Talk:3.5e Class Preload

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Unlock please?[edit]

Can someone unprotect this page. It is going to be included in the header with instructions whenever someone wants to add a new class. In addition, it needs a couple of categories added to the template, and needs to be in the Category:Templates itself. Thanks. --Oneiros 15:31, 18 July 2006 (MDT)


See Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?. --Cúthalion 21:38, 10 March 2007 (MST)

I unprotected this if that is what this discussion is about... --Green Dragon 14:04, 11 March 2007 (MDT)
It looks better - thanks a lot for doing that. Would you mind of I lock it again or do you want me to keep it open for a bit longer? --Green Dragon 23:13, 12 March 2007 (MDT)

Wizards new Format is Irrelevant[edit]

Discussion moved from Talk:Knight, Tome (3.5e Class)#Rating.

Formatting - 2/5 I give this class a 2 out of 5 because this does not follow the preload and links to the SRD are missing, --Green Dragon 11:59, 16 April 2009 (MDT)

Flavor - 3/5 I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the only flavor text which is present does not follow the preloads form and no example NPC is present. --Green Dragon 11:59, 16 April 2009 (MDT)

Okay, before this goes any further, I think these ratings are total nonsense. The missing sections of the preload are redundant crap that was added in to 3.5 halfway through its lifecycle to increase page count in books without increasing effort put into it. The problem is not with this class, the problem is with the preload -- that crap should not be required to get a 5 in Formatting. And for flavor...who cares if the flavor doesn't go in the previously-discussed sections of the preload? Surgo 19:01, 16 April 2009 (MDT)
More to the point, who the hell cares if there's no example NPC? Do you really need a flavourless stat block for an npc to tell you anything about the class? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prak (talkcontribs) 10:42, 13 May 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.
Do you need one? No. Is it required to get a 5/5 on flavor? Yes. Why? Because we use Wizards newest revised third edition model for the layout of classes, and in that model an NPC is present. Why is it in the flavor category? Because people are not looking through the classes for NPC's, the example NPC is added to show the player what can be done with the class. --Green Dragon 12:09, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
The poignant question here is "what the hell does that have to do with flavor?" Because I really don't see what it has to do with the class's flavor. Looks like it would go under formatting to me (a rating that I maintain is dumb), not flavor. Surgo 12:56, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Well the formatting side of it (on the non-transcluded page) is just {{:Example NPC (DnD NPC)}}. If any page is added their (made or not) it fits the formatting rating. --Green Dragon 13:09, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Can we talk about why we're doing ratings this way? Because I'll be honest, it seems pretty dumb. Formatting I can maybe understand, but flavor? Example NPCs are nothing but stat blocks. They have nothing to do with how cool or interesting the class is. Surgo 13:28, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
But they show what the class can do. What cool or interesting things the class can do. Formatting is simply how well the page (comparably in edit mode) is formatted. Yes, the NPC in question does need to be formatted as well (and if the formatting is off on that page Template:Wikify would have to be added to that page). The reason this is so confusing is because it is a transclusion. So the transclusion page has all the six major areas as well. Balance, Formatting, Wording, Flavor/Completness (stub), Image, and possible removal. However the class rating system only uses Balance, Formatting, Wording, and Flavor (with the completeness factor being weather or not an example NPC is present). The issue is that not all of these ratings should be transcluded onto the class page. Only a few. The balance comes from the class in question, so the NPC's balance rating should already be covered. Formatting comes from the NPC page, it is irrelivent in the transclusion because formatting (as I said above) is simply how well the page (comparably in edit mode) is formatted. Aka the NPC's formatting does not show up in the edit mode on the classes page. The wording area could (and probably should) be dealt with in both areas as well, since it displays on both pages. Flavor/Completness (stub) should only be dealt with on the NPC page, but the rating (aka need of a template) goes to the classes page as well. This is because the transclusion of the NPC deals with showing what the class can do, aka it relates to both pages. Images as well as possible removal should just be dealt with on the NPC's page (seeing as they are not even class rating areas in any case). --Green Dragon 14:04, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
I don't think you're quite understanding your question, which is "why is a sample NPC needed to get a good flavor rating". If you want to show what a class can do, you're generally going to need five or six examples of it in use, not one. Whether the class is interesting, and has good flavor text -- this should be all that's important for flavor rating, not the presence or lack thereof of an example NPC which only a few people even look at anyway. Surgo 14:25, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
That's just it. It's the flavor or what it can do. It's not "this is everything this class can do". Aka it's the first option of the two options presented in your post above which dealt with what an example NPC entails. I don't think you understand what I said above. --Green Dragon 14:30, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Now you're just totally confusing me. What a class can do is, well, its mechanics. The flavor, in every use I've seen, refers to its fluff. Surgo 14:33, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Here is one exception. Flavor is not always fluff, just for most content it fills that area. With classes flavor fills the area of possibility and fluff. --Green Dragon 14:42, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
I ask the rest of the wiki then: what do you guys think? I've always related "flavor" purely to "fluff" and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone here. Surgo 14:46, 13 May 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

