https://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=Daniel+Draco&feedformat=atomD&D Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T12:45:15ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.8https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=590834User:Daniel Draco2012-09-28T17:29:53Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>I, along with some others, left the wiki following an argument among certain administrators and users. I've pretty much given up on safeguarding my work from being altered following the consequences of a change in (de facto, if not de jure) policy. I can only hope that it gets deleted rather than adopted.<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
You won't be able to reach me through my talk page here. It's better to email me at dorandraco@gmail.com.<br />
<br />
==Stuff Originally Written By Me (Although Probably Altered Or Deleted)==<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class) -- In collaboration with Valentine_The_Rogue<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class)<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=590833User:Daniel Draco2012-09-28T17:26:09Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Contact */</p>
<hr />
<div>I, along with some others, left the wiki following an argument among certain administrators and users. I've pretty much given up on safeguarding my work from being altered following the consequences of a change in (de facto, if not de jure) policy. I can only hope that it gets deleted rather than adopted.<br />
<br />
==Stuff Originally Written By Me (Although Probably Altered Or Deleted)==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class) -- In collaboration with Valentine_The_Rogue<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class)<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
You won't be able to reach me through my talk page here. It's better to email me at dorandraco@gmail.com.</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=590832User:Daniel Draco2012-09-28T17:24:09Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>I, along with some others, left the wiki following an argument among certain administrators and users. I've pretty much given up on safeguarding my work from being altered following the consequences of a change in (de facto, if not de jure) policy. I can only hope that it gets deleted rather than adopted.<br />
<br />
==Stuff Originally Written By Me (Although Probably Altered Or Deleted)==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class) -- In collaboration with Valentine_The_Rogue<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class)<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=524214User:Daniel Draco2011-06-27T05:32:17Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>I, along with some others, left the wiki following an argument among certain administrators and users. However, I'm still watching to make sure my work is safe.<br />
<br />
==Homebrew==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class) -- In collaboration with Valentine_The_Rogue<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class) -- Partially; check the history and talk of the page for details<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evil_Clown_(3.5e_NPC_Class)&diff=524213Talk:Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)2011-06-27T05:22:57Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Locking the page */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Feedback ==<br />
<br />
I know the fluff isn't done yet, but what does everyone think of this class? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:43, 6 December 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
I like it. We need a class like this for an evil circus/carnivel in my horror campaign. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 00:23, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 3.5/5''' I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Tomfoolery is the primary damage source, yet I think it would be a little harder to make Tomfoolery checks succeed than it is for a rogue to catch an opponent flat-footed. If I'm wrong feel free to make that argument. The gags are nice, but a bit limiting in the total usage limit. The consolidation of nearly every class ability in Charisma or Perform (Comedy) is a nice balancing feature, but comparable to a rogue I think this is a little lacking. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording (in terms of fluency and clarity) is almost perfect. I only saw one spelling mistake (maintan), although I was looking for them too hard. It is unclear what happens if the evil clown fails a Perform (Comedy) check when attempting to use a gag. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 3/5''' I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the class abilities, which is the meat of the class at this point, are well done with emphasis, but the inter-wiki linking is lacking and linking within itself (anchoring class abilities to table) is too. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because although this has the potential to be a five (it's a fantastic idea), it needs to be more thoroughly developed to merit such a rating. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== frontloaded==<br />
<br />
why is every class ability at 1st level? spread them out so people have a reason not to take 1 level and then 19 in rogue, for better skill points and ability to use sneak attack rather than tomfoolery--[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<The array of powers they enjoy make them stalwart combatants and difficult to kill but not entirely impossible to defeat and still relatively balanced>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - <<<5>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<The wording was fine and easy to follow>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - <<<3>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<the page set up is obviously a worthy attempt but still looks very sloppy.>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it seems powerful and interesting but difficult to play in a normal campaign>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because They gain powerful abilities that can compliment any evil campaign and make a great boss type monster--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was easy to follow but had a few minor flaws.--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because It is obviously a worthy attempt but needed to be more complete. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Let's face it, clowns are creepy as hell. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Locking the page ==<br />
<br />
If you want, I'll lock the page for you. I'd like for you to have the page a little more filled out, before I do, however. If you're not interested in finishing the class, I'll just add the abandoned template, and let someone else finish it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Frankly, I don't see a need to lock the page in a less complete state. If it were a 100% finished article that wouldn't need any updating I'd say go for it, otherwise nobody has the "right" to control it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:27, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, my thinking was "if you've finished it enough to remove the template, I'll lock it. Otherwise, let someone else have a crack at it." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:38, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Even then, I'm not a huge fan of locking pages anyway because anyone has the right to edit any page. As it is, I've reverted it to it's previous state. If the author wants to recreate it, he can create a variant. Though if it's still blank, it'll get a deletion template added to it, so I'm not sure I see the point. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:01, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The page is incomplete, but the work I've put into it is still my own. The incompleteness has little to do with that.<br />
::::I suppose reverting it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction of mine. I sincerely apologize for it. I'll try to deal with this more civilly than I began.<br />
::::My problem here is that I created this page while the wiki's page protocol was to show main content creation authorship on the page. When that changed, I asked that my pages be removed, because these new circumstances were not the ones under which I published my work (which I realize doesn't matter under the GNU FDL, but this was really more an appeal to the principle of the thing than to the law of it). The administration refused, and Green Dragon instead agreed to lock my pages -- not something I was happy about, but certainly better than nothing. I guess he missed this one, and someone picked it up and ran with it. I suppose, since it mixes my original work with Beefermatic's new work, there's no solution here but to leave it as is -- what's done is done, and I wouldn't want his work destroyed any more than I want mine altered.<br />
::::As for the question of whether pages should be locked at all, please consider my situation and the situation of the others who disagreed with the removal of the author template. GD certainly had the right to make that page protocol change, but it did leave us in the position that our work was no longer presented as we thought it was going to be. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 21:41, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Maybe it's just me, but the idea of the original author having to make a "variant" of his original class, because it has changed so much is a tad bizarre. I'd personally rather lock the original (if and only if it is complete) and let other users make variants, if they have different ideas about how a class should be designed. I suppose this comes down to how we want to use variants on the wiki, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:54, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The question of whether to lock incomplete pages is a bit hairy. On the one hand, it is still the author's work, and if one is allowed to protect their work from change at all then small pieces of work shouldn't be excepted. On the other hand, incomplete pages are ugly and simply not good wiki articles. Personally, I'd suggest deleting them to eliminate both issues (except the case of this page, which I'm honestly okay with -- this was some of my worst work anyway), but that opinion may be skewed by the fact that that's what I wanted done in the first place. At this point, though, I'm willing to advocate anything that lets me protect any of my work at all. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:00, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Beyond the "if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" clause in the edit window (which I believe has never been changed, and can't be changed), I can't really comment on what rights you had or have to your "own" work. I fully admit I don't quite understand it and if you ask 3 people about it you'll get 4 different answers. In this case, though, were you to protect the page how you had it, it would have to be deleted unless you actually made some progress on it. There's simply not enough in the original page, and we won't just protect partial pages for posterity. However, with so few similarities between your last version and the most recent version, as you pointed out, there's really no point in doing anything about it now. At best you have claims to two or three class features (though I disagree), but certainly not the entire page.<br />
<br />
:::::::If there's anything else floating around that you think should be protected please point it out, lest it be treated like any other page. Btw is this locking pages thing on a talk page somewhere? I've never seen it before, and I don't want to go around needlessly locking things off the wiki. Even before you left people would (should) have been allowed to edit your pages, even if they had to ask permission. I don't see why it should be any different now. <br />
<br />
:::::::@Badger: same difference. I'd say the variant is the one that takes the completed page and changes it, regardless of who named the class. Ultimately it makes zero difference which one is the variant though. Heck, make 'em both variants for all I care. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:11, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I would like to address the changes made to my above comments by saying that I ''thought'' the locking was a compromise between the administration and those who thought that the administration supported creative control of pages. I apologize for the mistake. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:53, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your going to have to find the discussion. I thought (if I remember correctly) it was something I mentioned ''could'' be done&ndash; not a compromise. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:59, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Oh, I never meant to imply that it was something formal, signed in blood, set in stone, etc. I just thought that we'd come to the silent conclusion that that was how we would handle it (with completed pages, at least), given that most of my pages have indeed been locked. I know you're not bound to keeping it that way. There's no contract or anything. I would just request, in an entirely friendly spirit with no intent to cause trouble, that you do leave the locked ones locked. I'm not trying to re-open this old conflict. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 23:12, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::No. Instead of hinting that ''could'' meant that it would be unnormally done, I meant ''could'' as the word "could'' means. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I believe you misunderstood what I meant, but no matter. If it ''could'' be done, then I'll ask you now: since many of my pages are already locked, would it be alright if they remain so? I would very much like to bury the hatchet here and just let things stay as they are. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 23:22, 26 June 2011 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evil_Clown_(3.5e_NPC_Class)&diff=524209Talk:Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)2011-06-27T05:12:50Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Locking the page */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Feedback ==<br />
<br />
I know the fluff isn't done yet, but what does everyone think of this class? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:43, 6 December 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
I like it. We need a class like this for an evil circus/carnivel in my horror campaign. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 00:23, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 3.5/5''' I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Tomfoolery is the primary damage source, yet I think it would be a little harder to make Tomfoolery checks succeed than it is for a rogue to catch an opponent flat-footed. If I'm wrong feel free to make that argument. The gags are nice, but a bit limiting in the total usage limit. The consolidation of nearly every class ability in Charisma or Perform (Comedy) is a nice balancing feature, but comparable to a rogue I think this is a little lacking. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording (in terms of fluency and clarity) is almost perfect. I only saw one spelling mistake (maintan), although I was looking for them too hard. It is unclear what happens if the evil clown fails a Perform (Comedy) check when attempting to use a gag. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 3/5''' I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the class abilities, which is the meat of the class at this point, are well done with emphasis, but the inter-wiki linking is lacking and linking within itself (anchoring class abilities to table) is too. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because although this has the potential to be a five (it's a fantastic idea), it needs to be more thoroughly developed to merit such a rating. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== frontloaded==<br />
<br />
why is every class ability at 1st level? spread them out so people have a reason not to take 1 level and then 19 in rogue, for better skill points and ability to use sneak attack rather than tomfoolery--[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<The array of powers they enjoy make them stalwart combatants and difficult to kill but not entirely impossible to defeat and still relatively balanced>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - <<<5>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<The wording was fine and easy to follow>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - <<<3>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<the page set up is obviously a worthy attempt but still looks very sloppy.>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it seems powerful and interesting but difficult to play in a normal campaign>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because They gain powerful abilities that can compliment any evil campaign and make a great boss type monster--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was easy to follow but had a few minor flaws.--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because It is obviously a worthy attempt but needed to be more complete. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Let's face it, clowns are creepy as hell. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Locking the page ==<br />
<br />
If you want, I'll lock the page for you. I'd like for you to have the page a little more filled out, before I do, however. If you're not interested in finishing the class, I'll just add the abandoned template, and let someone else finish it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Frankly, I don't see a need to lock the page in a less complete state. If it were a 100% finished article that wouldn't need any updating I'd say go for it, otherwise nobody has the "right" to control it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:27, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, my thinking was "if you've finished it enough to remove the template, I'll lock it. Otherwise, let someone else have a crack at it." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:38, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Even then, I'm not a huge fan of locking pages anyway because anyone has the right to edit any page. As it is, I've reverted it to it's previous state. If the author wants to recreate it, he can create a variant. Though if it's still blank, it'll get a deletion template added to it, so I'm not sure I see the point. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:01, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The page is incomplete, but the work I've put into it is still my own. The incompleteness has little to do with that.<br />
::::I suppose reverting it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction of mine. I sincerely apologize for it. I'll try to deal with this more civilly than I began.<br />
::::My problem here is that I created this page while the wiki's page protocol was to show main content creation authorship on the page. When that changed, I asked that my pages be removed, because these new circumstances were not the ones under which I published my work (which I realize doesn't matter under the GNU FDL, but this was really more an appeal to the principle of the thing than to the law of it). The administration refused, and Green Dragon instead agreed to lock my pages -- not something I was happy about, but certainly better than nothing. I guess he missed this one, and someone picked it up and ran with it. I suppose, since it mixes my original work with Beefermatic's new work, there's no solution here but to leave it as is -- what's done is done, and I wouldn't want his work destroyed any more than I want mine altered.<br />
::::As for the question of whether pages should be locked at all, please consider my situation and the situation of the others who disagreed with the removal of the author template. GD certainly had the right to make that page protocol change, but it did leave us in the position that our work was no longer presented as we thought it was going to be. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 21:41, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Maybe it's just me, but the idea of the original author having to make a "variant" of his original class, because it has changed so much is a tad bizarre. I'd personally rather lock the original (if and only if it is complete) and let other users make variants, if they have different ideas about how a class should be designed. I suppose this comes down to how we want to use variants on the wiki, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:54, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The question of whether to lock incomplete pages is a bit hairy. On the one hand, it is still the author's work, and if one is allowed to protect their work from change at all then small pieces of work shouldn't be excepted. On the other hand, incomplete pages are ugly and simply not good wiki articles. Personally, I'd suggest deleting them to eliminate both issues (except the case of this page, which I'm honestly okay with -- this was some of my worst work anyway), but that opinion may be skewed by the fact that that's what I wanted done in the first place. At this point, though, I'm willing to advocate anything that lets me protect any of my work at all. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:00, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Beyond the "if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" clause in the edit window (which I believe has never been changed, and can't be changed), I can't really comment on what rights you had or have to your "own" work. I fully admit I don't quite understand it and if you ask 3 people about it you'll get 4 different answers. In this case, though, were you to protect the page how you had it, it would have to be deleted unless you actually made some progress on it. There's simply not enough in the original page, and we won't just protect partial pages for posterity. However, with so few similarities between your last version and the most recent version, as you pointed out, there's really no point in doing anything about it now. At best you have claims to two or three class features (though I disagree), but certainly not the entire page.<br />
<br />
:::::::If there's anything else floating around that you think should be protected please point it out, lest it be treated like any other page. Btw is this locking pages thing on a talk page somewhere? I've never seen it before, and I don't want to go around needlessly locking things off the wiki. Even before you left people would (should) have been allowed to edit your pages, even if they had to ask permission. I don't see why it should be any different now. <br />
<br />
:::::::@Badger: same difference. I'd say the variant is the one that takes the completed page and changes it, regardless of who named the class. Ultimately it makes zero difference which one is the variant though. Heck, make 'em both variants for all I care. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:11, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I would like to address the changes made to my above comments by saying that I ''thought'' the locking was a compromise between the administration and those who thought that the administration supported creative control of pages. I apologize for the mistake. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:53, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Your going to have to find the discussion. I thought (if I remember correctly) it was something I mentioned ''could'' be done&ndash; not a compromise. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:59, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Oh, I never meant to imply that it was something formal, signed in blood, set in stone, etc. I just thought that we'd come to the silent conclusion that that was how we would handle it (with completed pages, at least), given that most of my pages have indeed been locked. I know you're not bound to keeping it that way. There's no contract or anything. I would just request, in an entirely friendly spirit with no intent to cause trouble, that you do leave the locked ones locked. I'm not trying to re-open this old conflict. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 23:12, 26 June 2011 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evil_Clown_(3.5e_NPC_Class)&diff=524206Talk:Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)2011-06-27T04:53:31Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Feedback ==<br />
<br />
I know the fluff isn't done yet, but what does everyone think of this class? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:43, 6 December 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
I like it. We need a class like this for an evil circus/carnivel in my horror campaign. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 00:23, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 3.5/5''' I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Tomfoolery is the primary damage source, yet I think it would be a little harder to make Tomfoolery checks succeed than it is for a rogue to catch an opponent flat-footed. If I'm wrong feel free to make that argument. The gags are nice, but a bit limiting in the total usage limit. The consolidation of nearly every class ability in Charisma or Perform (Comedy) is a nice balancing feature, but comparable to a rogue I think this is a little lacking. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording (in terms of fluency and clarity) is almost perfect. I only saw one spelling mistake (maintan), although I was looking for them too hard. It is unclear what happens if the evil clown fails a Perform (Comedy) check when attempting to use a gag. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 3/5''' I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the class abilities, which is the meat of the class at this point, are well done with emphasis, but the inter-wiki linking is lacking and linking within itself (anchoring class abilities to table) is too. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because although this has the potential to be a five (it's a fantastic idea), it needs to be more thoroughly developed to merit such a rating. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== frontloaded==<br />
<br />
why is every class ability at 1st level? spread them out so people have a reason not to take 1 level and then 19 in rogue, for better skill points and ability to use sneak attack rather than tomfoolery--[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<The array of powers they enjoy make them stalwart combatants and difficult to kill but not entirely impossible to defeat and still relatively balanced>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - <<<5>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<The wording was fine and easy to follow>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - <<<3>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<the page set up is obviously a worthy attempt but still looks very sloppy.>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it seems powerful and interesting but difficult to play in a normal campaign>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because They gain powerful abilities that can compliment any evil campaign and make a great boss type monster--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was easy to follow but had a few minor flaws.--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because It is obviously a worthy attempt but needed to be more complete. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Let's face it, clowns are creepy as hell. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Locking the page ==<br />
<br />
If you want, I'll lock the page for you. I'd like for you to have the page a little more filled out, before I do, however. If you're not interested in finishing the class, I'll just add the abandoned template, and let someone else finish it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Frankly, I don't see a need to lock the page in a less complete state. If it were a 100% finished article that wouldn't need any updating I'd say go for it, otherwise nobody has the "right" to control it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:27, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, my thinking was "if you've finished it enough to remove the template, I'll lock it. Otherwise, let someone else have a crack at it." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:38, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Even then, I'm not a huge fan of locking pages anyway because anyone has the right to edit any page. As it is, I've reverted it to it's previous state. If the author wants to recreate it, he can create a variant. Though if it's still blank, it'll get a deletion template added to it, so I'm not sure I see the point. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:01, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The page is incomplete, but the work I've put into it is still my own. The incompleteness has little to do with that.<br />
::::I suppose reverting it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction of mine. I sincerely apologize for it. I'll try to deal with this more civilly than I began.<br />
::::My problem here is that I created this page while the wiki's page protocol was to show main content creation authorship on the page. When that changed, I asked that my pages be removed, because these new circumstances were not the ones under which I published my work (which I realize doesn't matter under the GNU FDL, but this was really more an appeal to the principle of the thing than to the law of it). The administration refused, and Green Dragon instead agreed to lock my pages -- not something I was happy about, but certainly better than nothing. I guess he missed this one, and someone picked it up and ran with it. I suppose, since it mixes my original work with Beefermatic's new work, there's no solution here but to leave it as is -- what's done is done, and I wouldn't want his work destroyed any more than I want mine altered.<br />
::::As for the question of whether pages should be locked at all, please consider my situation and the situation of the others who disagreed with the removal of the author template. GD certainly had the right to make that page protocol change, but it did leave us in the position that our work was no longer presented as we thought it was going to be. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 21:41, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Maybe it's just me, but the idea of the original author having to make a "variant" of his original class, because it has changed so much is a tad bizarre. I'd personally rather lock the original (if and only if it is complete) and let other users make variants, if they have different ideas about how a class should be designed. I suppose this comes down to how we want to use variants on the wiki, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:54, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The question of whether to lock incomplete pages is a bit hairy. On the one hand, it is still the author's work, and if one is allowed to protect their work from change at all then small pieces of work shouldn't be excepted. On the other hand, incomplete pages are ugly and simply not good wiki articles. Personally, I'd suggest deleting them to eliminate both issues (except the case of this page, which I'm honestly okay with -- this was some of my worst work anyway), but that opinion may be skewed by the fact that that's what I wanted done in the first place. At this point, though, I'm willing to advocate anything that lets me protect any of my work at all. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:00, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Beyond the "if you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here" clause in the edit window (which I believe has never been changed, and can't be changed), I can't really comment on what rights you had or have to your "own" work. I fully admit I don't quite understand it and if you ask 3 people about it you'll get 4 different answers. In this case, though, were you to protect the page how you had it, it would have to be deleted unless you actually made some progress on it. There's simply not enough in the original page, and we won't just protect partial pages for posterity. However, with so few similarities between your last version and the most recent version, as you pointed out, there's really no point in doing anything about it now. At best you have claims to two or three class features (though I disagree), but certainly not the entire page.<br />
<br />
:::::::If there's anything else floating around that you think should be protected please point it out, lest it be treated like any other page. Btw is this locking pages thing on a talk page somewhere? I've never seen it before, and I don't want to go around needlessly locking things off the wiki. Even before you left people would (should) have been allowed to edit your pages, even if they had to ask permission. I don't see why it should be any different now. <br />
<br />
:::::::@Badger: same difference. I'd say the variant is the one that takes the completed page and changes it, regardless of who named the class. Ultimately it makes zero difference which one is the variant though. Heck, make 'em both variants for all I care. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:11, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I would like to address the changes made to my above comments by saying that I ''thought'' the locking was a compromise between the administration and those who thought that the administration supported creative control of pages. I apologize for the mistake. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:53, 26 June 2011 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evil_Clown_(3.5e_NPC_Class)&diff=524193Talk:Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)2011-06-27T04:00:56Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Locking the page */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Feedback ==<br />
<br />
I know the fluff isn't done yet, but what does everyone think of this class? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:43, 6 December 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
I like it. We need a class like this for an evil circus/carnivel in my horror campaign. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 00:23, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 3.5/5''' I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Tomfoolery is the primary damage source, yet I think it would be a little harder to make Tomfoolery checks succeed than it is for a rogue to catch an opponent flat-footed. If I'm wrong feel free to make that argument. The gags are nice, but a bit limiting in the total usage limit. The consolidation of nearly every class ability in Charisma or Perform (Comedy) is a nice balancing feature, but comparable to a rogue I think this is a little lacking. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording (in terms of fluency and clarity) is almost perfect. I only saw one spelling mistake (maintan), although I was looking for them too hard. It is unclear what happens if the evil clown fails a Perform (Comedy) check when attempting to use a gag. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 3/5''' I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the class abilities, which is the meat of the class at this point, are well done with emphasis, but the inter-wiki linking is lacking and linking within itself (anchoring class abilities to table) is too. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because although this has the potential to be a five (it's a fantastic idea), it needs to be more thoroughly developed to merit such a rating. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== frontloaded==<br />
<br />
why is every class ability at 1st level? spread them out so people have a reason not to take 1 level and then 19 in rogue, for better skill points and ability to use sneak attack rather than tomfoolery--[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<The array of powers they enjoy make them stalwart combatants and difficult to kill but not entirely impossible to defeat and still relatively balanced>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - <<<5>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<The wording was fine and easy to follow>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - <<<3>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<the page set up is obviously a worthy attempt but still looks very sloppy.>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it seems powerful and interesting but difficult to play in a normal campaign>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because They gain powerful abilities that can compliment any evil campaign and make a great boss type monster--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was easy to follow but had a few minor flaws.--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because It is obviously a worthy attempt but needed to be more complete. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Let's face it, clowns are creepy as hell. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Locking the page ==<br />
<br />
If you want, I'll lock the page for you. I'd like for you to have the page a little more filled out, before I do, however. If you're not interested in finishing the class, I'll just add the abandoned template, and let someone else finish it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Frankly, I don't see a need to lock the page in a less complete state. If it were a 100% finished article that wouldn't need any updating I'd say go for it, otherwise nobody has the "right" to control it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:27, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, my thinking was "if you've finished it enough to remove the template, I'll lock it. Otherwise, let someone else have a crack at it." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:38, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Even then, I'm not a huge fan of locking pages anyway because anyone has the right to edit any page. As it is, I've reverted it to it's previous state. If the author wants to recreate it, he can create a variant. Though if it's still blank, it'll get a deletion template added to it, so I'm not sure I see the point. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:01, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The page is incomplete, but the work I've put into it is still my own. The incompleteness has little to do with that.<br />
::::I suppose reverting it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction -- I'm still a little upset about the circumstances of the wiki's split. I sincerely apologize for it. I'll try to deal with this more civilly than I began.<br />
::::My problem here is that I created this page while the wiki's policy was to show authorship on the page, and for the author to have creative control over the page. When that changed, I asked that my pages be removed, because these new circumstances were not the ones under which I published my work (which I realize doesn't matter under the GFDL, but this was really more an appeal to the principle of the thing than to the law of it). The administration refused, and Green Dragon instead agreed to lock my pages -- not something I was happy about, but certainly better than nothing. I guess he missed this one, and someone picked it up and ran with it. I suppose, since it mixes my original work with Beefermatic's new work, there's no solution here but to leave it as is -- what's done is done, and I wouldn't want his work destroyed any more than I want mine altered.<br />
::::As for the question of whether pages should be locked at all, please consider my situation and the situation of the others who disagreed with the removal of the author template. GD certainly had the right to make that policy change, but it did leave us in the position that our work was no longer presented as we thought it was going to be, and the locking was the only compromise we could come to. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 21:41, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Maybe it's just me, but the idea of the original author having to make a "variant" of his original class, because it has changed so much is a tad bizarre. I'd personally rather lock the original (if and only if it is complete) and let other users make variants, if they have different ideas about how a class should be designed. I suppose this comes down to how we want to use variants on the wiki, though. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 21:54, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::The question of whether to lock incomplete pages is a bit hairy. On the one hand, it is still the author's work, and if one is allowed to protect their work from change at all then small pieces of work shouldn't be excepted. On the other hand, incomplete pages are ugly and simply not good wiki articles. Personally, I'd suggest deleting them to eliminate both issues (except the case of this page, which I'm honestly okay with -- this was some of my worst work anyway), but that opinion may be skewed by the fact that that's what I wanted done in the first place. At this point, though, I'm willing to advocate any policy at lets me protect any of my work at all. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:00, 26 June 2011 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=524189User:Daniel Draco2011-06-27T03:54:22Z<p>Daniel Draco: Making it less passive-agressive</p>
<hr />
<div>I was part of a mass exodus following an argument among certain administrators and users. I have abandoned this wiki, but I'm still watching to make sure my work is safe.<br />
<br />
==Homebrew==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class) -- In collaboration with Valentine_The_Rogue<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class) -- Partially; check the history and talk of the page for details<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=524188User:Daniel Draco2011-06-27T03:52:31Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Homebrew */</p>
<hr />
<div>I was part of a mass exodus following Green Dragon banning all admins over the actions of one non-admin. I have abandoned this wiki, but I'm still watching to make sure my work is safe.<br />
<br />
==Homebrew==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class) -- In collaboration with Valentine_The_Rogue<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class) -- Partially; check the history and talk of the page for details<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=524187User:Daniel Draco2011-06-27T03:50:58Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Contact */ no longer applicable</p>
<hr />
<div>I was part of a mass exodus following Green Dragon banning all admins over the actions of one non-admin. I have abandoned this wiki, but I'm still watching to make sure my work is safe.<br />
<br />
==Homebrew==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class)<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class)<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evil_Clown_(3.5e_NPC_Class)&diff=524184Talk:Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)2011-06-27T03:41:33Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Locking the page */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Feedback ==<br />
<br />
I know the fluff isn't done yet, but what does everyone think of this class? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:43, 6 December 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
I like it. We need a class like this for an evil circus/carnivel in my horror campaign. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 00:23, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 3.5/5''' I give this class a 3.5 out of 5 because Tomfoolery is the primary damage source, yet I think it would be a little harder to make Tomfoolery checks succeed than it is for a rogue to catch an opponent flat-footed. If I'm wrong feel free to make that argument. The gags are nice, but a bit limiting in the total usage limit. The consolidation of nearly every class ability in Charisma or Perform (Comedy) is a nice balancing feature, but comparable to a rogue I think this is a little lacking. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because the wording (in terms of fluency and clarity) is almost perfect. I only saw one spelling mistake (maintan), although I was looking for them too hard. It is unclear what happens if the evil clown fails a Perform (Comedy) check when attempting to use a gag. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 3/5''' I give this class a 3 out of 5 because the class abilities, which is the meat of the class at this point, are well done with emphasis, but the inter-wiki linking is lacking and linking within itself (anchoring class abilities to table) is too. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 2/5''' I give this class a 2 out of 5 because although this has the potential to be a five (it's a fantastic idea), it needs to be more thoroughly developed to merit such a rating. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 11:24, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== frontloaded==<br />
<br />
why is every class ability at 1st level? spread them out so people have a reason not to take 1 level and then 19 in rogue, for better skill points and ability to use sneak attack rather than tomfoolery--[[User:Name Violation|Name Violation]] 20:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<The array of powers they enjoy make them stalwart combatants and difficult to kill but not entirely impossible to defeat and still relatively balanced>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - <<<5>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<5>>> out of 5 because <<<The wording was fine and easy to follow>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - <<<3>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<3>>> out of 5 because <<<the page set up is obviously a worthy attempt but still looks very sloppy.>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - <<<4>>>/5''' I give this class a <<<4>>> out of 5 because <<<it seems powerful and interesting but difficult to play in a normal campaign>>> --[[Special:Contributions/99.110.164.187|99.110.164.187]] 03:27, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating == <br />
<br />
'''Power - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because They gain powerful abilities that can compliment any evil campaign and make a great boss type monster--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Wording - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because it was easy to follow but had a few minor flaws.--[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''[[Help:Standards and Formatting (DnD Guideline)|Formatting]] - 4/5''' I give this class a 4 out of 5 because It is obviously a worthy attempt but needed to be more complete. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Flavor - 5/5''' I give this class a 5 out of 5 because Let's face it, clowns are creepy as hell. --[[User:Beefermatic|Beefermatic]] 13:22, 7 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Locking the page ==<br />
<br />
If you want, I'll lock the page for you. I'd like for you to have the page a little more filled out, before I do, however. If you're not interested in finishing the class, I'll just add the abandoned template, and let someone else finish it. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:15, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Frankly, I don't see a need to lock the page in a less complete state. If it were a 100% finished article that wouldn't need any updating I'd say go for it, otherwise nobody has the "right" to control it. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 16:27, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Yeah, my thinking was "if you've finished it enough to remove the template, I'll lock it. Otherwise, let someone else have a crack at it." --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 16:38, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Even then, I'm not a huge fan of locking pages anyway because anyone has the right to edit any page. As it is, I've reverted it to it's previous state. If the author wants to recreate it, he can create a variant. Though if it's still blank, it'll get a deletion template added to it, so I'm not sure I see the point. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 17:01, 26 June 2011 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The page is incomplete, but the work I've put into it is still my own. The incompleteness has little to do with that.<br />
::::I suppose reverting it was a bit of a kneejerk reaction -- I'm still a little upset about the circumstances of the wiki's split. I sincerely apologize for it. I'll try to deal with this more civilly than I began.<br />
::::My problem here is that I created this page while the wiki's policy was to show authorship on the page, and for the author to have creative control over the page. When that changed, I asked that my pages be removed, because these new circumstances were not the ones under which I published my work (which I realize doesn't matter under the GFDL, but this was really more an appeal to the principle of the thing than to the law of it). The administration refused, and Green Dragon instead agreed to lock my pages -- not something I was happy about, but certainly better than nothing. I guess he missed this one, and someone picked it up and ran with it. I suppose, since it mixes my original work with Beefermatic's new work, there's no solution here but to leave it as is -- what's done is done, and I wouldn't want his work destroyed any more than I want mine altered.<br />
::::As for the question of whether pages should be locked at all, please consider my situation and the situation of the others who disagreed with the removal of the author template. GD certainly had the right to make that policy change, but it did leave us in the position that our work was no longer presented as we thought it was going to be, and the locking was the only compromise we could come to. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 21:41, 26 June 2011 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Evil_Clown_(3.5e_NPC_Class)&diff=524128Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)2011-06-26T20:49:21Z<p>Daniel Draco: Um, hey. No. I asked that my pages be locked.</p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub|Many parts not filled out.}}<br />
{{DnD Base Class Infobox<br />
|img=Evilclown.jpg<br />
|imgsize=250px<br />
|imgcaption=Image courtesy of [[User:Rowan|Rowan]].<br />
|rating_power=3.5<br />
|raters_power=1<br />
|rating_wording=4<br />
|raters_wording=1<br />
|rating_formatting=3<br />
|raters_formatting=1<br />
|rating_flavor=2<br />
|raters_flavor=1<br />
|status=v1.0.1<br />
|editing=Ask first.<br />
|type=Bad Guy, Combat-Focused<br />
|desc=The object of the hatred of all children, and the scariest thing you'll ever see.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Evil Clown==<br />
<br />
<-general description->.<br />
<br />
===Making an Evil Clown===<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
<-Strong points and weak points, and effectiveness with party members.->.<br />
<br />
'''Abilities:''' <-description of most important attributes for this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Races:''' <-description of relative likelihood of various races to join this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Alignment:''' Any evil.<br />
<br />
'''Starting Gold:''' <-starting gold; YdZ->&times;10 gp (<-average starting gold. This calculated by multiplying the number of die rolls by the die size plus one and mulitplying the result by 5 [Y × (Z + 1) × 5].-> gp).<br />
<br />
'''[[SRD:Race Descriptions#Starting Age|Starting Age]]:''' <-Select "Simple" or "As [[rogue]]", "Moderate" or "As [[fighter]]", or "Complex" or "As [[wizard]]", to let players know which starting age category to use for 1st-level characters->.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+<br />
<div>{{#anc:Table: The Evil Clown}}</div><br />
Hit Die: d6<br />
|-<br />
! rowspan="2" | Level<br />
! rowspan="2" | [[BAB|Base<br/>Attack Bonus]]<br />
! colspan="3" | [[SRD:Saving Throw|Saving Throw]]s<br />
! rowspan="2" | Special<br />
|-<br />
! [[SRD:Saving Throw#Fortitude|Fort]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Reflex|Ref]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Will|Will]]<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|1st|| class="left" | +0 || +0 || +2 || +2<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +1d6, Hammerspace, Balloon Familiar, Bonus Language (Squeak), AC Bonus, Horrific Appearance, Clown Gags<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|2nd|| class="left" | +1 || +0 || +3 || +3<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|3rd|| class="left" | +2 || +1 || +3 || +3<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +2d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|4th||class="left" | +3 || +1 || +4 || +4<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|5th||class="left" | +3 || +1 || +4 || +4<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +3d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|6th||class="left" | +4 || +2 || +5 || +5<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|7th||class="left" | +5 || +2 || +5 || +5<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +4d6, Clown Car<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|8th||class="left" | +6/+1 || +2 || +6 || +6<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|9th||class="left" | +6/+1 || +3 || +6 || +6<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +5d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|10th||class="left" | +7/+2 || +3 || +7 || +7<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|11th||class="left" | +8/+3 || +3 || +7 || +7<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +6d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|12th||class="left" | +9/+4 || +4 || +8 || +8<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|13th||class="left" | +9/+4 || +4 || +8 || +8<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +7d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|14th||class="left" | +10/+5 || +4 || +9 || +9<br />
| class="left" | Improved Clown Car<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|15th||class="left" | +11/+6/+1 || +5 || +9 || +9<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +8d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|16th||class="left" | +12/+7/+2 || +5 || +10 || +10<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|17th||class="left" | +12/+7/+2 || +5 || +10 || +10<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +9d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|18th||class="left" | +13/+8/+3 || +6 || +11 || +11<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|19th||class="left" | +14/+9/+4 || +6 || +11 || +11<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +10d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|20th||class="left" | +15/+10/+5 || +6 || +12 || +12<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="6" class="skill" |<br />
