User talk:Admin

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
D&D Wiki Help Portal
HPL.png

Joining
About
FAQ
Logging In
Mission Statement

Community
Community Portal
DnD Discussion
Featured Articles
Glossary of Jargon
News
Social Media
Talk Pages
Whacking with a Wet Trout

Editing
Article Naming
Campaign Settings
Constructive Editing
D&D Guidelines
D&D Links
Help Page
Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates
Meta Pages
Sandbox
Standards and Formatting
Table
Table/Examples
When to Italicize and Capitalize

Using D&D wiki
Browsing

Policies
A Good DM
Attribution Policy
Behavioral Policy
Deletion Policy
Legal
Mature Content Policy
Page Protection
Precedent
Rating Policy
Spirit and Intent
Warning Policy

Administration
List of Administrators
Request for Moderation
Requests for Adminship
Talk to the Administration

Back to Main PageMeta Pages


Archive
Archives

Troubling candidates for deletion[edit]

Let me just preface that I appreciate the effort Lavie puts forth in going through and cleaning things up on the wiki, but I fear she may be a bit overzealous.

A great many deal of pages have been nominated for deletion by her, without having a preexisting template or header indicating any correctable problem with those pages.

Of those pages currently nominated, the majority are either feats or boons with the deletion reason that they "should be usable by more than one class." I argue against that that that is not a valid reason for a page to be deleted according to the deletion policy. These pages are perfectly playable and do not lack enough information to be improved upon. The only thing they seem to violate are guidelines for the design of those features, which are guidelines and not hard rules.

If these pages are deleted, it puts forth a troubling precedent on the wiki that homebrew content that attempts to expand the scope of the game beyond its normal bounds, or even simply homebrew content that attempts to address perceived faults within official content (see all the variants of true strike people have made over the years) is no longer allowed to exist within the public space of this site. --ZarHakkar (talk) 17:25, 16 December 2021 (MST)