If you want to do it like that then please explain your reasoning as to why example NPC's should be considered formatting. This is not a democracy, this is based of logic. --Green Dragon 14:48, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
I'm quite aware it's based off of logic and not democracy, but you're using completely different premises to your logical argument. Hence, I want to see how many people are actually agreeing with those premises because I have always seen flavor = fluff, not really involving the mechanics except how they are described. Why example NPCs should be formatting and not flavor: because in past discussions like this you said missing parts of the preload meant a hit to formatting. The example NPC is a part of the preload that I and others cut out because we don't like it. You said that would be a hit to formatting, not flavor. Ergo, considered formatting. Surgo 14:51, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Could you please reference where I said that? On Talk:DnD Base Classes#Some Rating Nonsense Needs to Stop I said the exact same as here. --Green Dragon 14:57, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
I was incorrectly remembering what you said, then. To copy the quotes: "Formatting is how well it adheres to D&D Wiki's formatting guidlines (as laid out in the preload). If one has a problem with the preload it should be brought up on its corresponding talk page." Then you also go on to say something different about the example NPC: "but the example NPC does fall under flavor since one is not reading the class for the NPC, but rather reading the NPC for an example of the class. Aka a bit of flavor added onto the class". So, uh, which parts of the preload fall under formatting and which fall under flavor, exactly?
I can see your points, but I certainly do not agree with them. I maintain that requiring the following of the latter-3.5 standards as the only option is bad, and the earlier-3.5 standards should be sufficient as well. Why do I think it's bad to require the latter-3.5 standards? Having written stuff here and elsewhere, I know that for me the interesting part is actually writing the class and mechanics. All the nonsense like "X in the game", "sample encounter" and "sample NPC" is boring filler that everyone ignores when it comes time to actually play any of the classes or prestige classes in a game anyway. I hate writing them, and when it comes time to play them, no one bothers reading them. Surgo 15:04, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Then that issue would have to be brought up on the preloads talk page. --Green Dragon 15:08, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Then let's move or copy this discussion there? Surgo 15:16, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Sure. --Green Dragon 15:18, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
To break into your dialogue, I've always thought of flavor as a combination of mechanics and fluff. How interesting/unique/fun-to-play is this both from a mechanical standpoint and what has been written in the fluff portions of the page. That could be me not reading the parameters correctly, but hey, it is what it is. -- Jota 15:20, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
So this was just copied, as said. And now the issue has been brought up on this page, as you said it needed to be. Surgo 15:27, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
It's your move. Why do you want the preload changed? What is your logic for the change? Other then saying it's just filler... I mean, what do you mean by "filler"? --Green Dragon 15:38, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
If I may interject. This topic seems rather nit-picky. Flavor has to do with fluff, yes, because we all like to imagine stuff. BUT, flavor also is also something of how the mechanics of the class in question work into the game. The NPC implementation is a nice example of this because you can add the the class's features and mix/match them with a different class or interesting races. If people want to look into the class more (eg Research), they can examine the specs of the NPC to see what the character is capable of. -- Silver 15:49, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