'''Class Skills (4 + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier per level, &times;4 at 1st level)'''<br/><br />
Balance, Bluff, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Intimidate, Jump, Perform, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, Use Magic Device, Use Rope.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Class Features====<br />
<br />
<-fluff about class features->. All of the following are class features of the Evil Clown.<br />
<br />
'''Weapon and Armor Proficiency:''' A clown is proficient with all simple weapons and with squeaky hammers, but not with armor or shields.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Tomfoolery}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' With a disturbing and insulting joke, an evil clown can add insult to injury and deal extra damage. By making a successful Perform (Comedy) check opposed by the target's modified level check (1d20 + character level or hit dice + target's wisdom bonus [if any] + target's modifiers on saves against effects from the enchantment school), an evil clown may deal extra damage on a number of attacks in that round equal to his Charisma bonus, minimum 1. This check may be made only one time per round, and is a free action. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two evil clown levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as tomfoolery only if the target is within 30 feet. This damage is never nonlethal damage. Tomfoolery is only effective against creatures that can see and/or hear the evil clown (including through blindsight) and have an intelligence score of at least 3. Tomfoolery is a mind-affecting effect.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Hammerspace}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Supernatural|Su]]):''' As a free action a number of times per round equal to his charisma modifier, minimum 1, an evil clown may magically produce items for his other abilities, as specified in the descriptions of the individual abilities. This ability can be used even when it isn't the evil clown's turn.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Balloon Familiar}}:''' An evil clown may use his hammerspace ability to produce a long skinny balloon, which he may shape into any of the standard animals available to be a sorcerer's familiar as a full-round action. The balloon animal animates, and gains the abilities of a familiar belonging to a sorcerer of a level equal to the evil clown's class level. This familiar is treated as a construct, rather than a magical beast. When a balloon familiar is subject to slashing or piercing damage, it takes triple the normal damage. An evil clown does not lose experience if this familiar is destroyed, but cannot create another balloon familiar until the next day. Any natural weapons the familiar has deal nonlethal damage. If the familiar is within reach, the evil clown may change the familiar to the shape of any other familiar from the standard list as a full-round action. The balloon familiar is otherwise identical to a sorcerer's familiar.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Speak Language (Squeak)}}:''' An evil clown gains Squeak as a bonus language. This language cannot be learned by anyone who is not an evil clown, no matter how hard they try to learn it. The language is spoken by emitting squeaks of various lengths and pitches, and the written language looks like a cross between sheet music and morse code.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:AC Bonus}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' When unarmored and unencumbered, the evil clown adds his Charisma bonus (if any) to his AC. In addition, an evil clown gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five evil clown levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level). These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the evil clown is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Horrific Appearance}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' An evil clown gains a circumstance bonus to intimidate checks against nonevil creatures equal to 1/2 his class level as his skin pales, his nose grows red and bulbous, and his hair gradually becomes one or more unnatural colors.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Clown Gags}}:''' An evil clown has a gag pool with a number of gags per day equal to his class level. These gags can be spent on various abilities as detailed below. Any save DCs are equal to 10 + 1/2 the evil clown's class level + his charisma modifier.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Creepy Grin}} (Sp):'' As a standard action, an evil clown may spend 3 gags to use Slow as a spell-like ability, with a caster level equal to his class level. This is a mind-affecting fear effect.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Seltzer Splash}} (Su):'' As a standard action, an evil clown may spend 1 gag to shoot selzter water at a single creature within 10 ft., dazing it for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1. The creature is entitled to a Fortitude save to negate this effect. An evil clown can make a DC 10 Perform (Comedy) check to use his hammerspace ability to produce the requisite bottle of seltzer water.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Discarded Banana Peel}} (Ex):'' As an immediate action, an evil clown may spend 3 gags to throw a banana peel at a single creature that is moving from one square to another, under its own power and while touching the ground. The evil clown makes a ranged touch attack against the target, with a range incerement of 10 ft. If the attack hits, the enemy falls prone and ends their move. An evil clown can make a DC 20 Perform (Comedy) check to use his hammerspace ability to produce the requisite banana peel.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Pie Toss}} (Ex):'' As a standard action, an evil clown may spend 1 gag to throw a cream pie at a single creature with discernable eyes. The evil clown makes a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 ft. If the attack hits, the enemy is rendered blind until it takes a standard action to wipe off the cream. An evil clown can make a DC 10 Perform (Comedy) check to use his hammerspace ability to produce the requisite cream pie.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Squeaky Hammer}} (Su):'' An evil clown must declare that he is using this ability before he makes his attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). By spending 2 gags, an evil clown can confuse a foe damaged by his squeaky hammer for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1. A successful Fortitude save negates. An evil clown can make a DC 15 Perform (Comedy) check to produce the requisite squeaky hammer with his hammerspace ability. A squeaky hammer is identical to a warhammer, except that it deals nonlethal damage. Unlike most nonlethal weapons, the wielder of a squeaky hammer cannot take a -4 penalty on attack rolls in order to deal lethal damage.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Unicycle Ride}} (Ex):'' By spending 3 gags, an evil clown can use a move action to mount a unicycle and either juggle clubs or hold a quarterstaff for balance. He can maintan this for a number of rounds equal to his charisma modifier, minimum 1. After this period of time, the clown must make a balance check each round, DC 10 for the first check, with the DC increasing by 2 each round. Failure means that the evil clown falls off and end up prone. While riding his unicycle like this, he can make flurries of blows with a quarterstaff or thrown clubs as a monk of a level equal to the evil clown's class level. Dismounting is a free action. An evil clown can make a DC 20 Perform (Comedy) check to produce the requisite unicycle, club, or quarterstaff, with a separate check and use of hammerspace to produce each item.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Disquieting Diddy}} (Su):'' By spending 1 gag, an evil clown can magically produce circus music and laugh maniacally at a single creature within close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) to which he has line of sight. The creature must make a Will save or be shaken for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Frightening Fanfare}} (Su):'' By spending 2 gags, an evil clown can magically produce circus music and laugh maniacally at a single creature within close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) to which he has line of sight. The creature must make a Will save or be frightened for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Terrifying Tune}} (Su):'' By spending 3 gags, an evil clown can magically produce circus music and laugh maniacally at a single creature within close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) to which he has line of sight. The creature must make a Will save or be panicked for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Clown Car}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Supernatural|Su]]):''' Starting at 7th level, an evil clown is treated as one size category smaller for the purposes of squeezing into and through small spaces. At 14th level, this ability improves, and he is treated as two size categories smaller for the purposes of squeezing into and through small spaces.<br />
<br />
====Ex-Evil Clowns====<br />
<br />
An evil clown whose alignment changes to be nonevil does not lose any class features, but cannot advance his evil clown level unless he once again becomes evil. Using a clown gag is considered a heinously evil act.<br />
<br />
====Epic Evil Clown====<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ class="epic" |<br />
<div>{{#anc:Table: The Epic <-class name->}}</div><br />
Hit Die: d<-Die size for Hit Die-><br />
|-<br />
! Level !! Special<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 21st || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 22nd || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 23rd || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 24th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 25th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 26th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 27th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 28th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 29th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 30th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="42" class="skill" |<br />
<-number of skill points-> + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier skill points per level.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''<-existing class feature->:''' <-how this class feature increases or accumulates at epic levels-><br />
<br />
'''<-another existing class feature->:''' <-how this class feature increases or accumulates at epic levels-><br />
<br />
<-Lather, rinse...-><br />
<br />
<-... repeat.-><br />
<br />
'''{{#anc: Bonus Feats }}:''' The epic <-class name-> gains a bonus feat (selected from the list of epic <-class name-> bonus feats) every <-number of feats per level-> levels after 20th.<br />
<br />
''Epic <-class name-> Bonus Feat List:'' <-list of bonus epic feats->.<br />
<br />
====<-Sample race of your choice-> <-class name-> Starting Package====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
'''Weapons:''' <-Weapon selection for starting at 1st level with this class.->.<br />
<br />
'''Skill Selection:''' Pick a number of skills equal to 4 + [[Int]] modifier.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|-<br />
! class="left" | Skill || Ranks || Ability || Armor<br/>Check<br/>Penalty<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | <-Skill name-> || <-4 for class skills and 2 for cross-class skills-> || <-Abbrieviated key ability-> || <-armor check penalty based on starting armor. If innapplicable put "&mdash;"-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | <-Skill name-> || <-4 for class skills and 2 for cross-class skills-> || <-Abbrieviated key ability-> || <-armor check penalty based on starting armor. If innapplicable put "&mdash;"-><br />
<-copy and paste the rows as necessary.-><br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''Feat:''' <-1st-level feat selection->.<br />
<br />
'''Bonus Feats:''' <-1st-level feat bonus feats due to class or sample race. remove this section if this sample doesn't get any bonus feats at 1st level. ->.<br />
<br />
'''Gear:''' <-Starting armor and other equipment outside of weapons.->.<br />
<br />
'''Gold:''' <-Starting gold using this package.->.<br />
<br />
===Campaign Information===<br />
<br />
====Playing a <-class name->====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
'''Religion:''' <-description of how this class typically (but no exclusively) approaches religion including likely portfolios it would worship->.<br />
<br />
'''Other Classes:''' <-How this class typically interacts with other classes and how characters of this class interact with characters of other classes->.<br />
<br />
'''Combat:''' <-Typical role in combat->.<br />
<br />
'''Advancement:''' <-Typical advancement options for characters with this class. Include desirable multiclass options->.<br />
<br />
====<-pluralized class name-> in the World====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|<-Some quote from a character of this class->|orig=<-NPC name->, <-race-> <-class->}}<br />
<br />
<-Where characters of this class fit in a d20 world.-><br />
<br />
'''Daily Life:''' <-day in the life of a character of this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Notables:''' <-notable NPCs of this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Organizations:''' <-info on what, where, when, and how characters of this class congregtate and assemble->.<br />
<br />
'''NPC Reactions:''' <-How NPCs react to PCs of this class->.<br />
<br />
====<-class name-> Lore====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
Characters with ranks in <-the appropriate skills-> can research <-pluralized class name-> to learn more about them. When a character makes a skill check, read or paraphrase the following, including information from lower DCs.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ <-the appropriate skills-><br />
! DC || class="left" | Result<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 5 || class="left" | <-common knowledge->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 10 || class="left" | <-not so common knowledge->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 15 || class="left" | <-rare information->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 20 || class="left" | <-very rare information->.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====<-pluralized class name-> in the Game====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
<-How characters of this class fit in the game (PC and NPC) and what roles they play.-><br />
<br />
'''Adaptation:''' <-Possible variant conceptions of this class.->.<br />
<br />
'''Sample Encounter:''' <-DM placement for NPCs of this class.->.<br />
<br />
''EL whatever:'' <-Encounter scenario and character info on sample NPC including stat block. The CR of the NPC is typically the same as the EL for the encounter.->.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{DnD Base Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Class]]<br />
[[Category:Base Class]]<br />
[[Category:Bad Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Combat-Focused]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Evil_Clown_(3.5e_NPC_Class)&diff=490226Evil Clown (3.5e NPC Class)2010-09-27T05:33:19Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{stub|Many parts not filled out.}}<br />
{{DnD Base Class Infobox<br />
|img=Evilclown.jpg<br />
|imgsize=250px<br />
|imgcaption=Image courtesy of [[User:Rowan|Rowan]].<br />
|rating_power=3.5<br />
|raters_power=1<br />
|rating_wording=4<br />
|raters_wording=1<br />
|rating_formatting=3<br />
|raters_formatting=1<br />
|rating_flavor=2<br />
|raters_flavor=1<br />
|authors=[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]<br />
|datecreated=June 27, 2008<br />
|status=v1.0.1<br />
|editing=Ask first.<br />
|type=Bad Guy, Combat-Focused<br />
|desc=The object of the hatred of all children, and the scariest thing you'll ever see.<br />
}}<br />
<br />
==Evil Clown==<br />
<br />
<-general description->.<br />
<br />
===Making an Evil Clown===<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
<-Strong points and weak points, and effectiveness with party members.->.<br />
<br />
'''Abilities:''' <-description of most important attributes for this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Races:''' <-description of relative likelihood of various races to join this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Alignment:''' Any evil.<br />
<br />
'''Starting Gold:''' <-starting gold; YdZ->&times;10 gp (<-average starting gold. This calculated by multiplying the number of die rolls by the die size plus one and mulitplying the result by 5 [Y × (Z + 1) × 5].-> gp).<br />
<br />
'''[[SRD:Race Descriptions#Starting Age|Starting Age]]:''' <-Select "Simple" or "As [[rogue]]", "Moderate" or "As [[fighter]]", or "Complex" or "As [[wizard]]", to let players know which starting age category to use for 1st-level characters->.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+<br />
<div>{{#anc:Table: The Evil Clown}}</div><br />
Hit Die: d6<br />
|-<br />
! rowspan="2" | Level<br />
! rowspan="2" | [[BAB|Base<br/>Attack Bonus]]<br />
! colspan="3" | [[SRD:Saving Throw|Saving Throw]]s<br />
! rowspan="2" | Special<br />
|-<br />
! [[SRD:Saving Throw#Fortitude|Fort]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Reflex|Ref]] || [[SRD:Saving Throw#Will|Will]]<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|1st|| class="left" | +0 || +0 || +2 || +2<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +1d6, Hammerspace, Balloon Familiar, Bonus Language (Squeak), AC Bonus, Horrific Appearance, Clown Gags<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|2nd|| class="left" | +1 || +0 || +3 || +3<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|3rd|| class="left" | +2 || +1 || +3 || +3<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +2d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|4th||class="left" | +3 || +1 || +4 || +4<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|5th||class="left" | +3 || +1 || +4 || +4<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +3d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|6th||class="left" | +4 || +2 || +5 || +5<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|7th||class="left" | +5 || +2 || +5 || +5<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +4d6, Clown Car<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|8th||class="left" | +6/+1 || +2 || +6 || +6<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|9th||class="left" | +6/+1 || +3 || +6 || +6<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +5d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|10th||class="left" | +7/+2 || +3 || +7 || +7<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|11th||class="left" | +8/+3 || +3 || +7 || +7<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +6d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|12th||class="left" | +9/+4 || +4 || +8 || +8<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|13th||class="left" | +9/+4 || +4 || +8 || +8<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +7d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|14th||class="left" | +10/+5 || +4 || +9 || +9<br />
| class="left" | Improved Clown Car<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|15th||class="left" | +11/+6/+1 || +5 || +9 || +9<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +8d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|16th||class="left" | +12/+7/+2 || +5 || +10 || +10<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|17th||class="left" | +12/+7/+2 || +5 || +10 || +10<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +9d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|18th||class="left" | +13/+8/+3 || +6 || +11 || +11<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|19th||class="left" | +14/+9/+4 || +6 || +11 || +11<br />
| class="left" | Tomfoolery +10d6<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
|20th||class="left" | +15/+10/+5 || +6 || +12 || +12<br />
| class="left" | <!--placeholder--><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="6" class="skill" |<br />
'''Class Skills (4 + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier per level, &times;4 at 1st level)'''<br/><br />
Balance, Bluff, Disguise, Escape Artist, Forgery, Intimidate, Jump, Perform, Sleight of Hand, Tumble, Use Magic Device, Use Rope.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====Class Features====<br />
<br />
<-fluff about class features->. All of the following are class features of the Evil Clown.<br />
<br />
'''Weapon and Armor Proficiency:''' A clown is proficient with all simple weapons and with squeaky hammers, but not with armor or shields.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Tomfoolery}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' With a disturbing and insulting joke, an evil clown can add insult to injury and deal extra damage. By making a successful Perform (Comedy) check opposed by the target's modified level check (1d20 + character level or hit dice + target's wisdom bonus [if any] + target's modifiers on saves against effects from the enchantment school), an evil clown may deal extra damage on a number of attacks in that round equal to his Charisma bonus, minimum 1. This check may be made only one time per round, and is a free action. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and it increases by 1d6 every two evil clown levels thereafter. Ranged attacks can count as tomfoolery only if the target is within 30 feet. This damage is never nonlethal damage. Tomfoolery is only effective against creatures that can see and/or hear the evil clown (including through blindsight) and have an intelligence score of at least 3. Tomfoolery is a mind-affecting effect.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Hammerspace}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Supernatural|Su]]):''' As a free action a number of times per round equal to his charisma modifier, minimum 1, an evil clown may magically produce items for his other abilities, as specified in the descriptions of the individual abilities. This ability can be used even when it isn't the evil clown's turn.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Balloon Familiar}}:''' An evil clown may use his hammerspace ability to produce a long skinny balloon, which he may shape into any of the standard animals available to be a sorcerer's familiar as a full-round action. The balloon animal animates, and gains the abilities of a familiar belonging to a sorcerer of a level equal to the evil clown's class level. This familiar is treated as a construct, rather than a magical beast. When a balloon familiar is subject to slashing or piercing damage, it takes triple the normal damage. An evil clown does not lose experience if this familiar is destroyed, but cannot create another balloon familiar until the next day. Any natural weapons the familiar has deal nonlethal damage. If the familiar is within reach, the evil clown may change the familiar to the shape of any other familiar from the standard list as a full-round action. The balloon familiar is otherwise identical to a sorcerer's familiar.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Speak Language (Squeak)}}:''' An evil clown gains Squeak as a bonus language. This language cannot be learned by anyone who is not an evil clown, no matter how hard they try to learn it. The language is spoken by emitting squeaks of various lengths and pitches, and the written language looks like a cross between sheet music and morse code.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:AC Bonus}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' When unarmored and unencumbered, the evil clown adds his Charisma bonus (if any) to his AC. In addition, an evil clown gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five evil clown levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level). These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the evil clown is flat-footed. He loses these bonuses when he is immobilized or helpless, when he wears any armor, when he carries a shield, or when he carries a medium or heavy load.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Horrific Appearance}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Extraordinary|Ex]]):''' An evil clown gains a circumstance bonus to intimidate checks against nonevil creatures equal to 1/2 his class level as his skin pales, his nose grows red and bulbous, and his hair gradually becomes one or more unnatural colors.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Clown Gags}}:''' An evil clown has a gag pool with a number of gags per day equal to his class level. These gags can be spent on various abilities as detailed below. Any save DCs are equal to 10 + 1/2 the evil clown's class level + his charisma modifier.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Creepy Grin}} (Sp):'' As a standard action, an evil clown may spend 3 gags to use Slow as a spell-like ability, with a caster level equal to his class level. This is a mind-affecting fear effect.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Seltzer Splash}} (Su):'' As a standard action, an evil clown may spend 1 gag to shoot selzter water at a single creature within 10 ft., dazing it for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1. The creature is entitled to a Fortitude save to negate this effect. An evil clown can make a DC 10 Perform (Comedy) check to use his hammerspace ability to produce the requisite bottle of seltzer water.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Discarded Banana Peel}} (Ex):'' As an immediate action, an evil clown may spend 3 gags to throw a banana peel at a single creature that is moving from one square to another, under its own power and while touching the ground. The evil clown makes a ranged touch attack against the target, with a range incerement of 10 ft. If the attack hits, the enemy falls prone and ends their move. An evil clown can make a DC 20 Perform (Comedy) check to use his hammerspace ability to produce the requisite banana peel.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Pie Toss}} (Ex):'' As a standard action, an evil clown may spend 1 gag to throw a cream pie at a single creature with discernable eyes. The evil clown makes a ranged touch attack with a range increment of 10 ft. If the attack hits, the enemy is rendered blind until it takes a standard action to wipe off the cream. An evil clown can make a DC 10 Perform (Comedy) check to use his hammerspace ability to produce the requisite cream pie.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Squeaky Hammer}} (Su):'' An evil clown must declare that he is using this ability before he makes his attack roll (thus, a failed attack roll ruins the attempt). By spending 2 gags, an evil clown can confuse a foe damaged by his squeaky hammer for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1. A successful Fortitude save negates. An evil clown can make a DC 15 Perform (Comedy) check to produce the requisite squeaky hammer with his hammerspace ability. A squeaky hammer is identical to a warhammer, except that it deals nonlethal damage. Unlike most nonlethal weapons, the wielder of a squeaky hammer cannot take a -4 penalty on attack rolls in order to deal lethal damage.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Unicycle Ride}} (Ex):'' By spending 3 gags, an evil clown can use a move action to mount a unicycle and either juggle clubs or hold a quarterstaff for balance. He can maintan this for a number of rounds equal to his charisma modifier, minimum 1. After this period of time, the clown must make a balance check each round, DC 10 for the first check, with the DC increasing by 2 each round. Failure means that the evil clown falls off and end up prone. While riding his unicycle like this, he can make flurries of blows with a quarterstaff or thrown clubs as a monk of a level equal to the evil clown's class level. Dismounting is a free action. An evil clown can make a DC 20 Perform (Comedy) check to produce the requisite unicycle, club, or quarterstaff, with a separate check and use of hammerspace to produce each item.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Disquieting Diddy}} (Su):'' By spending 1 gag, an evil clown can magically produce circus music and laugh maniacally at a single creature within close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) to which he has line of sight. The creature must make a Will save or be shaken for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Frightening Fanfare}} (Su):'' By spending 2 gags, an evil clown can magically produce circus music and laugh maniacally at a single creature within close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) to which he has line of sight. The creature must make a Will save or be frightened for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1.<br />
<br />
''{{#anc:Terrifying Tune}} (Su):'' By spending 3 gags, an evil clown can magically produce circus music and laugh maniacally at a single creature within close range (25 ft. + 5 ft./2 levels) to which he has line of sight. The creature must make a Will save or be panicked for a number of rounds equal to the evil clown's charisma modifier, minimum 1.<br />
<br />
'''{{#anc:Clown Car}} ([[SRD:Special Abilities Overview#Supernatural|Su]]):''' Starting at 7th level, an evil clown is treated as one size category smaller for the purposes of squeezing into and through small spaces. At 14th level, this ability improves, and he is treated as two size categories smaller for the purposes of squeezing into and through small spaces.<br />
<br />
====Ex-Evil Clowns====<br />
<br />
An evil clown whose alignment changes to be nonevil does not lose any class features, but cannot advance his evil clown level unless he once again becomes evil. Using a clown gag is considered a heinously evil act.<br />
<br />
====Epic Evil Clown====<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ class="epic" |<br />
<div>{{#anc:Table: The Epic <-class name->}}</div><br />
Hit Die: d<-Die size for Hit Die-><br />
|-<br />
! Level !! Special<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 21st || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 22nd || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 23rd || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 24th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 25th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 26th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 27th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 28th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 29th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 30th || class="left" | <-any improvements to class features gained at this level, including any bonus feats-><br />
|-<br />
| colspan="42" class="skill" |<br />
<-number of skill points-> + [[SRD:Intelligence|Int]] modifier skill points per level.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''<-existing class feature->:''' <-how this class feature increases or accumulates at epic levels-><br />
<br />
'''<-another existing class feature->:''' <-how this class feature increases or accumulates at epic levels-><br />
<br />
<-Lather, rinse...-><br />
<br />
<-... repeat.-><br />
<br />
'''{{#anc: Bonus Feats }}:''' The epic <-class name-> gains a bonus feat (selected from the list of epic <-class name-> bonus feats) every <-number of feats per level-> levels after 20th.<br />
<br />
''Epic <-class name-> Bonus Feat List:'' <-list of bonus epic feats->.<br />
<br />
====<-Sample race of your choice-> <-class name-> Starting Package====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
'''Weapons:''' <-Weapon selection for starting at 1st level with this class.->.<br />
<br />
'''Skill Selection:''' Pick a number of skills equal to 4 + [[Int]] modifier.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|-<br />
! class="left" | Skill || Ranks || Ability || Armor<br/>Check<br/>Penalty<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | <-Skill name-> || <-4 for class skills and 2 for cross-class skills-> || <-Abbrieviated key ability-> || <-armor check penalty based on starting armor. If innapplicable put "&mdash;"-><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| class="left" | <-Skill name-> || <-4 for class skills and 2 for cross-class skills-> || <-Abbrieviated key ability-> || <-armor check penalty based on starting armor. If innapplicable put "&mdash;"-><br />
<-copy and paste the rows as necessary.-><br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''Feat:''' <-1st-level feat selection->.<br />
<br />
'''Bonus Feats:''' <-1st-level feat bonus feats due to class or sample race. remove this section if this sample doesn't get any bonus feats at 1st level. ->.<br />
<br />
'''Gear:''' <-Starting armor and other equipment outside of weapons.->.<br />
<br />
'''Gold:''' <-Starting gold using this package.->.<br />
<br />
===Campaign Information===<br />
<br />
====Playing a <-class name->====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
'''Religion:''' <-description of how this class typically (but no exclusively) approaches religion including likely portfolios it would worship->.<br />
<br />
'''Other Classes:''' <-How this class typically interacts with other classes and how characters of this class interact with characters of other classes->.<br />
<br />
'''Combat:''' <-Typical role in combat->.<br />
<br />
'''Advancement:''' <-Typical advancement options for characters with this class. Include desirable multiclass options->.<br />
<br />
====<-pluralized class name-> in the World====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
{{quote|<-Some quote from a character of this class->|orig=<-NPC name->, <-race-> <-class->}}<br />
<br />
<-Where characters of this class fit in a d20 world.-><br />
<br />
'''Daily Life:''' <-day in the life of a character of this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Notables:''' <-notable NPCs of this class->.<br />
<br />
'''Organizations:''' <-info on what, where, when, and how characters of this class congregtate and assemble->.<br />
<br />
'''NPC Reactions:''' <-How NPCs react to PCs of this class->.<br />
<br />
====<-class name-> Lore====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
Characters with ranks in <-the appropriate skills-> can research <-pluralized class name-> to learn more about them. When a character makes a skill check, read or paraphrase the following, including information from lower DCs.<br />
<br />
{| class="{{d20}}"<br />
|+ <-the appropriate skills-><br />
! DC || class="left" | Result<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 5 || class="left" | <-common knowledge->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 10 || class="left" | <-not so common knowledge->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 15 || class="left" | <-rare information->.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even|{{#var:odd}}}}"<br />
| 20 || class="left" | <-very rare information->.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
====<-pluralized class name-> in the Game====<br />
<br />
{{Section Description Needed}}<br />
<br />
<-How characters of this class fit in the game (PC and NPC) and what roles they play.-><br />
<br />
'''Adaptation:''' <-Possible variant conceptions of this class.->.<br />
<br />
'''Sample Encounter:''' <-DM placement for NPCs of this class.->.<br />
<br />
''EL whatever:'' <-Encounter scenario and character info on sample NPC including stat block. The CR of the NPC is typically the same as the EL for the encounter.->.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{DnD Base Classes Breadcrumb}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:3.5e]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Class]]<br />
[[Category:Base Class]]<br />
[[Category:Bad Guy]]<br />
[[Category:Combat-Focused]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=483587User:Daniel Draco2010-07-27T16:43:23Z<p>Daniel Draco: Not a good way to contact me anymore</p>
<hr />
<div>I was part of a mass exodus following Green Dragon banning all admins over the actions of one non-admin. I have abandoned this wiki, but I'm still watching to make sure my work is safe.<br />
<br />
==Homebrew==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class)<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class)<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''skype:''' dorandraco<br><br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship/Sam_Kay2&diff=459741D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay22010-03-11T04:46:54Z<p>Daniel Draco: phrasing it a little more mildly</p>
<hr />
<div>===[[Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|Sam Kay2]]===<br />
<br />
:[[Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|Sam Kay]][[User:Sam Kay|'s]] Nomination.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''[{{fullurl:Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|action=edit}} Voice your opinion]'''<br />
'''(2/5/0) 29% Approval; Ending 11:00, 13 February 2010 (MST)'''<br />
<br />
I am re-nominating Sam Kay for adminship since he/she has not been active in over six months ([http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sam+Kay&namespace=&year=2010&month=4]). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Candidates Prelude<br />
<br />
;Questions for the candidate<br />
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:<br />
:'''1.''' What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators administrators] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_reading_list administrators' reading list] on Wikipedia before answering.<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered D&D Wikians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "comments" and "questions" sections. --><br />
<br />
'''Discussion''' <br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
Personal feelings aside, I feel once you find someone who has shown themselves to be qualified to be an admin on here, then unless they specifically do something that goes against that grain that you should allow them as much leeway as possible when they are unable to contribute. I, obviously, have had long periods where access to the internet has not been available due to schooling, moving, etc, yet, I still try to take the time to come here and show my support. So I support keeping Sam as an admin, unless of course he doesn't want it. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 10:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pending an explanation, I can't in good conscience call for a user to be demoted for no other reason than they've not made an edit for six months. Let's here from Sam Kay himself (or alternatively: show that he can't or won't be reached) before we remove his adminship. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wikipedia has this to say: "Administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed." As far as I know DanDwiki follows Wikipedia's policies (unless otherwise noted). Since Sam Kay hasn't said he wants to step down (as far as I know), I think we should consider him "retired", but let him retain admin rights. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I never actually read that before. The text from the RfA page is used and then D&D Wiki comes foremost. Unfortunately this method of adminship removal has already been done to another ([[Requests for Adminship/Pz.Az.04Maus]]) and therefore is acceptable on D&D Wiki. Or if it really a point of contention then it should be discussed on [[Talk:Requests for Adminship]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As Sam Kay has just signed back on to resign formally, this is a moot point now. I'm officially changing my vote from Support to Oppose. I'll change the numbers accordingly. However, we should clear up what constitutes "long enough" for adminship to be removed. You know me (or maybe you don't), I like to know all the nitsy little details about stuff like this. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
I feel that if someone has not contributed in over six months then they are far removed from D&D Wiki and far removed from the community. As such they do not exemplify admin qualities. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sam is a nice guy. I know this is just process, put up so he be formally released as admin. Whatever... I don't have to like the process. I don't have to like Sam. I don't ''have'' to participate either. But I think this is what Sam would want too. ...Sam is a nice guy. So I oppose this motion. Sam Kay should not become an admin. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I am no longer an active member of this wiki, and I therefore resign as admin. --&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) <br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' - as Sam Kay formally requested. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
<s>Sam Kay has always created top-quality content. I say the same about Calidore Chase, who also has been absent or near-absent for long lengths of time but comes back. Unless Sam Kay responds and my thoughts change, I am neutral here. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)</s><br />
<br />
:Incidentally, thanks for the nice words! --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In case you all were unaware, Sam has migrated with a few of us to the other wiki. I doubt he's coming back here, but I can't speak for him. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[Category:Admin Request]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship/Sam_Kay2&diff=459740D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay22010-03-11T04:43:43Z<p>Daniel Draco: I understand removing the link (only meant to be a citation) but changing what I said was a bit much. It was neutrally phrased. In policy terms, changing it was a personal attack against those wikians</p>
<hr />
<div>===[[Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|Sam Kay2]]===<br />
<br />
:[[Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|Sam Kay]][[User:Sam Kay|'s]] Nomination.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''[{{fullurl:Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|action=edit}} Voice your opinion]'''<br />
'''(2/5/0) 29% Approval; Ending 11:00, 13 February 2010 (MST)'''<br />
<br />
I am re-nominating Sam Kay for adminship since he/she has not been active in over six months ([http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sam+Kay&namespace=&year=2010&month=4]). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Candidates Prelude<br />
<br />
;Questions for the candidate<br />
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:<br />
:'''1.''' What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators administrators] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_reading_list administrators' reading list] on Wikipedia before answering.<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered D&D Wikians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "comments" and "questions" sections. --><br />
<br />
'''Discussion''' <br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
Personal feelings aside, I feel once you find someone who has shown themselves to be qualified to be an admin on here, then unless they specifically do something that goes against that grain that you should allow them as much leeway as possible when they are unable to contribute. I, obviously, have had long periods where access to the internet has not been available due to schooling, moving, etc, yet, I still try to take the time to come here and show my support. So I support keeping Sam as an admin, unless of course he doesn't want it. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 10:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pending an explanation, I can't in good conscience call for a user to be demoted for no other reason than they've not made an edit for six months. Let's here from Sam Kay himself (or alternatively: show that he can't or won't be reached) before we remove his adminship. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wikipedia has this to say: "Administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed." As far as I know DanDwiki follows Wikipedia's policies (unless otherwise noted). Since Sam Kay hasn't said he wants to step down (as far as I know), I think we should consider him "retired", but let him retain admin rights. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:I never actually read that before. The text from the RfA page is used and then D&D Wiki comes foremost. Unfortunately this method of adminship removal has already been done to another ([[Requests for Adminship/Pz.Az.04Maus]]) and therefore is acceptable on D&D Wiki. Or if it really a point of contention then it should be discussed on [[Talk:Requests for Adminship]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
::As Sam Kay has just signed back on to resign formally, this is a moot point now. I'm officially changing my vote from Support to Oppose. I'll change the numbers accordingly. However, we should clear up what constitutes "long enough" for adminship to be removed. You know me (or maybe you don't), I like to know all the nitsy little details about stuff like this. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 20:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
I feel that if someone has not contributed in over six months then they are far removed from D&D Wiki and far removed from the community. As such they do not exemplify admin qualities. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sam is a nice guy. I know this is just process, put up so he be formally released as admin. Whatever... I don't have to like the process. I don't have to like Sam. I don't ''have'' to participate either. But I think this is what Sam would want too. ...Sam is a nice guy. So I oppose this motion. Sam Kay should not become an admin. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
I am no longer an active member of this wiki, and I therefore resign as admin. --&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 15:46, 10 March 2010 (UTC) <br />
<br />
'''Oppose''' - as Sam Kay formally requested. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:40, 10 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
<s>Sam Kay has always created top-quality content. I say the same about Calidore Chase, who also has been absent or near-absent for long lengths of time but comes back. Unless Sam Kay responds and my thoughts change, I am neutral here. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)</s><br />
<br />
:Incidentally, thanks for the nice words! --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In case you all were unaware, Sam has migrated with us to the other wiki. I doubt he's coming back here, but I can't speak for him. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[Category:Admin Request]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship/Sam_Kay2&diff=459559D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay22010-03-08T22:17:46Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[[Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|Sam Kay2]]===<br />
<br />
:[[Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|Sam Kay]][[User:Sam Kay|'s]] Nomination.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''[{{fullurl:Requests for Adminship/Sam Kay2|action=edit}} Voice your opinion]'''<br />
'''(3/2/1) 50% Approval; Ending 11:00, 13 February 2010 (MST)'''<br />
<br />
I am re-nominating Sam Kay for adminship since he/she has not been active in over six months ([http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Sam+Kay&namespace=&year=2010&month=4]). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 05:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Candidates Prelude<br />
<br />
;Questions for the candidate<br />
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:<br />
:'''1.''' What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators administrators] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_reading_list administrators' reading list] on Wikipedia before answering.<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?<br />
::'''A:''' <!--Nominee answers here--><br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered D&D Wikians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "comments" and "questions" sections. --><br />
<br />
'''Discussion''' <br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
Personal feelings aside, I feel once you find someone who has shown themselves to be qualified to be an admin on here, then unless they specifically do something that goes against that grain that you should allow them as much leeway as possible when they are unable to contribute. I, obviously, have had long periods where access to the internet has not been available due to schooling, moving, etc, yet, I still try to take the time to come here and show my support. So I support keeping Sam as an admin, unless of course he doesn't want it. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 10:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Pending an explanation, I can't in good conscience call for a user to be demoted for no other reason than they've not made an edit for six months. Let's here from Sam Kay himself (or alternatively: show that he can't or won't be reached) before we remove his adminship. [[User:Jazzman831|Jazz]][[User talk:Jazzman831|Man]] 22:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Wikipedia has this to say: "Administrators may become inactive for a period of time, or may retire altogether. In these instances, as noted on the Perennial Proposals page, consensus has been that they will retain their rights unless they specifically request to have them removed." As far as I know DanDwiki follows Wikipedia's policies (unless otherwise noted). Since Sam Kay hasn't said he wants to step down (as far as I know), I think we should consider him "retired", but let him retain admin rights. --[[User:Badger|Badger]] 00:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
<br />
I feel that if someone has not contributed in over six months then they are far removed from D&D Wiki and far removed from the community. As such they do not exemplify admin qualities. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
Sam is a nice guy. I know this is just process, put up so he be formally released as admin. Whatever... I don't have to like the process. I don't have to like Sam. I don't ''have'' to participate either. But I think this is what Sam would want too. ...Sam is a nice guy. So I oppose this motion. Sam Kay should not become an admin. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 07:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
Sam Kay has always created top-quality content. I say the same about Calidore Chase, who also has been absent or near-absent for long lengths of time but comes back. Unless Sam Kay responds and my thoughts change, I am neutral here. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
:Incidentally, thanks for the nice words! --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 03:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
In case you all were unaware, Sam has [http://dungeons.wikia.com/wiki/User:Sam_Kay migrated with us to the other wiki]. I doubt he's coming back here, but I can't speak for him. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)<br />
<br />
[[Category:Admin Request]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=417743Talk:Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)2009-10-06T19:56:01Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Author Template */</p>
<hr />
<div>== More Appropriate Skill ==<br />
<br />
I was thinking that craft (alchemy) isn't really an appropriate skill for identifying a disease, but I couldn't think of a better one. Suggestions? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:16, 10 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:A Heal check seems like the obvious fit. [[User:Justin Alexander|Justin Alexander]] 00:22, 3 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Author Template ==<br />
<br />
Please put the author template back. Thank you. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 03:15, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:And while you're at it, please change the summary back to the way I had it. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 03:17, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::The summary is better like this; more explainable. Unless you could explain how yours is clearer? And the author template is being removed; your in history (and still locked with the name on the history). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:07, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I find it explains how this spell can function finding diseases and learning about them. The old one did not seem to do that for me. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:09, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The point is not which is a better explanation. The point is that you are fiddling with my creative work. Please either revert it to the way I had it, author template and all, or delete it. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 13:56, 6 October 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=417409Talk:Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)2009-10-04T09:17:19Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Author Template */</p>
<hr />
<div>== More Appropriate Skill ==<br />
<br />
I was thinking that craft (alchemy) isn't really an appropriate skill for identifying a disease, but I couldn't think of a better one. Suggestions? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:16, 10 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:A Heal check seems like the obvious fit. [[User:Justin Alexander|Justin Alexander]] 00:22, 3 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Author Template ==<br />
<br />
Please put the author template back. Thank you. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 03:15, 4 October 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:And while you're at it, please change the summary back to the way I had it. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 03:17, 4 October 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Talk:Detect_Disease_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=417408Talk:Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)2009-10-04T09:15:57Z<p>Daniel Draco: New section: Author Template</p>
<hr />
<div>== More Appropriate Skill ==<br />
<br />
I was thinking that craft (alchemy) isn't really an appropriate skill for identifying a disease, but I couldn't think of a better one. Suggestions? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:16, 10 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:A Heal check seems like the obvious fit. [[User:Justin Alexander|Justin Alexander]] 00:22, 3 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Author Template ==<br />
<br />
Please put the author template back. Thank you. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 03:15, 4 October 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=415874User:Daniel Draco2009-09-27T16:55:09Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>I was part of a mass exodus following Green Dragon banning all admins over the actions of one non-admin. I have abandoned this wiki, but I'm still watching to make sure my work is safe.<br />
<br />
==Homebrew==<br />
<br />
Arcing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Artifice Adept (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Banhammer (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Basic Pirate (3.5e Class)<br />
