weighs .5 lbs, right (An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals)? So does that mean that a Mithral dagger costs 252 gp? Mithral is inherently masterwork. Is it cheaper to buy a mithral dagger than a masterwork one? That hardly seems right. Of course mithral goods are only limitedly available in most campaigns, so there's that, but still... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:25, 11 December 2009 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Mithral&diff=429715SRD Talk:Mithral2009-12-18T03:51:39Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Not quite right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tolkien's original spelling ==<br />
Actually, I'm not sure what happened between Tolkien and WOTC, but "mithril" is how Tolkien spelled it, which makes it not a misspelling. I propose scrapping the current text to say something like:<br />
<br />
"Mithril" is the spelling for the metal from J.R.R. Tolkien's <i>Lord of the Rings.</i> In roleplaying usage, its spelling was changed to "mithral." <with link to mithral page> [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 11:36, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:As much as I love The Lord of the Rings (look at [[J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (DnD Campaign Setting)|this]] for LotR), and think that it should be Mithril, we cannot change it as it is part of the System Refrence Doccument. As for the Tolkien-WOTC thing, WOTC origionally nicked lots of stuff from LOTR (hobbits, balrogs, mithril, ents), but got sued by Tolkien Enterprises for not asking and for (I think) "taking credit" for it. There is, however, a page for mithril in the LotR camaign setting (link provided earlier). --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:56, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
::My bad, Sam -- I swear I added this to the "mithril" page and not to the "mithral" page, yet here it is anyway. Thanks for the explanation regardless. See [[Mithril]] if you want to know what I was talking about. [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 09:32, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Oops ==<br />
Not sure how to move the above text, but it was supposed to end up on the "mithril" page and did not.[[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 11:38, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Not quite right ==<br />
I'm unsure whether this is what previous people were bringing up, but the external link to wikipedia should probably point to "Mithril" considering the article is about the metal and in this case we're not talking about the software company, "Mithral" --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 02:29, 11 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Has this discrepancy been resolved? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:51, 17 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question ==<br />
<br />
If a piece of armor with a speed penalty is made mithril, is it the same speed, or is the speed changed? {{Unsigned|Froggeh|21:13, 4 December 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:The armor counts as one category lighter. So heavy armor is threaded as medium and so yea its faster. --[[User:A.D|A.D]] 06:49, 5 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::The realer answer is yes kinda sorda maybe no. For most characters, going from Heavy to Medium gets them nothing as medium has a speed penalty. Going from medium to light gets rid of the speed penalty. However, if you are a barbarian, the barbarian class feature negates that penalty, so they move as light. So a barbarian in mithril plate still moves faster than a speeding locomotive. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:34, 5 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Either way, your going to be faster ''':P''' Even if its just you being able to run again ''':O'''. --[[User:A.D|A.D]] 11:32, 11 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Pricing Question ==<br />
<br />
A mithral dagger weighs .5 lbs, right (An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals)? So does that mean that a Mithral dagger costs 252 gp? Mithral is inherently masterwork. Is it cheaper to buy a mithral dagger than a masterwork one? That hardly seems right. Of course mithral goods are only limitedly available in most campaigns, so there's that, but still... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:25, 11 December 2009 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Mithral&diff=429714SRD Talk:Mithral2009-12-18T03:51:03Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Not quite right */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tolkien's original spelling ==<br />
Actually, I'm not sure what happened between Tolkien and WOTC, but "mithril" is how Tolkien spelled it, which makes it not a misspelling. I propose scrapping the current text to say something like:<br />
<br />
"Mithril" is the spelling for the metal from J.R.R. Tolkien's <i>Lord of the Rings.</i> In roleplaying usage, its spelling was changed to "mithral." <with link to mithral page> [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 11:36, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:As much as I love The Lord of the Rings (look at [[J.R.R. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings (DnD Campaign Setting)|this]] for LotR), and think that it should be Mithril, we cannot change it as it is part of the System Refrence Doccument. As for the Tolkien-WOTC thing, WOTC origionally nicked lots of stuff from LOTR (hobbits, balrogs, mithril, ents), but got sued by Tolkien Enterprises for not asking and for (I think) "taking credit" for it. There is, however, a page for mithril in the LotR camaign setting (link provided earlier). --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:56, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
::My bad, Sam -- I swear I added this to the "mithril" page and not to the "mithral" page, yet here it is anyway. Thanks for the explanation regardless. See [[Mithril]] if you want to know what I was talking about. [[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 09:32, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Oops ==<br />
Not sure how to move the above text, but it was supposed to end up on the "mithril" page and did not.[[User:Macduffman|Macduffman]] 11:38, 9 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Not quite right ==<br />
I'm unsure whether this is what previous people were bringing up, but the external link to wikipedia should probably point to "Mithril" considering the article is about the metal and in this case we're not talking about the software company, "Mithral" --[[User:SgtLion|SgtLion]] 02:29, 11 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Has this discrepancy been resolved? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:51, 17 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question ==<br />
<br />
If a piece of armor with a speed penalty is made mithril, is it the same speed, or is the speed changed? {{Unsigned|Froggeh|21:13, 4 December 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:The armor counts as one category lighter. So heavy armor is threaded as medium and so yea its faster. --[[User:A.D|A.D]] 06:49, 5 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::The realer answer is yes kinda sorda maybe no. For most characters, going from Heavy to Medium gets them nothing as medium has a speed penalty. Going from medium to light gets rid of the speed penalty. However, if you are a barbarian, the barbarian class feature negates that penalty, so they move as light. So a barbarian in mithril plate still moves faster than a speeding locomotive. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:34, 5 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Either way, your going to be faster ''':P''' Even if its just you being able to run again ''':O'''. --[[User:A.D|A.D]] 11:32, 11 December 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Pricing Question ==<br />
<br />
A mithral dagger weighs .5 lbs, right (An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals)? So does that mean that a Mithral dagger costs 252 gp? Mithral is inherently masterwork. Is it cheaper to buy a mithral dagger than a masterwork one? That hardly seems right. Of course mithral goods are only limitedly available in most campaigns, so there's that, but still... --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 17:25, 11 December 2009 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Intelligent_Items&diff=429713SRD Talk:Intelligent Items2009-12-18T03:40:57Z<p>Xidoraven: new concern with searches on EGO and SRD: EGO considerations</p>
<hr />
<div>== scripting error ==<br />
<br />
the Awesome power table is messed up. there is more than one instance. --&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Tug|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Blue; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Tug </span>''']][[User talk:Tug|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tug|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Tug|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 11:45, 20 February 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I see only one such table. Am I missing something?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:07, 20 February 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I was not clear with my last post. There is only one Table, but there are at least two errors on it. Around 65% there are two different rows worth of info in one row. --&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Tug|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Blue; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Tug </span>''']][[User talk:Tug|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Tug|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Tug|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:54, 20 February 2009 (MST)<br />
<br />
== search results & tags/keywords ==<br />
I was doing a search for these keywords, to see where my own homebrew idea for 'Ego Rolls' would come up after the SRD pages for Item Ego, and I got neither any results for Ego or Ego Roll, and only after entering the Intelligent Item keywords did I even see this page in the results. I got many searches that came back with No Results. The following keywords were searched with minimal results. Is there any way to make these pages more accessible for a search using the integrated page feature in the left hand sidebar? Can keywords be placed, or in some way make the search more apt to find results like this?<br />
<br />
* Ego<br />
* Item Ego<br />
* Ego Power<br />
* Ego Force<br />
* Ego Roll<br />
* SRD Ego<br />
* SRD: Ego<br />
* Ego Dominance<br />
* Intelligent Item Ego<br />
<br />
I finally got results on the last keyword search, and even in that, it did not come at the top of the results. ??? Is there is a solution to this?<br />
<br />
At some point, I am going generate descriptive text for '[[Ego (Inath Roll)|Ego Roll]]' that will in many ways be equivalent to the text for Item Ego - it would be nice to have the two pages easily reached in a search for 'Ego', 'Item Ego', 'Ego Roll', 'Ego Dominance', etc. Is that possible? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:40, 17 December 2009 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Godhood,_how_does_one_do_it%3F&diff=419277Discussion:Godhood, how does one do it?2009-10-16T20:39:43Z<p>Xidoraven: /* xido 14:31, 16 October 2009 (MDT) = */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Godhood, how does one do it? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:59, 15 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I have wondered, they have information on gods and powers and whatnot. Is it possible however to ascend from mortality to godhood (even if just a divine rank 0 quasi-diety). I have seen such a class progression for dragons (Dracomonion I think, or Races of the Dragon). Specifically one of my older, stronger characters is looking for immortality, but finds merely extending life insufficent, lichdom and the green star prestige class troubling (he has a high Con, he LIKES his hitpoints), and godhood so very tempting as he already sees himself as one.<br />
<br />
By what means can he actually achieve godhood?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Fenris|Fenris]]&nbsp;<small><small>02:30, 16 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
See [[Ambriosia of the Gods (DnD Equipment)]].<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>07:32, 16 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I don't think he can... To be honest don't let a character become a god. Such a thing is way too powerful for a player to handle without abusing it (nomatter how balanced a player they are, godhood corrupts)<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:16, 16 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
It's mostly flavor beyond anything else (if it were a class I'd take all levels but the last which chances you into a demigod. It would fulfill my characters wishes, and provide a nice capstone to a good campaign.<br />
<br />
That Ambroisia's a joke item though, isn't it? Given it doesn't grant immortality, just toughness to kill, he wouldn't be much up for it.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20070816122737</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2007 August 16 12:27 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Officially, though it is possible to become a god, there aren't any established d20 game mechanics for becoming a god, or on how to role-play or DM one. Under 2E, there was a spell to ascend to godhood in the Forgotten Realms, but it was a 12th-level spell (which is not the same as an epic spell), which aren't allowed anymore. You could create an epic spell to ascend to godhood, but I'd recommend setting the [[Spellcraft]] DC to somewhere around 300 to 400 at minimum. Also, the role-play means to become a god may be different for each d20 world, and/or there may be multiple ways to do so.<br />
<br />
Quasi-deities could be played as PCs, since they have a lot of limitations compared to other deities. [http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/divinetemplates.htm Here] are a couple of unofficial templates for quasi-deities.<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-bottom: none; font-size: 0.95em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—''Stephen Notley, creator of [http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>15:01, 17 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I've managed to work out a version that I think my DM likes. I feel like sharing it with you because.<br />
<br />
The following build is made for the character who is a Red Dragon Disciple (hence the focus on red dragon parts). It contains the transform seed and some of the powers, the one I felt weren't necessarily a part of being a god but extra supernatural powers that came with it.<br />
<br />
The burning of gp instead of xp is a house rule, burning 40,000 gp can be swapped out for burning 20,000 xp.<br />
<br />
*Seed Transform (for the process for turning into a diety) (ad hoc) 46 <br />
*Seed Ward (Resist fire 5) 14<br />
*Seed Fortify (DR 10/epic) 50<br />
*Seed Fortify (SR 32) 55<br />
*Perma Effect x5<br />
*Pretotal: 825<br />
*Grow over the next 9 days (ad hoc) -18<br />
*Extra 10 mins casting -20<br />
*Extra 100 days casting -200<br />
*Backlash 56d6 damage -56<br />
*Burn 40,000 gp -200<br />
*'''Total:''' 349<br />
<br />
Also required are the following items.<br />
*Nectar<br />
*Amber<br />
*Life Mana Shard (Unique world item, life giving stone)<br />
*Astral Driftmetal (find on Astral Plane)<br />
*Ichor of any sort (DC 20 Fort save vs 1d10 Con damage)<br />
*Fresh Red Dragon Blood (Infused into self)<br />
*Red Dragon Scales (entire dragon)<br />
*Red Dragon's Draconis Fundamentum<br />
*Potion of Ascension<br />
<br />
For the potion it is... (Wish spell, Brew Potion, Knowledge Arcane 25, CL 31th). You must succeed on a DC 25 Fort save or die.<br />
<br />
In addition a personal holy symbol must be crafted before the ritual as focus. After being worn 9 days it is absorbs into you. It is made of any metal found on the Shadow Plane and costs 1500 gp to create with a Craft Epic Wondrous Item feat and craft check (metalworking) DC 30.<br />
<br />
One is to be consumed or used each day of the ritual. The gold amount from what is usually an xp is also consumed, as he mimics the path of a dragon into divinity.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:54, 18 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
You should add this someone onto D&D Wiki...<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>00:36, 5 October 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Godhood by other means... While the game with my future epic-spell created godling is still underway, I felt inspired.<br />
<br />
Any reviews of the [[Divine Ascendant (3.5e Prestige Class)|Divine Ascendant]] class is greatly appreciated. I figure I'd mention it since it's on subject. I want to see if the power is balanced.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]&nbsp;<small><small>00:50, 11 October 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Well this is a way to become a god, its simply if you do something of amazing things that would please AO or which would give you enough respect from him so you can become a god.<br />
<br />
PS. This is based on forgotten realms<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 14:31, 16 October 2009 (MDT) - ''EGO and SPIRIT variant rule system rolls/checks'' ===<br />
<br />
eeeillllyieghllghhh..... blegh... That's my official response to mr/mrs Anonymous, on account of official Nobodies Anonymous Fan Club Response for Stray Nobodies, Public Relations Dept. xp ;)<br />
<br />
Pleasing another god in the hope of divine favor in addition to the terms of creating competitive deific entities? Yuck. Which capricious gods would employ such means? Obviously those without avatars, petitioners, or at least some common sense when it comes to the terms of being a deity, or granting that privilege to another - which is in no way a simple process or responsibility on either end. There surely are other ways... ;)<br />
<br />
Okay, so I posted the content about the [[Inath (DnD Variant Rule) | Inath, or 'Cabala Inata']] a while back and have gotten a ''little'' review and help in keeping organized in categories, redirects, etc. I am gonna ask for some help from everyone willing to join the discussion, which will also help contribute specific points to the delineation of the operations in the system. First, I really need some input on how best to Q&A evaluate the [[Ego (Inath Roll) | Ego]] and [[Spirit (Inath Roll) | Spirit]] rolls.<br />
<br />
I want to describe here the roll of '''''Ego''''', and why it was created and how it can be used in anyone's game system with ease: 'Ego' is described in DMG/SRD as a roll made against an intelligent item ('an object or creature with sentience' from here on in), and is a special roll utilizing a set of characteristics unique to the item and the opposing willpower/personal force of its handler. Such a challenge of wits and ego takes place between divine beings as being the energy that they willingly use - not that which is inert, underlying, subconscious, or inborn; Ego is the direct, willing, and focused use of a divine ability - and specifically those with a Deific descriptor (De:Deific::Su:Supernatural). It is possible to use this alternative roll system in place of the intelligent item ego check, with similar results for mortals, and heightened results for immortals/[[Inath (DnD Variant Rule) | Inath Characters]].<br />
<br />
'''''Spirit''''' is the internal forces which are inherent in the soul or spiritual energy (which can sometimes be described also as 'ki', 'incarnum', 'magic', 'immortality', 'spiritual force', etc.), and is inborn and not subject to direct, focused thoughts, and often only used as a last resort, in many ways like a saving throw against and Ego roll or similar divine/deific effect. Beyond this, the applicability is limited only to advance legendary hero-deities, or quasi-deities/demigods, and those unique individuals who make specific use of their Spirit rolls (and/or there spiritual/divine power) as active choices.<br />
<br />
I need a real Q&A as to how, why, and in what application these rolls can be made, between item and creature, creature and demigod/immortal, deity and believer/non-believer, and any combination thereof - that is necessary for me to get a scope of the larger concerns at work as opposed to how it is played out in game session terms (which is the specific information I have for it, since we play-tested it before I had it summarized. :P)<br />
<br />
I want to start with that point, and then work into how one progresses past the threshold of what we call mortality.<br />
<br />
'''ALSO, everyone ''please'' choose a base race or two (PHB or MMI only)''' to bring to the discussion table, and we can roleplay you into the conversation :P - we will evaluate their precise incarnation cycles and racial traits pertaining to the Inath advancement system. If you choose an animal, please no one else choose another animal - each animal is a little different, but they're all in the same category (state if the animal is able to be domesticated or not - or at least how sociable/independent it is). I can spew better when I have questions though. :P ;) After that, we can really talk it up about how players can advance in a way that makes sense, has a level of playing balance, making new checks or skill uses, and flexible system I have in place. I know it has a name, and I know that in some ways that makes it a little scary or kooky, and I know a lot of pages don't have properly defined or formatted content (ie, I don't know quite how to format a table on here for [[Telekinesis (Inath Skill) | the telekinesis skill]] - they need your review and discussions. ......... And contributions..? ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 14:31, 16 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Godhood,_how_does_one_do_it%3F&diff=419276Discussion:Godhood, how does one do it?2009-10-16T20:31:22Z<p>Xidoraven: player-oriented method with a check-based balancing system based on game-play</p>
<hr />
<div>== Godhood, how does one do it? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:59, 15 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I have wondered, they have information on gods and powers and whatnot. Is it possible however to ascend from mortality to godhood (even if just a divine rank 0 quasi-diety). I have seen such a class progression for dragons (Dracomonion I think, or Races of the Dragon). Specifically one of my older, stronger characters is looking for immortality, but finds merely extending life insufficent, lichdom and the green star prestige class troubling (he has a high Con, he LIKES his hitpoints), and godhood so very tempting as he already sees himself as one.<br />
<br />
By what means can he actually achieve godhood?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Fenris|Fenris]]&nbsp;<small><small>02:30, 16 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
See [[Ambriosia of the Gods (DnD Equipment)]].<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>07:32, 16 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I don't think he can... To be honest don't let a character become a god. Such a thing is way too powerful for a player to handle without abusing it (nomatter how balanced a player they are, godhood corrupts)<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:16, 16 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
It's mostly flavor beyond anything else (if it were a class I'd take all levels but the last which chances you into a demigod. It would fulfill my characters wishes, and provide a nice capstone to a good campaign.<br />
<br />
That Ambroisia's a joke item though, isn't it? Given it doesn't grant immortality, just toughness to kill, he wouldn't be much up for it.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20070816122737</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2007 August 16 12:27 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Officially, though it is possible to become a god, there aren't any established d20 game mechanics for becoming a god, or on how to role-play or DM one. Under 2E, there was a spell to ascend to godhood in the Forgotten Realms, but it was a 12th-level spell (which is not the same as an epic spell), which aren't allowed anymore. You could create an epic spell to ascend to godhood, but I'd recommend setting the [[Spellcraft]] DC to somewhere around 300 to 400 at minimum. Also, the role-play means to become a god may be different for each d20 world, and/or there may be multiple ways to do so.<br />
<br />
Quasi-deities could be played as PCs, since they have a lot of limitations compared to other deities. [http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/divinetemplates.htm Here] are a couple of unofficial templates for quasi-deities.<br />
|-<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-bottom: none; font-size: 0.95em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—''Stephen Notley, creator of [http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>15:01, 17 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I've managed to work out a version that I think my DM likes. I feel like sharing it with you because.<br />
<br />
The following build is made for the character who is a Red Dragon Disciple (hence the focus on red dragon parts). It contains the transform seed and some of the powers, the one I felt weren't necessarily a part of being a god but extra supernatural powers that came with it.<br />
<br />
The burning of gp instead of xp is a house rule, burning 40,000 gp can be swapped out for burning 20,000 xp.<br />
<br />
*Seed Transform (for the process for turning into a diety) (ad hoc) 46 <br />
*Seed Ward (Resist fire 5) 14<br />
*Seed Fortify (DR 10/epic) 50<br />
*Seed Fortify (SR 32) 55<br />
*Perma Effect x5<br />
*Pretotal: 825<br />
*Grow over the next 9 days (ad hoc) -18<br />
*Extra 10 mins casting -20<br />
*Extra 100 days casting -200<br />
*Backlash 56d6 damage -56<br />
*Burn 40,000 gp -200<br />
*'''Total:''' 349<br />
<br />
Also required are the following items.<br />
*Nectar<br />
*Amber<br />
*Life Mana Shard (Unique world item, life giving stone)<br />
*Astral Driftmetal (find on Astral Plane)<br />
*Ichor of any sort (DC 20 Fort save vs 1d10 Con damage)<br />
*Fresh Red Dragon Blood (Infused into self)<br />
*Red Dragon Scales (entire dragon)<br />
*Red Dragon's Draconis Fundamentum<br />
*Potion of Ascension<br />
<br />
For the potion it is... (Wish spell, Brew Potion, Knowledge Arcane 25, CL 31th). You must succeed on a DC 25 Fort save or die.<br />
<br />
In addition a personal holy symbol must be crafted before the ritual as focus. After being worn 9 days it is absorbs into you. It is made of any metal found on the Shadow Plane and costs 1500 gp to create with a Craft Epic Wondrous Item feat and craft check (metalworking) DC 30.<br />
<br />
One is to be consumed or used each day of the ritual. The gold amount from what is usually an xp is also consumed, as he mimics the path of a dragon into divinity.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:54, 18 August 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
You should add this someone onto D&D Wiki...<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>00:36, 5 October 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Godhood by other means... While the game with my future epic-spell created godling is still underway, I felt inspired.<br />
<br />
Any reviews of the [[Divine Ascendant (3.5e Prestige Class)|Divine Ascendant]] class is greatly appreciated. I figure I'd mention it since it's on subject. I want to see if the power is balanced.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Anonymous|Anonymous]]&nbsp;<small><small>00:50, 11 October 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Well this is a way to become a god, its simply if you do something of amazing things that would please AO or which would give you enough respect from him so you can become a god.<br />
<br />
PS. This is based on forgotten realms<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 14:31, 16 October 2009 (MDT) ====<br />
<br />
Eyieghllghhh....... Blegh! - pleasing another god in the hope of divine favor in addition to the terms of creating competitive deific entities? Yuck. Which capricious gods would employ such means? Obviously those without avatars, petitioners, or at least some common sense when it comes to the terms of being a deity, or granting that privilege to another - which is in no way a simple process or responsibility on either end. There surely other ways... ;)<br />
<br />
Okay, so I posted the content about the [[Inath (DnD Variant Rule) | Inath, or 'Cabala Inata']] a while back and have gotten a ''little'' review and help in keeping organized in categories, redirects, etc. I am gonna ask for some help from everyone willing to join the discussion, which will also help contribute specific points to the delineation of the operations in the system. First, I really need some input on how best to Q&A evaluate the [[Ego (Inath Roll) | Ego]] and [[Spirit (Inath Roll) | Spirit]] rolls.<br />
<br />
I want to describe here the roll of '''''Ego''''', and why it was created and how it can be used in anyone's game system with ease: 'Ego' is described in DMG/SRD as a roll made against an intelligent item ('an object or creature with sentience' from here on in), and is a special roll utilizing a set of characteristics unique to the item and the opposing willpower/personal force of its handler. Such a challenge of wits and ego takes place between divine beings as being the energy that they willingly use - not that which is inert, underlying, subconscious, or inborn; Ego is the direct, willing, and focused use of a divine ability - and specifically those with a Deific descriptor (De:Deific::Su:Supernatural). It is possible to use this alternative roll system in place of the intelligent item ego check, with similar results for mortals, and heightened results for immortals/[[Inath (DnD Variant Rule) | Inath Characters]].<br />
<br />
'''''Spirit''''' is the internal forces which are inherent in the soul or spiritual energy (which can sometimes be described also as 'ki', 'incarnum', 'magic', 'immortality', 'spiritual force', etc.), and is inborn and not subject to direct, focused thoughts, and often only used as a last resort, in many ways like a saving throw against and Ego roll or similar divine/deific effect. Beyond this, the applicability is limited only to advance legendary hero-deities, or quasi-deities/demigods, and those unique individuals who make specific use of their Spirit rolls (and/or there spiritual/divine power) as active choices.<br />
<br />
I need a real Q&A as to how, why, and in what application these rolls can be made, between item and creature, creature and demigod/immortal, deity and believer/non-believer, and any combination thereof - that is necessary for me to get a scope of the larger concerns at work as opposed to how it is played out in game session terms (which is the specific information I have for it, since we play-tested it before I had it summarized. :P)<br />
<br />
I want to start with that point, and then work into how one progresses past the threshold of what we call mortality.<br />
<br />
'''ALSO, everyone ''please'' choose a base race or two (PHB or MMI only)''' to bring to the discussion table, and we can roleplay you into the conversation :P - we will evaluate their precise incarnation cycles and racial traits pertaining to the Inath advancement system. If you choose an animal, please no one else choose another animal - each animal is a little different, but they're all in the same category (state if the animal is able to be domesticated or not - or at least how sociable/independent it is). I can spew better when I have questions though. :P ;) After that, we can really talk it up about how players can advance in a way that makes sense, has a level of playing balance, making new checks or skill uses, and flexible system I have in place. I know it has a name, and I know that in some ways that makes it a little scary or kooky, and I know a lot of pages don't have properly defined or formatted content (ie, I don't know quite how to format a table on here for [[Telekinesis (Inath Skill) | the telekinesis skill]] - they need your review and discussions. ......... And contributions..? ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 14:31, 16 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=413403SRD Talk:System Reference Document2009-09-16T08:00:53Z<p>Xidoraven: /* 4e Open Gaming Content? */ thanks</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|21:36, 9 February 2008}}<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)? {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|21:41, 9 February 2008}}<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
: ''Moved to [[Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions]]''<br />
<br />
== Warlock Class ==<br />
<br />
Please add more information on warlocks, it's just too vague, and so is the PHB2. {{unsigned|99.151.159.146|2008-04-03 19:23}}<br />
<br />
: If we were allowed to, we would have done so long ago. The warlock is Product Identity, so we're not allowed to post the details on the wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Spells ==<br />
<br />
Choking Shadows<br />
Evocation (Cold, Shadow)<br />
A blanket of shadows spills out from your hand, drenching the target area in frigid darkness. This effect obscures vision within the area exactly like solid fog, but creatures inside the cloud also suffer cold damage each round they remain inside.<br />
<br />
Living creatures with 2 or fewer HD die outright from shock (no save), and creatures with 3 to 5 HD must make a Fortitude saving throw or die. Living creatures with more than 5 HD, and creatures with 3 to 5 HD who make their saving throw, take 1d10 points of subdual damage each round while in the cloud.<br />
<br />
The choking shadows move away from the caster at 10 feet per round, rolling along the surface of the ground. The cloud is neutrally buoyant, and does not sink or rise in the air. It cannot penetrate liquids, nor can be cast underwater.<br />
<br />
===Category Ordering===<br />
<br />
By request, I modified the SRD to list its pages alphabetically within categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:35, 23 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==d20 System Logo needs to be removed==<br />
<br />
You have the d20 System Logo on this page (and a couple of other pages). As the d20STL licence has now been cancelled by WotC, this logo needs to be removed from any pages containing Open Game Content.<br />
<br />
I am pretty sure that you can keep the logo on pages that do not contain OGC (for example a fair use page that lets people know what the d20STL was and what the logo looked like), but you can't keep it here as this is a page about the SRD.<br />
<br />
Personally, I think it is madness that WotC have decided to try to shoehorn the d20 System logo into a 4e brand, but that is what they have tried to do and the old log is now something they no longer authorise people to use. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 19:33, 23 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removed d20 logo. I had forgotten that we even had a logo there. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:17, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks Dmilewski! [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 14:33, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Open Gaming Content? ==<br />
<br />
Any word from Wizards on what is considered publicly-usable content like our previous 3.5 OGL Content? I have heard and seen nothing about it... -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:18, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I think they have yet to release a license (not positive though). Although in 3.5e one also has things like in the MMII (with OGL) and non-Wizards publishers do things under the [[OGL]] as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:52, 8 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So there is no such thing as Open Gaming Content in 4e at all? I know that under licensing I can still produce 3.5 materials, but I am wondering if they have released any Open Gaming Content such as they did with the 3.5 SRD... Seems like such a bad marketing decision to me. :( Oh well, it looks like you'll have my continuing patronage for a few more years while I get my publication material together. I will just have to write well and hope that someone recognizes as a marketable set of campaign media for current game versions until then. :P -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 23:43, 10 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You may be looking for [[w:Game_System_License]]. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 23:45, 10 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I was indeed looking for that. :P How simple it was and yet I could not find it in my search... Thanks, Hooper. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 02:00, 16 September 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=412790SRD Talk:System Reference Document2009-09-11T05:43:12Z<p>Xidoraven: /* 4e Open Gaming Content? */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|21:36, 9 February 2008}}<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)? {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|21:41, 9 February 2008}}<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
: ''Moved to [[Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions]]''<br />
<br />
== Warlock Class ==<br />
<br />
Please add more information on warlocks, it's just too vague, and so is the PHB2. {{unsigned|99.151.159.146|2008-04-03 19:23}}<br />
<br />
: If we were allowed to, we would have done so long ago. The warlock is Product Identity, so we're not allowed to post the details on the wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Spells ==<br />
<br />
Choking Shadows<br />
Evocation (Cold, Shadow)<br />
A blanket of shadows spills out from your hand, drenching the target area in frigid darkness. This effect obscures vision within the area exactly like solid fog, but creatures inside the cloud also suffer cold damage each round they remain inside.<br />
<br />
Living creatures with 2 or fewer HD die outright from shock (no save), and creatures with 3 to 5 HD must make a Fortitude saving throw or die. Living creatures with more than 5 HD, and creatures with 3 to 5 HD who make their saving throw, take 1d10 points of subdual damage each round while in the cloud.<br />
<br />
The choking shadows move away from the caster at 10 feet per round, rolling along the surface of the ground. The cloud is neutrally buoyant, and does not sink or rise in the air. It cannot penetrate liquids, nor can be cast underwater.<br />
<br />
===Category Ordering===<br />
<br />
By request, I modified the SRD to list its pages alphabetically within categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:35, 23 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==d20 System Logo needs to be removed==<br />
<br />
You have the d20 System Logo on this page (and a couple of other pages). As the d20STL licence has now been cancelled by WotC, this logo needs to be removed from any pages containing Open Game Content.<br />
<br />
I am pretty sure that you can keep the logo on pages that do not contain OGC (for example a fair use page that lets people know what the d20STL was and what the logo looked like), but you can't keep it here as this is a page about the SRD.<br />
<br />
Personally, I think it is madness that WotC have decided to try to shoehorn the d20 System logo into a 4e brand, but that is what they have tried to do and the old log is now something they no longer authorise people to use. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 19:33, 23 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removed d20 logo. I had forgotten that we even had a logo there. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:17, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks Dmilewski! [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 14:33, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Open Gaming Content? ==<br />
<br />
Any word from Wizards on what is considered publicly-usable content like our previous 3.5 OGL Content? I have heard and seen nothing about it... -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:18, 7 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I think they have yet to release a license (not positive though). Although in 3.5e one also has things like in the MMII (with OGL) and non-Wizards publishers do things under the [[OGL]] as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:52, 8 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So there is no such thing as Open Gaming Content in 4e at all? I know that under licensing I can still produce 3.5 materials, but I am wondering if they have released any Open Gaming Content such as they did with the 3.5 SRD... Seems like such a bad marketing decision to me. :( Oh well, it looks like you'll have my continuing patronage for a few more years while I get my publication material together. I will just have to write well and hope that someone recognizes as a marketable set of campaign media for current game versions until then. :P -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 23:43, 10 September 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=411887SRD Talk:System Reference Document2009-09-07T21:18:50Z<p>Xidoraven: </p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|21:36, 9 February 2008}}<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)? {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|21:41, 9 February 2008}}<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
: ''Moved to [[Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions]]''<br />
<br />
== Warlock Class ==<br />
<br />
Please add more information on warlocks, it's just too vague, and so is the PHB2. {{unsigned|99.151.159.146|2008-04-03 19:23}}<br />
<br />
: If we were allowed to, we would have done so long ago. The warlock is Product Identity, so we're not allowed to post the details on the wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Variant Spells ==<br />
<br />
Choking Shadows<br />
Evocation (Cold, Shadow)<br />
A blanket of shadows spills out from your hand, drenching the target area in frigid darkness. This effect obscures vision within the area exactly like solid fog, but creatures inside the cloud also suffer cold damage each round they remain inside.<br />
<br />
Living creatures with 2 or fewer HD die outright from shock (no save), and creatures with 3 to 5 HD must make a Fortitude saving throw or die. Living creatures with more than 5 HD, and creatures with 3 to 5 HD who make their saving throw, take 1d10 points of subdual damage each round while in the cloud.<br />
<br />
The choking shadows move away from the caster at 10 feet per round, rolling along the surface of the ground. The cloud is neutrally buoyant, and does not sink or rise in the air. It cannot penetrate liquids, nor can be cast underwater.<br />
<br />
===Category Ordering===<br />
<br />
By request, I modified the SRD to list its pages alphabetically within categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:35, 23 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==d20 System Logo needs to be removed==<br />
<br />
You have the d20 System Logo on this page (and a couple of other pages). As the d20STL licence has now been cancelled by WotC, this logo needs to be removed from any pages containing Open Game Content.<br />
<br />
I am pretty sure that you can keep the logo on pages that do not contain OGC (for example a fair use page that lets people know what the d20STL was and what the logo looked like), but you can't keep it here as this is a page about the SRD.<br />
<br />
Personally, I think it is madness that WotC have decided to try to shoehorn the d20 System logo into a 4e brand, but that is what they have tried to do and the old log is now something they no longer authorise people to use. [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 19:33, 23 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Removed d20 logo. I had forgotten that we even had a logo there. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:17, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks Dmilewski! [[User:Big Mac|Big Mac]] 14:33, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==4e Open Gaming Content?==<br />
Any word from Wizards on what is considered publicly-usable content like our previous 3.5 OGL Content? I have heard and seen nothing about it... -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:18, 7 September 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:3.5e_Homebrew&diff=411885Talk:3.5e Homebrew2009-09-07T21:16:15Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Page Name */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2=Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Namespace? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a nampespace (which would remove the identifiers) for all homebrew items on D&D Wiki? Thoughts on this idea? Also, any good ideas for the name of the namespace? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I keep toggling on this idea whenever I think about it. Does MediaWiki support nested namespaces? Then we could have "3e:" for all 3.x material, the 3e SRD would have the namespace "3e:SRD:", the UA would have the "3e:UA:" namespace, and the user-submitted section could be "3e:User:" or just "3e:". And if you did a search within the "3e" namespace, it would search all the pages with the "3e" parent namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I also keep thinking about this as well, and I have not been able to come up with a perfect solution, although yours would be the ideal one if MediaWiki supported nested namespaces, which I do not think it does... How about one step not as advanced as yours; 3.5e (maybe User: tagged on the end? What are your thoughts on this?) and 3.5eSRD? Also, speaking of namespaces, do you have any good idea for the publications? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:33, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::We could simulate nested namespaces. Does MediaWiki allow a colon as part of the namespace? Then we could still have "3.5e:SRD:" and "3.5:". They just wouldn't have any association with each other&mdash;which is how it is now. If colons aren't allowed, we could just use a hyphen instead "3.5e:" and "3.5-SRD:". No ideas I feel strongly enough for publication namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::We can do that. What are your thoughts on adding a mock identifier (not <tt>(DnD Class)</tt> but rather <tt>(Class)</tt>)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I was going to bring this up soon! Interesting ''':)'''. Maybe we need to think about the purposes of categories, identifiers, and namespaces. I don't know when and where to use each. What is best practice? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:57, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing about the nested namespace idea is that MediaWiki might identify "3.5e:SRD:Some Page" as the page "SRD:Some Page" in the "3.5e" namespace instead of "Some Page" in the "3.5e:SRD" namespace. We should find out before hand whether or not MediaWiki is "greedy" with identifying namespaces.<br />
::::::Identifiers exist to make a distinction between a term's two or more separate connotations, such as the feat [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Feat)|Psionic Fist]] and the prestige class [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Prestige Class)|psionic fist]]. Category vs namespace I have a harder time pinning down when one should be used over the other. Should probably research it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Okay, where does this go? ==<br />
<br />
I know some, for want of a better word, articles are. They've been stated repeatedly to be open-game content by the writers, and encompass mechanics, flavor, rule tweaks, base classes, and PrCs. Where should they go, or do we make a section for articles like them? {{unsigned|Genowhirl}}<br />
:They probably go in [[3.5e Other|Other]]. {{User:OptimizationFanatic/Signature}} 17:52, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Search problems==<br />
The search function doesn't work. When I type in even the most basic word, it says that it cannot find any page related to it, and I've tried words as simple as "magic." [[User:Noname|Noname]] 21:32, 18 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Names? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a link to help people think of names, such as names for towns, NPCs, etc.?<br />
It could be organized into towns, worlds, continents, and characters. The geographical places could be organized by climate and overall alignment, for example, an evil desert town. The character names could be done by race, class, and alignment.<br />
<br />
[[User:68.55.33.112|68.55.33.112]] 08:11, 15 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Templates?==<br />
<br />
Where would I place a template? In the Races section? — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 12:50, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Templates are totally under the [[DnD Creatures]] heading and then onto [[3.5e Creature Templates]]. Though, yeah I often want to look for them amongst the [[3.5e Races]]. Perhaps a link to templates on that page would be handy. (I'd do it, but I'm not sure on the policy of editing those pages, plus, I checked the formatting there, and it frightens me). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 13:19, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 17:56, 3 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Add A New Page ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine]] and I want to add the [[Special:AddPage]] link to this page. What is the protocol for doing so? Also, the drop down menu on [[Special:AddPage]], how can we get the coding for that somehow? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 17:09, 2 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not completely sure, however I think that the dropdown menu is only their because of SMW. The question is: Do we want to consider preloads or forms standard? I feel that preloads grant a lot more freedom of editing, make it so people learn wiki-code, etc, but also leave a large margin of error. Thinking about it more (I know I said otherwise on [[Discussion:Flaw Addition Page is Bad]]) I feel that preloads are a better option. If we could figure out a way to make it so we could have a dropdown selection for preloads (and not just forms) then I agree - this would make a great addition to this page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:49, 4 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== DPL? ==<br />
<br />
Why in the name of all that is holy is this page made with DPL? It has things added to it so infrequently, and it is so small, that it is totally pointless. Also, as TK has pointed out with a practical demonstration, it allows easy vandalism of this page, just by adding a category to another page. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I see no reason to keep it as DPL -- I don't really think this matter requires consensus... Someone can just revert it if there is a strong disagreement. Getting started on the change now. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:18, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Done. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:35, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Name ==<br />
<br />
This page is just titled Dungeons and Dragons, and the corresponding fourth edition page is titled '4e Homebrew.' Should we change this page to "3.5e Homebrew" and perhaps have the "Dungeons and Dragons" page be an actual page about D&D in general, ala wikipedia? Or perhaps a disambiguation page that links to each edition's SRD/Homebrew? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 08:33, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ya, or do you think something like "3.5e User Submitted Content" would be better? Of course we have to wait for the double redirects. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:18, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Nah, just "3.5e Homebrew" would be fine, no need to break established convention. But yes, such a huge change should probably wait for now. Also, what's been going on with the site? It was down for most of the day, and now it keeps coming up and going down again... --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:22, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::User Submitted Content is more correct though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I say stick with "3.5 Homebrew" - most people know what you mean. Any input that would make you think otherwise? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:16, 7 September 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:3.5e_Homebrew&diff=411882Talk:3.5e Homebrew2009-09-07T21:16:00Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Page Name */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2=Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Namespace? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a nampespace (which would remove the identifiers) for all homebrew items on D&D Wiki? Thoughts on this idea? Also, any good ideas for the name of the namespace? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I keep toggling on this idea whenever I think about it. Does MediaWiki support nested namespaces? Then we could have "3e:" for all 3.x material, the 3e SRD would have the namespace "3e:SRD:", the UA would have the "3e:UA:" namespace, and the user-submitted section could be "3e:User:" or just "3e:". And if you did a search within the "3e" namespace, it would search all the pages with the "3e" parent namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:11, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I also keep thinking about this as well, and I have not been able to come up with a perfect solution, although yours would be the ideal one if MediaWiki supported nested namespaces, which I do not think it does... How about one step not as advanced as yours; 3.5e (maybe User: tagged on the end? What are your thoughts on this?) and 3.5eSRD? Also, speaking of namespaces, do you have any good idea for the publications? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:33, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::We could simulate nested namespaces. Does MediaWiki allow a colon as part of the namespace? Then we could still have "3.5e:SRD:" and "3.5:". They just wouldn't have any association with each other&mdash;which is how it is now. If colons aren't allowed, we could just use a hyphen instead "3.5e:" and "3.5-SRD:". No ideas I feel strongly enough for publication namespace. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::We can do that. What are your thoughts on adding a mock identifier (not <tt>(DnD Class)</tt> but rather <tt>(Class)</tt>)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:50, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I was going to bring this up soon! Interesting ''':)'''. Maybe we need to think about the purposes of categories, identifiers, and namespaces. I don't know when and where to use each. What is best practice? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:57, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing about the nested namespace idea is that MediaWiki might identify "3.5e:SRD:Some Page" as the page "SRD:Some Page" in the "3.5e" namespace instead of "Some Page" in the "3.5e:SRD" namespace. We should find out before hand whether or not MediaWiki is "greedy" with identifying namespaces.<br />
::::::Identifiers exist to make a distinction between a term's two or more separate connotations, such as the feat [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Feat)|Psionic Fist]] and the prestige class [[SRD:Psionic Fist (Prestige Class)|psionic fist]]. Category vs namespace I have a harder time pinning down when one should be used over the other. Should probably research it on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Meta-Wiki. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:28, 13 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Okay, where does this go? ==<br />
<br />
I know some, for want of a better word, articles are. They've been stated repeatedly to be open-game content by the writers, and encompass mechanics, flavor, rule tweaks, base classes, and PrCs. Where should they go, or do we make a section for articles like them? {{unsigned|Genowhirl}}<br />
:They probably go in [[3.5e Other|Other]]. {{User:OptimizationFanatic/Signature}} 17:52, 12 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Search problems==<br />