We've already rescinded the "must be usable by multiple classes" for epic boons, so if you see any with that reason, feel free to take them off. As for feats, I'm yet to make an argument for me. Feel free to beat me to the punch. --SwankyPants (talk) 17:43, 16 December 2021 (MST)
If the only issue with class feats is that they don't follow Wizards' precedent, wouldn't it be better to slap something like a [[Category:Class Feat]] on it, and make Class Feats their own section on 5e Feats with a disclaimer and call it a day? If precedent were the end all, be all, we wouldn't have Design Disclaimers as a readily available template.--Ref3rence (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I support the idea of a Class Feat category, unless there are significant objections. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I am unconvinced that feats should be allowed the same treatment as boons as the two are not the same, boons are rewards granted by a DM and could realistically be anything. Meanwhile, in 5e, feats are specially designed to give players more freedom in creating their characters by allowing any kind of character to take a feat. By limiting a feat to say one class you are vastly limiting who can use a feat which is antithesis to their whole design. In addition, 5e also specifically did away with feats that were designed to work only with a specific class and feats that had high or other hard to achieve prerequisites to achieve this goal. While I don't believe we should always be too bogged down by design constraints, it is important to understand the role feats play in 5e. --Blobby383b (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I understand where you're coming from, but ultimately all of that is the spirit of the material, not the mechanical constraints, hence the point of a design disclaimer template rather than a delete template. The only mechanical constraints to feats are that they are equal to an ASI power-wise. At the end of the day, I feel like this comes down to rule 0. We know the intent, but why should we not even be allowed to play with the boundaries as long as it's made clear that's what we're doing? Even if we decide here that this kind of thing shouldn't be on 5e Feats, a variant rule page should made for this kind of thing at the very least.--Ref3rence (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2021 (MST)
After your explanation I can see that I had gotten bogged down in the idea of feats being designed to be taken by as many kinds of characters as possible. Really one should be able to play with and break conventions so long as it is clear as to how and possibly why design decisions are being broken, hence why we have the design disclaimer. For example, there isn't a reason to break some design decisions like not having high ability score prerequisites for 5e feats while having class prerequisites allows you to design something new, class specific feats. As such, I do believe something can be done so these style of feats can exist. I am unsure about where to put them as it doesn't seem quite right to have an entire section on feats with design diclaimers on them. But then again, it would make sense to have all the feats be centralized on one page. --Blobby383b (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2021 (MST)
Despite the fact that 5e is malleable to handle these variants, the core spirit of the edition is more loose and open, less locked behind classes and prereqs than previous editions (like 3.5e having alignment reqs or 4e having many class-locked branches of their trees). I think the way these specific feat things should be handled is sequestered away much like the class-special boons here. Any homebrew classes or races with feats will and should have them on the page itself, see marilith example. So I agree with Blobby that they should be consolidated.--Yanied (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2021 (MST)
Why should these feats be consolidated to a single page compared to other feats, though? Consolidating them and sequestering them away would make them seem intrinsically "less" than other feats and boons. One, because they don't have a dedicated talk page to discuss things like balance, mechanics, and implementation, and two, because sequestering them makes them harder for the casual user to locate and find. I like the idea set forth by R3ference to just categorize them as class-specific feats and boons. ... Although, I believe there is a large amount of merit to your example of listing race feats on the race page. Here's the thing: that should be done for homebrew races and classes, that actually have a dedicated page you can place them on. Make them self-contained. However, for official races and classes, they should have the category added so that they can listed in the big tables with everything else so that casual users to the site can easily discover them. --ZarHakkar (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I can't speak for Yanied, but I believe these feats may need to be self-contained because these feats would not be as easily usable in a home game as it requires you to change what a feat is in 5e to use them. Regardless of our thoughts on them, feats were designed to be open ended, and these feats run counter to that. As for homebrew feats that use another piece of homebrew, they should be housed on that homebrew (another example) as you can't use the feat without the other homebrew in question. --Blobby383b (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2021 (MST)
How much does it change what a feat is in 5e? From the PHB: "A feat represents a talent or an area of expertise that gives a character special capabilities. It embodies training, experience, and abilities beyond what a class provides." Feats in 5e are clearly different from the feats in 3.5e, as evidenced by the lack of feat chain prerequisites, and feats that offer enhancements to specific class abilities don't necessarily indicate a return to that style. Rather, they give the player an opportunity to lean into specific features of a class (or a multiclass) on a finer level than the broad brush that is choosing a subclass. --ZarHakkar (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2021 (MST)
The feats for the official classes should be put onto one page (or a page per class at most) because we can't slap them onto the official SRD pages. I'm not entirely a fan of making a whole new section of feats, though that could be personal taste talking. I think that if you are deviating from the inclusivity of feats in terms of class reqs, you may as well have it on a separate page with everything as a supplement, similar to the mythic rule maybe, or that 50+ rule. If we are going to contain feats for homebrew classes and races on their pages, I don't see the issue of containing them for official content in a manner that doesn't splay them out into their individual pages. This is similar to how 4e feats are treated, as they are grouped with what can actually use them. General feats are listed in another part of the books.--Yanied (talk) 21:45, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I just realized a potential additional complication. Most of the time with these homebrew "class feats", the prerequisite isn't having levels in the class, but having a specific feature from that class. Meaning that homebrew classes could potentially qualify for those specific feats if they have those features. Therefore, consigning those feats as being specific to a single class is kind of a misnomer. Even more so, this doesn't have to involve homebrew. A feat could exist that enhances the "Evasion" class feature, which is shared by both monk and rogue. Is it listed on the monk class feats page, or on the rogue class feats page? Both? It seems much easier to just have a new section under Racial Feats on the 5e Feats page titled Class Feats that has them listed in the exact same manner as all the other feats, just in their own section. Maybe have a disclaimer under the section header that class feats as a concept deviate heavily from 5e design principles. Also, why are they meant to be hidden? --ZarHakkar (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I agree with what you all have said. I had this happen with a feat I created for a subrace. I tried making it more general. After working with people here for a while, it became clear that my 'feat' really needed to be a feature of the subrace, and that the new feat would not actually fit them. so we 'forked' the feat and made the original feat a feature of the subrace, and created a new general feat. Perhaps for the class feats, we could try to generalize them, and if that does not work, fork them so that the class gets a feature, and we develop a new 'general' feat at the same time. Arquebus (talk) 18:04, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I agree that in some circumstances what you propose may be viable, but I have an objection based on personal experience from creating a homebrew "class feat" of my own. Quite a while ago, a friend of mine wished to create a 5e character based off of the character Kocia from vanripper's "Daystone" series of animations. We discussed it a bit, and eventually decided that Kocia was a Tabaxi/Khajit with levels in thief and fighter. To mimic how Kocia behaves in the animations, and to "complete" the build by tying the two classes together, I created the Sneak Attack Expert feat. It was the simplest and most obvious solution to me, and it turned what would have been a suboptimal character into a viable one that shined in the party. It would have been much more effort and arguably not worth it to create a revised version of the thief subclass just to allow this character to use sneak attack with a longsword. --ZarHakkar (talk) 18:25, 16 December 2021 (MST)
The problem with feats is that they are inherently a variant rule.
Can we require a variant rule to not be class specific? Isn't this just another variation?
Of course, making things accessible to multiple users is the goal for the content creation for a feat. Is it right to make a certain feat that only works for a single class, as a separate page? Why should this be a separate page?
I think it would be okay to make feats be more specific as variant rules, but they should also be able to be categorized into a specific generalized ruleset.
Otherwise the term "feat" probably isn't the right term for the choice. --Green Dragon (talk) 20:22, 16 December 2021 (MST)
I thought the idea for Class Feat category was great. I remember before WotC came out with hybrid races we were creating our own, albeit some robust discussion on the specifics so being trend setters isn't too crazy an idea. But GD's question about the necessity for a separate page I think is the right question; as he stated they are variant rules and I think a variant rule "window" on the class page describing the specific feat available to the class is an appropriate approach. I think I've seen racial feats treated this way (sometimes) on race pages too. A couple good ideas in my opinion, eager to see the outcome. Revival (talk) 09:33, 7 February 2022 (MST)
Yeah if a homebrew class/race has optional rules like feats they should be on the homebrew race/class itself. Either way, as a result of the discussion had here, Feats with Stricter Requirements was created which can now house feats with benefits/requirements that don't fit regular feats. --Blobby383b (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2022 (MST)
Oh great. Thanks for the update :-) Revival (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2022 (MST)