Bear Lore (3.5e Skill)<br />
Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Blazing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Boots of the Swift Step (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Chirurgeon (3.5e Class)<br />
Clinically Depressed Robot (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Coin of Mortality (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Craft Flare (3.5e Feat)<br />
Damian Morte (3.5e NPC)<br />
Danielle Umbra (3.5e NPC)<br />
Dark Arcana (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Daunting Assailant (3.5e Class)<br />
Detect Disease (3.5e Spell)<br />
Dust of Magic Finding (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Eidolon Aspirant (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Eldritch Mind (3.5e Alternate Class Feature)<br />
Enduring (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Epic Multiclassing (3.5e Epic Feat)<br />
Evil Clown (3.5e Class)<br />
Fell Archery (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Fell Warrior (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Force Blast (3.5e Invocation)<br />
Full of Surprises (3.5e Feat)<br />
Gravitist (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Great Chaos (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Evil (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Good (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Great Law (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Manyspell Storing, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching, Greater (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Group fighting (3.5e Variant Rule)<br />
Healing Personified (3.5e Optimized Character Build)<br />
Heartless (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Hellscorched Spell (3.5e Feat)<br />
Improved Whip Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
Spell Heightening, Improved (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Knight of the Order of the Union (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Heightening, Least (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Heightening, Lesser (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Magician (3.5e Feat)<br />
Mystic Knight (3.5e Class)<br />
Mystic Leech (3.5e Creature)<br />
Mystic Revenant (3.5e Template)<br />
Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Occult Mind (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)<br />
Prophet (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Quadrimurfractiphobia (3.5e Flaw)<br />
Rhodotauric Elixir (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Creature)<br />
Shæné (3.5e Race)<br />
Shæné Shadowwright (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Somnoccultist (3.5e Class)<br />
Sonic Mage (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Soul Collector (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Spell Empowering (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Extending (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spell Maximizing (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Spellcatching (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Sublime Incarnate (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Twisted Creature (3.5e Template)<br />
Unarmed Mind Blade (3.5e Feat)<br />
Unseen (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Vermin Acolyte (3.5e Prestige Class)<br />
Victor the Black (3.5e NPC)<br />
Wastecrawler (3.5e Race)<br />
Chain, Weighted (3.5e Equipment)<br />
Witch (3.5e NPC)<br />
Woodekin (3.5e Race)<br />
Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (3.5e Feat)<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''skype:''' dorandraco<br><br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]<br><br />
'''here:''' Daniel Draco</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=408379User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-29T23:34:54Z<p>Daniel Draco: New section: My Pages</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Deviant_(3.5e_Class)<br />
|section=Author Template<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=13:58, 28 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Knightwarrior_(3.5e_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=21:57, 27 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Calidore_Chase<br />
|section=No longer an Admin?<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=12:51, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 &ndash; 450)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to <code><nowiki>[[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]</nowiki></code>. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have banned admins before - this is not the first time (I mean historically for short periods of time). This is ''literally'' my website; so I need no explanation. Also, if things to continue to happen as they have before, it could happen again. I was banned from my own website, the servers are probably 100 ft. away from me right now, I need no explanation in my head. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, that's it then. You told us before if we didn't like you and your arbitrary rules, to go make our own website. That's exactly what we did. Goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:53, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yup, you blew it. Ciao, tyrant. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:55, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Now we're on the subject, I would like to request the immediate and permanent deletion of every article in <nowiki>Category:User Sulacu</nowiki>. Kind regards, --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:06, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That is not ok. Undeserved disrespect is not ok. You disrespected us, and I am disappointed in you. this place was my home for awhile, and now I have to leave. I will not stand to be in a place where the people are unjustly disrespected. I once respected you, but now that respect is gone. And I must go too, goodbye.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 23:16, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Adopt me"? No. That is '''my''' work, and I'll not have other people taking credit for it. It is to be deleted, or at the very least my name to be kept on it and locked from all edits. --Daniel Draco 23:18, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::We can discuss this later. Personally I think it would be helpful for all people related here to take a break, wait maybe 10 hours, think about this what what you guys are saying, and then talk to me about it at that time. Also, deleting articles is never a good option (adoption or locking is a much better one, in my opinion). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have thought about this for days, 10 more hours will do nothing. The stunt you pulled and then the complete lack of repentance you showed was absolutely, completely unacceptable. There is no "take a break, wait maybe 10 more hours". That time has long passed. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:24, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::With or without the 10 hours, please put the author templates back on my pages and lock them. I can accept that they will remain on this website, but I don't want my work to be changed. Delete them or preserve them, but don't put them up for adoption. --Daniel Draco 23:27, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::In case you haven't been paying attention for the last four days, GD, your opinion is what's destroying your wiki, scattering your once-committed members to the four winds in search for stabler climes. Deleting these articles won't be the same as wiping them away for good, however. They simply won't be on ''your'' site anymore. And that's the way how many of us want it. Do not be so obtuse and please delete those articles, now. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::When I lock them (if you really so desire) I will look through the revision history for different edits at that time (to make sure they are your version). Also, [[User:Surgo|Surgo]], one must understand this is just a website (located on some servers) which I ''literally'' own. Anyway, [[User:Sulacu]] and [[User:Daniel Draco]] I will deal more about these pages, locking, deletion, or who knows what when I myself have a level head as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:31, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:There is a difference between being able to do something, and it being the right thing to do. Noone is saying you are unable to do what you wish. People are saying it's the WRONG thing to do. -DragonChild<br />
<br />
::I think you are missing the point that this is dangerous for me as well. I got banned from D&D Wiki. This is my website. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Hello. I generally try to stay out of this 'website politics' bullshit because it all really is just bullshit. However, this time it really got me. Because the people that got banned for no reason now have your broken trust. You are no longer a level-headed impartial party, but instead it's a powerstruggle between you and the other admins that you promoted to help you ''improve your site''. All the admins have put a lot of work into helping you with the site and then you turn around and shit on their hard work by banning all of them, even the ones that weren't involved. I'm sure the ones that weren't even there when you did it don't understand why you did it, because they ''weren't there''. You might not feel like you need an answer 'in your head' but unfortunately for the rest us, 'in your head' isn't where we are so we don't know what's going on in there and expecting us to know is just ridiculous. The fact that you shit on your admins is enough, but taking the site down so that ''no one'' could access ''their'' work is completely asinine. As a user, and not even one of the ones affected by the ban, I still say that your behavior was entirely 110% uncalled for. I am dissapointed in you, as a site owner, you seem to have very little respect for your community, if any at all. If you want it to be ''your site'', then it truly will just be your site with no one else to share it with. Have fun with that, goodbye and I didn't contribute much, but I want all of my articles deleted. I have them elsewhere. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::You may "literally" own it, but the website lives and dies by your contributors. And now we have left because you took this "literal" ownership too far, ignored our opinions for too long, disrespected us too much, and threw one too many temper tantrums when something happened that you didn't like. That's it. The end. We are gone. We now have our own site that '''we''' literally own, not you. So goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::That is fine. Also, please take note, that one has to add [[Template:Delete]] to their articles on their own. I don't have time to work like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I do appreciate that you will lock my pages into my final version (which, indeed, is exactly what I desire). I would add the appropriate templates, but there are none. I would lock them myself, but you blocked me. So I would appreciate it if you would do it for me. --Daniel Draco 23:41, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I will deal with locking and adminship later; as I explained above. Right now I do not have time to do that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:45, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::As a comment one can always change their mind - like with [[User:TK-Squared]] and his supposed leaving (although those pages still have yet to be restored - given time they will). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:13, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Very well, as per your wish, all my pages now have been put up for deletion. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 00:14, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Incorrect. Now the pages ''you'' want to delete are being processed the correct way through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. That's why I mentioned above about how you can always change your mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:16, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: I am going to relate this incident and following "explanation" to a real-world incident that has a similar feel to it. Dictator #1 "owns" his "server". Therefore, Dictator #1 believes he's allowed to do whatever he wants in his "sever" and the people will have no say about the matter. He believes that the people are creating some form of rebellion, so he "bans" them. The only difference between your situation and Dictator #1's situation is that you had no rebellion. You simply... I don't know, freaked out, apparently at the fact two pages were made to begin an implementation process of something most of the active and contributing user base had supported. <br />
<br />
:::::::::::Furthermore, you are a keen supporter of these "policies" that you have, although finding what exact policies you mean is a slight chore in itself, yet you find yourself exempt because you "own" the site. You have breached the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct Administrator Conduct] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools Misuse of Administrative Tools] policies laid down in the Administrator's policy on Wikipedia. If you want to run your site like a wiki, stop trying to run it as though you're the grand tyrannical godking of all creation and maybe, JUST MAYBE, give a little respect to your userbase. This could be a revolutionary idea, but I hear it works well.<br />
:::::::::::As for my so-called "leaving"; it's a bad example. My leaving was a joke, it's only point was for me to touch up some of my articles in an easier fashion. But, this time; it won't be a joke. I advise anyone wanting their articles to be deleted to add this template; <nowiki>{{delete|14th August 2009|This article is nominated for Speedy Deletion under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles Article G7].}}</nowiki>. <br />
:::::::::::Of course, my logic here for wanting explainations OBVIOUSLY is nowhere near as great as the "MY SITE I CAN DO WHAT I WANT" kind of mentality. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 06:28, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::We have not discussed if we want to implement speedy deletion or not, however your articles will get looked at in due time. Also you ''must'' remember this was not a power trip; I got banned from my own website. That calls for drastic measures (for the most part). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Drastic measures? If this site is going to hell in a bucket, maybe it's a good thing I've got my rewrites happening offline. Judging by the stability of this situation, I'd rather not my contributions be caught in the crossfire, and sooner or later I'm pretty sure one of you admins or another would overreact. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 12:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, you are a dumbass, you've just killed your own website, and don't even realize it. I would like for my pages to be locked in the same way that Daniel Draco's will be locked, except for the pseudonaught, which will be completed in due time, at which point, I request it be locked as well. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 12:39, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::When I have some spare time I will look into locking and deleting accordingly. Please noted that this does not mean that the admins are losing any privileges - if you know what I mean. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: What do you mean? (Adding the "if you know what I mean" makes it kinda ambiguous and not-understandable, I think ''':-3''') --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 13:02, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I might care to point out that you got banned from ''your website'' because ''you started banning everyone else first for no reason at all'' (Often referred to as a power trip). That is justifiable banning by Aarnott, your bannings were not justified. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 13:17, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I meant that after I had the issue sorted out I gave back everyone their privileges as given to them by the D&D Wiki community. Instead of going on the same annoying rants the whole time how about this. You must, one, be able to think (analyze things as well - like [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&limit=500 Special:Blocklog]), and two be able to look at both sides of the issue. ''While'' doing both of these things you ''should'' notice what is going on. Other then that just stop talking to me - I have no time for stupidity. Also you should take a look at [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=&pattern=&limit=500&offset=0 Special:Userrightslog] to look at how the times correlate - then maybe all the people who simply cannot think can figure this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Once again - I have no time for stupidity. If you want to respond I need you to ask an intellectual question and not just say things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:40, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::[[#What the Hell|Ahem]]. From the look of things, you didn't like something someone on "your" website was doing, despite the fact that it would help the website, and you sought to put an end to it. At which point people asked you why you were acting illogically against your own wiki's interest's, to which you replied "We are using logic here", being thoroughly infuriating. After this, without attempting to discuss the issue at hand, or provide any real reasoning to your side (which you are requesting we see things from without any information on), you banned people. Now then, from this, it should be clear that it's not that you banned people, it's the fact that you didn't listen to them. You blatantly ignored the people whose only interest was to help out "your" website. This is what makes you a dumbass. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 13:57, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Stay your big insults, Green. Our ears are not large enough to fit them. I don't care how stupid you think we are or how much of a genius you think yourself. Just look upon the barren wasteland of your site a few months from now and reap the seeds of your 'ingenuity'. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 14:38, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::The longterm success of D&Dwiki hinges on cooperation. Let us all remember that we're in this together. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 16:43, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Here's a little "intellectual question" that you have so-far avoided, probably because it's far too ILLOGICAL for you to contemplate. But, you have yet to answer WHY was Surgo banned? Why was Sulacu banned? And, lastly, why was I banned? There have been given no reasons for this and you have just gone on and on about... nothing. Every time you've said something, it's literally being saying NOTHING on the matter. Maybe if you answered one of the questions given to you rather than saying "OMG I WUZ BANND 4 N0 RSN"; because you weren't, I was. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:10, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Morning. I've only been on your wiki for a very, very short time, but I liked it very much. And now I see that a lot of contributors, in both data and actions, just leave. That sucks. The withdrawal of their past and/or future ocntributions is a very bad thing for the health and diversity of this wiki. So, I understand you "own" the site, that's nice. And I do have to agree with you on some points, firstly that you do have the final say in whatever happens on this site. You own it. They probably shouldn't have banned you, and I can understand that could make you very upset. The other thing I agree on, one of your earlier points, is that anyone is free to leave and go to another wiki. And now, since mainly admins -by definition relatively powerful members of the community- were involved in this struggle, and were grieved in it, a lot of the most useful contributors are leaving your site, along with a sizable amount of regular users. This is not in the best interest of your wiki. <br />
<br />
::::::::::: Now, I'd just wish it'd all clear up and you guys merge again in one wiki, but I don't think that's going to happen. it would be what is best for the wiki and the community behind it, but I guess all people involved are too busy complaining. I think what the admins want is an apology and an explanation worthy of someone more than three years old, because while you do own the wiki, you do not own the community. On the other hand, I think you want to have the last word in whatever happens, making sure nothing happens to your wiki without your knowledge and approval. While this may not be healthy for the site, it is understandablr, and it would only require that any major change would be run past you, and that you are involved in planning and executing any such major change. I think this would not be too much to be asked from the admins. However, you'd still need to explain why something should be implemented or not, because the amount of work put into it by one party should elicit an equal or similar amount of work to negate it. Anyway, what if both parties just state what they'd want, instead of my guesswork? Is there still hope?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::{{quote|Is there still hope?}}<br />
::::::::::::The short answer is no. Those of us who are leaving no longer have anything we want from Green Dragon, we no longer have any demands, and there is nothing he can do to regain our trust. We have made our decision, and there is absolutely no possibility that we will come back. I cannot stress this enough: '''it's too late'''. Green Dragon has lost a large chunk of his active userbase, and you are absolutely free to join us in our new wiki. Out of courtesy to Green Dragon, I will not link the new wiki on this site; however, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for the link. --Daniel Draco 07:30, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Google Ads ==<br />
Will the wiki be trying to alleviate operation costs permanently with the new ads? Just curious. I know it had been a bit since the last fundraiser. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 23:00, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== An attempt to help you maintain your patrons ==<br />
<br />
I feel it neccessary to speak up at least once on all of this bullshit. I am only reading about this whole 'power struggle', but from what I have seen, you have been totally unreasonable. The admins of your site wanted to improve it (as there ARE way too many 'dambass' pages floating around), and you seemed to be taking well to their ideas (putting your own spin on it, but staying with the general idea). Then when they began to impliment said actions (which you agreed on), you shot it down, claiming it was illogical. You yourself agreed to this illogical action. Then when ONE arrogant moron of an admin bans you from your site (which I agree was totally uncalled for), you end all adminship and close the site. Then you proceed to go into full-on tyrant mode. Now, you ask for an intelligent question, here; I understand temporarily revoking all admin rights until you sorted it out, to avoid being banned again. But why shut down the site for ANY period of time, in consequence punishing the little-folk for one morons actions? You really do need to help us to understand what is going on in your head. If you can do this without throwing some sort of an insult at someone, you may have a chance at saving your site. But at the rate these talks are going, you are going to lose not only the majority of your patrons, but also 9/10ths of your homebrew material. I love this site and the immense material that it holds, but if you continue on your current path, I am sorry to say that I will be one of the ones that leaves for the greener pastures of the newly created site. I do hope you chafe course and help us to understand what is going on in your head tho. --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 00:50, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just wanted to speak up, it's true that it ''did'' inconvenience us "little folk" when the site went down. That same day I had wanted to show someone my guide for a game they had the same day to show them the basics of character building, but was unable to due to the site being completely down and short messages taking its place. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:54, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Er... Aarnott is not a moron. What he did was in line with the Wikipedia policies that this site adheres to and was meant to tell Green Dragon that he was acting way out of line. The act, itself, was perfectly called for; Green Dragon was banning people attempting to talk to him about what he'd done and, by extrapolating from this sequence of events, it's safe to say that saying "wtf r u doin" on his talk page would have gotten Aarnott banned as well, in whatever kind of blind fury that had overtaken Green Dragon.<br />
:: As noted, Sabreheim's post is completely misinformed, then. The site probably won't lose most of it's good homebrew material because Green Dragon probably won't let it happen; nevermind he's done it before, he doesn't seem to be accepting Speedy Deletion (again, part of the policies he's noted this wiki adheres to, time and time again), this is probably due to his realization that people ARE leaving and he doesn't want to lose traffic or articles. Maybe someone should have thought about that before... --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:35, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you! ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome and mention that I hope my presence here can help the community. :) I have some homebrew items to add that I'm not sure how to make up---the HTML here is tricky---but I will be going over the editing pages to find out how to add them. One final thing, though: Where would diseases go on the Wiki? I have quite a few medieval illness piled up and would like to add them. [[User:Chimandera|Chimandera]] 03:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Permissions Issue ==<br />
<br />
I have an issue maintaining the SRD. I've lost the ability to edit. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:40, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, you must have missed the wikipocalypse. There is a very good summary of it [[User talk:Calidore_Chase#To_recap|here]]. If you want a link to the new wiki, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for it. --Daniel Draco 13:08, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'll give them back soon. Sorry I just had an issue with the backend of D&D Wiki (and a bit of the frontend as well) and as a result permissions were changed (for the moment I am the only bureaucrat and only admin). I'll give them back in a few days, I'm just letting things calm down a bit, etc. If you need them now (I trust you enough) could you let me know please within a few hours? I am going to drive for a few days and will not have internet for a bit; so if you let me know sooner then later I will have time to give them back to you. Also I am going to keep it with me being the only bureaucrat; just so you know. But I will give back all the admin privileges soon (or now - depending). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: So... basically this wiki will go unadmined for a few days? >_> I've reverted vandalism on at least 2 pages (don't remember if I did others) and the offender wasn't blocked. If you're away or aren't keeping watch on the wiki, at the very least assign people who will block vandals, take on administrative duties, and so on? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 14:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I know. I have been re-thinking about which admins I can trust on D&D Wiki and am not positive if I want to give back admin rights now and/or to whom. Although I see what you mean. I will post another thing before I head off a bit after I think about it a bit more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:55, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I will have internet once again around the 19thish. I'll (for the moment) keep userrights how they are - although probably on the 19th or 20th I will reinstate them. If people would not mind please keep an eye out for vandals (and thanks already [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] for doing so). And sorry about that SRD issue - I hope waiting a few days will work as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I can wait until the bullets stop flying. When I get time, I'll wade through the vast arguments going. I only look at SRD changes on a daily basis, so I am amazingly ignorant of the recent iconoclasm. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:55, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Alright. I will give permissions back when things have calmed down; no need to worry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:09, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Professionalism==<br />
<br />
Hmm, lots of chatter these days about admin drama. Even us little-known users have taken notice. Looks like a few admins are displeased. We little-known users hope this minor conflict will all be resolved soon. I myself would like to thank GreenDragon for cancelling the Rating Group idea. IMO it was a thoughtful decision. I would also like to thank all Admins for the great work they do and have done on behalf of the community. Thank you all Admins for your wonderful ideas and contributions. We small-town users look forward the resolution of this minor conflict of interest. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:32, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The problem is that he ''didn't'' cancel it. He stated that he didn't like idea. He never vetoed it. He never said that he was putting any authority into his disagreement. All disagreement he stated was phrased conversationally. It wasn't until he '''''banned''''' TK-Squared for starting to implement it that we had any indication that he was giving it an official "no". Using such an aggressive action as a ban as the first indication of a veto is, in my opinion, not professional at all.<br />
:I would also like to point out that the issue has been resolved. The resolution is that those of us who don't feel that we can trust Green Dragon anymore have moved to a new wiki (which I will gladly link to you [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|via private means of communication]]). --Daniel Draco 16:02, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Vandalism==<br />
I have reason to believe that TK has resorted to vandalism[http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TK-Squared&namespace=&year=&month=-1] in his disgust with you. Admins have better ability to control this than I, and I really don't feel like running around in circular thought with an individual anymore. Could you try to step in on this? Thanks. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:23, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Shame he saw fit to demote all his System Operators because of his tantrum, ain't it? I sure could just get Surgo down here right now to do something about it. What a shame, looks like I get to do what I want with my work, eh? Now, stop vandalising my pages. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:26, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::You realize that your above statement just proves your own childishness. Maybe Green Dragon was wrong to begin with, but now he is fully justified. D&Dwiki is a collaborative effort. You have repeatedly refused to collaborate with other individuals. This should be the final straw. GD, if available, I would like to open up a Request for Ban on TK. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:28, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: You're not quite getting it, are you? The Ratings Committee? That was a "collaborative effort". Quite a few people agreed on it, so I went about helping realize the dream. So, where was the "community" when Green Dragon said "No, you're banned for doing this"? I don't know; maybe you're feigning ignorance or maybe this internet is REALLY getting to you, you throw around thinks like "being childish" and "your argument now sux" and "refusal to collaborate with others".<br />
::: And it's hilarious. This entire thing; hilarious. Especially since Green Dragon's gone for 2-3 days. Dear, oh dear. Looks like I'll actually have control over my own creations, what a novelty. Chill out, relax. Play some b-ball outside-a school. Would you have your oral orifice so wrapped if you were banned during the tantrum? Dear, oh dear. But, at least you've stopped vandalising my pages. Chin chin, old chap. --18:36, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The thing is Liam, I do understand, and I personally feel like GD overstepped and was wrong too. You know how you win in a situation like this? Obviously not, because devolving into vandalism kills any argument you had. Now you're no better than what you said he was, and you have no high ground to stand on. Revert to your typical "e-bullying" trying to make yourself feel better, but I'm not impressed. You reacted incorrectly to the situation, and for as much as you talk about being mature, you repeatedly showcase that you are not. I require no response from you, good day. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:41, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Yeah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Posting_of_personal_information Liam]. I'd like to request a ban from George here for calling me weird names. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:54, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::You admitted your identity in the Tavern smart one (remember, I'm the one who combs through the Tavern histories!). Freely given information may be freely repeated. Those who lose their sense of anonymity tend to lose their e-peen bullying nature as well. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:01, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: So... are we using wikipedia policies? Or not? Or only when it's convenient? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 19:02, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: All my actions are within the Wikipedia Policies. Please brush up, Timothy. Furthermore, oh no; my name is been revealed. OH SHIT, IF ONLY PEOPLE DIDN'T FIND OUT I'm LIAM BENJAMIN WHITE. Oh wait. Nice try, Hooper, nice try. But, you're still not funny enough; try to add some irony or wit! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:09, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Sure, your last name is "[[w:Dodds_(surname)|White]]." Sure thing. Yawn. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:12, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Sure is. Why? Worried someone lied on the internet? Should have your stalking up to date, buddy. I saw what you tried to do with the yawn there, but it just didn't have any kick to it. I mean, I know being funny doesn't come natural to some people (unlike myself, of course), but at least try. Go on, put some effort into it, George. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:18, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I second [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]]'s thoughts above. (Sorry Ghost, just saw that). &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:21, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Woah, sorry about that. Got called away to do some cool stuff, etc. Anyway, as I was saying; you've got to try to be funnier. If you get a few jokes in, a few witty quips and maybe touch on some irony, you'll loosen up, y'know. Also, still doing Hunter? I tried Hunter once, got to 40 and changed from BM to Marksman. Totally a mistake, I think, and stopped playing it. Oh, and, er... Stop agreeing with people, or something. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:45, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Wow, [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] I think you need a break. First off insults are not a good option, stalking is not a good option, and overall I think you need to take a break for a bit. I think (instead of posting things all the time) you should spend 30 minutes thinking about the rating commitie thing (and what it could mean), that websites have backends, and that some people are shit as people. After that maybe you should post; keeping in mind civility. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:18, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:What, exactly (and I mean that), is your objection to the Rating Committee? I was not as for it as others, but it did seem like a step in the right direction, so I'm curious as to why you are so adamantly opposed to it. And please don't call me stupid for calling it a step in the right direction, I just want to know why you hate it so. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:38, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content). Other then that reason there is no reason for a committee; one can also find people and email then about things to keep everything in check or to check articles for completeness in any case. Adding a fake hierarchical tier onto D&D Wiki for no reason is pointless and counterproductive in my mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:43, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content)."<br />
:::I feel the need to point out here that this claim is completely unsubstantiated. If, to quote you, "we use logic here", then statements must be proven in order to be accepted as truth (according to the very definition of logic). --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I've had disagreements with several other users as to what's "balanced" or not. If there was such a committee, would it make my comments worth less than those of people who were on the committee? Would they be disregarded out of hand? Who would make sure they weren't? What if the committee couldn't disagree on what's balanced? Why should they have the primary say in what's balanced and what isn't? As human beings, we're all biased. On a public forum such as this where everyone should be equal, it doesn't feel right that there are those who count for more--the obvious exception being admins of course, since admin duties require a level of authority beyond that of general users for locking pages, blocking vandalists, etc. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:06, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I have a few thoughts on the matter, some of which are in accordance with what you (Green Dragon) just professed, other that are not.<br />
:::::#I agree that the template system is advantageous in that anyone can apply templates, but if the two systems have different goals (read on) the superiority of the template reviewing process should be expected. <br />
:::::#With that said, there's no reason why the two systems could not exist side by side. The template reviewing system exists to bring articles up to an acceptable quality (improvement), while a rating committee would exist to acknowledge articles of superior quality (recognition). That's what I think the rating committee idea was at least in part about. There are thousands of 'useable' articles on the wiki, yet we have had only five featured articles (one of which, [[Cassia (3.5e Deity)|Cassia]], we seemed to agree was not really FA quality). To put it in a more tame light, a rating committee would be a compromise between the five featured articles in existence and a mountain of unsorted mediocrity.<br />
:::::#You say fake hierarchical tier... given that some of the users in question were just that, users, you have a point, and I understand your concern. But if you were to have a category or rank for these users, such as sysop or moderator, or whatever (something other than generic user--pardon my unfamiliarity with the subject matter) then said hierarchy would not be fake, but rather real. If such status were obtained the same way as a Request for Adminship and could be lost in the same manner, that would mitigate a few of the concerns, I think. Having certain limitations or requirements, such as a mandatory X articles reviewed per month but no more than Y nominations per month would ensure an activity level that the template reviewing system can only dream of. Committee members could be exempt at times due to other responsibilities (i.e. life), but you get the idea. There's nothing that creates interest like progress. Knowing your article is in queue for a look over by someone relatively well-respected within the community--it gives an incentive that the template reviewing process cannot really emulate.<br />
:::::#As for the reasoning for such a committee, well it's really about recognition, isn't it? We are all on here for various reasons, whether is to share our own ideas or to borrow from those of others, but I don't think anyone posts anything in that hope that it sits ignored for all eternity. That's the other nice thing about a rating committee, that it could recognize more than our numerical class rating system can. Flaws, feats, weapon enhancements, whatever: ingenuity rewarded wherever it may be found, not just in a select area that commands variable levels of interest from different users.<br />
:::::In conclusion, I'm not sure that such a system would work now even if you were to endorse it, because to be frank, there aren't that many users here I would trust with that power (and let's face it, that's what it is, and you are right to be cautious with how such authority is distributed). Anyway, like the disenchanted and departed members of the wiki maintained, this was supposed to be in the best interests of the wiki. There's no reason you couldn't give it a trial run and see how you, and the community at large, like it. I will address Ghostwheel's just added concern in a moment, but right now I want to get this up for consideration. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:10, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::@Ghostwheel: to answer your concern, you have balance points. That way, Tome classes can be well-received within their own vacuum, and so can other classes with more orthodox power levels. My other thought would be that the committee wouldn't look over each submitted article as a whole (that would take far too long), but rather one person would review an article, and it would be taking off the waiting list. If the article's author was unsatisfied, they could re-submit it, and when it's time came it would have to be reviewed by a different committee member than the original reviewer. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:17, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: If it's as you described it, it seems more like a committee whose purpose is finding articles, making sure their quality (not balance) is up to snuff, and potentially making them featured articles--that doesn't sound bad in the least. However, about Tome classes being in their own vacuum, perhaps we should make some sort of template for tome classes that adds the caveat explaining in what sort of environment the Tome classes were made for--that is, one in which all the clerics use DMM to buff themselves to incredible heights, the wizards are gods, and druids roam the landscape (if I'm understanding correctly). That said, [[Jester_(3.5e_Class)|there]] [[Thief-Acrobat_(3.5e_Class)|are]] [[Assassin,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|a]] [[Monk,_Tome_(DnD_Class)|few]] [[Knight,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome]] [[Fighter,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|classes]] [[Shadowdancer,_Tome_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|that]] feel balanced for the most part, even in games that don't use [[User:Ghostwheel/3.x_Banned_List|cheesy]] (at least IMO) material. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:43, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::To be frank, balance is a part of quality. But as you say, the goal of a rating committee would be to, in my mind, find quality articles, not balanced ones (although as I say, the two do tend to go hand in hand). For classes, I would say that [[User:Jota#Ratings|anything I rate a 17 or above]] on the current scale would get my vote (were I on such a committee), which includes articles for which I have had some reservations about their power. A 12.50 or so out of 15 (no flavor/formatting) might also suffice. Other material is a little different, but that's all semantics right now. As for your other idea, talk of something similar happened in the past, although it was never implemented. Part of the reason was the disclaimer was incorrect, since Tome material is not the explicit creation of solely Frank and K: -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:11, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::{{Frank and K material}}<br />
<br />
::::::::: Hmmm... perhaps it might simply be worded differently? Something along the lines of, "This page contains materials based on the original work created by Frank & K. As such, it has been made with the concept in mind that a character of a certain level should be able to take on creatures with a CR equal to their level without much trouble, as well as assuming a certain power level of all characters, and is balanced in a way as to allow for this."<br />
::::::::: However, even with this I'm unsure if it would work, since many people wouldn't understand exactly what this meant--that clerics go crazy with DMM, wizards go before everyone else with Celerity, and druids become bears that fly around, summoning whirlwinds and shooting fire from their eyes, so without some sort of explanation somewhere just that might be problematic.<br />
::::::::: Also, even that text is misleading; for me, ToB + XPH material is where I find my "sweet spot" for balance, and many of the classes presented there (no, I don't mean the Soulknife) are able to take down a monster of their CR (though the CR guidelines have their own problems, but let's not get sidetracked too far) without too much trouble, especially under ideal conditions. Yet these classes are underpowered compared to some of the classes (I'm especially looking at you, Prestige Classes) published under Tome material, which leads to some discrepancy in what we said before. Any thoughts on the matter? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 01:21, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Perhaps those classes were made with the idea in mind that no prestige class levels would be taken (Tome Barbarian, for example). Most base classes that are not Tome material seem inferior to prestige classes once those PrC's are accessible, given that for many PrC's you can acquire many of the same benefits that the base class would grant you (bonus spell levels for casters, etc.) while also providing unique abilities. Under such an assumption, why would you ever take levels in a base class (say, wizard) again after you have reached the requirements for a desired PrC? As a result, the aforementioned Tome Barbarian is loaded with powerful abilities so that it can be competitive at every level with a prestige-classed wizard even if the player took Tome Barbarian at every level. It's an incentive to go all the way to level 20, which is something that rarely seems to be done with most SRD classes. So, yeah, they probably seem overpowered, at least compared to the SRD Classes that many supporters of Tome material consider so weak that they're almost ineffectual at high levels. Now, this doesn't always seem to be the case with Tome material (in the case of classes that are shortened to 15 levels to allow, one would guess, for PrC advancement). <br />
::::::::::I'm not sure if I was on base with that at all; my head is still whirring from reading the rest of the conversation thus far. Pardon me if I was mistaken. -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 06:28, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
: Close, but not quite what I meant when I mentioned Prestige Classes. You can see my personal philosophy on prestige classes [[Talk:Magus_Portalus_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]] (bottom-most post there currently); thus, prestige classes [[Ninja_of_Gax_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|that]] [[Paladin_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|give]] [[Defiler_of_Temples_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|you]] [[Seeker_of_the_Lost_Wizard_Traditions_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|casting]] without really losing anything, or having prereqs that force you to sacrifice something don't sit well with me. Straight wizards and clerics are powerful enough as-is without PrC abilities; adding PrCs make them even stronger, which causes imbalance. Do you get what I'm trying to say? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 12:20, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Ah, I see. The tome PrC's essentially are unbalanced because every level adds bonus spellcasting as well as class features (therefore, if they alternated between class features and spellcasting levels, they would be more balanced)? It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure I agree. I can't really make a rebuttal at this time, but I'll give it some thought. -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 14:25, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If they lost even 1 level of spellcasting at 1st level of the PrC, I'd probably say they were a lot more balanced, since then at least they're losing ''something'' to gain all the yummy class features. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I agree [[User:Jota|Jota]]. Someone (if desirable) should contact MW and see if they could make it so one could make new userprivilege groups (like what you are talking about). I thought about this at the time however I am not positive if MW would ever make that change.<br />
::::Also, here everyone goes who wanted to be part of some fake committee. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]], [[User:Lord Dhazriel|Lord Dhazriel]], [[User:Rithaniel|Rithaniel]], [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]], [[User:Jota|Jota]], [[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]], [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]], [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], and [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] (if you guys can only think this small) I appoint you to FA reviewers!!!!! Feel free to nominate articles for FA status, review them for FA status, etc etc. HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!!! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::(don't worry everyone else - there is no need to be appointed - only a need to know enough about D&D). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:05, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::GD, I assume you're being sarcastic? In addition, some of the people you're yelling at had nothing to do with this. They're people I, personally, nomianted, some of which had never even heard about the RC idea. Thus, I hope you don't plan on taking more retaliatory action on the list as a whole. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:42, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Insubstantially patronizing us, eh GD? That's a fantastic way to get back on our good sides. Note the sarcastic tone in my voice.<br />
:::::::I would also like to point out that nobody wanted to be on a fake committee. That would have been silly.<br />
:::::::Also, if you're going to elevate yourself above the rest of us, that makes you not just the owner, but also the de facto leader. As the leader, you need to display professionalism and respect, or else nobody will take you seriously. Your last comment displayed neither, and in fact displayed the exact opposites of those needed qualities. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 06:28, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::One does not have to do any of those things in any one of those circumstances. Also, unless one can make userright areas in MW it is a fake committee. At this time one cannot. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:12, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I really like the way Green Dragon runs this site. Its like the military. Have a problem? Then the answer is: "To bad. Lifes not fair. Suck it." For guys like me, this makes perfect sense. Keep up the good work Green Dragon. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 16:18, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:There are two possibilities there:<br />
:#The internet is a poor medium for sarcasm.<br />
:#You must be oxygen-deprived from receiving a white dragon from Green Dragon. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:25, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::@Jay Freedman: Ah, but this is not the military. And even a military setting, without the active participation and satisfaction of the individual the whole will wither and die. To continue your military analogy, this would be like if the sergeant of a company ordered all of his men to charge blindly at a superior enemy with no sound reasoning. The veteran members, sensing flaws in the sergeant's plan, desert quickly after realizing that nothing will change their superior's mind and take all their weapons and ammunition with them. The rest of the company is left with what they have, but without veteran leadership their performance will suffer.<br />
<br />
::Poor example aside, let me just say that while GD may have been right in being angry at being banned from his own site, the other admins were in effect pushed towards those measures by repeated occurences of GD punishing those who were only acting in what they had collectively agreed to be the Wiki's best interests (since there has already been a huge quarrel on this issue I will try to speak no more of it). The point is, the site is pretty much irrevocably fractured, with basically the entire trusted user base (some exceptions exist) gone within a period of a few days. Even some who have elected to stay are still left without the admins who helped make this Wiki a better site as well as without a seriously reasonable and unbiased explanation of why the conflict took place (most people who have been reading up on this know that it's pretty much because of the conflict over a possible Ratings Committee proposal, but others who were not involved in said conflict were banned as well).<br />
<br />
::As the situation stands presently, there is now a rival Wiki comprising the users who are attempting to form their own vision of D&D Wiki without Green Dragon. There is also a huge pile-up of junk pages and dumb IP edits since none of the admins are left to monitor the day-to-day activities of the Wiki (while he may be the owner of this site, Green is to the extent of my knowledge only one person and can only do so much). In that sense, things now seem in a pretty bad state. How can you concievably call that a good way to run any website, let alone one that basically depends on the contributions of its users for appeal? -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 20:57, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Daniel Draco's Counterpoints ==<br />
