Talk:Dullahan, Variant (5e Race)

Quality Article Nomination

— This article did not become a quality article. 09:10, 24 October 2019 (MDT)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the QA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

Okay, barring this being a featured article, it's at least worthy of being a quality article, assuming I put an image up, no?

I anticipated that QAs are pages ready to be dropped into any campaign. If there is a design disclaimer then it needs some examination to see if it suitable. If the detachable head is the thing that DMs need to be careful with, then that should be a Variant (uh oh, it going to be a variant of a variant) in the same way that the core rulebooks handle variants that use optional rules. Marasmusine (talk) 06:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

Good point there Mara. This should ideally be addressed before the nominations continue further. —ConcealedLight (talk) 07:24, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

I've had a stab at doing this, although I would also like to rework the actual mechanics of the Cursed variant too. I also moved the Outcast variant to variants, since it's a variant. Marasmusine (talk) 06:19, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

Your "stab" has damaged the race considerably. Without the blindsight, the body cannot fight without its head without suffering disadvantage to all attacks, no matter how close to the enemy it is. The race cannot lose its head because it can summon the head to the body, which negates the author-intended use of the head as a risk factor and possible plot point in a module, one-shot, or campaign. The only change you've made that isn't completely out of left field is removing the subrace classifications. The removal, however, doesn't exactly add anything substantial to the race, it's just changing terminology.

No, actually, even worse, you've removed any reference to the Call Steed cantrip created specifically for this race to use, and therefore also removed the intended investment the character should have in a singular creature as their bonded-for-life-steed. You've also removed the ability for the head to rest on the shoulders of the body, which negates the race's ability to blend in with other mortals who might be unfamiliar with the race. One could argue that is a substantial addition, if they prefer to be recognized immediately, and therefore most likely have a tougher time in RP. Furthermore, I just realized you removed all mentions of blindsight, not just for the regular version with its head, making the variants completely useless in combat or even navigating their environment. The entire thing is completely chopped up and ruined in this state. --Max7238 (talk) 10:26, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

Hi

• I have tried to remove the implication that the body and head are two separate creatures, which is the Design Disclaimer issue that would prevent this from being a QA.
• I removed the blindsight because being able to bypass invisibility, illusions and hiding creatures (even at 10 feet) is very powerful at 1st level.
• "The body" (i.e., you) fights normally since you draw line of sight to your head. You would have disadvantage if you are trying to attack something that is not in the line of sight to your head, which is a fair tradeoff for the versatility of being able to put your head somewhere else.
• Call Steed. This spell is up for deletion, so I tried to find alternatives. Furthermore, I have problems with call steed's balance. A cantrip that increases a beast's Intelligence to 6 and establishes a telepathic link?
• You can deride the reformatting of the variants if you want but it's something that needed doing.
• I had considered the placing of the head on the shoulders, but I also was interested in what was possible if it wasn't allowed. The rationale of "blending in with other mortals" is a little moot considering the extraordinary appearance of many other player races. In any event this is trivial to add back in.
• I already stated that I need to look at the cursed variant's mechanics. Maybe it will have blindsight, maybe it won't, please hold off on your complaints until I've actually done this.

Finally, the mantra of wikis is "be bold"[1], since anything can be undone. Good-faith edits should not be shamed with comments like "damaging the race" and "chopped up and ruined". Marasmusine (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

Edit: I just read through the Cursed variant and there's nothing saying that you would be blind, so I don't understand the complaint that it doesn't have blindsight. I was careful to state that the variant's features replaced the decapitated trait, so the restriction of "only draw line of sight to your head" does not apply. Marasmusine (talk) 06:53, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

Having playtested the race myself on more than once occasion... There was no implication that they were separate creatures, just a caveat that certain spells might not affect both unless they were both in range. Blindsight does not pass invisibility, illusions, or hiding creatures unless the creature with blindsight makes a check (actively attempts to do so), like any other creature would. Bypassing those things is what Truesight is for. One of the main points of the race was to be able to have your head be elsewhere while your body could still fight, which was meant to cover for a wide variety of situations - which it did, in playtest. Being able to instantly recall your head to your body completely negates the majority of the draw and risk of choosing to play the race, which was what made it fun to begin with. Call Steed IS up for deletion, you're right, so I can't argue with wanting to find alternatives; however, it was included to serve the part of the idea where a dullahan was expected (culturally) to bond with a single mount for life and be able to communicate with it much like a real life person can do with a trained animal, hence the increased INT. I can also understand changing the classification of subrace to variant. I find it hard to see the edits as good-faith when the page was requested for deletion, then the template was removed prematurely despite it qualifying for deletion based on policy, and now another user is suddenly interested and attempting to become a primary contributor to block the page's deletion. If you had, for example, created a new race page and used 2nd Variant, as I've seen done before, you could easily make all your desired changes and request that page be QA, and I bet you'd get it because yours would be closer in line to officially published content. --Max7238 (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

• The invisibility condition says "An invisible creature is impossible to see without the aid of magic or a Special sense. Blindsight is a special sense. Blindsight also says that you perceive your surroundings without relying on sight. Any obscurement that relies on sight is therefore overcome.
• You can still play as not being able to summon your head, if you look at the text I added to the Cursed variant.
• There was no deletion proposal message on the page when I made my edits, so I was unaware that there was a deletion proposal or the reasons for it. Your allegations against me are unfair and I'm sorely tempted to bring it up as a civility issue.
• Having said that, I am completely open to starting a new page and putting my version there instead, if there is a concensus for it. Marasmusine (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

I must have been thinking of the below argument about illusions; you're right about the invisibility. Out of combat that might be an issue, but in terms of stopping a surprise attack from an invisible creature, the creature would still technically approach and attack off-turn, surprising you anyway. It would be impossible to become Cursed under your conditions, since you can summon your head, so it would be strange to be without it for ten days unless you were rendered unconscious for that long somehow. I had assumed you would have done your research, and part of that assumption was that you were aware of the huge issue now surrounding Varkarrus' desire to leave the wiki along with the pages they've created. My assumption, then, caused me to mischaracterize your edits as above. Not only would I support the creation of a new page to maintain the integrity of this one, but I would gladly help edit in any way necessary and playtest like I did with this one - without making any claim to the page, in the event you ever wanted it deleted. --Max7238 (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

You can't summon your head if you choose the Cursed variant: that whole variant is now for if you want the style of play originally intented.