Annoying User[edit]

I created a race, the Medrosakal, back in 2nd Edition. I nerfed it WAY down in order for Admin to accept it. After they finally allowed it and it was perfect, Users Yanied and Anastacio COMPLETELY changed it so it’s not recognizable! I keep reverting it back to what it’s supposed to be and they keep changing it. Now it’s Admin locked and I can’t correct MY OWN RACE! WHAT THE FREAK? DarkSyde1369 (talk) 15:43, 20 December, 2021 (PST)

In cases of editing disputes, pages are sometimes temporarily locked to allow all involved users to discuss the relevant changes on the talk page, and come to a consensus. I advise you to pursue this course of action, and remind you that there is no reason to revert helpful and constructive edits. Both Yanied and Anastacio are valued members of the wiki community, and I'm certain you can come to an accord. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 17:23, 20 December 2021 (MST)
The race had a number of issues, even with being nerfed from 2e, namely, mechanically enforced scantily clad player characters. Along with this, it granted scaling past 5th level with petrification, and basically grants the monk's bonus action unarmed attack that also deals your level in damage. Goblins, the only official race that can do it, can only do it once. These edits dealt with these problems, and if you have issues with them besides deriving from what you intended, I would be curious to see them. --SwankyPants (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2021 (MST)

Where are the intermediate Deities?[edit]

Hey, so I went to 5e Deities page to make a new intermediate god, and then I realized that there are none of those. What's more, you cannot even create an intermediate deity! It's just not possible in preload. As, well, there is an abundance of intermediate powers in D&D canon, I am really perplexed. They exist, just not shown in deities page, bc something broke? Then why preload do not give you the ability to make one as such? Were they accidentally forgotten? If so, I'd like to kindly ask anyone willing and in power and ability to add the posibility of creating intermediate deities, expand the 5e Deities page and improve the creation template. --Cezaryx (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2022 (MST)

5e redefined how deities are classified. Intermediate deities are no longer a thing: there are only greater, lesser, and quasi-deities now. --SlaadSack (talk) 05:26, 4 February 2022 (MST)
Oh, you're right, I never really seen the classification for 5e, and assumed it is the same as in 3.5e. But I checked the DMG, and it is actually written there, so it's on me for writing first, checking second. --Cezaryx (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2022 (MST)

"Copyright" rules[edit]

I am using this page instead of Flexible Ability Score Increase (5e Variant Rule)'s talk page because I think Green Dragon needs to weigh in, I think, and maybe some other long term users that "watch" this page have valuable insight on the topic.
This page is PfD because WotC has decided to print or make a house rule official. Is that to say any variant rule that is on the sight that possibly becomes official will then be deleted? I understand copyrighted material like lore, adventures, creatures, spells, etc but copyrighted variant rules feel a little different. To my point, is deleing the page appropriate? Revival (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2022 (MST)