We already determined that flavor has more to do with something then just fluff. --Green Dragon 15:53, 13 May 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Actually, I was pretty sure I was the last one who spoke before the move (aside from saying "we need to do the move") but sure, I'll speak again. I don't want the preload changed (where did I say I did?). I want the standards for judging classes changed. The preload is actually quite fine -- because if you want to ignore the new 3.5 format and use the old 3.5 format, all you need to do is strip out the bottom portions. What I mean by filler, I thought it was pretty clear -- when it comes time to use the class in a game, it gets ignored. When was the last time anyone actually used the temple of Tem-et-Nu, the Dusty Conclave (both part of Sandstorm classes if you didn't know -- which you probably didn't, because no one does) or any other guild or organization introduced as part of the new 3.5 format, in a game? Nobody reads it and, as a result, I don't like writing it. It's not even part of the original 3.5 format found in the Dungeon Master's Guide for prestige classes, or the Player's Handbook for base classes. So, yeah, that's why I call it "filler". Surgo 16:19, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
So you are saying we should change how we rate classes because people are inherently lazy and people do not read or use the information of a class, save the mechanical sections? I disagree. I find the "fluff" information interesting and I feel that it adds flavor to the article. Also you cannot pull specific information sections presented in some Sandstorm classes and say "why is that not in the preload?" because that information is specific to that class. It's comparable to someone adding a deity, creature, etc specific to a class and then saying "why is a creature not inherently in the preload?". --Green Dragon 20:43, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
Please stop horribly misrepresenting my argument. I never pulled specific sections out of Sandstorm and asked why they weren't in the preload. I pulled specific sections out of Sandstorm that are in the preload as points that those parts are worthless. Also, since when did I say get rid of fluff? Every Tome class I uploaded has lots of it, despite not having the preload sections. Surgo 20:49, 13 May 2009 (MDT)
I must be confused as to what you are saying. Do you mean Tem-et-Nu (a sandstorm deity), is added to the class preload as a ...? Or "The Dusty Conclave" (a sandstorm encounter) is added the to the preload as a ...? I think I am confused. --Green Dragon 18:13, 14 May 2009 (MDT)
Those are both concepts that were used as filler in part of standard sections that can be found in the preload. They are also concepts that no one cares about and no one outside of the designers have ever used in a game. Surgo 18:15, 14 May 2009 (MDT)
Could you please show where a deity and encounter section are in the preload? Maybe we should just discuss what changes you think would help the preload or rating system instead of arguing over whether or not a deity or encounter section are present in the preload. --Green Dragon 20:21, 14 May 2009 (MDT)
Well, the preload has a "sample encounter" section under the "Class in the Game" section, which I've found one of the more pesky requirements to fulfill. -- Jota 20:25, 14 May 2009 (MDT)
See: even you, Green Dragon, don't recognize the kind of crap that Wizards of the Coast actually puts in those sections of the preload. If that's not a sign that they are really unnecessary and shouldn't be required, I don't know what is. What changes would help the preload? None, it's fine as is. What changes would help the rating system? Sticking to either of the 3.5 standards (as opposed to only the latter standard) would be fine with me. Surgo 20:59, 14 May 2009 (MDT)
3.5e Quests#Encounters. And Surgo you want to make the rating system adhere to the 3.5e core rulebook class preload and not the more recent 3.5e class preload? --Green Dragon 22:24, 16 May 2009 (MDT)
I'd like for it to be pretty neutral about it, in the sense of: "either one works; if you go the extra mile and actually include all that crap, good for you and some people might think your article is better -- but it's not required for the 5s". Surgo 22:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)
(Seems like I read this discussion a little late) So, Surgo, are you saying that a person could simply find this website one day (lets say they are an english teacher who has spent time on wikipedia, and therefore knows wiki-code) and decide to, on a whim, make a class. They spend one hour on it, slapping on 3 spell like abilities, a movement bonus, and some other abilities. Then they come to the halfway point of the class, and say, "I don't feel like filling this out," and delete it all. Now then, everyone agrees that the class is extremely well balanced (despite what effort that actually went into it), and the fluff is something that catches peoples eyes enough to make it want to be played. By your standards, this class would be getting a 20/20. That is simply moronic. A 20/20 is Featured Article material. This person has gone to no lengths to actually put effort into the class, and, honestly, if you looked at me and told me that a page that I spent a full month working on was only as good as a page that someone spent a single hour to make, I'd loose all respect for you. Now then, I see that you only started caring about the way things were rated when Frank & K's classes were getting bad ratings for them. Now then, I am not insinuating anything, but it could be assumed that you are only caring about the rating system to get Frank & K's classes better ratings. If this were true though, I would only have one thing to say to you: "Stop trying to rewrite everyones ways of thinking just to accomidate you and your idols, and get started on putting the effort forward to make these pages WORTH a 20, cause, right now, they still get 2's and 2.5's on their formatting rating." → Rith (talk) 01:30, 17 May 2009 (MDT)
The reason I didn't care until the classes I uploaded had rates on them is because nobody was rating anything until Sledged split the classes into rated and unrated, and then everything got rated! Seriously, it's a coincidence of timing.
There's a bit more to it than what you're arguing. This is more than "flavor that actually catches your eye". For one thing, the Pumpkin King is probably the most flavorful thing on the entire wiki and yet under the system we are currently working under, it would only get a 3/5 for flavor (according to Green Dragon), something that I find completely and totally wrong. No, by my standards, the class wouldn't necessarily get a 20/20 -- flavor that's just enough to "catch peoples eye" probably isn't getting a 5/5. And, quite simply, it doesn't really matter how much work went into it -- the final product is what's important, not what it took to get there. There's a huge difference between how much work you put into something and how good it actually is. Just because you put work into something doesn't mean it's 5/5s around the board. A lot of times, people put work into something and it ends up being absolute junk. Just the way it is. I don't really care if somebody spent an hour on something or a month on something -- what gets rated is the final product.
And finally, note that what I want is the ability to use the actual standard used by Wizards for half of the 3.5 lifecycle as well as the ability to put the actual flavor parts, and other such details, in sections that people might actually read and care about. (Hint: those sections aren't the stuff I usually delete from the preload when I upload something.) That information can and should go somewhere else where people might actually read it. Same information, only placed significantly better. And following the earlier WotC format while we're at it. I don't see how following the format outlined in the Player's Handbook is deserving of a rate-down at all. Surgo 02:13, 17 May 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

(First off, I'd like to recant the end of my first statement above I was rather upset when I wrote it, and that may have held a sway in what it stated) Well Surgo, I disagree with Green Dragon on that point actually, since a classes flavor is indepentant of what is in the page, and simply a reflection on what the class is (Though, another arguement against that would be, "If thats all that flavor ratings went off of, then every single class would have a 5/5 for flavor," but I won't touch on that point personally). Secondly, yes, a strawman is a fallacy of logic, and I apoligize for making one above, but missing the point is one too. I am simply saying that a class needs some at least somewhat rigid guidelines in the area of formatting, and my example was merely an attempt to illustrate what might happen should those guidlines be loosened. → Rith (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2009 (MDT)
Yeah, I mean, I can buy that. I think we already went over in the tavern how we fundamentally disagree on the formatting thing -- where I think following the Player's Handbook and Complete Warrior is okay, and you think otherwise (that the current way is good). Surgo 02:38, 17 May 2009 (MDT)
Following the core rulebooks preload is not the standard because it is an out-dated preload. Okay, I have no idea what you want. Do you want two variant rating systems; one for the core rulebooks preload and one for the more recent wizards preload? That's ridiculous. Unless you think that Wizards made a mistake moving from the preload in the players handbook to their more modern preload for classes. If it's not that then you want to create a lazy way out and that's not an option (for obvious reasons). Or are you saying that flavor should be independent of the preload? That's also ridiculous. Flavor does need some guidelines as well. --Green Dragon 23:49, 17 May 2009 (MDT)
Here is exactly what I want (I could have sworn I posted this before): the ability to use either the core rulebooks' standard, or the more recent standard. There aren't two "variant rating systems" required -- it can be the same rating system. I fail to see what's so ridiculous about that, considering how it's the standard followed by the Player's Handbook. And yes, I do think it was a mistake to universally move to this new format, for reasons I mentioned over and over and over again in this argument (such as how useless the sections are). In addition, I'm saying flavor should be independent of the sample NPC -- requiring that for a flavor rating is beyond ridiculous. Giving the Pumpkin King a 3/5 for flavor because it lacks a sample NPC is beyond ridiculous. Surgo 12:46, 18 May 2009 (MDT)
If you can refute my logic as to why NPC's are part of flavor then it can be discussed again. If not then stop bringing old issues up. And how would aspects such as formatting apply to both preloads? And seriously - the new preload is more inclusive. Once again, if you can refute my logic as to why the "extraneous" sections do not even exist, as they are just a figment of your imagination, then it can be discussed again. If not please stop brining old issues up. What you need to do is bring up logic as to why the old preload is better then the new - instead of just saying people do not like the more inclusive new preload. --Green Dragon 17:04, 19 May 2009 (MDT)
Whoa whoa whoa. Hold the phone.
"What you need to do is bring up logic as to why the old preload is better then the new - instead of just saying people do not like the more inclusive new preload."
Are you seriously trying to tell me that because people don't like it is not a good enough reason on a website that entirely exists because people like stuff here and like posting stuff? If so, then I think this conversation is over because that is completely and totally ridiculous -- because people don't like it is a 100% valid reason and if you don't think so then, quite simply, you are wrong and if you can't be convinced otherwise than I'm done. (In addition: "If you can refute my logic as to why NPC's are part of flavor then it can be discussed again" -- post your logic in a formal proof and I will be happy to do so, otherwise I can't really post a refutation because I have no idea what your logical chain actually is. In addition, how are these "old issues"? These are issues that came up that we are discussing right now, an issue that started in this very thread.) Surgo 00:14, 20 May 2009 (MDT)
As of now you are the only person I have heard of complain about the new preload. Other then that I will try to explain my logic above in simpler terms.
System 1: Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles
System 2: Rating System
Issue: Implementing system 1 into system 2 because of transcluded NPC.
Cut out useless ratings and aspects from system 1:
  • Balance - This is already dealt with in classes balance rating. Aka no.
  • Wording - This appears on both pages. Aka applies to the rating of classes as well. Aka yes.
  • Formatting - This only applies with the layout while in edit mode. Aka no.
  • Stub (Flavor in class rating system) - The transclusion of the NPC deals with showing what the class can do, aka it relates to both pages. Aka yes.
  • Needs Image - This is not present in the class rating system.
  • Deletion - This is not present in the class rating system.
Hope this helps, and next time please read my post a little better. --Green Dragon 19:45, 21 May 2009 (MDT)
I have no idea what your "Aka: no/yes" is supposed to mean, but I'm guessing it's supposed to do with the including NPC pages thing. Yeah, I get that if you're going to include an NPC, it should probably impact the overall class rating. But what if you don't include an NPC? What I'm trying to say is that that shouldn't be required. And it especially shouldn't be required under flavor.
If for some reason we really need some rating category to make the example NPC into, make it into formatting or something. Surgo 22:09, 21 May 2009 (MDT)
So you are arguing that an NPC should not be standard in the preload now? Also, the no and yes state weather that aspect of the NPC is included in the class's rating. --Green Dragon 12:12, 22 May 2009 (MDT)

DnD - 3.5e[edit]

This page needs to be moved to 3.5e rather than DnD. --Vrail 01:11, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not actually a template; so, any reference errors will be minor. Although, someone will need to change the add new class page afterward. -- saint23thomas -- 23:11, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Sample Encounters[edit]

So, let me get this straight. Every homebrew class needs a sample encounter at the end of it, correct? So why is there no sample encounter preload? Or any help page on how to make a sample encounter? I've been looking all over for one and can't find it. Right now, people creating classes either need to already know how to make a sample encounter or copy, paste, and change the sample encounter information from another class.

Please put up sample encounter information in the preloads. -Dr. Seymour 16:13, 29 December 2011 (MST)

We can't link to 3.5e NPCs since the link will not go through. What would you recommend? --Green Dragon 12:18, 9 January 2012 (MST)
Oh, I see! Although we can not link to it, is there a way to bring attention to 3.5e NPCs as part of the preload? Like "Go here to make your NPC and copy-paste it into the form here!"
Do you mean with the editing instructions? --Green Dragon (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2012 (MDT)
Yep, that should do the trick, I hope. I did my sample NPC in a more difficult way but this should make future endeavors much easier. -Dr. Seymour (talk) 12:12, 5 September 2012 (MDT)
Do you know how? Feel free to make an example page and link to it here. The problem is you can't double transclude pages. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2013 (MDT)

Preload templates[edit]

Continued from Category talk:Wording Issues - The many templates, wording issues, formatting, etc. Are more often ignored and left on a page than kept on for a page that needs it. I spent a while removing like 50 pointless wording issues templates from perfectly fine articles. I don't think they should be on the preload, but it's not my choice and I don't know what other people think. --SgtLion (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2013 (MDT)

I have granted you temporary admin rights to fix these problems. Please let me know when you finished fixing them. --Green Dragon (talk) 05:14, 24 August 2013 (MDT)
I agree, remove the templates from the preload. None of the other preloads do this. Marasmusine (talk) 08:03, 24 August 2013 (MDT)
Okay, I've done it. Marasmusine (talk) 01:08, 26 August 2013 (MDT)
Oh those where what you were talking about. The problem is that a lot of users create classes that are incomplete, but an experienced user will know to remove the templates. I guess you feel that this is not the case, or something? In any case, we will see if the problem starts again of lots of incomplete classes getting into the more useable lists. --Green Dragon (talk) 02:45, 29 August 2013 (MDT)
I can say that I see more class pages pages that do need the tags but have had the tags removed, than class pages that still have the tags that don't need them. That is, there's as many people who know how to write good pages but don't know they can remove the tags themselves, as there are people who write poor pages but also remove the tags themselves. And, as I mention above, we don't do this on any other preload. Marasmusine (talk) 03:00, 29 August 2013 (MDT)
For the record, I wouldn't've had any idea how to do it with admin privileges. Scripts for wiki preloads and templates confuse me. But my issue is that I'm trying to solve wording issues, and over 50% of the wording issues category is filled with articles by authors who never removed the templates.
I agree that maybe there should be some sort of automatic template that means an article will be looked over by an experienced user. But putting a set of templates that often don't apply to the article at hand kinda gets in the way. Not I minded marking all those pages for deletion or abandoment, they just lacked wording issues. --SgtLion (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2013 (MDT)
You mean that something like including {{requestreview}} would be better (since that does now move the page to the non-finished sections and does the job)? --Green Dragon (talk) 04:54, 12 November 2013 (MST)
Yeah, that seems pretty apt. With having just that as part of the preload in place of the old templates, false positives would both be easier to rectify and not clog up other categories. Though I do guess that way it'd be more hassle to leave behind appropriate templates (wording, stub, etc.) if they were required. --SgtLion (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2013 (MST)

Preload templates again[edit]

I feel like this preload should have the stub template instead of the requestreview template. Since requestreview is not considered a maintenance template, classes that are created but never completed don't get caught by the maintenance filters. --PJammaz (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2020 (MDT)

I agree with this. Red Leg Leo (talk) 13:33, 29 June 2020 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!