The search function doesn't work. When I type in even the most basic word, it says that it cannot find any page related to it, and I've tried words as simple as "magic." [[User:Noname|Noname]] 21:32, 18 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Names? ==<br />
<br />
Should we make a link to help people think of names, such as names for towns, NPCs, etc.?<br />
It could be organized into towns, worlds, continents, and characters. The geographical places could be organized by climate and overall alignment, for example, an evil desert town. The character names could be done by race, class, and alignment.<br />
<br />
[[User:68.55.33.112|68.55.33.112]] 08:11, 15 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Templates?==<br />
<br />
Where would I place a template? In the Races section? — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 12:50, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Templates are totally under the [[DnD Creatures]] heading and then onto [[3.5e Creature Templates]]. Though, yeah I often want to look for them amongst the [[3.5e Races]]. Perhaps a link to templates on that page would be handy. (I'd do it, but I'm not sure on the policy of editing those pages, plus, I checked the formatting there, and it frightens me). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 13:19, 17 August 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 17:56, 3 September 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Add A New Page ==<br />
<br />
[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine]] and I want to add the [[Special:AddPage]] link to this page. What is the protocol for doing so? Also, the drop down menu on [[Special:AddPage]], how can we get the coding for that somehow? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 17:09, 2 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I am not completely sure, however I think that the dropdown menu is only their because of SMW. The question is: Do we want to consider preloads or forms standard? I feel that preloads grant a lot more freedom of editing, make it so people learn wiki-code, etc, but also leave a large margin of error. Thinking about it more (I know I said otherwise on [[Discussion:Flaw Addition Page is Bad]]) I feel that preloads are a better option. If we could figure out a way to make it so we could have a dropdown selection for preloads (and not just forms) then I agree - this would make a great addition to this page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:49, 4 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== DPL? ==<br />
<br />
Why in the name of all that is holy is this page made with DPL? It has things added to it so infrequently, and it is so small, that it is totally pointless. Also, as TK has pointed out with a practical demonstration, it allows easy vandalism of this page, just by adding a category to another page. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I see no reason to keep it as DPL -- I don't really think this matter requires consensus... Someone can just revert it if there is a strong disagreement. Getting started on the change now. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:18, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Done. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:35, 25 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Page Name ==<br />
<br />
This page is just titled Dungeons and Dragons, and the corresponding fourth edition page is titled '4e Homebrew.' Should we change this page to "3.5e Homebrew" and perhaps have the "Dungeons and Dragons" page be an actual page about D&D in general, ala wikipedia? Or perhaps a disambiguation page that links to each edition's SRD/Homebrew? &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 08:33, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ya, or do you think something like "3.5e User Submitted Content" would be better? Of course we have to wait for the double redirects. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:18, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Nah, just "3.5e Homebrew" would be fine, no need to break established convention. But yes, such a huge change should probably wait for now. Also, what's been going on with the site? It was down for most of the day, and now it keeps coming up and going down again... --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:22, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::User Submitted Content is more correct though. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:42, 6 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I say stick with "3.5 Homebrew" - most people know what you mean. Any input that would make you think otherwise? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:16, 7 September 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Xidoraven&diff=411065User:Xidoraven2009-09-05T02:33:52Z<p>Xidoraven: omg, my profile has sucked for too long</p>
<hr />
<div>'''"I am xidoraven. I journey from afar, and I have not been here long. Your people accept me, and so I am willing to teach them my ways. It is inperative that you reach both within and without yourself, for that is where you will find the most."''' -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 18:30, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
http://www.facebook.com/xidoraven<br />
<br />
http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/xidoraven.html<br />
<br />
http://dominodesigns.info/user/6<br />
<br />
http://elftown.com/xido<br />
<br />
http://forums.secondlife.com/member.php?u=2149559<br />
<br />
http://community.wizards.com/xidoraven<br />
<br />
http://myspace.com/xidoraven<br />
<br />
http://www.xidoraven.com<br />
<br />
http://xidoraven.vox.com/</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=UA_talk:Variant_Rules&diff=411013UA talk:Variant Rules2009-09-04T22:06:23Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Recharge Magic */ OFF TOPIC question for Dracomortis</p>
<hr />
<div>== Accessible ==<br />
<br />
Please make this accessible... Thanks. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:58, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Extra Links ==<br />
<br />
I've noticed that two of the articles that I've added to this have created extra links on the [[DnD Rules]] page below the Unearthed Arcana line itself. What should I do to prevent this from happening so that I can continue to add articles but avoid cluttering up that page with extraneous links? --[[User:Rakankou|Rakankou]] 12:57, 3 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I've been doing it by creating redirects for the page and adding the categories to the redirects instead of the page itself. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:31, 3 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Also, remove [[:Category:User]] from the redirect. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:18, 4 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I noticed you transcribed the pages directly from the UA, as opposed to copying them from other sites that host a copy of the UA. Thanks. Sites that hose the UA (including this one) make minor changes to their copy for various reasons. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:04, 3 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Notes to Contributers ==<br />
<br />
This copy of the UA must follow the rules of the [[OGL]]. The credits page of the UA says:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>'''''Product Identity:''' The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a, Section 1(e), and are not Open Content: All trademarks, registered trademarks, proper names (characters, deities, artifacts, places, etc.), artwork, trade dress, and the names and game statistics for the following monsters: beholder, displacer beast, gauth, githyanki, ghitzerai, mind flayer, slaad, umber hulk, and yuan-ti.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>'''''Open Content:''' Except for material designated as Product Identity (see above) and the githyanki/githzerai, slaad, and yuan-ti bloodlines in Chapter 1, the contents of this Wizards of the Coast&trade; game product are Open Game Content, as defined in the Open Gaming License version 1.0a Section 1(d). No portion of this work other than the material designated as Open Game Content may be reproduced in any form without written permission. To learn more about the Open Gaming License and the d20 System License, please visit '''www.wizards.com/d20'''.''</blockquote><br />
<br />
''Player's Handbook'', ''Monster Manual'', and ''Unearthed Arcana'' are all proper names, as well as the token characters used in examples throughout the PHB. I've been using the names "Human Fighter", "Dwarven Fighter", "Elf Wizard", etc in place of the names of specific characters. I haven't yet decided what to do about the sourcebook names. I'm not sure what the limitations are for explicitly naming books when making references. Consequently, the pages may have to be renamed from ''Unearthed Arcana''. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:27, 3 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:List of alternatives:<br />
<br />
:{| class="d20" style="text-align: left;" {{#vardefine:ood|0}}<br />
|-<br />
! Product Identity || Alternative<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| D&D || d20<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| ''[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/175240000 Player’s Handbook]'' || [[d20 System]]<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| ''[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/177550000 Monster Manual]'' || [[d20 System]]<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| ''[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndcore/177520000 Dungeon Master’s Guide]'' || [[d20 System]]<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Krusk || Male Half-Orc Barbarian<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Gimble || Male Gnome Bard<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Devis || Male Half-Elf Bard<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Jozan || Male Human Cleric<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Eberk || Male Dwarf Cleric<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Vadania || Female Half-Elf Druid<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Regdar || Male Human Fighter<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Tordek || Male Dwarf Fighter<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Ember || Female Human Monk<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Alhandra || Female Human Paladin<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Soveliss || Male Elf Ranger<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Lidda || Female Halfling Rogue<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Kerwyn || Male Human Rogue<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Hennet || Male Human Sorcerer<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Aramil || Male Elf Sorcerer<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Mialee || Female Elf Wizard<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Naull || Female Human Wizard<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Nebin || Male Gnome Illusionist<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Alarion || Male Human Paladin<br />
|}<br />
<br />
: —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:50, 4 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Please simplify the page titles ==<br />
<br />
Do we really need monsters like "Unearthed Arcana (DnD OGC Transcript)/Building Characters/Spelltouched Feats" as page titles? This is a pain in the a** to link. Something like [[Spelltouched Feats (UA)]] is completely sufficient. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 10:28, 6 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: I used that hierarchy because it simplified the forward and backward linking. If you look at the source for "Unearthed Arcana (DnD OGC Transcript)/Races/Environmental Racial Variants" page, you'll see is uses <code><nowiki>[[/Aquatic Races/Aquatic Dwarves]]</nowiki></code> to link to the subsections of the chapter, and the bread crumb uses <code><nowiki>[[../../]]</nowiki></code> to link back up the chain of pages. Not to mention that the wiki automatically generates a breadcrumb at the top of the pages for you. Also, redirects can be used to avoid using monstrously long page names, like [[dwarf paragon]]. There were also some other minor issues that cleared up when using this hierarchy, as well.<br />
<br />
: That being said, I'm not opposed to considering other hierarchical systems. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:07, 6 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have made a new namespace (UA:) just for UA material. This should make it more like the SRD currently is, and hopefully make it easier for one to find what they are looking for. Also, sorry Sledged ''':P'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:28, 16 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== ToDo ==<br />
<br />
* Due to 4e being release, redirects to the 3.5 SRD should use the "SRD:" prefix. Instead of using <tt><nowiki>[[monk]]</nowiki></tt> the following should be used: <tt><nowiki>[[SRD:monk|]]</nowiki></tt>. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:57, 16 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add subtype categories to each race page. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 18 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* List of pages to be transcribed (may not be comprehensive):<br />
{{#dpl:<br />
|category=Stub<br />
|namespace=UA<br />
|shownamespace=no<br />
|columns=3<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Editing Rights ==<br />
<br />
How should we deal with UA editing rights? Should we protect UA material from non-sysop edits after it has been added? Just non-user edits? Or should we leave it open for anyone to edit? Ideas? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:05, 18 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I say lock 'em up when they're done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:30, 18 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I feel that there is a problem with that, although it may not be warranted. One is that users have added much of the UA material (OptimizationFanatic, Othtim, etc) and if we lock it up we are restricting them from editing it - even though they added it. That could be taken as rude. Another thing is that people have commented on that we should open up the SRD to user edits. Maybe UA could be our test - if this works just being protected from IP edits, then maybe we could discuss the protection of the SRD. I like the idea of keeping it open to user edits, but protecting it from IP edits. Also, why can each section not be edited separately on this talk page, or am I missing something? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:08, 18 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Then we'll define "done" as content, formatting, and hyper-linking.<br />
:::I think something about the DPL prevents section editing. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:17, 18 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I wouldn't mind having finished pages locked. If they're done, they're done. —[[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 17:03, 21 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::True... But I often want to fix problems I see in the SRD but I don't want to have to always alert admins to it. UA could be a great test run. I agree with [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]: no IP edits should be allowed. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:31, 21 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Registered users only then? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:53, 21 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Definitely. That should keep it fairly safe. —[[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 18:46, 21 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I guess we will see how this turns out... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:15, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Way cool ==<br />
I like this segment of the wiki. Way fun. Variant is the way of tomorrow, in my opinion. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 00:14, 25 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I know, I cant wait for it to be finished. When do you think it will be? --[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 12:29, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::At it's current rate, probably a few months. It'd probably get done sooner if I could pull myself away from the [[True Dragon Index]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:43, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It will be [[Unearthed Arcana]] in wiki format. Fun fun ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:33, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Looking at the OGL above, specifically the reference to "Proper Names", notice that all examples are names of fictitious parts of the D20 world. There's no actual section of it that prevents the listing of non-product-identity monsters, under the heading, "Creatures from Monster Manual, reprinted under the Open Game License." In fact, in cases of copyright, you are required to credit the creator of other work when posting it. Providing credit to Wizards of the Coast for the hard work that they did in making these books is certainly no violation of the OGL. No need to rename everything "D20 System". {{Unsigned|192.251.125.85|01:15, 12 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::I am not exactly sure what you are trying to say here. Are you saying we can post D&D books on D&D Wiki? Because we cannot, they are copyrighted. The same goes for product identity material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:15, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Is it all going to go up at once? Because a few things are up, or is it gonna come up as things are finished?--[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 17:11, 14 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::They're coming up on an "as it gets added" basis. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:42, 14 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Feel free to contribute by adding the information from your UA book or from other online sources! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:22, 15 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Hi all, I've used the wiki many times in the past, and I wanted to give something back (not to mention eliminating the need for me to carry UA with me at all times). Thus, I've started by creating a main [[UA:Gestalt_Characters|Gestalt Characters]] page, as well as [[UA:Building_a_Gestalt_Character|Building a Gestalt Character]]. [[UA:Balancing_Gestalt_Characters|Balancing Gestalt Characters]] still awaits completion. If this is not the appropriate venue for mentioning this, many apologies, but I did want to make sure there were no glaring errors, as this is my first submission, and learn what I could do to make it more streamlined next time. Thanks for providing a valuable service to the gaming community! --[[User:Reality deviant|Reality deviant]] 12:22, 28 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Yuck! ==<br />
<br />
Yuck! I noticed all the links in the UA main page are all blued in, ie there, but when you click on them, you get a "coming soon" thing. Lame! Now people are going to come to the UA section, click a few links, and be all "wtf, there's nothing here." and leave. I know that's totally how I feel. Before at least you could see what was there and what wasn't. Now you really don't know. My vote: bad idea. Might be too late, but oh well. --[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 12:23, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Ok -- then help out transcribing it ''':)'''. I'm going to start to help out soon. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:45, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::We could always add a little <small>(<span style="color: red;">coming soon</span>)</small> after each one that has yet to be transcribed... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:51, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I have added it. Does it look okay? Do you think that will make people understand it is a work in progress? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:23, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Yeah! That's awesome! And aarnot, i AM. :P --[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 14:00, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Hehehe ok -- gotcha. The only stuff I added I borrowed from d20srd.org (and reformatted) -- I'm not sure if that is a good idea though. A friend of mine owns the actual hardcover -- should I borrow it? Does it matter? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 14:56, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Each site that hosts a transcription of ''[[Unearthed Arcana]]'' makes their own little mods in order to conform to the [[OGL]], and there's always human error in transcriptions of this scope. I'd rather the transcription come straight out the UA. But even if it's not, it can be double-checked after the fact. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:33, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::: I dunno about other people but I'm just opening up the book and typing what I see. --[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 15:51, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'm doing a little of both. The really, really long articles I tend to copy-paste and reformat. However, many of those I transcribed are directly from the book (which is definitely worth the price). -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 19:49, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== One Complete Chapter ==<br />
<br />
[[UA:Races|Races]] have been completely transcribed! Only needs a bit more formatting at this point, but I'll wait until all content has been transcribed before I worry about formatting. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 17 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Two Complete Chapters ==<br />
<br />
[[UA:Classes|Classes]] has been completely transcribed! It's missing some links, but is otherwise fine. {{User:OptimizationFanatic/Signature}} 15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Three Complete Chapters ==<br />
<br />
[[UA:Adventuring|Adventuring]] has been completely transcribed! —[[User:DemonSlayer|DemonSlayer]] 11:44, 22 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Four Complete Chapters ==<br />
<br />
[[UA:Building Characters|Building Characters]] has been completely transcribed! —[[User:DemonSlayer|DemonSlayer]]15:12, 3 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Nice! Thanks so much for helping with this task, and it looks great! Thanks! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:32, 3 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Afterword Complete ==<br />
<br />
[[UA:When Worlds Collide|When Worlds Collide]] has been completely transcribed! There's a link in there to an article from Chapter five (which hasn't been finished yet), but we'll get around to doing that. —[[User:DemonSlayer|DemonSlayer]] 11:54, 4 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You, my friend, have a lot of time on your hands. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 19:26, 8 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Heh, not really. I just have to sit behind my laptop all day long doing homework anyway, so I might as well do something constructive here while I'm at it. [[User:DemonSlayer|DemonSlayer]] 11:53, 9 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks again! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:19, 9 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Five Complete Chapters! ==<br />
<br />
With the addition of Sanity, which took '''forever''' to do, the Campaigns section is complete. Some articles still need linking, but we can do that later on. — [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] <small>([[User talk:OptimizationFanatic|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/OptimizationFanatic|contrib]])</small> 10:32, 11 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Damn it, nearly had that one finished too :s. 4 hours of work down the drain... Oh well, the important thing is it's up and running. And, well, at least now we have a backup --[[User:DemonSlayer|DemonSlayer]] 04:34, 12 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Typo ==<br />
<br />
Whats Inside+Classes<br />
<br />
Typo = tyr->try<br />
<br />
: Got it. Thanks. [[User:DemonSlayer|DemonSlayer]] 05:56, 1 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Recharge Magic ==<br />
<br />
Hey all. I'm trying to transcribe the recharge magic section of [[UA:Magic|Chapter 5]] which, if the index on [[UA:Variant Rules]] is up-to-date, is the last section that needs to be uploaded. However, I've run in to a minor issue with the charts used for the individual spells. Understand first off that my knowledge of wikicode is not the best in the world, but I do like to believe that I am fairly skilled at copying chunks of code that others have written and simply editing them for whatever purpose I need it for.<br />
<br />
On to the issue at hand. The chart in [[Unearthed Arcana (3.5e)|Unearthed Arcana]] has only two columns - one for the name of the spell, and one for that spell's recharge time. This is fine in the book, because they stick three sections of the chart side-by-side, with white spaces separating them so that it's easy to read. When attempting to write this chart up on the wiki, however, I've found only one of two ways to do it. The first is to have just two columns, like the book. As seen in the example below, it looks fairly nice and it's very easy to find a specific spell, but extending this table to include every SRD spell would make the [[UA:Recharge Magic]] page ridiculously long and possibly affect load time.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ {{#anc:Table 5-7: Spell Recharge Times}}<br />
! Spell Name !! Recharge Time<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| ''Acid fog'' || General<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| ''Acid splash'' || General<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| ''Aid'' || 5 minutes<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The other option is to extend the table to have six or more columns, and simply list multiple spells side-by-side, as in the example below.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ {{#anc:Table 5-7: Spell Recharge Times}}<br />
! Spell Name !! Recharge Time !! Spell Name !! Recharge Time !! Spell Name !! Recharge Time<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| ''Acid fog'' || General || ''Charm monster'' || 1 hour || ''Detect law'' || General<br />
|}<br />
<br />
This would greatly decrease the overall length of the chart. However, it also makes it harder to read, and the individual columns aren't as easy to distinguish from one another. In addition to these issues with formatting, I have noticed at least one spell is missing from the chart in ''Unearthed Arcana'' - alphabetically, the very first spell should be ''acid arrow'', but you can see it is absent from the published chart. My proposed fix to this would be to include those spells and mark them with an asterisk, denoting at the bottom of the chart that marked spells were omitted from the book and that their listed recharge times are educated guesses based on similar spells (''acid arrow'', for example, would probably have a general recharge time when compared to ''fireball'' or similar direct-damage spells). I suppose, then, that what I'm looking for are three answers.<br />
<br />
1) Is the a better way to format the table that I've overlooked and, if so, what is it?<br><br />
2) If there is no better way, which of those two presented above would be preferable, given that the chart will contain several hundred spells?<br><br />
3) How should I handle spells that are omitted from the official book?<br><br><br />
-- [[User:Dracomortis|Dracomortis]] 14:45, 4 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I think having three two-collumn tables side by side would be best, but I don't know how to actually do something like that. If you can think of any possible ways, try experimenting in the Sandbox. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 14:56, 4 September 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Not to be completely rude and go off-topic, but is this [[User:Dracomortis|Dracomortis]] the same Dracomortis that has done a wonderful job of keeping our Dinosaur Menagerie Index up to date on the Wizards forums in the recent past? If so, hello again! If not... Well, then crap! :P -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 16:06, 4 September 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magical_Game,_Jumanji_(3.5e_Other)&diff=407979Talk:Magical Game, Jumanji (3.5e Other)2009-08-28T19:28:25Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Placement */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Idea ==<br />
<br />
This one is totally up for debate and ideas. All effects - visual, audible, physical, magical, and sensory - produced as part of the manifestations of the game will be Greater Shadow Conjurations, and would be well-suited to basic magical principles of shadow, as well as Shadowcaster Mysteries in Tome of Magic. Aside from that fact, I am still pretty flexible on the statistics, manifestations, and player interactivity, but I was also thinking that the basic structure for a true rolling method for player characters would be as follows: players rolls in order to show that they have taken their turn in the game (2d6, possible 2-12; doubles or difference), plus roll on a d%, determining an effect drawn from the table of 'turn' instances, challenges, encounters, and effects. The effect rolled on this d% roll could be alterable based on the 2d6 roll's number(s) or double-difference to show lean/favor/flavor for variable player in-character 2d6 roll. Cheating or attempting to trick results in negative effects would result from the game as if it were aware of player intentions and motivations. Anything from the basic conjurations of a low-level encounter series to more advanced, epic-scale royal game-style variations could be possible for different level groups (ie, ACL 1-10, 11-20, 20+, etc.). Anything jungle-related is possible here. In the film, anything from jungle animals in small and large numbers to intelligent fast-growing plant life to a musket-bearing 1800s British hunter (who, in the modern world, ends up acquiring a high-powered, stealthy, long-range rifle that looks like it was issued straight from the US military special tactics forces... for the record).<br />
<br />
In other words, just about anything cool is possible here. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 05:52, 8 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Placement ==<br />
<br />
I was adding this to the area where you had the breadcrumb link back to and this is not a magical item. I think you need to pick a area and stick with it. For example is this a magical item, major artifact, or a minor artifact? I added it to minor artifact; feel free to change it if you want. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:01, 8 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:i think this should be a major artifact because it seems unique and there are multiples of minor artifacts plus i also think this is a cursed item there can be cursed artifacts there is one in dungeon masters guide -- Ewokdruid 09:20, 28 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree, there is some level of a curse to this item since it must be played until there is a winner, or else the disastrous magical effects would be semi-permanent. I think the reason that this is not a major artifact is because it was not made by or in any way related to some deity or legendary creature or being. I believe that those relics are only ones such as the Hand and Eye of Vecna, or else some great celestial object of power. This is really just a magical game with big effects. I agree, it is important, but I don't think it would be major. Now the questions arises, is it truly cursed?<br />
<br />
::I am not sure this is the case either. It would all depend on the mentality of the beholder; an honorable hero who wishes to test his strength and resolve would find this artifact quite purposeful, even though in the story the children are unwitting and ill-prepared for such a magnificent quest (and hence, they feel cursed by its restrictive rules to play until their is a winner). -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 13:24, 28 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magical_Game,_Jumanji_(3.5e_Other)&diff=407978Talk:Magical Game, Jumanji (3.5e Other)2009-08-28T19:24:49Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Placement */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Idea ==<br />
<br />
This one is totally up for debate and ideas. All effects - visual, audible, physical, magical, and sensory - produced as part of the manifestations of the game will be Greater Shadow Conjurations, and would be well-suited to basic magical principles of shadow, as well as Shadowcaster Mysteries in Tome of Magic. Aside from that fact, I am still pretty flexible on the statistics, manifestations, and player interactivity, but I was also thinking that the basic structure for a true rolling method for player characters would be as follows: players rolls in order to show that they have taken their turn in the game (2d6, possible 2-12; doubles or difference), plus roll on a d%, determining an effect drawn from the table of 'turn' instances, challenges, encounters, and effects. The effect rolled on this d% roll could be alterable based on the 2d6 roll's number(s) or double-difference to show lean/favor/flavor for variable player in-character 2d6 roll. Cheating or attempting to trick results in negative effects would result from the game as if it were aware of player intentions and motivations. Anything from the basic conjurations of a low-level encounter series to more advanced, epic-scale royal game-style variations could be possible for different level groups (ie, ACL 1-10, 11-20, 20+, etc.). Anything jungle-related is possible here. In the film, anything from jungle animals in small and large numbers to intelligent fast-growing plant life to a musket-bearing 1800s British hunter (who, in the modern world, ends up acquiring a high-powered, stealthy, long-range rifle that looks like it was issued straight from the US military special tactics forces... for the record).<br />
<br />
In other words, just about anything cool is possible here. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 05:52, 8 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Placement ==<br />
<br />
I was adding this to the area where you had the breadcrumb link back to and this is not a magical item. I think you need to pick a area and stick with it. For example is this a magical item, major artifact, or a minor artifact? I added it to minor artifact; feel free to change it if you want. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:01, 8 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:i think this should be a major artifact because it seems unique and there are multiples of minor artifacts plus i also think this is a cursed item there can be cursed artifacts there is one in dungeon masters guide -- Ewokdruid 09:20, 28 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree, there is some level of a curse to this item since it must be played until there is a winner, or else the disastrous magical effects would be semi-permanent. I think the reason that this is not a major artifact is because it was not made by or in any way related to some deity or legendary creature or being. I believe that those relics are only ones such as the Hand and Eye of Vecna, or else some great celestial object of power. This is really just a magical game with big effects. I agree, it is important, but I don't think it would be major. Now the questions arises, is it truly cursed? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 13:24, 28 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Divine_Ranks&diff=407977SRD Talk:Divine Ranks2009-08-28T19:19:29Z<p>Xidoraven: /* 4e Deities */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Salient Divine Abilities ==<br />
Under the SDA section, (see Salient Divine Abilities) could be turned into a link to [[SRD:Divine Abilities]].<br />
<br />
There are a few other words and phrases on this page that could be turned into useful links to the segments of the character sheet that they relate to, such as 'Hit Points', 'Speed', and the others that have or could have info pages in the future. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 21:32, 15 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a whole project for me. I'll be scripting some linking after I'm done renaming pages and my current huge slate of chores.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:24, 16 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I see that you actually just got to do that. I can also see that 'Powers' is continuously linked to the psionic page, which is a tad off. Looking good. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 10:33, 30 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Aside from the [[SRD:Powers|Powers]] link needing to be edited to mirror its attachment to the [[SRD:Divine Abilities|Salient Divine Abilities]], this page is looking good. Anything I can do to help? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 23:06, 13 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::This area just needs an admin to go over it by hand. I'm still auto-linking common terms. I keep hitting places where terms are not unique. For example, "power" refers to more than psionics. My current focus is on universal terms and high-traffic areas. Divine stuff is fairly far down on the list. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:11, 14 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Template ==<br />
<br />
Can we make a template for divine rank? Using the general outline here but making it so that you can be granted god-like powers by your DM? Also this allows for an easier making of extra deities for quick use in a campaign. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:10, 8 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, but not on this page. Have at it!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:12, 8 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here's two [http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/divinetemplates.htm divine templates]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:12, 8 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Very interesting, Sledged. Great link. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:15, 23 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== 4e Deities ==<br />
Does anyone know anything about what Wizards plans to do with deities in 4e D&D? I am wondering what changes will have been made to the 3.5 system and how it will be balanced. As it is, I am still having some troubles finding time to work on my [[Inath (DnD Variant Rule)|variant deities concept (Inath)]], but I am also wondering if and when I will be able to convert it over to 4e in order to keep it marketable to new players and DMs. THANKS! -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:15, 23 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Deities in 4e are all FLAVOR and no crunch. Divine Power introduced some domain powers. For the most part, WotC leave it up to the player to flesh out his own conception of the deity and what power the deity would grant. I've been rewriting some of my deities lately (but nowhere near done), and generally find that 4e deities are far easier to write. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:50, 27 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So, in that sense, a deity no longer has character write-up statistics? They would be more like impersonal beings off somewhere in the cosmos? The reason I ask is because of my Variant Rule System for deification of characters through [[Inath (DnD Variant Rule)|Inath Progression]], that leads the character/NPC through an incremental process of taking on Divine Rank... I was considering making this system 4e-friendly after its conversion, but if they are doing away with deities as personal beings, than I guess that point becomes moot. I will look into Divine Power to see what is suggested there as well, when I get a chance. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 13:19, 28 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Divine_Ranks&diff=406252SRD Talk:Divine Ranks2009-08-24T04:15:39Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Template */ note - and new heading = question about 4e D&D deities</p>
<hr />
<div>== Salient Divine Abilities ==<br />
Under the SDA section, (see Salient Divine Abilities) could be turned into a link to [[SRD:Divine Abilities]].<br />
<br />
There are a few other words and phrases on this page that could be turned into useful links to the segments of the character sheet that they relate to, such as 'Hit Points', 'Speed', and the others that have or could have info pages in the future. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 21:32, 15 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a whole project for me. I'll be scripting some linking after I'm done renaming pages and my current huge slate of chores.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:24, 16 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I see that you actually just got to do that. I can also see that 'Powers' is continuously linked to the psionic page, which is a tad off. Looking good. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 10:33, 30 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Aside from the [[SRD:Powers|Powers]] link needing to be edited to mirror its attachment to the [[SRD:Divine Abilities|Salient Divine Abilities]], this page is looking good. Anything I can do to help? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 23:06, 13 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::This area just needs an admin to go over it by hand. I'm still auto-linking common terms. I keep hitting places where terms are not unique. For example, "power" refers to more than psionics. My current focus is on universal terms and high-traffic areas. Divine stuff is fairly far down on the list. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:11, 14 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Template ==<br />
<br />
Can we make a template for divine rank? Using the general outline here but making it so that you can be granted god-like powers by your DM? Also this allows for an easier making of extra deities for quick use in a campaign. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:10, 8 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, but not on this page. Have at it!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:12, 8 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here's two [http://home.gwi.net/~rdorman/frilond/rul/dm/divinetemplates.htm divine templates]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:12, 8 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Very interesting, Sledged. Great link. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:15, 23 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== 4e Deities ==<br />
Does anyone know anything about what Wizards plans to do with deities in 4e D&D? I am wondering what changes will have been made to the 3.5 system and how it will be balanced. As it is, I am still having some troubles finding time to work on my [[Inath (DnD Variant Rule)|variant deities concept (Inath)]], but I am also wondering if and when I will be able to convert it over to 4e in order to keep it marketable to new players and DMs. THANKS! -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:15, 23 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Magical_Game,_Jumanji_(3.5e_Other)&diff=366861Magical Game, Jumanji (3.5e Other)2009-06-08T12:09:50Z<p>Xidoraven: a few more details and additions</p>
<hr />
<div>{{author<br />
|author_name=xidoraven<br />
|date_created=June 8, 2009<br />
|status=Not Finished<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<!-- Your Items Information --><br />
Magical Games are games that are played by those who are not faint of heart, and who crave a more adventurous challenge than a simple game of chess. In Magical Games, spells, effects, and encounters occur that can up the stakes of merely rolling dice, playing cards, moving a board game piece, etc. Jumanji - the wondrous item here described - is such a Magical Game. All Magical Games are Wondrous Items and Artifacts (since they are unique and never mass-produced, often amounting to very limited or rare numbers in existence).<br />
<br />
Jumanji is a 1982 illustrated children's book by author Chris Van Allsburg, which was then adapted to screenplay and produced as a 20th Century Fox film starring Robin Williams and others. In the book, two children must finish the game to rid the manifestations of the game before their parents come home from the opera. In the adapted screenplay, the story is much more complex, expansive and convoluted and affects space-time itself in game terms. Both instances are used as inspiration for this wondrous item. Here, the game itself appears and plays as the movie game was portrayed; it is hard and easy to quickly open, close, move, and be heavily jostled, as well as safe from all possible physical manifestations of environmental and extraordinary harm, including its own effects. All effects produced here are developed as shadow conjurations - physical effects produced by an incorporeal magical substance made to produce a real or seemingly-real effect. All manifestations and changes produced by the game are considered ''Greater Shadow Conjurations'', as cast by a 35th-level sorceror, and are not subject to antimagic effects or dispelling.<br />
<br />
'''Example Game Use & Implementation, Item History:'''<br />
''Hybrid Interplanar, Deific/Outsider-oriented, SF, High Fantasy Usage - '''Nym''' (Omarka, or "the Beastlands" Campaign Setting)''<br />
Jumanji is a game developed by Nymian Royalty for a suitable challenge for elite tribal warriors which would test their resolve, survival abilities, war/hunting capacity, leadership, and cooperation with other players. It was created as a gift for a well-respected king who gifted it to another, and often trades hands. It may be found hidden, such as buried by the last unprepared participant, seeking to hide its existence.<br />
<br />
Jumanji is a simple board game which utilizes dice rolls (2d6: two cubic, six-sided dice), board game miniatures, and a closed-box board game platform which functions as board, container, rules list, and rolling platform. Players choose a miniature as their board game token, which moves along a twisted path of square tiles to reach the center, a large gem-like crystal dish which magically reveals the secret challenges of the tiles and the winning phrase when a player may win by calling the finishing word, "JUMANJI". The rules are simple, and appear on the inside of the covering planks of the wooden box structure which shelters and houses the game and its components. The box, a masterwork magical wooden wondrous item, is waterproof, self-containing, immune to fire, acid, electricity, cold, sonic, polymorph effects, and once begun playing - employs methods that keep its internal pieces from being lost, moved, knocked off, etc.<br />
<br />
'''Materials / Components'''<br />
Board/Container<br />
two six-sided dice<br />
eight player tokens (trinkets: elephant, tiger, snake, flower, zebra, lizard, hunter, drum)<br />
<br />
'''Rules & Goal'''<br />
<br />
'''Players & Strategy'''<br />
<br />
'''''D&D Stats:'''''<br />
Magical Game, Jumanji (Board Game)<br />
Wondrous Item (Magical, Artifact)<br />
<br />
A player (any living creature with an Int and Wis scores both of 6) chooses a miniature token, which they place at any of a series of starting points around the external edge of the playing section of the game board. If they have not placed their token at a beginning point by the time they roll the dice to begin playing, their token moves to the nearest starting place, and is affixed to that space on the board until it begins moving, when the player's dice roll is complete. When a player rolls the two dice, they are considered to have taken their turn and are subject to the rules and effects of the game in its entirety.<br />
<br />
MORE...<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to [[3.5e Magical Wondrous Items]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Equipment Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Equipment]]<br />
[[Category:Magic]]<br />
[[Category:Artifact]]</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magical_Game,_Jumanji_(3.5e_Other)&diff=366859Talk:Magical Game, Jumanji (3.5e Other)2009-06-08T11:52:39Z<p>Xidoraven: my own input and ideas... the floor is open for debate and input</p>
<hr />
<div>This one is totally up for debate and ideas. All effects - visual, audible, physical, magical, and sensory - produced as part of the manifestations of the game will be Greater Shadow Conjurations, and would be well-suited to basic magical principles of shadow, as well as Shadowcaster Mysteries in Tome of Magic. Aside from that fact, I am still pretty flexible on the statistics, manifestations, and player interactivity, but I was also thinking that the basic structure for a true rolling method for player characters would be as follows: players rolls in order to show that they have taken their turn in the game (2d6, possible 2-12; doubles or difference), plus roll on a d%, determining an effect drawn from the table of 'turn' instances, challenges, encounters, and effects. The effect rolled on this d% roll could be alterable based on the 2d6 roll's number(s) or double-difference to show lean/favor/flavor for variable player in-character 2d6 roll. Cheating or attempting to trick results in negative effects would result from the game as if it were aware of player intentions and motivations. Anything from the basic conjurations of a low-level encounter series to more advanced, epic-scale royal game-style variations could be possible for different level groups (ie, ACL 1-10, 11-20, 20+, etc.). Anything jungle-related is possible here. In the film, anything from jungle animals in small and large numbers to intelligent fast-growing plant life to a musket-bearing 1800s British hunter (who, in the modern world, ends up acquiring a high-powered, stealthy, long-range rifle that looks like it was issued straight from the US military special tactics forces... for the record).<br />
<br />
In other words, just about anything cool is possible here. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 05:52, 8 June 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Magical_Game,_Jumanji_(3.5e_Other)&diff=366852Magical Game, Jumanji (3.5e Other)2009-06-08T09:13:26Z<p>Xidoraven: beginning and outlining ideas and concept for final stats and material</p>
<hr />
<div>{{author<br />
|author_name=xidoraven<br />
|date_created=June 8, 2009<br />
|status=Not Finished<br />
}}<br />
<br />
<!-- Your Items Information --><br />
Magical Games are games that are played by those who are not faint of heart, and who crave a more adventurous challenge than a simple game of chess. In Magical Games, spells, effects, and encounters occur that can up the stakes of merely rolling dice, playing cards, moving a board game piece, etc.<br />
<br />
Jumanji is a game developed by Nymian Royalty for a suitable challenge for elite tribal warriors which would test their resolve, survival abilities, war/hunting capacity, leadership, and cooperation with other players. It was created as a gift for a well-respected king who gifted it to another, and often trades hands. It may be found hidden, such as buried by the last unprepared participant, seeking to hide its existence.<br />
<br />
Jumanji is a simple board game which utilizes dice rolls (2d6: two cubic, six-sided dice), board game miniatures, and a closed-box board game platform which functions as board, container, rules list, and rolling platform. Players choose a miniature as their board game token, which moves along a twisted path of square tiles to reach the center, a large gem-like crystal dish which magically reveals the secret challenges of the tiles and the winning phrase when a player may win by calling the finishing word, "JUMANJI". The rules are simple, and appear on the inside of the covering planks of the wooden box structure which shelters and houses the game and its components. The box, a masterwork magical wooden wondrous item, is waterproof, self-containing, immune to fire, acid, electricity, cold, sonic, polymorph effects, and once begun playing - employs methods that keep its internal pieces from being lost, moved, knocked off, etc.<br />
<br />
Materials / Components<br />
Rules & Goal<br />
Players & Strategy<br />
<br />
D&D Stats:<br />
Magical Game, Jumanji (Board Game)<br />
Wondrous Item (Magical, Artifact)<br />
<br />
A player (any living creature with an Int and Wis scores both of 6) chooses a miniature token, which they place at any of a series of starting points around the external edge of the playing section of the game board. If they have not placed their token at a beginning point by the time they roll the dice to begin playing, their token moves to the nearest starting place, and is affixed to that space on the board until it begins moving, when the player's dice roll is complete. When a player rolls the two dice, they are considered to have taken their turn and are subject to the rules and effects of the game in its entirety.<br />
<br />
MORE...<br />
<br />
<br />
Back to [[3.5e Magical Wondrous Items]]<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Equipment Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Equipment]]<br />
[[Category:Magic]]<br />
[[Category:Artifact]]</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Dinosaur&diff=361310SRD Talk:Dinosaur2009-05-19T00:10:31Z<p>Xidoraven: We need a supplemental and homebrew portion for this - and for prehistoric animals</p>
<hr />
<div>Whoa. I found a place where we are falling behind. Give me a minute to post some links here. This is an SRD page, but there is a wealth of information on Homebrew and OGL stats on these creatures and many related... But we need a place to begin. We for sure need a set of HB pages for us to post our own collections.<br />
<br />
http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-monster-talk/246515-converting-prehistoric-creatures-29.html<br />
<br />
http://worldsofimagination.com/twenty%20worlds%20Bathos%20Bestiary%20d.htm<br />
<br />
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=422781 AND<br />
<br />
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=18603476&postcount=1781<br />
<br />
I am sure that there is much more to come. Yes, I will probably be making another page for Homebrew material if no one else does before I come back here and do this all again. ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 18:10, 18 May 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Magical_Beast_Type&diff=333452SRD Talk:Magical Beast Type2009-03-10T09:40:01Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Typo */ reply and thank you</p>
<hr />
<div>== Class Skills? ==<br />
<br />
Where do I find what the class skills of a Magical Beast are. They should likely be added to all the "Type" pages. It would make creating Monsterous NPCs a lot easier. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:43, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
: In the Monster Manual on page 293, under "Skills", there is a line that says:<br />
::"Treat skills listed in the base creature's description as class skills, as well as any new skills applied by the template."<br />
:--[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 19:01, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::What's more is that if the types had class skills listed, the list would be near useless because two creatures of the same type can be so drastically different. You'd have exceptions for almost every creature of that type. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks! That answers that. I just built a Griffon variant that can gain class levels and I wanted to know it's Magical Beast class skills. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Typo ==<br />
<br />
Seriously, it's like RIGHT THERE at the top of the pages: BEASATS = Beasts<br />
<br />
Also, is BEAST Subtype not part of the official SRD in 3.5? I am not moving on to 4th edition, btw. I am against it for the most part, and I still value all my old books. I liked 3.5 and think we should have simply made more products without stopping the publication of the old ones... -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 01:49, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[:Category:Magical Beast Type]] if that is what you are looking for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:34, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::That's helpful but no... I think I saw it in Monster Manual II or later... It was a type/subtype for something OTHER THAN Magical Beast, but that was similar. It was simply BEAST, though... Not really sure, to be quite honest. I just wanted to know the difference between that and a MAGICAL BEAST. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:16, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Beast was one of the types in 3 ed. but was folded into magical beast in 3.5 ed. -[[User:Sarrow|Sarrow]] 22:52, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Oh. Thank you so much, Sarrow. That helps immensely. So, my only need to deal with basic creatures - whether typical, enhanced, magical, etc. - results in using Vermin, Animals, Magical Beasts, etc. What do I do to a 3.0 creature that is labeled as a Beast? Is there a document stating this 'fold-over' or a 3.5 Errata file? I am considering how best to deal with dinosaurs, prehistoric animals (& dire-such varieties), and other more Outsider-related concepts, but I was wondering if I had perhaps overlooked a better way of working with these types of beasties.... Seriosuly, thank you. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:40, 10 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Magical_Beast_Type&diff=333415SRD Talk:Magical Beast Type2009-03-10T04:16:52Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Typo */ reply to GD</p>
<hr />
<div>== Class Skills? ==<br />
<br />
Where do I find what the class skills of a Magical Beast are. They should likely be added to all the "Type" pages. It would make creating Monsterous NPCs a lot easier. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:43, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
: In the Monster Manual on page 293, under "Skills", there is a line that says:<br />
::"Treat skills listed in the base creature's description as class skills, as well as any new skills applied by the template."<br />
:--[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 19:01, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::What's more is that if the types had class skills listed, the list would be near useless because two creatures of the same type can be so drastically different. You'd have exceptions for almost every creature of that type. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks! That answers that. I just built a Griffon variant that can gain class levels and I wanted to know it's Magical Beast class skills. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Typo ==<br />
<br />
Seriously, it's like RIGHT THERE at the top of the pages: BEASATS = Beasts<br />
<br />
Also, is BEAST Subtype not part of the official SRD in 3.5? I am not moving on to 4th edition, btw. I am against it for the most part, and I still value all my old books. I liked 3.5 and think we should have simply made more products without stopping the publication of the old ones... -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 01:49, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[:Category:Magical Beast Type]] if that is what you are looking for. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:34, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::That's helpful but no... I think I saw it in Monster Manual II or later... It was a type/subtype for something OTHER THAN Magical Beast, but that was similar. It was simply BEAST, though... Not really sure, to be quite honest. I just wanted to know the difference between that and a MAGICAL BEAST. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:16, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=MSRD_Talk:Vehicle_Movement_and_Combat&diff=333413MSRD Talk:Vehicle Movement and Combat2009-03-10T04:13:39Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Mistake */ reply to GD</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mistake ==<br />
<br />
There appears to be a mistake on table: vehicle speeds and modifiers and crewed vehicles. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:30, 23 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Better? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 24 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I believe there may also be a missing header on here:<br />
::"Optional Attack Action: If the driver did not take an attack action before moving, and performed one or fewer stunts, the driver has an attack action left. '''''Collisions and Ramming'''''" Followed by statistics on the last two words as a topic. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:20, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Got it, thank you. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:31, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Not even a problem, bud. I can't help but edit as I am reading... :P -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:13, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=MSRD_Talk:Future_Equipment&diff=333411MSRD Talk:Future Equipment2009-03-10T04:12:05Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Typo? */ reply to GD</p>
<hr />
<div>== Typo? ==<br />
<br />
In the section on Mini-Grenade Launchers, is Mini-Rocket/Missile Launcher supposed to be a separate item? The text is redundant and made me look twice at what it was saying. There are at least two, maybe three items being described here, potentially. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 02:43, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I see what you mean. Do you have the d20M books? Could someone source what they do? I can't seem to find the MSRD anywhere else online, and I do not have my books with me for a few more months. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:27, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::No, I cannot help on that front, GD. This is my only resource for d20 Modern/Future.... And I am hoping to apply a few principles to my SF/Science-Fantasy games... So I will be looking at this stuff pretty regularly for a while. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:12, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=MSRD_Talk:Vehicle_Movement_and_Combat&diff=333048MSRD Talk:Vehicle Movement and Combat2009-03-09T09:20:43Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Mistake */ header missing?</p>
<hr />
<div>== Mistake ==<br />
<br />
There appears to be a mistake on table: vehicle speeds and modifiers and crewed vehicles. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:30, 23 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Better? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:50, 24 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I believe there may also be a missing header on here:<br />
<br />
::"Optional Attack Action: If the driver did not take an attack action before moving, and performed one or fewer stunts, the driver has an attack action left. '''''Collisions and Ramming'''''" Followed by statistics on the last two words as a topic. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:20, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=MSRD_Talk:Starships&diff=333047MSRD Talk:Starships2009-03-09T09:05:25Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Typo? */ nevermind</p>
<hr />
<div>== Just so you know==<br />
The gravitic redirector would cause tremendous tidal forces, and time dilation on the ship. If its big enough to pull the ship, its big enough to pull it apart. And don't get me started on the radiation. {{unsigned|T G Geko|19:26, 9 January 2008}}<br />
<br />
:Yes, there are major scientific issues with the "future technology" in d20 Modern. That is why d20 Future is written as Galactic Fantasy rather than Hard Sci-fi: it makes no attempt to truly explain the future technology beyond mere descriptive generalizations. If it adhered to hard Sci-Fi, there would '''be''' no d20 Future. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:48, 9 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Hey, this is PL8, and i think the technology at the 27th-century would be good enough to deal with the tidal force problem (maybe some Inducers weakening the tidal forces by creating gravity the opposite direction). and for the radiation, it seems to me like creating energy from nothing (you don't use fuel as you don't accelerate, just the singularity and the ship move and no energy is absorbed) and there no matter to create gravitation from, just gravions that don't go to anywhere. [[User:Arielby|Arielby]] 10:46, 27 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Actually what I meant was that a black hole of that size would radiate via Hawkings radiation, which isn't too plesant to fleshy organisms. And by weakening the gravity, you weaken how fast you go. Sorry, I just have to say this stuff. --[[User:T G Geko|T G Geko]] 18:27, 18 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I Found a Bug ==<br />
<br />
As i did see, PL8 Zero Bore deals the same damage and has a similar range unit as the PL7 Quantum Cannon, but purchase DC is higher by 11. [[User:Arielby|Arielby]] 08:23, 27 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Indeed. There are a variety of minor inconsistencies in the space combat chapter. I'd suggest house-ruling the situation (reducing the purchase DC or adding an additional effect or quality). There are also, of course, non-statistic based narrative differences between the weapons. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 10:36, 31 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Typo? ==<br />
"Ultralight ships cover most small spacecraft, including fighters, cutters, '''''launches''''', and couriers."<br />
<br />
Launchers? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:03, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Nevermind, I see elsewhere that they are referred to as a Launch, so I am just being persnickety. ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:05, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=MSRD_Talk:Starships&diff=333046MSRD Talk:Starships2009-03-09T09:03:23Z<p>Xidoraven: Typo?</p>
<hr />
<div>== Just so you know==<br />
The gravitic redirector would cause tremendous tidal forces, and time dilation on the ship. If its big enough to pull the ship, its big enough to pull it apart. And don't get me started on the radiation. {{unsigned|T G Geko|19:26, 9 January 2008}}<br />
<br />
:Yes, there are major scientific issues with the "future technology" in d20 Modern. That is why d20 Future is written as Galactic Fantasy rather than Hard Sci-fi: it makes no attempt to truly explain the future technology beyond mere descriptive generalizations. If it adhered to hard Sci-Fi, there would '''be''' no d20 Future. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:48, 9 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Hey, this is PL8, and i think the technology at the 27th-century would be good enough to deal with the tidal force problem (maybe some Inducers weakening the tidal forces by creating gravity the opposite direction). and for the radiation, it seems to me like creating energy from nothing (you don't use fuel as you don't accelerate, just the singularity and the ship move and no energy is absorbed) and there no matter to create gravitation from, just gravions that don't go to anywhere. [[User:Arielby|Arielby]] 10:46, 27 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Actually what I meant was that a black hole of that size would radiate via Hawkings radiation, which isn't too plesant to fleshy organisms. And by weakening the gravity, you weaken how fast you go. Sorry, I just have to say this stuff. --[[User:T G Geko|T G Geko]] 18:27, 18 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I Found a Bug ==<br />
<br />
As i did see, PL8 Zero Bore deals the same damage and has a similar range unit as the PL7 Quantum Cannon, but purchase DC is higher by 11. [[User:Arielby|Arielby]] 08:23, 27 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Indeed. There are a variety of minor inconsistencies in the space combat chapter. I'd suggest house-ruling the situation (reducing the purchase DC or adding an additional effect or quality). There are also, of course, non-statistic based narrative differences between the weapons. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 10:36, 31 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Typo? ==<br />
"Ultralight ships cover most small spacecraft, including fighters, cutters, '''''launches''''', and couriers."<br />
<br />
Launchers? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 03:03, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=MSRD_Talk:Future_Equipment&diff=333045MSRD Talk:Future Equipment2009-03-09T08:43:14Z<p>Xidoraven: maybe a typo?</p>
<hr />
<div>==Typo?==<br />
In the section on Mini-Grenade Launchers, is Mini-Rocket/Missile Launcher supposed to be a separate item? The text is redundant and made me look twice at what it was saying. There are at least two, maybe three items being described here, potentially. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 02:43, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:3.5e_Others_Breadcrumb&diff=333044Template talk:3.5e Others Breadcrumb2009-03-09T07:54:18Z<p>Xidoraven: confusion</p>
<hr />
<div>===WFR===<br />
This was added to the Wiki Fiction Roleplayers Guild page... I don't understand. Help me? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 01:54, 9 March 2009 (MDT) Ps: sorry I have not been around lately. I suck. :P Missed you guys.</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Magical_Beast_Type&diff=333043SRD Talk:Magical Beast Type2009-03-09T07:49:40Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Typo */ added comment about Beast Subtype and my views on moving up from 3.5 to 4.0.... ;)</p>
<hr />
<div>==Class Skills?==<br />
<br />
Where do I find what the class skills of a Magical Beast are. They should likely be added to all the "Type" pages. It would make creating Monsterous NPCs a lot easier. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:43, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
: In the Monster Manual on page 293, under "Skills", there is a line that says:<br />
::"Treat skills listed in the base creature's description as class skills, as well as any new skills applied by the template."<br />
:--[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 19:01, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::What's more is that if the types had class skills listed, the list would be near useless because two creatures of the same type can be so drastically different. You'd have exceptions for almost every creature of that type. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks! That answers that. I just built a Griffon variant that can gain class levels and I wanted to know it's Magical Beast class skills. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Typo==<br />
Seriously, it's like RIGHT THERE at the top of the pages: BEASATS = Beasts -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 01:47, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Also, is BEAST Subtype not part of the official SRD in 3.5? I am not moving on to 4th edition, btw. I am against it for the most part, and I still value all my old books. I liked 3.5 and think we should have simply made more products without stopping the publication of the old ones... -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 01:49, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Magical_Beast_Type&diff=333042SRD Talk:Magical Beast Type2009-03-09T07:47:26Z<p>Xidoraven: typo - and I can't edit this page</p>
<hr />
<div>==Class Skills?==<br />
<br />
Where do I find what the class skills of a Magical Beast are. They should likely be added to all the "Type" pages. It would make creating Monsterous NPCs a lot easier. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:43, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
: In the Monster Manual on page 293, under "Skills", there is a line that says:<br />
::"Treat skills listed in the base creature's description as class skills, as well as any new skills applied by the template."<br />
:--[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 19:01, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::What's more is that if the types had class skills listed, the list would be near useless because two creatures of the same type can be so drastically different. You'd have exceptions for almost every creature of that type. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks! That answers that. I just built a Griffon variant that can gain class levels and I wanted to know it's Magical Beast class skills. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 21:11, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Typo==<br />
Seriously, it's like RIGHT THERE at the top of the pages: BEASATS = Beasts -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 01:47, 9 March 2009 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shaman_(3.5e_Class)&diff=333041Talk:Shaman (3.5e Class)2009-03-09T07:45:43Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Wild Shape */ recommendation - in sticking with traditional shamanic practices</p>
<hr />
<div>== Wild Shape ==<br />
<br />
I very much like this class, but I just have a question about the Wild Shape ability- is it, apart from the ways stated, the same as a Druid's Wild Shape? For example, does it preclude spellcasting without the Natural SPell feat, and does Wild armour retain the bonus when the Shaman is Wild Shaped? [[User:MorkaisChosen|MorkaisChosen]] 06:52, 2 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Apart from the ways stated, yes. It gets all the perks of Druidic wild shape, with the only limitation that you can only change into the species of animal that you have as a spirit guide. Like a druid's wild shape, the shaman's also subsumes verbal spell components into growls and other animal noises, and is able to cast spells. About Wild Armor, I'm not really sure; haven't thought about it yet. I'd say just mimic the druid's wild shape in that regard. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 07:44, 2 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I can make the following statement in all honesty, because I have been studying the aspects of shamanism for quite some time now, and in sticking with formal tradition, I have a recommendation a couple recommendations to make:<br />
<br />
::I would also, at some point through the levels (ie. lvl 15-18, and 21-22), consider adding-to/altering the final attained Wild Shape ability to be just as the druid's, in that they are allowed more than one specified form (such as the current Spirit Guide-related shape ability seems to work). I say this because every shaman is listening to more than one animal and plant at any given moment, and often it is not unheard of to have more than one spirit guide/animal guiding and/or working with you as you progress in your work. I would recommend allowing a high-level Shaman to be able to change into other forms aside from his Spirit Guide, and remain with the ability of a low-level druid beyond that.<br />
<br />
::Also, a large part of being a shaman is being able to enter, walk through, manifest, and entertain knowledge of the Spirit Realm. I would consider adding Knowledge (the Planes) and Lucid Dreaming (Wis) as class skills if they are not already there. Perhaps a low-use (1/day) ability of [[Astral Projection (SRD Spell)]] might even be in order. I wouldn't be afraid to put these into the Epic level slots, believe it or not. I might even consider replacing a Bonus Feat for the ability to project oneself into a mental/spiritual realm of thought/existence. ;) Plus, where is the drumming, rattling, singing, dancing? Did I overlook the Perform skill, or is there an equipment list that I might not have seen? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 01:45, 9 March 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Completed (More or Less) ==<br />
<br />
I think I'm done with tweaking this class. As far as I am concerned it is done. The only thing I am still debating is whether I should keep slow BAB progression, or substitute it for medium. Otherwise, it's all done. Does anything else still need to be done to stop it being flagged? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 07:48, 2 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:#<s>Get rid of an extra space after the italicized section, before "Game Rule Information", and after the class skills.</s><br />
:#All the class features should not be headers, make them just bolded ''and on the same line as the fist bit of the class feature''. If you want them to be linked from the table use HTML span id's.<br />
:#<s>The Spell List should be after all the class features under its own L2 header (like class features). Also, all the spell levels need to have their own header (L3). For an example as to what I mean see the [[Red Mage (DnD Class)]] spell list.</s><br />
:#<s>Make sure all the class features only have one blank line before and after them.</s><br />
:#<s>Again, make sure all the class features are on the same line as their headers.</s><br />
:#<s>Make the "Epic Shaman" a L2 header with its class features being an L3 header.</s><br />
:#<s>Format the epic class features like the normal class features should be formatted.</s><br />
:#<s>Make sure 2 blank lines are present before the "Back to" footer</s><br />
:After all this is done [[Template:Wikify]] should be able to be removed. Please remove it once all this is done as I will not be here to remove it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:54, 2 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Think I've done everything. Except span ids; I'm a bit of a novice still, so I'm not really sure how. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 18:12, 2 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::All that is left to do is add span id's. I have added span id's to the first level class features, look there and copy that to the normal class features. So far this is looking a lot better, good work ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:42, 5 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Progress ==<br />
<br />
Revised for balance and ease of use. Also, done span iding, after about half a year. x.x --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 09:30, 11 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Featured Article Nominee ==<br />
<br />
{{Failed Featured Article Nominee|--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:49, 4 May 2008 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
I would like to nominate this page as a featured article, having spent quite a lot of time getting it up to smack and evening out the edges. I feel that the shaman class has become fairly balanced and would like to see what other people think of it. Eventually, I might require to put in more fluff, and to add a section detailing the creation of a shaman. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 15:25, 26 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comment -''' Like I mentioned on [[Deviant (DnD Class)]] in my opinion the image looks better at the bottom of the infobox rather than the top apart from that I my quick skim of the article didn't pick up any other suggestions I shall read the article properly in the next few days and let you know what I think. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:43, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Comment''' &mdash; This needs an example NPC. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 29 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Languages_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)&diff=267755Talk:Languages (3.5e Variant Rule)2008-07-14T21:01:03Z<p>Xidoraven: new language discussion - please don't move/remove!</p>
<hr />
<div>== Comments / Revision ==<br />
<br />
So, I like the idea of this page. I am going, however, to change it a bit: update grammar and spelling and add to it. If the author does not like these changes, I ask him only to say the word and I will revert the edits. Yours, (hopefully) helpfully, &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 00:50, 3 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I almost want to kiss the one who edited this and made it less of a headache for me to read...almost -- [[User:Flession|Flession]] 10:44, 3 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' A thank you will do! &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 21:07, 10 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Barbaric Language ==<br />
<br />
So... it is essentially wrong (from a linguistic standpoint) to assume that certain languages are "barbaric" and less capable of communication of complex ideas (whether religion, philosophy, politics, science, etc.) than others. In the real world these sorts of "barbaric languages," which were so believed in 150 years ago, have been shown to simply not exist. So... the wild tongues section should probably be modified to say that there is simply probably significant dialectal differences between urbanized and "wild" societies within each race. Thoughts? &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:27, 5 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I think what is meant here are "Primitive Languages" &mdash; ones that do not have words or ways of communicating all ideas. The perfect example I can think of to convey my thoughts on what is meant here is [http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/German_language the fake german language]. Maybe it chould be changed from "Barbaric Languages" to "Primitive Languages". Ideas? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:41, 5 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Languages in General ==<br />
<br />
I really want to raise a couple of major points, and I decided this talk page would be the best place for it. First off, the different languages between 3.5e and 4e are considerable, and since I was almost considering placing the [[Supernatural Languages (DnD Variant Rule)|Supernatural Languages Variant Rule]] into my gaming world, I wanted to raise the point of how best to work languages in the campaign setting, since it is such an integral and enriching facet of the gaming world and a campaign.<br />
<br />
First, let's list the languages in each of the core 3.5 books:<br />
<br />
* Common<br />
* Druidic (class-specific)<br />
* Draconic<br />
* Dwarven<br />
* Elven<br />
* Giant<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Goblin (convert to Goblinoid - including Gnoll, Orc, etc.)<br />
* Halfling<br />
* Sylvan<br />
* Undercommon<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
* Abyssal<br />
* Aquan<br />
* Auran<br />
* Celestial<br />
* Ignan<br />
* Infernal<br />
* Terran<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
* Aboleth<br />
* Beholder<br />
* Blink Dog<br />
* Formian<br />
* Githyanki / Githzerai (Githy)<br />
* Grimlock<br />
* Howler<br />
* Kuo-Toa<br />
* Lamia<br />
* Ravid<br />
* Sahuagin<br />
* Slaad (Slaadi)<br />
* Sphinx (Seshepsic)<br />
* Treant<br />
* Worg<br />
* Yuan-Ti (Anakim, Serpentfolk Tongue)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Yes, even monsters are listed as having their own unique languages and some even have their own script (such as Aboleths and Sphinxi). Based on this platform, we could separate them as racial/common, planar, and monstrous. Because Draconic falls into both racial and monstrous, and is used in magic, I just kept it in the 'common' section, where it belongs. For the use of the [[Supernatural Languages (DnD Variant Rule)|Supernatural Languages Variant Rule]], I guess we could consider a 'higher' language than those commonly thought of for the demihuman races.<br />
<br />
Further, any language currently used in 'commonplace' could vary by timeline (ancient, progressive, etc.), location/region (regional, world/realm, etc.), specific usage (crude/wild, racial, profession- or class-oriented), and by determined changes in influences, etc. (a Draconic tongue influenced by Sylvan, Giant tongue influenced by Titans, etc.). In these cases, and especially where regional dialect plays an important role (such as in the Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting), it could be said that a character might want to learn the language variation en masse, as if purchasing 'packets' of languages within which to read and write. In this case, by spending skill points to 'buy' languages, it might be prudent simplistic for a DM to allow a player a set, or 'packet' of languages based around a single region, usage, or timeline. In this case, it is up to the DM to decide what that usage is, and how liberal to be with the language 'packets'.<br />
<br />
So now, can we post the new 4e languages given in the PHB, and are there any monster languages listed in the new MM? Also, can we consider how to deal with in light of the [[Supernatural Languages (DnD Variant Rule)|Supernatural Languages Variant Rule]]? Thanks! -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:01, 14 July 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=263425Talk:Main Page2008-06-23T21:07:59Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Wiki Criticism */ opinions on opinions</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;44<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== 4th edition ==<br />
<br />
I don't really want to recreate the rumours and excitement concerning the upcoming 4th edition, but it looks like we need to think about a way to handle it here. It's pretty sure that there will be two editions in parallel use, at least for a while, so we need a way to separate editions. Tagging articles [[:Category:3.5]] and [[:Category:4.0]] wouldn't be too hard, what I'm concerned about is article lemmata for articles that exists in different versions for different editions. <br />
<br />
Also, it's not clear yet whether there will be a 4th edition SRD. I hope there will be one. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:50, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Might be a good idea to put SRD 3.5 articles with a template underneath (this is only a suggestion, not an attempt to have a million templates per page):<br />
<br />
:{| style="text-align: center; font-size:0.9em;" width="100%"<br />
| [[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|40px]]<br/>This material is published under the [[V3.5 rules]].<br/><small>[[Main Page|&rarr;More]]</small><br />
|}<br />
<br />
:Although, there might be too many templates if we do this. perhaps we could replace the SRD template to this for 3.5 articles:<br />
<br />
:{| class="messagebox protected" style="border:2px solid #99B; padding:0px; font-size:0.9em;"<br />
|-<br />
| valign="top" | [[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|45px]]<br />
| This material is published under the '''[[Open Game License v1.0a]]'''. The [[GNU Free Documentation License]] does not apply to this page. This material is for the D&D [[V 3.5 rules]].<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:We don't really need to mark homebrew stuff- it should work for 4.0 rules anyway. Whatre can I find news on the 4th edition, anyway? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:10, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Have you been at the WotC Homepage lately? Did you notice something? --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 09:48, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If 4e is really coming out we can most likely just slap on a small template on all 4e things or all 3.5e things. Also, the categories you said above will work. I do not see it as too much of a problem... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:55, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::According to my reasearch, it ios not out until 2011 (rather silly really; why advertise it four and a bit years before its release), so we really do not have to bother with it yet, anyway. {{Unsigned|Sam Kay|10:04, 16 August 2007 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::Boo! Hsssss! I had a browser tab open for the last ten minutes of the countdown of the [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D] page. Once it finished, I got "Service Unavailable". About as disappointing as 3.0 psionics. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:35, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Lol ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:38, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::4th edition is definitely coming. We really need to sit down, argue, butt heads, and work out the namespacing issues now. Thankfully, 3E has a namespace already. We have lots to sort out. Wikiworld will instantly be 4th compatible, as I haven't bothered with stats for most of the writeup. The new MIC style items should also be compatible. There are interesting times ahead. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It has been stated that the PHB will be out May '08 MM June '08 and DMG July '08 {{Unsigned|Quill|19:11, 16 August 2007 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Yes, we have a year to prepare but it makes it easier later if we start thinking about it now. Btw., I'm still waiting for the WotC Homepage to survive sudden massive attention so I can see the official WotC Press release... --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 03:22, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Just do what I suggested and replace the OGC tgemplate with:<br />
:::::::::::{| class="messagebox protected" style="border:2px solid #99B; padding:0px; font-size:0.9em;"<br />
|-<br />
| valign="top" | [[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|45px]]<br />
| This material is published under the '''[[Open Game License v1.0a]]'''. The [[GNU Free Documentation License]] does not apply to this page. This material is for the D&D [[V 3.5 rules]].<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::It is alot easier to mark 3.5 in this way. You could also add an image to the template to mark it, I suppose. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:30, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I vote to leave the V3.5 on the wiki pemanently (unless the wiki runs out of memory), as some people will still use V3.5. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:39, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Btw, [http://rustmonster.net/2007/08/16/dd-4th-edition-announced-gen-con/ here] it says that Wizards announced to continue the OGL. Good decision. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 09:45, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Can we get a 4E Info/Rumor link up on the landing page? (Though we may as well link it to ENWorld. They will have the best coverage.) [http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e ENWorld 4E Page] It hasn't been updated yet, but it will be. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:19, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Great! it will be nice to have 4.0e on the wiki.--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 08:27, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A few things. First off we need to figure out if the homebrew material will be compatible with 4e, if it is we are well off. If it is not we need to figure out how we are going to categorize the 3.5e and the 4e homebrew information separately. Oh, and yes, D&D Wiki has enough space to keep the 3.5e material - nothing need ever be deleted to save space on D&D Wiki. Secondly, if we want a link to 4e information from ENWorld then, I feel, that we should add it as a news item. Dmilewski can take care of this if this is the communities decision. Thirdly we need to figure out when the 4e SRD is coming out to see how much time we have to prepare for it. About the SRD (3.5e and 4e); we need to decide if we want a different namespace for the two SRD editions or if we want to organize them by their identifiers. Anyway, if the homebrew information is compatible we are looking at not too much work (and a much more useful and successful D&D Wiki). Let us hope... ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:10, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think ther homebrew stuff will mostlky ber compatable with 4e, but if not we will have to work to update the best stuff... --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:22, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Either the homebrew material is almost 100% good-to-go or it is not. We cannot have a medium on D&D Wiki. The reason we can not have a medium is because many many people will not switch over to 4e for a long time (or ever!) and we do want want these people to lose D&D Wiki as a recourse. If the two editions are not compatible we will have to have two separate pages like [[Dungeons and Dragons]] and we will have to have 3.5e classes, races, etc and 4e classes, races, etc. Again, we need to really know if they will be compatible or not (and if someone has any information please cite the source). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Yeah, I know, I was meaning as they are now... I have had a look at the articles on WotC website, and I seem to remember that the playtest report mentioned that a player was playing a psyon (because it was 3.5e) to see if it was compatible.--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:42, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I volenteer to help updating homberew stuff to 4e should the need arise (hopefully it won't). --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:54, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think that conversion of each section should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, magic items may only need a level assigned to them. That's an easy conversion worth doing. Classes and prestige classes will need to be entirely rewritten as trees, maneuvers, or such, if they are worth translating at all. <br />
<br />
::::::::My current belief is that we will need to split the content. That hoses the entire redirect initiative. (That was a reservation of mine with the redirect initiative. All the pages that I did for the SRD were hard-referenced. I used no redirects.) <br />
<br />
::::::::Campaign environments will be easiest to convert. Many simply implement the existing system, then list some house rules. For example, LotR and Wikiworld are both concept heavy, rules light. Wikiworld has always been rules light, as I wanted Wikiworld to work with any game system. I suggest that Sam keep LotR rules light, so as to keep it universal.<br />
<br />
:::::::::I was at GenCon when they made the announcement of 4e. According to Wizards of the Coast, the 3.5e material will be compatible with a minimum of modification. There were no details given at the time, however, so what that means, I'm not sure. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 14:04, 23 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Many classes and (both base and prestige) might be obsolete under the new rules- if the same effect can be made just by using talents on one of the other classes. I think we'll have to make a big review of everything and check it for 4e compatibility, maybe putting a 4e Compatible template and a 4e Incompatible template (and nothing on pages that haven't nbeen checked yet, obviously). [[User:MorkaisChosen|MorkaisChosen]] 08:25, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Or we could just keep 3.5e material 3.5e material, since not everyone is going to switch right away... Maybe keep it for a couple years than change it to 4e. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:16, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
I read on the Wizards page that one thing they're thinking of implementing with all the online stuff they're using in 4th ed is a wiki to allow home brew stuff. If that's true, it may be best to just keep this site in 3.x to avoid competition with the "official" wiki. I'm still uncertain about all that though. Any thoughts? --[[User:Banyan|Banyan]] 23:07, 23 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't think a little competition will hurt. If Wizards opens their own wiki, that's an excellent idea, but it doesn't mean we should give up this project here. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:57, 24 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I wouldn't bother with the "official wiki" anyway. This one is better. Anyway, why would we be scared of competition? It is not like we are trying to make money, or anything. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:00, 24 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Would someone like to contact them and ask them if this is true? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 26 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==New Edition Issues==<br />
<br />
The following questions are both technical and procedural. There is no correct answer. These questions are here to collect upcoming issues with the wiki and decisions that should be considered. Please add to the list.<br />
<br />
===General architecture===<br />
<br />
How best to manage a wiki filled with multiple editions and systems (3E, 4E, Modern, Etc.)<br />
<br />
:I am very open to discussion, but I feel that the best way to manage different systems is to make the different edition pages very obvious. For example, we could have all namespace v4 pages come with a slightly darker page background, or something similar. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:22, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. The Wizards message boards use a different skin for each game. &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 10:57, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am against the changing of the skin, however I think namespaces are the way to go. We could label the namespaces as SRD3.5e, SRD4e, 4e, 3.5e, D20M, etc. What do you guys think about this idea? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:11, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::People will be far too confused if they want to know whether the article is 3.5 or 4.0, and they constantly have to be checking namespaces. It will be much easier if the page background is slightly darker for 4.0, or something similar. I am not talking about a different feel, just a difference. There is a difference :) &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 18:00, 23 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Why not have two menu pages, one for each edition, and label all pages with 3.5 and 4.0? --[[User: Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:02, 24 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Sam Kay, do you mean namespaces? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:04, 26 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yeah... I did. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:23, 1 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
===Namespaces===<br />
Should we move current SRD pages to a 3E namespace?<br />
<br />
:I assume you mean 3.5E namespace, and I feel that we need to wait a bit until the structure is clear and known to all, but I feel that it definitely needs to happen before 4E comes out. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:23, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
How do we want the namespaces to interact?<br />
<br />
:Why not have two D&D menus: 3.5, and 4.0. That way, you would know whether you where in 3.5 or 4.0. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:33, 3 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
What should we do with articles that are invariant between 3E and 4E (assuming there are any)?<br />
<br />
:This brings up another question: It would be great if there was a way to allow edits on a 3.5E to be reflected, or maybe a reflection would be requested, onto a 4E page. This way the races or whatnot would remain the same. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:25, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've been wrestling with related questions on [[WikiRPS]]. It's easy to have small (or even large) pieces of shared text, using a template. But what if the bulk of the text is shared, but just the numbers scattered throughout the text are different (for instance)? As far as I know, the only way to do it is to modularize the text into templates as much as possible. &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 11:02, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Redirects point to 3E SRD. Is there a way to have namespace relative redirects, where <nowiki>[[foo]]</nowiki> inside the <nowiki>[[SRD]]</nowiki> context points to <nowiki>[[SRD:Foo]]</nowiki> while <nowiki>[[foo]]</nowiki> in the 4E context points to <nowiki>[[SRD4:Foo]]</nowiki>. <br />
<br />
:I don't think it's possible, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 09:55, 21 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It would be possible with a few minor hacks. However, this will lead to a very confusing website. I am against the idea. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:18, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
===Templates===<br />
<br />
What templates should be used to tag 3E and 4E pages?<br />
<br />
===Homebrew===<br />
<br />
Should homebrew rules be tagged by edition?<br />
<br />
:I strongly feel so. Everything is specific to a version if it falls back on D&D. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:26, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::That depends on whether it is edition specific or not: WotC declaired that 3.5e would be compatable with 4.0e --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:19, 1 September 2007 (MDT)--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:19, 1 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Im new here just signed up today but was reading through this and had something to say. According to the Dnd podcast 4ed is not fully compatible with 3.5, They imply that if you want to use a lot of stuff it will have to be updated. In fact they go so far as to say that you may even have to recreate things from the ground up. So separating old material and new material will be nessacary. I'd suggest tagging everything now 3.5. then creating a menu with two separate sections 3.5 and 4 and go through a process of reviewing and or editing the old material and copy it over to the new namespace.[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:16, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not nessassaraly- look as CSs- they are mostly background stuff, therefore, they have no <br />
need of a tag for either 3.5 or 4. Deities might not, depending on rule changes. Enviroments will not, as it is mostly descriptive stuff. And they said that it would a be a case-by-case thing. Plus, changing the DnD category to 3.5e would take forever. there are about 4000 articles (I think) here. Better to leave them as DnD, and add 4e. Which has been done. And anyway, I said "compatable" not "fully compatable". They mean slightly different things: one means that some suff may need minor changes, others would need alot, the other means that you could just drop it into a game. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:36, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
Should campaigns get their own namespace, or belong to their intended edition?<br />
<br />
:I feel that campaigns should not get their own namespaces because it would remove the items in the campaign from D&D Wiki linking schemes, etc. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:26, 22 August 2007 (MDT)''<br />
<br />
===Site conversion===<br />
<br />
How best to automate changes?<br />
<br />
Should 3E redirect be systematically replace with hard page references?<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example? &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 09:55, 21 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think it means that rather than mentions of "darkvision" being linked to the darkvision page it says what page information about darkvision can be found at in the core rule books. If so, I am against the idea. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:09, 6 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Another 4e Option ==<br />
<br />
I can't help but feel that the cleanest solution would to be just host a completely separate wiki specifically for 4E, and just circumvent all the aforementioned issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:30, 21 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree&mdash;having a separate wiki would be very clean, but it may not be as useful, since one would have to switch between the wiki for different versions of D&D. However, I am starting to like the idea... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:24, 21 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, I think the ease of having a separate wiki would probably be more valuable than the "convenience" of having them together. Also, my understanding is that 4E is not nearly so compatible with 3.5E. So, perhaps the "clean slate" concept would be much better. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 10:02, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::From what I'm reading it seems like it'll about as compatible as 2e is to 3e.<br />
:::Also, let's not forget that the above issues are merely the ones of which we can conceive. With projects this size, more issues always arise after implementation.<br />
:::4ed20wiki.com anyone? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:36, 27 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Wizards did say 4e would be compatible with 3e with a minor amount of modification. Why not have two sub-main pages within this wiki? On the main page you have links to 3rd edition D20 and 4th edition D20. Then each edition could have it's own sub-main page just like our current main page... That would be ''like'' two wikis but without the flicking from wiki to wiki, having two accounts, and the possibility of reduced number of edits on each wiki. Personally, I think it would be better to have one wiki with separate sections. We already have modern and D&D with separate sections on one wiki, so why not do it with 3e and 4e? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:16, 28 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I agree w/ Sam, we should just include a sub-set for D&D 4E like we did for d20 Modern. That way people can have just one account and since 3.5 will be compatible w/ 4E people can still look at all of our 3.5 Stuff and port it over to 4E. Just Create a Dungeons and Dragons 4E Page and a 4ESRD and everything's fine. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 11:21, 28 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I know that the "official" announcement was that 4E would be compatible with 3E, however, I've listened to the Podcasts, read much of the forum boards, and tried to pay attention to what is out there and I don't think it will be that compatible. In fact, Dave Noonan said on the D&D Podcast that there won't be a simple process to take a 3E character and just equate it to 4E. The level progression is different, the spread of powers associated with each level will change for each of the classes, and many of the class abilities (especially spell casting) are being changed greatly. Also, monsters are being reworked extensively, and many of the mechanics are being revised, rewritten, or scrapped entirely. I have a feeling that the compatibility will be simply that you can take a story line from a 3E adventure and use it, but the mechanics, though familiar, are not the same. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 09:55, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I still think one wiki would be best. Plus, I have also been reading the announcements, and I think a lot of the things can already be achieved with variants: the saves working like ACs, for example, add 10 to each save, take 10 from the DC, and roll a D20 and add the DC, compare to save. Easy. Critical spells? I have already done a variant for that before they announced it in Design and development. It is on this site under the title [[Spellcasting (DnD Variant Rule)|Spellcasting]]. So 3E-4E conversion could be a case of slight modification using variant rules. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:31, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'm not sure I see exactly how variants address the issue of hosting materials for two different versions of the d20 System. Are you suggesting that for every 4E rule component that's different from the corresponding 3.5 rule, it be put under the [[DnD Rules]] or a SRD Variant section? And if so, would this be in addition to or instead of hosting 4E SRD in it's own space?<br />
::::::::And since the d20 Modern section was brought up, I never really cared for it being hosted next to the d20 stuff. Admittedly, it hasn't been a problem, but that could be due to the fact that there's far fewer users using that section than the d20 section (if the amount of user-submitted material is any indication). Whether or not 4E material has it's own wiki, I'm definitely against the 4E d20 Modern and d20 Future being hosted on the same wiki.<br />
::::::::With the issue of multiple accounts, there's a way to have only one account apply to both wikis. I created an account on a [http://www.wikia.com Wikia] site a while ago, and it works with all wikis there. [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue]] would know how complicated such a thing would be to accomplish, and if it'd be worth while. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:20, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::The answer to your question is no, I was merely stating that I think 3E will be compatible with 4E with a minimal of rule conversion. If we can have one account on two seperate wikis, would it be possible to have a single user page (and talk page) for '''BOTH''' wikis? I knows you have seperate pages on wikia... and have links between wikis work as an "inside" link rather than an "external link"? If so, then having two wikis '''Would''' be more... better. Erm... More... practical. Although if we could have a united main page for both that lead to each seperate wiki, that would be good too. About 4E modern and D20 future, starwars ect, ect, yadda yadda yadda, I am not really bothered about them. So long as we have 3E and 4E D&D (and 3E modern would be good, although we could '''completely''' replace it with 4E modern), then I am happy. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 15:25, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I have strengthened and decided my view, I am against two wikis for a number of reasons. One is that people would have two user pages, two talk pages, and two recent changes lists would exist. It would become a lot to handle. Another reason is that it would divide visitors between two sites, making it look like dandwiki.com is actually not doing as well as it would be, therefore making it not as popular on google, etc. Another reason I am against it is that people will choose one wiki they like and stick with it, disabling half of our growing user base. It would stop prompting people to join random discussions as much, and stop prompting them to help out as much. Another reason is that structure changes would have to be done twice, the same template made two times, one for each wiki. It seems, to me, like a lot more problems would arise than good would come out of it. I am against making two wikis.<br />
::::::::::A solution I see to this problem is namespaces. We could have namespaces such as 3.5e, 4e, 3.5eSRD, and 4eSRD to eliminate confusion as to which version something is. I think namespaces would be the best solution to this problem, not separate wikis. Maybe we should vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:00, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Sure. Why not? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:19, 31 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If anyone can see a way to make the voting table below clearer please do. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:32, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I voted for everything. That's because I believe that we will need our whole toolbox to sort this out.<br />
:First, we need to identify the two idea complicating this discussion and table them. I believe that D20 Modern will be best served with it's own sister wiki. Simply by separating it, we greatly simplify our discussion. It then becomes its own discussion (which it deserves). Campaigns also deserves their own discussion. <br />
:This greatly simplifies our problem. <br />
:We already know that we will need new templates for 4.0. (Fact: see the new creature layout block.) We will also need new page preloads. Layout differences will help us tell one page from another. The new class pages will look different than the old class pages simply by being laid out differently. That does the same job as a skin. We also have footer and header templates that can go into a preload and existing pages.<br />