Part of the issue, in my eyes, is that the page (not the rule itself, but the actual page) was created after the release of Tasha's. If this houserule was written somewhere else before the release of Tasha's, we could probably link to it and skirt the issue altogether.
The only time I can think of that something was deleted after WotC published their version is Marasmusine's now-deleted version of Magic Stone (5e Spell), which was still substantively different from WotC's version. Otherwise it seems the general consensus is to move it to a variant page and use the main page for a reference to the official book, such as the current version of Magic Stone. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:31, 11 February 2022 (MST)
No disagreements here. Would the original page be unchanged then? and the only addition being the main page is to reference official source material? Revival (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2022 (MST)
That's how I'd handle it, yes. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:28, 11 February 2022 (MST)
I agree. If it was before the release then I would also agree with Geodude671. --Green Dragon (talk) 10:12, 14 February 2022 (MST)
The page Revival is talking about was created after the release. I can confirm from personal experience that the rule described by the page was in use long before the release of Tasha’s, but I can’t find anything that backs this up. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:02, 14 February 2022 (MST)

DPL count[edit]

So, normally, the DPL extension used on this wiki has a parameter called 'count.' For whatever reason this parameter does not appear to work on this wiki. For example, if the count parameter worked, the following DPL list would only list the first 3 entries, but as you can see (if you view source) it doesn't:

But for whatever reason randomcount works:

And offset works:

Even if I try to "force" count it doesn't work:

I don't really see how or why 'count' would be disabled. I've searched with a few different methods and turned up nothing. I think count should be enabled at some point if feasible and reasonable. Or, well, if there's some other means of using count specific to this wiki, I'd like to know about it. - Guy 04:02, 16 February 2022 (MST)

The so called WIPs[edit]

I have a question. I was skimming through classes with maintenance templates, and I realized something. If you stick a WIP template on a page, it will never be taken into consideration by the bot for allocating abandoned tag, and in consequence deletion after two years of no edits. Should it be that way? Literally a class made of one ability and few makeshift sentences of fluff, for example Gasbender class, was in this sorry state for almost two full years, with stub and what not, just because WIP was present. And really, this is not first one in this kind of situation I saw. Not to be overzealous (just moderately zealous), but a page without edits for a whole year is not a "Work In Progress", at least in my opinion. Is it possible to, dunno, take WIP off the pages that go without edits for 2-3 months? Surely it is possible, the real question is: should it be changed to work that way? I don't see a reason not to, but I often overlook some things, so if there is a reason then please, do enlighten me. This topic concerns a workings of the site as a whole, not administration per-se, but I didn't really had an idea where to ask this. --Cezaryx (talk) 07:35, 17 February 2022 (MST)

Hmm, that is true that WIP tags normally have to be manually removed and replaced with another tag. I will see if there can be an automated option to this.--Yanied (talk) 08:19, 17 February 2022 (MST)
A year without edits isn't really a WIP, true. I and some others thought 3 months was enough time to nudge a page, use the talk page, and find out the status. After a week or two, in case a user is busy with real life, remove the WIP. I modified User:ConcealedLight/ControlPanel to include just the templates at the bottom. WIPs are within the Yellow category and list what has sat longer than 3 months. I think it looks like there's 297 in a state that you described. I hope this helps. Revival (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2022 (MST)
I also made a page with only WIP/inuse at User:Geobot671/WIP. This DPL tracks all pages with either the WIP or inuse template with no edits for at least 3 months, and excludes anything with the Stub template to avoid catching the same page multiple times. Any administrator should have perms to use Special:MassEditRegex to mass add stub templates to these pages, or can go through and add them one-by-one. I've already gone and mass added stub templates to all the pages that were there when I created the page. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:19, 17 February 2022 (MST)

I'd like a page undeleted please[edit]

Please undelete the 5e varient rule for levels past 50, I would like it for personal use. 2601:285:4080:2800:699E:D67D:717F:B7E1 18:21, 17 February 2022 (MST)

Do you have a link to the specific page? I'll look into it. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2022 (MST)
Yes, right here https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Levels_past_50_(5e_Variant_Rule) 2601:285:4080:2800:699E:D67D:717F:B7E1 19:34, 17 February 2022 (MST)
I can undelete it on a temporary basis, but unless you have plans to solve the issues that caused it to be deleted, it will likely be removed again within the next few weeks. I hope that's workable. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 19:44, 17 February 2022 (MST)
The page has been restored. --Nuke The Earth (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2022 (MST)
dw a few weeks is all I need. 2601:285:4080:2800:699E:D67D:717F:B7E1 19:48, 17 February 2022 (MST)

Tweaks to Protected pages about mounted combat[edit]

Made an account to try to fix up a couple pages, but they're protected so no dice. Suggestions for admins who have access:

Thanks --JiSK (talk) 17:19, 24 March 2022 (MDT)

I have made the above changes; the new home for the rule description is SRD:Mounted Combat (Rule). The original Mounted Combat page is now a disambiguation page. I've also updated all relevant 3.5 SRD pages to link to the correct rule or feat page. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 22:44, 24 March 2022 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!


Advertisements: