Talk:Agent (5e Class)
From D&D Wiki
Oops, sorry for hijacking[edit]
Sorry for hijacking your class. I got inspired on what you had here. I tried to make it more detailed... and I have lost control. I do believe there is a way to restore your class before my changes. I should have been more careful with changes. I should have ask to make big changes in the talk page.
-a sorry user that does not want to share their name (2/10/2021, unknown hour)
Thoughts[edit]
Like corebot and shade, very casually written. Players cannot use this.
Booster Pack, as a bonus action? part of their movement? or simply they just do it and doesn't use action economy?
Martial Arts- okay on the other pages I said traits need to interact with the rules, that's what features need to do. You can use weapons...great! what weapon? Why in the proficiencies does it say I can use all weapons and then I get a feature for it? NO NO. BY the way, what level am I getting these features? I just trust the table? Sure, but past practice is to include the level you gain a feature in the feature description.
Power Punch, I just punch and do 2d8 damage? no action economy? no saving throw for them not to be thrown?
Enemy Grab, how big an item? Can I grab the titanic that is 10 feet away? or can I only grab trinkets?
Agency Car...uh is this not standard 5e? is this a futuristic class? something for a specific campaign? I think a design disclaimer or campaign disclaimer would be nice at the top before I decide to play this class. What is lightning form?
No subclasses? I'll stop now and let these things be addressed while also hoping the other things are addressed with the same ideas being used. ~BigShotFancyMan talk 09:57, 25 September 2019 (MDT)
- Buddy, I trust you to handle this page entirely yourself and I want you to change anything you feel like shouldn't be there, but I want you to understand why I use the casual writing. I absolutely hate the encyclopedia-esque pages. It's very boring to read and I mostly just skip to the useful information and I don't use the classes on here at all because of that. I don't want my stuff to bore people. I don't think that players can't use it, but if you do, I guess you can just change it. Flamestarter (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2019 (MDT)Flamestarter
- Listen here Flamestarter, we have stylistic standards that we adhere to for a reason. You're not just writing this page for yourself, particularly if you're writing a class; you're writing an article that anyone should be able to put into their game with minimal fuss, and that means you should be using the same terminology and phrasing that's established by WOTC's precedent. Deviating from that precedent means that other players and DMs have to shoulder the burden of interpreting the eccentricities and peculiarities of your writing, and probably will not use your class at all. See all the issues BSFM raised above? Those issues exist because your writing is overly casual. That "boring" stuff is there because there are particular ways of writing mechanics so that they cannot be abused or falsely interpreted. Before you ask for us to understand you we ask that you understand us, and where we are coming from, and our intended audience. Now, do you understand our understanding? Based Quincy (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2019 (MDT)
- I suppose so... But do you understand mine? I can give more information, of course, and you guys can change it to, but I don't want my articles to put people to sleep. If I sound "eccentric" I apologize, and I will attempt to give all the necessary information on such things in the future as I believe I have with this class, but I will not stop writing my pages with and interesting and, furthermore, interested voice. I mean, all those pages that sound like encyclopedias make it sound like no one was truly interested in their class, so why should I be? Also, have you considered the fact that the biggest problem you have is that I don't do things your way, so my way is harder to understand? I'll admit that I didn't get all the information I wanted onto the page, and I will do better, but sometimes I'll differ, and it won't make the page UNUSABLE, but maybe a little more interesting. Thank you for you time, Quincy. Flamestarter (talk) 01:50, 30 September 2019 (MDT)Flamestarter
- Listen here Flamestarter, we have stylistic standards that we adhere to for a reason. You're not just writing this page for yourself, particularly if you're writing a class; you're writing an article that anyone should be able to put into their game with minimal fuss, and that means you should be using the same terminology and phrasing that's established by WOTC's precedent. Deviating from that precedent means that other players and DMs have to shoulder the burden of interpreting the eccentricities and peculiarities of your writing, and probably will not use your class at all. See all the issues BSFM raised above? Those issues exist because your writing is overly casual. That "boring" stuff is there because there are particular ways of writing mechanics so that they cannot be abused or falsely interpreted. Before you ask for us to understand you we ask that you understand us, and where we are coming from, and our intended audience. Now, do you understand our understanding? Based Quincy (talk) 10:49, 27 September 2019 (MDT)
- I've not fallen asleep one time reading the PH, or rereading it, or checking up on a feature. 5e's goal was to write clear and concise mechanical features and traits. When users mimic that style, I just want to pick the up and squeeze them so much for taking the time to learn how to phrase things, which in turn helps the tens of thousands of users (Thanks Green Dragon for some statistics) visiting the site daily. It isn't our way per se but the way of WotC that we try to uphold. I don't think it too much a request either considering every other homebrew site or forum or whatever platform writes their homebrew this way too. I find that as evidence people are interested in that style. Your way goes against D&D as whole, not just the wiki. (this conversation has also reminded just why I love the game so much) ~BigShotFancyMan talk 13:22, 30 September 2019 (MDT)
- Funny that you mention the game, because everyone has their own take on it. Many people have different styles of gameplay and battle. Why can't different people have different styles of writing? You said that you love it when people take the time to learn how to write it "properly", but "properly" is different for different people and isn't that ok? Or does everyone just have to conform to what you believe is right and "proper"? Personally, I believe in individuality, specifically mine. I don't really like being told that I have to do things one way or another especially when my way is as legit as any other way. I've made pages that are completely mechanical pages like 2 out of 3 of my spells. I hated it so much. I sounded like a computer and I hated it. BSFM, I hated every bit of it, but what am I supposed to do if this is how it works? I came on here to have fun and share my ideas and I appreciate things like people helping me with lore and I love it when I get things about the mechanics that is helpful, but I do not wish to conform to what you believe is "proper" with my writing. And if this is so wrong, then I will simply ignore you trying to make me exactly like everyone else, just a part of a gear of a machine. So please, please don't try to make me write these things like a machine. I do not appreciate that. Flamestarter (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (MDT)Flamestarter
- Flamestarter, you literally do have to conform to the guidelines of writing that we say is right and proper, because you are on our website. If you continue to willfully disregard our quality standards and ignore the advice of people who are trying to help you, then there's going to be trouble. Based Quincy (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (MDT)
- Funny that you mention the game, because everyone has their own take on it. Many people have different styles of gameplay and battle. Why can't different people have different styles of writing? You said that you love it when people take the time to learn how to write it "properly", but "properly" is different for different people and isn't that ok? Or does everyone just have to conform to what you believe is right and "proper"? Personally, I believe in individuality, specifically mine. I don't really like being told that I have to do things one way or another especially when my way is as legit as any other way. I've made pages that are completely mechanical pages like 2 out of 3 of my spells. I hated it so much. I sounded like a computer and I hated it. BSFM, I hated every bit of it, but what am I supposed to do if this is how it works? I came on here to have fun and share my ideas and I appreciate things like people helping me with lore and I love it when I get things about the mechanics that is helpful, but I do not wish to conform to what you believe is "proper" with my writing. And if this is so wrong, then I will simply ignore you trying to make me exactly like everyone else, just a part of a gear of a machine. So please, please don't try to make me write these things like a machine. I do not appreciate that. Flamestarter (talk) 17:57, 3 October 2019 (MDT)Flamestarter
- I've not fallen asleep one time reading the PH, or rereading it, or checking up on a feature. 5e's goal was to write clear and concise mechanical features and traits. When users mimic that style, I just want to pick the up and squeeze them so much for taking the time to learn how to phrase things, which in turn helps the tens of thousands of users (Thanks Green Dragon for some statistics) visiting the site daily. It isn't our way per se but the way of WotC that we try to uphold. I don't think it too much a request either considering every other homebrew site or forum or whatever platform writes their homebrew this way too. I find that as evidence people are interested in that style. Your way goes against D&D as whole, not just the wiki. (this conversation has also reminded just why I love the game so much) ~BigShotFancyMan talk 13:22, 30 September 2019 (MDT)
- I'm not trying to make you write things like a machine, and frankly I don't view any of the D&D grammar to be machine like. The lore and fluff reads like a story or novel. Something I find myself imagining that I am a part of. The mechanics, are untainted with personal subjectivity. It is in every way, inspiring to read.
- You're more than welcome to have fun and share your ideas. No one is stopping that. What the site does do is uphold quality standards as Quincy has mentioned. These self-identified standards are derived from first party content. The community, aka users currently active on D&D Wiki, agree on these standards. Tell me, do the articles you contribute read anything like a Wizards of the Coast piece?
- Your way is legit, for another outlet. I am sure there is a site or medium that would love a more creative spin on writing D&D articles. I haven't seen one but that is not to say it doesn't exist. If you continue to ignore the site standards and expectations then unfortunately you'll be warned. Our warning policy can be found here Help:Warning Policy. This is not a threat in any way but I feel like time hasn't been taken to read D&D Wiki's policy and guidelines, rules and expectations. The help portal, over on the left hand side can take you to many links that will assist in getting up to speed on our culture. I hope the best. ~BigShotFancyMan talk 05:31, 4 October 2019 (MDT)