I will petition to Green Dragon that I create a new Dullahan page with all new text/traits and ask him to reconsider the deletion of this page. Marasmusine (talk) 13:14, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

• Comment. This QAN is up at the end of the month. While I can see that it was decided to not the delete the page, I think that a 2nd variant would still be a better option to see this idea make QA and that this variant would stand on its own. ~ BigShotFancyMan 08:15, 3 July 2019 (MDT)

Featured Article Nomination

— This article did not become a featured article. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)
Please feel free to re-nominate it once it meets the FA criteria and when all the major issues brought up in this nomination have been dealt with.

I believe this article is worthy of being a featured article. It's got it all: fleshed out and detailed lore, interesting new game mechanics, versatility, balance, fluff, and a nice piece of artwork to round it off. It's been a few weeks since the last major edit, and a full month since the initial concept, too. Maybe it could use a few touchups, and the nomination process really brings out the search for where those can go. Whaddya say, folks? Varkarrus (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2018 (MDT)

I have failed this nomination after two months of no discussion and no consensus formed. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 12:13, 5 January 2019 (MST)

Oppose Seems pretty shit imo. I don't see how this is a race or a people, maybe a racial class or smth. Like, how they are linked to the Feywild? and how does this plays off or uses any of the actual Dullahan besides the headless horsemen gimmick? You should try giving your "races" more character before submitting for this featured thing or whatever and making such claims in your intro.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions but telling someone their idea is "pretty shit" & "they should try giving etc" is unacceptable. Please check out Help:Behavioral Policy or ask questions if this is a problem. I issued an IP block for this, account creation enabled if you wish to register and contribute politely and constructively. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:50, 11 July 2018 (MDT)

Oppose I've been meaning to give this nomination a review for some time now but its overall unconventionality makes it difficult to formulate the issues with this page and so I've been avoiding it. However, while there are a few more general issues here, I'm more concerned about the significant issue of splitting the PC into two entities and then applying a plethora of tedious rule specifications so that that entity can function. I think that if you have to change how the game functions at a basic level for the sake of one player's homebrew, then that homebrew doesn't eloquently work with the standards of the game. Furthermore, if that you need to read five separate rule specifications for each of your PC's races alone then it applies further workload for the DM and as far as fixing some of the issues with this race, I imagine this list of rule specification will only get bigger and more tiresome. As such, due to the tedious and centrally flawed nature of the race, I will be opposing this nomination until it can be reworked. —ConcealedLight (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2018 (MDT)

Okay, I don't want to sound biased but I think your reasoning for opposing the FA nomination sets a worrying and dangerous precedent. Your reason for opposing this article as FA is the exact same reason why I nominated it in the first place. I very strongly feel that homebrew, whether in D&D, or other games, should break convention! Experimenting with game mechanics is fun and can lead to interesting results! So, sure, the Dullahan requires a few errata (and let's face it, there isn't many and they're easy to remember) to make the disembodied head work... but, if you were playing D&D as a Dullahan, with a competent GM who is easily able to keep track of said errata, wouldn't that be a fun experience with a lot of potential for the kinds of shenanigans that make D&D fun? That's for an experienced super-organized GM though, if the rules are too clunky for more mundane GMs (and I really don't think they are), the fact that the experience would be fun and interesting means that it'd be worth the effort to make it work vs abandoning it entirely. Either way, GMs are under no obligation to allow a homebrew concept even if it's a D&Dwiki featured article, and I feel there's going to need to be a community-wide discussion on how conventional a piece of D&D homebrew needs to be in order to be allowed as a featured article. Varkarrus (talk) 07:45, 2 August 2018 (MDT)

Comment Overall I think this is written well and has the right amount of information a feature article needs. It has things I really like too. Fey, it has flavor and isn't just throwing two creature types on there being all bland. Like, I want to support this article simply because it doesn't do what so many articles with two types did. Lifestyle choice is cool. Different, and interesting. But this kind of sums up my feels on most the traits. Just very unsure of them. Blindsight on the body, I think I get it? But if the body and head have a telepathic bond, I don't think you need Blindsight. Which, in regards to the head/body relationship, there's no limit to how far the head can go? Personally not a fan of this but I can see it being in the realm of "Rule of Cool". The head specifically with its temporary hit points and shared pool with the body is interesting. Again, traits that I'm just unsure of. Temp HP is my fav mechanic right now. I'm not sure how it feel about it here, combined with unconventional AC calculation which it too is another bundle of neat sprinkled with, hmmm different. I'd be more inclined to use normal AC calc for the head, force the player to protect thing as much as possible. Be afraid to not be one unit. With all that, I think its great something different has been presented. It follows right along with 5e philosophy and design to add something new to the game, not just rehash and reuse existing material. For me, it is just a little too different. I don't want to impede the articles success just because my hesitation though. Good luck with the nomination. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:20, 31 July 2018 (MDT)