<br />
I would like to point out to everyone that GD has once again banned me, for a period of one day, on the basis of my last comment, which he categorized as "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". So, first, my rebuttal:<br />
* CHAPTER ONE -- "Whine Kampf"<br />
:* "As the leader, you need to display professionalism and respect, or else nobody will take you seriously." <small>''--me''</small><br />
:* "One does not have to do any of those things in any one of those circumstances." <small>''--Green Dragon''</small><br />
:* Huh. Really. Alright, hypothetical situation. Metaphor Incorporated<sup>1</sup> is a company<sup>2</sup> of moderate size, with happy, active, and loyal staff<sup>3</sup>. Its CEO<sup>4</sup>, Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup>, has always been capable and at least somewhat reasonable in her<sup>6</sup> job. One day, a client<sup>7</sup> does something that she<sup>6</sup> disagrees with, but which her<sup>6</sup> staff<sup>3</sup> thought was a good idea. In an action that is universally seen as irrational<sup>8</sup>, she<sup>6</sup> put all her<sup>6</sup> staff<sup>3</sup> on suspension for an indefinite period of time, regardless of whether or not they were involved. When finally they regain the ability to communicate with her<sup>6</sup>, Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup> refuses to offer any explanation or apology for her<sup>6</sup> words and actions, which continue to be generally irrational<sup>8</sup>. Fed up with her<sup>6</sup> ridiculously inappropriate actions, a leader emerges among the disgruntled staff<sup>3</sup>: Lee Dur<sup>9</sup>. He goes off to found a new company<sup>2</sup>, Metaphors Unlimited<sup>10</sup>, bringing along with him a good portion of the staff<sup>3</sup> and clients<sup>7</sup>, leaving Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup> behind. The end. Now tell me, if Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup> had been respectful and professional, would she<sup>6</sup> have lost so much?<br />
:* Footnotes:<small><br />
:# The D&D Wiki<br />
:# website<br />
:# admin(s)<br />
:# owner<br />
:# Green Dragon<br />
:# his/he/him<br />
:# user(s)<br />
:# psychotic<br />
:# Surgo<br />
:# Dungeons and Dragons Wiki<br />
</small><br />
* CHAPTER TWO -- "Brain (Dis-)Trust"<br />
:* "I would also like to point out that nobody wanted to be on a fake committee. That would have been silly." <small>''--me''</small><br />
:* "Also, unless one can make userright areas in MW it is a fake committee." <small>''--Green Dragon''</small><br />
:* "committee: a body of persons delegated to consider, investigate, take action on, or report on some matter" <small>''--Merriam-Webster''</small><br />
:* "Assuming we are all persons: had the committee actually formed, we would have been delegated (assigned responsibility and authority) to take action on rating articles; therefore, we would have been a committee." <small>''--the core principles of logic''</small><br />
* CONCLUSION<br />
:* I would like to point out that I am fully aware that this post is, somewhat ironically, disrespectful and unprofessional. The differences are that 1) I am not the owner of the site and 2) I have not taken any substantial action with this post, where a substantial action is something such as banning every admin. --Daniel Draco 22:06, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Oh, so it's ''Surgo'' who runs the new site? Well, forget ''that'', then. I could barely stand his manner when he was admin... I think I'll stay. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 14:39, 22 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wow, it's been a while since I posted here. I haven't really kept up on everything that has been going on, but I don't think my lack of reading is relevant to replying to your comment, Mythos. Surgo is a very good admin for the new wiki. I had my reservations about him before because he can come off as an abrasive individual, but he has really stepped up and done an excellent job. To me, there doesn't even seem to be a choice anymore, however. One stray comment here will randomly provoke a ban (this will probably be my last comment here anyways, so I'm not too concerned about speaking up).<br />
<br />
::Surgo doesn't have any interest in leveraging the fact that it is "his website" to get his way. It isn't even hosted by him: he wouldn't even have any grounds to do that if he tried. In fact, there is someone Surgo reports to (so to speak) that if he started acting out of line like a supreme dictator, the community could go this other person to instead of being at his mercy. I don't know about you, but the thought of losing 2 years of my dedication and work at the whim of one person that '''bans people for trying to discuss things rationally''' seems like a bad idea.<br />
<br />
::It's not going to make a huge difference to me one way or another if you decide to come to the new wiki or not. I just hope that anyone who thinks "bleck, Surgo is terrible" '''considers carefully''' the choice that they are making. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:59, 23 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And, as always, I will gladly give the link to anyone [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|privately]]. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 17:57, 23 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Editing someone else's homebrew class ==<br />
<br />
You may have noticed that I've taken an interest in the jewelmancer class, and it seems to have been abandoned by it's creator, but not marked for deletion (therefore un-open to adoption). I just want to be sure that I won't be causing any problems if I make extensive edits like what I posted on the discussion page. I've read the wiki behaviour guidelines, but I know that there tends to be certain customs in groups that aren't always spelled out, so I figured I would ask before hand to be sure I don't cause any trouble. I'm also new to doing such intensive edits on a wiki page, and perhaps a bit shy about it. Thank you for your time.<br />
<br />
== Your New Adoption Policy ==<br />
<br />
If I can get the original author to agree, or even if that isn't that case, could pages liked TK-Squared's, and whomever wants their material deleted simply be locked instead of removing the author template and putting them up for adoption? I say this because you have [[User:Jeeves|some ignorant asshole]] running around changing things that other people liked and rated highly into something entirely different. I can understand your desire to keep this material because most of it is pretty good, but I think if you want to do that it would be better to lock it with the original author template rather than put these things up for adoption. Most of them are finished anyway, so it's not like you'd be locking something half-completed. Afterward they can be maintained in the same manner that Dmilewski maintains the SRD: post it on a talk page, and an admin can make the requisite corrections. My big issue with this is credit where credit is not due. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 06:56, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I find it interesting that a user pops up immediately after the adoption thing comes up, and is very knowledgeable in the workings of the wiki. I hate to cast doubt on anyone, and would love to be proven wrong, but I feel like the user may be someone else trying to abuse or make little of the adoption change. Just thoughts. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 08:01, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wow, play nice guys. Maybe this chap could become a big contributor to the wiki. Ain't stuff here always submitted with the warning "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then don't submit it here." I mean he did adopt the stuff legit. Of course, I have noticed his idea's of balance are different. But that could be a good thing right? --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 10:17, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yeah, after re-reading the above I came across wrong. I just want us to be cautious after recent events, to make sure people don't try to sabotage anything. But after re-reading this particular persons contribs, I actually personally agree with some of the changes. Mostly seems legit, just different from the original author's intent. That is going to be a touchy subject. Personally I'll play it safe and just make variants if I want to change something, to try to keep the peace. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:42, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: While I am not entirely pleased with these gross and misinformed edits on my once-beautiful and nigh-perfect creations, I suppose attempting to do anything about it would only allow me to revel in the backlash from ardent "supporters", although not the exact word I planned to use, of Green Dragon's nigh-despotic regime, so I'll do simply what I can.<br />
<br />
:::: All pages "adopted" by Jeeves that were once my creations or were adopted previously by me '''do not''' have my permission to be redistributed/altered (kept on this wiki) under the title that I published them in, include all previous revisions. This is my right as the original creator of the material under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 (GFDL) and cannot be argued with (GFDL Section 4, Subsection A). Furthermore, I expect an exact copy of all my previous versions to be kept in the history, otherwise this will contravene the GFDL Section 4, Subsection I.<br />
<br />
:::: This should be done quickly and with efficiency. I do not include the adoption of my articles by Jota at this current time, since he has not made any edits to them and they are, essentially, still my work and have not been redistributed and/or altered. Thanking you for your swift compliance with my wishes. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 13:39, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::TK, as long as the history of an active page is shown - it meets all the requirements. You may be misinterpreting that bit of the text of License. There was even a wikipedia arbitration case on the matter way back in the day. Plus, you didn't catch this part: ''"You may not use technical measures to obstruct or control the reading or further copying of the copies you make or distribute."''. Not saying I agree either way, just putting it here. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 13:47, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{quote|A. Use in the Title Page (and on the covers, if any) a title distinct from that of the Document, and from those of previous versions (which should, if there were any, be listed in the History section of the Document). ''You may use the same title as a previous version if the original publisher of that version gives permission.''|orig=[http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html GNU Free Distribution License]]}}<br />
<br />
:::::: --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 13:51, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The wording of that bit doesn't make sense in regards to wikis, it is very ambiguous. Does it mean previous version of the same page, or previously deleted page by the same title? Two different things. Hmmm. Looking into. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 13:55, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Reading legal text is like running in circles. Or nascar. But after reading and going through support pages on it, it appears like its basically right. But it has never had to been enforced because people either outright delete the pages or they just move the page to a new page name, both of which are legal apparently. Odd. GNU Free is about four legal loopholes away from public domain. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 14:22, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::To touch on another thing, could you please expound on why Sulacu's name should be removed from the deviant page? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:11, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::You cannot license that license. We use the GNU FDL not the GFLD. -- [User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:13, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::this: ::::::::::The "GFDL" '''is''' the [[GNU Free Documentation License]]. Your latest edits violate section 4, part B, of that license (which all the content on this wiki is licensed under). -- {{User:Wolf_Dancer|Wolf_Dancer]] 9:20, 25 August.<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Oh, that. It's called the history tab - I am not sure if you have ever heard about it or not. Like on Wikipedia (pretty sure). Sorry, I thought you were talking about the GGPL; above I mean. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:31, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:When you say 'you cannot license that license'... are you referring to me? I'm still not sure you've answer my question... -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:36, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::History tab. Wikipedia does not even use authors; fyi. And they use the same license. I please say do not talk if you do not know what you are talking about. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:41, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You don't need authors to present facts. No one invents a fact, it just is. In contrast, the deviant is Sulacu's creation regardless of where it is presented, and it would not have existed had she not taken the time to create it. As far as that other stuff, I couldn't really give two expletives about Wikipedia policies since sometimes this site seems to follow them, at other times not so much. Furthermore, you could do a better job of not being so demeaning. There were edits between yours and mine; how am I to know who you are addressing with your run-on sentences? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:52, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::'''DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!''' means that it is under the GNU FDL. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:54, 25 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::To respond to one of Hooper's earlier points, I agree that technical measures can't be taken to prevent work from being viewed or copied on a Wiki. But in this particular case, the [[User:Jeeves|person]] adopting TK's work is editing it, which goes beyond the idea of copying it for redistribution. I don't know anything about Wikipedia's policies (in all honesty, I am of the opinion that a Wiki such as this cannot and should not be governed by the same rules as Wikipedia), but the fact remains that Jeeves is taking credit for TK's work when all he did was emasculate the classes under the ''false'' premise that they are overpowered. He didn't use any normal things (like, say, the discussion page, a balance template, or some combination of both); all he did was change the numerical values of the class from acceptable to piss-poor and take all the credit for their good points when all he did was make them suck. Original homebrew work that has been judged to be of good quality (like much of the work left by TK and others has) deserves just as much respect as SRD material (especially because quite a bit of SRD material sucks). -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 07:00, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::@Jay Freedman: Additionally, even if he legitimately adopted it, what's the point of changing an adopted work when the general community was pretty much happy with it (a 20/20 rating with no arguments to the contrary sounds like that to me)? If he wanted to make his own terribly underpowered, dirt-eating variant, he could go ahead and do so by making his own version on a seperate page. "Edited mercilessly and redistributed at will" should imply that they can take it and use an edited version for themselves, not change that actual work already present on the page. Adopted or not, his changes are simply a load of crap. In my opinion, if he ever becomes a big-time user, this place will really have gone to hell. -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 07:12, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::@TG Cid. Yeah, his edits are pretty cocky. It would seem like a silly thing to do, to assume your judgement is better than this communities. I was hoping his edits would be positive. Guess I'm just a nice guy... Anyway. I hope he decides to fix his edits and just create varients. (Everybody loves Varients right? Hell yeah!) --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 10:46, 26 August 2009 (MDT)(and may the force by with you)<br />
<br />
::::::::Ya, one can always respond about his edits on that articles talk page. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:13, 26 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<br />
==Can you take a look at something==<br />
I was going through the "Wanted Categories" page, making categories not redlinked and such. I ran across the old '''[[:Category:Candidates for deletion]]''' from before the time we did Deletion the way we do now. Anyways, it has a few articles that still link to it - and I was going to remove it from the page and place them up for proper deletion, but the pages continuously reload and do very odd stuff, and I cant remove them. Could you take a look at it and see what it does for you? Thanks. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:24, 29 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Linked. I think that should work, if not I'll revert. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:29, 29 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Okay, I was finally able to work around it. They were all made by the same user, [[User:Eyedog|Eyedog]], and he was using '''deletepage''' instead of just '''delete''', and it was doing some weird stuff. I've restored all the content to the pages and placed the proper deletion tag on it. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 11:38, 29 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== My Pages ==<br />
<br />
Could you please go ahead and lock them? --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 17:34, 29 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Requests_for_Adminship/Daniel_Draco3&diff=408378D&D Wiki:Requests for Adminship/Daniel Draco32009-08-29T23:29:12Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>===[[Requests for Adminship/Daniel Draco3|Daniel Draco]]===<br />
<br />
:[[Requests for Adminship/Daniel Draco3|Daniel Draco]][[User:Daniel Draco|'s]] Nomination<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
'''[{{fullurl:Requests for Adminship/Daniel Draco3|action=edit}} Voice your opinion]'''<br />
'''(0/0/0) -% Approval; Ending 18:00, 28 August 2009 (MDT)'''<br />
<br />
:Candidates Prelude<br />
<br />
;Questions for the candidate<br />
<br />
Dear candidate, thank you for offering to serve D&D Wiki in this capacity. Please take the time to answer a few generic questions to provide guidance for voters:<br />
<br />
:'''1.''' What sysop chores do you anticipate helping with? Please read the page about [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators administrators] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_reading_list administrators' reading list] on Wikipedia before answering.<br />
<br />
:'''2.''' Of your articles or contributions to D&D Wiki, are there any with which you are particularly pleased, and why?<br />
<br />
:'''3.''' Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?<br />
<br />
;General comments<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<!-- IMPORTANT: Only registered D&D Wikians may comment in the "support", "oppose" or "neutral" sections. Non-registered users or editors who are not logged in are welcome to participate in the "comments" and "questions" sections. --><br />
<br />
'''Discussion''' <br />
*I'm reserving voting until DD comments, though DD has always seemed to me to be a great admin. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid black; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:Black; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:Black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:black; color:white; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 21:26, 23 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Support'''<br />
<br />
'''Oppose'''<br />
* Ayup. I oppose. The only reason I'm still here at all is so I can oversee the locking of my homebrew pages. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 17:29, 29 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
'''Neutral'''<br />
<br />
[[Category:Admin Request]]<br />
[[Category:Requests for Adminship]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=406131User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-23T23:57:32Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Daniel Draco's Counterpoints */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Calidore_Chase<br />
|section=No longer an Admin?<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=12:51, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 &ndash; 450)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have banned admins before - this is not the first time (I mean historically for short periods of time). This is ''literally'' my website; so I need no explanation. Also, if things to continue to happen as they have before, it could happen again. I was banned from my own website, the servers are probably 100 ft. away from me right now, I need no explanation in my head. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, that's it then. You told us before if we didn't like you and your arbitrary rules, to go make our own website. That's exactly what we did. Goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:53, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yup, you blew it. Ciao, tyrant. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:55, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Now we're on the subject, I would like to request the immediate and permanent deletion of every article in <nowiki>Category:User Sulacu</nowiki>. Kind regards, --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:06, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That is not ok. Undeserved disrespect is not ok. You disrespected us, and I am disappointed in you. this place was my home for awhile, and now I have to leave. I will not stand to be in a place where the people are unjustly disrespected. I once respected you, but now that respect is gone. And I must go too, goodbye.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 23:16, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Adopt me"? No. That is '''my''' work, and I'll not have other people taking credit for it. It is to be deleted, or at the very least my name to be kept on it and locked from all edits. --Daniel Draco 23:18, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::We can discuss this later. Personally I think it would be helpful for all people related here to take a break, wait maybe 10 hours, think about this what what you guys are saying, and then talk to me about it at that time. Also, deleting articles is never a good option (adoption or locking is a much better one, in my opinion). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have thought about this for days, 10 more hours will do nothing. The stunt you pulled and then the complete lack of repentance you showed was absolutely, completely unacceptable. There is no "take a break, wait maybe 10 more hours". That time has long passed. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:24, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::With or without the 10 hours, please put the author templates back on my pages and lock them. I can accept that they will remain on this website, but I don't want my work to be changed. Delete them or preserve them, but don't put them up for adoption. --Daniel Draco 23:27, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::In case you haven't been paying attention for the last four days, GD, your opinion is what's destroying your wiki, scattering your once-committed members to the four winds in search for stabler climes. Deleting these articles won't be the same as wiping them away for good, however. They simply won't be on ''your'' site anymore. And that's the way how many of us want it. Do not be so obtuse and please delete those articles, now. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::When I lock them (if you really so desire) I will look through the revision history for different edits at that time (to make sure they are your version). Also, [[User:Surgo|Surgo]], one must understand this is just a website (located on some servers) which I ''literally'' own. Anyway, [[User:Sulacu]] and [[User:Daniel Draco]] I will deal more about these pages, locking, deletion, or who knows what when I myself have a level head as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:31, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:There is a difference between being able to do something, and it being the right thing to do. Noone is saying you are unable to do what you wish. People are saying it's the WRONG thing to do. -DragonChild<br />
<br />
::I think you are missing the point that this is dangerous for me as well. I got banned from D&D Wiki. This is my website. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Hello. I generally try to stay out of this 'website politics' bullshit because it all really is just bullshit. However, this time it really got me. Because the people that got banned for no reason now have your broken trust. You are no longer a level-headed impartial party, but instead it's a powerstruggle between you and the other admins that you promoted to help you ''improve your site''. All the admins have put a lot of work into helping you with the site and then you turn around and shit on their hard work by banning all of them, even the ones that weren't involved. I'm sure the ones that weren't even there when you did it don't understand why you did it, because they ''weren't there''. You might not feel like you need an answer 'in your head' but unfortunately for the rest us, 'in your head' isn't where we are so we don't know what's going on in there and expecting us to know is just ridiculous. The fact that you shit on your admins is enough, but taking the site down so that ''no one'' could access ''their'' work is completely asinine. As a user, and not even one of the ones affected by the ban, I still say that your behavior was entirely 110% uncalled for. I am dissapointed in you, as a site owner, you seem to have very little respect for your community, if any at all. If you want it to be ''your site'', then it truly will just be your site with no one else to share it with. Have fun with that, goodbye and I didn't contribute much, but I want all of my articles deleted. I have them elsewhere. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::You may "literally" own it, but the website lives and dies by your contributors. And now we have left because you took this "literal" ownership too far, ignored our opinions for too long, disrespected us too much, and threw one too many temper tantrums when something happened that you didn't like. That's it. The end. We are gone. We now have our own site that '''we''' literally own, not you. So goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::That is fine. Also, please take note, that one has to add [[Template:Delete]] to their articles on their own. I don't have time to work like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I do appreciate that you will lock my pages into my final version (which, indeed, is exactly what I desire). I would add the appropriate templates, but there are none. I would lock them myself, but you blocked me. So I would appreciate it if you would do it for me. --Daniel Draco 23:41, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I will deal with locking and adminship later; as I explained above. Right now I do not have time to do that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:45, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::As a comment one can always change their mind - like with [[User:TK-Squared]] and his supposed leaving (although those pages still have yet to be restored - given time they will). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:13, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Very well, as per your wish, all my pages now have been put up for deletion. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 00:14, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Incorrect. Now the pages ''you'' want to delete are being processed the correct way through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. That's why I mentioned above about how you can always change your mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:16, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: I am going to relate this incident and following "explanation" to a real-world incident that has a similar feel to it. Dictator #1 "owns" his "server". Therefore, Dictator #1 believes he's allowed to do whatever he wants in his "sever" and the people will have no say about the matter. He believes that the people are creating some form of rebellion, so he "bans" them. The only difference between your situation and Dictator #1's situation is that you had no rebellion. You simply... I don't know, freaked out, apparently at the fact two pages were made to begin an implementation process of something most of the active and contributing user base had supported. <br />
<br />
:::::::::::Furthermore, you are a keen supporter of these "policies" that you have, although finding what exact policies you mean is a slight chore in itself, yet you find yourself exempt because you "own" the site. You have breached the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct Administrator Conduct] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools Misuse of Administrative Tools] policies laid down in the Administrator's policy on Wikipedia. If you want to run your site like a wiki, stop trying to run it as though you're the grand tyrannical godking of all creation and maybe, JUST MAYBE, give a little respect to your userbase. This could be a revolutionary idea, but I hear it works well.<br />
:::::::::::As for my so-called "leaving"; it's a bad example. My leaving was a joke, it's only point was for me to touch up some of my articles in an easier fashion. But, this time; it won't be a joke. I advise anyone wanting their articles to be deleted to add this template; <nowiki>{{delete|14th August 2009|This article is nominated for Speedy Deletion under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles Article G7].}}</nowiki>. <br />
:::::::::::Of course, my logic here for wanting explainations OBVIOUSLY is nowhere near as great as the "MY SITE I CAN DO WHAT I WANT" kind of mentality. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 06:28, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::We have not discussed if we want to implement speedy deletion or not, however your articles will get looked at in due time. Also you ''must'' remember this was not a power trip; I got banned from my own website. That calls for drastic measures (for the most part). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Drastic measures? If this site is going to hell in a bucket, maybe it's a good thing I've got my rewrites happening offline. Judging by the stability of this situation, I'd rather not my contributions be caught in the crossfire, and sooner or later I'm pretty sure one of you admins or another would overreact. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 12:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, you are a dumbass, you've just killed your own website, and don't even realize it. I would like for my pages to be locked in the same way that Daniel Draco's will be locked, except for the pseudonaught, which will be completed in due time, at which point, I request it be locked as well. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 12:39, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::When I have some spare time I will look into locking and deleting accordingly. Please noted that this does not mean that the admins are losing any privileges - if you know what I mean. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: What do you mean? (Adding the "if you know what I mean" makes it kinda ambiguous and not-understandable, I think ''':-3''') --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 13:02, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I might care to point out that you got banned from ''your website'' because ''you started banning everyone else first for no reason at all'' (Often referred to as a power trip). That is justifiable banning by Aarnott, your bannings were not justified. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 13:17, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I meant that after I had the issue sorted out I gave back everyone their privileges as given to them by the D&D Wiki community. Instead of going on the same annoying rants the whole time how about this. You must, one, be able to think (analyze things as well - like [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&limit=500 Special:Blocklog]), and two be able to look at both sides of the issue. ''While'' doing both of these things you ''should'' notice what is going on. Other then that just stop talking to me - I have no time for stupidity. Also you should take a look at [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=&pattern=&limit=500&offset=0 Special:Userrightslog] to look at how the times correlate - then maybe all the people who simply cannot think can figure this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Once again - I have no time for stupidity. If you want to respond I need you to ask an intellectual question and not just say things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:40, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::[[#What the Hell|Ahem]]. From the look of things, you didn't like something someone on "your" website was doing, despite the fact that it would help the website, and you sought to put an end to it. At which point people asked you why you were acting illogically against your own wiki's interest's, to which you replied "We are using logic here", being thoroughly infuriating. After this, without attempting to discuss the issue at hand, or provide any real reasoning to your side (which you are requesting we see things from without any information on), you banned people. Now then, from this, it should be clear that it's not that you banned people, it's the fact that you didn't listen to them. You blatantly ignored the people whose only interest was to help out "your" website. This is what makes you a dumbass. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 13:57, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Stay your big insults, Green. Our ears are not large enough to fit them. I don't care how stupid you think we are or how much of a genius you think yourself. Just look upon the barren wasteland of your site a few months from now and reap the seeds of your 'ingenuity'. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 14:38, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::The longterm success of D&Dwiki hinges on cooperation. Let us all remember that we're in this together. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 16:43, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Here's a little "intellectual question" that you have so-far avoided, probably because it's far too ILLOGICAL for you to contemplate. But, you have yet to answer WHY was Surgo banned? Why was Sulacu banned? And, lastly, why was I banned? There have been given no reasons for this and you have just gone on and on about... nothing. Every time you've said something, it's literally being saying NOTHING on the matter. Maybe if you answered one of the questions given to you rather than saying "OMG I WUZ BANND 4 N0 RSN"; because you weren't, I was. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:10, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Morning. I've only been on your wiki for a very, very short time, but I liked it very much. And now I see that a lot of contributors, in both data and actions, just leave. That sucks. The withdrawal of their past and/or future ocntributions is a very bad thing for the health and diversity of this wiki. So, I understand you "own" the site, that's nice. And I do have to agree with you on some points, firstly that you do have the final say in whatever happens on this site. You own it. They probably shouldn't have banned you, and I can understand that could make you very upset. The other thing I agree on, one of your earlier points, is that anyone is free to leave and go to another wiki. And now, since mainly admins -by definition relatively powerful members of the community- were involved in this struggle, and were grieved in it, a lot of the most useful contributors are leaving your site, along with a sizable amount of regular users. This is not in the best interest of your wiki. <br />
<br />
::::::::::: Now, I'd just wish it'd all clear up and you guys merge again in one wiki, but I don't think that's going to happen. it would be what is best for the wiki and the community behind it, but I guess all people involved are too busy complaining. I think what the admins want is an apology and an explanation worthy of someone more than three years old, because while you do own the wiki, you do not own the community. On the other hand, I think you want to have the last word in whatever happens, making sure nothing happens to your wiki without your knowledge and approval. While this may not be healthy for the site, it is understandablr, and it would only require that any major change would be run past you, and that you are involved in planning and executing any such major change. I think this would not be too much to be asked from the admins. However, you'd still need to explain why something should be implemented or not, because the amount of work put into it by one party should elicit an equal or similar amount of work to negate it. Anyway, what if both parties just state what they'd want, instead of my guesswork? Is there still hope?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::{{quote|Is there still hope?}}<br />
::::::::::::The short answer is no. Those of us who are leaving no longer have anything we want from Green Dragon, we no longer have any demands, and there is nothing he can do to regain our trust. We have made our decision, and there is absolutely no possibility that we will come back. I cannot stress this enough: '''it's too late'''. Green Dragon has lost a large chunk of his active userbase, and you are absolutely free to join us in our new wiki. Out of courtesy to Green Dragon, I will not link the new wiki on this site; however, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for the link. --Daniel Draco 07:30, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Google Ads ==<br />
Will the wiki be trying to alleviate operation costs permanently with the new ads? Just curious. I know it had been a bit since the last fundraiser. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 23:00, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== An attempt to help you maintain your patrons ==<br />
<br />
I feel it neccessary to speak up at least once on all of this bullshit. I am only reading about this whole 'power struggle', but from what I have seen, you have been totally unreasonable. The admins of your site wanted to improve it (as there ARE way too many 'dambass' pages floating around), and you seemed to be taking well to their ideas (putting your own spin on it, but staying with the general idea). Then when they began to impliment said actions (which you agreed on), you shot it down, claiming it was illogical. You yourself agreed to this illogical action. Then when ONE arrogant moron of an admin bans you from your site (which I agree was totally uncalled for), you end all adminship and close the site. Then you proceed to go into full-on tyrant mode. Now, you ask for an intelligent question, here; I understand temporarily revoking all admin rights until you sorted it out, to avoid being banned again. But why shut down the site for ANY period of time, in consequence punishing the little-folk for one morons actions? You really do need to help us to understand what is going on in your head. If you can do this without throwing some sort of an insult at someone, you may have a chance at saving your site. But at the rate these talks are going, you are going to lose not only the majority of your patrons, but also 9/10ths of your homebrew material. I love this site and the immense material that it holds, but if you continue on your current path, I am sorry to say that I will be one of the ones that leaves for the greener pastures of the newly created site. I do hope you chafe course and help us to understand what is going on in your head tho. --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 00:50, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just wanted to speak up, it's true that it ''did'' inconvenience us "little folk" when the site went down. That same day I had wanted to show someone my guide for a game they had the same day to show them the basics of character building, but was unable to due to the site being completely down and short messages taking its place. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:54, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Er... Aarnott is not a moron. What he did was in line with the Wikipedia policies that this site adheres to and was meant to tell Green Dragon that he was acting way out of line. The act, itself, was perfectly called for; Green Dragon was banning people attempting to talk to him about what he'd done and, by extrapolating from this sequence of events, it's safe to say that saying "wtf r u doin" on his talk page would have gotten Aarnott banned as well, in whatever kind of blind fury that had overtaken Green Dragon.<br />
:: As noted, Sabreheim's post is completely misinformed, then. The site probably won't lose most of it's good homebrew material because Green Dragon probably won't let it happen; nevermind he's done it before, he doesn't seem to be accepting Speedy Deletion (again, part of the policies he's noted this wiki adheres to, time and time again), this is probably due to his realization that people ARE leaving and he doesn't want to lose traffic or articles. Maybe someone should have thought about that before... --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:35, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you! ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome and mention that I hope my presence here can help the community. :) I have some homebrew items to add that I'm not sure how to make up---the HTML here is tricky---but I will be going over the editing pages to find out how to add them. One final thing, though: Where would diseases go on the Wiki? I have quite a few medieval illness piled up and would like to add them. [[User:Chimandera|Chimandera]] 03:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Permissions Issue ==<br />
<br />
I have an issue maintaining the SRD. I've lost the ability to edit. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:40, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, you must have missed the wikipocalypse. There is a very good summary of it [[User talk:Calidore_Chase#To_recap|here]]. If you want a link to the new wiki, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for it. --Daniel Draco 13:08, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'll give them back soon. Sorry I just had an issue with the backend of D&D Wiki (and a bit of the frontend as well) and as a result permissions were changed (for the moment I am the only bureaucrat and only admin). I'll give them back in a few days, I'm just letting things calm down a bit, etc. If you need them now (I trust you enough) could you let me know please within a few hours? I am going to drive for a few days and will not have internet for a bit; so if you let me know sooner then later I will have time to give them back to you. Also I am going to keep it with me being the only bureaucrat; just so you know. But I will give back all the admin privileges soon (or now - depending). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: So... basically this wiki will go unadmined for a few days? >_> I've reverted vandalism on at least 2 pages (don't remember if I did others) and the offender wasn't blocked. If you're away or aren't keeping watch on the wiki, at the very least assign people who will block vandals, take on administrative duties, and so on? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 14:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I know. I have been re-thinking about which admins I can trust on D&D Wiki and am not positive if I want to give back admin rights now and/or to whom. Although I see what you mean. I will post another thing before I head off a bit after I think about it a bit more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:55, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I will have internet once again around the 19thish. I'll (for the moment) keep userrights how they are - although probably on the 19th or 20th I will reinstate them. If people would not mind please keep an eye out for vandals (and thanks already [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] for doing so). And sorry about that SRD issue - I hope waiting a few days will work as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I can wait until the bullets stop flying. When I get time, I'll wade through the vast arguments going. I only look at SRD changes on a daily basis, so I am amazingly ignorant of the recent iconoclasm. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:55, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Alright. I will give permissions back when things have calmed down; no need to worry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:09, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Professionalism==<br />
<br />
Hmm, lots of chatter these days about admin drama. Even us little-known users have taken notice. Looks like a few admins are displeased. We little-known users hope this minor conflict will all be resolved soon. I myself would like to thank GreenDragon for cancelling the Rating Group idea. IMO it was a thoughtful decision. I would also like to thank all Admins for the great work they do and have done on behalf of the community. Thank you all Admins for your wonderful ideas and contributions. We small-town users look forward the resolution of this minor conflict of interest. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:32, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The problem is that he ''didn't'' cancel it. He stated that he didn't like idea. He never vetoed it. He never said that he was putting any authority into his disagreement. All disagreement he stated was phrased conversationally. It wasn't until he '''''banned''''' TK-Squared for starting to implement it that we had any indication that he was giving it an official "no". Using such an aggressive action as a ban as the first indication of a veto is, in my opinion, not professional at all.<br />
:I would also like to point out that the issue has been resolved. The resolution is that those of us who don't feel that we can trust Green Dragon anymore have moved to a new wiki (which I will gladly link to you [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|via private means of communication]]). --Daniel Draco 16:02, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Vandalism==<br />
I have reason to believe that TK has resorted to vandalism[http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TK-Squared&namespace=&year=&month=-1] in his disgust with you. Admins have better ability to control this than I, and I really don't feel like running around in circular thought with an individual anymore. Could you try to step in on this? Thanks. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:23, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Shame he saw fit to demote all his System Operators because of his tantrum, ain't it? I sure could just get Surgo down here right now to do something about it. What a shame, looks like I get to do what I want with my work, eh? Now, stop vandalising my pages. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:26, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::You realize that your above statement just proves your own childishness. Maybe Green Dragon was wrong to begin with, but now he is fully justified. D&Dwiki is a collaborative effort. You have repeatedly refused to collaborate with other individuals. This should be the final straw. GD, if available, I would like to open up a Request for Ban on TK. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:28, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: You're not quite getting it, are you? The Ratings Committee? That was a "collaborative effort". Quite a few people agreed on it, so I went about helping realize the dream. So, where was the "community" when Green Dragon said "No, you're banned for doing this"? I don't know; maybe you're feigning ignorance or maybe this internet is REALLY getting to you, you throw around thinks like "being childish" and "your argument now sux" and "refusal to collaborate with others".<br />
::: And it's hilarious. This entire thing; hilarious. Especially since Green Dragon's gone for 2-3 days. Dear, oh dear. Looks like I'll actually have control over my own creations, what a novelty. Chill out, relax. Play some b-ball outside-a school. Would you have your oral orifice so wrapped if you were banned during the tantrum? Dear, oh dear. But, at least you've stopped vandalising my pages. Chin chin, old chap. --18:36, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The thing is Liam, I do understand, and I personally feel like GD overstepped and was wrong too. You know how you win in a situation like this? Obviously not, because devolving into vandalism kills any argument you had. Now you're no better than what you said he was, and you have no high ground to stand on. Revert to your typical "e-bullying" trying to make yourself feel better, but I'm not impressed. You reacted incorrectly to the situation, and for as much as you talk about being mature, you repeatedly showcase that you are not. I require no response from you, good day. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:41, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Yeah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Posting_of_personal_information Liam]. I'd like to request a ban from George here for calling me weird names. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:54, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::You admitted your identity in the Tavern smart one (remember, I'm the one who combs through the Tavern histories!). Freely given information may be freely repeated. Those who lose their sense of anonymity tend to lose their e-peen bullying nature as well. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:01, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: So... are we using wikipedia policies? Or not? Or only when it's convenient? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 19:02, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: All my actions are within the Wikipedia Policies. Please brush up, Timothy. Furthermore, oh no; my name is been revealed. OH SHIT, IF ONLY PEOPLE DIDN'T FIND OUT I'm LIAM BENJAMIN WHITE. Oh wait. Nice try, Hooper, nice try. But, you're still not funny enough; try to add some irony or wit! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:09, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Sure, your last name is "[[w:Dodds_(surname)|White]]." Sure thing. Yawn. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:12, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Sure is. Why? Worried someone lied on the internet? Should have your stalking up to date, buddy. I saw what you tried to do with the yawn there, but it just didn't have any kick to it. I mean, I know being funny doesn't come natural to some people (unlike myself, of course), but at least try. Go on, put some effort into it, George. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:18, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I second [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]]'s thoughts above. (Sorry Ghost, just saw that). &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:21, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Woah, sorry about that. Got called away to do some cool stuff, etc. Anyway, as I was saying; you've got to try to be funnier. If you get a few jokes in, a few witty quips and maybe touch on some irony, you'll loosen up, y'know. Also, still doing Hunter? I tried Hunter once, got to 40 and changed from BM to Marksman. Totally a mistake, I think, and stopped playing it. Oh, and, er... Stop agreeing with people, or something. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:45, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Wow, [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] I think you need a break. First off insults are not a good option, stalking is not a good option, and overall I think you need to take a break for a bit. I think (instead of posting things all the time) you should spend 30 minutes thinking about the rating commitie thing (and what it could mean), that websites have backends, and that some people are shit as people. After that maybe you should post; keeping in mind civility. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:18, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:What, exactly (and I mean that), is your objection to the Rating Committee? I was not as for it as others, but it did seem like a step in the right direction, so I'm curious as to why you are so adamantly opposed to it. And please don't call me stupid for calling it a step in the right direction, I just want to know why you hate it so. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:38, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content). Other then that reason there is no reason for a committee; one can also find people and email then about things to keep everything in check or to check articles for completeness in any case. Adding a fake hierarchical tier onto D&D Wiki for no reason is pointless and counterproductive in my mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:43, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content)."<br />
:::I feel the need to point out here that this claim is completely unsubstantiated. If, to quote you, "we use logic here", then statements must be proven in order to be accepted as truth (according to the very definition of logic). --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I've had disagreements with several other users as to what's "balanced" or not. If there was such a committee, would it make my comments worth less than those of people who were on the committee? Would they be disregarded out of hand? Who would make sure they weren't? What if the committee couldn't disagree on what's balanced? Why should they have the primary say in what's balanced and what isn't? As human beings, we're all biased. On a public forum such as this where everyone should be equal, it doesn't feel right that there are those who count for more--the obvious exception being admins of course, since admin duties require a level of authority beyond that of general users for locking pages, blocking vandalists, etc. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:06, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I have a few thoughts on the matter, some of which are in accordance with what you (Green Dragon) just professed, other that are not.<br />
:::::#I agree that the template system is advantageous in that anyone can apply templates, but if the two systems have different goals (read on) the superiority of the template reviewing process should be expected. <br />
:::::#With that said, there's no reason why the two systems could not exist side by side. The template reviewing system exists to bring articles up to an acceptable quality (improvement), while a rating committee would exist to acknowledge articles of superior quality (recognition). That's what I think the rating committee idea was at least in part about. There are thousands of 'useable' articles on the wiki, yet we have had only five featured articles (one of which, [[Cassia (3.5e Deity)|Cassia]], we seemed to agree was not really FA quality). To put it in a more tame light, a rating committee would be a compromise between the five featured articles in existence and a mountain of unsorted mediocrity.<br />
:::::#You say fake hierarchical tier... given that some of the users in question were just that, users, you have a point, and I understand your concern. But if you were to have a category or rank for these users, such as sysop or moderator, or whatever (something other than generic user--pardon my unfamiliarity with the subject matter) then said hierarchy would not be fake, but rather real. If such status were obtained the same way as a Request for Adminship and could be lost in the same manner, that would mitigate a few of the concerns, I think. Having certain limitations or requirements, such as a mandatory X articles reviewed per month but no more than Y nominations per month would ensure an activity level that the template reviewing system can only dream of. Committee members could be exempt at times due to other responsibilities (i.e. life), but you get the idea. There's nothing that creates interest like progress. Knowing your article is in queue for a look over by someone relatively well-respected within the community--it gives an incentive that the template reviewing process cannot really emulate.<br />
:::::#As for the reasoning for such a committee, well it's really about recognition, isn't it? We are all on here for various reasons, whether is to share our own ideas or to borrow from those of others, but I don't think anyone posts anything in that hope that it sits ignored for all eternity. That's the other nice thing about a rating committee, that it could recognize more than our numerical class rating system can. Flaws, feats, weapon enhancements, whatever: ingenuity rewarded wherever it may be found, not just in a select area that commands variable levels of interest from different users.<br />
:::::In conclusion, I'm not sure that such a system would work now even if you were to endorse it, because to be frank, there aren't that many users here I would trust with that power (and let's face it, that's what it is, and you are right to be cautious with how such authority is distributed). Anyway, like the disenchanted and departed members of the wiki maintained, this was supposed to be in the best interests of the wiki. There's no reason you couldn't give it a trial run and see how you, and the community at large, like it. I will address Ghostwheel's just added concern in a moment, but right now I want to get this up for consideration. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:10, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::@Ghostwheel: to answer your concern, you have balance points. That way, Tome classes can be well-received within their own vacuum, and so can other classes with more orthodox power levels. My other thought would be that the committee wouldn't look over each submitted article as a whole (that would take far too long), but rather one person would review an article, and it would be taking off the waiting list. If the article's author was unsatisfied, they could re-submit it, and when it's time came it would have to be reviewed by a different committee member than the original reviewer. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:17, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: If it's as you described it, it seems more like a committee whose purpose is finding articles, making sure their quality (not balance) is up to snuff, and potentially making them featured articles--that doesn't sound bad in the least. However, about Tome classes being in their own vacuum, perhaps we should make some sort of template for tome classes that adds the caveat explaining in what sort of environment the Tome classes were made for--that is, one in which all the clerics use DMM to buff themselves to incredible heights, the wizards are gods, and druids roam the landscape (if I'm understanding correctly). That said, [[Jester_(3.5e_Class)|there]] [[Thief-Acrobat_(3.5e_Class)|are]] [[Assassin,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|a]] [[Monk,_Tome_(DnD_Class)|few]] [[Knight,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome]] [[Fighter,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|classes]] [[Shadowdancer,_Tome_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|that]] feel balanced for the most part, even in games that don't use [[User:Ghostwheel/3.x_Banned_List|cheesy]] (at least IMO) material. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:43, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::To be frank, balance is a part of quality. But as you say, the goal of a rating committee would be to, in my mind, find quality articles, not balanced ones (although as I say, the two do tend to go hand in hand). For classes, I would say that [[User:Jota#Ratings|anything I rate a 17 or above]] on the current scale would get my vote (were I on such a committee), which includes articles for which I have had some reservations about their power. A 12.50 or so out of 15 (no flavor/formatting) might also suffice. Other material is a little different, but that's all semantics right now. As for your other idea, talk of something similar happened in the past, although it was never implemented. Part of the reason was the disclaimer was incorrect, since Tome material is not the explicit creation of solely Frank and K: -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:11, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::{{Frank and K material}}<br />
<br />
::::::::: Hmmm... perhaps it might simply be worded differently? Something along the lines of, "This page contains materials based on the original work created by Frank & K. As such, it has been made with the concept in mind that a character of a certain level should be able to take on creatures with a CR equal to their level without much trouble, as well as assuming a certain power level of all characters, and is balanced in a way as to allow for this."<br />
::::::::: However, even with this I'm unsure if it would work, since many people wouldn't understand exactly what this meant--that clerics go crazy with DMM, wizards go before everyone else with Celerity, and druids become bears that fly around, summoning whirlwinds and shooting fire from their eyes, so without some sort of explanation somewhere just that might be problematic.<br />
::::::::: Also, even that text is misleading; for me, ToB + XPH material is where I find my "sweet spot" for balance, and many of the classes presented there (no, I don't mean the Soulknife) are able to take down a monster of their CR (though the CR guidelines have their own problems, but let's not get sidetracked too far) without too much trouble, especially under ideal conditions. Yet these classes are underpowered compared to some of the classes (I'm especially looking at you, Prestige Classes) published under Tome material, which leads to some discrepancy in what we said before. Any thoughts on the matter? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 01:21, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Perhaps those classes were made with the idea in mind that no prestige class levels would be taken (Tome Barbarian, for example). Most base classes that are not Tome material seem inferior to prestige classes once those PrC's are accessible, given that for many PrC's you can acquire many of the same benefits that the base class would grant you (bonus spell levels for casters, etc.) while also providing unique abilities. Under such an assumption, why would you ever take levels in a base class (say, wizard) again after you have reached the requirements for a desired PrC? As a result, the aforementioned Tome Barbarian is loaded with powerful abilities so that it can be competitive at every level with a prestige-classed wizard even if the player took Tome Barbarian at every level. It's an incentive to go all the way to level 20, which is something that rarely seems to be done with most SRD classes. So, yeah, they probably seem overpowered, at least compared to the SRD Classes that many supporters of Tome material consider so weak that they're almost ineffectual at high levels. Now, this doesn't always seem to be the case with Tome material (in the case of classes that are shortened to 15 levels to allow, one would guess, for PrC advancement). <br />
::::::::::I'm not sure if I was on base with that at all; my head is still whirring from reading the rest of the conversation thus far. Pardon me if I was mistaken. -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 06:28, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
: Close, but not quite what I meant when I mentioned Prestige Classes. You can see my personal philosophy on prestige classes [[Talk:Magus_Portalus_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]] (bottom-most post there currently); thus, prestige classes [[Ninja_of_Gax_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|that]] [[Paladin_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|give]] [[Defiler_of_Temples_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|you]] [[Seeker_of_the_Lost_Wizard_Traditions_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|casting]] without really losing anything, or having prereqs that force you to sacrifice something don't sit well with me. Straight wizards and clerics are powerful enough as-is without PrC abilities; adding PrCs make them even stronger, which causes imbalance. Do you get what I'm trying to say? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 12:20, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Ah, I see. The tome PrC's essentially are unbalanced because every level adds bonus spellcasting as well as class features (therefore, if they alternated between class features and spellcasting levels, they would be more balanced)? It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure I agree. I can't really make a rebuttal at this time, but I'll give it some thought. -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 14:25, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If they lost even 1 level of spellcasting at 1st level of the PrC, I'd probably say they were a lot more balanced, since then at least they're losing ''something'' to gain all the yummy class features. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I agree [[User:Jota|Jota]]. Someone (if desirable) should contact MW and see if they could make it so one could make new userprivilege groups (like what you are talking about). I thought about this at the time however I am not positive if MW would ever make that change.<br />
::::Also, here everyone goes who wanted to be part of some fake committee. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]], [[User:Lord Dhazriel|Lord Dhazriel]], [[User:Rithaniel|Rithaniel]], [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]], [[User:Jota|Jota]], [[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]], [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]], [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], and [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] (if you guys can only think this small) I appoint you to FA reviewers!!!!! Feel free to nominate articles for FA status, review them for FA status, etc etc. HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!!! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::(don't worry everyone else - there is no need to be appointed - only a need to know enough about D&D). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:05, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::GD, I assume you're being sarcastic? In addition, some of the people you're yelling at had nothing to do with this. They're people I, personally, nomianted, some of which had never even heard about the RC idea. Thus, I hope you don't plan on taking more retaliatory action on the list as a whole. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:42, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Insubstantially patronizing us, eh GD? That's a fantastic way to get back on our good sides. Note the sarcastic tone in my voice.<br />
:::::::I would also like to point out that nobody wanted to be on a fake committee. That would have been silly.<br />
:::::::Also, if you're going to elevate yourself above the rest of us, that makes you not just the owner, but also the de facto leader. As the leader, you need to display professionalism and respect, or else nobody will take you seriously. Your last comment displayed neither, and in fact displayed the exact opposites of those needed qualities. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 06:28, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::One does not have to do any of those things in any one of those circumstances. Also, unless one can make userright areas in MW it is a fake committee. At this time one cannot. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:12, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I really like the way Green Dragon runs this site. Its like the military. Have a problem? Then the answer is: "To bad. Lifes not fair. Suck it." For guys like me, this makes perfect sense. Keep up the good work Green Dragon. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 16:18, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:There are two possibilities there:<br />
:#The internet is a poor medium for sarcasm.<br />
:#You must be oxygen-deprived from receiving a white dragon from Green Dragon. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:25, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::@Jay Freedman: Ah, but this is not the military. And even a military setting, without the active participation and satisfaction of the individual the whole will wither and die. To continue your military analogy, this would be like if the sergeant of a company ordered all of his men to charge blindly at a superior enemy with no sound reasoning. The veteran members, sensing flaws in the sergeant's plan, desert quickly after realizing that nothing will change their superior's mind and take all their weapons and ammunition with them. The rest of the company is left with what they have, but without veteran leadership their performance will suffer.<br />
<br />
::Poor example aside, let me just say that while GD may have been right in being angry at being banned from his own site, the other admins were in effect pushed towards those measures by repeated occurences of GD punishing those who were only acting in what they had collectively agreed to be the Wiki's best interests (since there has already been a huge quarrel on this issue I will try to speak no more of it). The point is, the site is pretty much irrevocably fractured, with basically the entire trusted user base (some exceptions exist) gone within a period of a few days. Even some who have elected to stay are still left without the admins who helped make this Wiki a better site as well as without a seriously reasonable and unbiased explanation of why the conflict took place (most people who have been reading up on this know that it's pretty much because of the conflict over a possible Ratings Committee proposal, but others who were not involved in said conflict were banned as well).<br />
<br />
::As the situation stands presently, there is now a rival Wiki comprising the users who are attempting to form their own vision of D&D Wiki without Green Dragon. There is also a huge pile-up of junk pages and dumb IP edits since none of the admins are left to monitor the day-to-day activities of the Wiki (while he may be the owner of this site, Green is to the extent of my knowledge only one person and can only do so much). In that sense, things now seem in a pretty bad state. How can you concievably call that a good way to run any website, let alone one that basically depends on the contributions of its users for appeal? -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 20:57, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Daniel Draco's Counterpoints ==<br />
<br />
I would like to point out to everyone that GD has once again banned me, for a period of one day, on the basis of my last comment, which he categorized as "Intimidating behaviour/harassment". So, first, my rebuttal:<br />
* CHAPTER ONE -- "Whine Kampf"<br />
:* "As the leader, you need to display professionalism and respect, or else nobody will take you seriously." <small>''--me''</small><br />
:* "One does not have to do any of those things in any one of those circumstances." <small>''--Green Dragon''</small><br />
:* Huh. Really. Alright, hypothetical situation. Metaphor Incorporated<sup>1</sup> is a company<sup>2</sup> of moderate size, with happy, active, and loyal staff<sup>3</sup>. Its CEO<sup>4</sup>, Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup>, has always been capable and at least somewhat reasonable in her<sup>6</sup> job. One day, a client<sup>7</sup> does something that she<sup>6</sup> disagrees with, but which her<sup>6</sup> staff<sup>3</sup> thought was a good idea. In an action that is universally seen as irrational<sup>8</sup>, she<sup>6</sup> put all her<sup>6</sup> staff<sup>3</sup> on suspension for an indefinite period of time, regardless of whether or not they were involved. When finally they regain the ability to communicate with her<sup>6</sup>, Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup> refuses to offer any explanation or apology for her<sup>6</sup> words and actions, which continue to be generally irrational<sup>8</sup>. Fed up with her<sup>6</sup> ridiculously inappropriate actions, a leader emerges among the disgruntled staff<sup>3</sup>: Lee Dur<sup>9</sup>. He goes off to found a new company<sup>2</sup>, Metaphors Unlimited<sup>10</sup>, bringing along with him a good portion of the staff<sup>3</sup> and clients<sup>7</sup>, leaving Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup> behind. The end. Now tell me, if Sue d'Nim<sup>5</sup> had been respectful and professional, would she<sup>6</sup> have lost so much?<br />
:* Footnotes:<small><br />
:# The D&D Wiki<br />
:# website<br />
:# admin(s)<br />
:# owner<br />
:# Green Dragon<br />
:# his/he/him<br />
:# user(s)<br />
:# psychotic<br />
:# Surgo<br />
:# Dungeons and Dragons Wiki<br />
</small><br />
* CHAPTER TWO -- "Brain (Dis-)Trust"<br />
:* "I would also like to point out that nobody wanted to be on a fake committee. That would have been silly." <small>''--me''</small><br />
:* "Also, unless one can make userright areas in MW it is a fake committee." <small>''--Green Dragon''</small><br />
:* "committee: a body of persons delegated to consider, investigate, take action on, or report on some matter" <small>''--Merriam-Webster''</small><br />
:* "Assuming we are all persons: had the committee actually formed, we would have been delegated (assigned responsibility and authority) to take action on rating articles; therefore, we would have been a committee." <small>''--the core principles of logic''</small><br />
* CONCLUSION<br />
:* I would like to point out that I am fully aware that this post is, somewhat ironically, disrespectful and unprofessional. The differences are that 1) I am not the owner of the site and 2) I have not taken any substantial action with this post, where a substantial action is something such as banning every admin. --Daniel Draco 22:06, 21 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Oh, so it's ''Surgo'' who runs the new site? Well, forget ''that'', then. I could barely stand his manner when he was admin... I think I'll stay. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 14:39, 22 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wow, it's been a while since I posted here. I haven't really kept up on everything that has been going on, but I don't think my lack of reading is relevant to replying to your comment, Mythos. Surgo is a very good admin for the new wiki. I had my reservations about him before because he can come off as an abrasive individual, but he has really stepped up and done an excellent job. To me, there doesn't even seem to be a choice anymore, however. One stray comment here will randomly provoke a ban (this will probably be my last comment here anyways, so I'm not too concerned about speaking up).<br />
<br />
::Surgo doesn't have any interest in leveraging the fact that it is "his website" to get his way. It isn't even hosted by him: he wouldn't even have any grounds to do that if he tried. In fact, there is someone Surgo reports to (so to speak) that if he started acting out of line like a supreme dictator, the community could go this other person to instead of being at his mercy. I don't know about you, but the thought of losing 2 years of my dedication and work at the whim of one person that '''bans people for trying to discuss things rationally''' seems like a bad idea.<br />
<br />
::It's not going to make a huge difference to me one way or another if you decide to come to the new wiki or not. I just hope that anyone who thinks "bleck, Surgo is terrible" '''considers carefully''' the choice that they are making. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:59, 23 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And, as always, I will gladly give the link to anyone [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|privately]]. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 17:57, 23 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=405795User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-21T12:28:14Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Vandalism */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Calidore_Chase<br />
|section=No longer an Admin?<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=12:51, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 &ndash; 450)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have banned admins before - this is not the first time (I mean historically for short periods of time). This is ''literally'' my website; so I need no explanation. Also, if things to continue to happen as they have before, it could happen again. I was banned from my own website, the servers are probably 100 ft. away from me right now, I need no explanation in my head. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, that's it then. You told us before if we didn't like you and your arbitrary rules, to go make our own website. That's exactly what we did. Goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:53, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yup, you blew it. Ciao, tyrant. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:55, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Now we're on the subject, I would like to request the immediate and permanent deletion of every article in <nowiki>Category:User Sulacu</nowiki>. Kind regards, --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:06, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That is not ok. Undeserved disrespect is not ok. You disrespected us, and I am disappointed in you. this place was my home for awhile, and now I have to leave. I will not stand to be in a place where the people are unjustly disrespected. I once respected you, but now that respect is gone. And I must go too, goodbye.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 23:16, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Adopt me"? No. That is '''my''' work, and I'll not have other people taking credit for it. It is to be deleted, or at the very least my name to be kept on it and locked from all edits. --Daniel Draco 23:18, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::We can discuss this later. Personally I think it would be helpful for all people related here to take a break, wait maybe 10 hours, think about this what what you guys are saying, and then talk to me about it at that time. Also, deleting articles is never a good option (adoption or locking is a much better one, in my opinion). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have thought about this for days, 10 more hours will do nothing. The stunt you pulled and then the complete lack of repentance you showed was absolutely, completely unacceptable. There is no "take a break, wait maybe 10 more hours". That time has long passed. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:24, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::With or without the 10 hours, please put the author templates back on my pages and lock them. I can accept that they will remain on this website, but I don't want my work to be changed. Delete them or preserve them, but don't put them up for adoption. --Daniel Draco 23:27, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::In case you haven't been paying attention for the last four days, GD, your opinion is what's destroying your wiki, scattering your once-committed members to the four winds in search for stabler climes. Deleting these articles won't be the same as wiping them away for good, however. They simply won't be on ''your'' site anymore. And that's the way how many of us want it. Do not be so obtuse and please delete those articles, now. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::When I lock them (if you really so desire) I will look through the revision history for different edits at that time (to make sure they are your version). Also, [[User:Surgo|Surgo]], one must understand this is just a website (located on some servers) which I ''literally'' own. Anyway, [[User:Sulacu]] and [[User:Daniel Draco]] I will deal more about these pages, locking, deletion, or who knows what when I myself have a level head as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:31, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:There is a difference between being able to do something, and it being the right thing to do. Noone is saying you are unable to do what you wish. People are saying it's the WRONG thing to do. -DragonChild<br />
<br />
::I think you are missing the point that this is dangerous for me as well. I got banned from D&D Wiki. This is my website. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Hello. I generally try to stay out of this 'website politics' bullshit because it all really is just bullshit. However, this time it really got me. Because the people that got banned for no reason now have your broken trust. You are no longer a level-headed impartial party, but instead it's a powerstruggle between you and the other admins that you promoted to help you ''improve your site''. All the admins have put a lot of work into helping you with the site and then you turn around and shit on their hard work by banning all of them, even the ones that weren't involved. I'm sure the ones that weren't even there when you did it don't understand why you did it, because they ''weren't there''. You might not feel like you need an answer 'in your head' but unfortunately for the rest us, 'in your head' isn't where we are so we don't know what's going on in there and expecting us to know is just ridiculous. The fact that you shit on your admins is enough, but taking the site down so that ''no one'' could access ''their'' work is completely asinine. As a user, and not even one of the ones affected by the ban, I still say that your behavior was entirely 110% uncalled for. I am dissapointed in you, as a site owner, you seem to have very little respect for your community, if any at all. If you want it to be ''your site'', then it truly will just be your site with no one else to share it with. Have fun with that, goodbye and I didn't contribute much, but I want all of my articles deleted. I have them elsewhere. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::You may "literally" own it, but the website lives and dies by your contributors. And now we have left because you took this "literal" ownership too far, ignored our opinions for too long, disrespected us too much, and threw one too many temper tantrums when something happened that you didn't like. That's it. The end. We are gone. We now have our own site that '''we''' literally own, not you. So goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::That is fine. Also, please take note, that one has to add [[Template:Delete]] to their articles on their own. I don't have time to work like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I do appreciate that you will lock my pages into my final version (which, indeed, is exactly what I desire). I would add the appropriate templates, but there are none. I would lock them myself, but you blocked me. So I would appreciate it if you would do it for me. --Daniel Draco 23:41, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I will deal with locking and adminship later; as I explained above. Right now I do not have time to do that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:45, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::As a comment one can always change their mind - like with [[User:TK-Squared]] and his supposed leaving (although those pages still have yet to be restored - given time they will). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:13, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Very well, as per your wish, all my pages now have been put up for deletion. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 00:14, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Incorrect. Now the pages ''you'' want to delete are being processed the correct way through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. That's why I mentioned above about how you can always change your mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:16, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: I am going to relate this incident and following "explanation" to a real-world incident that has a similar feel to it. Dictator #1 "owns" his "server". Therefore, Dictator #1 believes he's allowed to do whatever he wants in his "sever" and the people will have no say about the matter. He believes that the people are creating some form of rebellion, so he "bans" them. The only difference between your situation and Dictator #1's situation is that you had no rebellion. You simply... I don't know, freaked out, apparently at the fact two pages were made to begin an implementation process of something most of the active and contributing user base had supported. <br />
<br />
:::::::::::Furthermore, you are a keen supporter of these "policies" that you have, although finding what exact policies you mean is a slight chore in itself, yet you find yourself exempt because you "own" the site. You have breached the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct Administrator Conduct] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools Misuse of Administrative Tools] policies laid down in the Administrator's policy on Wikipedia. If you want to run your site like a wiki, stop trying to run it as though you're the grand tyrannical godking of all creation and maybe, JUST MAYBE, give a little respect to your userbase. This could be a revolutionary idea, but I hear it works well.<br />
:::::::::::As for my so-called "leaving"; it's a bad example. My leaving was a joke, it's only point was for me to touch up some of my articles in an easier fashion. But, this time; it won't be a joke. I advise anyone wanting their articles to be deleted to add this template; <nowiki>{{delete|14th August 2009|This article is nominated for Speedy Deletion under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles Article G7].}}</nowiki>. <br />
:::::::::::Of course, my logic here for wanting explainations OBVIOUSLY is nowhere near as great as the "MY SITE I CAN DO WHAT I WANT" kind of mentality. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 06:28, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::We have not discussed if we want to implement speedy deletion or not, however your articles will get looked at in due time. Also you ''must'' remember this was not a power trip; I got banned from my own website. That calls for drastic measures (for the most part). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Drastic measures? If this site is going to hell in a bucket, maybe it's a good thing I've got my rewrites happening offline. Judging by the stability of this situation, I'd rather not my contributions be caught in the crossfire, and sooner or later I'm pretty sure one of you admins or another would overreact. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 12:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, you are a dumbass, you've just killed your own website, and don't even realize it. I would like for my pages to be locked in the same way that Daniel Draco's will be locked, except for the pseudonaught, which will be completed in due time, at which point, I request it be locked as well. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 12:39, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::When I have some spare time I will look into locking and deleting accordingly. Please noted that this does not mean that the admins are losing any privileges - if you know what I mean. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: What do you mean? (Adding the "if you know what I mean" makes it kinda ambiguous and not-understandable, I think ''':-3''') --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 13:02, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I might care to point out that you got banned from ''your website'' because ''you started banning everyone else first for no reason at all'' (Often referred to as a power trip). That is justifiable banning by Aarnott, your bannings were not justified. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 13:17, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I meant that after I had the issue sorted out I gave back everyone their privileges as given to them by the D&D Wiki community. Instead of going on the same annoying rants the whole time how about this. You must, one, be able to think (analyze things as well - like [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&limit=500 Special:Blocklog]), and two be able to look at both sides of the issue. ''While'' doing both of these things you ''should'' notice what is going on. Other then that just stop talking to me - I have no time for stupidity. Also you should take a look at [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=&pattern=&limit=500&offset=0 Special:Userrightslog] to look at how the times correlate - then maybe all the people who simply cannot think can figure this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Once again - I have no time for stupidity. If you want to respond I need you to ask an intellectual question and not just say things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:40, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::[[#What the Hell|Ahem]]. From the look of things, you didn't like something someone on "your" website was doing, despite the fact that it would help the website, and you sought to put an end to it. At which point people asked you why you were acting illogically against your own wiki's interest's, to which you replied "We are using logic here", being thoroughly infuriating. After this, without attempting to discuss the issue at hand, or provide any real reasoning to your side (which you are requesting we see things from without any information on), you banned people. Now then, from this, it should be clear that it's not that you banned people, it's the fact that you didn't listen to them. You blatantly ignored the people whose only interest was to help out "your" website. This is what makes you a dumbass. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 13:57, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Stay your big insults, Green. Our ears are not large enough to fit them. I don't care how stupid you think we are or how much of a genius you think yourself. Just look upon the barren wasteland of your site a few months from now and reap the seeds of your 'ingenuity'. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 14:38, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::The longterm success of D&Dwiki hinges on cooperation. Let us all remember that we're in this together. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 16:43, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Here's a little "intellectual question" that you have so-far avoided, probably because it's far too ILLOGICAL for you to contemplate. But, you have yet to answer WHY was Surgo banned? Why was Sulacu banned? And, lastly, why was I banned? There have been given no reasons for this and you have just gone on and on about... nothing. Every time you've said something, it's literally being saying NOTHING on the matter. Maybe if you answered one of the questions given to you rather than saying "OMG I WUZ BANND 4 N0 RSN"; because you weren't, I was. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:10, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Morning. I've only been on your wiki for a very, very short time, but I liked it very much. And now I see that a lot of contributors, in both data and actions, just leave. That sucks. The withdrawal of their past and/or future ocntributions is a very bad thing for the health and diversity of this wiki. So, I understand you "own" the site, that's nice. And I do have to agree with you on some points, firstly that you do have the final say in whatever happens on this site. You own it. They probably shouldn't have banned you, and I can understand that could make you very upset. The other thing I agree on, one of your earlier points, is that anyone is free to leave and go to another wiki. And now, since mainly admins -by definition relatively powerful members of the community- were involved in this struggle, and were grieved in it, a lot of the most useful contributors are leaving your site, along with a sizable amount of regular users. This is not in the best interest of your wiki. <br />
<br />
::::::::::: Now, I'd just wish it'd all clear up and you guys merge again in one wiki, but I don't think that's going to happen. it would be what is best for the wiki and the community behind it, but I guess all people involved are too busy complaining. I think what the admins want is an apology and an explanation worthy of someone more than three years old, because while you do own the wiki, you do not own the community. On the other hand, I think you want to have the last word in whatever happens, making sure nothing happens to your wiki without your knowledge and approval. While this may not be healthy for the site, it is understandablr, and it would only require that any major change would be run past you, and that you are involved in planning and executing any such major change. I think this would not be too much to be asked from the admins. However, you'd still need to explain why something should be implemented or not, because the amount of work put into it by one party should elicit an equal or similar amount of work to negate it. Anyway, what if both parties just state what they'd want, instead of my guesswork? Is there still hope?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::{{quote|Is there still hope?}}<br />
::::::::::::The short answer is no. Those of us who are leaving no longer have anything we want from Green Dragon, we no longer have any demands, and there is nothing he can do to regain our trust. We have made our decision, and there is absolutely no possibility that we will come back. I cannot stress this enough: '''it's too late'''. Green Dragon has lost a large chunk of his active userbase, and you are absolutely free to join us in our new wiki. Out of courtesy to Green Dragon, I will not link the new wiki on this site; however, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for the link. --Daniel Draco 07:30, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Google Ads ==<br />
Will the wiki be trying to alleviate operation costs permanently with the new ads? Just curious. I know it had been a bit since the last fundraiser. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 23:00, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== An attempt to help you maintain your patrons ==<br />
<br />
I feel it neccessary to speak up at least once on all of this bullshit. I am only reading about this whole 'power struggle', but from what I have seen, you have been totally unreasonable. The admins of your site wanted to improve it (as there ARE way too many 'dambass' pages floating around), and you seemed to be taking well to their ideas (putting your own spin on it, but staying with the general idea). Then when they began to impliment said actions (which you agreed on), you shot it down, claiming it was illogical. You yourself agreed to this illogical action. Then when ONE arrogant moron of an admin bans you from your site (which I agree was totally uncalled for), you end all adminship and close the site. Then you proceed to go into full-on tyrant mode. Now, you ask for an intelligent question, here; I understand temporarily revoking all admin rights until you sorted it out, to avoid being banned again. But why shut down the site for ANY period of time, in consequence punishing the little-folk for one morons actions? You really do need to help us to understand what is going on in your head. If you can do this without throwing some sort of an insult at someone, you may have a chance at saving your site. But at the rate these talks are going, you are going to lose not only the majority of your patrons, but also 9/10ths of your homebrew material. I love this site and the immense material that it holds, but if you continue on your current path, I am sorry to say that I will be one of the ones that leaves for the greener pastures of the newly created site. I do hope you chafe course and help us to understand what is going on in your head tho. --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 00:50, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just wanted to speak up, it's true that it ''did'' inconvenience us "little folk" when the site went down. That same day I had wanted to show someone my guide for a game they had the same day to show them the basics of character building, but was unable to due to the site being completely down and short messages taking its place. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:54, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Er... Aarnott is not a moron. What he did was in line with the Wikipedia policies that this site adheres to and was meant to tell Green Dragon that he was acting way out of line. The act, itself, was perfectly called for; Green Dragon was banning people attempting to talk to him about what he'd done and, by extrapolating from this sequence of events, it's safe to say that saying "wtf r u doin" on his talk page would have gotten Aarnott banned as well, in whatever kind of blind fury that had overtaken Green Dragon.<br />
:: As noted, Sabreheim's post is completely misinformed, then. The site probably won't lose most of it's good homebrew material because Green Dragon probably won't let it happen; nevermind he's done it before, he doesn't seem to be accepting Speedy Deletion (again, part of the policies he's noted this wiki adheres to, time and time again), this is probably due to his realization that people ARE leaving and he doesn't want to lose traffic or articles. Maybe someone should have thought about that before... --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:35, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you! ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome and mention that I hope my presence here can help the community. :) I have some homebrew items to add that I'm not sure how to make up---the HTML here is tricky---but I will be going over the editing pages to find out how to add them. One final thing, though: Where would diseases go on the Wiki? I have quite a few medieval illness piled up and would like to add them. [[User:Chimandera|Chimandera]] 03:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Permissions Issue ==<br />
<br />
I have an issue maintaining the SRD. I've lost the ability to edit. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:40, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, you must have missed the wikipocalypse. There is a very good summary of it [[User talk:Calidore_Chase#To_recap|here]]. If you want a link to the new wiki, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for it. --Daniel Draco 13:08, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'll give them back soon. Sorry I just had an issue with the backend of D&D Wiki (and a bit of the frontend as well) and as a result permissions were changed (for the moment I am the only bureaucrat and only admin). I'll give them back in a few days, I'm just letting things calm down a bit, etc. If you need them now (I trust you enough) could you let me know please within a few hours? I am going to drive for a few days and will not have internet for a bit; so if you let me know sooner then later I will have time to give them back to you. Also I am going to keep it with me being the only bureaucrat; just so you know. But I will give back all the admin privileges soon (or now - depending). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: So... basically this wiki will go unadmined for a few days? >_> I've reverted vandalism on at least 2 pages (don't remember if I did others) and the offender wasn't blocked. If you're away or aren't keeping watch on the wiki, at the very least assign people who will block vandals, take on administrative duties, and so on? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 14:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I know. I have been re-thinking about which admins I can trust on D&D Wiki and am not positive if I want to give back admin rights now and/or to whom. Although I see what you mean. I will post another thing before I head off a bit after I think about it a bit more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:55, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I will have internet once again around the 19thish. I'll (for the moment) keep userrights how they are - although probably on the 19th or 20th I will reinstate them. If people would not mind please keep an eye out for vandals (and thanks already [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] for doing so). And sorry about that SRD issue - I hope waiting a few days will work as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I can wait until the bullets stop flying. When I get time, I'll wade through the vast arguments going. I only look at SRD changes on a daily basis, so I am amazingly ignorant of the recent iconoclasm. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:55, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Professionalism==<br />
<br />
Hmm, lots of chatter these days about admin drama. Even us little-known users have taken notice. Looks like a few admins are displeased. We little-known users hope this minor conflict will all be resolved soon. I myself would like to thank GreenDragon for cancelling the Rating Group idea. IMO it was a thoughtful decision. I would also like to thank all Admins for the great work they do and have done on behalf of the community. Thank you all Admins for your wonderful ideas and contributions. We small-town users look forward the resolution of this minor conflict of interest. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:32, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The problem is that he ''didn't'' cancel it. He stated that he didn't like idea. He never vetoed it. He never said that he was putting any authority into his disagreement. All disagreement he stated was phrased conversationally. It wasn't until he '''''banned''''' TK-Squared for starting to implement it that we had any indication that he was giving it an official "no". Using such an aggressive action as a ban as the first indication of a veto is, in my opinion, not professional at all.<br />
:I would also like to point out that the issue has been resolved. The resolution is that those of us who don't feel that we can trust Green Dragon anymore have moved to a new wiki (which I will gladly link to you [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|via private means of communication]]). --Daniel Draco 16:02, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Vandalism==<br />
I have reason to believe that TK has resorted to vandalism[http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TK-Squared&namespace=&year=&month=-1] in his disgust with you. Admins have better ability to control this than I, and I really don't feel like running around in circular thought with an individual anymore. Could you try to step in on this? Thanks. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:23, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Shame he saw fit to demote all his System Operators because of his tantrum, ain't it? I sure could just get Surgo down here right now to do something about it. What a shame, looks like I get to do what I want with my work, eh? Now, stop vandalising my pages. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:26, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::You realize that your above statement just proves your own childishness. Maybe Green Dragon was wrong to begin with, but now he is fully justified. D&Dwiki is a collaborative effort. You have repeatedly refused to collaborate with other individuals. This should be the final straw. GD, if available, I would like to open up a Request for Ban on TK. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:28, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: You're not quite getting it, are you? The Ratings Committee? That was a "collaborative effort". Quite a few people agreed on it, so I went about helping realize the dream. So, where was the "community" when Green Dragon said "No, you're banned for doing this"? I don't know; maybe you're feigning ignorance or maybe this internet is REALLY getting to you, you throw around thinks like "being childish" and "your argument now sux" and "refusal to collaborate with others".<br />
::: And it's hilarious. This entire thing; hilarious. Especially since Green Dragon's gone for 2-3 days. Dear, oh dear. Looks like I'll actually have control over my own creations, what a novelty. Chill out, relax. Play some b-ball outside-a school. Would you have your oral orifice so wrapped if you were banned during the tantrum? Dear, oh dear. But, at least you've stopped vandalising my pages. Chin chin, old chap. --18:36, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The thing is Liam, I do understand, and I personally feel like GD overstepped and was wrong too. You know how you win in a situation like this? Obviously not, because devolving into vandalism kills any argument you had. Now you're no better than what you said he was, and you have no high ground to stand on. Revert to your typical "e-bullying" trying to make yourself feel better, but I'm not impressed. You reacted incorrectly to the situation, and for as much as you talk about being mature, you repeatedly showcase that you are not. I require no response from you, good day. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:41, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Yeah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Posting_of_personal_information Liam]. I'd like to request a ban from George here for calling me weird names. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:54, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::You admitted your identity in the Tavern smart one (remember, I'm the one who combs through the Tavern histories!). Freely given information may be freely repeated. Those who lose their sense of anonymity tend to lose their e-peen bullying nature as well. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:01, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: So... are we using wikipedia policies? Or not? Or only when it's convenient? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 19:02, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: All my actions are within the Wikipedia Policies. Please brush up, Timothy. Furthermore, oh no; my name is been revealed. OH SHIT, IF ONLY PEOPLE DIDN'T FIND OUT I'm LIAM BENJAMIN WHITE. Oh wait. Nice try, Hooper, nice try. But, you're still not funny enough; try to add some irony or wit! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:09, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Sure, your last name is "[[w:Dodds_(surname)|White]]." Sure thing. Yawn. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:12, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Sure is. Why? Worried someone lied on the internet? Should have your stalking up to date, buddy. I saw what you tried to do with the yawn there, but it just didn't have any kick to it. I mean, I know being funny doesn't come natural to some people (unlike myself, of course), but at least try. Go on, put some effort into it, George. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:18, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I second [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]]'s thoughts above. (Sorry Ghost, just saw that). &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:21, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Woah, sorry about that. Got called away to do some cool stuff, etc. Anyway, as I was saying; you've got to try to be funnier. If you get a few jokes in, a few witty quips and maybe touch on some irony, you'll loosen up, y'know. Also, still doing Hunter? I tried Hunter once, got to 40 and changed from BM to Marksman. Totally a mistake, I think, and stopped playing it. Oh, and, er... Stop agreeing with people, or something. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:45, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Wow, [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] I think you need a break. First off insults are not a good option, stalking is not a good option, and overall I think you need to take a break for a bit. I think (instead of posting things all the time) you should spend 30 minutes thinking about the rating commitie thing (and what it could mean), that websites have backends, and that some people are shit as people. After that maybe you should post; keeping in mind civility. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:18, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:What, exactly (and I mean that), is your objection to the Rating Committee? I was not as for it as others, but it did seem like a step in the right direction, so I'm curious as to why you are so adamantly opposed to it. And please don't call me stupid for calling it a step in the right direction, I just want to know why you hate it so. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:38, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content). Other then that reason there is no reason for a committee; one can also find people and email then about things to keep everything in check or to check articles for completeness in any case. Adding a fake hierarchical tier onto D&D Wiki for no reason is pointless and counterproductive in my mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:43, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content)."<br />
:::I feel the need to point out here that this claim is completely unsubstantiated. If, to quote you, "we use logic here", then statements must be proven in order to be accepted as truth (according to the very definition of logic). --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I've had disagreements with several other users as to what's "balanced" or not. If there was such a committee, would it make my comments worth less than those of people who were on the committee? Would they be disregarded out of hand? Who would make sure they weren't? What if the committee couldn't disagree on what's balanced? Why should they have the primary say in what's balanced and what isn't? As human beings, we're all biased. On a public forum such as this where everyone should be equal, it doesn't feel right that there are those who count for more--the obvious exception being admins of course, since admin duties require a level of authority beyond that of general users for locking pages, blocking vandalists, etc. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:06, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I have a few thoughts on the matter, some of which are in accordance with what you (Green Dragon) just professed, other that are not.<br />
:::::#I agree that the template system is advantageous in that anyone can apply templates, but if the two systems have different goals (read on) the superiority of the template reviewing process should be expected. <br />
:::::#With that said, there's no reason why the two systems could not exist side by side. The template reviewing system exists to bring articles up to an acceptable quality (improvement), while a rating committee would exist to acknowledge articles of superior quality (recognition). That's what I think the rating committee idea was at least in part about. There are thousands of 'useable' articles on the wiki, yet we have had only five featured articles (one of which, [[Cassia (3.5e Deity)|Cassia]], we seemed to agree was not really FA quality). To put it in a more tame light, a rating committee would be a compromise between the five featured articles in existence and a mountain of unsorted mediocrity.<br />
:::::#You say fake hierarchical tier... given that some of the users in question were just that, users, you have a point, and I understand your concern. But if you were to have a category or rank for these users, such as sysop or moderator, or whatever (something other than generic user--pardon my unfamiliarity with the subject matter) then said hierarchy would not be fake, but rather real. If such status were obtained the same way as a Request for Adminship and could be lost in the same manner, that would mitigate a few of the concerns, I think. Having certain limitations or requirements, such as a mandatory X articles reviewed per month but no more than Y nominations per month would ensure an activity level that the template reviewing system can only dream of. Committee members could be exempt at times due to other responsibilities (i.e. life), but you get the idea. There's nothing that creates interest like progress. Knowing your article is in queue for a look over by someone relatively well-respected within the community--it gives an incentive that the template reviewing process cannot really emulate.<br />
:::::#As for the reasoning for such a committee, well it's really about recognition, isn't it? We are all on here for various reasons, whether is to share our own ideas or to borrow from those of others, but I don't think anyone posts anything in that hope that it sits ignored for all eternity. That's the other nice thing about a rating committee, that it could recognize more than our numerical class rating system can. Flaws, feats, weapon enhancements, whatever: ingenuity rewarded wherever it may be found, not just in a select area that commands variable levels of interest from different users.<br />
:::::In conclusion, I'm not sure that such a system would work now even if you were to endorse it, because to be frank, there aren't that many users here I would trust with that power (and let's face it, that's what it is, and you are right to be cautious with how such authority is distributed). Anyway, like the disenchanted and departed members of the wiki maintained, this was supposed to be in the best interests of the wiki. There's no reason you couldn't give it a trial run and see how you, and the community at large, like it. I will address Ghostwheel's just added concern in a moment, but right now I want to get this up for consideration. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:10, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::@Ghostwheel: to answer your concern, you have balance points. That way, Tome classes can be well-received within their own vacuum, and so can other classes with more orthodox power levels. My other thought would be that the committee wouldn't look over each submitted article as a whole (that would take far too long), but rather one person would review an article, and it would be taking off the waiting list. If the article's author was unsatisfied, they could re-submit it, and when it's time came it would have to be reviewed by a different committee member than the original reviewer. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:17, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: If it's as you described it, it seems more like a committee whose purpose is finding articles, making sure their quality (not balance) is up to snuff, and potentially making them featured articles--that doesn't sound bad in the least. However, about Tome classes being in their own vacuum, perhaps we should make some sort of template for tome classes that adds the caveat explaining in what sort of environment the Tome classes were made for--that is, one in which all the clerics use DMM to buff themselves to incredible heights, the wizards are gods, and druids roam the landscape (if I'm understanding correctly). That said, [[Jester_(3.5e_Class)|there]] [[Thief-Acrobat_(3.5e_Class)|are]] [[Assassin,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|a]] [[Monk,_Tome_(DnD_Class)|few]] [[Knight,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|Tome]] [[Fighter,_Tome_(3.5e_Class)|classes]] [[Shadowdancer,_Tome_(DnD_Prestige_Class)|that]] feel balanced for the most part, even in games that don't use [[User:Ghostwheel/3.x_Banned_List|cheesy]] (at least IMO) material. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:43, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::To be frank, balance is a part of quality. But as you say, the goal of a rating committee would be to, in my mind, find quality articles, not balanced ones (although as I say, the two do tend to go hand in hand). For classes, I would say that [[User:Jota#Ratings|anything I rate a 17 or above]] on the current scale would get my vote (were I on such a committee), which includes articles for which I have had some reservations about their power. A 12.50 or so out of 15 (no flavor/formatting) might also suffice. Other material is a little different, but that's all semantics right now. As for your other idea, talk of something similar happened in the past, although it was never implemented. Part of the reason was the disclaimer was incorrect, since Tome material is not the explicit creation of solely Frank and K: -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:11, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::{{Frank and K material}}<br />
<br />
::::::::: Hmmm... perhaps it might simply be worded differently? Something along the lines of, "This page contains materials based on the original work created by Frank & K. As such, it has been made with the concept in mind that a character of a certain level should be able to take on creatures with a CR equal to their level without much trouble, as well as assuming a certain power level of all characters, and is balanced in a way as to allow for this."<br />
::::::::: However, even with this I'm unsure if it would work, since many people wouldn't understand exactly what this meant--that clerics go crazy with DMM, wizards go before everyone else with Celerity, and druids become bears that fly around, summoning whirlwinds and shooting fire from their eyes, so without some sort of explanation somewhere just that might be problematic.<br />
::::::::: Also, even that text is misleading; for me, ToB + XPH material is where I find my "sweet spot" for balance, and many of the classes presented there (no, I don't mean the Soulknife) are able to take down a monster of their CR (though the CR guidelines have their own problems, but let's not get sidetracked too far) without too much trouble, especially under ideal conditions. Yet these classes are underpowered compared to some of the classes (I'm especially looking at you, Prestige Classes) published under Tome material, which leads to some discrepancy in what we said before. Any thoughts on the matter? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 01:21, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Perhaps those classes were made with the idea in mind that no prestige class levels would be taken (Tome Barbarian, for example). Most base classes that are not Tome material seem inferior to prestige classes once those PrC's are accessible, given that for many PrC's you can acquire many of the same benefits that the base class would grant you (bonus spell levels for casters, etc.) while also providing unique abilities. Under such an assumption, why would you ever take levels in a base class (say, wizard) again after you have reached the requirements for a desired PrC? As a result, the aforementioned Tome Barbarian is loaded with powerful abilities so that it can be competitive at every level with a prestige-classed wizard even if the player took Tome Barbarian at every level. It's an incentive to go all the way to level 20, which is something that rarely seems to be done with most SRD classes. So, yeah, they probably seem overpowered, at least compared to the SRD Classes that many supporters of Tome material consider so weak that they're almost ineffectual at high levels. Now, this doesn't always seem to be the case with Tome material (in the case of classes that are shortened to 15 levels to allow, one would guess, for PrC advancement). <br />
::::::::::I'm not sure if I was on base with that at all; my head is still whirring from reading the rest of the conversation thus far. Pardon me if I was mistaken. -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 06:28, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
: Close, but not quite what I meant when I mentioned Prestige Classes. You can see my personal philosophy on prestige classes [[Talk:Magus_Portalus_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|here]] (bottom-most post there currently); thus, prestige classes [[Ninja_of_Gax_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|that]] [[Paladin_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|give]] [[Defiler_of_Temples_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|you]] [[Seeker_of_the_Lost_Wizard_Traditions_(3.5e_Prestige_Class)|casting]] without really losing anything, or having prereqs that force you to sacrifice something don't sit well with me. Straight wizards and clerics are powerful enough as-is without PrC abilities; adding PrCs make them even stronger, which causes imbalance. Do you get what I'm trying to say? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 12:20, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Ah, I see. The tome PrC's essentially are unbalanced because every level adds bonus spellcasting as well as class features (therefore, if they alternated between class features and spellcasting levels, they would be more balanced)? It makes sense, but I'm not 100% sure I agree. I can't really make a rebuttal at this time, but I'll give it some thought. -- [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 14:25, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If they lost even 1 level of spellcasting at 1st level of the PrC, I'd probably say they were a lot more balanced, since then at least they're losing ''something'' to gain all the yummy class features. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 14:27, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I agree [[User:Jota|Jota]]. Someone (if desirable) should contact MW and see if they could make it so one could make new userprivilege groups (like what you are talking about). I thought about this at the time however I am not positive if MW would ever make that change.<br />
::::Also, here everyone goes who wanted to be part of some fake committee. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]], [[User:Lord Dhazriel|Lord Dhazriel]], [[User:Rithaniel|Rithaniel]], [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]], [[User:Jota|Jota]], [[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]], [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]], [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], and [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] (if you guys can only think this small) I appoint you to FA reviewers!!!!! Feel free to nominate articles for FA status, review them for FA status, etc etc. HAVE FUN AND GOOD LUCK!!! --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::(don't worry everyone else - there is no need to be appointed - only a need to know enough about D&D). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:05, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::GD, I assume you're being sarcastic? In addition, some of the people you're yelling at had nothing to do with this. They're people I, personally, nomianted, some of which had never even heard about the RC idea. Thus, I hope you don't plan on taking more retaliatory action on the list as a whole. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:42, 20 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Insubstantially patronizing us, eh GD? That's a fantastic way to get back on our good sides. Note the sarcastic tone in my voice.<br />
:::::::I would also like to point out that nobody wanted to be on a fake committee. That would have been silly.<br />
:::::::Also, if you're going to elevate yourself above the rest of us, that makes you not just the owner, but also the de facto leader. As the leader, you need to display professionalism and respect, or else nobody will take you seriously. Your last comment displayed neither, and in fact displayed the exact opposites of those needed qualities. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 06:28, 21 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=405625User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-20T06:01:07Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Vandalism */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Calidore_Chase<br />
|section=No longer an Admin?<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=12:51, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
|label15= Archive 15 (Discussions 421 &ndash; 450)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have banned admins before - this is not the first time (I mean historically for short periods of time). This is ''literally'' my website; so I need no explanation. Also, if things to continue to happen as they have before, it could happen again. I was banned from my own website, the servers are probably 100 ft. away from me right now, I need no explanation in my head. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, that's it then. You told us before if we didn't like you and your arbitrary rules, to go make our own website. That's exactly what we did. Goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:53, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yup, you blew it. Ciao, tyrant. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:55, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Now we're on the subject, I would like to request the immediate and permanent deletion of every article in <nowiki>Category:User Sulacu</nowiki>. Kind regards, --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:06, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::: That is not ok. Undeserved disrespect is not ok. You disrespected us, and I am disappointed in you. this place was my home for awhile, and now I have to leave. I will not stand to be in a place where the people are unjustly disrespected. I once respected you, but now that respect is gone. And I must go too, goodbye.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 23:16, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Adopt me"? No. That is '''my''' work, and I'll not have other people taking credit for it. It is to be deleted, or at the very least my name to be kept on it and locked from all edits. --Daniel Draco 23:18, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::We can discuss this later. Personally I think it would be helpful for all people related here to take a break, wait maybe 10 hours, think about this what what you guys are saying, and then talk to me about it at that time. Also, deleting articles is never a good option (adoption or locking is a much better one, in my opinion). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::We have thought about this for days, 10 more hours will do nothing. The stunt you pulled and then the complete lack of repentance you showed was absolutely, completely unacceptable. There is no "take a break, wait maybe 10 more hours". That time has long passed. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:24, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::With or without the 10 hours, please put the author templates back on my pages and lock them. I can accept that they will remain on this website, but I don't want my work to be changed. Delete them or preserve them, but don't put them up for adoption. --Daniel Draco 23:27, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::In case you haven't been paying attention for the last four days, GD, your opinion is what's destroying your wiki, scattering your once-committed members to the four winds in search for stabler climes. Deleting these articles won't be the same as wiping them away for good, however. They simply won't be on ''your'' site anymore. And that's the way how many of us want it. Do not be so obtuse and please delete those articles, now. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 23:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::When I lock them (if you really so desire) I will look through the revision history for different edits at that time (to make sure they are your version). Also, [[User:Surgo|Surgo]], one must understand this is just a website (located on some servers) which I ''literally'' own. Anyway, [[User:Sulacu]] and [[User:Daniel Draco]] I will deal more about these pages, locking, deletion, or who knows what when I myself have a level head as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:31, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:There is a difference between being able to do something, and it being the right thing to do. Noone is saying you are unable to do what you wish. People are saying it's the WRONG thing to do. -DragonChild<br />
<br />
::I think you are missing the point that this is dangerous for me as well. I got banned from D&D Wiki. This is my website. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Hello. I generally try to stay out of this 'website politics' bullshit because it all really is just bullshit. However, this time it really got me. Because the people that got banned for no reason now have your broken trust. You are no longer a level-headed impartial party, but instead it's a powerstruggle between you and the other admins that you promoted to help you ''improve your site''. All the admins have put a lot of work into helping you with the site and then you turn around and shit on their hard work by banning all of them, even the ones that weren't involved. I'm sure the ones that weren't even there when you did it don't understand why you did it, because they ''weren't there''. You might not feel like you need an answer 'in your head' but unfortunately for the rest us, 'in your head' isn't where we are so we don't know what's going on in there and expecting us to know is just ridiculous. The fact that you shit on your admins is enough, but taking the site down so that ''no one'' could access ''their'' work is completely asinine. As a user, and not even one of the ones affected by the ban, I still say that your behavior was entirely 110% uncalled for. I am dissapointed in you, as a site owner, you seem to have very little respect for your community, if any at all. If you want it to be ''your site'', then it truly will just be your site with no one else to share it with. Have fun with that, goodbye and I didn't contribute much, but I want all of my articles deleted. I have them elsewhere. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::You may "literally" own it, but the website lives and dies by your contributors. And now we have left because you took this "literal" ownership too far, ignored our opinions for too long, disrespected us too much, and threw one too many temper tantrums when something happened that you didn't like. That's it. The end. We are gone. We now have our own site that '''we''' literally own, not you. So goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 23:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::That is fine. Also, please take note, that one has to add [[Template:Delete]] to their articles on their own. I don't have time to work like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I do appreciate that you will lock my pages into my final version (which, indeed, is exactly what I desire). I would add the appropriate templates, but there are none. I would lock them myself, but you blocked me. So I would appreciate it if you would do it for me. --Daniel Draco 23:41, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I will deal with locking and adminship later; as I explained above. Right now I do not have time to do that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:45, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::As a comment one can always change their mind - like with [[User:TK-Squared]] and his supposed leaving (although those pages still have yet to be restored - given time they will). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:13, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Very well, as per your wish, all my pages now have been put up for deletion. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 00:14, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Incorrect. Now the pages ''you'' want to delete are being processed the correct way through [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]]. That's why I mentioned above about how you can always change your mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:16, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: I am going to relate this incident and following "explanation" to a real-world incident that has a similar feel to it. Dictator #1 "owns" his "server". Therefore, Dictator #1 believes he's allowed to do whatever he wants in his "sever" and the people will have no say about the matter. He believes that the people are creating some form of rebellion, so he "bans" them. The only difference between your situation and Dictator #1's situation is that you had no rebellion. You simply... I don't know, freaked out, apparently at the fact two pages were made to begin an implementation process of something most of the active and contributing user base had supported. <br />
<br />
:::::::::::Furthermore, you are a keen supporter of these "policies" that you have, although finding what exact policies you mean is a slight chore in itself, yet you find yourself exempt because you "own" the site. You have breached the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Administrator_conduct Administrator Conduct] and the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators#Misuse_of_administrative_tools Misuse of Administrative Tools] policies laid down in the Administrator's policy on Wikipedia. If you want to run your site like a wiki, stop trying to run it as though you're the grand tyrannical godking of all creation and maybe, JUST MAYBE, give a little respect to your userbase. This could be a revolutionary idea, but I hear it works well.<br />
:::::::::::As for my so-called "leaving"; it's a bad example. My leaving was a joke, it's only point was for me to touch up some of my articles in an easier fashion. But, this time; it won't be a joke. I advise anyone wanting their articles to be deleted to add this template; <nowiki>{{delete|14th August 2009|This article is nominated for Speedy Deletion under [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles Article G7].}}</nowiki>. <br />
:::::::::::Of course, my logic here for wanting explainations OBVIOUSLY is nowhere near as great as the "MY SITE I CAN DO WHAT I WANT" kind of mentality. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 06:28, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::We have not discussed if we want to implement speedy deletion or not, however your articles will get looked at in due time. Also you ''must'' remember this was not a power trip; I got banned from my own website. That calls for drastic measures (for the most part). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:15, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Drastic measures? If this site is going to hell in a bucket, maybe it's a good thing I've got my rewrites happening offline. Judging by the stability of this situation, I'd rather not my contributions be caught in the crossfire, and sooner or later I'm pretty sure one of you admins or another would overreact. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 12:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Green Dragon, you are a dumbass, you've just killed your own website, and don't even realize it. I would like for my pages to be locked in the same way that Daniel Draco's will be locked, except for the pseudonaught, which will be completed in due time, at which point, I request it be locked as well. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 12:39, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::When I have some spare time I will look into locking and deleting accordingly. Please noted that this does not mean that the admins are losing any privileges - if you know what I mean. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:58, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: What do you mean? (Adding the "if you know what I mean" makes it kinda ambiguous and not-understandable, I think ''':-3''') --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 13:02, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I might care to point out that you got banned from ''your website'' because ''you started banning everyone else first for no reason at all'' (Often referred to as a power trip). That is justifiable banning by Aarnott, your bannings were not justified. [[User:Bunnie|Bunnie]] 13:17, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I meant that after I had the issue sorted out I gave back everyone their privileges as given to them by the D&D Wiki community. Instead of going on the same annoying rants the whole time how about this. You must, one, be able to think (analyze things as well - like [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&user=&limit=500 Special:Blocklog]), and two be able to look at both sides of the issue. ''While'' doing both of these things you ''should'' notice what is going on. Other then that just stop talking to me - I have no time for stupidity. Also you should take a look at [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=rights&user=&page=&pattern=&limit=500&offset=0 Special:Userrightslog] to look at how the times correlate - then maybe all the people who simply cannot think can figure this out. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:34, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Once again - I have no time for stupidity. If you want to respond I need you to ask an intellectual question and not just say things. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:40, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::[[#What the Hell|Ahem]]. From the look of things, you didn't like something someone on "your" website was doing, despite the fact that it would help the website, and you sought to put an end to it. At which point people asked you why you were acting illogically against your own wiki's interest's, to which you replied "We are using logic here", being thoroughly infuriating. After this, without attempting to discuss the issue at hand, or provide any real reasoning to your side (which you are requesting we see things from without any information on), you banned people. Now then, from this, it should be clear that it's not that you banned people, it's the fact that you didn't listen to them. You blatantly ignored the people whose only interest was to help out "your" website. This is what makes you a dumbass. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 13:57, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Stay your big insults, Green. Our ears are not large enough to fit them. I don't care how stupid you think we are or how much of a genius you think yourself. Just look upon the barren wasteland of your site a few months from now and reap the seeds of your 'ingenuity'. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 14:38, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::The longterm success of D&Dwiki hinges on cooperation. Let us all remember that we're in this together. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 16:43, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Here's a little "intellectual question" that you have so-far avoided, probably because it's far too ILLOGICAL for you to contemplate. But, you have yet to answer WHY was Surgo banned? Why was Sulacu banned? And, lastly, why was I banned? There have been given no reasons for this and you have just gone on and on about... nothing. Every time you've said something, it's literally being saying NOTHING on the matter. Maybe if you answered one of the questions given to you rather than saying "OMG I WUZ BANND 4 N0 RSN"; because you weren't, I was. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:10, 14 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::: Morning. I've only been on your wiki for a very, very short time, but I liked it very much. And now I see that a lot of contributors, in both data and actions, just leave. That sucks. The withdrawal of their past and/or future ocntributions is a very bad thing for the health and diversity of this wiki. So, I understand you "own" the site, that's nice. And I do have to agree with you on some points, firstly that you do have the final say in whatever happens on this site. You own it. They probably shouldn't have banned you, and I can understand that could make you very upset. The other thing I agree on, one of your earlier points, is that anyone is free to leave and go to another wiki. And now, since mainly admins -by definition relatively powerful members of the community- were involved in this struggle, and were grieved in it, a lot of the most useful contributors are leaving your site, along with a sizable amount of regular users. This is not in the best interest of your wiki. <br />
<br />
::::::::::: Now, I'd just wish it'd all clear up and you guys merge again in one wiki, but I don't think that's going to happen. it would be what is best for the wiki and the community behind it, but I guess all people involved are too busy complaining. I think what the admins want is an apology and an explanation worthy of someone more than three years old, because while you do own the wiki, you do not own the community. On the other hand, I think you want to have the last word in whatever happens, making sure nothing happens to your wiki without your knowledge and approval. While this may not be healthy for the site, it is understandablr, and it would only require that any major change would be run past you, and that you are involved in planning and executing any such major change. I think this would not be too much to be asked from the admins. However, you'd still need to explain why something should be implemented or not, because the amount of work put into it by one party should elicit an equal or similar amount of work to negate it. Anyway, what if both parties just state what they'd want, instead of my guesswork? Is there still hope?<br />
<br />
::::::::::::{{quote|Is there still hope?}}<br />
::::::::::::The short answer is no. Those of us who are leaving no longer have anything we want from Green Dragon, we no longer have any demands, and there is nothing he can do to regain our trust. We have made our decision, and there is absolutely no possibility that we will come back. I cannot stress this enough: '''it's too late'''. Green Dragon has lost a large chunk of his active userbase, and you are absolutely free to join us in our new wiki. Out of courtesy to Green Dragon, I will not link the new wiki on this site; however, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for the link. --Daniel Draco 07:30, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Google Ads ==<br />
Will the wiki be trying to alleviate operation costs permanently with the new ads? Just curious. I know it had been a bit since the last fundraiser. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 23:00, 15 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== An attempt to help you maintain your patrons ==<br />
<br />
I feel it neccessary to speak up at least once on all of this bullshit. I am only reading about this whole 'power struggle', but from what I have seen, you have been totally unreasonable. The admins of your site wanted to improve it (as there ARE way too many 'dambass' pages floating around), and you seemed to be taking well to their ideas (putting your own spin on it, but staying with the general idea). Then when they began to impliment said actions (which you agreed on), you shot it down, claiming it was illogical. You yourself agreed to this illogical action. Then when ONE arrogant moron of an admin bans you from your site (which I agree was totally uncalled for), you end all adminship and close the site. Then you proceed to go into full-on tyrant mode. Now, you ask for an intelligent question, here; I understand temporarily revoking all admin rights until you sorted it out, to avoid being banned again. But why shut down the site for ANY period of time, in consequence punishing the little-folk for one morons actions? You really do need to help us to understand what is going on in your head. If you can do this without throwing some sort of an insult at someone, you may have a chance at saving your site. But at the rate these talks are going, you are going to lose not only the majority of your patrons, but also 9/10ths of your homebrew material. I love this site and the immense material that it holds, but if you continue on your current path, I am sorry to say that I will be one of the ones that leaves for the greener pastures of the newly created site. I do hope you chafe course and help us to understand what is going on in your head tho. --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 00:50, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Just wanted to speak up, it's true that it ''did'' inconvenience us "little folk" when the site went down. That same day I had wanted to show someone my guide for a game they had the same day to show them the basics of character building, but was unable to due to the site being completely down and short messages taking its place. --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 00:54, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: Er... Aarnott is not a moron. What he did was in line with the Wikipedia policies that this site adheres to and was meant to tell Green Dragon that he was acting way out of line. The act, itself, was perfectly called for; Green Dragon was banning people attempting to talk to him about what he'd done and, by extrapolating from this sequence of events, it's safe to say that saying "wtf r u doin" on his talk page would have gotten Aarnott banned as well, in whatever kind of blind fury that had overtaken Green Dragon.<br />
:: As noted, Sabreheim's post is completely misinformed, then. The site probably won't lose most of it's good homebrew material because Green Dragon probably won't let it happen; nevermind he's done it before, he doesn't seem to be accepting Speedy Deletion (again, part of the policies he's noted this wiki adheres to, time and time again), this is probably due to his realization that people ARE leaving and he doesn't want to lose traffic or articles. Maybe someone should have thought about that before... --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:35, 16 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thank you! ==<br />
<br />
I just wanted to say thank you for the welcome and mention that I hope my presence here can help the community. :) I have some homebrew items to add that I'm not sure how to make up---the HTML here is tricky---but I will be going over the editing pages to find out how to add them. One final thing, though: Where would diseases go on the Wiki? I have quite a few medieval illness piled up and would like to add them. [[User:Chimandera|Chimandera]] 03:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Permissions Issue ==<br />
<br />
I have an issue maintaining the SRD. I've lost the ability to edit. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:40, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Ah, you must have missed the wikipocalypse. There is a very good summary of it [[User talk:Calidore_Chase#To_recap|here]]. If you want a link to the new wiki, feel free to [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|contact me]] for it. --Daniel Draco 13:08, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'll give them back soon. Sorry I just had an issue with the backend of D&D Wiki (and a bit of the frontend as well) and as a result permissions were changed (for the moment I am the only bureaucrat and only admin). I'll give them back in a few days, I'm just letting things calm down a bit, etc. If you need them now (I trust you enough) could you let me know please within a few hours? I am going to drive for a few days and will not have internet for a bit; so if you let me know sooner then later I will have time to give them back to you. Also I am going to keep it with me being the only bureaucrat; just so you know. But I will give back all the admin privileges soon (or now - depending). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: So... basically this wiki will go unadmined for a few days? >_> I've reverted vandalism on at least 2 pages (don't remember if I did others) and the offender wasn't blocked. If you're away or aren't keeping watch on the wiki, at the very least assign people who will block vandals, take on administrative duties, and so on? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 14:45, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I know. I have been re-thinking about which admins I can trust on D&D Wiki and am not positive if I want to give back admin rights now and/or to whom. Although I see what you mean. I will post another thing before I head off a bit after I think about it a bit more. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:55, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I will have internet once again around the 19thish. I'll (for the moment) keep userrights how they are - although probably on the 19th or 20th I will reinstate them. If people would not mind please keep an eye out for vandals (and thanks already [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] for doing so). And sorry about that SRD issue - I hope waiting a few days will work as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:39, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I can wait until the bullets stop flying. When I get time, I'll wade through the vast arguments going. I only look at SRD changes on a daily basis, so I am amazingly ignorant of the recent iconoclasm. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 05:55, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Professionalism==<br />
<br />
Hmm, lots of chatter these days about admin drama. Even us little-known users have taken notice. Looks like a few admins are displeased. We little-known users hope this minor conflict will all be resolved soon. I myself would like to thank GreenDragon for cancelling the Rating Group idea. IMO it was a thoughtful decision. I would also like to thank all Admins for the great work they do and have done on behalf of the community. Thank you all Admins for your wonderful ideas and contributions. We small-town users look forward the resolution of this minor conflict of interest. --[[User:Jay Freedman|Jay Freedman]] 15:32, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:The problem is that he ''didn't'' cancel it. He stated that he didn't like idea. He never vetoed it. He never said that he was putting any authority into his disagreement. All disagreement he stated was phrased conversationally. It wasn't until he '''''banned''''' TK-Squared for starting to implement it that we had any indication that he was giving it an official "no". Using such an aggressive action as a ban as the first indication of a veto is, in my opinion, not professional at all.<br />
:I would also like to point out that the issue has been resolved. The resolution is that those of us who don't feel that we can trust Green Dragon anymore have moved to a new wiki (which I will gladly link to you [[User:Daniel_Draco#Contact|via private means of communication]]). --Daniel Draco 16:02, 17 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Vandalism==<br />
I have reason to believe that TK has resorted to vandalism[http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=TK-Squared&namespace=&year=&month=-1] in his disgust with you. Admins have better ability to control this than I, and I really don't feel like running around in circular thought with an individual anymore. Could you try to step in on this? Thanks. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:23, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Shame he saw fit to demote all his System Operators because of his tantrum, ain't it? I sure could just get Surgo down here right now to do something about it. What a shame, looks like I get to do what I want with my work, eh? Now, stop vandalising my pages. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:26, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::You realize that your above statement just proves your own childishness. Maybe Green Dragon was wrong to begin with, but now he is fully justified. D&Dwiki is a collaborative effort. You have repeatedly refused to collaborate with other individuals. This should be the final straw. GD, if available, I would like to open up a Request for Ban on TK. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:28, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::: You're not quite getting it, are you? The Ratings Committee? That was a "collaborative effort". Quite a few people agreed on it, so I went about helping realize the dream. So, where was the "community" when Green Dragon said "No, you're banned for doing this"? I don't know; maybe you're feigning ignorance or maybe this internet is REALLY getting to you, you throw around thinks like "being childish" and "your argument now sux" and "refusal to collaborate with others".<br />
::: And it's hilarious. This entire thing; hilarious. Especially since Green Dragon's gone for 2-3 days. Dear, oh dear. Looks like I'll actually have control over my own creations, what a novelty. Chill out, relax. Play some b-ball outside-a school. Would you have your oral orifice so wrapped if you were banned during the tantrum? Dear, oh dear. But, at least you've stopped vandalising my pages. Chin chin, old chap. --18:36, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::The thing is Liam, I do understand, and I personally feel like GD overstepped and was wrong too. You know how you win in a situation like this? Obviously not, because devolving into vandalism kills any argument you had. Now you're no better than what you said he was, and you have no high ground to stand on. Revert to your typical "e-bullying" trying to make yourself feel better, but I'm not impressed. You reacted incorrectly to the situation, and for as much as you talk about being mature, you repeatedly showcase that you are not. I require no response from you, good day. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:41, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: Yeah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikihounding#Posting_of_personal_information Liam]. I'd like to request a ban from George here for calling me weird names. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:54, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::You admitted your identity in the Tavern smart one (remember, I'm the one who combs through the Tavern histories!). Freely given information may be freely repeated. Those who lose their sense of anonymity tend to lose their e-peen bullying nature as well. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:01, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::: So... are we using wikipedia policies? Or not? Or only when it's convenient? --[[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]] 19:02, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::: All my actions are within the Wikipedia Policies. Please brush up, Timothy. Furthermore, oh no; my name is been revealed. OH SHIT, IF ONLY PEOPLE DIDN'T FIND OUT I'm LIAM BENJAMIN WHITE. Oh wait. Nice try, Hooper, nice try. But, you're still not funny enough; try to add some irony or wit! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:09, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Sure, your last name is "[[w:Dodds_(surname)|White]]." Sure thing. Yawn. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:12, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::: Sure is. Why? Worried someone lied on the internet? Should have your stalking up to date, buddy. I saw what you tried to do with the yawn there, but it just didn't have any kick to it. I mean, I know being funny doesn't come natural to some people (unlike myself, of course), but at least try. Go on, put some effort into it, George. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:18, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I second [[User:Ghostwheel|Ghostwheel]]'s thoughts above. (Sorry Ghost, just saw that). &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 19:21, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Woah, sorry about that. Got called away to do some cool stuff, etc. Anyway, as I was saying; you've got to try to be funnier. If you get a few jokes in, a few witty quips and maybe touch on some irony, you'll loosen up, y'know. Also, still doing Hunter? I tried Hunter once, got to 40 and changed from BM to Marksman. Totally a mistake, I think, and stopped playing it. Oh, and, er... Stop agreeing with people, or something. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 19:45, 18 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Wow, [[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] I think you need a break. First off insults are not a good option, stalking is not a good option, and overall I think you need to take a break for a bit. I think (instead of posting things all the time) you should spend 30 minutes thinking about the rating commitie thing (and what it could mean), that websites have backends, and that some people are shit as people. After that maybe you should post; keeping in mind civility. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:18, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:What, exactly (and I mean that), is your objection to the Rating Committee? I was not as for it as others, but it did seem like a step in the right direction, so I'm curious as to why you are so adamantly opposed to it. And please don't call me stupid for calling it a step in the right direction, I just want to know why you hate it so. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:38, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content). Other then that reason there is no reason for a committee; one can also find people and email then about things to keep everything in check or to check articles for completeness in any case. Adding a fake hierarchical tier onto D&D Wiki for no reason is pointless and counterproductive in my mind. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:43, 19 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::"First off as a system the template reviewing system is much better then the rating system (with the goal in mind of improving content)."<br />
:::I feel the need to point out here that this claim is completely unsubstantiated. If, to quote you, "we use logic here", then statements must be proven in order to be accepted as truth (according to the very definition of logic). --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:01, 20 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=403890User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-14T04:56:02Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Make Love, Not War */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== A Thousand Apologies ==<br />
<br />
I've never "edited" a Wiki page before. I thought everything was being sent to you as a suggestion, and after I submitted my suggestions, I noticed the actual page changed. I want to apologize personally. I may have the original chirurgeon saved to my computer when my players first found and downloaded it, and I can fix everything as soon as I locate it. Again, I apologize profusely, and I suppose I've learned my lesson. I won't be clicking "edit" any more, since it actually changes the page instead of makes suggestions.<br />
<br />
That said, is there a way to send suggestions to users about an entry in Wiki? {{Unsigned|76.187.167.233|14:49, 5 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:That's what the talk page is for -- click on the tab that says "Discussion" instead of the one that says edit. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:50, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Also, we can revert any changes to a page because wikis store the entire history of the page (each edit). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:22, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hello, thank you and questions! ==<br />
<br />
Hi there,<br />
Many thanks for your welcome and good wishes. whilst I may not be a total dead loss between the ears I am still learning slowly how to set out my formats and pages and wanted to ask you about a few things please...<br />
# How can I delete a page once it is made? There is a page referencing "Tekman", the forerunner of my deity Teknos, which I need to have removed please.<br />
# Can you please send me [if you have time] any constructive criticism about the pages I have completed thus far - ARE they complete? Do I need to do much more to them or are they functional for the time being? How could they be improved? And so on<br />
# Am I out of order for adding materials in this way? Have I broken some form of etiquette of which I am otherwise unaware? Please let me know - for example, is it OK top be asking you so many questions?<br />
Thanks for your time. [[User:Rorschach Moondark|Rorschach Moondark]] 09:29, 8 May 2009 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:Learning wiki-syntax should not be too difficult, and once one gets proficient things start looking better and things start fitting better to our preload standards. But anyways...<br />
:# To delete a page please refer to [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]].<br />
:# Sorry... I really do not have the time to take a look at the content you have submitted right now. If you want some critique you may want to ask on the talk page for people's opinions.<br />
:# And I am not sure how you have been adding material, but if you are following the preload and the naming conventions rules it should be alright.<br />
:Hope this helps a bit. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Racial Champion ==<br />
<br />
where is this feat. books, site, i cant find it anywhere. what does it do? {{Unsigned|Masterkycoo|01:48, 9 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure off the top of my head and I do not want to spend the time to look, sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:27, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Chat ==<br />
<br />
Hi I'm not completley new but I've really been enjoying dand wiki. but i thought of an idea for your site, maybe you could set up a chat other then the tavern specifically for dnd campaigns and maybe you could have a few people start some campaigns for 3.5 or 4e or both its just an idea so i wont be offended if nothing happens but please think about it as i think it would be very interesting. [[User:Apfa10|Apfa10]] 23:55, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You would have to ask [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to be certain however if one can create a sub-group chat then it should work. Comparable to how one creates a personal non-logged chat with another member. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Membership ==<br />
<br />
Can you remove myself and all my contributions off this wiki ASAP? I've had it with the regulars... -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 19:48, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Please sign your posts! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:29, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Never mind. I'll stay, but I'll just have to keep my temper in check. I've been having a bad couple weeks, and I apologize. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 20:12, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry if you feel like you're picked on, or you can't handle some of the stuff being said in irc. If you feel like you are being attacked the best course of action is non-action! Hope you feel better and continue to post on the wiki! -- [[User:Sleaker|Sleaker]] 21:06, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would recommend that you just don't log into the tavern. It can have negative effects sometimes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:25, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Storm Elf5's come back? ==<br />
<br />
Hey green dragon! Its been a while since I last visited, I had some computer issues. Anyway, I was wondering, what happened to my homebrew deity with the name of Grininthar or something like that. BTW, the site is great. [[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 16:56, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You have to remember the name correctly. <s>Gririnthar (DnD Deity)</s>. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:21, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Or now that you moved the page; [[Grininthar (DnD Deity)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3.5e Magical Armors ==<br />
<br />
Hey, not really familiar with the whole wiki/HTML things, but I tried to fix it up a little bit to match the armors. I apologize if it's not correct. If it is fine just a quick 'you're good' would be great and I'll finish editing all the ones that I can. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:01, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, [[3.5e Magical Armors]] is formatted correctly, if that is what you are wondering. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:25, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Oop, I actually meant to say the [[3.5e Magical Weapons|magical weapons]], which was incorrect as per your statement, and the one which I was trying to fix; my apologies for the miscommunication. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:20, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I have balanced Storm Elves ==<br />
<br />
Hey Green Dragon!<br />
<br />
I have done some work balancing my 4e race, [[Storm Elves (4e Race)|Storm Elves]] and I was wondering you or another admin could remove the ''Needs Balance'' template if you think it dosen't need any more balancing. There is also another template at the top of the page (''Stub'' I think) and I wanted to know how to begin to remove it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 05:59, 13 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Newbie Having A Small Problem ==<br />
<br />
Hello Green Dragon, I'm new to D&D Wiki and I have a small question that needs a little explaining. I wanted to submit a new Base Class to get feedback on it, so I followed the procedure your site had set up to make classes. I was about halfway done with fully creating the class when I saved the page and went to sleep. Unfortunately, when I wanted to continue from where I left off, I couldn't find the saved page. Where would I be able to find the page so that I can continue from where I left off? The Base Class was supposed to be made for 3.5e Homebrew and was entitled "The Ethereal Hunter". Really appreciate the help because I spent a good deal of time trying to learn and understand how to make a class here. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 06:49, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Not Green Dragon, but are you sure you saved the class? No "Ethereal Hunter" comes up via search function and [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Narrssuras+Stalking+Leopard&namespace=&year=&month=-1 your edit history] shows nothing by that name either. If you did it while you weren't logged in that could explain why it doesn't appear on your user contributions, but other than that I think perhaps something malfunctioned when you went to save the page. Hope that helps a little, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 09:22, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Within the last 30 days there hasn't been an 'Ethereal Hunter' saved by anyone. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 09:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the response anyway. Luckily, I learned that if you are going to fill something out that can span over several page, it is good to make a copy, so I did. Almost done with the Ethereal Hunter now. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:28, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, I've got everything done with my new class and everything is up for it. The only problems I'm having now are actually understanding what I'm doing wrong for my class to adhere to the rules. Some assistance would be helpful, here is the class [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)]]. Thanks in advance, [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 19:20, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Refer to the class' talk page for this discussion. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 19:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Will do, and thanks. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 03:26, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Axefighter ==<br />
<br />
I created a class in the beginning of August of 2008. I recently checked on it and it has disappeared. Its disappeared off of the classes page and off my contributions page. I would just like to know what happened and if it is possible to bring it back to the class list. Because I never wrote the class down anywhere else I don't know how to make an Axefighter.<br />
--[[User:Mightycolin|Mightycolin]] 05:40, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:It got deleted I believe. Not trying to be rude, however poorly made classes get deleted. If you would like it reverted you can ask on [[Talk:Axefighter (DnD Class)]]. [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mightycolin]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:41, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Had a similar problem before as well...to all those that read this here's some valuable advice for you...Back up your files or edits, even if it is temporary, just copy and paste the entire edit into a Word or Notepad document before saving the page. It will prevent any frustration with regards to loosing material (Trust me, I would have had to completely rewrite a class I made on this site if I hadn't backed it up in a word document.) Fellow Aspiring Creator [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 08:58, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== help ==<br />
<br />
i posted a race and it is not showing up {{unsigned|Ewokdruid}}<br />
<br />
:The problem was with the footer. I have since fixed it and it should show up now in the LA Variable listings. Also, perhaps you should check out the [[DnD Race Editing Instructions]] (it explains why your race didn't show up). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 10:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Abbreviations ==<br />
<br />
[[List of Book Abbreviations (DnD Other)]]. Back on May 19th you made some revisions to my List of Abbreviations. You also left a comment, 'why only WOTC?'. I dont know where to find the proper abbreviations for non-WOTC, but ifyou know of places, I will add to the list. TY --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 22:42, 26 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If they do not really exist then nevermind. Also, you want to consider adding the abbreviation to the book entry within the [[Publication List]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Class: Palibar ==<br />
<br />
Hello i was wondering how do power points/day work? {{Unsigned|Alf|21:54, 27 May 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I cannot find that class however for the [[SRD:Psychic Warrior#Power Points/Day]] it's like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:19, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Map Builder ==<br />
<br />
Hey thanks for the welcome. I don't think I need help on wiki formatting (I'm quite regularly doing some background cleanup on wikipedia, not to mention a software engineer), but thanks for the link anyway.<br />
<br />
I did have a question, though, do you know a good way to make a world map using only free tools (small budget ><)? [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 02:11, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You can use GIMP, it has a random map generator and with some basic editing you can end up with things like [this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Image:FFRegionsMap.png]. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:36, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I want more control than Random, sorry. [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 05:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A good link to a map builder should be found [[DnD Links|here]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nature Bound Class ==<br />
<br />
Why did you set my class for deletion? It has only been on site for 2 days, whereas ive seen pages with only a template and no info typed in sit on site for months without a delete template. Don't get me wrong, I love the wiki, but that is just wrong.--[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 15:32, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I did not see those classes. If you have some spare time it would be quite appreciated if you add the appropriate templates to them. Classes should be added at least mostly finished (finished on a word processing program with the preload cut and pasted into it for example). Sorry if this sounds frank, but this issue has been brought up before and I just want to clear up why it is okay to add templates to newly added material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:49, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== why? ==<br />
<br />
i(true warrior)have a question. why are you going to delete my race? please write back.<br />
<br />
<br />
-true warrior<br />
<br />
:Refer to the [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)|races talk page]]. Ask there what you can do to fix it. And please sign your posts using --~~ ~~ (without spaces). --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:25, 29 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== PLEEEEEEEEEASE!!! ===<br />
<br />
DONT ERASE RACE! THER IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!<br />
<br />
=== why ===<br />
<br />
why are you going to erase my race? what did i ever do to you?<br />
<br />
How do you make class features?-asked by arshan272<br />
<br />
== Harassment ==<br />
<br />
After trtying to have a level headed discussion with [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], about balance in 4e, he bacame rude and rather aggressive. His attitude and use of foul language has really put me off. I understand he may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material written concerning 4e design, but even after pointing him to the source he refuses to at least agree to disagree. Again given the volume of information, if you haven't been reading since day one it may be overwhelming. But if he dosen't have time to read it, doesn't mean he needs to vile. I will return to the wiki next week.But I must say if he remains I will not. I refuse to be spoken to like that. Thank you for your time. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 07:44, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There ''is'' a /ignore command in the Tavern if for some reason you can't get along or see eye-to-eye with another user. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:40, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Sepsis, if Dragon Child is being like that, don't bother with him. Some people just don't have good manners. I generally stay out of the Tavern as it is... But you can talk to me about it anytime. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This is totally unfair. Look at what I actually said. The crux of what I said was "If you want something to be called unbalanced because it can't be used in YOUR personal games, that's bullshit". Do you honestly think you can go around slapping an "unbalanced" tag on everything in the wiki that you don't like and have it be OK? The problem wasn't you "not pointing out the source". Indeed, you claimed Mike Mearls or whoever said something... and then provided no link, no cite. I was supposed to go find it myself. I don't even know if it actually exists. That's as good as not pointing anything out. And at no point did I actually disagree with you. I actually stated, large size in 4e may very well be overpowered. I didn't say otherwise, and even said as much. There's no agreeing to disagree when I don't actually disagree. All I was saying is, you really needed a stronger argument then "A designer, somewhere, said you shouldn't do that". That may be wrong, you may be mistaken, the designer himself may have had faulty logic. In short, it's not that I "didn't have the time" to read it, it's that I was never shown where it was, or given any reason to believe it actually exists. You didn't have the time to back up your arguments. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:08, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::No this has nothing to do with our discussion. This is all about your language and attitude. You are not on an "adult-only" site, and have no right to start swearing and arguing because the mood strikes you. I don't need that garbage on my screen with my kids around you are rude and immature and that is that, any arguments you could have made to support yourself is done, once I reached the "F-word" in your comment I stopped reading (in fact this will be the last time I even look at anything you say). Nothing you say will ever carry any wieght with me. If you have to resort to that, then you are too stupid to listen to. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:16, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: I would like to make a counter-point. Sepsis has constantly been closed-minded and disruptive towards Dragon Child at all points. His so-called "swearing" (an idea that I, myself, find absolutely preposterous. They're words, not knives) does nothing to hinder the fact he was simple stating some quite well thought out arguments against Sepsis' so-called "everything is broken that doesn't go with the design" philosophy (so called by me). Throughout the discussion on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]], Sepsis was uncooperative and he threw the insults; not Dragon Child. Dragon just said a word or two that are commonly overreacted against; so he suddenly became "ignorant", "rude" and a "moron". Frankly, I think Sepsis is harassing Dragon child; as to say he has broken the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia Civility Policy] (Personal attacks and aggressive behaviour). --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:30, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with TK. I'm not a fan of avoiding words arbitrarily assigned to be "vulgar" in public, and I certainly don't want to in a conversation between adults. If a child or guardian thereof doesn't want to see curse words, it is that person's responsibility to avoid them. The only time when it makes sense for the one swearing to avoid the one offended is when the offended cannot avoid the swearer; since Sepsis can easily keep his kids away from those conversations, it is (and no insensitivity meant here) not at all anyone else's problem. Two minutes of searching found me [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351 this firefox add-on], which allows one to censor browsing when one's children use the computer. I'm sure there are many other such free utilities. I'm sure you can even find something that censors specific words rather than whole pages, if you want to go that mild. Point is, "fucking" was used for emphasis; that's not an insult or attack that could be taken as belligerent. "Bullshit" was used to mean "something that makes no sense"; it's more concise and means the exact same thing. There's no need for Dragon_Child to be punished or even given a warning. He did nothing wrong. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Just want to make a point on my way out. It is a complete shame that someone can begin by using "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" but not be considered in violation but my non-profane and justifiably angry response is considered harassment. Read the conversation, he started the yelling, and when I wouldn't do as he asked he begins swearing. Obviously this is not the place for me, consider the case closed, as I will depart to more civil pastures. Good day. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I did apologize for my comments as I realized they were inappropriate and misplaced. But now I see all that matters is who you actually suck up to. Then the rules of conduct mean nothing...go and get a program to filter non-adult sites (sheesh), how about we stick to the rules and take quick action against such sick behavior. But hey its your world, do as you will. A bid all a fine farewell. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 06:23, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I wasn't even a part of all of this and I can't help but think you're being completely ridiculous. Swearing is suddenly adult now? I suppose you haven't been on an elementary school playground for decades. Nevermind that elementary school children shouldn't even be accessing this site, as it's hosted in the United States and is subject to COPPA. I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I refuse to censor myself just because someone under the age of 13 ''might'' see my words. I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either. And if that person ''does'' care, they can use a Firefox add-on to filter it out. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:27, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I sorry, but, I must simply add my own two cents to this discussion. Sepsis, you claim that you are leaving the website to protect your children, while you are the one that is acting like a child. A person upset you, so you're going to run away? Honestly, this may seem a little cruel, but I can say that I hope you do leave, since, if you can't be mature and look past the pieces you don't like, you don't deserve to even be an admin. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 10:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow im surprised how rediculous everyone else is being, I mean come on just cause kids are swearing does not make it appropriate, if you swear even if it is not meant as an insult or direct attack, people can still take offense, the people refusing to clean up theiur language are the childish ones here, not everyone likes or can stand reading swearing, and as a general curtosey you should keep your language as clean as possible, or is that not how it works nowadays? Just because yobbish kids and those a lesser abbility to communicate other then through cosntant swearing do it, does not mean that it is acceptable for a community based site. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey, guess what. I'm NOT "refusing to clean up my language". Rith asked me, personally, to be nicer and swear less. I agreed. That's not "refusing", by any sense of the word. Nor do I have a "lesser ability to communicate", indeed, I was able to make clear all of my points in the discussion, while other people refused to back up even the smallest claims, and got angry and abusive because, god forbid, someone asked them for a cite. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:17, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Ok, I donn't want to drag balance and what not into this conversation thats for the talk apge of the article. When did I target the refusal at you Dragon Child? If you can communicate so well then why swear? Could have avoided this entire stupid situation. What other people refused to back up these claims? Do you mean Sepsis? Didn't he mention the Design & Devlopment articles? The point is Dragon Child, that being rude is unhelpful to a discussion as is swearing and yelling [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I apologize. I wrongly assumed the refusal was aimed at me. As for why... let me apologize ahead of time for this post, as I'll need to swear to be even slightly comprehensible here. Is there any word in the English language that conveys the same meaning and emotion as "bullshit" ? The fuck, sure, I should have left that out. But "Bullshit" - that word doesn't really have any true synonyms. Sepsis refused to back up his claims, yes. You can't make a cite of "It's somewhere there". If you can't provide a link, it may as well not exist. To call me an overwhelmed moron to go finding HIS cite for HIM was being rude and unhelpful. I, at the very least, expect people to have the same sort of intellectual integrity and honesty as you'd use to write a highschool paper or in a highschool debate team. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the place where it was cited about the large size would be particualrly hard to find seeing as it was either in one of Mike Mearls Blog Posts or on the forum where mike mearl posted. Though I have read it I know I have. And yes to ask you to go find his cite is rude and unhelpful but that just falls into the region of pot meet kettle, two wrongs dont make a write blah blah. Hes left now. It's over. Let's go back to balancing that giant race :D [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:35, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::None of this discussion even matters at this point, considering that, once people have set their mind into a way of thinking, it'll take a massive effort to sway them (that happens to be a basic fact of psychology). Both sides of this arguement have already set their mind 'in stone', if you will, and the other side will not change them. The only part of this discussion that even matters now, is that Sepsis is leaving the wiki over something as simply as what words were used. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Sepsis leaving is a tad silly. But what can we do? Nothing thats what.[[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:53, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What we can do is clear up this policy. I've made clear that I, personally, feel that it's the responsibility of the offended to avoid those more relaxed about it, not the other way around. After all, what if someone suddenly took offense to the inclusion of demons in the wiki? Since it's something which is part of our little subculture and not meant to offend, we'd tell them very kindly to freak off (and notice how ridiculous substitute words are).<br />
::::::I say we put it to a vote. There's really no other fair way to decide policy. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 13:36, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The difference of course being swearing is not part of our subculture. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 14:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::True. Swearing is part of our culture, not our subculture. Most people swear in informal contexts. In any case, a vote would decide this. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::How would a vote solve anything? Just based on what has been presented we obviously won't reach a consensus, and how can anything but a consensus be considered fair? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:45, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::If the admins say it's ok, then it's OK. If the admins say it's not, then it's not, and other people shouldn't try to force others into not doing so. How is forcing someone to not do something, even though it isn't against the rules, just because someone else is offended fair? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:49, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::[[Meta Pages#Policies]]; swearing is a violation of our policies. For swearing above, however, no one is issued a warning since it was just a discussion about the swearing on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You have to follow two links to even see that, and what the second link is isn't even at all obvious (indeed, I didn't even see the second link until it was pointed out to me), and then only works if you consider the word fuck "Gross-profanity". It also seems you might consider the word "bullshit" "gross profanity", as your claim that I don't need to be warned from this page. That seems... extremely harsh. You can hear "gross profanity" in R rated movies? There's no way that that rule can be reasonably interpreted to forbidding the word "bullshit", and I'd even argue that "fuck" is still not "gross profanity" when used as an emphasizer. The rule needs to be made clear. And, for what its worth, I much more easily found rules against not providing citations and personal attacks, which you didn't so quickly react to as you apparently did to what I said on this page... [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:41, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::And now, indeed. You've proven that you consider the word "fuck" to be a "gross profanity" (which took searching to even find it was against the rules), yet you don't consider these to be harassment (which is clearly against the rules), and I QUOTE: "you are being ignorant and rude", "I don't deal with morons", "If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material.", "your a complete and utter moron", "you have proven you aren't even close enough to being worthy of my (or anyones really) time.", "Wow that answers a lot, an ignorant rant boy", "your opinions really are completly worthless.". So... right. That doesn't seem fair. At all. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]. However you are right, you both deserve a warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, I pointed that page out, and noted that it's two clicks from the rule-thread, AND the fact that what it means isn't even clear, and there's no real reason to believe that sweearing is agaisnt the rules there according to the summary. What does "gross civility" even mean to you. I expressed confusion, and then... told I'm not allowed to do "gross incivility". Is this just going to be circular, where I'm told I'm just going to be warned whenever someone feels like, with no real rules to it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::* Rudeness<br />
:::::* Insults and name-calling<br />
:::::Should fall under those options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:55, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That doesn't answer my question. I hoenstly don't believe I was "rude", at all. Indeed, according to what you just said here, you just warned me for <i>something that isn't even against the rules</i>, because you warned me for swearing, and according to you, "gross profanity" is defined as "rudeness, insults, and name-calling". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:58, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - Wikipedia policies page. Hence, you could have used alternate words to make your point. It doesn't say you can't, but if you can use other words to make the same description then you should. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Except, Sabre, that's on neither of the two pages I was linked to. I asked for where in the rules it said that, and a clarification on what it means. I was not provided with it, and indeed, I was then immediately told that the rule I was warned under <i>never existed</i>. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Dragonchild, it doesn't matter what you believe, policy is policy, just sit down be quiet and go and contribute to the wiki, seriosuly your acting like your being fined by the police sheesh. The fact of that matter is you swore, you broke the policy. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 06:37, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Fine, swearing is against the rules. Am I no longer allowed to say the word "Damn" ? Should we now censor 71 different wiki pages? Hmm, no, that seems silly. Prehaps, just prehaps, as this rule doesn't actually appear anywhere, and indeed, Green Dragon just gave a similiar interpretation to me - <i>that this rule doesn't exist</i>, despite the fact that he claimed earlier it did - the rule should be clarified. Sure, I'll take the warning, whatever, but I want the rule clarified. Unclear rules only exist to allow the mods to warn and ban whoever they like, for whatever damn (whoops! is that warning #2?) reason they please, with no sense of justification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow, so instead of being queit you act like a saracastic and slightly arragont jerk. If your nto happy with hwo things are meant to work here, then dont come ehre simple as. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:10, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am assuming Green Dragon will be reasonable and clarify the rule, which I will then follow. It is not being "sarcastic and arrogant" to point out what I did (indeed, if you see above, it is true). I don't see how I'm being a "jerk" - I'm asking for a rule clarification. Like I said, I fully expect Green Dragon will give one, seeing as he seems reasonable enough. If I were to take your suggestion, I'd throw a fit and leave in a huff every time a website has an unclear rule. That seems overly childish. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::No ionstead what you did was throw a fit and target moderators in general sayign that unclear rules jsut allow them to ban whoever they like. I'm actually a moderator of my own private forum, I assure you thats not how it works. And im sorry I was overeacting the jerk wbit was unescessarry. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:57, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I didn't "target" anyone. Well, ok, I targeted the mods on the WOTC boards and ENWorld boards, that purposely use unclear rules to keep the places "intellectually pure". I more meant it was a warning - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being passive agressive, <i>I honestly think Green Dragon is a reasonable person, as are the rest of the admins and mods here, unlike the rest of almost every D&D board and chat ever</i>. Unclear rules serve no purpose except power tripping. Rules are there to prevent bad behavior that you don't like. If the rule is clear, people will be much less likely to do that bad behavior (indeed, I would not have sworn had I know it was against the rules). If the rule is unclear, people will not know not to do that bad behavior, due to it being, well, unclear and open to interpretation. What benefit does an unclear rule have? The only benefit is that it may be used as a justification by a moderator to ban people over something that isn't explicitly against the rules. If someone ends up doing something you end up not liking later that's not against the rules yet, you add it, and then warn the person for LATER doing, or else you're being unfair. Clear rules are totally necessary and have no downside. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wanting clarification != throwing a fit. (Note: Calling him a jerk breaches the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Civility Policy] under "Insults and name-calling") (That was a joke by the way). The wikipedia policies are far too strict; they build on the idea that massive amounts of people are going to use the site and a large portion of massive amounts of people are much more easily offended; especially those that use the internet (because that somehow means people get offended easily; textual based insults are so scathing). This wiki is a far more specialized wiki and, in my opinion, will attract the attention of people who have heard swearing. They've read it. They've seen it. They've tasted it's rainbow. This site doesn't need supastrictpolicies because it's not like Wikipedia; our userbase isn't several million. A small amount of people can interact calmly, as long as they stop blowing things way out of preportion. Someone said shit, fuck, hell, damn, bollocks, tits, blah, blah, blah. I could go on Google right now, type in one word and find worse in a single click. I could go on DICTIONARY DOT COM and find worse in a few tappity taps. Facebook? Boom, I took a quiz yesterday about FETISHES. YouTube? Boom, I watched a video the other day that used amazing amounts of the word "Fuck" in a short time. Films that kids have seen are worse than the shit that occurs here. Before I was ten, I'd seen a guy rip out his own eyeball, tear off his arm, tell people to fuck off, stab people, beat people, etc, etc. I've seen a 12a film use the word bitch and more (Hell, I've seen PG films that have used the word Shit). This is just overly censoring things and now we're moving into 1984 country, where soon Big Brother will rain down upon you with it's Thought Police. DO YOU WANT THAT?! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:25, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You have a good point calling some a jerk is name calling and I can recognise a joke btw. :). And no I dont want Big Brother thought police going on. I hate that sort of thing anything that surpresses my freedom I tend to be agaisnt. Your right the wiki rules are to strict. ANd of course people have heard swearing, tasted its rainbow and all that, it does not mean everyone WANTS to see it and taste it. This whole thing is getting rediculous now and I will take responsibility for any rediculousness (is that even a word?) I have added to it. Also, I thought Green Dragon had clarified it with the link to wiki thingy ma bob. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm going to make one final argument, for now. One of the admins/sysops/whatever he is, Daniel Draco, said up thread he didn't believe that swearing was against the rules. By this, I argue if he doesn't know, it's not reasonable for a normal user to know it's not against the rules. And finally, to what extent is swearing against the rules need to be clarified. I have yet to be provided with a good sub-in word for "Bullshit". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Bovine poop. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:48, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Swearing is against policy since not only are our policies partly defined by Wikipedia's policies however people swearing also tends to end up sparking discussions like this one. I beleive this is the third time a discussion involving swearing has taken place, all with the same result. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:00, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Then why not make it explicitly so? The rules clearly aren't explicit, as proof enough by Draco not knowing. Obviously, it's unclear. If people keep breaking a rule because the rule is unclear, isn't it your responsibility to make the rule more clear? I'm not even arguing for changing it, I'm arguing for defining it. Otherwise, if you're the only one who knows what the rule actually means or if it even exists, how can you be surprised when people break it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:11, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] was most likely just confused as to the rules (he may not have read all of the policies on Wikipedia). But the policies could not be more clear (save the three warnings policy which is D&D Wiki specific); they are found in the [[Meta Pages]] (''Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.'') under "''Policies''". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:46, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yes, they could be. The rules specifically prohibit "gross profanity". That's what they say about swearing. And I asked outright- what is Gross Profanity? You gave me an explanation that did not include swearing. This has left me INCREDIBLY confused. Is ANY swearing, even "damn" and such gross profanity? Is it gross profanity only past a certain point of words? Etc. Please clarify. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:50, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]<br />
::::::::::* Rudeness<br />
::::::::::* Insults and name-calling <br />
::::::::::Once again any swearing should fall under one of these options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not... really? I don't think every single use of a swear word, ever, is rude. Are we still counting words such as damn, shit, etc, as swear-words that are always rude, even when not directed at other people? If so, fine, I'll go along with it but I think it's silly. It reminds me of the WOTC boards where you couldn't talk about circumstance bonuses, or cocking a crossbow. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I don't see how swearing falls under either of those categories unless it's saying "you fucker" in relation to someone, or something similar. And I think a great deal of people here, myself included, will be ''extremely'' unhappy if swearing in general is banned. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You are right. Swearing is tolerated if it does not break any [[Meta Pages#Policies|policies]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So, for example, "This is a piece of shit" would be unacceptable, but "This class is fucking amazing" would be acceptable? If so, perfect. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion. Thank you so much for clearing this up. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 14:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I wish to thank you all for creating and maintaining this Wiki.<br />
<br />
It's beautifully styled, diligently edited and organized and has proven its usefulness many times already for me.<br />
<br />
[[User:Skypher|Skypher]] 08:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Massive Screw-ups ==<br />
<br />
So, okay... I think I am completely justified in saying that in my short time here, I have already made a bad impression. I would like to know... How can I interact here without doing so? 'Cause as you may or may not know, I made a flaw (which itself was extremely flawed), which, from what I can only tell was rightly judged as unbalanced, and I think I've already made a permanent scar on my reputation here, which generally reflects my experience everywhere on the Internet. So I'm wondering, how can I constructively and successfully contribute to D&Dwiki, perhaps enough that my noobishness will be compensated for?<br />
[[User:Jadebrain|Jadebrain]]11:27, 31 May 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I think the fact that you've contributed is amazing. Nothing negative. Everyone has different opinions on things placed on the wiki, all one can do is add theirs to the collective. You're a valued part of the wiki and we appreciate your articles. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:21, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I concur with Hooper, and would like to add that nobody is going to remember the bad flaw. Most first uploads are crap. Just the way it is. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:38, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Honestly, everybody was a noob once, but it's no big deal. It was hard for me when I first started out here. Surgo did point me toward the Frank and K stuff, which helped a lot (especially Tome of Necromancy, where I got the vampire-staking rules for my Vampire Hunter PrCs...). Also, at the risk of it being a shameless plug, Lord Dhazriel was a big source of inspiration, and there's a couple others who've posted some amazing entries. I for one would be more than happy to look at your work, if you'd look at mine. Quid pro quo, and all that. Stick around, and it'll get a lot better (I did.)! -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:24, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you want to contribute a class or a feat or whatever, think about what you've seen recently or what you want in your own game. Nothing gets motivation going for me like trying to bring something from another genre into DnD 3.5. Or trying to figure out how to model an ability. Look at my user page for some of the stuff I've done. Most of it was seeing or playing something and deciding to try to model it in DnD. So far, I've done Neji from Naruto, Yusuke Urameshi from Yu Yu Hakusho, and the Dragoon from Final Fantasy, especially Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I also wrote my own version of the Drunken Master. But when someone in one of my games wants to, say, run up walls and stand on the ceiling, or he wants a parkour-like ability...Well, then I've got to write something to help him out, and pride demands that it be worthwhile. So if I write anything I'm really proud of, and I can get up the motivation, I put it on the Wiki for review and for whoever wants it. Or for whoever wants to write the ability himself but could use a rough idea of how you manage a, for example, Shoryuken uppercut. Anyway, try some experiments and don't take it personally when people say it sucks. You'll get better, and they should be giving a rationale for their reasoning or advice for improvement. --[[User:Genowhirl|Genowhirl]] 21:14, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adult Content on the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
Hey, GoldDragon here. I was browsing user pages, when I came upon Angel Black's page and found a nude picture. I'm not terribly concerned by it, but there was no advisory warning, and I wondered if there should be. I was foolish enough to bring this up in the Tavern, which sparked a... vigorous debate. Anyway, I know there's a template for an adult content warning, but I didn't think it appropriate for a lowly peon such as me to edit someone else's user page. I have very young players who enjoy this site, but their parents would be upset at me if their children discovered such a page and weren't at least warned to shove off. my point is, should there be a content advisory warning on said user page? what is the line in the sand concerning when one is needed and when not? [[User:GoldDragon|Dragon]] 22:58, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Template:Adult Theme]] if you are interested. And it's usefulness should be discussed on [[Template Talk:Adult Theme]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:47, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vatireans ==<br />
<br />
Please help me recreate my race. To tell you guys the truth when my friend(absconder)told me that my race was over powered and would be erased i did not belive him, foolishly.im new at this so please give me some tips on makeing the Vatireans fit the criteria. P.S. i am contacting you green dragon because i dont no how to talk to sepsis. -true warrior<br />
<br />
:Thank you so much for being so helpful and not deleting my race.im am obviosly new at this.-true warrior<br />
<br />
::Could you guys make the changes yuo want and ill look at them tomarrow,(Vatireans).-true warrior<br />
::P.S. actullaly edit the Vatireans please.<br />
<br />
::Please write back and help.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::pleases write back. -true warrior<br />
<br />
::::please respond,great green dragon.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::::You can ask these same kind of questions and see the reasons as to why your race was nominated for deletion on it's talk page; [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:21, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== Arachonnomicon; the Book of Spiderkind ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I recently finished the [[Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook)|Arachonomicon]]. Could you look over it to see if it ready to be a featured article, please? Thanks in advance. <br><br />
--&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:16, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
I had ask this question two times, but I hadn't got an answer. How do I make templates? Some pages really need templates. --[[User:Chihuahua0|chihuahua0]] 15:51, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by templates? Adding them to a page or making a new one? If a new one just add it in the template namespace. If adding one to the page just copy and paste it from the preload. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gratzi, Sir.<br />
<br />
== Warmage ==<br />
<br />
Here ([[WarMage DnD Class)]]) is a user article under construction, which is a copy of the miniatures handbook's Warmage. I'm pretty sure he's breaking the rules here, so I'd be thankful if you'd check on it. P.S. I'm hoping "Buerocrat" is the right kind of person to come to with this, It's all greek to me. {{Unsigned|Connery55|18:03, 15 June 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Given that the editing for that page says "only from the book", I'm guessing that he is right. I've added the delete template (if I'm wrong, please remove it) under the premise that posting SRD material is a copyright violation. Good catch on that, but please sign your post next time. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|ThunderGod Cid]] 19:51, 15 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for setting up that page. I haven't been able to do much the since I set up some "Heroes" campaign stuff last week because I have been sick which restricts me from really doing anything that involves breathing, which is every thing but siting underwater. I'm working on setting up another Campaign setting but it has 4 four race types with a whole lot of different races. Hopefully I can get it up and running. [[User:Meepers|Meep]] 12:24, 16 June 2009 (MDT) P.S. Does (MDT) stand for mountain date time?<br />
<br />
:::7 seconds of [http://www.google.com google] informs us that MDT is Mountain Daylight Time. During the change of seasons, I think it changes to MST as well (which is Mountain Standard Time). Make sure you take this into account when setting your [[SRD:Water Clock|water clock]]. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== numbers ==<br />
<br />
I noticed in the recent changes area, that next to the links there are numbers in parenthacies, I was wondering what those numbers mean? (example: . m True Fiend (DnD Class); 22:57 . . (+56) )--[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:03, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:That's how many characters were either removed or added to the page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:13, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::ah, thanks! it was bugging me --[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== i have a question. ==<br />
<br />
When is worldwide D&D day this year?<br />
<br />
== Rating System ==<br />
<br />
In the tavern, we were discussing the class rating system. It seems to be the general consensus that, as is, it simply doesn't work. A numerical system with categories doesn't do much in the way of giving a general appraisal of a class -- flavor, a 100% subjective measure, is considered equally with such absolutes as wording and formatting. In addition, a very large number of the ratings are given no explanation, miscategorized, or just make no sense. This could all be fixed if it was changed to a three-level non-numerical rating system (as proposed by Dragon Child): Needs Work, Usable, and Excellent. The crap ratings could be filtered out by requiring admin approval of all ratings -- an MoI to User:Admin could alert us and it wouldn't be very time-consuming to give a yea or nay. In the case of multiple ratings, we take the mathematical mode, erring towards Usable in case of a tie. This simplification has the added benefits of being smaller on the page and being usable on more than just classes -- finally, feats and equipment and other things could be rated. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:04, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just noting my 100% agreement here. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 00:07, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Part of the idea was that this would also be a progression that would encourage users to participate with more feedback. You wouldn't be allowed to give a "Needs Work" rating without saying what it needed work ON - certain abilities being too strong/weak, wording needing improved, or just it needed better wikification. Once the class was improved, the rating could then be changed from Needs Work to Usable, or Excellent. This is also a much clearer system, IMO. What's a 4 compared to a 5? Not entirely clear. What's an Excellent? Something you REALLY like, and want to play right now or include in your game. What's a Usable? Something you'd let someone else play, see no problems with, or just have minor disagreements about. What's Needs Work? Something that's not quite yet ready to play. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wow. Sometimes simplicity is just beautiful. Here are the only things that I see possibly being an issue with a system like this:<br />
:::*Will people still know what aspects should be considered in a "good rating"?<br />
:::*How much justification do they need to give in their rating post?<br />
:::*What led you to the conclusion that 3 tiers are the right way to go?<br />
:::*Are you sure a mode is better than converting to a median number?<br />
:::*This is a problem with the current rating system as well, but when is a page considered changed enough to require ratings to be nullified?<br />
:::On a more minor note, "Needs Work" should be named "Needs Improvement". I'm looking forward to hear more about this idea. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 06:33, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::*We can easily make a page with guidelines on that. On that note, Dragon Child made a very good point in the Tavern that flavor, being totally subjective, should not be considered at all -- the F&K Fighter, for example, would be considered excellent by many, but is totally lacking in flavor (as is intended for the generic "fighter" class). In my opinion, all that should be considered are power, formatting, and clarity.<br />
::::*It shouldn't need much. As long as they do justify it, and the rational parts make sense (even if we disagree with the opinion parts, such as "it's stronger than a monk and monks are overpowered"), it should be fine.<br />
::::*More than that and it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference in value between them. The tiers boil down to "bad, good, great", which is really the categorization that ratings seek to define -- the whole point of a rating is to figure out which of those three something is.<br />
::::*It could be median. I don't really know which would work better, I just figured mode would be simpler to figure out.<br />
::::*If something that was mentioned in the justification is changed, the rating is nullified. For example, if someone said an ability called Smite Teletubby was too powerful, and then the mechanics of the ability are changed, the rating is negated until the rater verifies that they still feel that it's overpowered, or that their other points of justification still make them say it needs improvement.<br />
::::*Probably a better phrase, yeah. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 09:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How do you compromise different rating? Say five users rate a page and it gets Excellent, Usable, Usable, Needs Improvement, and Needs Improvement. What does that measure out to? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:57, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Under both the Mode (which I'd prefer using) and the Median, it would get Usable. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::We should set up a vote for this lasting 1 week. I'm pretty sure I already know what the community will respond with... Could someone more involved with this set up a more formal proposal? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:52, 30 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Formal proposal? Meh, no need for that. All we need right now is a yea or nay from GD on setting up a vote. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:02, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Do we really need GD to set up the vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:23, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. Just need someone who knows the templates and formatting system to change around the template for the new system, as well as the display pages. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:38, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I can do that. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles]] system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The idea was this new review system could be used for ''everything''. I find the categories linked to be more than a bit unsatisfying because they are only for bad articles, not good articles. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:57, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I am of the opinion a numerical (or word) based rating system (as explained above) detriments articles more then it helps compared to a system where the unuseable articles are reviewed and helped in a article-based manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So effectively, [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]], you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:35, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm not that much of a pessimist. To be honest you read what I said wrong. In my opinion articles should be considered unuseable when they are not useable and instead of just rating them to bring them to a useable statis templates should be added to them on a article by article basis to bring them up to a useable statis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:51, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::So everything would be considered usable then, and there would be nothing that's considered exceptional? Because that's what it looks like you're suggesting. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::''Edit conflict, but I'm keeping what I wrote... I'm somewhat echoing Surgo.''<br />
::::::I didn't mean to suggest you were a pessimist. I was just asking for a bit of clarification. I agree that we need to template articles with areas they need to improve (stub, needs balance, etc.). The issue I have with this approach is that we don't have a marker to say "this has been looked at and is good". We have markers to say "This needs improvement" and we can find all of the ones without those markers, but inevitably I foresee many articles falling through the cracks. They won't have the stub template added even when they are stubs.<br />
