Talk:3.5e Complex Special Ability Components

To Do

• Put Author template back to "old" verison for non-users.

Done

• Categorize all spells and powers.--Dmilewski 07:03, 30 March 2007 (MDT)
• Move all spells to the spell template. --Dmilewski 07:03, 30 March 2007 (MDT)
• Change Epic spells to the Epic Spell template.--Dmilewski 18:16, 31 March 2007 (MDT)
• Change Powers to the Powers template.--Dmilewski 18:16, 31 March 2007 (MDT)

Done.

Well I am done adding all the spells I have made to date. Given that I did some editing/adding on as I posted them to make them fully up to date.

I hope you like them and ill most likely add on more as time goes on.

Law

Wow

Wow, these are awesome, thanks so much. You did an excellent job, and you put quite a bit up, thank you.

Green_Dragon

Great stuff

There are some really cool spells on here and I'm genuinely impressed by the authors (although one author is definitely obsessed with jelly!). Great work guys!

--Sand-reckoner 23:39, 15 March 2006 (MST)

The Corrupt spell is not a domain spell

Yes the spell I have posted is not of the Corrupt domain. It is just a Corrupt spell. Please try and see the difference.

Law

Oh

Oh, sorry for the misunderstanding, I saw that you fixed them though, thanks.

--Green Dragon 14:21, 18 March 2006 (MST)

You mean tried to fix it

Yes I did my best but it does not show up on the top. But I think you can fix that.

Is it just me or has it become more resistant to change?

Law

Edit: Ok found what was wrong :).

Updated Categories

Added categories for School, Subschool, and Effect of all existing user spells.--Dmilewski 19:20, 20 February 2007 (MST)

Looks good, thanks for doing that. --Green Dragon 14:17, 21 February 2007 (MST)

Standardized all the basic formatting. Implemented the Author template everywhere. Next I'll go in and actually edit the damned things. They are all looking MUCH better already. --Dmilewski 20:54, 22 February 2007 (MST)

BTW, the Author template is only used for a D&D Wiki user, the '''Author:''' _____ was formatted correctly. The Author templates for non-users need to be put back to the old version to be formatted correctly (sorry). --Green Dragon 10:17, 25 February 2007 (MST)

"Magic" Category

So I'm looking that the spell links and I notice the "Magic" spells. This one threw me a bit (aren't all spells magic?) until I realized it refers to the magic domain (which already has a set list of spells). I think it would be good to put the links to spell groups under the headers "class" and "domain." —Sledged (talk) 11:20, 1 March 2007 (MST)

I agree. --Green Dragon 16:19, 1 March 2007 (MST)

Oh, and one more for epic spells and seeds since they don't fall in either of the previous categories. —Sledged (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2007 (MST)

Added Categories

I added some categories for the various spells schools. I am sure that the formatting on the page will get a bit tweaked to make it nicer that I made it. --Dmilewski 19:33, 7 March 2007 (MST)

Any ideas on how to make this look nice? I can't think of any - all I know is that right now it looks bad. --Green Dragon 20:35, 7 March 2007 (MST)

I made a few changes, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it, yet. —Sledged (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2007 (MST)

DLPC for Spells/Powers

This will make them more in line with Player's Handbook entries. I think this would be a pretty cool project to get going. The idea goes to Mkill. --Aarnott 07:57, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

I agree, it would be helpful. Anyway, what would all the columns be? Would it be the exact same as the PHB or should we add more information into the tables? --Green Dragon 11:45, 14 August 2007 (MDT)

I did get something to work: Apprentice' Fireball (DnD Spell), User:Mkill/Spell list, Template:Spell Description. The downside is that I didn't get the template to create a list, so the layout is based on a table. The difference is in how longer entries do a line break. In the end, it works too.

Shoot me. Now it works. --Mkill 09:46, 16 August 2007 (MDT)

I like it, I say implement it :). However, one last question does remain... Does the dplc go on the top or the bottom? --Green Dragon 10:57, 16 August 2007 (MDT)

Wherever. For some reason, adding a dplc tends to add a line break to the page and screw up the layout. So add it whereever it doesn't. --Mkill 17:58, 16 August 2007 (MDT)

I was more asking do we want the dplc to be found in the "Back to" footer (not standard for D&D Wiki - however it may eliminate a top area of non-content) or at the top (standard on D&D Wiki - however it makes the pages' content stuck between two blobs of formatting and wiki things). I vote for the bottom (after the main part of the "Back to" footer however before the categories). --Green Dragon 13:51, 18 August 2007 (MDT)

Invocations

This needs an invocation section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.45.118.234 (talk • contribs) 11:21 2007-10-27 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

And utterances, and stances, and mysteries, and soulmelds, etc... The place for them is spells and powers, and yes, it needs a better name since it's for more than just spells and powers. —Sledged (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2007 (MDT)

I've created some links. Follow them to create the pages and add your invocations. —Sledged (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2007 (MDT)