Can confirm. There's no limit on how far the head and body can be from each other. Right now, that even extends to other planes. If that's a bit excessive it could be tuned down, but the potential for a dullahan's head to be separated from their body by long distances has lots of potential for stories, and player schemes: sending a dullahan's head to fly down a tunnel to scout ahead without being seen / fly over obstacles that can't be walked over, to deliver messages. Or the dullahan's head could be captured by foes, and the body blindly writes down what the villain is saying... or the reverse; a villain unfamiliar with a dullahan's flying head chained their body but their head is escaping to find help. Even when they aren't separated long distances, the body's blindsight is still useful as even when in a small area, the body can detect foes outside the head's sight or vice-versa. It's true: the Dullahan is an unusual and unique race, but it was because I wanted to explore its head/body mechanic that I created the page, and is the main reason why I feel this page should be a FA. Varkarrus (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2018 (MDT)

All fair points. I think one other would be a DM would have to figure out what even happens if the two can separate that far because as one example is, the head could be stolen! You've still got a few months though. Maybe there's a way to polish things up so that the traits mirror criteria for variant rules of featured articles. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)

Support I'm not huge into 5e mechanics, so I won't pretend I am by giving a detailed rundown of what's good or bad about this race. It's imaginative, unconventional and well-written all around. Kinda tired of all the FAs being races lately, but at least this one is different, as CL pointed out.--GamerAim (talk) 09:11, 2 August 2018 (MDT)

OI! \o/ I pointed it out too! How ya gonna forget your pal BigShot?? grrrr >.< /jk <3 BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:17, 2 August 2018 (MDT)

Opposed I have looked over this and Varkarrus their previous comments. But I must disagree, a race is not where you break the mold as this is where you break the game easily, subclasses and classes can be very unique races quite simply cannot deviate too much from the norm before becomming overpowered but lets say why this is overpowered. Lets start from the top to bottom. Fey ancestory, sure thats fine and all but be carefull as this is the elf their thing. Now to their second ability, Call steed. First this cantrip is basically useless. The requirements are too much for any usefull use and the mount having to actually travel makes it not very game changing as there are two situations. Either the user is already on the mount, or so far away that this cantrip is not usefull. Outcast however, eh I guess, nothing unique and nothing bad. Now time for the reason why this is op as hell. Blindsight, this wording is just bad, if you dont want it to be actual blindsight just word it that the body can only see 10 feet around it. as the only thing blindsight is is being conciously aware what is around them. Being able to cast spells from both your head and body is just kinda op. I dont how to word this all in such a small text but it just very broken. --RedHawk007 (talk) 07:27, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

I feel like I should mention that the Dullahan race is being tested for balance atm in Cotsu's homebrew testing campaign. I will neither accept nor refute your comments on balance, just wait a bit for the campaign to give feedback on balance. Though, I am fine with rewording the blindsight feature. That said, I should correct your misconception: Call Steed (5e Spell) isn't "basically useless", it's the ability 5e SRD:Find Steed reworked into a cantrip. It does provide benefits beyond just messaging a bonded steed! Varkarrus (talk) 09:53, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

I have checked the wording of the spell, it needs to have been bonded already, if the mount dies it cannot be resummoned and if it is somewhere else it has to physically move troughout the plane instead of being summoned. So yes how it is worded right now, it is borderline unusable. and if it is the find steed worked into the find steed then that is broken and steals the paladin specific spell for anyone to take which is just not fun. Blindsight gives you immunity to all visual illusions and no sneaking up behind them. Racial balance really does not need any playtesting before you can judge the balance of it, if you do need that it shows inexperience (Which is not bad, we all start at some point) some features are very much overpowered to the point it outshines most other races. --RedHawk007 (talk) 10:50, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

Call Steed and Find Steed both allow for mounted combat as a seamless unit, and allowing the user to target both themselves and their mount with a spell: this is a far more important component to the spell than having the mount arrive instantaneously. Depending on where you keep your mount, it may only be a few rounds away. If you aren't in combat, waiting for your mount to arrive before leaving isn't a big deal either. Also: the Musicus meter provides scoring for blindsight, and keep in mind that the Dullahan only has 10 feet of it, too! The Cursed Dullahan may have 30 ft of blindsight, but they literally cannot see out of that range: a pretty fair trade if you ask me. I don't appreciate the "inexperience" remark, I've been at this for a year now. And, when you make a mold-breaking race like the Dullahan, YES it's going to need playtesting for balance. I also want to point out that WotC have released several mold-breaking races. Varkarrus (talk) 11:36, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

A year is an extremely short time, I call myself inexperienced still and have played and dmed for almost 7 years. Find steed is a paladin only spell for a reason and should stay this way as it is as icon to the paladin as find familiar to the wizard (and warlock) Call Steed is a worse version, an unneeded one at that. As like said before, either your mount is right below you or too far away to call. A Cantrip that should not exist. I do not care for the musicus meter, blindsight gives immunity to these things, despite only having 10. Based on the mystic, Tremorsense is a first level spell (something weaker then blind or true sight) and true sight a third level spell, making blind sight a second level spell. (Based on its power compared to these other two) and that is for 1 minute. having this permanent is incredibly op, no matter how small Not seeing out that range really does not matter, as either a character plays around that or they dont play this race. And sure, give me one example that actually worked without having the dm have to house rule things --RedHawk007 (talk) 12:57, 14 October 2018 (MDT)

I'd just like to reinforce that you should not call other users inexperienced unless they themselves have identified as inexperienced. Doing so can come off as belittling. As for your comment that racial balance does not require playtesting, I think that the developers of D&D 5e themselves would disagree, considering that the game was in development for years. You also say that blind sight is (or should be) a 2nd level spell. So is darkvision, which races have for free. Yes, darkvision lasts much longer, and 1:1 having blind sight as a race might be less "balanced" even at only 10 feet, but there is still some room for a race to have it. At the end of the day, homebrew is not for every table; even first-party content is not for every table, but homebrew has more freedom to try new things. If the DM doesn't want to plan around having a dullahan, he won't allow one in his game. I know we are to refrain from the "only a good DM" fallacy, but the truth is a DM should not allow all content — homebrew or from first-party supplements — without reviewing it first. This article has no IRR templates on it, so I don't see why its balance is being questioned solely in regards to its potential as a featured article.--GamerAim (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2018 (MDT)

Just my thoughts. Call stead is a good spell as it prevents you from losing your stead because you had to leave it behind or because some random stole it, although someone could add that you know where the steed is when you cast the cantrip in case it can't get to you. Minor question, with call steed can you say anything else telepathically or only to come. As for blindsight; the fact it lets you ignore illusions and invisibility is a problem for the true dullahan, it is fine with the cursed dullahan because it is blind and possibly deaf (which should be specified) so you can have interesting shenanigans where it can see through the illusion but it does not know that the others are seeing an illusion. With the true dullahan the blindsight on the head is excessive and with the body maybe make it so it still has the blind condition or something? But otherwise I think the class is good, I am looking forward to using this race. Babosa (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2018 (MDT)

I feel it's, again, important to point out that the Blindsight on the True Dullahan extends to just 10 feet. By the time the Dullahan is within 10 feet of an illusion, its likely already too late. Still, I can add that it can't see through illusions; only invisibility and darkness, if you feel like that'd help? Varkarrus (talk) 19:58, 29 October 2018 (MDT)

Even with 10 feet that can tell you if a person you are talking to and want to ambush/kidnap is really there or if they're an illusion, or if one section of a wall is actually not there and a group of minions are about to ambush you, on top it deals with invisibllity. If a DM didn't really use illusions, blindsight wouldn't be a big problem, but if they did it would make some fun things you can do with illusions pointless so saying or just suggesting that illusions affect blindsight would make it perfectly fine. Babosa (talk) 23:02, 29 October 2018 (MDT)

Musicus Rating

Musicus Meter Score: 6

This race has a score of 6 according to the Musicus Meter race guidelines. With this metric, first-party races' scores range from 4.5 to 8. This is a guideline, not a rule, and it's important to use your own judgment alongside this scoring.

This scoring may be the groundwork for a focused {{needsbalance}} usage. A contributor to this page may request a detailed breakdown of this page's balance. Without this information, {{needsbalance}} may then be removed. This meter cannot be the sole basis for a needsbalance template, but may be included as an accessory to a wider discussion of a race's balance.

This template should only be placed on a race's talk page. If this template is not placed on the talk page, please move it.

Base

Cost	Racial Trait
1	Constitution score increases by 1.
0.5	Fey Ancestry
0.5	Cantrip
0.5	Skill Proficiency
2.5	Total.

True Dullahan

Cost	Racial Trait
2.5	Base
1	Constitution score increases by 1.
0.5	Darkvision
1(?)	Flying Head
1	Blindsight /10ft
6	Total.

Cursed Dullahan

Cost	Racial Trait
2.5	Base
1	Strength score increases by 1.
0.5	No Food/Water/Air
1	Limited Blindsight
0.5	Portable Head
0.5	Proficiency
6	Total.

3 Star Vote

Since the voting is anonymous I'd personally like to provide transparency when I vote and I am guilty of not giving it 5 stars. I explained my thoughts above but if there are more questions why I voted this way, I don't mind sharing. ~ BigShotFancyMan 08:16, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

I'm curious as to why, given that the usual logic is "one star is awful, two is below average, three is average or acceptable, four is above average, five is exceptional." I suppose it depends on what your metric is, as well. --Max7238 (talk) 15:05, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Reasons are above in the Featured Article Nomination discussion. I don't really argue with Redhawk's points either. ~ BigShotFancyMan 21:09, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Having read the above, I certainly would. The fact that some other articles that are lower quality are featured, yet this one is not, baffles me to no end. I will, again, say that it really just depends on what your metric is. Which, I suppose, is another way of saying "this is a matter of preference, and yours clearly isn't the same as mine." --Max7238 (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2019 (MDT)

Well maybe you can explain why this is better than I give credit or better than nameless featured articles. ~ BigShotFancyMan 07:17, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

Gladly. For starters, Call Steed isn't a useless cantrip. Before the update to this race today, it was the only way for the head to reliably find its body again - using the telepathic link with the mount and keeping the body mounted, taking advantage of a saddle, class, or feat that gives advantage to staying mounted. Having the head and body in separate places made for great RP moments when I've used this character in three different one-shots because she fit the setting. The head acting as a scout, or going WITH the scout, and the body relaying simple concepts via hand signs (advance, retreat, danger, be quiet, hold position) made for great tactics.

If an enemy has 15ft or more of movement, the blindsight does not save the body or head, because the enemy would still slip in and attack off-turn, therefore retaining surprise. Blindsight does not see through illusions, which are magical tricks to the brain; that's what TRUEsight is for. All the blindsight did for the character, in any occasion, was allow the body to fight while the head was elsewhere. The use of a glaive for reach allowed the character to fight to the limits of its vision, but move accurately thanks to the mount's vision. Cavalier Fighter, arguably the second-most optimized version of this race, still did not place her above other party members with vanilla races, nor did it make her feel like "the main character" of any one-shot.

The myriad of mechanics involved in this race, and playing it correctly, make it an absolute joy to play. My table has not only NOT found issue with it, even as a Cavalier, but pointed out that an Eldritch Knight that can cast spells and use a bonus action to melee attack would be even more powerful. In fact, one of my DMs even buffed her so she would be effective, saying that the mount should gain HP with her, and that the two could take hits for one another - effectively acting almost as a druid's Wild Shape temporary hit points. At the end of all calculation, this meant she had 244 HP (max CON and Tough at Lv20) + 183 for the horse (31+8x19) for 427HP. My Totem Barbarian has an effective HP of 325x2= 650HP (24CON, Tough, Totem damage resist plus a ring to resist psychic damage). Their damage per turn is about the same (four glaive swings or two maul swings with rage bonus), both can tank by imposing disadvantage or granting enemies advantage to goad hits.

I've played the race several times, run the math several times, and both in theory and practice, everything has meshed together exactly as it seems it was intended. --Max7238 (talk) 13:29, 23 April 2019 (MDT)

I did read all this and go over my original thoughts awhile ago. I changed my vote to a four. There's aspects I am still not sold on but I can concede it is better than a 3. ~ BigShotFancyMan 06:59, 8 May 2019 (MDT)

Deletion

Support There is no reason this page cannot be deleted as per the previous requested based on wiki policy. There is one primary contributor which is the author, and said author is the one to issue the request. The request template was also removed prior to the 14 days listed for discussion to occur. --Max7238 (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

diff and diff. --Green Dragon (talk) 03:57, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

First, your citations only point to grammatical help, which hardly constitutes as someone (in this case an admin) becoming a "primary contributor" unless you really reach on your definition. No extra substance was added to the idea in question, no history, no culture, no new features, etc.

Second, because administration failed to honor a valid request for deletion and removed the deletion template prematurely, there's now another user who is beginning to edit the page. As of right now, the only thing they've managed to do is reword one of the main features of the race which, I would argue, was both unnecessary and removes one of the author intended uses of the race: a search for their stolen head. As a matter of fact, if I am pressed, I can easily sight the author's own words on the matter to prove such was the intention, which therefore makes that a violation of editing policy as written. --Max7238 (talk) 10:07, 31 May 2019 (MDT)

I'm sorry, what was a violation of editing policy? Marasmusine (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

I think what Max is trying to say is that he feels authorial intent is being disregarded, from my conversation with him on Discord and his comments above, though he could have been a bit nicer about it. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:19, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

I... I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude or coarse. I will agree with Geodude that I guess I should have chosen my words better, but he's also right about his interpretation of my statement. This is why I don't like the posh talk - makes it kinda tough to figure out what people're saying. As long as there's no swearing, I could probably just start typing more normally and be misunderstood less. Think I'm gonna do that. --Max7238 (talk) 10:32, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

Support I do not consider the diffs provided to represent a significant contribution, and I retract my own contrubtions (with the intent of creating a new Dullahan page with new text and my rewritten traits). Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. Marasmusine (talk) 13:16, 1 June 2019 (MDT)

Removing the flying speed, and making the traits usable is wholly a significant contribution for this race. Not only that but numerous bits of advice on the talk page also shaped this race. However, let's let consensus sort this out. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Based on the talk surrounding the FA nomination above, and based on my own playtesting on three occasions, the race was perfectly usable in the state it was in. Everything worked as intended, and the table enjoyed the experience, even going as far as to request I play the character the third time. Were there any points on the talk page that ended up being implemented into the race? And, further, the topic of grammatical help or minor tweaks to numbers has been covered above as well. Was there another point to discuss to reach consensus? I had fallen under the impression that it had been established, aside from hearing ConcealedLight's opinion on the matter, or EpicBoss' opinion, as they were the other two who changed wording for clarity. --Max7238 (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

This is just my finding. The admin who will ultimately look over this page may make their choice. I will add the template back for now, until the responsible admin looks through this. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:21, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Oppose This article has been around for a good long awhile and I consider it a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki, regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the disputes regarding its balance.--GamerAim (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

A version of the article can return upon its deletion, for one thing. For another, the length of time an article has existed seems a tad irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted by request from the sole significant contributor. Even further, the author has offered to create a back-up .pdf version by request, so it's not as though the content will disappear for good - in this state or in one that follows the conventions and guidelines of this wiki. --Max7238 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

I am, and always have been, opposed to this section of the deletion policy. a) if the article can be restored upon deletion, deletion is a waste of time; b) D&D Wiki would be all the lesser without this article, so its deletion is detrimental to the users and the health of the website; c) saving it as a .pdf (or on a user-page) does not allow users to find it on dynamic page lists, so users cannot find it, and point b is invoked.

I feel for Vark and I understand she is upset, but I will never personally support - whether GD allows it or not - the right of users to take away things that they willingly and knowingly gave to the community. Arbitrary deletion of valuable content defeats the purpose of preserving homebrew.--GamerAim (talk) 14:15, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

I can't really agree that it's arbitrary given the context. Restoring the page after deletion has a lot of important implications, including removing the original author's name from subsequent versions. If the wiki would be lesser without it, despite the ability to recreate it in spirit, then that seems to imply to me that, perhaps, the author/creator's work deserves more respect than it's been shown, especially recently. If it is, in fact, shown that respect, it would be deleted as the author requested. If she wants to leave the playground and take her toys with her, the fact that it's someone else's favorite doesn't change that it's hers. This race happens to be my single favorite page on the entire wiki; I completely understand how you feel, in my own way! But at the end of the day, it should be a creator's right to retract their creations if they feel they aren't being respected. A painter can remove their work from a gallery if it is mocked or defaced; I see this in a similar fashion. --Max7238 (talk) 14:26, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

1) I understand that Vark has had issues with the community, but I still consider all deletion requests based on personal reason to be arbitrary, regardless of whether they can or will be enforced by the administration.

2) Legally-speaking, reposting the article without attribution would be, well, illegal unless Varkarrus declared the content to be free of copyright in accordance with U.S. copyright law. In other words, any reposting would still retain her name or else have to be deleted for copyright violation.

3) I agree that Vark's work deserves more respect, and when I was more active, I even championed this. If you look above at my support for the Featured Article Nomination, is it any surprise I wish to keep this article around? :)

4) The thing is, she's not leaving with HER toys. It is more akin to a painter donating a work to an art gallery. Sure, it's sad to see it defaced, but you GAVE IT AWAY. Please see my more detailed response on the deletion policy talk page. Vark was herself involved enough in the community to have known for a good long time that she did not have total creative or distributive control over "her" content. D&D Wiki is not - in spirit or in practice - an art gallery in the way that you describe, even if certain policies were - against my suggestion - enforced to give some more control to authors. In spite of those policies, it is helpful to come to D&D Wiki with a preference for "ours" over "mine" :) --GamerAim (talk) 14:40, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Basically if you release works under a copyleft license or make it public domain, it is irrevocable, you have no right to change your mind later. Marasmusine (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Having seen your post in the deletion policy page, I have to agree, once again. However, it is important to clarify my earlier statements, since there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding. I'm not suggesting that the page simply be reposted; until just recently, another user was making strides to completely rework the page to more closely follow convention and to remove many of the features users found of questionable balance. What I'm suggesting is the removal of this page, as per the request of the author and sole significant contributor, per deletion policy - and then a new page to be created in the spirit of the old, as re-imagined by other users to follow the guidelines of this wiki. I certainly did see your above comments, and I appreciate the discourse now as well.

Ultimately, however, I can't agree that every case can or should be "ours" over "mine." If a user creates a page, contributes many hours of their time and tens of thousands of bytes to it, then someone else just rewords it a bit to sound more professional, that reminds me of an editor to a book. The editor does not suddenly own the idea because they removed a few orphans and changed some words, and if the author wanted their book removed from shelves, the editor wouldn't have a say. What an editor does is invaluable work, absolutely, but if the core idea remains untouched, as it should, it remains the brain-child of its creator, and a part of that person, in a way. It's for this reason, my logic surrounding this discussion and motivating my fervor in it, that I continue to support the deletion of several pages.

After Mara's ninja (lol), I also need to add that I completely understand that, and the license isn't being revoked because of this. D&D Wiki still owns the rights to the reproduction of the page, which is a point I missed when replying, and the version hosted here. If the page is deleted, I don't believe that changes, unfortunately, unless there's wording that would invalidate the license once the work disappeared... Which would turn out to be yet another reason for me to support these deletions. --Max7238 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

I agree with you, again, that it's unfortunate that this article will likely be sanitized to appeal to the personal preferences of other users without Vark here to defend it. I try to strike a balance between siding with authors, and I always believed that many changes desired of this article violated the spirit of the article and intention of the author (Vark). I've made the case many times that, just because the article violates convention, does not mean that it is wrong for doing so. Variant articles that wish for radically-different interpretations of this race should be created wholesale. So, again, I agree that it's sad, but these are two separate issues and once that am willing to fight separately if need-be :(

Furthermore, Vark herself may have written up tens of thousands of bytes worth of content, but those bytes were D&D Wiki's, not hers. If she wished to maintain total control over her content, she could have hosted it on her own website or a blog that had its own policies concerning user ownership of content. I will concede that editorial edits should not - and do not - constitute sufficient modification of the content to nullify the invoked deletion clause as written. But I do not oppose the deletion on "legal" grounds, but instead intend to make an impassioned argument as to why the article should stay.

I believe this to be the cause of the confusion, as you are arguing that the page can technically be deleted because the non-Vark edits were all editorial and therefore the article is "hers" in regards to the deletion clause. To use your book analogy, D&D Wiki is the publisher, not the editor, and Vark is seeking to violate a contract and have her book pulled from shelves against the will - and rights - of the publisher to which she signed over distributive rights. For a real-world example (if I'm not mistaken), George Lucas gave 20th Century Fox perpetual distribution rights for the original Star Wars. George Lucas could not have then decided that, because he didn't like Fox, he should have full distribution rights.

Of course my comparison to Star Wars falls apart in both that D&D Wiki as a website does not control distribution, but that anyone who adheres to the GNU FDL 1.3 can and, as per the cause of our disagreement, that Vark was technically given the right to control distribution on this site. Come to think of it, if someone else did re-upload the content, could the clause still be invoked since Vark is still "primary author" in absolute terms of original idea and content contributed to the work? But I digress.--GamerAim (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

I don't think this was arguing with me, but the GNU FDL still requires attribution, does it not? I could be wrong - it's been awhile since I acted as legal adviser here - but that was my understanding that we'd have to attribute Vark, regardless. Of course, you may also have a point that Vark cannot release the edits of others under public domain, just her own, which could theoretically complicate matters of absolving attribution.--GamerAim (talk) 15:57, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Actually, if I understand you correctly here, we're completely in agreement. Yes, the GNU FDL requires attribution, and it expressly states that such is one of its primary purposes. As it turns out, I completely understand the desire of a creator to license to a publisher, even if whether or not their work will be respected is questionable; as a self-published author myself, my main goal is to have as many eyes as possible on my work, in an attempt to broaden the perspectives of my readers, even if in some small way. Unfortunately, passion alone cannot save this page or any other, and I really do mean that. If passion were all it took, my life, and the lives of many others would be much better off. What this all really means is that, again, there was no reason to oppose the deletion in the first place, because the, I'm sorry, shady legal policies of this wiki mean that Varkarrus only has the copyright to the versions of the page where she was the only person to edit it. D&DW will, forever, retain the rights to host a copy of her idea and edit it, as well as distribute it freely because of the license. Luckily, however, that doesn't give D&DW or any editor of the page after her rights to royalties and the like, should she publish the race in an entirely original state - but the license to edit and redistribute the copy here on the wiki will never go away. --Max7238 (talk) 16:11, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

Yes, that's completely right. Vark retains all copyrights on her original content (though it should be noted, for the record, the concept and name of this race are not her original creations, just this implementation), but she also used that copyright to publish a copy under the GNU FDL 1.3, which gives anyone the legal right (where applicable) to republish the work within the stipulations of said license. She's legally entitled to publish the race outside of the GNU FDL 1.3 on DriveThruRPG or anywhere else so long as she isn't publishing the copyrighted material of any other entity without permission.

I would ask, as a personal favor, that you do not refer to D&D Wiki as having "shady legal policies." There are times when users post without understanding the implications, but Vark knew what she was doing and had time to stop posting content if she didn't want it to be released under the GNU FDL 1.3. She chose to host her content on this platform, and by default all content posted (including this talk page) is released under that license, which entitles anyone to reproduce it without express written permission. As I said, if Vark wanted stricter control, there are other avenues she could have taken. She was not tricked or coerced into hosting her content on this website.

And so, since Vark willingly hosted her content on a platform (initially) dedicated to the preservation and communal development of homebrew, I believe that is sufficient grounds - in principle - to oppose the deletion. The terms of hosting content here are quite clear, and they do not include, "until you dislike us." D&D Wiki is not a storage container.--GamerAim (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

You're absolutely right. I'll retract the shady comment, but it would be reassuring if the site at least had a user agree upon signing up so they were expressly aware. --Max7238 (talk) 18:07, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

To note: there are IP addresses who edit pages, so a disclaimer after account creation serves no purpose. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

• Oppose Quite a negligible thing to do, but GA explained things so well. ~ BigShotFancyMan 08:46, 5 June 2019 (MDT)

It's been two weeks now, so I'm closing this debate in favour of oppose. I would want to see a majority vote in order to support deletion: as discussed above we are under no obligation to do so and the page does not fulfil any other deletion criteria. Therefore I believe that the decision to remove the page should be near unanimous. Marasmusine (talk) 08:18, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

I'm sorry, excuse me? Have you read the discussion? Have you read policy? There's absolutely no point made for keeping this page except "but I want it to stay," while there's any number of reasons it should be gone!! And you just kinda walk over and go "nah, I don't feel like it"?! Yup. Leaving this community as soon as this stuff blows over. Not coming back. Unbelievable. --Max7238 (talk) 10:01, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

GA made good points beyond “I want this gone”. ~ BigShotFancyMan 11:13, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

Ok, cool, and your vote amounted to "ditto," with no additional discussion. --Max7238 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

To answer your questions Max, yes and yes. What part of Help:Deletion_Policy#Request of sole significant contributor do you think I haven't read? Marasmusine (talk) 11:22, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

The talk page, probably. I haven't been fighting this for over two weeks for you to just walk up and "meh" and walk away. There's no reason for this page not to be deleted as requested, I repeat, beyond people not wanting it gone who did nothing for it. Yeah, ok, license is perpetual. Not the point. --Max7238 (talk) 11:35, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

Discussion of policy change is not the same as policy. If the policy does change, you can make a new deletion proposal (on behalf of Varkarrus). Don't dismiss my two-week closure as a "meh", please, when I've read everything and remained impartial (you'll remember that I voted for deletion). Marasmusine (talk) 11:54, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

There shouldn't need to be another proposal. Consensus isn't a vote, as Green Dragon so graciously pointed out by linking me to the w:Wikipedia:Consensus article. "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which is ideal but not always achievable), neither is it the result of a vote."

Therefore, the points for deletion are:

"There is one primary contributor which is the author, and said author is the one to issue the request"

"I do not consider the diffs provided to represent a significant contribution, and I retract my own contributions" from you yourself

"A statement from the sole significant contributor of the article requesting that this page be removed from D&D Wiki, using (template), is a valid reason for the page's deletion."

"A version of the article can return upon its deletion, for one thing. For another, the length of time an article has existed seems a tad irrelevant to whether or not it should be deleted by request from the sole significant contributor. Even further, the author has offered to create a back-up .pdf version by request, so it's not as though the content will disappear for good - in this state or in one that follows the conventions and guidelines of this wiki."

And the points against are:

"If the article can be restored upon deletion, deletion is a waste of time"

"The license to edit and redistribute the copy here on the wiki will never go away."

Which would be four points for and two points against, with two votes for and two votes against, one of which is almost literally "yeah, what he said," with no contribution to either side other than existing. How about we invite some other people to actually speak up and give their opinions instead of lurking and watching it unfold, because if this page is "a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki" then more people should be invested in it staying or going. Even further, I would argue that if the deletion request is not honored, it's even more of an example that policy needs to change because of its current potential for abuse. --Max7238 (talk) 13:19, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

That's not how I evaluated it, and the way you summarized the points is biased. People have had two weeks to weigh in, I'm not going to extended it further just because you didn't get result you wanted. Marasmusine (talk) 14:23, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

Sorry Max, but I agree with Marasmusine. When (if?) the deletion policy changes, anyone can feel free to re-propose this for deletion on Varkarrus' behalf. — Geodude (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 15:01, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

If everything has been pointed out clearly, and thoroughly, what more can I add? My comment is supporting just what GA said. Should I repost it and waste everyone’s time as I am now with this comment explaining my “vote”. Please don’t twist my comment into some meaningless commentary. ~ BigShotFancyMan 15:11, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

If it's biased, please, explain what it is I'm missing. Continue the discussion. How did you evaluate it? Also, there'll be no need to make a new proposal on Varkarrus' behalf, because what Varkarrus received was only a temporary ban. Varkarrus is more than capable of commenting on the matter - I just hope it's in a civil manner so it doesn't disturb any of you and cause you to view any points made as invalid. --Max7238 (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

First of all, I should remind you again that the relevant policies are: a) the sole significant contributor can request a deletion, b) there is a two-week period in which the proposal can be discussed, c) the page can be deleted if no-one objects. Since there were objections, the page is not deleted.

However, to be generous, I also decided to look at consensus. I should point out that I spent many years as a Wikipedia admin adjudicating deletion proposals, so I'm not jumping into this blindly. Here we are looking to see if we should ignore the policy and deletion the page anyway. For this, the weight of opinion from established editors should be a factor, and it should be an overwhelming opinion. I gauged this using the opinions in this "vote" and in the larger discussion.

Finally, if you pick "points for and against", please be fair. For example, I retracted by contributions so that the page would be eligible for the deletion proposal, as a courtesy to you, but this itself isn't a point for deletion. Look, I can bias it the other way: the points for deletion are: 1) The primary contributor (and advocate) requests it. The points against are 1) The page adds value to the wiki, 2) The wiki is legally able to host it, 3) Established editors want it kept, 4) Consensus and policy might change such that a new proposal can be made anyway.

That's my final word on the matter as the closing admin. If you still take issue with this you ought to take it up with one of the Bureaucrats[2]. Marasmusine (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

Comment So, hey, since this article isn't good enough to be "quality" or "featured," would it be reasonable to assume that now it could be deleted per the request of the content creator? Or would this just spark a carbon copy of the previous debate, since deletion policy wasn't even touched after all the controversy, as if that much argument alone wasn't a big enough red flag to have it rewritten? --Max7238 (talk) 10:20, 24 October 2019 (MDT)

nothing changed...so I think you got a good hunch about that carbon copy stuff.   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   11:46, 24 October 2019 (MDT)

Dullahan Racial Traits

With the closing of the previous thread, its outcome and the issues with the pages current revision. Would it be reasonable to bring over the racial traits from the Dullahan,_True_(5e_Race) to be merged over the current traits? —ConcealedLight (talk) 03:43, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

I'd like some feedback on those alternate traits, so maybe we can discuss it over there first. I'll restate that the goal of those traits is so that the race has a noncontroversial core profile suitable for any campaign (so that it qualifies for QA) and then a variant with the tricker-to-handle traits of this original race. Marasmusine (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2019 (MDT)

As there has been no discussion in the past year regarding this, I am going ahead with ConcealedLight's suggestion and merging the two articles. Marasmusine (talk) 17:57, 3 March 2020 (MST)

Sure, do what you want. Everyone around here does anyway. Besides, the real version of this creation, as the author intended, exists elsewhere now. --Max7238 (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2020 (MST)

Oppose This article has been around for a good long awhile and I consider it a sort of cultural cornerstone of D&D Wiki, regardless (or, perhaps, because) of the disputes regarding its balance.--GamerAim (talk) 13:54, 4 June 2019 (MDT) So much for the "cultural cornerstone" mentality that made several people oppose deletion. --Max7238 (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2020 (MST)

People have had 9 months to respond to this topic and to give feedback on the proposed changes. Marasmusine (talk) 16:19, 8 March 2020 (MDT)

I opposed the deletion, but I also thought the page wasn't balanced. Users attempting to make this more playable I won't oppose. After all, that's what we are here for. Many users' ideas take on different looks from when first introduced and it isn't an insult to have work collaborated on and improved. Cheers! Red Leg Leo (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2020 (MDT)

Personal thought here, why can't the Cursed version be able to speak? It has no head, sure, but it still has a neck. It would still have vocal chords. It would sound different than normal language but it would still speak. I'm only bringing this up so players won't feel restricted when using this variant. Glass (talk) 11:51, 8 March 2020 (MDT)

It's such a small matter that I think that it can be up to the player. It doesn't change the overall balance. Marasmusine (talk) 16:06, 8 March 2020 (MDT)

The creature would be able to make noise, but they wouldn't really be able to talk. At the very least, no one would be able to understand them. Just listening to someone who doesn't have a tongue is hard enough to understand. However, I don't see any reason that the character couldn't just speak because they're a magical creature and it just works. --PJammaz (talk) 23:45, 8 March 2020 (MDT)

Can we not debate science of this headless predicament? Mara said it great, if a player wants to speak , discuss with DM. Red Leg Leo (talk) 10:23, 9 March 2020 (MDT)

That's okay, discussing minutiae until we are thirteen colons deep is this community's forte :) Marasmusine (talk) 12:38, 9 March 2020 (MDT)