:Namespaces are powerful tools to help us sort out what is what, even at a glance. They provide an absoluteness that chains through everything. The new SRD will most definitely be in a new namespace. For contributor content, I don't see a powerful enough need for a separate namespace when layouts and templates are already providing us good service. Page titles also convey information. '''Page Title (DnD Page)''' is different from '''Page Title (4E Page)'''. <br />
:Categories will be directly impacted by namespaces, but the purpose of categories is not in separating pages, but in collecting like pages. If we try to separate pages too much using Categories, all we do is create a complicated set of categories. We have page titles and namespaces to help a user identify what page goes with which system. These should be sufficient.<br />
:Finally, there is ignorance. If we make the wiki too complex for contributors, we will lose contributors. Any schema that we invent must be apparent to our average contributor.<br />
:That's alot, isn't it?<br />
:My belief is that we should make a new namespace for the new SRD, and let the body of the wiki sort itself out with layouts, footers, and linking. Most sections are clearly one edition or the other. The trouble sections (D20 Modern and Campaigns) need their own discussions to sort out. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were putting together an argument for separate wikis. I think this statement sums it up:<br />
<br />
:::''If we make the wiki too complex for contributors, we will lose contributors.''<br />
<br />
::There's going to be plenty to worry about with just dealing with one edition without having to worry about how keep the editions separate, and too many of the solutions depend on the users maintaining the separation. Right now we have users assigning incorrect categories or neglecting categories, putting non-SRD material in the SRD namespace, not using the preloads, not putting the " (DnD xxxx)" identifier (or putting the wrong identifier) when they create a page, and so on and so on. Trying to maintain a separation between editions is going to add to the problem. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:45, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Nothing on this earth will stop the symptoms above. Ignorance will always exist. I believe the above are symptoms of too-few editors. We have needed editors patrolling their own areas for a while. We must also admit to ourselves that editing is not very interesting to most of our contributors. I really don't know how to address that issue.<br />
:::One reason that I don't want separate wikis is that our Campaign section is always among the most popular sections. How do I maintain Wikiworld across two wikis? If our solutions won't work well for campaigns, we will hurt ourselves.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:09, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Also, on the incorrect editing, most random people who post here don't know all the catagories or how to properly code a wiki. I still don't know all the catagories but I usually go find a page that does and copy and paste. So the incorrect editing will always be a problem. I also firmly stand behind the idea of just one wiki, everything in one place. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:28, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I agree with Dmilewski. Why was the last sysop elected more than half a year ago? It's because we have a large issue with people not wanting to edit the infrastructure of this site. The last editor that really edited the infrastructure was [[User:Mkill|Mkill]] (albeit with some very controversial edits), who since that time has left D&D Wiki. The infrastructure is not perfect here, many many things need to be improved or are currently wrong, but why is no one stepping up and fixing them? Is D&D Wiki to complex for people to handle? Should we dumb it down? And how do the questions I just asked pertain to 4e material?<br />
:::::Actually, I think the questions I just asked are the core of this issue. A new 4e wiki will eliminate all the issues with people not wanting to edit the infrastructure, and that is why it seems so appealing. It will make a new slate, without D&D Wiki's insane hierarchy (which, by the way, only exists because average users do not edit the infrastructure or help other people's creations on D&D Wiki), and without all of the work that needs to be done on D&D Wiki that is not getting done (publications, dplc's for races, modernizing classes layouts, linking orphaned pages, etc, etc). D&D Wiki has issues, and a new 4e wiki will remove them all... but I don't like to run from my problems.<br />
:::::Yes, D&D Wiki needs some major changes to become what I envision it to be; to become what everyone envisions it to be, but I feel we can accomplish these changes within this current wiki, and just this current wiki. Problems will arise from adding a new edition, but we can solve these problems, we will need to solve these problems... and, of course, the best way to solve these problems is to solve the problem with the average user not editing the infrastructure, because that is where I feel it all stems from. If the average editor feels that D&D Wiki does not just need more content, but rather needs infrastructure help, organizational help, help with making things look good, and help with making everything balanced, then with everyones hard work all the problems on D&D Wiki will soon disappear, creating an environment where adding a new edition will be as smooth as adding a new race. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:29, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well not everyone wants to just go on a site and edit the way it works just for fun. They might add something but I wouldn't expect them to edit it. Maybe you should try on the equipment page to when you add a new item show some of the various templetes you can use such as the author one and the various catagories you can use. This might help because then you can just copy and paste what you need. I do agree that if we had more people editing and making things right the first or second time then this place would run much smoother. Now I would like to step up and help edit and my area would be the equipment section as I spend most my time there and I am most familar with it. You still might have to make more minor edits to what I have done but I garentee you that there will be less of them. Also, all I would be doing is standardizing and making minor edits as I do not know how to code much more than that; I could learn but that will take time. If you would like me to try to do that I will, it's just anywhere else and I'm not going to be nearly as useful. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 21:18, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I really didn't for my post to be a ''"plea for help"'' (even though it may have come off like that... ''':P'''), but if you want to do something which requires little or no wiki-syntax knowledge thats helps out [[DnD Equipment]] please drop a note on my user-talk page and I will help you find something that needs to get done on [[DnD Equipment]]. Anyway... back to the subject on hand..... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:57, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::When does the vote end? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:38, 14 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Does the 5th of December sound okay? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:45, 2 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Yeah. I think everybody who wants a vote has voted or will have done by then. We can always send a MOI to people who havent voted. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:26, 3 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Okay, the vote is over. Thanks to everyone that voted, and it appears that we will not be making a separate wiki for 4e material (or holding a book burning convention) but rather organize the different edition by way of categories, namespaces, and possibly changing the identifier. Agiain, thanks to everyone that voted ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::So, when are we going to start setting it up for 4e? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 13:40, 15 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Feel free to start whenever you have time... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:04, 15 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I'd love to, but what do we call the new pages... "4E Dungeons and Dragons", "4E D20 Modern", "4E DnD Base Classes"? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:03, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Or "Dungeons and Dragons (4E)?" There's still a few more details that need to be decided. In what namespace will user content be? Main or "4E"? How do we deal with items independent of rules versions (i.e. maps, campaigns and the like)?<br />
::Personally, I think we can mirror the 3.5 section by replacing all the instances of "DnD" in all the identifiers with "4E" instead (e.g. "4E Character Options," "4E Feats," "4E Creatures," etc...), and the landing page can just be "Fourth Edition." (I always though "Dungeons and Dragons" and "DnD" were bit of misnomers in this context.) —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:37, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ok. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:33, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'll start setting it up under 4E Homebrew, 4E Feats, etc. We can move them if need be. If we have stuff under 4E as you suggested, I think DnD should be replaced with 3E or 3.5E for the 3.5 stuff... Thoughts? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 02:18, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Started to set it up- see [[4E Homebrew|this page]]. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:17, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== The 4e Movement ===<br />
<br />
I looked over the page and I feel there are a couple kinks to be worked out. First off do we want the pages being labeled as "4E" or "4e"? Secondly, which pages do we want to work with both editions? Should these pages keep the "DnD" while all the other pages would adopt a 3.5e or 4e, respectively, identifier? Thirdly, should we change the descriptions of the sub-pages to say which edition they cover or would that be redundant? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think 4e, Maps, campaign settings, possibly deities (depending on changes), Environments, Possibly Quests and Disscussion could be shared, yes, they keep DnD, rest become 3.5e or 4e, yes the rest need to say edition sub-pages cover. Any thoughts? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 13:34, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Yes. How can we make the newly implemented dpl on [[Dungeons and Dragons]] (thank you so much, Sledged) work with non-specific edition pages in all the main categories (for DM's, for Players, or General)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 24 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Give pages that work for both two categories? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:08, 27 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::[[DnD Campaign Settings|Campaign Settings]], [[DnD Links|Links]], [[DnD Guidelines|Guidelines]], etc. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:37, 27 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, I have done everything except the spells section and the SRD. I have made a 4e version of the pages that I was not sure of (quests and deities), and linked to both (we delete the 4e one if not required or remove the category if the 4e one is required). What do you think? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:27, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing is that everything could be piped so it does not say "4e" all the time. I feel that if one is already on the 4e landing page then having 4e before everything would just come off as repetitive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:19, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::What do you mean? Like 4e Homebrew/Classes/Base Classes? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:51, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Not exactly. I was refering to things like [[4e Deities]] being piped to [[4e Deities|Deities]]. It just seems repetitive to be on the 4e page and have everything say 4e before it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:43, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:18, 25 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[in a robotic voice] TASK COMPLETE. Are there any more tasks to be done on the 4e Homebrew section? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 05:24, 27 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Other than the spells section I really do not see anything else. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:20, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Good. Shall we set up the 4e SRD section in the same way so we can just get on with transcribing it when 4e comes out? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:58, 3 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I read somewhere that WotC will not be releasing a 4e SRD. I think we need verify or disprove this and then decide what to do from that point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:47, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a 4E SRD and OGL]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:46, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::"All of the material included in the OGL Designer’s Kit will be available for free starting on June 6, 2008. Parties who find the cost prohibitive can begin developing their products at that time." I guess that means we're able to have the SRD for 4e! --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Vote===<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|+ 4e Solution &mdash; Voting (Please use "#" and extra lines to separate)<br />
! rowspan="2" | For making a new wiki to encompass 4e material !! colspan="6" | For keeping D&D Wiki as a whole, encompassing all editions !! rowspan="2" | Launch a book-burning party which has the goal of burning every 4e book<br />
|-<br />
! Think namespaces are the solution to 4e material !! Think categories are the solution to 4e material !! Think changing the identifier is the solution to 4e material !! Think changing the background color/skin is the solution to 4e material !! Think templates are the solution to 4e material !! Think that more than one of the aforementioned solutions is the best solution for 4e material (Please say which ones would work best together)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
# [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] (w/ New Skin)<br />
# [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] (What in the current wiki would we want to link to with 4e? That is the only reason I see for keeping it together... Besides usernames I suppose.)<br />
| <br />
# [[User:Sol|Sol]] <br />
# [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]<br />
| <br />
# [[User:Trogdor|Trogdor]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
# [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] (Namespaces (for SRD material), Categories, Changing the identifier (for homebrew material))<br />
# [[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] (Namespaces, Catagories)<br />
# [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] (All the above)<br />
# [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
# [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] (Namespaces, Skin)<br />
# [[User:Pirate-Sorcerer|Pirate-Sorcerer]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
# [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
# [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
|<br />
# [[User:xidoraven|xido]] (lacking respect for corporate global capitalism)<br />
# [[User:Othtim|othtim]] - I *like* ''finger of death''.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
::The option to destroy all D&D4e books in the world is not an option. I am upset about this --[[User:Mander|Mander]] 19:20, 30 November 2007 (MST))<br />
<br />
:::LOL! Of course we can't take that action, even if we want to! It is probably unlawful or something. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 05:12, 1 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::That option has been added ''';)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:09, 2 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::'''LETS GO N' BURN THINGS!!!''' [loads AK47] '''UPRISING AGAINST THE 4E MENACE!!!''' --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:28, 3 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So... tempted... to burn.... withholding... vote til I can... stop talking... like... Shatner... -- [[User:Eiji|Eiji]] 14:49, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Look ==<br />
<br />
I feel that it is high time that we had a new look for the [[Main Page]], for a number of reasons. One is to make it easier for the average user to understand how D&D Wiki is organized, another is so the [[Main Page]] looks nicer. Below is my proposed idea, which is still in the works. Also, I have a couple of questions about it. One, should we use DPL2C to determine the number of items in an area. For example around <DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items exist in [[Dungeons and Dragons]], should we display that below? Also, should we have bullets in front of the link to [[Dungeons and Dragons]], the [[System Reference Document]], etc? Does it look better or worse with them present? Finally, how is the wording of everything? What could be improved? (P.S. the below idea is not mine, it was stolen from [[User:Sledged|Sledged]]'s hard work making [[Dungeons and Dragons]] look nice&mdash;I do not want to take credit which I do not deserve) --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:23, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yea, the above does look much nicer than the current Main Page, and I do agree it needs an update. As for showing how many things you have in each, that's not necessary but is interesting to see that we have 2900 Homebrew Items, if anything that might bring people in to see that this is a pretty big site and not just some random long forgotten website. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 14:33, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have added the number of items to the new look. Any other ideas? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:28, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This definitely clarified what information is contained in the sections. I would agree with implementing it. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:34, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Let's absolutely add this. The main page definitely needs more information. I like it! &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:48, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think that if we have 3.5e and 4e on this site, we should have the main page sperating out 3.5e and 4e, and pages for 3.5e and 4e like the above. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:56, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Yes, I agree. But that can be added once 4E comes out... &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:30, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm going to implement this now because I think it is so much better (and I want it as soon as possible). Please, though, continue to post comments here about any revisions we could do to make it look better! &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:32, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Yeah, I like it. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:38, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I removed the "d20M" in that SRD link since it is already under the header of d20M. However, I agree, it looks very good and thanks for implementing it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:48, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
; <big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
* [[Dungeons and Dragons|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
; <big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=D20M<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=MSRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Main Page after 4e comes out====<br />
<br />
When 4e does come out, we could change it to this:<br />
<br />
; <big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
* [[Dungeons and Dragons| 3.5e Homebrew Content]] | [[4e Homebrew| 4e Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[System Reference Document|The 3.5e System Reference Document]] | [[4e System Reference Doccument|The 4e System Reference Document]] | [[UA:Variant Rules|Unearthed Arcana]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD|Unearthed Arcana<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
<br />
; <big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=D20M<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=MSRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
<br />
Any thoughts? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:23, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Or this...?<br />
:; <big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
:; Revised 3rd Edition<br />
:* [[Dungeons and Dragons|Homebrew]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
category=3.5e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:* [[System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]] | [[UA:Variant Rules|Unearthed Arcana]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD|Unearthed Arcana<br />
category=3.5e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:; 4th Edition<br />
:* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
category=4e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:* [[System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD<br />
category=4e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
<br />
:; <big>d20 Modern</big><br />
:* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=D20M<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:* [[Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=MSRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:17, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, that is better than mine. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:52, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Is everyone okay with that look once 4e comes out? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I actually prefer Sam's layout although perhaps UA could have it's own line. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:36, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think Green Dragon's looks better. Sorry Sam ''';-)''' --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 08:38, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't mind. As I said earlier, I prefer GDs. I've had a thought; I think we could, and probably should, put the link to the 4th edition homebrew (and possibly the SRD, though we can't put it up yet, for obvious reasons) on the main page, because, as people in ENworld have proved, we have enough preveiw material from the PHB Lite (derived from the pregenerated characters and rogue preview) to make some powers, the 1st level for classes, and odd things here-and-there. As ENworld is already doing odd bits of 4e homebrew based on previews, we might as well provide a place for it to go now, rather than later. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:37, 18 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Please see [[Talk:Main Page#4th Edition Link|below]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:17, 5 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Should we make CAPTCHA's present after an IP edits? ==<br />
<br />
Recently a high level of automated spam has been attacking D&D Wiki in the form of inserting nonsense and gibberish into random pages. An example would be [[DnD Flaws]] as of 04:08, 1 November 2007 (MDT) as edited by [[Special:Contributions/200.226.134.53|200.226.134.53]] (permanent link [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=DnD_Flaws&oldid=159600 here]). I think the easiest way to stop this problem would be to provide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha CAPTCHA's] every time an IP makes an edit. The only reason I am asking this is because I am not sure if it would be more beneficial or more harmful to have CAPTCHA's. Do you guys think that IP's would still correct spelling errors if they had to enter a CAPTCHA or would they deem it to difficult? Would it, even if the amount of edits performed by IP's decreased, be worth it? Any ideas would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:41, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, if they were just doing it because they were bored then having to spell the correct word to finalize the edit might prevent some people because they are just waaay to lazy. It would also prevent if anyone wanted to create a bot to spam content. Although, it would be annoying for me to have to do that every time I wanted to say, update my User Page with another new item. If you could disable it for users and not IP's, I think that would be a good try to cut down on the spam. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 14:31, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The CAPTCHA's would ''only'' be for IP edits, not for when a user edits something. Anyway, that would be terrible if a user had to enter a CAPTCHA to edit something (the reason they would not have to is because to create an account one has to enter a CAPTCHA...) Also, as you may have noticed, all the recent spam attackes have been automated, so hopefully if this is implemented it should help with the problem... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:44, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So yea, try it and we'll see if the spam goes down. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:24, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I agree with this completely. Should I go ahead and put them in, or should we wait for more users to comment? &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:33, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Go for it ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Yeah. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:52, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Okay, it has been added. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 20:50, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::For some odd reason, i have had a captcha come up after all my edits today, despite the fact the captcha is only supposed to come up when an IP edits something (and I am logged in). Why is this, and can someone sort it please? Thanks. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 05:03, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This should not be happening. I would recommend doing the following: log out, clear your browser cache, clear your browser history, clear all cookies relating to D&D Wiki, restart your browser, and then log back in and see if it is still giving you troubles. If it is, then I will definitely look into this problem further. I am sorry for the inconvenience that this is causing you, and will try to get it sorted out as soon as is possible. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 13:50, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::It has not worked. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 15:39, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe you're an IP in disguise... ''':P'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:17, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Err... no. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:55, 5 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Okay... Can I change your password (through the database) and login as you to asses the problem? I would like to see what is happening and hopefully give [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] enough information to fix this very strange problem. Would this be okay with you? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:41, 5 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Yeah, sure. Can you change my password back afterwards though, please? Thanks. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 08:11, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Am I the only one getting the problem? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 08:23, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::No, I also experienced this today with my edits. Although, I'm behind a corporate firewall here, so I don't know if that has anything to do with it. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 09:25, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No, I've gotten one after every edit I've made, even if it was just adding one letter. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 14:15, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Oops... I guess the setting was set so sysops were the only ones who did not have to give a CAPTCHA whereas everyone else did. The issue should now be fixed, and sorry about that... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:22, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Much better. ''':D''' Now I can reformate the equipment section in peace. Which as an update I've finished nearly all the back to footers and have all but the magic weapons and over half the wondrous items updated to the MIC format. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 20:42, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yeah, sorted. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:59, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Glad to hear it ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Move towards new DPL ==<br />
<br />
Hello all, this site is running on a very outdated version of DPL, which has caused several hacks to have to be thrown together, and is potentially not allowing things to get done. When I upgraded this wiki to v11, I upgraded DPL as well, but most all pages that used DPL immediately stopped working. Is there an interest for me to get a test wiki running, and people can figure out how the DPL should be working, and then implement it? Or should we instead stick with what we have and wait until we really need the next version? &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:07, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I honestly have no idea what the DPL is. So could someone tell me what it is and/or what it does? Then I could answer your questions. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:27, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::What are the new features of the new DPL version? For most purposes, the DPLs seem to be working well, but I know we've especially had to hack some DPL2 stuff. Would the new version fix this? [Watsyurname529, DPLs are dynamically assembled lists generally based off of category tags, e.g. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_Base_Classes&action=edit this code] yields [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_Base_Classes this page].] &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 18:21, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I feel that we should implement the new dpl version. The DPL2 (at least according to [[User:Sledged|Sledged]]) would make it so we would not need three main different modifications of the dpl to be running on this site, the dpl, dplc, and the dpl2c (full list [[Special:Version|here]]). I think it would help D&D Wiki greatly to implement the newest version of the dpl, and make things easier for a new user to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:48, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::There's a demo site for DPL with a manual [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page here].<br />
::::Is there a way to get a list of all the pages using dpl*? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:29, 8 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::[[MediaWiki:Pages using DPL]] is what True Orphans uses. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 18:17, 8 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::It's only listing the pages in the main/default namespace. What about the SRD pages? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:58, 13 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::The extension that page is for specifically excludes all SRD dpl pages, so those have never been added to that dpl list. We will have to compile a list on our own for SRD pages. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:54, 14 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I see. Also, when I said "pages using <tt>dpl*</tt>," I meant also the <tt>dpl2c</tt>, <tt>dplc</tt>, and <tt>dpl2cu</tt> tags. I don't see any of the pages using those tags listed. If those pages can be identified before hand, it'll make an upgrade a bit easier. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To answer [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]'s first question. This wiki is running version 0.7.7 of DPL2. The latest version is 1.5.2, so there is a significant number of changes. For brevity, I'll just list a few of the new features that apply to this wiki:<br />
:::*You can specify your own format for the output. For example you could list each result as a row in a table instead of getting the standard three column output.<br />
:::*In conjunction with the previous feature, DPL2 pull content from the listed pages for displaying as part of the output.<br />
:::*You can get results based on pages names and page content in addition to categories and namespaces. For instance, all the [[DnD Prestige Classes|user PrCs]] are assigned to the category beginning with the first letter of the page title. Those categories can be completely removed because DPL2 lets you return pages whose title's first letter matches one specified in the DPL2 call.<br />
:::*DPL2 can used to compensate for user error. Broken links like the one titled "Anima and Animus Mage" on the [[DnD Prestige Classes|user PrCs page]] can be eliminated.<br />
:::*With the latest version of DPL2 (an one other specific extension) users can create spell/feat/monster/etc filters like the one seen [http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20spellfilter/ here].<br />
:::*It can be used as a parser function (which I personally prefer over tags).<br />
:::*Pages that are linked to only from DPL calls are not listed as [[Special:Lonelypages|orphaned pages]].<br />
:::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:58, 13 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay, lets do it. What are the changes that need to be made to dpl pages to make this not be broken when implemented? What is the best way of going about this change? Should we change the pages first, then implement it, or implement it then fix all the errors on the dpl pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:54, 14 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::There's one more complication to take into consideration; All the pages with the <tt>dpl*</tt> mod tags (<tt>dpl2c</tt>, <tt>dplc</tt>, and <tt>dpl2cu</tt>) have to be changed, not just list pages. So we'll have to go through all the class pages (base, prestige, npc, and racial paragon) and NPC pages. I think Blue's suggestion of a test wiki is the best way to do it. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::It might not be necessary to set up a test wiki. I [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Issue:No_More_Globals submitted a request] over at the [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page DPL2 site] to transition all the globals to class members. If Gero decides to adopt it, the latest version and the currently installed version can be installed side-by-side without one conflicting with the other. The only caveat is that the line that reads<br />
<br />
::::::<pre>$wgParser->setHook( "DPL", array( __CLASS__, "dplTag" ) );</pre><br />
<br />
::::::in the new version will have to be commented out. This will disable using new version as a tag extension, but it will still be available as a parser function call; <tt>{<nowiki/>{#dpl:}}</tt>. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:23, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::And [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page DPL2] version 1.6.0 (no more globals) has been released. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:42, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Okay, I upgraded to the latest version. Let me know if there are any errors. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 12:18, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== A Small Sample ===<br />
<br />
So here's a sample list of the user base classes, which I've limited to the 'A's:<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|+ Homebrew Base Classes with Descriptions<br />
|- {{#vardefine:odd|0}}<br />
! Name !! style="text-align: center;" | Balance<sup>[[#1|1]]</sup> (out of 10) !! Type<sup>[[#2|2]]</sup> !! Description<sup>[[#3|3]]</sup><br />
{{#dpl:category=DnD<br />
|titlematch=A%<br />
|category=User<br />
|category=Base Class<br />
|include={Balance}:1,{x0}:type:desc<br />
|mode=userformat<br />
|format=,¦- ²{#vardefine:odd¦²{#ifexpr: ²{#var:odd}²¦0¦1}²}²²{#ifexpr: ²{#var:odd}²¦¦class="even"}²\n¦ [[%PAGE%¦²{#replace:%PAGE%¦(DnD Class)¦}²]]\n,,<br />
|tablerow=¦style="text-align: center;" ¦ ²{#if: %%¦%%¦NR}²,\n¦%%,%%\n<br />
}}|-<br />
| colspan="7" class="foot" |<br />
# <span id="1">Shows how balanced a certain Class is, the number is out of 10. The Balance rating is from the actual Class's page; it is not made on this page. More information [[Balance System|here]].</span><br />
# <span id="2">A general category the Class fits into. e.g. Strong Spellcasting, Combat Focused, etc.</span><br />
# <span id="3"> A concise description of the Class-- should advertise the Class.</span><br />
|}<br />
—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I like it ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:27, 29 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: The Alchemist... I don't know if i would consider it a spell caster --[[User:Cerin616|Cerin616, Drew]] 15:58, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Better now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:20, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 4,000th Item! ==<br />
<br />
Whoo! I just posted the 4,000th homebrew item on this site! Amazing how much stuff we've got on here. Just want to say congrats to everyone who's posted/edited here. Also here is the 4,000th item: [[Fried Frying Pan (DnD Equipment)|Fried Frying Pan]] --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:29, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:If that number is correct.... ''':P'''. I think we may actually have more, they are just not categorized (that number is actually the number of items in [[:Category:DnD]]). Although, I agree. Congratulations all! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:51, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Hey, it says 4000 Items on the main page and that's good enough for me ''':P''' to you too, lol. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 20:56, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Meh... ''':)'''. Also, if you want to make that number more accurate please take a look at the [[Special:TrueOrphans|TrueOrphans]] (which may not be true&mdash;I think [[MediaWiki:Pages_using_DPL]] needs to be updated...). However, feel free to categorize those things and, overall, make things on D&D Wiki be linked to! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:14, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Sidebar Change==<br />
Dungeons and Dragons or Homebrew?<br />
<br />
The side bar has an option called "Dungeons and Dragons" that takes you to the Homebrew section. This seems to me to be misleading and should be changed to "Homebrew." This is not that big of a deal, but it would be more consistant. --[[User:Mander|Mander]] 15:09, 18 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Actually, there's more than just homebrew material there (though the vast majority of it is homebrew). It also contains OGC from source books like ''Unearthed Arcana'', ''Relics and Rituals'', ''Creature Collection'', ''Monster Manual II'', and such. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:38, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Currently on the [[Main Page]] we call that entire section "Homebrew Content" even though it has more than just that (as [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] pointed out above). If we want to be nitpicky, that is also a problem. Anyway, the reason it is called "Dungeons and Dragons" on the sidebar is that the sidebar cannot have any real wiki-syntax. The ideal organization for that would be something like:<br />
::D&D<br />
:::[[Dungeons and Dragons|Homebrew]] (even though it's not all homebrew...)<br />
:::[[System Reference Document|SRD]]<br />
::D20M<br />
:::[[D20 Modern|Homebrew]] (even though it's not all homebrew...)<br />
:::[[Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]<br />
::However, that is not possible. Since that is not possible we try to do the best we can, and that is the current way. Actually, this post has given me an idea... Maybe another box, labeled "D&D" and one labeled "D20M" could exist, with the links in them... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:43, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I just changed it. What does everyone think? Better? Worse? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:45, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I dont mean to be picky. I also dont mean to make extra work for ya all. I just through out ideas when I have them. I like the change, but I also like the reasons given above for why it was the way it was. That is why I like wiki format. I hardly ever make changes, but I do add my ideas to disscution.--[[User:Mander|Mander]] 22:44, 29 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I hesitate to bring it up, but I think it might be worth mentioning; The D&D section could be split up into "homebrew" and "published OGC" sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:07, 30 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::First off you were not a bother at all, [[User:Mander|Mander]]. The sidebar is very easy to change and it's always great to improve things. Anyway, I feel that as soon as we have enough published OGC material (we are reaching it though, if one counts NBoF as "published") then we should definitely spit "DnD" up into published OGC and Homebrew. However, right now I do not think we have enough... Maybe when all the UA material is posted we can give it a shot, but until then I do not think we have enough OGC content. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:48, 4 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::: So many acronyms, so few ranks in knowlege-acronyms...--[[User:Mander|Mander]] 01:30, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Age of the internet. Soon everything we be reduced to acronyms, IMHO. [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]], [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome DnD], [http://datadeco.com/nbofeats/ NBoF], and [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881560000 UA] (which I really should finish transcribing). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Actually, speaking of acronyms, it would be helpful to have a list of all the D&D acronyms in [[DnD Other]] (I am sure a list exists on the internet, it just needs to be copied over). Also, sorry about using all those acronyms above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:31, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
New question: Shouldn't the [[UA:Variant Rules|UA Transcript]] be linked in the sidebar? -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:It should. What should we call it, Unearthed Arcana, UA, Variant SRD, or what? Ideas? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:48, 16 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Maybe UA: Variants? -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 08:34, 17 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Or "UA Variant Rules." Either one works for me. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 17 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I have added it. Does it look okay? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 18 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Looks great! -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 17:01, 21 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Maps? ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Dungeons and Dragons#New Section: Maps?]]<small> It dealt with Homebrew specific material, not everything on the site --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 4 December 2007 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
== Tavern Schedule ==<br />
<br />
Should a small Tavern Schedule be placed on the main page on the right side (floating)? &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:40, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think this is a good idea to increase use of the tavern, but it would be best if days that already had events planned were highlighted, a different text color, the only days with links, etc. They need to stand out; otherwise, I have to click each day to even see if there is anything that day. It almost seems to me that a mini-program/extension is needed to code that to make it more useful... still, the calendar is a great idea. That is the best suggestion I have heard to increase usage of the tavern. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:35, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::The days that have events are blue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:43, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Much better. I like it. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 20:24, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Logo ==<br />
<br />
{| align="right" class="d20"<br />
|-<br />
! Submitted Logos:<br />
|-<br />
| ''Please submit your own logo!''<br/>[[dndmedia:Special:Upload|Upload it!]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test1.png|frame|From Maria C.]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test2.png|frame|From [[User:Xidoraven|Xidoraven]]]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test3.png|frame|Variation 1]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test4.png|frame|Variation 2]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:Logo.png|frame|Current logo]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Official Updates ===<br />
<br />
Here is what will happen. A two week submission period will start now, after this time when more logos or variations have been submitted, a one week voting period will take place. So, right now, please upload all the variations of these logos or your own D&D Wiki logo and in two weeks time the D&D Wiki community will decide what the logo will become. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:57, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:The voting for which logo should become D&D Wiki's logo will start February 9th. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:13, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== Voting ===<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|+ New Logo &mdash; Voting (Please use "#" and extra lines to separate votes)<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test1.png]]<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test2.png]]<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test3.png]]<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test4.png]]<br />
! [[Image:Logo.png]]<br />
|-<br />
! From Maria C.<br />
! From [[User:Xidoraven|Xidoraven]]<br />
! Variation 1<br />
! Variation 2<br />
! Current logo<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
#<br />
| <br />
# [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]<br />
# [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]<br />
# [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]]<br />
# [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]<br />
# [[User:Young DM|Young DM]]<br />
# [[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]]<br />
# [[User:Othtim|Othtim]]<br />
# [[User:Mask man|Mask man]]<br />
# [[User:kreik|kreik]]<br />
# [[User:EaTCarbS|EaTCarbS]]<br />
# [[User:Lordsnarf|Lordsnarf]]<br />
| <br />
#[[User:Silver Dragon|Silver Dragon]]<br />
| <br />
#[[User:Hawk|Hawk]]<br />
#[[User:Pirate-Sorcerer|Pirate-Sorcerer]]<br />
#[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]<br />
#[[Summerscythe]]<br />
#[[User:Wackymynd|Wackymynd]]<br />
#[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]<br />
#[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]<br />
| <br />
#<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Everyone agree that we have reached a consensus? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:16, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
:Looks like we have to me 11/1/6 Xidoraven has a pretty big lead. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:40, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I believe that the vote looks pretty definitive. Please let me know if anyone ever gives you problems from Wizards.com or Hasbro, Inc. I am currently working with them in a professional capacity, so I will be able to speak for my work myself, and in direct communications to them. If they want my business, they will not harass this site for being loyal consumers and fans of a popular product line. Best of wishes to you all.<br />
::GD, if you have any more input on what we talked about before, please let me know by email. I am having a hard time getting back here to check on my pages right now. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 08:03, 25 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Changed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:24, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Looks good, everyone. Thanks for the support, and let me know if you need any other design ideas, since you may feel the need in the future to reconsider color usage, etc. Are there any ideas for what would be placed in the background area, if not the current Player's Handbook image? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 00:39, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== General Discussion on Submitted Logos ===<br />
<br />
We have had two submissions for a new logo. One of them is from [[User:Xidoraven|Xidoraven]], and the other is from Maria C. Both of them are shown below, and we should decide to either keep the current logo or change to one of these. Please leave feedback. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I like the second one. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I vote for Xidoraven's. I like colorful. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:06, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder what the first would look like with a bit more color. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I really like the dragon on the first logo, however I feel that the wording on that logo may be a little hard to read. So, I think it may look very nice if both the trial logos were merged into one. The "D&D Wiki" would be cut out of the first logo and the "D&D Wiki" text from xido's image would be pasted over it, albeit a little smaller. Does anyone think this idea has some merit? Is it worth exploring further? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:35, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Variation 2 is great! I give that my vote. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:23, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
:::::On second thought... I like Variation 1. Arrrg... It is difficult because the logo seems too big with the dragon, yet too small at the same time. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:24, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I like variation 2, except the logo should be moved a bit down and right so that the entire graphic is a bit more square (lest the words encroach on the dragon picture)... &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 06:06, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Variation 2 OR Xidoravens. Either way, it's really cool! A new logo for a new edition... --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:46, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Variation 2 has me as well. Also, if anyone wants to compile their own variation or make their own logo please do! We need all the options we can get! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:56, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My wife votes Xidoravens ''':P'''. I'm actually really not sure. I like Variation 1, 2, and Xidoravens... Perhaps we should set up an official vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 18:01, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there going to be an "official vote" (whatever that may mean)? Variation 2 is my preferences, and I agree that it would likely look even better with the dragon picked out in red and gold. Also, whichever one is chosen, is it kosher for me to slap the logo up places (such as my blog) linking back to the wiki, as a means of promotion? --[[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]] 01:03, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I've gotta agree, but with xido's colors, I wouldn't mind seeing the dragon colored as a [[SRD:Half-Dragon|half-gold dragon]] [[SRD:Red Dragon|red dragon]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::First off I agree, if the dragon was given some color this entire logo could come out very sharp. Secondly, xido, tell me if I am wrong. You are basically saying that you would be okay to work with the dragon image if Maria C. has the same intentions you have of modifying D&D iconic images for a good cause. Since I cannot speak for Maria C. I will contact her and ask her to join this discussion to help discuss her logo and the final outcome of D&D Wiki's logo. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:19, 25 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Blue Dragon. As for my vote for the logos, I like the two combinations, particularly the second one. -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 09:37, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I also have to say, I really like the dragon in the middle of Xido's logo. I think that using his for the top logo, and then Maria's for a softer logo, potentially on the main page, could be used. However, I feel that a voting period should exist. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:30, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Definitely Version two and It shouldn't be changed a bit the black and white dragon behind the blazing dnd wiki looks awesome but as a second choice id go for Xidoraven's logo by itself<br />
<br />
:::I like Xidoraven's original logo. [[User:Kimmuriel|Kimmuriel]] 18:39, 14 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Xidoraven for prez! --[[User:Othtim|Othtim]]<br />
<br />
:::::I would make a terrible president. I would prefer project coordinator, or community shaman, but not something as pop-culture as presidente. ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 07:18, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
Okay, how do i put my name on variation 2, that my fav :D - [[User:Zombiecow|Zombiecow]]<br />
<br />
=== Authors Comments and Discussion ===<br />
<br />
Font size is highly important in a logo concept, especially when they are sized down this much. I designed the font spacing and proportions with that in mind. Also, though I enjoy the integration of the two (trust me, my inner artist is inspired - not jealous), it seems a little busy, and the dragons look dim compared to the heavy vibrancy I put into the original 4e-based concept. I know it sounds haughty and rude, but I choose my own. If Miss Maria would be willing to revise her concept, I think they would more accurately meld. Her design would need the words removed fully, and would require a splash of color (like a layer over it, that appears like watercolor, or an expressive way of 'filling in the lines'). The logo I created has heavier contrast even than that of the original 4e logo design. I had not anticipated it being integrated with another black-and-white (or blank) portion. Had I known, I might have prepared an alternative. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 21:30, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:As a second thought: Here's my other dilemma.<br />