Ideas for a good name? --Green Dragon 23:11, 30 October 2007 (MDT)

Other than something like "Spells/Powers/Invocations/Vestiges/Etc...," I can't think of anything that's all-encompassing. Each group of abilities are a sets that use their own mechanics that are defined outside the core rules (except spells and powers of course), and many of them apply to more than one class. Those that don't can easily have new classes built that use them. —Sledged (talk) 15:06, 12 November 2007 (MST)

Magical Abilities? Not sure if that would work for all of them though... or if it would be to broad... I guess I'm going with the "Thrown a whole bunch of stuff against the wall to see if it sticks." --Green Dragon 19:50, 14 November 2007 (MST)

I'd go with DnD Spells and Similar Abilities...it's broad enough to cover everything, at least. --Daniel Draco 19:57, 14 November 2007 (MST)

So far, the following is what would be included in this area: spells, powers, infusions, invocations, soulmelds, vestiges, utterances, mysteries, stances, and maneuvers.

"Magical Abilities" doesn't cover everything, and it is too broad. It doesn't cover powers because they are psionic, and some stances and maneuvers are exceptional abilities. It's too broad because spell-like abilities and (most) supernatural abilities are magical. "Spells and Similar Abilities" suffers similar problems. Either one might work, anyway, if we rely heavily on the descriptive subtext. —Sledged (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2007 (MST)

"Complex Special Ability Mechanisms?" —Sledged (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2007 (MST)

It covers all bases, even though it may be a little overboard... However, I think it is the only example that will cover all the bases, so sure. I say change it. --Green Dragon 21:33, 29 November 2007 (MST)

Actually, "Complex Special Ability Components" would be a better fit. The difference is like that between the rules regarding spells (mechanism) and the individual spells themselves (components). —Sledged (talk) 12:03, 30 November 2007 (MST)

That works as well... Once again, I say let's change it. --Green Dragon 23:19, 4 December 2007 (MST)

Vestiges, mysteries, souldmelds etc.

Is there a place for these yet? I've found a bunch just floating around. -Risek

I made a vestige branch so that I could post my wierd vestige Idea. Gruegirl 12:24, 8 August 2008 (MDT)

"Techniques"

Well I created the Ninja Class, not be mistaken for the less complete Jutsu Ninja class, and gave them "Techniques". I know that Ninjutsu and Genjutsu can easily fall into the Spell category, but it would a shame to make Taijutsu monk techniques. Also, since these techniques are used in whole different manner than normal spells, (somewhat similar to Ki Techniques... which I surprised there's not a category for that. Didn't the Book of Ki inspire anybody to create Ki Techniques?) I feel it would be appopriate a whole new category to be made, maybe even a template too. But this is just a suggestion if anybody has any better ideas to how I should tackle this, just speak up. By the way... How do you sign pages? -- Eroneko

Seeing as how I've taken over the Jutsu Ninja (now shinobi) and I'm hoping to round out the five pages I've committed to before adding new ones (so hard!), I'd be interested in how to do this as well. Creating separate templates for ninjutsu, taijutsu, genjutsu, and so forth might seem excessive, but if I can make it rather complete I feel its worth the effort. If someone could help me out, maybe give me a template (I tried fiddling with the psionics one--let's just say the results weren't too pretty) that would be greatly appreciated. As far as signing your name (above question) use four tildes (shift + accent mark) for name and date, or just three for name. -- Jota 13:12, 30 January 2009 (MST)

Category Addition Fail

So, short story long: I had noinclude tags on the 3.5e Grim Alterations page so I could embed it into the Grim page to save on data size, but that was bad, because then it wouldn't let the 3.5e Grim Alterations page show up on the list here. So, I trashed the noinclude tags, and now SRD:Sacred Spell mysteriously shows up there. Any reason why this might be happening? It is kinda driving me nuts. Any help at all would be appreciated. --Ganteka 23:54, 19 June 2009 (MDT)

this is interesting...the same "SRD: sacred spell" thing is also somehow in the list for all homebrew base classes :/ I have absolutely no idea if it's related or just a freak coincidence. --TheWarforgedArtificer 11:23, 20 June 2009 (MDT)

DPL Item Count

Most of the item counts aren't working. I can't figure out what's wrong in the wiki code, any ideas? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Modroben (talk • contribs) 18:42, 24 November 2012‎ (MST). Please sign your posts.

I changed the code to work with the category shift. Better now? --Green Dragon (talk) 22:39, 24 November 2012 (MST)

Well it still doesn't list the number of items in some of the categories. Modroben (talk) 23:08, 24 November 2012 (MST)

Maybe I'm misunderstanding how it's supposed to work. The page should list whatever is in each category in the code right? Modroben (talk)

Ah-hah, I figured it out because I am a clever little monkey. Modroben (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2012 (MST)

Likely that is because they had formatting problems around their organization. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2013 (MDT)