:I do not know Miss Maria, but I know that her artwork is based on Lockwood's, and that is a blatant copyright infringement of one of the most controversial materials produced by Wizards: Commissioned Artwork. ([http://wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG76.jpg])<br />
:I am well aware of the fact I pulled a concept from 4e D&D corporate design, knowing full well that it might bring a lawsuit upon me. I am also communicating with the makers of Scrabulous (Scrabulous.com) currently, because I feel that what is happening right now with their product is an issue in international business ethics. I openly state that my work is a mere pseudo-forgery of Wizards own internally-produced corporate graphics, but I appreciate and respect Mr. Lockwood for being such a professional artist in his field, and cannot openly condone utilizing his work in our own endeavors. If the piece was just a tad different from the Red Dragon's stance or appearance, I could see over-looking it, but this is something that is necessary for an artist to understand up-front. I openly admit to pirating the official 4e logo design from Wizards for a good cause, but I would hope that Miss Maria would be able to do the same in her position.<br />
:That being said, the general concensus on what constitutes 'unique artwork' is at least 15% difference from the original piece. Though she has flipped the image on its vertical axis, and turned detailed painting into rough black outlines, I would think it would need just a ''tad'' more work done to it to be considered anything other than outright plagiarism. If Miss Maria is aware of my own intentions, and has the same goals of her own, then I can look the other way. I would prefer to go down alone if I am to go down as an artist. At least this way, no one can say that you paid me for my services, but that I instead gave them openly as a professional operating in the open-source markets under the GNU license.<br />
:That's my last piece. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:09, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Hello, this is Maria. First of all, I am not Miss Maria as you have taken a fancy of calling me. Second, I created this wood engraving without the knowledge of what's copyrighted and what is not. Green Dragon is family friend and has been nagging me for months to create a logo understanding that I am a graphic design artist. He handed me d&d books and asked me to make a logo. So I choose something cool, changed it, carved it, printed it, modified it on the computer. Green Dragon did not give any advice for this, only that it needed to be done. I wasn't told of anything so I am sorry for the copyright infringement. I also created this logo not for a profit such, but for this 'community' which may be considered a good cause since I get not one thing out of it. And xudo, you need to work on being respectful. You seem jealous that someone else has submitted artwork and that you aren't the only one with fame. 'Artists' are so competitive and always trying to be the best with their noses in the air. -Maria {{Unsigned|Xuthukzaklath|15:16, 25 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::As a friendly site note to all, I vote that the attacks should stop. This should be a logo design competition in which '''the best''' logo is chosen. There is no need to either of the creators to bicker. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 09:35, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I highly agree, BD.<br />
::::I just wanted to make my comments publicly known. I have absolutely no problem with the mods of this site asking multiple artists for their ideas. I am glad that you have put forward as well. That is how professional art works. Everyone puts forward what they have to give, and then the leaders decide which works best for what they'd like to portray the project. In this case, there were two options, plus the idea of combining. I have not a single problem with any of those ideas, and in fact wish for the mods to make their own decision. As an artist, I may seem biased. In fact, my words (including the word 'blatant') may have had a negative ring or tone to them, but I assure you that my mental inflection did not.<br />
::::I only want to make everyone aware that I have taken multiple considerations into effect in stealing elements of Hasbro's corporate logo in order to promote this open-source site's mission of helping the public. I have a SERIOUS issue with Hasbro & Mattel's current intellectual property campaign at the moment, as well as their business ethics toward third-party producers of copyrighted content. This is because of the legal drama happening with Scrabulous.com. It is for this reason that I am openly providing my professional services to the mods of this site, in order to help them, just as you, Maria, have done. I respect your position and comments. Please just know that I wanted my input to be put out there, in case you were not aware of the legal implications of that particularly recognizable image (the red dragon literally is '''''the most''''' reproduced dragon in D&D as of this year, in terms of rulebook, supplemental, and related material to the D&D brand line. To utilize this image would be a very risky and potentially harmful venture. That is my only point here. If you are okay with that risk, I am okay with it. But please note that the reasons for THAT piracy is not in any way the same as the professional stance I am making by utilizing corporate branding material from Hasbro, as opposed to the very highly recognizable works of Mr. Lockwood, whom I revere admirably as an artist.<br />
::::On a sidenote, I assumed that being a Maria, that you are a female. I could be wrong here. In the state of Louisiana, where I have recently moved to, it is customary for men in particular to respectfully call a woman of any form (whether married, divorced, single, or otherwise) 'Miss Whoever'. I was merely trying to be courteous. I hope I have not offended. That was not my intent.<br />
::::Thanks for understanding, all, and I hope that the Mods can make an adequate decision on the logo design. I would not like to seem biased, so I will leave it all up to you, having said my piece. Best wishes, -- [[User:70.172.234.38|70.172.234.38]] 19:59, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::PS - I don't want to seem pushy, but I have always had a hard time voting on this site. Perhaps making a username profile on Elftown.com, and seeing the way their own polls are set up might give you ideas for future changes. Privacy features, public features, wiki-features, and a pseudo-html are all able to be used there. I have had some really good success with hosting polls on Elftown to get input or for contests of any multiple-choice form. -- [[User:70.172.234.38|70.172.234.38]] 19:59, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== Legality of Images ===<br />
<br />
As to the copyright issues, I believe that the background of our skin is a WoTC copyrighted image. I feel that if we receive a cease and desist letter they will be removed, but beyond that, I feel that it should not be a major issue. Also, I have another interesting idea. I think that Xidoraven's is powerful, and in that sense alone looks quite nice. Would there be any major consideration to have the background of the main page be this dragon, or something similar? A watermark, so to speak? The second combination could also potentially be modified by Xidoraven, seeing that he would know what to do for D&D Wiki's purposes. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 09:40, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Actually, both the skin and the logos would be covered under the free use clause of international copyright law, as it is neither being used to make money nor infringes the copyright holder's ability to sell goods. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:53, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Sam, I just want to say a quick word about free use (I know you like it, so I won't be too harsh). Essentially, the clause is the "wiggle room" in an otherwise extremely strict copyright law and allows for things like academic criticism, etc. However, exactly what constitues "fair use" and what constitutes "unfair use" is loosely defined in the law, and it is important that you know that the United States judicial system has historically ruled very strictly against those parties who (in their eyes) abuse the clause. So, we should tread a bit softly. However, as was said above, if we (Green Dragon, actually) is issued a cease and desist order from any company (such as those owning HALO and LotR, for example, or especially from Hasbro) then we will have to delete the content. Basically, I just want it to be noted that fair use is limited, especially within the widely respected bounds of legal precedent, so don't be too sure that certain images, etc. can be freely used under "fair use." Further, the likelyhood of abuse increases as more information is added. Thus, if I were to quote a line from the PHB as evidence in an argument, that would certainly pass litmus. The more direct and derivative information that is added, though, the more likely it is that infringement will ensue. (Please also note that all material and information derived from a copyrighted source is also [partially] owned by that source, which includes information and rules we might create for use in, for example, the HALO setting). A final note: Wizards of the Coast is renowned for its aggressive pursual in copyright infringement cases after inherited issues involving TSR, Palladium, and certain other companies, a historical precedent that everyone here should be aware of. In any case, please keep in mind that so long as there are no legal actions served we should be okay (this site is not for profit thus far, though if we begin to earn revenue from advertising this will importantly change), but&mdash;if the issue comes to a head&mdash; we will most definitely be on the losing side and will have to remove content or face court action. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 09:22, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was aware of that. I had to do quite abit of research into it when I did LotR. I do think, however, that as there are Wikias for both LotR and Halo, neither of which have yet been sued, the CSs in question should be fine. Although the dragon thing is a definatly something we should think over carefully. Although, as we are only considering a logo, the risk is small (I think). So, yes, those things are fine for now and we can remove them if we get into trouble. The biggest problem with free use is definatly it's vagueness. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:05, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Protection of Pages ==<br />
<br />
You know this isnt much of a wiki since everything is editblocked.if someone vandalizes a page u REVERT it [[User:Zau|Zau]] 03:12, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:? Of course we revert it! Why should we let our work be spoiled by vandal? All wiki's revert vandallism. The point of a wiki is to work together to improve the whole thing, rather than to reck the whole thing by vandalism. And about those editblocked pages- those are mostly SRD, which is official material that we aren't allowed to whimsically edit. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:49, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I have unlocked this page to IP edits, we will see what happens. Also, the SRD's protection is up in the air right now, if all goes well with the new UA material on D&D Wiki (which, even though it is OGC, is only protected from IP edits) then the SRD may very well become protected only from IP edits as well. If you are referring to specific GNU FLD homebrew pages that are protected, they are only protected because the author of the page is question has asked them to be protected. They will never become un-protected unless the author wishes this to happen. I hope this helps answer your question as to why so many pages on D&D Wiki are protected. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:03, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Index of True Dragons ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:True Dragon Index#Location?]]<small> as it dealt with that page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:25, 8 February 2008 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
== Published Settings ==<br />
<br />
Hi I was wondering does anyone know whether it would be legal to publish information about old dnd settings on here or homebrew stuff for those settings ie: planescape or spelljammer? also would it be legal to do the same for the still in print settings like forgotten realms and eberron? and would anyone else be interested in stuff like this? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 22:42, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:New settings = no. Not allowed, as they aren't under the OGL (I think...). Old ones I'm not sure about. -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 22:28, 8 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Probably not. The old stuff isn't under the OGL. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 13:03, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::If it is licensed under the [[OGL]] please add them, however I do not think any of them are... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:43, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'm pretty sure It is technically not allowed unless we want to make fun of them in which case it falls under fair use in the copyright acts of the world lol. Does anyone know how we could find out for sure? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:42, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::They cannot be added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:08, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Semantic MediaWiki ==<br />
<br />
I do not pretend to understand this nor what it would take to implement but would it be possible to use something like [http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki] to create forms to make adding entries for new users easier. there are a number of entries that need to be formatted if a form formatted the entries for them this problem may be fixed. Although it would only help at page creation its a start. Any thoughts?<br />
<br />
I should point out the form wouldn't replace editing the code directly just allow another option for those who have no idea how to format. Which means those who like to stare down the face of a page of code (myself included) could still do so. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 02:25, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I've briefly grazed over that extension, and I've yet to take it for a test run, but I think you're right that there may be some useful nuggets along with the semantic forms extension (which requires semantic wiki). I'd been meaning to ask [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] or [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to take it for a spin in development environments and give input on it. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:36, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I think it would be useful only problem is that it needs to be added to dnd wiki then someone has to make the forms, it's a fair amount of work. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 21:29, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki About]. Not sure if this is really what we are looking for... It, as far as I can tell, would just help with dynamic categories and act a little like the dpl2c feature we currently use. I think an external script for adding things (as [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] is working on) may be a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies I was unclear on what I meant I'm lucky Sledged knew what I meant. Its not the semantic wiki itself that I am interested in but the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Forms Semantic forms extension]. As far as I understand it it allows you to 'simply' create a form to fill out and will take care of the wiki coding for you. If you scroll down to the Special Pages heading and look at the examples it will give you a better idea of what this is. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:24, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I agree with you, that is a very interesting extension, and I could see it being very useful here on D&D Wiki. The only problem I see is that, although impressive, it requires a Semantic Wiki as a prerequisite. I am not sure I would want D&D Wiki to become a Semantic Wiki, although the decision is not mine it is the communities. Maybe someone could change the code so a Semantic Wiki is not needed and it can work within the normal MediaWiki environment? That would make it quite a bit more appealing ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:59, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I have not read all the material and probably wouldn't understand most of it anyway I believe it would be beyond my ken, my knowledge of wikis and php is limited. What would be involved in implementing this do you think? What would 'becoming a semantic wiki' do? You seem to have reservations I'm just wondering if there are draw backs you foresee? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:25, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I gave a look at Semantic Wiki and I think it is a great idea. In my experience as a technical writer, duplication of information is one of the Prime Evils. Namely, here was the criteria that led me to really want to add dpl to races and now feats:<br />
:::::::*All information about a particular topic should be in the same location.<br />
:::::::*Updating information should update other pages that use that information.<br />
:::::::Where I work, we use a form of documentation source files called DocBook. DocBook is much like this wiki where information must be repeated because there is no inclusion mechanism. There is another form of documentation source, which we are considering switching to after the next release of our software. This format is called Dita. Dita allows you to segment information into sections which can be included directly by other pages. This concept is partially similar to Semantic Wiki, but I would argue, less powerful. Semantic Wiki allows you to tag information as a particular type of information. It might be a little more work to create a page, but all of the sudden we have so much more power to categorize our information.<br />
:::::::On a race page, for example, we can have a "quick synopsis" type of data which users would use for a sentence that describes the race. The page could also have an "ability score adjustment" type of data and a "level adjustment" type of data. All of the x0 templates I put on the top of race pages would be unnecessary at this point. The advantage being: if a user updates the source of the race (ie: changes the Ability score adjustments from +2 str to +2 con), it will automatically change the race table without requiring the x0 template at the top of the page to be changed. This means that the information displayed in the tables will always be true to the source.<br />
:::::::The big problem with Semantic Wiki is that it would be a LOT of work from the startup. Probably a few months of work if we want to fully integrate it. So no matter how great I think the idea is, it is probably not a feasible or worthwhile one to integrate.<br />
:::::::Now [[User:Hawk|Hawk]], you seem to be interested in the same thing that I am (and in fact something I have been working on). You want some sort of form based generator that will automatically format the pages after you supply some information. I have almost finished an NPC Generator, which should be promising. I just need to add in spellcasting, epic spellcasting, and special abilities. Forms can always be done directly in php and linked to. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:14, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::This forms extension allows you to not only create a page but edit it using the forms as far as I can tell. I do not know if your PHP pages can do that but if they do it creates a slight issue on the off chance that someone is editing the page on the wiki and on the form the wiki edit would be wiped over when you save the form as it is working directly with the database (I assume). Where as using this forms extension your still working within the wiki and it will prompt you like normal that there is a conflict (yet again I assume) and the situation can be remedied. I do not know exactly what semantic wiki does but the benefits of the forms extension as I understand them are:<br />
::::::::* Creation and editing of pages through forms<br />
::::::::* Users can create their own forms 'easily'<br />
::::::::* Those new to wiki's can use these forms and the page will be automatically wikified which means very little formating will be required afterwards.<br />
::::::::* The fact your filling in a form rather than code means that it's less daunting for the new user and they are more likly to contribute.<br />
::::::::* Organization of Dnd Wiki can easily be improved as categories can be added automatically to entries by use of the forms.<br />
::::::::[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 08:01, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::What I have been working is only for initial creation, though at some point I would like to have an "import feature". If we had it all form based, however, people would not learn wiki syntax, which is a powerful syntax in its own right. Is that a bad thing? I'm really not sure. Templates can also automatically add categories though.<br />
:::::::::I still don't understand exactly how a wiki works on the back end, and I am actually going to toy with Media Wiki and Semantic Wiki (with the forms extension) tonight. I will see if I can integrate an application with the wiki directly, while still preserving the wiki ways (as an edit not an overwrite). I will also see how easy it is to create a semantic wiki form. Not that my input is even close to the be-all and end-all of this discussion, but I would like to share what I learn with the community. I hope that Semantic Wiki is very easy to use and the forms feature is as well. Good call making note of it! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:28, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Personally I love coding I'm a nerd I admit it lol, but what it keeps coming down to for me is not everyone does and allowing those people to add and edit their creations on here would be awesome. And the forms extension seems to be the quickest, easiest and most effective way of doing that. Let me know how you go with the testing it will be interesting to see if it performs as well as I am hoping. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 10:36, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Did you end up trying this out Aarnott? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 21:09, 21 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Short answer: yes. Long answer: I think I messed up on the install because I'm getting some strange errors thrown during runtime (like when I access the localhost server). I'm going to uninstall everything today and retry it (no work or school today -- yay!). Third time is a charm ''':)'''. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:37, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::So it ended up being an easy thing to install and I was just being dumb ''':P'''. I have got a few form examples working and I think it is a really sweet extension, but there is a major problem that really limits the Semantic Form usage. The form must be used to fill a template (at least from my knowledge using their built-in form generator). This poses a problem if we wanted to have users fill in a race page for example. They could only fill out the author template and x0 template (or Race template if we replace that), but the point stands that there are limitations. Semantic Wiki on its own though looks like a really great extension and the forms extension would be good to use at least for some pages. All the work I have done with races, for example, can be made a lot better by tagging particular parts of an article. If we can get the form extension working in the ideal way, then new users will never create a poorly formatted page. I say go for the installs. They definitely don't hurt and in fact I will start a project to tag all the races so we can get rid of templates to store information. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 11:30, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Okay, we can give it a go. I will have [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] install it when he answers me back. Also, I am a little confused as to what you are saying above. Can we or can we not get rid of the [[Template:x0]] on the races' pages with this extension? I thought this made it so one can "tag" certain parts of an article and have those "tags" show up on a different page as well (like a split [[Template:x0]] (just like [[DnD Deities|Deities]] is currently organized)). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:38, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::We can get rid of any templates we use that duplicate information already in the article (such as x0). What happens is we create properties which are used to identify information. So in the case of a Race, we would have a property called "Ability Score Adjustments" or something like that and tag the section directly in the article that refers to the ability score adjustments. Instead of using dpl to grab template information, we use semantic wiki to grab the "Ability Score Adjustment" directly from the page. The main advantage in my opinion is that when you update a page, you only have to change information once and then the tables update. It will be some work though (thus why it would become a project for me), but Semantic Wiki does not change existing wiki functionality, which is a very good thing. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 11:45, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I installed WAMP (appache server + php + mysql latest stable versions) on my vista ultimate machine last night and then installed media wiki semantic and the forms extension I had no trouble it installed perfectly (apart from me stupidly trying to instal semantic forms with a mysql user that didn't have permission to create tables). I have been fiddling around a little havnt had much time though. Here's what i've figured out:<br />
:::# You create properties like string, page or date first<br />
:::# Then create templates (using the template making tool that comes with the forms) I made a author template and a very quick deity template.<br />
:::# then you make a form. You pick Author click add. then you click deity and click add (you can create forms which use more than one template!)<br />
:::# name the form then save<br />
:::# when you go to the form it will ask for a page name type one in like "MyDeity (DnD Deity)" hit enter<br />
:::# you are then taken to the form you fill it out it makes the page as per the templates it works as described !!! :O<br />
:::# you can even edit the page again using the form !!!<br />
::: [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:11, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
::::There is one thing though semantic wiki adds a box at the bottom of the page "Facts about..." if it can be removed i'd be happier. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:16, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
:::::I just realized it would be relatively easy to turn our current preloads into templates add a few bits of code you have a compatible template to make a form for and if you edit the template EVERY SINGLE CREATURE, DEITY OR CLASS (that uses that template) IS EDITED AS WELL!!! meaning we decide we want the classes to look like (insert format here) we can instantly change them all at once!!! [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:36, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The problem lies in the fact that we will have to change every single homebrew page. I'm up for the challenge (as long as it takes), but help will be nice if you are willing ''':)'''. It does seem pretty nifty though. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:20, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I do not want this extension if the "Facts about" (or whatever it is called) is present. Is there a way to remove it? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I am more than happy to help. What we need is to create the forms and templates so that all new entries use them. then start changing things over slowly, On the plus side if it takes awhile to convert the old stuff its not so bad as they will look exactly as they do now until we get to them. Perhaps we should consider moving this discussion onto it's own page before this page gets so large it destroys the Internet. I would also suggest holding off on installing it until we've fiddled some more to see what effect it has on the wiki like the damn facts about table. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 22:10, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I should point out the facts about table is only present on pages that use semantic data so if we did instal it it wouldnt effect anything until we started to make pages with semantic data on them. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 22:14, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::This is an image of an author table I created useing a form [http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6099/66402195ri6.jpg]<br />
::::::::::Notice it looks exactly the same as our current author table. Below is the form:<br />
::::::::::[http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5454/36613376en2.jpg] [http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/766/83147904gr7.jpg] <br />
::::::::::Notice on the form the date field it is contextual so all dates on author pages will have the same format so yet more consistency [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:03, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::First off, what is that operating system your using... please don't say Vista ''';)'''; Ubuntu überalles. Anyway, again, is there anyway to remove the "facts about" box? If that can be removed this will be installed right away. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I'm afraid so I use (and like) Windows Vista Ultimate Version 6.0.6000 Build 6000. Ok I have figured out how to get rid of the factbox (that's its official name) you need to edit "SMW_Settings.php" in the folder "[wiki folder]\extensions\SemanticMediaWiki\includes". this line "$smwgShowFactbox = SMW_FACTBOX_NONEMPTY;" needs to be changed to "$smwgShowFactbox = SMW_FACTBOX_HIDDEN;" and this line "$smwgShowFactboxEdit = SMW_FACTBOX_NONEMPTY;" needs to be changed to "$smwgShowFactboxEdit = SMW_FACTBOX_HIDDEN;". Pages that were created with semantic data on them before you change these lines seem to keep the factbox for some reason on my machine so those settings should be changed as soon as the extension is installed. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:35, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I've put my project of wikifying entries on hold until we figure all this out because if we decide to edit the old entries so they use the forms templates I'll be doubling up on work. If we make semantic templates out of the preloads the articles made with forms will look like our current entries but if we want the old entries to get layout updates automatically like the new entries will be able to we will have to change all the old entries. As [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] says it will be a mammoth task but in the end I think the benefits are worth it. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:45, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Is there an ETA for Blue Dragon to put this on the server? I'm eager to work on using the Semantic features! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:36, 27 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::It should be done now! ''':)''' &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 22:45, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I say lets start with [[LA 8 Races]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay, so [[Form:DnD Equipment]] was created, however the category issue and the identifier issue still needs to be solved. Any ideas on how to fix these problems? Also, I feel this would be a lot easier if two edit boxes worked on a form, however it seems they do not. Any ideas on how to circumvent this, or can two of them work on a form somehow? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:16, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry GD but I don't have a clue what your asking. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 05:39, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::[[Form:DnD Equipment]] now includes categories, I do not know all the categories for subtype ie: outfits armor etc and the way i've written it you can only have one type category and one subtype category if someone wants to find a way around that be my guest and could someone who knows all the categories add a list to [[Property:Item Subtype]] for me the list should be written like [[Property:Item Type]]. I made some properties for the author template so we could use the new semantic search functionality to search for say all pages with me as the author but the template wasn't working properly after I added them so I reverted the edit I'll try to get it to work later but if someone else wants to try be my guest. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:04, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::P.S. Sorry about littering the recent changes pages with all those edits its hard to tell what an edit will do when your working on a template and form at the same time and changes to a form cant be seen through the preview button (because you only see the page title input box). also feel free to delete the page entitled test. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:09, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::P.P.S. I have added code to Category:Equipment so that any page using that category will have a tab at the top "Edit with form" which will send you to the equipment form. This will allow novices to edit their page without having to edit code and will allow us to edit the old pages so they use the form now. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:34, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I have deleted the "Edit with Form" option &mdash; I want people to learn wiki syntax. Blue Dragon also implemented this, however I am not a fan. Deleted. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:55, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Are you sure you want to enforce that? The whole purpose of wiki-markup is so that users don't have to know HTML to created and edit pages. Semantic Forms takes it one step further by narrowing the amount of wiki-markup a user has to use. It seems a bit counter-intuitive to actively require users to learn the wiki syntax. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:23, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This "edit with form" thing might help improve the formatting of pages made by new or non-users. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:55, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Damn you [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ''';)''', you're very right. Okay, I guess we can have them... It's just that I do not want a generation of users not learning wiki syntax; that could be detrimental to D&D Wiki. However, what is the goal of D&D Wiki? It's to provide a place where users can submit homebrew content so it can be played in other D&D campaigns. Editing with forms will just help make the goal of posting things and fixing things on D&D Wiki easier. I guess we should have it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:29, 29 February 2008 (MST) <br />
<br />
::For me it's more about letting people add and edit content easily without having to learn the entire wiki syntax in one hit. If they want their creations to look good they still have to learn syntax for stuff like equipment as there is no standard format for the item description etc so at current we just have an input box, but if they don't bother with syntax as a lot of creation i've wikified didn't then the form has done most of the wikifying for us. Does that mean I can put the edit with form tab back up? --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:04, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I say go for it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:26, 2 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== SMW and DPL ===<br />
<br />
There's been a request for [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page DPL] to be able to access SMW properties. I'm keeping an eye out for when this gets implemented. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:19, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Once the semantic data is implemented it would be possible to replace the dpl generated tables with inline queries, if anyone is interested in doing that we would not need the DPL to be able to access SMW. I'm not sure how the DPL works exactly but SMW inline queries are done each time someone looks at a page so if the DPL doesn't do this using SMW inline queries may put more strin on the server for more information goto the SMW [http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Inline_queries manual] --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 18:59, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I'll have to play around with it and see the level of flexibility compared to DPL. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Had trouble using the queries on my test wiki but I suspect that may be because i'm not as smart as I like to think. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:10, 1 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I made a query at [[LA 8 Races]], but I am getting SRD Matches for some reason. I think it is using an implicit OR rather than an implicit AND for the category matches, even though the documentation claims it uses AND by default. I do know a way to fix the table, but it is not elegant because it will stop working if we add semantic syntax to the SRD. I'll keep looking for an answer... --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:30, 1 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Featured Articles ==<br />
<br />
Hi everyone time for major change to the wiki idea number two (number one being semantic forms). I guess it's not a major change so much as a new 'thing'. I was wondering what would everyone think about having a article featured on the main page say every month. We nominate articles for featuring, people would support or oppose the articles then first day of the month one could be chosen to be on the main page until the next month. The articles would be finished work, well formated etc etc. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:23, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:We could also go that step further and have a Process closer to wikipedias where you nominate an article it becomes 'featured' but does not necessarily get added to the main page. each month or week or whatever someone decides which one gets put up / you can request a featured article be considered for the main page. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:40, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Er... I know why you brought this up; it really is a standard across most wiki's. Therefore it makes me lean towards implementing it... Anyway, if this is to get implemented I do not want an obtrusive template, like the one on Uncyclopedia. Any thoughts for a good template? P.S. I like the second implementation more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:37, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::{| style="text-align: right; width: 100%; border: none;" <br />
| This is a [[Featured Articles|Featured Article]]! [[Image:Cscr-featured.png|30px]]<br />
|}<br />
:::Thoughts?<br />
:::--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:33, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::How do you handle projects? Does LotR count as one or a few hundred? Does the ''title page'' of LotR count? --[[User:Pwsnafu|Pwsnafu]] 17:38, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The main reason I was thinking about it is it puts some of our best work on the front page which draws in visitors instead of going through all those links to find something cool it's right there you can read it then people are more likely to go searching for more. It's also a recognition of your hard work having it on the main page. I like your little Featured article template is it for the talk page or the actual page if it's for the actual page perhaps it could be centered that way it blends in more being between the table of contents and the author template. We'd need some guidelines or criteria for making a page featured, and some one to arbitrate the process (and make final decisions) we can call him/her the Article Master or AM (like DM lol). we need to get some ideas rolling then maybe take a vote? --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:06, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Pwsnafu: I'd say for something like that it would be best to feature the main page of a project, not all subpages would need to be as good but there would still be a standard of quality for the entire project. Conversely a particularly good subpage which can stand on it's own could also be featured. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:10, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I've just been stareing at the main page for awhile and so far I haven't thought of much in the way of how we could format it. About the only thing I can think of would be move the tavern schedule down next to the news and then use that blank space next to the menu for the featured articles. EDIT: personally I'd be for moving the tavern schedule to its own page. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:29, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Featured Articles]] --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:42, 4 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I'm all for it, if it means that even wanton visitors can get a more inside view of the site at first glance. It might persuade some of them to stick around and lord knows dandwiki can use more contributors :O. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 10:01, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Yes! --[[User:Penske|Penske]] 15:27, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Now we just need some featured articles :P. Hard to judge the true value of a system if it isn't used. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 18:29, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Gygax Gone at 69 ==<br />
<br />
[[:Category:Gary Gygax|Gary Gygax]], co-creator of D&D with [[:Category:Dave Arneson|Dave Arneson]], passed away Tuesday, March 4th, 2008, at the age of 69. Read coverage on it at [http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/report-gary-gyg.html Wired], [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03/farewell_gary_gygax_the_dungeo.html BBC News], [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_en_ot/obit_gygax Yahoo! News], [http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/03/04/1750206 /.], and many other news sites. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:[[Discussion:The Passing of a Giant - RIP Gary Gygax]] --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 09:21, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Submitted for Your Approval ==<br />
<br />
I present the new [[Form:DnD Spell|form for submitting (non-epic) spells]], Courtesy of Semantic MediaWiki and Semantic Forms. [[Special:EditData/Form:DnD_Spell/User:Sledged/Atonement|Here]]'s what it looks like with the fields populated. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Hm... I wish you could make it work more like [[Form:Rating]] where it uses a template which, once saved, goes to the normal wiki formatting. Can this be done with spells as well? It's just that I do not really want the formatting of all the spells changed to this new "standard". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:18, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::If that is what is wanted all you have to do is add <tt><nowiki>subst:</nowiki></tt> in the form code next to any templates you want to be substituted onto the page. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 20:33, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Just be aware that if <tt>subst:</tt> is added, you'll lose the option of using the form to edit the page once it's been created. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:21, 6 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::It is a price I would be willing to pay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:44, 6 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay, there's a problem with <tt>subst:</tt>. Part of the way to form works is that it looks at the template to see what properties it has and which parameters are associated with each property. When you use <tt>subst:</tt>, it's looking for the page <tt>Template:subst:template name</tt> instead of <tt>Template:template name</tt> and it makes the form useless as a result. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:37, 6 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Wiki Criticism ==<br />
<br />
This is the most useless Wiki I have ever found on D&D. I'm sick of homebrew rubbish. I'm trying to find info on Mask and Olidamarra (spelling?) and I can't find anything good) {{unsigned| 68.193.215.240}}<br />
<br />
:Admittedly, this probably isn't the best wiki to go to for official WotC material, but that doesn't make it useless. What's wrong with homebrew? WotC seems to encourage it, and the only real difference between good homebrew and published material is that the former is sold in books. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 05:40, 14 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::We are not allowed to have information about Gods and Goddesses on D&D Wiki. They are reserved as product identity. Sorry about that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:27, 14 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Should be in [[Deities and Demigods]], no? If you want even more information than that, you're likely looking into some very specific Forgotten Realms books. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 18:51, 20 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Boy, I thought I was pushy and opinionated. This site rocks for people like us who want to post and discuss shit. What else could you want? So you want Wizards information? So what! They want your money! Give them money or shut up and start writing. That's just my opinion of this issue.<br />
<br />
:::: :P ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:07, 23 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== WotC Website Material ==<br />
<br />
It occurred to me as I was answering a question about what material we have on the site...would we be able to host material from the wizards site? [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/psi The Mind's Eye], for instance, has some interesting things, and I would love to see things like it on the wiki. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 19:16, 18 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Hm... Can we http://ww2.wizards.com/Company/Default.aspx?doc=SiteLegalNotice? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:19, 19 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::According to section 2, "You are granted a limited, non-sublicenseable license to ''access'' and use the Site and ''electronically copy'' (except where specified as prohibited) and ''print to hard copy portions'' of Site Content for your ''personal'', noncommercial use only; provided, that you preserve any copyright, trademark or other similar notices contained in or associated with such Site Content. Such license is subject to these TOU and does not include: [...] (ii) the collection and use of any product or service listings, pictures or descriptions; '''(iii) the distribution (electronic or otherwise), public performance, or public display of any Site Content;''' [...] downloading (other than the page caching) of any portion of the Site, any Site Content or any information contained therein, except as expressly permitted on the Site; [...]"<br />
::In other words, I think not. Hosting anything more than links here violates the spirit of the first, italicized part (my emphasis) and also several of the explicit prohibitions (especially the bolded one, also my emphasis added). So... probably not. And WotC has a history of taking a very hard line against IP infringement, copyright suits, etc. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 14:33, 19 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well once you sift through a little legal phrasing, that's pretty clear...their terms of use explicitly forbid it, since a wiki definately counts as public display. Oh well ''':/'''. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 16:50, 19 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The shame is that this material will disappear. When I was documenting Wizard's past products, I found that many items had dropped off their site. They are poor caretakers of their own material. The academic in me want to preserve their own web content for their own good.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:10, 19 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Feats==<br />
<br />
How about an area under the Featured Article for a 'Feat of the Day' with a link to a feat... --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 19:14, 19 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you go that route, you can just as well try to implement such a component feature for other groupings of data. Spell of the Day, NPC of the Day, etc. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 18:54, 20 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree, no such special section for feats is necessary, they can become featured as well ''';)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:44, 21 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Link of the day? kinda like a word of the day feature... --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 08:10, 7 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Other Netbooks ==<br />
<br />
Does anyone know where to find the other netbooks from FanCC? I'd be interested in seeing them, possibly up on the wiki. {{Unsigned|Gruegirl|22:00, 23 April 2008 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:I am not sure, sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 29 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4th Edition Link ==<br />
<br />
I've had a thought; I think we could, and probably should, put the link to the 4th edition homebrew (and possibly the SRD, though we can't put it up yet, for obvious reasons) on the main page, because, as people in ENworld have proved, we have enough preveiw material from the PHB Lite (derived from the pregenerated characters and rogue preview) to make some powers, the 1st level for classes, and odd things here-and-there. As ENworld is already doing odd bits of 4e homebrew based on previews, we might as well provide a place for it to go now, rather than later.<br />
<br />
Also, my gaming group has started a 4e campaign with the Pre-Generated characters, and everything is ''so'' much more better than 3.5. The fighter felt more like a fighter than in 3.5. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:26, 26 April 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Although as the deadline is drawing nearer and nearer I am leaning towards using the same revised 3e pages and just changing the identifier/creating a namespace for them. The voting (please see above discussion) outlined that the community would prefer that we distinguish 4e from 3.5e with just namespaces and categories. I know you have spent a lot of time on the 4e pages, however do we really need them? Is there any way we could utilize the current pages with 4e? Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:16, 5 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Won't be playing 4e for quite a while. Checkbook ain't so hot right now. So I would personally prefer keeping a 3e section and a seperate 4e section. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 08:13, 7 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I don't think it would be possible anyway. I think it would be easier and less confusing to keep them seperate... --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 08:23, 7 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I have had a look over the [[4e Homebrew]] page and checked it, and I think it is as ready as it can be before 4e comes out; we just need a preload for classes and dragons and we're fine (not enough info right now!); so as it's two weeks this friday I feel that we should put up the link for the 4th edition homebrew (but not the SRD!) ''now'' for the reasons I stated above. I don't think that we could combine the 3e and 4e sections, and I feel that it would be easier to use if they where seperate. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:57, 21 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Random Link ==<br />
<br />
Would it be possible to add a random link to the navigation links too the side? This will allow for a more rounded out site over all. Eg. people are able to fix and contribute to content that they may not normally get to see. This will also allow DM's to make more interesting characters. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 00:21, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like the idea of a random page link too. Course there is one in the special pages link on the side and you could add one to your user page (as I have). --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 08:09, 7 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Featured User==<br />
How about a link to a particularly good user page. There are a few out there and it may encouraage others to create pages of their own. Maybe have a pool of good user pages that the link is randomly derived from. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 08:07, 7 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote no. --[[User:Othtim|Othtim]] 17:56, 16 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Any particular reason? --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 19:25, 16 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Perhaps because it could be taken as a glorification of the user chosen. [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 19:54, 16 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::A little recognition isn't a bad thing. It would also be a way for newcomers to see what they can do for their user page. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 20:41, 16 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I am against it because it would further clutter the [[Main Page]] and I do not feel it would be used as much as, say, the FA link. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:21, 16 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: I'm just imagining how it'd work:<br />
::::::: ''Sledged is a wiki admin who likes templates, optimizations, and long walks on the beach. Come visit his user page.''<br />
:::::: Gives me a little chuckle. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Ooh, I like long walks too... --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 17:38, 17 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Search Function Broken== <br />
Most searches return no pages; even a search as simple as "magic" gives an "nothing found" screen. [[User:Noname|Noname]] 21:13, 20 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Not that big of a problem... just search externally and it works fine. Just click a few extra times and your done. Nice to have it working again, but until then let's not make a huge deal of it. [[User:Palantini|Palantini]] 20:52, 21 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e SRD ==<br />
<br />
There is some news about the 4e SRD [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080606a here]. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 03:03, 7 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== WYSIWYG extension ==<br />
<br />
I was thinking about how we want our users to have an easier time to post homebrew content. Then I realized that I spend a lot of time formatting tables and such. With a lot of website installations I do, I use Joomla, which comes with a built-in WYSIWYG editor. Well I did some research and apparently there is a good one for mediawiki. Take a look at [http://mediawiki.fckeditor.net/ http://mediawiki.fckeditor.net/]. I think this would be a sweet component to install -- for both new and experienced users. If there is a way to configure on your user profiler which editor to use, that would be even better (I'm not sure about that yet). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:34, 20 June 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tome_and_Blood&diff=242068Talk:Tome and Blood2008-03-25T12:37:21Z<p>Xidoraven: question about Tome and Blood - Aleph Language</p>
<hr />
<div>Does anyone know where the language 'Aleph' came from, which was first mentioned in this publication (at least first to my knowledge)? Was it a new concept for this book, or something that was pulled from elsewhere? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 06:37, 25 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arcana_Evolved&diff=242067Talk:Arcana Evolved2008-03-25T12:34:32Z<p>Xidoraven: spelling error - here and linked pages</p>
<hr />
<div>Incorrect spelling here an on the list of publications by [[White Wolf]]:<br />
<br />
'Evoved' = EvoLved -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 06:34, 25 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dreadmire&diff=242066Talk:Dreadmire2008-03-25T12:32:03Z<p>Xidoraven: comment</p>
<hr />
<div>== License ==<br />
<br />
What license is this licensed under? I just downloaded the "Look Inside" version and it is missing the most crucial part&mdash;the licensing information. I thought I read somewhere that this is licensed under the [[OGL]], however I may be wrong. Does anyone know for sure? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:57, 15 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I believe that - like many Atlas Games / Penumbra publications - some portions of this are for open gaming (OGL), while other portions might be more campaign-specific or information-oriented. I would have to meet with the author and perhaps get a copy of the book in order to best answer this. Luckily, he is on the panel for BabelCon, which I will be attending this July (http://www.babelcon.org/). -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 06:32, 25 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dracolisk&diff=242065User talk:Dracolisk2008-03-25T12:12:24Z<p>Xidoraven: identity...?</p>
<hr />
<div>== Welcome to D&D Wiki! == <br />
<br />
;Welcome!<br />
Hello {{PAGENAME}} and welcome to D&D Wiki. I hope you have been enjoying this site, and I hope you have been finding the information here on D&D Wiki useful. I am an admin (and, actually, the owner as well) here on D&D Wiki along with a couple other people who make up "The Face" of D&D Wiki. An entire list of admins can be found [[D&D Wiki:Administrators|here]].<br />
;Questions:<br />
If you have any question about D&D Wiki, D&D, formatting on D&D Wiki, what day today is, what our purpose here on earth is, or whatever, an admin will, many times, give the best answer. Please feel free to ask any admin any question ([http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&action=edit&section=new ask me a question!]).<br />
;Formatting<br />
Formatting on D&D Wiki (or any wiki for that matter) can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Editing Help:Editing] on Wikipedia (or even their [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction Introduction] page). This will explain the basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. Again, if you have any questions about formatting on D&D Wiki please ask them as, I imagine, anybody will be more than happy to help you get them answered.<br />
;Community<br />
A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I am sure you will find it rather nice. Most discussions take place on content talk pages, however please feel free to walk into [[Special:TheTavern|The Tavern]] (our local chat room) and talk to some fellow D&D Wikians. Anyway, on D&D Wiki, possibly since discussions are never deleted, people try to be nice. This means please follow Wikipedia's guidlines on [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Civility] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette Etiquette] when discussing anything. And, if an argument does arise, please use Wikipedia's [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution Dispute Resolution] to make sure everyone comes out happy. Also, on a pretty different note, to ensure people know who posted what, please sign your name after a post with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>) or by clicking on the signature icon. [[Image:Signature_icon.png]] This will automatically produce your name and the date (by the way, it's kinda a pet peeve of mine when people don't sign posts... arrg...). Anyway, I hope you come to love the close-knit D&D Wiki community and welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
== Dreadmire ==<br />
Either this is Randy Richards, someone who knows him, or someone who has an intimate knowledge of the publication... Who is it? ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 06:12, 25 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mongoose_Publishing&diff=242062Talk:Mongoose Publishing2008-03-25T11:57:02Z<p>Xidoraven: new publication to add - great book on secret societies</p>
<hr />
<div>'Secret Societies' = http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/home/detail.php?qsID=1279&qsSeries= -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 05:57, 25 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Complete_Guide_to_Fey&diff=242055Talk:The Complete Guide to Fey2008-03-25T11:15:01Z<p>Xidoraven: comment</p>
<hr />
<div>This page is awesome. I am so glad that the pic is up. I have this book, and it's extremely helpful and informative. Definitely a worthwhile buy for any gamer of d20 fantasy games. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 05:15, 25 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wiki_Fiction_Roleplayers_Guild_(3.5e_Other)&diff=242054Talk:Wiki Fiction Roleplayers Guild (3.5e Other)2008-03-25T11:11:05Z<p>Xidoraven: draft from Wikipedia posted here for editing</p>
<hr />
<div>== Wikipedia? ==<br />
<br />
Has anyone here ever submitted an article for Wikipedia? I am trying to post one for the WFR, and have provided a plethora of links as references, but the mods said it was a tad too advertising-styled, and that I needed more credible resources than what I myself, or the Guild members created... I am unsure of how to deal with this, as having a Wikipedia article is an important part of making sure that we have spread ourselves around the web enough for people to find us.<br />
<br />
Also, thank you to he-who-posted-new-campaign-settings. I wholeheartedly appreciate the help, and welcome every new member to the WFR with open arms.<br />
<br />
All new and incoming members, please remember to leave a comment at the bottom of the following page:<br />
http://elftown.com/_WFR%20Application%20Page<br />
<br />
Thanks, everyone! -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:20, 11 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Update:<br />
:The Wikipedia article page is continuously getting declined and removed. I have decided to list it simply on the disambiguation page for 'WFR', and post referenced sources, like this page, where I will feature the content of the article. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 23:57, 18 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I don't think Wikipedia will delete it if has some good references saying that it is a serious thing. If you really want it on Wikipedia then you should reference a non-facebook, non-D&D Wiki, and non-elftown reference that talks about it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:56, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::That could be difficult, since we are only just now expanding beyond the boundaries of Elftown. We will see what happens in the future. For now, I will host my info here, and we will deal with the Wikipedia issue in future dealings. Thanks for the input. I wholeheartedly appreciate it, GD. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 16:05, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No problem. However, as soon as more references to WFR are created you really should try to make it on Wikipedia again ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:57, 26 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The only reference I can think of that I used, that was not a part of one of these above sites would be my RPGA number, and the RPGA login site... How can I tweak this to be a non-partisan resource? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 15:44, 2 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Well, if it really is a partisan thing then it should not be on Wikipedia (see their guidelines for content). They have strict rules on things that are allowed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:23, 2 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
= Wikipedia Entry Draft (Since they can't simply leave it alone) =<br />
<br />
=== Working Article: [[WFR]] (disambiguation) / [[Wiki Fiction Roleplayers Guild]] ===<br />
Redirect from [[WFR Guild]], [[Wiki Fiction Roleplay]], [[Wiki Fiction Roleplayers]], [[Elftown RPG Guild]]<br />
<br />
Add/edit pages: [[WFR Local Chapter]], [[RPG Guild]], [[Gaming Guild]], [[Fiction Guild]], [[WFR]] (dis.), [[Elfwood]], [[RPG Groups]], [[RPG]], [[Gaming]]/[[Games]], [[Fiction]], [[Fiction Groups]], [[Guild]], [[Modern Guilds]]<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Intro ==<br />
<br />
The Wiki Fiction Roleplayers' Guild (or [[WFR]]<ref>http://elftown.com/_wfr, WFR Elftown.com Public Page</ref> <ref>http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/wfrguild, WFR Guild Google Home Page</ref>) is an interactive online group formed by independent members of the [[Elftown]] community for role-players, gamers, and [[fiction]] fans.<br />
<br />
The Guild was originally formed to satisfy a need in the Elftown [[wiki]]-pages for professional and upstanding [[RPG]]s and creative writing activities, but now finds itself hosting relevant content and discussions for artists and creative people of all backgrounds. Decided by Guild Moderators in summer of 2007, the group has begun branching onto such sites as [[D&D Wiki]], [[Facebook]], and locally in the form of [[WFR Guild Chapters]] ([[WFR Guild - Baton Rouge Local Chapter|Baton Rouge]] Local Chapter coming in 2008). These changes consist of actions based on the choice to become a public entity, which people could join, regardless of their membership in other communities or online sites.<br />
<br />
The goals of the Guild include networking creative and talented gamers and fiction-lovers, as well as providing free information and public forums on appropriate subjects to gaming and campaign-creation of all forms. Through meetings hosted in Local Chapters and recorded via web technologies, the Guild seeks to provide discussions and information on varied topics through the [[Elftown]] [[wiki]]-page medium, where the Guild officially operates in its central community pages.<br />
<br />
Online, the Guild forms an international union of talented members in all genres of fiction gaming and creative writing, and works in connection with [[RPGA]] <ref>http://www.wizards.com/RPGA, RPGA</ref> standards and methods. Along with cooperating with other organizations, the WFR Guild seeks to change the way in which players, gamers, and fiction lovers network and discuss relevant topics to the fiction genres. By employing technology and web hosting techniques, the Guild continually renovates the way in which its members work for the greater good of all people's appreciation of the fiction genres and related design branches.<br />
<br />
The Guild is currently led by [[User:xidoraven|xidoraven]] <ref>http://elftown.com/xido, xido's Elftown house</ref> (Dec. 2007) as well as its self-motivated volunteer moderators and organizers. [[user:xidoraven|xido]] is a Herald-level Game Moderator of the [[RPGA]] <ref>http://www.wizards.com/rpga, Xidoraven's RPGA # 41135083</ref>, and continues to renovate the Guild membership to mirror that of the public organization led by [[Wizards of the Coast]], under the direction of [[Hasbro]]. Other Guild Members have also sought [[RPGA]] status and membership since recent renovations in methods.<br />
<br />
<br />
(right-aligned WFR logo img ; http://elftown.com/stuff/WFR_logo_test.png)<br />
<br />
== History of the Guild (add quote from original page versions) ==<br />
<br />
The WFR was first created in [[2003]] on [[Elftown]] <ref>http://elftown.com, Elftown.com</ref> by its original creator, an Elftown user named Maedilynn <ref>http://elftown.com/maedilynn, K. Peters ET home page - non-exported</ref> under the heading of the "'''''Wiki Fantasy Roleplay'''''". Self-proclaimed as a "'''''quote'''''", it was one of the first movements in the [[Elftown]] community to accrue talent in the gaming community in the name of coming together and creating a cooperative world / game setting.<br />
<br />
It was inherited in that very same year by [[User:xidoraven|xido]], and was immediately put to the task of being renovated for a professional look and networking capabilities between members of Elftown.<br />
<br />
The Guild was founded on free-form, non-methodological role-playing in an advanced wiki format, but with due time has seen updates that include the involvement and orientation of RPG gaming systems like the [[d20]] system by Wizards of the Coast <ref>http://www.wizards.com, Wizards of the Coast official online website and community</ref>, and creative free-form language-based challenges and activities.<br />
<br />
The Guild continues to be led by its Head Master and Primary Guild organizer, [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] <ref>http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/home, [[User:xidoraven|xido]]'s Google Home page</ref>, along with its many talented and creative members <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_wfr%20guild%20members, WFR Guild Members List</ref>.<br />
<br />
Between 2003 and 2005, a huge boom in membership required that the Guild Moderators re-examine how they would like the Guild to be run, and continuing goals and methods. Since 2005, the Guild has been under continuous renovations to satisfy this need. Pages were formatted and compiled for finalizations, and Guild Moderators worked steadily to finish off the projects. When it was seen that making this change only within the Elftown community, it did not immediately raise awareness of the Guild's central tenets, the Guild began re-examining how best to operate on the web. Between 2004 and 2006, other sites were researched, and membership gained in various online communities to best understand the gaming and fiction fan communities. In 2007, it was decided that the Guild should operate in more than simply the Elftown boundaries, and while exporting pages, lead moderators put other sites into play, utilizing previous [[wiki]] experience and pseudo-[[html]], along with a creativity spawned across multiple online host sites.<br />
<br />
Now focusing on the elements of gaming, storylines, and the fiction genres, the Guild hopes to host semi-professional meetings using online web hosting technologies to provide free and helpful information for those willing to take their love of the game to the next level.<br />
<br />
In 2005-06, all Moderators were named and included on official Guild pages, and the [[WFR Guild Knights]] were created in order to uphold the sanctity and reputation of the Guild despite any potential setbacks. In 2006, artists within the Guild ranks and heavily motivated volunteer Guild Moderators expanded the group's influence into all art forms, continuing the semi-professional stance of the original literary arts aspect. Because multimedia students comprise a significant portion of the Guild's talent, it was recognized early on that no art form could be left untapped.<br />
<br />
Beginning in October of 2007, the Guild made the difficult decision to allow non-Elftown members to its ranks. Basing its composition upon the flexible RPG material by [[D&D]] under the [[OGL]] Content, it now hosts games, storylines, and media of all forms and genres, and welcomes new members from all walks of life who are interested in being a part of a truly talented and creative online network. The [[WFR]] renovates Guild Membership roles according to the original titles in [[Guild|Guilds]] of the medieval era. Along with the open '''''Guest''''' membership, '''''Apprentices''''', '''''Journeyers''''', and '''''Masters''''' now outline the ranks and roles of Guild Membership in accordance with the historic basis of Guild status.<br />
<br />
WFR Guild Chapters now exist in the following additional locations, along with the original Elftown Chapter (Dec. 2007):<br />
<br />
* http://www.dandwiki.com, D&D Wiki Site Chapter <ref>http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Wiki_Fiction_Roleplayers_Guild_%28DnD_Other%29, WFR D&D Wiki Chapter</ref><br />
* http://www.facebook.com, Facebook Site Chapter <ref>http://aiuonline.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6025577803&ref=share, WFR Facebook Chapter</ref><br />
* Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Local Chapter - coming in 2008 (attach proposal, link to http://www.littlewars.com and forum)<br />
<br />
== Goals and Methods ==<br />
<br />
In 2006, the-roleplay-initiative <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_the-roleplay-initiative, the-roleplay-initiative on Elftown.com</ref> was created to help define the continuing and future goals of the first and official RPG and Creative Writing Guild of Elftown.com. With these goals in mind, the Guild continues evolving to meet its members' needs and wants, and also to help promote creative writing and conceptual arts of all forms, as well as a better understanding of how role-playing is fun, useful, effective, and educationally beneficial on average.<br />
<br />
Focusing on developing its members' skills and creative talents, the Guild no longer focuses on simply RPGs (or [[Role-Playing Games]]), but has expanded into creative talent of all forms which would benefit a role-playing game, story-line, campaign setting, environment, network, or aspiring writers or fiction-oriented artists.<br />
<br />
The Guild now accepts members from all over the internet, and all incoming members and/or inquiries should be posted comments on the openly-viewable WFR Application page <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_WFR%20Application%20Page, WFR Application Pager</ref> and WFR Library <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_wfr%20library, WFR Library</ref>. New applicants are advised to be creative in what they choose to submit as a representation of their skills, background, and artistic and gaming-related talents. Members from outside of Elftown are required to give their personal and/or professional email address for Guild Membership.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Members ==<br />
<br />
The WFR Guild is a world-wide network of people, remains open to new members, and maintains an updated list of all current and previous members and their applicant characters and game/story-related submissions.<br />
<br />
The WFR Guild Members List is available for viewing based from Elftown.com, xido's original and permanent home.<br />
<br />
The full members lists:<br />
: * http://elftown.com/_WFR%20Guild%20Members<br />
: * http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/memberslist%282007%29<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== WFR Web Pages ==<br />
=== Main portal pages ===<br />
: * http://elftown.com/_wfr - Elftown Public Page<br />
: ** http://elftown.com/_Wiki%20Fiction%20Roleplay - Elftown Members page<br />
: * http://xidoraven.googlepages.com/wfrguild - WFR Guild Google Information Pages<br />
: * http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Wiki_Fiction_Roleplayers_Guild_%28DnD_Other%29 - D&D Wiki Guild Information Page<br />
<br />
=== Full list of pages ===<br />
: * http://elftown.com/_WFR%20Guild%20Pages,%20Mods,%20&%20GMs<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Projects and Guild concepts (add link to RRPG public page) ==<br />
<br />
* The Role-Players Council of Elftown.com and the [[RRPG]] <ref>RRPG Elftown Public Page</ref> ([[Realm of Role-Playing Games]]) new site concept<br />
* the-roleplay-initiative<br />
* Public Expansion and Relations<br />
* Open Gaming Setting renovations<br />
* [[D&D Wiki]] / [[RPGA]] / [[WFR]] cooperation efforts<br />
* Publication and Marketing Strategies and Cooperations for Creative Members<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Settings and Campaigns (add WFR non-Jashnian Member Settings/Games/Stories) ==<br />
<br />
The primary open setting of the WFR's Fantasy segment is Jashnia <ref>http://www.elftown.com?_jashnia, Jashnia Campaign Setting</ref> <ref>http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Jashnian_Cosmology_and_Worlds_%28DnD_Campaign_Setting%29, Jashnia Cosmology and Campaign Setting D&D (d20) Statistics</ref>, a cooperatively created fiction world which hosts mainly fantasy and near-fantasy storylines and settings most like modern [[D&D]] text-based adventures. The [[Sci-Fi]] segment also occupies space in the "'''''Jashnian Realm'''''", which is located in the M-101 Galaxy, known internally as the "'''''Jeriah Galaxy'''''" <ref>http://elftown.com/_jeriah%20galaxy, Jeriah Galaxy - WFR Guild Open Game Setting</ref>. Now committing information and research into other fiction genres, the Guild continues to pursue the furthest extent of its potential reach in the public forum for this niche in popular culture.<br />
<br />
Jashnia was a setting concept created by Maedilynn before her departure from Elftown. It was originally conceived as a world without known limitations or boundaries outside of a local segment of "'''''Vraisynn Empire'''''" royalty, as played by its original members (Fall 2003). When [[User:xidoraven|xido]] arrived on the scene, he began to network and include other locations and lands, such as the Eastonia continent created cooperatively by he and N. Hudson <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_eastonia, Eastonia - fantasy continent of Jashnia (and a future outcome of the Labyrinthian Past Era reality created by N. Hudson</ref>, Zendelon by M. Batson <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_zendelon, Zendelon - fiction continent of Jashnia</ref>, and TearRem <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_TearRem, TearRem - fantasy non-exported sunken continent of Jashnia by Resiska</ref> (which subsequently sank into the ocean when its creator left Elftown semi-permanently. Other continents, such as Lune <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_lune, Lune - fantasy continent of Jashnia, by Mathias IV</ref>, Horamont (the giant lands) <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_horamont, Horamont - fiction continent of Jashnia by [[User:xidoraven|xido]] and M. Batson</ref>, Tearra Réhm <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_Tearra%20Réhm, Tearra Réhm - fiction continent of Jashnia by [[User:xidoraven|xido]] and Resiska</ref>, the floating isle of Vxa <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_vxa, Vxa ("v'zhah") - fantasy island land by J. Berta and [[User:xidoraven|xido]]</ref> (pronounced "vzha" or "v'zhah", as one syllable), and many other world-specific locations. These lands accumulated until Jashnia had both a full historical timeline, as well as a detailed culture and setting elements rivaling even that of the famed [[Eberron]] and [[Greyhawk]] Campaign Settings.<br />
<br />
Although there are also surrounding worlds, planes, realms, and distant cultures in the Jashnian Cosmology, Jashnia is chosen as the home of the WFR Guild Open Gaming Settings for the following reasons:<br />
<br />
* Jashnia is a cooperatively created, cooperatively run Guild Campaign Setting, as recognized on the WFR Games page <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_wfr%20games, WFR Games page and continuing setting/game list</ref>.<br />
* Jashnia is the focus of a planar event known as the Epicene <ref>http://www.elftown.com/_epicene, the Epicene - fantasy/fiction cosmological plotline event</ref>, which is the moment of a definitive change in campaign culture on this world, and in its neighboring worlds and realms.<br />
* Jashnia was not created by [[User:xidoraven|xido]], but was developed after being proposed by Maedilynn at the Guild's initial creation in 2003.<br />
* Jashnia is wicked cool fun.<br />
* Jashnia hosts the campaign setting of the official plot hooks and story elements:<br />
** the [[Grammaticum Primeaval]]<br />
** the [[Inath]] Immortal culture and Cabals<br />
<br />
In addition to Guild-run Open Gaming Settings on Elftown, The WFR Guild also sponsors Open Game Setting locations in the [[Elftown]] Community for non-WFR members, such as the "'''''Elftown Open Marketplace'''''" and the "'''''Elftown Water Fountain'''''", which was the basis for an art contest in 2006 (the 'Elftown Water Fountain Design Contest', or "ETWFDC" <ref>http://elftown.com/_elftown%20water%20fountain%20design%20contest, ETWFDC Home Page</ref>).<br />
<br />
Despite [[D&D]] / [[d20]] concepts becoming a core method system in the Guild's primary locations, many settings operate without any connection to D&D or the d20 [[Open Gaming License]] Content. Free-form text-based adventures and gaming concepts developed outside the d20 mechanics include the following:<br />
<br />
* ...<br />
<br />
On D&D Wiki, several settings and campaign locations / story-lines have also volunteered to become a part of the Guild's continuing advancement, including the following:<br />
<br />
==== Campaign Settings that allow all forms of D&D / d20 rules ====<br />
* Realms of Lemire <ref>http://elftown.com/wiki.html?name=Realms%20of%20Lemire, Realms of Lemire Elftown.com wiki-page</ref><br />
* [[Jashnian Cosmology and Worlds (DnD Campaign Setting)|Jashnian Cosmology and Worlds]] (ref)<br />
* [[Wikiworld (DnD Campaign Setting)|Wikiworld]] (ref)<br />
* [[800 AD (DnD Campaign Setting)|800 AD]] (ref)<br />
* [[Sewer Rats (DnD Campaign Setting)|Sewer Rats]] (ref)<br />
* [[Six Gods Setting (DnD Campaign Setting)|Six Gods Setting]] (ref)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Applying to the Guild and Member Benefits (needs editing, and WFR Library Author info page link) ==<br />
<br />
'''''To join as a primary player member, please read and comment on the WFR Application Page (see References below).<br />
<br />
To join as a Game Moderator, Dungeon Master, Storyteller, Artist, Designer, or Organizer, please read the information on the WFR Application Page, and comment with your proposed activities on the WFR Library page (also, see References below).<br />
<br />
RPGA Members, members of current locations of Local and Online Chapters, and experienced/talented people are given priority over first-time members. Age is not an issue, but as the WFR Guild deals with mature content sometimes, ages 16-18 are asked to join with caution and an open mindset, 19+ are welcome, and those below 15 years of age are asked to invite their parents to see the open web pages before considering applying as a new member. We are not discriminating, just letting you know that you cannot act like a jerk in our Guild. We do not tolerate immaturity of any kind. We have fun, but do not enjoy the company of those who can't handle reading the words, "death", "torture", "passion", "sex", "gender", "hermaphrodite", or any concept that the juvenile mind may find amusing to poke at.<br />
<br />
Guild Members are networked with other creative and talented people through an international, multi-website Guild, and are given the chance to prove themselves to their peers and the world in a free-form, open-minded role-playing and creative writing environment. Along with hosting character pages online (for personal or openly-viewable purposes), creating campaign settings, indulging in the imagination, and developing new methods of interacting in an online creative community, the WFR includes some of the coolest people from all over the world. We welcome anyone from any background in gaming or creativity, and hope that together we will find new ways to have fun and meet other cool people like you and I. By role-playing, we develop what it is to be a person, what it is to write creatively and with proper grammar, and how to challenge the mind with new obstacles in an environment that doesn't lend itself to the dangers of the "real world" and its inherent challenges. Through developing and maintaining evolutionary cultures and campaign elements, we find the core of what life is really all about, through working with others and doing productive and useful deeds. The WFR Guild is all about its people, the members who have proven to themselves and others, and remains a member-driven organization of international proportions.<br />
<br />
A major benefit of joining the Guild is the Critique. This is an inherent feature of being a member that begins at Application, and continues until a member finds their niche in the gaming and creative writing community. When a new player fills out their WFR Application (in the form of a character description), they receive a focused review of their word usage, writing style, and potential for corrections or updates. New members receive this "Critique" by any viewing members who see their application posting, so that they can understand how others see their content and information on the web, and over great distances. This is important because it allows a new member to think about their writing and creations from a different perspective, as well as getting input from others on their thoughts about the work. This is an invaluable trait to have in the working world, and the Guild understands that sometimes, in order to get better at what we do for a living requires getting better at what we do for fun. The Critique never truly ends, unless a member finds themselves amidst peers who consider them equal in skill or diversity, or they ask the other Guild Members politely to no longer critique them or their work. Guild Members remain open-minded to this ideal, and respect the wishes of others. A professional and mature mentality is maintained at all times, even when we laugh and make jokes.''''' (edit this section)<br />
<br />
<br />
=== How to join ===<br />
<br />
The WFR Application Page (for players, gamers, new members, and questions/comments):<br />
: * http://elftown.com/_WFR%20Application%20Page<br />
The WFR Library's Author Page:<br />
: * ...<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
== Notes ==<br />
<br />
The WFR's current language remains English, and its current Head Master only speaks English. Lead Moderators from various European countries are available for help in their native tongues if necessary. Translators are welcome, and should be able to work with a fluent English speaker and writer. [[Elftown]] also seeks to host international communities of speakers and writers of other languages, and the Guild always enjoys seeing new talent develop in writing of any form.<br />
<br />
Because of recent renovations (11-5-2007), newly applying members are asked to remain patient while the Guild undergoes continuing reformation to accept and moderate new incoming members.<br />
<br />
<br />
References:<br />
<references/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Category:DnD<br />
<br />
Category:User<br />
<br />
Category:Other<br />
<br />
Category:WFR<br />
<br />
Other Categories: ...</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=238082Talk:Main Page2008-03-11T06:39:59Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Voting */ thanks for the votes - and a question</p>
<hr />
<div>{{Archives<br />
|label1=Discussions 1&ndash;30<br />
|label2=Discussions 31&ndash;44<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== 4th edition ==<br />
<br />
I don't really want to recreate the rumours and excitement concerning the upcoming 4th edition, but it looks like we need to think about a way to handle it here. It's pretty sure that there will be two editions in parallel use, at least for a while, so we need a way to separate editions. Tagging articles [[:Category:3.5]] and [[:Category:4.0]] wouldn't be too hard, what I'm concerned about is article lemmata for articles that exists in different versions for different editions. <br />
<br />
Also, it's not clear yet whether there will be a 4th edition SRD. I hope there will be one. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:50, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Might be a good idea to put SRD 3.5 articles with a template underneath (this is only a suggestion, not an attempt to have a million templates per page):<br />
<br />
:{| style="text-align: center; font-size:0.9em;" width="100%"<br />
| [[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|40px]]<br/>This material is published under the [[V3.5 rules]].<br/><small>[[Main Page|&rarr;More]]</small><br />
|}<br />
<br />
:Although, there might be too many templates if we do this. perhaps we could replace the SRD template to this for 3.5 articles:<br />
<br />
:{| class="messagebox protected" style="border:2px solid #99B; padding:0px; font-size:0.9em;"<br />
|-<br />
| valign="top" | [[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|45px]]<br />
| This material is published under the '''[[Open Game License v1.0a]]'''. The [[GNU Free Documentation License]] does not apply to this page. This material is for the D&D [[V 3.5 rules]].<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:We don't really need to mark homebrew stuff- it should work for 4.0 rules anyway. Whatre can I find news on the 4th edition, anyway? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:10, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Have you been at the WotC Homepage lately? Did you notice something? --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 09:48, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If 4e is really coming out we can most likely just slap on a small template on all 4e things or all 3.5e things. Also, the categories you said above will work. I do not see it as too much of a problem... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:55, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::According to my reasearch, it ios not out until 2011 (rather silly really; why advertise it four and a bit years before its release), so we really do not have to bother with it yet, anyway. {{Unsigned|Sam Kay|10:04, 16 August 2007 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::Boo! Hsssss! I had a browser tab open for the last ten minutes of the countdown of the [http://www.wizards.com/dnd D&D] page. Once it finished, I got "Service Unavailable". About as disappointing as 3.0 psionics. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:35, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Lol ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:38, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::4th edition is definitely coming. We really need to sit down, argue, butt heads, and work out the namespacing issues now. Thankfully, 3E has a namespace already. We have lots to sort out. Wikiworld will instantly be 4th compatible, as I haven't bothered with stats for most of the writeup. The new MIC style items should also be compatible. There are interesting times ahead. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 16 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It has been stated that the PHB will be out May '08 MM June '08 and DMG July '08 {{Unsigned|Quill|19:11, 16 August 2007 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Yes, we have a year to prepare but it makes it easier later if we start thinking about it now. Btw., I'm still waiting for the WotC Homepage to survive sudden massive attention so I can see the official WotC Press release... --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 03:22, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Just do what I suggested and replace the OGC tgemplate with:<br />
:::::::::::{| class="messagebox protected" style="border:2px solid #99B; padding:0px; font-size:0.9em;"<br />
|-<br />
| valign="top" | [[Image:D20 logo 4.jpg|45px]]<br />
| This material is published under the '''[[Open Game License v1.0a]]'''. The [[GNU Free Documentation License]] does not apply to this page. This material is for the D&D [[V 3.5 rules]].<br />
|}<br />
<br />
:::::::::::It is alot easier to mark 3.5 in this way. You could also add an image to the template to mark it, I suppose. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:30, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I vote to leave the V3.5 on the wiki pemanently (unless the wiki runs out of memory), as some people will still use V3.5. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:39, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Btw, [http://rustmonster.net/2007/08/16/dd-4th-edition-announced-gen-con/ here] it says that Wizards announced to continue the OGL. Good decision. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 09:45, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Can we get a 4E Info/Rumor link up on the landing page? (Though we may as well link it to ENWorld. They will have the best coverage.) [http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=4e ENWorld 4E Page] It hasn't been updated yet, but it will be. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:19, 17 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Great! it will be nice to have 4.0e on the wiki.--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 08:27, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A few things. First off we need to figure out if the homebrew material will be compatible with 4e, if it is we are well off. If it is not we need to figure out how we are going to categorize the 3.5e and the 4e homebrew information separately. Oh, and yes, D&D Wiki has enough space to keep the 3.5e material - nothing need ever be deleted to save space on D&D Wiki. Secondly, if we want a link to 4e information from ENWorld then, I feel, that we should add it as a news item. Dmilewski can take care of this if this is the communities decision. Thirdly we need to figure out when the 4e SRD is coming out to see how much time we have to prepare for it. About the SRD (3.5e and 4e); we need to decide if we want a different namespace for the two SRD editions or if we want to organize them by their identifiers. Anyway, if the homebrew information is compatible we are looking at not too much work (and a much more useful and successful D&D Wiki). Let us hope... ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:10, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I think ther homebrew stuff will mostlky ber compatable with 4e, but if not we will have to work to update the best stuff... --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:22, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Either the homebrew material is almost 100% good-to-go or it is not. We cannot have a medium on D&D Wiki. The reason we can not have a medium is because many many people will not switch over to 4e for a long time (or ever!) and we do want want these people to lose D&D Wiki as a recourse. If the two editions are not compatible we will have to have two separate pages like [[Dungeons and Dragons]] and we will have to have 3.5e classes, races, etc and 4e classes, races, etc. Again, we need to really know if they will be compatible or not (and if someone has any information please cite the source). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Yeah, I know, I was meaning as they are now... I have had a look at the articles on WotC website, and I seem to remember that the playtest report mentioned that a player was playing a psyon (because it was 3.5e) to see if it was compatible.--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:42, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I volenteer to help updating homberew stuff to 4e should the need arise (hopefully it won't). --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:54, 18 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I think that conversion of each section should be considered on a case-by-case basis. For example, magic items may only need a level assigned to them. That's an easy conversion worth doing. Classes and prestige classes will need to be entirely rewritten as trees, maneuvers, or such, if they are worth translating at all. <br />
<br />
::::::::My current belief is that we will need to split the content. That hoses the entire redirect initiative. (That was a reservation of mine with the redirect initiative. All the pages that I did for the SRD were hard-referenced. I used no redirects.) <br />
<br />
::::::::Campaign environments will be easiest to convert. Many simply implement the existing system, then list some house rules. For example, LotR and Wikiworld are both concept heavy, rules light. Wikiworld has always been rules light, as I wanted Wikiworld to work with any game system. I suggest that Sam keep LotR rules light, so as to keep it universal.<br />
<br />
:::::::::I was at GenCon when they made the announcement of 4e. According to Wizards of the Coast, the 3.5e material will be compatible with a minimum of modification. There were no details given at the time, however, so what that means, I'm not sure. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 14:04, 23 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Many classes and (both base and prestige) might be obsolete under the new rules- if the same effect can be made just by using talents on one of the other classes. I think we'll have to make a big review of everything and check it for 4e compatibility, maybe putting a 4e Compatible template and a 4e Incompatible template (and nothing on pages that haven't nbeen checked yet, obviously). [[User:MorkaisChosen|MorkaisChosen]] 08:25, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Or we could just keep 3.5e material 3.5e material, since not everyone is going to switch right away... Maybe keep it for a couple years than change it to 4e. Thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:16, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
I read on the Wizards page that one thing they're thinking of implementing with all the online stuff they're using in 4th ed is a wiki to allow home brew stuff. If that's true, it may be best to just keep this site in 3.x to avoid competition with the "official" wiki. I'm still uncertain about all that though. Any thoughts? --[[User:Banyan|Banyan]] 23:07, 23 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't think a little competition will hurt. If Wizards opens their own wiki, that's an excellent idea, but it doesn't mean we should give up this project here. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:57, 24 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I wouldn't bother with the "official wiki" anyway. This one is better. Anyway, why would we be scared of competition? It is not like we are trying to make money, or anything. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:00, 24 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Would someone like to contact them and ask them if this is true? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 26 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==New Edition Issues==<br />
<br />
The following questions are both technical and procedural. There is no correct answer. These questions are here to collect upcoming issues with the wiki and decisions that should be considered. Please add to the list.<br />
<br />
===General architecture===<br />
<br />
How best to manage a wiki filled with multiple editions and systems (3E, 4E, Modern, Etc.)<br />
<br />
:I am very open to discussion, but I feel that the best way to manage different systems is to make the different edition pages very obvious. For example, we could have all namespace v4 pages come with a slightly darker page background, or something similar. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:22, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. The Wizards message boards use a different skin for each game. &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 10:57, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am against the changing of the skin, however I think namespaces are the way to go. We could label the namespaces as SRD3.5e, SRD4e, 4e, 3.5e, D20M, etc. What do you guys think about this idea? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:11, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::People will be far too confused if they want to know whether the article is 3.5 or 4.0, and they constantly have to be checking namespaces. It will be much easier if the page background is slightly darker for 4.0, or something similar. I am not talking about a different feel, just a difference. There is a difference :) &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 18:00, 23 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Why not have two menu pages, one for each edition, and label all pages with 3.5 and 4.0? --[[User: Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:02, 24 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Sam Kay, do you mean namespaces? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:04, 26 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yeah... I did. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:23, 1 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
===Namespaces===<br />
Should we move current SRD pages to a 3E namespace?<br />
<br />
:I assume you mean 3.5E namespace, and I feel that we need to wait a bit until the structure is clear and known to all, but I feel that it definitely needs to happen before 4E comes out. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:23, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
How do we want the namespaces to interact?<br />
<br />
:Why not have two D&D menus: 3.5, and 4.0. That way, you would know whether you where in 3.5 or 4.0. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:33, 3 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
What should we do with articles that are invariant between 3E and 4E (assuming there are any)?<br />
<br />
:This brings up another question: It would be great if there was a way to allow edits on a 3.5E to be reflected, or maybe a reflection would be requested, onto a 4E page. This way the races or whatnot would remain the same. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:25, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've been wrestling with related questions on [[WikiRPS]]. It's easy to have small (or even large) pieces of shared text, using a template. But what if the bulk of the text is shared, but just the numbers scattered throughout the text are different (for instance)? As far as I know, the only way to do it is to modularize the text into templates as much as possible. &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 11:02, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Redirects point to 3E SRD. Is there a way to have namespace relative redirects, where <nowiki>[[foo]]</nowiki> inside the <nowiki>[[SRD]]</nowiki> context points to <nowiki>[[SRD:Foo]]</nowiki> while <nowiki>[[foo]]</nowiki> in the 4E context points to <nowiki>[[SRD4:Foo]]</nowiki>. <br />
<br />
:I don't think it's possible, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 09:55, 21 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::It would be possible with a few minor hacks. However, this will lead to a very confusing website. I am against the idea. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:18, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
===Templates===<br />
<br />
What templates should be used to tag 3E and 4E pages?<br />
<br />
===Homebrew===<br />
<br />
Should homebrew rules be tagged by edition?<br />
<br />
:I strongly feel so. Everything is specific to a version if it falls back on D&D. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:26, 22 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::That depends on whether it is edition specific or not: WotC declaired that 3.5e would be compatable with 4.0e --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:19, 1 September 2007 (MDT)--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:19, 1 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Im new here just signed up today but was reading through this and had something to say. According to the Dnd podcast 4ed is not fully compatible with 3.5, They imply that if you want to use a lot of stuff it will have to be updated. In fact they go so far as to say that you may even have to recreate things from the ground up. So separating old material and new material will be nessacary. I'd suggest tagging everything now 3.5. then creating a menu with two separate sections 3.5 and 4 and go through a process of reviewing and or editing the old material and copy it over to the new namespace.[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:16, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Not nessassaraly- look as CSs- they are mostly background stuff, therefore, they have no <br />
need of a tag for either 3.5 or 4. Deities might not, depending on rule changes. Enviroments will not, as it is mostly descriptive stuff. And they said that it would a be a case-by-case thing. Plus, changing the DnD category to 3.5e would take forever. there are about 4000 articles (I think) here. Better to leave them as DnD, and add 4e. Which has been done. And anyway, I said "compatable" not "fully compatable". They mean slightly different things: one means that some suff may need minor changes, others would need alot, the other means that you could just drop it into a game. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:36, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
Should campaigns get their own namespace, or belong to their intended edition?<br />
<br />
:I feel that campaigns should not get their own namespaces because it would remove the items in the campaign from D&D Wiki linking schemes, etc. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:26, 22 August 2007 (MDT)''<br />
<br />
===Site conversion===<br />
<br />
How best to automate changes?<br />
<br />
Should 3E redirect be systematically replace with hard page references?<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure I understand the question. Can you give an example? &ndash;[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] <small>([[User talk:Cuthalion|talk]])</small> 09:55, 21 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think it means that rather than mentions of "darkvision" being linked to the darkvision page it says what page information about darkvision can be found at in the core rule books. If so, I am against the idea. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:09, 6 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Another 4e Option ==<br />
<br />
I can't help but feel that the cleanest solution would to be just host a completely separate wiki specifically for 4E, and just circumvent all the aforementioned issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:30, 21 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I agree&mdash;having a separate wiki would be very clean, but it may not be as useful, since one would have to switch between the wiki for different versions of D&D. However, I am starting to like the idea... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:24, 21 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well, I think the ease of having a separate wiki would probably be more valuable than the "convenience" of having them together. Also, my understanding is that 4E is not nearly so compatible with 3.5E. So, perhaps the "clean slate" concept would be much better. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 10:02, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::From what I'm reading it seems like it'll about as compatible as 2e is to 3e.<br />
:::Also, let's not forget that the above issues are merely the ones of which we can conceive. With projects this size, more issues always arise after implementation.<br />
:::4ed20wiki.com anyone? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:36, 27 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Wizards did say 4e would be compatible with 3e with a minor amount of modification. Why not have two sub-main pages within this wiki? On the main page you have links to 3rd edition D20 and 4th edition D20. Then each edition could have it's own sub-main page just like our current main page... That would be ''like'' two wikis but without the flicking from wiki to wiki, having two accounts, and the possibility of reduced number of edits on each wiki. Personally, I think it would be better to have one wiki with separate sections. We already have modern and D&D with separate sections on one wiki, so why not do it with 3e and 4e? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:16, 28 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I agree w/ Sam, we should just include a sub-set for D&D 4E like we did for d20 Modern. That way people can have just one account and since 3.5 will be compatible w/ 4E people can still look at all of our 3.5 Stuff and port it over to 4E. Just Create a Dungeons and Dragons 4E Page and a 4ESRD and everything's fine. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 11:21, 28 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I know that the "official" announcement was that 4E would be compatible with 3E, however, I've listened to the Podcasts, read much of the forum boards, and tried to pay attention to what is out there and I don't think it will be that compatible. In fact, Dave Noonan said on the D&D Podcast that there won't be a simple process to take a 3E character and just equate it to 4E. The level progression is different, the spread of powers associated with each level will change for each of the classes, and many of the class abilities (especially spell casting) are being changed greatly. Also, monsters are being reworked extensively, and many of the mechanics are being revised, rewritten, or scrapped entirely. I have a feeling that the compatibility will be simply that you can take a story line from a 3E adventure and use it, but the mechanics, though familiar, are not the same. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 09:55, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I still think one wiki would be best. Plus, I have also been reading the announcements, and I think a lot of the things can already be achieved with variants: the saves working like ACs, for example, add 10 to each save, take 10 from the DC, and roll a D20 and add the DC, compare to save. Easy. Critical spells? I have already done a variant for that before they announced it in Design and development. It is on this site under the title [[Spellcasting (DnD Variant Rule)|Spellcasting]]. So 3E-4E conversion could be a case of slight modification using variant rules. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:31, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I'm not sure I see exactly how variants address the issue of hosting materials for two different versions of the d20 System. Are you suggesting that for every 4E rule component that's different from the corresponding 3.5 rule, it be put under the [[DnD Rules]] or a SRD Variant section? And if so, would this be in addition to or instead of hosting 4E SRD in it's own space?<br />
::::::::And since the d20 Modern section was brought up, I never really cared for it being hosted next to the d20 stuff. Admittedly, it hasn't been a problem, but that could be due to the fact that there's far fewer users using that section than the d20 section (if the amount of user-submitted material is any indication). Whether or not 4E material has it's own wiki, I'm definitely against the 4E d20 Modern and d20 Future being hosted on the same wiki.<br />
::::::::With the issue of multiple accounts, there's a way to have only one account apply to both wikis. I created an account on a [http://www.wikia.com Wikia] site a while ago, and it works with all wikis there. [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue]] would know how complicated such a thing would be to accomplish, and if it'd be worth while. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:20, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::The answer to your question is no, I was merely stating that I think 3E will be compatible with 4E with a minimal of rule conversion. If we can have one account on two seperate wikis, would it be possible to have a single user page (and talk page) for '''BOTH''' wikis? I knows you have seperate pages on wikia... and have links between wikis work as an "inside" link rather than an "external link"? If so, then having two wikis '''Would''' be more... better. Erm... More... practical. Although if we could have a united main page for both that lead to each seperate wiki, that would be good too. About 4E modern and D20 future, starwars ect, ect, yadda yadda yadda, I am not really bothered about them. So long as we have 3E and 4E D&D (and 3E modern would be good, although we could '''completely''' replace it with 4E modern), then I am happy. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 15:25, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I have strengthened and decided my view, I am against two wikis for a number of reasons. One is that people would have two user pages, two talk pages, and two recent changes lists would exist. It would become a lot to handle. Another reason is that it would divide visitors between two sites, making it look like dandwiki.com is actually not doing as well as it would be, therefore making it not as popular on google, etc. Another reason I am against it is that people will choose one wiki they like and stick with it, disabling half of our growing user base. It would stop prompting people to join random discussions as much, and stop prompting them to help out as much. Another reason is that structure changes would have to be done twice, the same template made two times, one for each wiki. It seems, to me, like a lot more problems would arise than good would come out of it. I am against making two wikis.<br />
::::::::::A solution I see to this problem is namespaces. We could have namespaces such as 3.5e, 4e, 3.5eSRD, and 4eSRD to eliminate confusion as to which version something is. I think namespaces would be the best solution to this problem, not separate wikis. Maybe we should vote? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:00, 30 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Sure. Why not? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:25, 31 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Done. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:19, 31 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::If anyone can see a way to make the voting table below clearer please do. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:32, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I voted for everything. That's because I believe that we will need our whole toolbox to sort this out.<br />
:First, we need to identify the two idea complicating this discussion and table them. I believe that D20 Modern will be best served with it's own sister wiki. Simply by separating it, we greatly simplify our discussion. It then becomes its own discussion (which it deserves). Campaigns also deserves their own discussion. <br />
:This greatly simplifies our problem. <br />
:We already know that we will need new templates for 4.0. (Fact: see the new creature layout block.) We will also need new page preloads. Layout differences will help us tell one page from another. The new class pages will look different than the old class pages simply by being laid out differently. That does the same job as a skin. We also have footer and header templates that can go into a preload and existing pages.<br />
:Namespaces are powerful tools to help us sort out what is what, even at a glance. They provide an absoluteness that chains through everything. The new SRD will most definitely be in a new namespace. For contributor content, I don't see a powerful enough need for a separate namespace when layouts and templates are already providing us good service. Page titles also convey information. '''Page Title (DnD Page)''' is different from '''Page Title (4E Page)'''. <br />
:Categories will be directly impacted by namespaces, but the purpose of categories is not in separating pages, but in collecting like pages. If we try to separate pages too much using Categories, all we do is create a complicated set of categories. We have page titles and namespaces to help a user identify what page goes with which system. These should be sufficient.<br />
:Finally, there is ignorance. If we make the wiki too complex for contributors, we will lose contributors. Any schema that we invent must be apparent to our average contributor.<br />
:That's alot, isn't it?<br />
:My belief is that we should make a new namespace for the new SRD, and let the body of the wiki sort itself out with layouts, footers, and linking. Most sections are clearly one edition or the other. The trouble sections (D20 Modern and Campaigns) need their own discussions to sort out. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::If I didn't know better, I'd swear you were putting together an argument for separate wikis. I think this statement sums it up:<br />
<br />
:::''If we make the wiki too complex for contributors, we will lose contributors.''<br />
<br />
::There's going to be plenty to worry about with just dealing with one edition without having to worry about how keep the editions separate, and too many of the solutions depend on the users maintaining the separation. Right now we have users assigning incorrect categories or neglecting categories, putting non-SRD material in the SRD namespace, not using the preloads, not putting the " (DnD xxxx)" identifier (or putting the wrong identifier) when they create a page, and so on and so on. Trying to maintain a separation between editions is going to add to the problem. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:45, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Nothing on this earth will stop the symptoms above. Ignorance will always exist. I believe the above are symptoms of too-few editors. We have needed editors patrolling their own areas for a while. We must also admit to ourselves that editing is not very interesting to most of our contributors. I really don't know how to address that issue.<br />
:::One reason that I don't want separate wikis is that our Campaign section is always among the most popular sections. How do I maintain Wikiworld across two wikis? If our solutions won't work well for campaigns, we will hurt ourselves.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:09, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Also, on the incorrect editing, most random people who post here don't know all the catagories or how to properly code a wiki. I still don't know all the catagories but I usually go find a page that does and copy and paste. So the incorrect editing will always be a problem. I also firmly stand behind the idea of just one wiki, everything in one place. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:28, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I agree with Dmilewski. Why was the last sysop elected more than half a year ago? It's because we have a large issue with people not wanting to edit the infrastructure of this site. The last editor that really edited the infrastructure was [[User:Mkill|Mkill]] (albeit with some very controversial edits), who since that time has left D&D Wiki. The infrastructure is not perfect here, many many things need to be improved or are currently wrong, but why is no one stepping up and fixing them? Is D&D Wiki to complex for people to handle? Should we dumb it down? And how do the questions I just asked pertain to 4e material?<br />
:::::Actually, I think the questions I just asked are the core of this issue. A new 4e wiki will eliminate all the issues with people not wanting to edit the infrastructure, and that is why it seems so appealing. It will make a new slate, without D&D Wiki's insane hierarchy (which, by the way, only exists because average users do not edit the infrastructure or help other people's creations on D&D Wiki), and without all of the work that needs to be done on D&D Wiki that is not getting done (publications, dplc's for races, modernizing classes layouts, linking orphaned pages, etc, etc). D&D Wiki has issues, and a new 4e wiki will remove them all... but I don't like to run from my problems.<br />
:::::Yes, D&D Wiki needs some major changes to become what I envision it to be; to become what everyone envisions it to be, but I feel we can accomplish these changes within this current wiki, and just this current wiki. Problems will arise from adding a new edition, but we can solve these problems, we will need to solve these problems... and, of course, the best way to solve these problems is to solve the problem with the average user not editing the infrastructure, because that is where I feel it all stems from. If the average editor feels that D&D Wiki does not just need more content, but rather needs infrastructure help, organizational help, help with making things look good, and help with making everything balanced, then with everyones hard work all the problems on D&D Wiki will soon disappear, creating an environment where adding a new edition will be as smooth as adding a new race. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:29, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well not everyone wants to just go on a site and edit the way it works just for fun. They might add something but I wouldn't expect them to edit it. Maybe you should try on the equipment page to when you add a new item show some of the various templetes you can use such as the author one and the various catagories you can use. This might help because then you can just copy and paste what you need. I do agree that if we had more people editing and making things right the first or second time then this place would run much smoother. Now I would like to step up and help edit and my area would be the equipment section as I spend most my time there and I am most familar with it. You still might have to make more minor edits to what I have done but I garentee you that there will be less of them. Also, all I would be doing is standardizing and making minor edits as I do not know how to code much more than that; I could learn but that will take time. If you would like me to try to do that I will, it's just anywhere else and I'm not going to be nearly as useful. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 21:18, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I really didn't for my post to be a ''"plea for help"'' (even though it may have come off like that... ''':P'''), but if you want to do something which requires little or no wiki-syntax knowledge thats helps out [[DnD Equipment]] please drop a note on my user-talk page and I will help you find something that needs to get done on [[DnD Equipment]]. Anyway... back to the subject on hand..... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:57, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::When does the vote end? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:38, 14 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Does the 5th of December sound okay? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:45, 2 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Yeah. I think everybody who wants a vote has voted or will have done by then. We can always send a MOI to people who havent voted. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:26, 3 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Okay, the vote is over. Thanks to everyone that voted, and it appears that we will not be making a separate wiki for 4e material (or holding a book burning convention) but rather organize the different edition by way of categories, namespaces, and possibly changing the identifier. Agiain, thanks to everyone that voted ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:05, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::So, when are we going to start setting it up for 4e? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 13:40, 15 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Feel free to start whenever you have time... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:04, 15 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I'd love to, but what do we call the new pages... "4E Dungeons and Dragons", "4E D20 Modern", "4E DnD Base Classes"? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:03, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Or "Dungeons and Dragons (4E)?" There's still a few more details that need to be decided. In what namespace will user content be? Main or "4E"? How do we deal with items independent of rules versions (i.e. maps, campaigns and the like)?<br />
::Personally, I think we can mirror the 3.5 section by replacing all the instances of "DnD" in all the identifiers with "4E" instead (e.g. "4E Character Options," "4E Feats," "4E Creatures," etc...), and the landing page can just be "Fourth Edition." (I always though "Dungeons and Dragons" and "DnD" were bit of misnomers in this context.) —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:37, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ok. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 12:33, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'll start setting it up under 4E Homebrew, 4E Feats, etc. We can move them if need be. If we have stuff under 4E as you suggested, I think DnD should be replaced with 3E or 3.5E for the 3.5 stuff... Thoughts? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 02:18, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Started to set it up- see [[4E Homebrew|this page]]. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:17, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== The 4e Movement ===<br />
<br />
I looked over the page and I feel there are a couple kinks to be worked out. First off do we want the pages being labeled as "4E" or "4e"? Secondly, which pages do we want to work with both editions? Should these pages keep the "DnD" while all the other pages would adopt a 3.5e or 4e, respectively, identifier? Thirdly, should we change the descriptions of the sub-pages to say which edition they cover or would that be redundant? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:35, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think 4e, Maps, campaign settings, possibly deities (depending on changes), Environments, Possibly Quests and Disscussion could be shared, yes, they keep DnD, rest become 3.5e or 4e, yes the rest need to say edition sub-pages cover. Any thoughts? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 13:34, 22 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Yes. How can we make the newly implemented dpl on [[Dungeons and Dragons]] (thank you so much, Sledged) work with non-specific edition pages in all the main categories (for DM's, for Players, or General)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 24 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Give pages that work for both two categories? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:08, 27 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::[[DnD Campaign Settings|Campaign Settings]], [[DnD Links|Links]], [[DnD Guidelines|Guidelines]], etc. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:37, 27 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok, I have done everything except the spells section and the SRD. I have made a 4e version of the pages that I was not sure of (quests and deities), and linked to both (we delete the 4e one if not required or remove the category if the 4e one is required). What do you think? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:27, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::One thing is that everything could be piped so it does not say "4e" all the time. I feel that if one is already on the 4e landing page then having 4e before everything would just come off as repetitive. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:19, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::What do you mean? Like 4e Homebrew/Classes/Base Classes? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:51, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Not exactly. I was refering to things like [[4e Deities]] being piped to [[4e Deities|Deities]]. It just seems repetitive to be on the 4e page and have everything say 4e before it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:43, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Ok. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:18, 25 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[in a robotic voice] TASK COMPLETE. Are there any more tasks to be done on the 4e Homebrew section? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 05:24, 27 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Other than the spells section I really do not see anything else. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:20, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Good. Shall we set up the 4e SRD section in the same way so we can just get on with transcribing it when 4e comes out? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:58, 3 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I read somewhere that WotC will not be releasing a 4e SRD. I think we need verify or disprove this and then decide what to do from that point. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:47, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4news/20080108a 4E SRD and OGL]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:46, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::"All of the material included in the OGL Designer’s Kit will be available for free starting on June 6, 2008. Parties who find the cost prohibitive can begin developing their products at that time." I guess that means we're able to have the SRD for 4e! --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Vote===<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|+ 4e Solution &mdash; Voting (Please use "#" and extra lines to separate)<br />
! rowspan="2" | For making a new wiki to encompass 4e material !! colspan="6" | For keeping D&D Wiki as a whole, encompassing all editions !! rowspan="2" | Launch a book-burning party which has the goal of burning every 4e book<br />
|-<br />
! Think namespaces are the solution to 4e material !! Think categories are the solution to 4e material !! Think changing the identifier is the solution to 4e material !! Think changing the background color/skin is the solution to 4e material !! Think templates are the solution to 4e material !! Think that more than one of the aforementioned solutions is the best solution for 4e material (Please say which ones would work best together)<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
# [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] (w/ New Skin)<br />
# [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] (What in the current wiki would we want to link to with 4e? That is the only reason I see for keeping it together... Besides usernames I suppose.)<br />
| <br />
# [[User:Sol|Sol]] <br />
# [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]<br />
| <br />
# [[User:Trogdor|Trogdor]]<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
|<br />
# [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] (Namespaces (for SRD material), Categories, Changing the identifier (for homebrew material))<br />
# [[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] (Namespaces, Catagories)<br />
# [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] (All the above)<br />
# [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
# [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] (Namespaces, Skin)<br />
# [[User:Pirate-Sorcerer|Pirate-Sorcerer]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
# [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
# [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] (Namespaces, Categories)<br />
|<br />
# [[User:xidoraven|xido]] (lacking respect for corporate global capitalism)<br />
# [[User:Othtim|othtim]] - I *like* ''finger of death''.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
::The option to destroy all D&D4e books in the world is not an option. I am upset about this --[[User:Mander|Mander]] 19:20, 30 November 2007 (MST))<br />
<br />
:::LOL! Of course we can't take that action, even if we want to! It is probably unlawful or something. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 05:12, 1 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::That option has been added ''';)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:09, 2 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::'''LETS GO N' BURN THINGS!!!''' [loads AK47] '''UPRISING AGAINST THE 4E MENACE!!!''' --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:28, 3 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So... tempted... to burn.... withholding... vote til I can... stop talking... like... Shatner... -- [[User:Eiji|Eiji]] 14:49, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Look ==<br />
<br />
I feel that it is high time that we had a new look for the [[Main Page]], for a number of reasons. One is to make it easier for the average user to understand how D&D Wiki is organized, another is so the [[Main Page]] looks nicer. Below is my proposed idea, which is still in the works. Also, I have a couple of questions about it. One, should we use DPL2C to determine the number of items in an area. For example around <DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items exist in [[Dungeons and Dragons]], should we display that below? Also, should we have bullets in front of the link to [[Dungeons and Dragons]], the [[System Reference Document]], etc? Does it look better or worse with them present? Finally, how is the wording of everything? What could be improved? (P.S. the below idea is not mine, it was stolen from [[User:Sledged|Sledged]]'s hard work making [[Dungeons and Dragons]] look nice&mdash;I do not want to take credit which I do not deserve) --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:23, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yea, the above does look much nicer than the current Main Page, and I do agree it needs an update. As for showing how many things you have in each, that's not necessary but is interesting to see that we have 2900 Homebrew Items, if anything that might bring people in to see that this is a pretty big site and not just some random long forgotten website. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 14:33, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have added the number of items to the new look. Any other ideas? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:28, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This definitely clarified what information is contained in the sections. I would agree with implementing it. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:34, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Let's absolutely add this. The main page definitely needs more information. I like it! &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:48, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I think that if we have 3.5e and 4e on this site, we should have the main page sperating out 3.5e and 4e, and pages for 3.5e and 4e like the above. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:56, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Yes, I agree. But that can be added once 4E comes out... &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:30, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm going to implement this now because I think it is so much better (and I want it as soon as possible). Please, though, continue to post comments here about any revisions we could do to make it look better! &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:32, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Yeah, I like it. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 04:38, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I removed the "d20M" in that SRD link since it is already under the header of d20M. However, I agree, it looks very good and thanks for implementing it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:48, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" class="column"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
; <big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
* [[Dungeons and Dragons|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
; <big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=D20M<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=MSRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Main Page after 4e comes out====<br />
<br />
When 4e does come out, we could chang it to this:<br />
<br />
; <big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
* [[Dungeons and Dragons| 3.5e Homebrew Content]] | [[4e Homebrew| 4e Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[System Reference Document|The 3.5e System Reference Document]] | [[4e System Reference Doccument|The 4e System Reference Document]] | [[UA:Variant Rules|Unearthed Arcana]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD|Unearthed Arcana<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
<br />
; <big>d20 Modern</big><br />
* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=D20M<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
* [[Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=MSRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
<br />
Any thoughts? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:23, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Or this...?<br />
:; <big>Dungeons and Dragons</big><br />
:; Revised 3rd Edition<br />
:* [[Dungeons and Dragons|Homebrew]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
category=3.5e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:* [[System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]] | [[UA:Variant Rules|Unearthed Arcana]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD|Unearthed Arcana<br />
category=3.5e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:; 4th Edition<br />
:* [[4e Homebrew|Homebrew]] <div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=DnD<br />
category=4e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:* [[System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=SRD<br />
category=4e<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
<br />
:; <big>d20 Modern</big><br />
:* [[D20 Modern|Homebrew Content]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">New classes, equipment, feats, races, creatures, deities, etc. (<DPL2C><br />
category=D20M<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:* [[Modern System Reference Document|The System Reference Document]]<div style="font-size: smaller; margin-left: 2em;">Everything published by WotC that we are allowed to have on D&D Wiki. (<DPL2C><br />
category=MSRD<br />
order=ascending<br />
</DPL2C> items)</div><br />
:--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:17, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Year, that is better than mine. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:52, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Is everyone okay with that look once 4e comes out? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I actually prefer Sam's layout although perhaps UA could have it's own line. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:36, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think Green Dragon's looks better. Sorry Sam ''';-)''' --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 08:38, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Should we make CAPTCHA's present after an IP edits? ==<br />
<br />
Recently a high level of automated spam has been attacking D&D Wiki in the form of inserting nonsense and gibberish into random pages. An example would be [[DnD Flaws]] as of 04:08, 1 November 2007 (MDT) as edited by [[Special:Contributions/200.226.134.53|200.226.134.53]] (permanent link [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=DnD_Flaws&oldid=159600 here]). I think the easiest way to stop this problem would be to provide [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captcha CAPTCHA's] every time an IP makes an edit. The only reason I am asking this is because I am not sure if it would be more beneficial or more harmful to have CAPTCHA's. Do you guys think that IP's would still correct spelling errors if they had to enter a CAPTCHA or would they deem it to difficult? Would it, even if the amount of edits performed by IP's decreased, be worth it? Any ideas would be appreciated. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:41, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Well, if they were just doing it because they were bored then having to spell the correct word to finalize the edit might prevent some people because they are just waaay to lazy. It would also prevent if anyone wanted to create a bot to spam content. Although, it would be annoying for me to have to do that every time I wanted to say, update my User Page with another new item. If you could disable it for users and not IP's, I think that would be a good try to cut down on the spam. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 14:31, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The CAPTCHA's would ''only'' be for IP edits, not for when a user edits something. Anyway, that would be terrible if a user had to enter a CAPTCHA to edit something (the reason they would not have to is because to create an account one has to enter a CAPTCHA...) Also, as you may have noticed, all the recent spam attackes have been automated, so hopefully if this is implemented it should help with the problem... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:44, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So yea, try it and we'll see if the spam goes down. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:24, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I agree with this completely. Should I go ahead and put them in, or should we wait for more users to comment? &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:33, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Go for it ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 1 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Yeah. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:52, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Okay, it has been added. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 20:50, 2 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::For some odd reason, i have had a captcha come up after all my edits today, despite the fact the captcha is only supposed to come up when an IP edits something (and I am logged in). Why is this, and can someone sort it please? Thanks. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 05:03, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::This should not be happening. I would recommend doing the following: log out, clear your browser cache, clear your browser history, clear all cookies relating to D&D Wiki, restart your browser, and then log back in and see if it is still giving you troubles. If it is, then I will definitely look into this problem further. I am sorry for the inconvenience that this is causing you, and will try to get it sorted out as soon as is possible. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 13:50, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::It has not worked. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 15:39, 3 November 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe you're an IP in disguise... ''':P'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:17, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Err... no. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:55, 5 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Okay... Can I change your password (through the database) and login as you to asses the problem? I would like to see what is happening and hopefully give [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] enough information to fix this very strange problem. Would this be okay with you? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:41, 5 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Yeah, sure. Can you change my password back afterwards though, please? Thanks. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 08:11, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Am I the only one getting the problem? --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 08:23, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::No, I also experienced this today with my edits. Although, I'm behind a corporate firewall here, so I don't know if that has anything to do with it. --[[User:Skwyd|Skwyd]] 09:25, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No, I've gotten one after every edit I've made, even if it was just adding one letter. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 14:15, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Oops... I guess the setting was set so sysops were the only ones who did not have to give a CAPTCHA whereas everyone else did. The issue should now be fixed, and sorry about that... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:22, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Much better. ''':D''' Now I can reformate the equipment section in peace. Which as an update I've finished nearly all the back to footers and have all but the magic weapons and over half the wondrous items updated to the MIC format. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 20:42, 6 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Yeah, sorted. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:59, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Glad to hear it ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:44, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Move towards new DPL ==<br />
<br />
Hello all, this site is running on a very outdated version of DPL, which has caused several hacks to have to be thrown together, and is potentially not allowing things to get done. When I upgraded this wiki to v11, I upgraded DPL as well, but most all pages that used DPL immediately stopped working. Is there an interest for me to get a test wiki running, and people can figure out how the DPL should be working, and then implement it? Or should we instead stick with what we have and wait until we really need the next version? &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:07, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I honestly have no idea what the DPL is. So could someone tell me what it is and/or what it does? Then I could answer your questions. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:27, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::What are the new features of the new DPL version? For most purposes, the DPLs seem to be working well, but I know we've especially had to hack some DPL2 stuff. Would the new version fix this? [Watsyurname529, DPLs are dynamically assembled lists generally based off of category tags, e.g. [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_Base_Classes&action=edit this code] yields [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/User_Base_Classes this page].] &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 18:21, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I feel that we should implement the new dpl version. The DPL2 (at least according to [[User:Sledged|Sledged]]) would make it so we would not need three main different modifications of the dpl to be running on this site, the dpl, dplc, and the dpl2c (full list [[Special:Version|here]]). I think it would help D&D Wiki greatly to implement the newest version of the dpl, and make things easier for a new user to understand. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:48, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::There's a demo site for DPL with a manual [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page here].<br />
::::Is there a way to get a list of all the pages using dpl*? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:29, 8 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::[[MediaWiki:Pages using DPL]] is what True Orphans uses. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 18:17, 8 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::It's only listing the pages in the main/default namespace. What about the SRD pages? —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:58, 13 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::The extension that page is for specifically excludes all SRD dpl pages, so those have never been added to that dpl list. We will have to compile a list on our own for SRD pages. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:54, 14 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I see. Also, when I said "pages using <tt>dpl*</tt>," I meant also the <tt>dpl2c</tt>, <tt>dplc</tt>, and <tt>dpl2cu</tt> tags. I don't see any of the pages using those tags listed. If those pages can be identified before hand, it'll make an upgrade a bit easier. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::To answer [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]'s first question. This wiki is running version 0.7.7 of DPL2. The latest version is 1.5.2, so there is a significant number of changes. For brevity, I'll just list a few of the new features that apply to this wiki:<br />
:::*You can specify your own format for the output. For example you could list each result as a row in a table instead of getting the standard three column output.<br />
:::*In conjunction with the previous feature, DPL2 pull content from the listed pages for displaying as part of the output.<br />
:::*You can get results based on pages names and page content in addition to categories and namespaces. For instance, all the [[DnD Prestige Classes|user PrCs]] are assigned to the category beginning with the first letter of the page title. Those categories can be completely removed because DPL2 lets you return pages whose title's first letter matches one specified in the DPL2 call.<br />
:::*DPL2 can used to compensate for user error. Broken links like the one titled "Anima and Animus Mage" on the [[DnD Prestige Classes|user PrCs page]] can be eliminated.<br />
:::*With the latest version of DPL2 (an one other specific extension) users can create spell/feat/monster/etc filters like the one seen [http://www.penpaperpixel.org/tools/d20spellfilter/ here].<br />
:::*It can be used as a parser function (which I personally prefer over tags).<br />
:::*Pages that are linked to only from DPL calls are not listed as [[Special:Lonelypages|orphaned pages]].<br />
:::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:58, 13 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay, lets do it. What are the changes that need to be made to dpl pages to make this not be broken when implemented? What is the best way of going about this change? Should we change the pages first, then implement it, or implement it then fix all the errors on the dpl pages? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:54, 14 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::There's one more complication to take into consideration; All the pages with the <tt>dpl*</tt> mod tags (<tt>dpl2c</tt>, <tt>dplc</tt>, and <tt>dpl2cu</tt>) have to be changed, not just list pages. So we'll have to go through all the class pages (base, prestige, npc, and racial paragon) and NPC pages. I think Blue's suggestion of a test wiki is the best way to do it. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:48, 15 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::It might not be necessary to set up a test wiki. I [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Issue:No_More_Globals submitted a request] over at the [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page DPL2 site] to transition all the globals to class members. If Gero decides to adopt it, the latest version and the currently installed version can be installed side-by-side without one conflicting with the other. The only caveat is that the line that reads<br />
<br />
::::::<pre>$wgParser->setHook( "DPL", array( __CLASS__, "dplTag" ) );</pre><br />
<br />
::::::in the new version will have to be commented out. This will disable using new version as a tag extension, but it will still be available as a parser function call; <tt>{<nowiki/>{#dpl:}}</tt>. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:23, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::And [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page DPL2] version 1.6.0 (no more globals) has been released. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:42, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Okay, I upgraded to the latest version. Let me know if there are any errors. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 12:18, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== A Small Sample ===<br />
<br />
So here's a sample list of the user base classes, which I've limited to the 'A's:<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|+ Homebrew Base Classes with Descriptions<br />
|- {{#vardefine:odd|0}}<br />
! Name !! style="text-align: center;" | Balance<sup>[[#1|1]]</sup> (out of 10) !! Type<sup>[[#2|2]]</sup> !! Description<sup>[[#3|3]]</sup><br />
{{#dpl:category=DnD<br />
|titlematch=A%<br />
|category=User<br />
|category=Base Class<br />
|include={Balance}:1,{x0}:type:desc<br />
|mode=userformat<br />
|format=,¦- ²{#vardefine:odd¦²{#ifexpr: ²{#var:odd}²¦0¦1}²}²²{#ifexpr: ²{#var:odd}²¦¦class="even"}²\n¦ [[%PAGE%¦²{#replace:%PAGE%¦(DnD Class)¦}²]]\n,,<br />
|tablerow=¦style="text-align: center;" ¦ ²{#if: %%¦%%¦NR}²,\n¦%%,%%\n<br />
}}|-<br />
| colspan="7" class="foot" |<br />
# <span id="1">Shows how balanced a certain Class is, the number is out of 10. The Balance rating is from the actual Class's page; it is not made on this page. More information [[Balance System|here]].</span><br />
# <span id="2">A general category the Class fits into. e.g. Strong Spellcasting, Combat Focused, etc.</span><br />
# <span id="3"> A concise description of the Class-- should advertise the Class.</span><br />
|}<br />
—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:59, 27 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I like it ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:27, 29 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: The Alchemist... I don't know if i would consider it a spell caster --[[User:Cerin616|Cerin616, Drew]] 15:58, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Better now? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:20, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== 4,000th Item! ==<br />
<br />
Whoo! I just posted the 4,000th homebrew item on this site! Amazing how much stuff we've got on here. Just want to say congrats to everyone who's posted/edited here. Also here is the 4,000th item: [[Fried Frying Pan (DnD Equipment)|Fried Frying Pan]] --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 15:29, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:If that number is correct.... ''':P'''. I think we may actually have more, they are just not categorized (that number is actually the number of items in [[:Category:DnD]]). Although, I agree. Congratulations all! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:51, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Hey, it says 4000 Items on the main page and that's good enough for me ''':P''' to you too, lol. --[[User:Watsyurname529|Watsyurname529]] 20:56, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Meh... ''':)'''. Also, if you want to make that number more accurate please take a look at the [[Special:TrueOrphans|TrueOrphans]] (which may not be true&mdash;I think [[MediaWiki:Pages_using_DPL]] needs to be updated...). However, feel free to categorize those things and, overall, make things on D&D Wiki be linked to! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:14, 7 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
==Sidebar Change==<br />
Dungeons and Dragons or Homebrew?<br />
<br />
The side bar has an option called "Dungeons and Dragons" that takes you to the Homebrew section. This seems to me to be misleading and should be changed to "Homebrew." This is not that big of a deal, but it would be more consistant. --[[User:Mander|Mander]] 15:09, 18 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Actually, there's more than just homebrew material there (though the vast majority of it is homebrew). It also contains OGC from source books like ''Unearthed Arcana'', ''Relics and Rituals'', ''Creature Collection'', ''Monster Manual II'', and such. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:38, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Currently on the [[Main Page]] we call that entire section "Homebrew Content" even though it has more than just that (as [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] pointed out above). If we want to be nitpicky, that is also a problem. Anyway, the reason it is called "Dungeons and Dragons" on the sidebar is that the sidebar cannot have any real wiki-syntax. The ideal organization for that would be something like:<br />
::D&D<br />
:::[[Dungeons and Dragons|Homebrew]] (even though it's not all homebrew...)<br />
:::[[System Reference Document|SRD]]<br />
::D20M<br />
:::[[D20 Modern|Homebrew]] (even though it's not all homebrew...)<br />
:::[[Modern System Reference Document|MSRD]]<br />
::However, that is not possible. Since that is not possible we try to do the best we can, and that is the current way. Actually, this post has given me an idea... Maybe another box, labeled "D&D" and one labeled "D20M" could exist, with the links in them... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:43, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I just changed it. What does everyone think? Better? Worse? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:45, 25 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I dont mean to be picky. I also dont mean to make extra work for ya all. I just through out ideas when I have them. I like the change, but I also like the reasons given above for why it was the way it was. That is why I like wiki format. I hardly ever make changes, but I do add my ideas to disscution.--[[User:Mander|Mander]] 22:44, 29 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I hesitate to bring it up, but I think it might be worth mentioning; The D&D section could be split up into "homebrew" and "published OGC" sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:07, 30 November 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::First off you were not a bother at all, [[User:Mander|Mander]]. The sidebar is very easy to change and it's always great to improve things. Anyway, I feel that as soon as we have enough published OGC material (we are reaching it though, if one counts NBoF as "published") then we should definitely spit "DnD" up into published OGC and Homebrew. However, right now I do not think we have enough... Maybe when all the UA material is posted we can give it a shot, but until then I do not think we have enough OGC content. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:48, 4 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::: So many acronyms, so few ranks in knowlege-acronyms...--[[User:Mander|Mander]] 01:30, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Age of the internet. Soon everything we be reduced to acronyms, IMHO. [[Help:FAQ#What are OGL, OGC, SRD, and GNU FPL?|OGC]], [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/welcome DnD], [http://datadeco.com/nbofeats/ NBoF], and [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=products/dndacc/881560000 UA] (which I really should finish transcribing). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 02:31, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Actually, speaking of acronyms, it would be helpful to have a list of all the D&D acronyms in [[DnD Other]] (I am sure a list exists on the internet, it just needs to be copied over). Also, sorry about using all those acronyms above. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:31, 5 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
New question: Shouldn't the [[UA:Variant Rules|UA Transcript]] be linked in the sidebar? -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 17:02, 16 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:It should. What should we call it, Unearthed Arcana, UA, Variant SRD, or what? Ideas? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:48, 16 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Maybe UA: Variants? -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 08:34, 17 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Or "UA Variant Rules." Either one works for me. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 17 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I have added it. Does it look okay? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:45, 18 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Looks great! -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 17:01, 21 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Maps? ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:Dungeons and Dragons#New Section: Maps?]]<small> It dealt with Homebrew specific material, not everything on the site --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:52, 4 December 2007 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
== Tavern Schedule ==<br />
<br />
Should a small Tavern Schedule be placed on the main page on the right side (floating)? &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 15:40, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I think this is a good idea to increase use of the tavern, but it would be best if days that already had events planned were highlighted, a different text color, the only days with links, etc. They need to stand out; otherwise, I have to click each day to even see if there is anything that day. It almost seems to me that a mini-program/extension is needed to code that to make it more useful... still, the calendar is a great idea. That is the best suggestion I have heard to increase usage of the tavern. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 16:35, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::The days that have events are blue. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:43, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Much better. I like it. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 20:24, 15 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== New Logo ==<br />
<br />
{| align="right" class="d20"<br />
|-<br />
! Submitted Logos:<br />
|-<br />
| ''Please submit your own logo!''<br/>[[dndmedia:Special:Upload|Upload it!]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test1.png|frame|From Maria C.]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test2.png|frame|From [[User:Xidoraven|Xidoraven]]]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test3.png|frame|Variation 1]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:D&D logo-test4.png|frame|Variation 2]]<br />
|-<br />
| [[Image:Logo.png|frame|Current logo]]<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== Official Updates ===<br />
<br />
Here is what will happen. A two week submission period will start now, after this time when more logos or variations have been submitted, a one week voting period will take place. So, right now, please upload all the variations of these logos or your own D&D Wiki logo and in two weeks time the D&D Wiki community will decide what the logo will become. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:57, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:The voting for which logo should become D&D Wiki's logo will start February 9th. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:13, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== Voting ===<br />
<br />
{| class="d20" style="text-align: left;"<br />
|+ New Logo &mdash; Voting (Please use "#" and extra lines to separate votes)<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test1.png]]<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test2.png]]<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test3.png]]<br />
! [[Image:D&D logo-test4.png]]<br />
! [[Image:Logo.png]]<br />
|-<br />
! From Maria C.<br />
! From [[User:Xidoraven|Xidoraven]]<br />
! Variation 1<br />
! Variation 2<br />
! Current logo<br />
|-<br />
| <br />
#<br />
| <br />
# [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]<br />
# [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]<br />
# [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]]<br />
# [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]<br />
# [[User:Young DM|Young DM]]<br />
# [[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]]<br />
# [[User:Othtim|Othtim]]<br />
# [[User:Mask man|Mask man]]<br />
# [[User:kreik|kreik]]<br />
# [[User:EaTCarbS|EaTCarbS]]<br />
# [[User:Lordsnarf|Lordsnarf]]<br />
| <br />
#[[User:Silver Dragon|Silver Dragon]]<br />
| <br />
#[[User:Hawk|Hawk]]<br />
#[[User:Pirate-Sorcerer|Pirate-Sorcerer]]<br />
#[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]<br />
#[[Summerscythe]]<br />
#[[User:Wackymynd|Wackymynd]]<br />
#[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]<br />
#[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]<br />
| <br />
#<br />
|}<br />
<br />
Everyone agree that we have reached a consensus? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:16, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
:Looks like we have to me 11/1/6 Xidoraven has a pretty big lead. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:40, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I believe that the vote looks pretty definitive. Please let me know if anyone ever gives you problems from Wizards.com or Hasbro, Inc. I am currently working with them in a professional capacity, so I will be able to speak for my work myself, and in direct communications to them. If they want my business, they will not harass this site for being loyal consumers and fans of a popular product line. Best of wishes to you all.<br />
::GD, if you have any more input on what we talked about before, please let me know by email. I am having a hard time getting back here to check on my pages right now. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 08:03, 25 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Changed. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:24, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Looks good, everyone. Thanks for the support, and let me know if you need any other design ideas, since you may feel the need in the future to reconsider color usage, etc. Are there any ideas for what would be placed in the background area, if not the current Player's Handbook image? -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 00:39, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== General Discussion on Submitted Logos ===<br />
<br />
We have had two submissions for a new logo. One of them is from [[User:Xidoraven|Xidoraven]], and the other is from Maria C. Both of them are shown below, and we should decide to either keep the current logo or change to one of these. Please leave feedback. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:04, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I like the second one. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:05, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I vote for Xidoraven's. I like colorful. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:06, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I wonder what the first would look like with a bit more color. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:10, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I really like the dragon on the first logo, however I feel that the wording on that logo may be a little hard to read. So, I think it may look very nice if both the trial logos were merged into one. The "D&D Wiki" would be cut out of the first logo and the "D&D Wiki" text from xido's image would be pasted over it, albeit a little smaller. Does anyone think this idea has some merit? Is it worth exploring further? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:35, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Variation 2 is great! I give that my vote. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:23, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
:::::On second thought... I like Variation 1. Arrrg... It is difficult because the logo seems too big with the dragon, yet too small at the same time. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:24, 23 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I like variation 2, except the logo should be moved a bit down and right so that the entire graphic is a bit more square (lest the words encroach on the dragon picture)... &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 06:06, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Variation 2 OR Xidoravens. Either way, it's really cool! A new logo for a new edition... --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:46, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Variation 2 has me as well. Also, if anyone wants to compile their own variation or make their own logo please do! We need all the options we can get! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:56, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::My wife votes Xidoravens ''':P'''. I'm actually really not sure. I like Variation 1, 2, and Xidoravens... Perhaps we should set up an official vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 18:01, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Is there going to be an "official vote" (whatever that may mean)? Variation 2 is my preferences, and I agree that it would likely look even better with the dragon picked out in red and gold. Also, whichever one is chosen, is it kosher for me to slap the logo up places (such as my blog) linking back to the wiki, as a means of promotion? --[[User:Arohanui|Arohanui]] 01:03, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I've gotta agree, but with xido's colors, I wouldn't mind seeing the dragon colored as a [[SRD:Half-Dragon|half-gold dragon]] [[SRD:Red Dragon|red dragon]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:39, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::First off I agree, if the dragon was given some color this entire logo could come out very sharp. Secondly, xido, tell me if I am wrong. You are basically saying that you would be okay to work with the dragon image if Maria C. has the same intentions you have of modifying D&D iconic images for a good cause. Since I cannot speak for Maria C. I will contact her and ask her to join this discussion to help discuss her logo and the final outcome of D&D Wiki's logo. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:19, 25 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I agree with Blue Dragon. As for my vote for the logos, I like the two combinations, particularly the second one. -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 09:37, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I also have to say, I really like the dragon in the middle of Xido's logo. I think that using his for the top logo, and then Maria's for a softer logo, potentially on the main page, could be used. However, I feel that a voting period should exist. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 10:30, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Definitely Version two and It shouldn't be changed a bit the black and white dragon behind the blazing dnd wiki looks awesome but as a second choice id go for Xidoraven's logo by itself<br />
<br />
:::I like Xidoraven's original logo. [[User:Kimmuriel|Kimmuriel]] 18:39, 14 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Xidoraven for prez! --[[User:Othtim|Othtim]]<br />
<br />
:::::I would make a terrible president. I would prefer project coordinator, or community shaman, but not something as pop-culture as presidente. ;) -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 07:18, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
Okay, how do i put my name on variation 2, that my fav :D - [[User:Zombiecow|Zombiecow]]<br />
<br />
=== Authors Comments and Discussion ===<br />
<br />
Font size is highly important in a logo concept, especially when they are sized down this much. I designed the font spacing and proportions with that in mind. Also, though I enjoy the integration of the two (trust me, my inner artist is inspired - not jealous), it seems a little busy, and the dragons look dim compared to the heavy vibrancy I put into the original 4e-based concept. I know it sounds haughty and rude, but I choose my own. If Miss Maria would be willing to revise her concept, I think they would more accurately meld. Her design would need the words removed fully, and would require a splash of color (like a layer over it, that appears like watercolor, or an expressive way of 'filling in the lines'). The logo I created has heavier contrast even than that of the original 4e logo design. I had not anticipated it being integrated with another black-and-white (or blank) portion. Had I known, I might have prepared an alternative. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 21:30, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:As a second thought: Here's my other dilemma.<br />
:I do not know Miss Maria, but I know that her artwork is based on Lockwood's, and that is a blatant copyright infringement of one of the most controversial materials produced by Wizards: Commissioned Artwork. ([http://wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG76.jpg])<br />
:I am well aware of the fact I pulled a concept from 4e D&D corporate design, knowing full well that it might bring a lawsuit upon me. I am also communicating with the makers of Scrabulous (Scrabulous.com) currently, because I feel that what is happening right now with their product is an issue in international business ethics. I openly state that my work is a mere pseudo-forgery of Wizards own internally-produced corporate graphics, but I appreciate and respect Mr. Lockwood for being such a professional artist in his field, and cannot openly condone utilizing his work in our own endeavors. If the piece was just a tad different from the Red Dragon's stance or appearance, I could see over-looking it, but this is something that is necessary for an artist to understand up-front. I openly admit to pirating the official 4e logo design from Wizards for a good cause, but I would hope that Miss Maria would be able to do the same in her position.<br />
:That being said, the general concensus on what constitutes 'unique artwork' is at least 15% difference from the original piece. Though she has flipped the image on its vertical axis, and turned detailed painting into rough black outlines, I would think it would need just a ''tad'' more work done to it to be considered anything other than outright plagiarism. If Miss Maria is aware of my own intentions, and has the same goals of her own, then I can look the other way. I would prefer to go down alone if I am to go down as an artist. At least this way, no one can say that you paid me for my services, but that I instead gave them openly as a professional operating in the open-source markets under the GNU license.<br />
:That's my last piece. -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:09, 24 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Hello, this is Maria. First of all, I am not Miss Maria as you have taken a fancy of calling me. Second, I created this wood engraving without the knowledge of what's copyrighted and what is not. Green Dragon is family friend and has been nagging me for months to create a logo understanding that I am a graphic design artist. He handed me d&d books and asked me to make a logo. So I choose something cool, changed it, carved it, printed it, modified it on the computer. Green Dragon did not give any advice for this, only that it needed to be done. I wasn't told of anything so I am sorry for the copyright infringement. I also created this logo not for a profit such, but for this 'community' which may be considered a good cause since I get not one thing out of it. And xudo, you need to work on being respectful. You seem jealous that someone else has submitted artwork and that you aren't the only one with fame. 'Artists' are so competitive and always trying to be the best with their noses in the air. -Maria {{Unsigned|Xuthukzaklath|15:16, 25 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::As a friendly site note to all, I vote that the attacks should stop. This should be a logo design competition in which '''the best''' logo is chosen. There is no need to either of the creators to bicker. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 09:35, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I highly agree, BD.<br />
::::I just wanted to make my comments publicly known. I have absolutely no problem with the mods of this site asking multiple artists for their ideas. I am glad that you have put forward as well. That is how professional art works. Everyone puts forward what they have to give, and then the leaders decide which works best for what they'd like to portray the project. In this case, there were two options, plus the idea of combining. I have not a single problem with any of those ideas, and in fact wish for the mods to make their own decision. As an artist, I may seem biased. In fact, my words (including the word 'blatant') may have had a negative ring or tone to them, but I assure you that my mental inflection did not.<br />
::::I only want to make everyone aware that I have taken multiple considerations into effect in stealing elements of Hasbro's corporate logo in order to promote this open-source site's mission of helping the public. I have a SERIOUS issue with Hasbro & Mattel's current intellectual property campaign at the moment, as well as their business ethics toward third-party producers of copyrighted content. This is because of the legal drama happening with Scrabulous.com. It is for this reason that I am openly providing my professional services to the mods of this site, in order to help them, just as you, Maria, have done. I respect your position and comments. Please just know that I wanted my input to be put out there, in case you were not aware of the legal implications of that particularly recognizable image (the red dragon literally is '''''the most''''' reproduced dragon in D&D as of this year, in terms of rulebook, supplemental, and related material to the D&D brand line. To utilize this image would be a very risky and potentially harmful venture. That is my only point here. If you are okay with that risk, I am okay with it. But please note that the reasons for THAT piracy is not in any way the same as the professional stance I am making by utilizing corporate branding material from Hasbro, as opposed to the very highly recognizable works of Mr. Lockwood, whom I revere admirably as an artist.<br />
::::On a sidenote, I assumed that being a Maria, that you are a female. I could be wrong here. In the state of Louisiana, where I have recently moved to, it is customary for men in particular to respectfully call a woman of any form (whether married, divorced, single, or otherwise) 'Miss Whoever'. I was merely trying to be courteous. I hope I have not offended. That was not my intent.<br />
::::Thanks for understanding, all, and I hope that the Mods can make an adequate decision on the logo design. I would not like to seem biased, so I will leave it all up to you, having said my piece. Best wishes, -- [[User:70.172.234.38|70.172.234.38]] 19:59, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::PS - I don't want to seem pushy, but I have always had a hard time voting on this site. Perhaps making a username profile on Elftown.com, and seeing the way their own polls are set up might give you ideas for future changes. Privacy features, public features, wiki-features, and a pseudo-html are all able to be used there. I have had some really good success with hosting polls on Elftown to get input or for contests of any multiple-choice form. -- [[User:70.172.234.38|70.172.234.38]] 19:59, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== Legality of Images ===<br />
<br />
As to the copyright issues, I believe that the background of our skin is a WoTC copyrighted image. I feel that if we receive a cease and desist letter they will be removed, but beyond that, I feel that it should not be a major issue. Also, I have another interesting idea. I think that Xidoraven's is powerful, and in that sense alone looks quite nice. Would there be any major consideration to have the background of the main page be this dragon, or something similar? A watermark, so to speak? The second combination could also potentially be modified by Xidoraven, seeing that he would know what to do for D&D Wiki's purposes. &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 09:40, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Actually, both the skin and the logos would be covered under the free use clause of international copyright law, as it is neither being used to make money nor infringes the copyright holder's ability to sell goods. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:53, 26 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Sam, I just want to say a quick word about free use (I know you like it, so I won't be too harsh). Essentially, the clause is the "wiggle room" in an otherwise extremely strict copyright law and allows for things like academic criticism, etc. However, exactly what constitues "fair use" and what constitutes "unfair use" is loosely defined in the law, and it is important that you know that the United States judicial system has historically ruled very strictly against those parties who (in their eyes) abuse the clause. So, we should tread a bit softly. However, as was said above, if we (Green Dragon, actually) is issued a cease and desist order from any company (such as those owning HALO and LotR, for example, or especially from Hasbro) then we will have to delete the content. Basically, I just want it to be noted that fair use is limited, especially within the widely respected bounds of legal precedent, so don't be too sure that certain images, etc. can be freely used under "fair use." Further, the likelyhood of abuse increases as more information is added. Thus, if I were to quote a line from the PHB as evidence in an argument, that would certainly pass litmus. The more direct and derivative information that is added, though, the more likely it is that infringement will ensue. (Please also note that all material and information derived from a copyrighted source is also [partially] owned by that source, which includes information and rules we might create for use in, for example, the HALO setting). A final note: Wizards of the Coast is renowned for its aggressive pursual in copyright infringement cases after inherited issues involving TSR, Palladium, and certain other companies, a historical precedent that everyone here should be aware of. In any case, please keep in mind that so long as there are no legal actions served we should be okay (this site is not for profit thus far, though if we begin to earn revenue from advertising this will importantly change), but&mdash;if the issue comes to a head&mdash; we will most definitely be on the losing side and will have to remove content or face court action. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 09:22, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was aware of that. I had to do quite abit of research into it when I did LotR. I do think, however, that as there are Wikias for both LotR and Halo, neither of which have yet been sued, the CSs in question should be fine. Although the dragon thing is a definatly something we should think over carefully. Although, as we are only considering a logo, the risk is small (I think). So, yes, those things are fine for now and we can remove them if we get into trouble. The biggest problem with free use is definatly it's vagueness. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 10:05, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Protection of Pages ==<br />
<br />
You know this isnt much of a wiki since everything is editblocked.if someone vandalizes a page u REVERT it [[User:Zau|Zau]] 03:12, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:? Of course we revert it! Why should we let our work be spoiled by vandal? All wiki's revert vandallism. The point of a wiki is to work together to improve the whole thing, rather than to reck the whole thing by vandalism. And about those editblocked pages- those are mostly SRD, which is official material that we aren't allowed to whimsically edit. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 06:49, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I have unlocked this page to IP edits, we will see what happens. Also, the SRD's protection is up in the air right now, if all goes well with the new UA material on D&D Wiki (which, even though it is OGC, is only protected from IP edits) then the SRD may very well become protected only from IP edits as well. If you are referring to specific GNU FLD homebrew pages that are protected, they are only protected because the author of the page is question has asked them to be protected. They will never become un-protected unless the author wishes this to happen. I hope this helps answer your question as to why so many pages on D&D Wiki are protected. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:03, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Index of True Dragons ==<br />
<br />
:''Discussion moved to [[Talk:True Dragon Index#Location?]]<small> as it dealt with that page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 09:25, 8 February 2008 (MST)</small><br />
<br />
== Published Settings ==<br />
<br />
Hi I was wondering does anyone know whether it would be legal to publish information about old dnd settings on here or homebrew stuff for those settings ie: planescape or spelljammer? also would it be legal to do the same for the still in print settings like forgotten realms and eberron? and would anyone else be interested in stuff like this? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 22:42, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:New settings = no. Not allowed, as they aren't under the OGL (I think...). Old ones I'm not sure about. -- [[User:OptimizationFanatic|OptimizationFanatic]] 22:28, 8 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Probably not. The old stuff isn't under the OGL. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 13:03, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::If it is licensed under the [[OGL]] please add them, however I do not think any of them are... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:43, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I'm pretty sure It is technically not allowed unless we want to make fun of them in which case it falls under fair use in the copyright acts of the world lol. Does anyone know how we could find out for sure? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:42, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::They cannot be added. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:08, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Semantic MediaWiki ==<br />
<br />
I do not pretend to understand this nor what it would take to implement but would it be possible to use something like [http://ontoworld.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki] to create forms to make adding entries for new users easier. there are a number of entries that need to be formatted if a form formatted the entries for them this problem may be fixed. Although it would only help at page creation its a start. Any thoughts?<br />
<br />
I should point out the form wouldn't replace editing the code directly just allow another option for those who have no idea how to format. Which means those who like to stare down the face of a page of code (myself included) could still do so. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 02:25, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:I've briefly grazed over that extension, and I've yet to take it for a test run, but I think you're right that there may be some useful nuggets along with the semantic forms extension (which requires semantic wiki). I'd been meaning to ask [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] or [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to take it for a spin in development environments and give input on it. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:36, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I think it would be useful only problem is that it needs to be added to dnd wiki then someone has to make the forms, it's a fair amount of work. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 21:29, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_MediaWiki About]. Not sure if this is really what we are looking for... It, as far as I can tell, would just help with dynamic categories and act a little like the dpl2c feature we currently use. I think an external script for adding things (as [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] is working on) may be a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My apologies I was unclear on what I meant I'm lucky Sledged knew what I meant. Its not the semantic wiki itself that I am interested in but the [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Semantic_Forms Semantic forms extension]. As far as I understand it it allows you to 'simply' create a form to fill out and will take care of the wiki coding for you. If you scroll down to the Special Pages heading and look at the examples it will give you a better idea of what this is. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:24, 10 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I agree with you, that is a very interesting extension, and I could see it being very useful here on D&D Wiki. The only problem I see is that, although impressive, it requires a Semantic Wiki as a prerequisite. I am not sure I would want D&D Wiki to become a Semantic Wiki, although the decision is not mine it is the communities. Maybe someone could change the code so a Semantic Wiki is not needed and it can work within the normal MediaWiki environment? That would make it quite a bit more appealing ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:59, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::I have not read all the material and probably wouldn't understand most of it anyway I believe it would be beyond my ken, my knowledge of wikis and php is limited. What would be involved in implementing this do you think? What would 'becoming a semantic wiki' do? You seem to have reservations I'm just wondering if there are draw backs you foresee? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:25, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I gave a look at Semantic Wiki and I think it is a great idea. In my experience as a technical writer, duplication of information is one of the Prime Evils. Namely, here was the criteria that led me to really want to add dpl to races and now feats:<br />
:::::::*All information about a particular topic should be in the same location.<br />
:::::::*Updating information should update other pages that use that information.<br />
:::::::Where I work, we use a form of documentation source files called DocBook. DocBook is much like this wiki where information must be repeated because there is no inclusion mechanism. There is another form of documentation source, which we are considering switching to after the next release of our software. This format is called Dita. Dita allows you to segment information into sections which can be included directly by other pages. This concept is partially similar to Semantic Wiki, but I would argue, less powerful. Semantic Wiki allows you to tag information as a particular type of information. It might be a little more work to create a page, but all of the sudden we have so much more power to categorize our information.<br />
:::::::On a race page, for example, we can have a "quick synopsis" type of data which users would use for a sentence that describes the race. The page could also have an "ability score adjustment" type of data and a "level adjustment" type of data. All of the x0 templates I put on the top of race pages would be unnecessary at this point. The advantage being: if a user updates the source of the race (ie: changes the Ability score adjustments from +2 str to +2 con), it will automatically change the race table without requiring the x0 template at the top of the page to be changed. This means that the information displayed in the tables will always be true to the source.<br />
:::::::The big problem with Semantic Wiki is that it would be a LOT of work from the startup. Probably a few months of work if we want to fully integrate it. So no matter how great I think the idea is, it is probably not a feasible or worthwhile one to integrate.<br />
:::::::Now [[User:Hawk|Hawk]], you seem to be interested in the same thing that I am (and in fact something I have been working on). You want some sort of form based generator that will automatically format the pages after you supply some information. I have almost finished an NPC Generator, which should be promising. I just need to add in spellcasting, epic spellcasting, and special abilities. Forms can always be done directly in php and linked to. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:14, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::This forms extension allows you to not only create a page but edit it using the forms as far as I can tell. I do not know if your PHP pages can do that but if they do it creates a slight issue on the off chance that someone is editing the page on the wiki and on the form the wiki edit would be wiped over when you save the form as it is working directly with the database (I assume). Where as using this forms extension your still working within the wiki and it will prompt you like normal that there is a conflict (yet again I assume) and the situation can be remedied. I do not know exactly what semantic wiki does but the benefits of the forms extension as I understand them are:<br />
::::::::* Creation and editing of pages through forms<br />
::::::::* Users can create their own forms 'easily'<br />
::::::::* Those new to wiki's can use these forms and the page will be automatically wikified which means very little formating will be required afterwards.<br />
::::::::* The fact your filling in a form rather than code means that it's less daunting for the new user and they are more likly to contribute.<br />
::::::::* Organization of Dnd Wiki can easily be improved as categories can be added automatically to entries by use of the forms.<br />
::::::::[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 08:01, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::What I have been working is only for initial creation, though at some point I would like to have an "import feature". If we had it all form based, however, people would not learn wiki syntax, which is a powerful syntax in its own right. Is that a bad thing? I'm really not sure. Templates can also automatically add categories though.<br />
:::::::::I still don't understand exactly how a wiki works on the back end, and I am actually going to toy with Media Wiki and Semantic Wiki (with the forms extension) tonight. I will see if I can integrate an application with the wiki directly, while still preserving the wiki ways (as an edit not an overwrite). I will also see how easy it is to create a semantic wiki form. Not that my input is even close to the be-all and end-all of this discussion, but I would like to share what I learn with the community. I hope that Semantic Wiki is very easy to use and the forms feature is as well. Good call making note of it! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:28, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Personally I love coding I'm a nerd I admit it lol, but what it keeps coming down to for me is not everyone does and allowing those people to add and edit their creations on here would be awesome. And the forms extension seems to be the quickest, easiest and most effective way of doing that. Let me know how you go with the testing it will be interesting to see if it performs as well as I am hoping. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 10:36, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Did you end up trying this out Aarnott? [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 21:09, 21 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Short answer: yes. Long answer: I think I messed up on the install because I'm getting some strange errors thrown during runtime (like when I access the localhost server). I'm going to uninstall everything today and retry it (no work or school today -- yay!). Third time is a charm ''':)'''. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:37, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::So it ended up being an easy thing to install and I was just being dumb ''':P'''. I have got a few form examples working and I think it is a really sweet extension, but there is a major problem that really limits the Semantic Form usage. The form must be used to fill a template (at least from my knowledge using their built-in form generator). This poses a problem if we wanted to have users fill in a race page for example. They could only fill out the author template and x0 template (or Race template if we replace that), but the point stands that there are limitations. Semantic Wiki on its own though looks like a really great extension and the forms extension would be good to use at least for some pages. All the work I have done with races, for example, can be made a lot better by tagging particular parts of an article. If we can get the form extension working in the ideal way, then new users will never create a poorly formatted page. I say go for the installs. They definitely don't hurt and in fact I will start a project to tag all the races so we can get rid of templates to store information. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 11:30, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Okay, we can give it a go. I will have [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] install it when he answers me back. Also, I am a little confused as to what you are saying above. Can we or can we not get rid of the [[Template:x0]] on the races' pages with this extension? I thought this made it so one can "tag" certain parts of an article and have those "tags" show up on a different page as well (like a split [[Template:x0]] (just like [[DnD Deities|Deities]] is currently organized)). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:38, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::We can get rid of any templates we use that duplicate information already in the article (such as x0). What happens is we create properties which are used to identify information. So in the case of a Race, we would have a property called "Ability Score Adjustments" or something like that and tag the section directly in the article that refers to the ability score adjustments. Instead of using dpl to grab template information, we use semantic wiki to grab the "Ability Score Adjustment" directly from the page. The main advantage in my opinion is that when you update a page, you only have to change information once and then the tables update. It will be some work though (thus why it would become a project for me), but Semantic Wiki does not change existing wiki functionality, which is a very good thing. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 11:45, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I installed WAMP (appache server + php + mysql latest stable versions) on my vista ultimate machine last night and then installed media wiki semantic and the forms extension I had no trouble it installed perfectly (apart from me stupidly trying to instal semantic forms with a mysql user that didn't have permission to create tables). I have been fiddling around a little havnt had much time though. Here's what i've figured out:<br />
:::# You create properties like string, page or date first<br />
:::# Then create templates (using the template making tool that comes with the forms) I made a author template and a very quick deity template.<br />
:::# then you make a form. You pick Author click add. then you click deity and click add (you can create forms which use more than one template!)<br />
:::# name the form then save<br />
:::# when you go to the form it will ask for a page name type one in like "MyDeity (DnD Deity)" hit enter<br />
:::# you are then taken to the form you fill it out it makes the page as per the templates it works as described !!! :O<br />
:::# you can even edit the page again using the form !!!<br />
::: [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:11, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
::::There is one thing though semantic wiki adds a box at the bottom of the page "Facts about..." if it can be removed i'd be happier. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:16, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
:::::I just realized it would be relatively easy to turn our current preloads into templates add a few bits of code you have a compatible template to make a form for and if you edit the template EVERY SINGLE CREATURE, DEITY OR CLASS (that uses that template) IS EDITED AS WELL!!! meaning we decide we want the classes to look like (insert format here) we can instantly change them all at once!!! [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:36, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::The problem lies in the fact that we will have to change every single homebrew page. I'm up for the challenge (as long as it takes), but help will be nice if you are willing ''':)'''. It does seem pretty nifty though. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:20, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I do not want this extension if the "Facts about" (or whatever it is called) is present. Is there a way to remove it? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::I am more than happy to help. What we need is to create the forms and templates so that all new entries use them. then start changing things over slowly, On the plus side if it takes awhile to convert the old stuff its not so bad as they will look exactly as they do now until we get to them. Perhaps we should consider moving this discussion onto it's own page before this page gets so large it destroys the Internet. I would also suggest holding off on installing it until we've fiddled some more to see what effect it has on the wiki like the damn facts about table. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 22:10, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I should point out the facts about table is only present on pages that use semantic data so if we did instal it it wouldnt effect anything until we started to make pages with semantic data on them. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 22:14, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::This is an image of an author table I created useing a form [http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/6099/66402195ri6.jpg]<br />
::::::::::Notice it looks exactly the same as our current author table. Below is the form:<br />
::::::::::[http://img530.imageshack.us/img530/5454/36613376en2.jpg] [http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/766/83147904gr7.jpg] <br />
::::::::::Notice on the form the date field it is contextual so all dates on author pages will have the same format so yet more consistency [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:03, 22 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::First off, what is that operating system your using... please don't say Vista ''';)'''; Ubuntu überalles. Anyway, again, is there anyway to remove the "facts about" box? If that can be removed this will be installed right away. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:47, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I'm afraid so I use (and like) Windows Vista Ultimate Version 6.0.6000 Build 6000. Ok I have figured out how to get rid of the factbox (that's its official name) you need to edit "SMW_Settings.php" in the folder "[wiki folder]\extensions\SemanticMediaWiki\includes". this line "$smwgShowFactbox = SMW_FACTBOX_NONEMPTY;" needs to be changed to "$smwgShowFactbox = SMW_FACTBOX_HIDDEN;" and this line "$smwgShowFactboxEdit = SMW_FACTBOX_NONEMPTY;" needs to be changed to "$smwgShowFactboxEdit = SMW_FACTBOX_HIDDEN;". Pages that were created with semantic data on them before you change these lines seem to keep the factbox for some reason on my machine so those settings should be changed as soon as the extension is installed. [[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:35, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I've put my project of wikifying entries on hold until we figure all this out because if we decide to edit the old entries so they use the forms templates I'll be doubling up on work. If we make semantic templates out of the preloads the articles made with forms will look like our current entries but if we want the old entries to get layout updates automatically like the new entries will be able to we will have to change all the old entries. As [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] says it will be a mammoth task but in the end I think the benefits are worth it. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 23:45, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Is there an ETA for Blue Dragon to put this on the server? I'm eager to work on using the Semantic features! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:36, 27 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::It should be done now! ''':)''' &mdash; <span style="color:#002137;">[[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] <small> ([[User_talk:Blue Dragon|talk]])</small></span> 22:45, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I say lets start with [[LA 8 Races]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 28 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay, so [[Form:DnD Equipment]] was created, however the category issue and the identifier issue still needs to be solved. Any ideas on how to fix these problems? Also, I feel this would be a lot easier if two edit boxes worked on a form, however it seems they do not. Any ideas on how to circumvent this, or can two of them work on a form somehow? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:16, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::: Sorry GD but I don't have a clue what your asking. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 05:39, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::[[Form:DnD Equipment]] now includes categories, I do not know all the categories for subtype ie: outfits armor etc and the way i've written it you can only have one type category and one subtype category if someone wants to find a way around that be my guest and could someone who knows all the categories add a list to [[Property:Item Subtype]] for me the list should be written like [[Property:Item Type]]. I made some properties for the author template so we could use the new semantic search functionality to search for say all pages with me as the author but the template wasn't working properly after I added them so I reverted the edit I'll try to get it to work later but if someone else wants to try be my guest. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:04, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::P.S. Sorry about littering the recent changes pages with all those edits its hard to tell what an edit will do when your working on a template and form at the same time and changes to a form cant be seen through the preview button (because you only see the page title input box). also feel free to delete the page entitled test. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:09, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::P.P.S. I have added code to Category:Equipment so that any page using that category will have a tab at the top "Edit with form" which will send you to the equipment form. This will allow novices to edit their page without having to edit code and will allow us to edit the old pages so they use the form now. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 07:34, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I have deleted the "Edit with Form" option &mdash; I want people to learn wiki syntax. Blue Dragon also implemented this, however I am not a fan. Deleted. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:55, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Are you sure you want to enforce that? The whole purpose of wiki-markup is so that users don't have to know HTML to created and edit pages. Semantic Forms takes it one step further by narrowing the amount of wiki-markup a user has to use. It seems a bit counter-intuitive to actively require users to learn the wiki syntax. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:23, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::This "edit with form" thing might help improve the formatting of pages made by new or non-users. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 11:55, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Damn you [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ''';)''', you're very right. Okay, I guess we can have them... It's just that I do not want a generation of users not learning wiki syntax; that could be detrimental to D&D Wiki. However, what is the goal of D&D Wiki? It's to provide a place where users can submit homebrew content so it can be played in other D&D campaigns. Editing with forms will just help make the goal of posting things and fixing things on D&D Wiki easier. I guess we should have it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:29, 29 February 2008 (MST) <br />
<br />
::For me it's more about letting people add and edit content easily without having to learn the entire wiki syntax in one hit. If they want their creations to look good they still have to learn syntax for stuff like equipment as there is no standard format for the item description etc so at current we just have an input box, but if they don't bother with syntax as a lot of creation i've wikified didn't then the form has done most of the wikifying for us. Does that mean I can put the edit with form tab back up? --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:04, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I say go for it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:26, 2 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
=== SMW and DPL ===<br />
<br />
There's been a request for [http://semeb.com/dpldemo/index.php?title=Main_Page DPL] to be able to access SMW properties. I'm keeping an eye out for when this gets implemented. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:19, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Once the semantic data is implemented it would be possible to replace the dpl generated tables with inline queries, if anyone is interested in doing that we would not need the DPL to be able to access SMW. I'm not sure how the DPL works exactly but SMW inline queries are done each time someone looks at a page so if the DPL doesn't do this using SMW inline queries may put more strin on the server for more information goto the SMW [http://semantic-mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:Inline_queries manual] --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 18:59, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I'll have to play around with it and see the level of flexibility compared to DPL. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 04:35, 1 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Had trouble using the queries on my test wiki but I suspect that may be because i'm not as smart as I like to think. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:10, 1 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I made a query at [[LA 8 Races]], but I am getting SRD Matches for some reason. I think it is using an implicit OR rather than an implicit AND for the category matches, even though the documentation claims it uses AND by default. I do know a way to fix the table, but it is not elegant because it will stop working if we add semantic syntax to the SRD. I'll keep looking for an answer... --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:30, 1 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Featured Articles ==<br />
<br />
Hi everyone time for major change to the wiki idea number two (number one being semantic forms). I guess it's not a major change so much as a new 'thing'. I was wondering what would everyone think about having a article featured on the main page say every month. We nominate articles for featuring, people would support or oppose the articles then first day of the month one could be chosen to be on the main page until the next month. The articles would be finished work, well formated etc etc. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:23, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:We could also go that step further and have a Process closer to wikipedias where you nominate an article it becomes 'featured' but does not necessarily get added to the main page. each month or week or whatever someone decides which one gets put up / you can request a featured article be considered for the main page. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 06:40, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Er... I know why you brought this up; it really is a standard across most wiki's. Therefore it makes me lean towards implementing it... Anyway, if this is to get implemented I do not want an obtrusive template, like the one on Uncyclopedia. Any thoughts for a good template? P.S. I like the second implementation more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:37, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::{| style="text-align: right; width: 100%; border: none;" <br />
| This is a [[Featured Articles|Featured Article]]! [[Image:Cscr-featured.png|30px]]<br />
|}<br />
:::Thoughts?<br />
:::--[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:33, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::How do you handle projects? Does LotR count as one or a few hundred? Does the ''title page'' of LotR count? --[[User:Pwsnafu|Pwsnafu]] 17:38, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::The main reason I was thinking about it is it puts some of our best work on the front page which draws in visitors instead of going through all those links to find something cool it's right there you can read it then people are more likely to go searching for more. It's also a recognition of your hard work having it on the main page. I like your little Featured article template is it for the talk page or the actual page if it's for the actual page perhaps it could be centered that way it blends in more being between the table of contents and the author template. We'd need some guidelines or criteria for making a page featured, and some one to arbitrate the process (and make final decisions) we can call him/her the Article Master or AM (like DM lol). we need to get some ideas rolling then maybe take a vote? --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:06, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Pwsnafu: I'd say for something like that it would be best to feature the main page of a project, not all subpages would need to be as good but there would still be a standard of quality for the entire project. Conversely a particularly good subpage which can stand on it's own could also be featured. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:10, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::I've just been stareing at the main page for awhile and so far I haven't thought of much in the way of how we could format it. About the only thing I can think of would be move the tavern schedule down next to the news and then use that blank space next to the menu for the featured articles. EDIT: personally I'd be for moving the tavern schedule to its own page. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 19:29, 3 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[Featured Articles]] --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 01:42, 4 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I'm all for it, if it means that even wanton visitors can get a more inside view of the site at first glance. It might persuade some of them to stick around and lord knows dandwiki can use more contributors :O. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 10:01, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Yes! --[[User:Penske|Penske]] 15:27, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Now we just need some featured articles :P. Hard to judge the true value of a system if it isn't used. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 18:29, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Gygax Gone at 69 ==<br />
<br />
[[:Category:Gary Gygax|Gary Gygax]], co-creator of D&D with [[:Category:Dave Arneson|Dave Arneson]], passed away Tuesday, March 4th, 2008, at the age of 69. Read coverage on it at [http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/03/report-gary-gyg.html Wired], [http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/03/farewell_gary_gygax_the_dungeo.html BBC News], [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080304/ap_en_ot/obit_gygax Yahoo! News], [http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/03/04/1750206 /.], and many other news sites. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:18, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:[[Discussion:The Passing of a Giant - RIP Gary Gygax]] --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 09:21, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Submitted for Your Approval ==<br />
<br />
I present the new [[Form:DnD Spell|form for submitting (non-epic) spells]], Courtesy of Semantic MediaWiki and Semantic Forms. [[Special:EditData/Form:DnD_Spell/User:Sledged/Atonement|Here]]'s what it looks like with the fields populated. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:30, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Hm... I wish you could make it work more like [[Form:Rating]] where it uses a template which, once saved, goes to the normal wiki formatting. Can this be done with spells as well? It's just that I do not really want the formatting of all the spells changed to this new "standard". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:18, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::If that is what is wanted all you have to do is add <tt><nowiki>subst:</nowiki></tt> in the form code next to any templates you want to be substituted onto the page. --[[User:Hawk|Hawk]] 20:33, 5 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Just be aware that if <tt>subst:</tt> is added, you'll lose the option of using the form to edit the page once it's been created. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:21, 6 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::It is a price I would be willing to pay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:44, 6 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Okay, there's a problem with <tt>subst:</tt>. Part of the way to form works is that it looks at the template to see what properties it has and which parameters are associated with each property. When you use <tt>subst:</tt>, it's looking for the page <tt>Template:subst:template name</tt> instead of <tt>Template:template name</tt> and it makes the form useless as a result. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:37, 6 March 2008 (MST)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Telekinetic_Force&diff=238079SRD Talk:Telekinetic Force2008-03-11T06:24:40Z<p>Xidoraven: idea and hope for new Inath Skill usage/mechanics</p>
<hr />
<div>I would like to make [[Telekinesis (Inath Skill)]] as similar to this as possible, while still staying alongside the theory that a deity is more powerful than a psion... -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 00:24, 11 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoravenhttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xidoraven&diff=238073User talk:Xidoraven2008-03-11T06:07:13Z<p>Xidoraven: /* Logo */ links</p>
<hr />
<div>== Welcome to D&D Wiki == <br />
<br />
Hello {{PAGENAME}}, and welcome to D&D Wiki! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like D&D Wiki and decide to stay. I am the owner of the site, and if you have a question feel free to ask me, however when contacting anyone on D&D Wiki through talk pages please sign your name using four tildes <nowiki>(~~~~)</nowiki>; this will automatically produce your name and the date. Also, if you want to help D&D Wiki but just don't know how [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&action=edit&section=new drop me a note] and I'll see what I can do. However, when dropping me a note please tell me how much time you would like to spend working, how well you know the Wiki Format, and how well you know D&D. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a D&D Wikian! If you need help ask me on my talk page, or just right here. Again, welcome! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 3 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Hello ==<br />
<br />
Hello everyone! New to the wiki here, and looking to make sure I establish myself well in practice before I go adding a bunch of pages about info on my homebrew world and campaign ideas.<br />
<br />
Any help you can give on how to format text would be greatly appreciated. Email me for more, or comment here. If you comment here, make sure to watch the page. Thanks!<br />
<br />
[xidoraven@yahoo.com] [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 22:25, 9 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Normally the preload pages are correctly formatted... If you have any problems adding content please tell me and I will see what I can do. Again, welcome! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:36, 10 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks, Dragon. I appreciate the help. So far, I know how to bold, italic, sign my name/date, and add info into the templates you all have here. I began work on my creature concept, the Anakim, and wanted to post a link to an off-site URL, and was prevented from doing so, as far as I know. I filled in the password text when the message came up to confirm that I wanted to add a link, then when the page refreshed, the entire added text was gone, and I had to go back and get rid of the link in order to post my content... Not sure how that works.<br />
::I think I have the idea of adding content down pretty well, and with Wikipedia's help page it might not be so hard, but I am still unsure of how to make new formatting (such as for a table that does not include 20 class levels).<br />
::Either way, I am only here when I get time after work to post info, and this is mostly just to get me started in being involved with an online D&D content group. I really like the site so far, and hope to stick around as long as possible. A lot of my previous content was posted on pages hosted by Elftown.com, which I will never leave completely. However, because this site's beastiary is quite extensive, I will definitely have to keep my head in close quarters here to keep an eye on things. It's all very cool and new to me.<br />
::So far the only pages I have working are "Anakim (DnD Creature)" and "Inath". The latter will feature information that is being moved from its current housing in Elftown so that D&D players will be able to see what I have been considering as an alternative system to character progression. It's unorthodox, but a great concept based on real-world spiritual concepts.<br />
::Anyways, thank you, and best wishes to you. Please stick around, and I would love to keep in touch. I appreciate all the help everyone has given me, especially on my Anakim page... But I have a question about that too... Someone else has that name featured as a playable race for D&D, and I do not want to encroach upon their own ideas just to get mine up on the web. Should I be concerned about this issue? Is there something I can do aside from re-naming my creature concept to help keep things modest? --[[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 20:12, 10 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I will answer this is more depth when I have more time, however I would like to touch on one topic briefly. It is 100% okay to name your creation "Anakim" since the other reference to that on D&D Wiki is not added (and, in all honesty, probably never will get added). If you go to the WFRC page that that can be seen you will notice the link is red, therefore it does not link to anything. Again, please feel free to name it that as it is not encroaching on anyones work (plus, that person is not even from D&D Wiki, they are from Wizards....) --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:51, 11 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Here is the rest of the answering (not as much as I thought there would be ''':)'''). For all formatting issues I would consult Wikipedia. They have articles on most everything about formatting on wiki's, and a very good way of learning wiki syntax. A good place to start is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:How_to_edit_a_page here]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:08, 18 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Link ==<br />
<br />
Here is the link you requested in The Tavern: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Wikitext_examples . --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:46, 11 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Thanks, GD. I will be putting this to use very shortly. I will start by making some tables for the applicable game info for [[Inath]], and move on from there. {{Unsigned|Xidoraven|16:41, 14 September 2007 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::Glad to have helped ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 11:58, 15 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Logo ==<br />
<br />
Do we have a higher-res version of the logo up anywhere? I am making business cards and I need a higher-res version. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:20, 1 March 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:The best I can do for you, aside from the media portion of this wiki:<br />
<br />
:http ://elftown.com/stuff/D%26D_logo-test.png (with no space)<br />
<br />
:http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=333540&id=577234700#pid=333564 -- [[User:Xidoraven|xido]] 00:07, 11 March 2008 (MDT)</div>Xidoraven