::::::Maybe part of it is that our admins here need some D&D wiki specific required reading about what they are supposed to do. I know there are a lot of folks here that regularly patrol recent comments. If we have a page describing what we should look out for, then patrolling RC will become much more productive I'm sure. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:09, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Arguably every reader of a homebrewed article should read it with an analytical mindset. Especially if one is going to implement it into their campaign they should. As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements. Specifically I do not see why we need to add another system for reviewing articles when we can instead just raise the unplayability bar. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:57, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::''"As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements"'' -- that's a horrible idea. Someone who thinks the monk is the pinnacle of balance should not ever be going around putting "this is unbalanced" templates on anything. Raising the unplayability bar still leaves a large gap between the minimum allowed and articles that should be considered exceptional. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 18:46, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Just dropping a question here, but, for singling out exceptional articles, don't you guys already have something for that? "Featured Articles"? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:59, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Which never seem to change and have strange requirements like "must have a picture". [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::So you are saying we need to make a playability bar. Correct with either another system implementation or with the current system applied to all cases and as the only reviewing system. It's related to [[Balance System]], however it would have to be done differently in any case (and should). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:35, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing what is currently used for classes (rating system) applied across other categories, such as spells and races, but I understand that this discussion's inception was in part due to dissatisfaction with the current system as it stands, or at the very least concerns over how such a thing would translate. The four core categories (power, wording, formatting, flavor), however, seem to be fairly universal in my mind. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:42, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::You must have missed the many arguments over what those categories are even supposed to mean...I have no idea what Green Dragon's latest message is supposed to mean, so I just want to reaffirm my support for the original idea that started this thread. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:06, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I always go back to that table whenever I rate a class, and I think it does an okay job at defining each area, except for the formatting bit (too lenient, IMO, high rating must be earned, not proxy by following the preload). I can understand where debates might crop up, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:34, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the [[Rating System]] and the [[Character Class Design Guidelines (DnD Guideline)|Character Class Design Guidelines]] combined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wouldn't a playability bar be something akin to a rating system? And as far as templates vs. ratings is concerned, I think that is a bit of a 'your mileage may vary' thing. I mean, low numbers may motivate one person, and a big fat stub/wikify template may motivate others. Either way, that still has the same issues that a rating system does. That is, some people may considered something balanced, and others may not. Does such an article deserve to carry the <nowiki>{{NeedsBalance}}</nowiki> template? I guess what I'm saying is that numbers (a rating system) offer a much cleaner compromise than a debate over whether an article is balanced. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:25, 10 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Something I think you aren't getting, Green_Dragon, is that another goal -- and the one I and the others who brought this up care about -- with ratings is to inform casual readers of the wiki what classes are good and usable and which are not. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem is, some people think classes are usable and others don't. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which is why the proposed rating system would use the mode of the given rates. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 20:44, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I can see this arguement going back and forth like this for easily another 2 weeks. People don't like the current rating system, the boss man doesn't think the system is needed, but the people think that a system is needed, and that one thought keeps poking it's head back into the discussion, "Some people think classes are usable and others don't." I will personally not read anything past this post since it has already given me a headache, but I'm adding my two cents all the same. Yes, flavor is a subjective part of an article, and that paticular part of the rating system feels a bit superflous when you think about it, though, it could serve a purpose. For example, if a classes fluff describes it as, say, "A mighty spellcaster who tears down the heavens with but a thought", and then, when you get to class features, it doesn't even get spells, then that may fall into a '''What?/5''' on the flavor rating, but of course, who is going to be that stupid? I personally think that getting rid of the system all together though, that may be a troublesome idea, considering that the rating system is convenient for the fact that it can show up on the 'list of classes' page, and give a person a warning before they let their computer load the page, just to see a box that says 'Need Balance, come back later' pop up on their screen. People are rather impatient, and, loading 5 pages that are utter junk in a row may turn them away from the site. As for the 'Mol an admin to get a rating approved' idea, I think that is a touch of brilliance that Michealanjilo (don't know if I spelled that correctly) would be envious of, and that it ought to be impletemented immediately, regardless of the decision reached here. As for the Mode/Median Dichotomy, I personally like the way that numbered ratings look, and the feeling you get when you see a '''20/20''' on one of your favorite classes, and can't say that I would feel the same should I get 3 Excellents, but that is simply personal perference. Wrapping up this post, my advice would be to keep the rating system, knock of the flavor part, and add the 'Mol me' switch, but otherwise, keep things the same. Well, I hand the floor to the next person to post, enjoy the discussion everybody. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::My problem with the rating system as it is is, that a class that's 5/5 power, but 2/5 formatting because someone wants there to be more flavor, an example character, an "in the world" section and epic rules (yes, despite the fact that they're useless, I've seen someone rate down someone else for not having EPIC RULES before) is completely and totally different than one that was rated 2/5 formatting and 5/5 power. One of them is likely MUCH more usable in a game, while another just needs some quick fixes. Yet they're rated exactly the same on the "Out of 20" scale, which is why I really don't like that scale. I'd rather just look at classes by power. In addition, if there are mods for rating allowances (which I agree with), IMO they should be seperate from the admins. Green likely has a lot on his plate, and if the rating allowance is just set to a small number of users/mods, that means there can be no inter-mod quarrels. I'd nominate someone like Jota, in addition to some of the current mods like Draco and Surgo, myself, as these should be checked often and may involve a bit of back and forth. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:02, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: It seems the big problem with ratings is the fact that everyone's balance point is completely different. We all know, and no offense to anyone, That someone who agrees with Frank and K's teachings is going to have a radically different view to someone who doesn't. So no matter what the new rating system is, it will still be based on a balance point that at least 50% of the wiki disagrees with. And honestly, it is unlikely the class will get a second rating unless someone is passionate enough, all it takes is one bad rating to completely mess up a classes chance to be read by newcomers in the future, i know i don't even look at most classes with a rating under 12. I had an idea recently however about a new approach to rating, and inlight of what seems to be an impending overhaul, i will place it here. I notice on some of the other wiki's i peruse, (Bulbapedia, wikipedia etc.) that they have "Projects", like Project: Music and Lyrics, where they try to put in all the lyrics for all the songs on the wiki. I think we should get a group of about five people, regular wiki dwellers, with good and varied ideas on balance, into a sort of committee, A Project: Quality, if you will, to go over classes and give their unified opinion on them. One good rating and one bad rating that remain stagnant and unchangeing on a page don't do much. but a unified and collective and well thought out rating is much more likely to be appreciated instead of an IP saying, "WOW, this is really OP, lulz." The commitee could regulate when pages change and when ratings can be nullified, and if there all really devoted, start looking over new classes and old ones and discussing as a group an overall rating for them, whatever the new rating system may be. Perhaps this commitee could add a nice commentary and review to select classes. A article cleanup crew would also be nice, but i know that i cant have Christmas in july.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 01:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a committee to rate classes. Much neater, cleaner, and conflict-less than just anyone being able to rate things. We need to be very careful who is on that committee, though; the more varied the views on balance are, the more likely there is to be conflict. Every single member of the committee would need to be very flexible, and needs to recognize that they are, objectively, no more correct in their views as anyone else on the committee. One way to potentially help avoid disagreements is to come up with general categories of views on balance, and have each ratable page be in a category indicating how the author intended to balance it. For example, off the top of my head, there's Same Game Test balance, balance against similar classes from the core, balance against the strongest classes of the core, balance against similar classes from the entire game, etc. That way, instead of rating on balance from a scattered set of viewpoints, we rate based on the target that the author was trying to hit. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 01:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I don't like the idea of a committee, that narrows the views of the rankings. If the committee is primarily balancing to CR = ECL then they would rate down classes that are attempting for SRD power (and vice versa). A similar problem is when you are saying play testing, if a person uses a class effectively then it can be powerful but if they don't have an opportunity to or don't understand the benefits that the class has or just doesn't play a member of that class effectively then it may be considered much weaker. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe ranking classes for flavor, formatting and wording, but have a different rating system for power. CR = ECL would be one of the options, having a power ranking for that. Or it can be SRD power ranking. I think that flavor should be focused on more though. Have flavor out of 10, formatting out of 5, wording out of 5 and CR = ECL or SRD power ranking percentages, with under 100 being lower powered, 100 being exact and over 100 being high powered. Alternatively it could be a bar with low power at the bottom, SRD standard near the middle, CR = ECL near the end and higher powered at the end. (using lower and higher, not under and over. This is due to the fact that it seems friendlier.) That alternate bar could be out of 100, with the titles at 0, 33, 66 and 100. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:48, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Part of what started this whole discussion is how none of us liked having separate ratings for flavor, formatting, and wording. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 09:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am in favor of either a word-based rating system or a committee or both (somehow). I don't think anything more complex is needed, nor would it be helpful. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:18, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I agree strongly with the idea that classes should have a disclaimer with the power level they were going for. Otherwise, a class going for SRD power would be poorly rated by a user who basis his balance views of ECL=CR, and that isnt fair for someone whose view on balance is different. We could sort each of the balance points (SRD, ECL=CR, Overpowered, Strong SRD, what have you...) Into different categories, so people coming to this site with a specific idea of power can find there niche right away. Perhaps there could be a description on each of the category pages as well. I am still completely up for the idea of a committee, a committee that can be well versed in all these balance points (which i know there are a few of them in the tavern) and willing to review classes at their balance point.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 10:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that flavor is the most important part of the class, it should have its own rating. Formatting and wording can get stuck together, they are only for clarification anyway. I think that having a disclaimer for which power level is good and the word-based rating system can work with the committee, they just have to write a review on an article basically. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:17, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Rating systems, disclaimers for varying levels of power... It all sounds quite exciting, but what would measuring by multiple yardsticks do, besides confuse the hell out of everyone involved? People are liable to not even know what of these power categories their class is going to end up in. Not everybody is apt at discerning balance, which is exactly why some sort of rating system has been introduced in the first place, I think. While I don't have problems with it existing, the types of pages that actually get ratings is so limited and small (i.e., only classes and prestige classes) that it says little about the wiki's general quality standard. Everything else, from spells to equipment to creatures and other random miscellanea is pretty much ignored. There, but not so as you'd notice unless you're willing to wade through hundred miles of swampland with a pig on a leash to find the odd truffle or two. <br />
<br />
::::What I'm proposing is that a sort of 'Editor's Choice' template be made in which any of the admins/sysops can tag the pages they like. Most admins of this wiki are veterans in D&D, and know what they're on about. It's a real simple concept really. If you navigate to a page and see a little frame at the top that states one of the admins like it, it's likely the people'll be willing to look further into it. It would be a simple matter to separate the Bayeux Tapestries from the sea of toilet paper that is the wiki if people were at least given an indication to which articles might be up to snuff. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 21:19, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As I asked before, isn't that what "featured articles" is for? Yes, I know it hardly changes, but I also know there was a discussion somewhere about fixing that. Swap the featured articles more often, add more to the candidates, and doesn't that fit your criteria of "editor's choice"? The only thing I'm asking is, why make something new when you can use what you've got? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well, there's still this nonsense baggage like how a featured article "must have an image" (even if it's something like a transmutation spell that hardly needs one). Perhaps if those requirements were deleted. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Why make somethign new when you can use what you've got?" What we "got" Doesn't seem to be working.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 22:49, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A page doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles of what constitutes a featured article in order to obtain approval. If the contents of the article are useful, usable, readable and well construed, there should be a way for people to tell. It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. A simple little thumbnail of, I dunno, a silver chalice or something, with the caption 'this article is Good' next to it should suffice. On the whole, writing featured articles is like writing the legislation. You have to suffer through countless articles and subparagraphs that you'd never deal with were it ever used in a campaign. As a result, pages like [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|this]] read as though you're drowning in wallpaper paste. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::If theoretically the rating system was removed I agree that the main issue would be that one would not be able to quickly pull a judgement of a certain class from [[DnD Base Classes]] page. Personally I think one of the main reasons the classes area is such a mess is since a rating system was implemented. I am under the impression people do not challenge themselves when adding an article if the goal in mind is to make it adhere to a rating system. And, for that reason, I think the entire class section is such a mess. If (on the preload) we changed the reviewing templates to the D&D-Wiki wide ones and added them to the top (not the bottom) and removed the rating system I think people would submit better classes and this entire prolem would be fixed. Also, that is what FA are for, and I agree that [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is not FA quality. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:32, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a editor's choice thing. It can show good and mostly complete articles, not only the best of the best (which the FA show). This would incorporate flavor and power, with the main formatting to be handled by other templates. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:59, 13 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think I was misunderstood. What I mean about using the featured articles for editor's choice was that we -change- the featured articles criteria to reflect what is being discussed here. That was my suggestion. Now, if no one thinks that idea is a good one, fine. I'm just clarifying. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|17:11, 16 July 2009}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think that Featured Articles should be the best of the best. We can also have recommended articles and use able articles, with the recommended being better in flavor, wording and layout while the use able ones are still usable but not as high quality. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 06:46, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Here's an Official Proposal.<br />
:::::::::::::A committe is formed known as the Ratings Committee, or RC for short. The RC is composed of 9 members, each of varied preferences and opinions, to form it. The RC members must each contribute to the RC once every month, or be replaced. The RC members gain the powers as follows<br />
:::::::::::::*An RC member is able to select an article he feels is particularly good and exemplifies what the wiki should be. He may Favor the article.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with one Favor gains a Bronze Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 3 Favors is upgraded to a Silver Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 6 Favors gains a Gold Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*If eight RC members all Favor an article, it becomes a Featured Article (in addition to the Gold Star), and is given (unit of time - 1 week? 2 weeks?) on the front page. This may lead to a Featured Article queue. That's fine - it's better than a lack of one. All Featured Articles will get their fair share.<br />
:::::::::::::*If an article as two or less Favors, and at least six other Ratings Committee members believe that the article does not deserve a Bronze Star, they may do so. This, hopefully, will be EXTREMELY rare - I can't see it really happening ever if the committee is chosen wisely.<br />
For the initial Ratings Committee, I proposal the following members -- Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, and Genowhirl. That is eight members. I would not normally nominate myself, however, at Aarnott's insistance, I will do so, on the basis that you shouldn't push a job on others you're not willing to do yourself. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:03, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I like this idea a lot, except for one thing -- I don't think it should tie into the featured article system at all. "Editor's choice" articles by themselves are a fine system. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:08, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Just noting my agreement with this idea. Having 9 experienced members take a look at articles like this will allow them to improve with useful constructive criticism. Regular users can still use the wiki normally and articles can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think this is an excellent compromise to all of the ideas presented so far. I think we should try it out for a month or two and see how it goes. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:14, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And best of all, we can remove that horrible rating system too! I know everyone wanted to do that. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:15, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I agree to this proposal and think it is a fine system to add to the wiki.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 12:36, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I support the proposal, and am happy to accept my role in it. I'd also like to suggest creation of a User:Ratings_Committee, so that it can be MoI'd to bring an article or discussion to the entire committee's attention, similar to User:Admin. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 12:47, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not opposed to the idea, although I'm not as opposed to the current rating as others seem to be. I guess it would be nice to be able to say good things about races, spells, and things other than classes. I'll wait for an official proposal page to spring up before evaluating the idea in further detail. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:53, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I support the proposal. As the wiki is a mutable project, a trial run to test it out would be pleasing. I would like to note that I would prefer to keep the old FA nomination system in addition to this new Ratings Committee system. The old FA nomination system will still allow any user or IP to voice their opinion. So, who wants to build the Templates for the Stars and other required materials and pages? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:20, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::The idea was that while anyone could voice their opinions, nominate articles, and pressure/goad the Committee, but only they had the final say. That way, yes, IPs get their say, but we're also not pretending like the "This is overpowered because I don't understand the rules" stuff matters. If it has to be someone's call if something is a FA or not, while not leave it up to the same people who are going to be rating things anyway? We can fix two birds with one stone, and get the FAs moving and rotating again, a discussion people seemed to have basically abadoned. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 18:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yeah, after a bit more thought on it, drop the old FA nominating system. With the User:Ratings_Committee, getting ahold of the RC will be easy and quick while allowing anyone to voice their opinion on an article. Would a Category work well for Ratings Requests, or would then anyone just plop in the category and clog it up? Doing it by starting a discussion on the User:Ratings_Committee would probably work best, as it would require actual communication, hopefully minimizing problems. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:36, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay, so if this gets implemented how is a RC group which looks over recent contributions and gives them favors better then a RC group who adds templates to articles on a article-by-article basis to show that articles mistakes? Or how were you guys planning on implementing the current reviewing system and this RC group to look over recent contributions together? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Because not everything that's "not good" has mistakes. Yes, the group - and EVERYONE for that matter - should still apply the articles to bad template. However, we should still be able to reward and exemplify especially good articles. It also helps people who are looking for material to use to see the best articles set aside. I would basically suggest a talk page, where anyone can post stuff for the RC to see, and would be removed after they looked it over. It wouldn't need EVERY RC member to look over EVERY article, they only have to rate the ones they want to. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: I support Dragon Child's stuff. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 20:27, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::: After speaking with Surgo, who's opinion I greatly respect, I'd like to change the people whom I nominated for the RC role. I had originalyl nominated Genowhirl, who while is plenty fair and clever, doesn't post to other parts of the wiki nearly as much as I had anticipated. Instead, I'd like to replace his nomination with that of Sam Kay's, who is far more active, and in addition, knows 4e quite well. I feel that this better rounds out the knowledges and opinions of the RC, and makes it quite a diverse group. In addition, I feel a new rule needs to be added - an RC is not allowed to Favor his own articles. Instead, there will be one user (prehaps someone who's in-line to become RC, or just Green Dragon) who is allowed to Favor articles written by RCs, and only those articles, in the author's stead. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:19, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::: How does this solve the problem of classes at different power levels? Are we going to have a template for that? or make it part of the author template? --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:09, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::If the author feels that his class is being passed up due to its power level, then he needs to explain it in the talk page, and give reasons on why he think that power level is valid. There is no set categories we can fairly make, it should be up for each author to defend the power level on their own. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 16:30, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I think the idea for templates for power level was a good one, such as a template for things balanced to SRD, and things balanced to F&K etc. I think that i would be ok with the idea of the author justifying his balance if i know that the RC would be open to there balance description, my one worry would be people rating with preconceived notions of power that differ from a standard view of power. But you did pick a very versatile group, so i suppose that would rarely happen. Im just voiceing all my concerns, because i feel all concerns should be addressed before something like this is implemented. I still love the idea. [[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 17:34, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Balance to SRD doesn't work. What are you balancing AGAINST? The monsters? Rogue? Druid? Monk? Wizard? fighter? Those are all different balance points. Thus, the category "balanced against SRD" isn't useful. F&K balance against SRD too, you know. They balance against the monsters, wizard, and druid. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:52, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If the author makes their target of balance clear enough, the RC should absolutely judge against that target, rather than their own preferred target. Of course, if no adequately described target is given, that leaves the RC free to judge as they please. Perhaps we should add something to the preloads or author template to describe target of balance. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:08, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have done [[User:TK-Squared/Lavabox/Stars|this]] for you. It is my proposal for the new Author box. It works easily, like this! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:10, 23 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD, no offense, but I'm REALLY REALLY against what you did on the Gravity Warrior page. That stuff NEEDS to go into the discussion. First, it makes it look like one of the better classes on the wiki has major problems, which it doesn't. Second, you put some stuff in the balance box that I and I bet Rith flat-out disagree with, and it's not something that you can be proven right about. That's basically holding the page hostage - "Change this to MY opinion, or you get an ugly tag telling everyone its unbalanced". If it had major problems or was obviously bad, sure, that's one thing. But this doesn't! You don't even explain WHY it's unbalanced, just pointing to the talk page, where the person who "reviewed" it and said it was unbalanced wasn't even using the class as written, but instead used sweeping changes that everyone said were the problem. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I am debating if it is a better idea to add the things I wrote onto the talk page and (on those templates) just put "see talk" or somesuch. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm all for throwing the balance template on badly written classes. But Gravity Warrior isn't badly written. It really, really needs to go onto the talk page, saying why you think it's unbalanced. The only major argument saying it was was not intellectually honest and thoroughly disproven, so it's a bit useless to just say "see talk page", too, and why it's unbalanced needs to be fleshed out on the talk page more (it isn't, IMO). [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:56, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't think any one user should be able to just slap a bunch of huge, ugly templates on a page. I was under the impression that everyone agreed with the RC idea, in one form or another. And then you went and did that, which I don't think anyone supported as a form of page review. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:58, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Wow, a lot has happened since my last visit to this discussion. First of all, I think the idea of an RC is exactly what we need, it's clean, it's concise, and it weeds out most of the idiocy that plagues the better pages on this wiki, all in one fell swoop too. As for the template issues. I personally don't see their purpose, seeing as they should only be put on one of two types of pages. Ones that are flawed, but their creators will not be around often enough to fix them, in which case the delete template is the same thing, only with a goal, considering that the 'Needs Balance' category is meant to store pages that need balancing, and wait for someone to come along and actually do that job (which, I can gauruntee you, will only happen to one out a thousand classes that will get plopped into that category), whereas, the 'Candidates For Deletion' category is there to '''GET RID OF''' these articles and free up the namespaces so that better page can be made in there stead (The real difference is that the Delete template removes unsavory items from the wiki, whereas the Needs Balance template lets them stew). Or, one the other hand, the Needs Balance template could be applied to a page that is simply ridiculously bad, in which case, the Delete template is still better. From my point of view, these new templates are simply baby-proofed versions of the Delete template. Also, please note that the context you attempted to use the templates did not make sense, you could have very easily have posted your concerns on the classes talk page and gotten the same result. As for the actual balance of said class, I shall leave that to the other talk page. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:52, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay. But what about changing all the pages (once the dpl has been improved upon (so one can pipe categories in a |category= paramater using "What Links Here" or who knows what)) to something like [[4e User Races]] where one sees which races need to be improved upon, it's a bit of a ranking level (to get ones article into the top category), and from their it's a bit of another ranking another level (to get it to FA status). Although it would be nice if one could better define columns or better define |mode=category in the dpl2 as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:18, 31 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Complaint ==<br />
<br />
ha dude dnt want to sound like im complaining your something but peoples homebrewing is kinda slack on this site i wanted to look at the complete classes and got excited but no one finishes any thing the races are exelent just a little change and we can fix them up but the classes deffently need some work because their exelent pertensail for dnd hope u can get the word out to fix things up because this site is exlent for ideas and its not all their sorry if its not my place to tell you<br />
<br />
:Well, what you've got to remember about creating an entire class is that it takes a LOT of time: you have to make sure everything works, that it is not totally broken, you have to find and link parts such as [[ranger]] or [[Knowledge]], and you have to come up with background information to support some of the parts of the class. I know from experience that making a class takes a few hours at the least. Heck when I made [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)|The Ethereal Hunter]], I was so exhausted at the end that I didn't even include a sample NPC (need to get around to that). If this came across as an angered defensive position on the matter, I didn't mean it to be. If you are a user, please sign your comments by putting four ~ marks at the end like so. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:29, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating, please? ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a prestige class and got some feedback on it, did some edits, and I'm still not sure if it will fly. Could you rate it and tell me what I should change? It would be awesome if you could..<br />
<br />
[[Ascendant Knight (DnD Prestige Class)]]<br />
<br />
Thank you!<br />
<br />
:Your wish is command (although just this once). -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:36, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hands of a wiseman? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a homebrewed feat or is it somewhere in another book somewhere? I am currently playing a D&D 3.5 game and I would really like to use this feat for my healer, but my GM won't let me use it unless it is somewhere "authenticate".<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time and have a great day! {{unsigned|Copper Gryphon}}<br />
<br />
:[[Hands of a Wiseman (3.5e Feat)]] is homebrew material, meaning it was made by independent author(s), at home most likely. Homebrewing is common. You should speak to your GM about allowing such material after his reviewal and approval of course for each article. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:12, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have banned admins before - this is not the first time (I mean historically for short periods of time). This is ''literally'' my website; so I need no explanation. Also, if things to continue to happen as they have before, it could happen again. I was banned from my own website, the servers are probably 100 ft. away from me right now, I need no explanation in my head. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, that's it then. You told us before if we didn't like you and your arbitrary rules, to go make our own website. That's exactly what we did. Goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:53, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yup, you blew it. Ciao, tyrant. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:55, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=403877User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-14T04:55:12Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Make Love, Not War */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== A Thousand Apologies ==<br />
<br />
I've never "edited" a Wiki page before. I thought everything was being sent to you as a suggestion, and after I submitted my suggestions, I noticed the actual page changed. I want to apologize personally. I may have the original chirurgeon saved to my computer when my players first found and downloaded it, and I can fix everything as soon as I locate it. Again, I apologize profusely, and I suppose I've learned my lesson. I won't be clicking "edit" any more, since it actually changes the page instead of makes suggestions.<br />
<br />
That said, is there a way to send suggestions to users about an entry in Wiki? {{Unsigned|76.187.167.233|14:49, 5 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:That's what the talk page is for -- click on the tab that says "Discussion" instead of the one that says edit. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:50, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Also, we can revert any changes to a page because wikis store the entire history of the page (each edit). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:22, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hello, thank you and questions! ==<br />
<br />
Hi there,<br />
Many thanks for your welcome and good wishes. whilst I may not be a total dead loss between the ears I am still learning slowly how to set out my formats and pages and wanted to ask you about a few things please...<br />
# How can I delete a page once it is made? There is a page referencing "Tekman", the forerunner of my deity Teknos, which I need to have removed please.<br />
# Can you please send me [if you have time] any constructive criticism about the pages I have completed thus far - ARE they complete? Do I need to do much more to them or are they functional for the time being? How could they be improved? And so on<br />
# Am I out of order for adding materials in this way? Have I broken some form of etiquette of which I am otherwise unaware? Please let me know - for example, is it OK top be asking you so many questions?<br />
Thanks for your time. [[User:Rorschach Moondark|Rorschach Moondark]] 09:29, 8 May 2009 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:Learning wiki-syntax should not be too difficult, and once one gets proficient things start looking better and things start fitting better to our preload standards. But anyways...<br />
:# To delete a page please refer to [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]].<br />
:# Sorry... I really do not have the time to take a look at the content you have submitted right now. If you want some critique you may want to ask on the talk page for people's opinions.<br />
:# And I am not sure how you have been adding material, but if you are following the preload and the naming conventions rules it should be alright.<br />
:Hope this helps a bit. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Racial Champion ==<br />
<br />
where is this feat. books, site, i cant find it anywhere. what does it do? {{Unsigned|Masterkycoo|01:48, 9 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure off the top of my head and I do not want to spend the time to look, sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:27, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Chat ==<br />
<br />
Hi I'm not completley new but I've really been enjoying dand wiki. but i thought of an idea for your site, maybe you could set up a chat other then the tavern specifically for dnd campaigns and maybe you could have a few people start some campaigns for 3.5 or 4e or both its just an idea so i wont be offended if nothing happens but please think about it as i think it would be very interesting. [[User:Apfa10|Apfa10]] 23:55, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You would have to ask [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to be certain however if one can create a sub-group chat then it should work. Comparable to how one creates a personal non-logged chat with another member. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Membership ==<br />
<br />
Can you remove myself and all my contributions off this wiki ASAP? I've had it with the regulars... -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 19:48, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Please sign your posts! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:29, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Never mind. I'll stay, but I'll just have to keep my temper in check. I've been having a bad couple weeks, and I apologize. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 20:12, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry if you feel like you're picked on, or you can't handle some of the stuff being said in irc. If you feel like you are being attacked the best course of action is non-action! Hope you feel better and continue to post on the wiki! -- [[User:Sleaker|Sleaker]] 21:06, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would recommend that you just don't log into the tavern. It can have negative effects sometimes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:25, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Storm Elf5's come back? ==<br />
<br />
Hey green dragon! Its been a while since I last visited, I had some computer issues. Anyway, I was wondering, what happened to my homebrew deity with the name of Grininthar or something like that. BTW, the site is great. [[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 16:56, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You have to remember the name correctly. <s>Gririnthar (DnD Deity)</s>. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:21, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Or now that you moved the page; [[Grininthar (DnD Deity)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3.5e Magical Armors ==<br />
<br />
Hey, not really familiar with the whole wiki/HTML things, but I tried to fix it up a little bit to match the armors. I apologize if it's not correct. If it is fine just a quick 'you're good' would be great and I'll finish editing all the ones that I can. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:01, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, [[3.5e Magical Armors]] is formatted correctly, if that is what you are wondering. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:25, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Oop, I actually meant to say the [[3.5e Magical Weapons|magical weapons]], which was incorrect as per your statement, and the one which I was trying to fix; my apologies for the miscommunication. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:20, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I have balanced Storm Elves ==<br />
<br />
Hey Green Dragon!<br />
<br />
I have done some work balancing my 4e race, [[Storm Elves (4e Race)|Storm Elves]] and I was wondering you or another admin could remove the ''Needs Balance'' template if you think it dosen't need any more balancing. There is also another template at the top of the page (''Stub'' I think) and I wanted to know how to begin to remove it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 05:59, 13 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Newbie Having A Small Problem ==<br />
<br />
Hello Green Dragon, I'm new to D&D Wiki and I have a small question that needs a little explaining. I wanted to submit a new Base Class to get feedback on it, so I followed the procedure your site had set up to make classes. I was about halfway done with fully creating the class when I saved the page and went to sleep. Unfortunately, when I wanted to continue from where I left off, I couldn't find the saved page. Where would I be able to find the page so that I can continue from where I left off? The Base Class was supposed to be made for 3.5e Homebrew and was entitled "The Ethereal Hunter". Really appreciate the help because I spent a good deal of time trying to learn and understand how to make a class here. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 06:49, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Not Green Dragon, but are you sure you saved the class? No "Ethereal Hunter" comes up via search function and [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Narrssuras+Stalking+Leopard&namespace=&year=&month=-1 your edit history] shows nothing by that name either. If you did it while you weren't logged in that could explain why it doesn't appear on your user contributions, but other than that I think perhaps something malfunctioned when you went to save the page. Hope that helps a little, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 09:22, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Within the last 30 days there hasn't been an 'Ethereal Hunter' saved by anyone. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 09:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the response anyway. Luckily, I learned that if you are going to fill something out that can span over several page, it is good to make a copy, so I did. Almost done with the Ethereal Hunter now. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:28, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, I've got everything done with my new class and everything is up for it. The only problems I'm having now are actually understanding what I'm doing wrong for my class to adhere to the rules. Some assistance would be helpful, here is the class [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)]]. Thanks in advance, [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 19:20, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Refer to the class' talk page for this discussion. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 19:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Will do, and thanks. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 03:26, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Axefighter ==<br />
<br />
I created a class in the beginning of August of 2008. I recently checked on it and it has disappeared. Its disappeared off of the classes page and off my contributions page. I would just like to know what happened and if it is possible to bring it back to the class list. Because I never wrote the class down anywhere else I don't know how to make an Axefighter.<br />
--[[User:Mightycolin|Mightycolin]] 05:40, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:It got deleted I believe. Not trying to be rude, however poorly made classes get deleted. If you would like it reverted you can ask on [[Talk:Axefighter (DnD Class)]]. [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mightycolin]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:41, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Had a similar problem before as well...to all those that read this here's some valuable advice for you...Back up your files or edits, even if it is temporary, just copy and paste the entire edit into a Word or Notepad document before saving the page. It will prevent any frustration with regards to loosing material (Trust me, I would have had to completely rewrite a class I made on this site if I hadn't backed it up in a word document.) Fellow Aspiring Creator [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 08:58, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== help ==<br />
<br />
i posted a race and it is not showing up {{unsigned|Ewokdruid}}<br />
<br />
:The problem was with the footer. I have since fixed it and it should show up now in the LA Variable listings. Also, perhaps you should check out the [[DnD Race Editing Instructions]] (it explains why your race didn't show up). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 10:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Abbreviations ==<br />
<br />
[[List of Book Abbreviations (DnD Other)]]. Back on May 19th you made some revisions to my List of Abbreviations. You also left a comment, 'why only WOTC?'. I dont know where to find the proper abbreviations for non-WOTC, but ifyou know of places, I will add to the list. TY --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 22:42, 26 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If they do not really exist then nevermind. Also, you want to consider adding the abbreviation to the book entry within the [[Publication List]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Class: Palibar ==<br />
<br />
Hello i was wondering how do power points/day work? {{Unsigned|Alf|21:54, 27 May 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I cannot find that class however for the [[SRD:Psychic Warrior#Power Points/Day]] it's like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:19, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Map Builder ==<br />
<br />
Hey thanks for the welcome. I don't think I need help on wiki formatting (I'm quite regularly doing some background cleanup on wikipedia, not to mention a software engineer), but thanks for the link anyway.<br />
<br />
I did have a question, though, do you know a good way to make a world map using only free tools (small budget ><)? [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 02:11, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You can use GIMP, it has a random map generator and with some basic editing you can end up with things like [this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Image:FFRegionsMap.png]. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:36, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I want more control than Random, sorry. [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 05:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A good link to a map builder should be found [[DnD Links|here]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nature Bound Class ==<br />
<br />
Why did you set my class for deletion? It has only been on site for 2 days, whereas ive seen pages with only a template and no info typed in sit on site for months without a delete template. Don't get me wrong, I love the wiki, but that is just wrong.--[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 15:32, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I did not see those classes. If you have some spare time it would be quite appreciated if you add the appropriate templates to them. Classes should be added at least mostly finished (finished on a word processing program with the preload cut and pasted into it for example). Sorry if this sounds frank, but this issue has been brought up before and I just want to clear up why it is okay to add templates to newly added material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:49, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== why? ==<br />
<br />
i(true warrior)have a question. why are you going to delete my race? please write back.<br />
<br />
<br />
-true warrior<br />
<br />
:Refer to the [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)|races talk page]]. Ask there what you can do to fix it. And please sign your posts using --~~ ~~ (without spaces). --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:25, 29 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== PLEEEEEEEEEASE!!! ===<br />
<br />
DONT ERASE RACE! THER IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!<br />
<br />
=== why ===<br />
<br />
why are you going to erase my race? what did i ever do to you?<br />
<br />
How do you make class features?-asked by arshan272<br />
<br />
== Harassment ==<br />
<br />
After trtying to have a level headed discussion with [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], about balance in 4e, he bacame rude and rather aggressive. His attitude and use of foul language has really put me off. I understand he may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material written concerning 4e design, but even after pointing him to the source he refuses to at least agree to disagree. Again given the volume of information, if you haven't been reading since day one it may be overwhelming. But if he dosen't have time to read it, doesn't mean he needs to vile. I will return to the wiki next week.But I must say if he remains I will not. I refuse to be spoken to like that. Thank you for your time. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 07:44, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There ''is'' a /ignore command in the Tavern if for some reason you can't get along or see eye-to-eye with another user. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:40, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Sepsis, if Dragon Child is being like that, don't bother with him. Some people just don't have good manners. I generally stay out of the Tavern as it is... But you can talk to me about it anytime. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This is totally unfair. Look at what I actually said. The crux of what I said was "If you want something to be called unbalanced because it can't be used in YOUR personal games, that's bullshit". Do you honestly think you can go around slapping an "unbalanced" tag on everything in the wiki that you don't like and have it be OK? The problem wasn't you "not pointing out the source". Indeed, you claimed Mike Mearls or whoever said something... and then provided no link, no cite. I was supposed to go find it myself. I don't even know if it actually exists. That's as good as not pointing anything out. And at no point did I actually disagree with you. I actually stated, large size in 4e may very well be overpowered. I didn't say otherwise, and even said as much. There's no agreeing to disagree when I don't actually disagree. All I was saying is, you really needed a stronger argument then "A designer, somewhere, said you shouldn't do that". That may be wrong, you may be mistaken, the designer himself may have had faulty logic. In short, it's not that I "didn't have the time" to read it, it's that I was never shown where it was, or given any reason to believe it actually exists. You didn't have the time to back up your arguments. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:08, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::No this has nothing to do with our discussion. This is all about your language and attitude. You are not on an "adult-only" site, and have no right to start swearing and arguing because the mood strikes you. I don't need that garbage on my screen with my kids around you are rude and immature and that is that, any arguments you could have made to support yourself is done, once I reached the "F-word" in your comment I stopped reading (in fact this will be the last time I even look at anything you say). Nothing you say will ever carry any wieght with me. If you have to resort to that, then you are too stupid to listen to. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:16, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: I would like to make a counter-point. Sepsis has constantly been closed-minded and disruptive towards Dragon Child at all points. His so-called "swearing" (an idea that I, myself, find absolutely preposterous. They're words, not knives) does nothing to hinder the fact he was simple stating some quite well thought out arguments against Sepsis' so-called "everything is broken that doesn't go with the design" philosophy (so called by me). Throughout the discussion on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]], Sepsis was uncooperative and he threw the insults; not Dragon Child. Dragon just said a word or two that are commonly overreacted against; so he suddenly became "ignorant", "rude" and a "moron". Frankly, I think Sepsis is harassing Dragon child; as to say he has broken the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia Civility Policy] (Personal attacks and aggressive behaviour). --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:30, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with TK. I'm not a fan of avoiding words arbitrarily assigned to be "vulgar" in public, and I certainly don't want to in a conversation between adults. If a child or guardian thereof doesn't want to see curse words, it is that person's responsibility to avoid them. The only time when it makes sense for the one swearing to avoid the one offended is when the offended cannot avoid the swearer; since Sepsis can easily keep his kids away from those conversations, it is (and no insensitivity meant here) not at all anyone else's problem. Two minutes of searching found me [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351 this firefox add-on], which allows one to censor browsing when one's children use the computer. I'm sure there are many other such free utilities. I'm sure you can even find something that censors specific words rather than whole pages, if you want to go that mild. Point is, "fucking" was used for emphasis; that's not an insult or attack that could be taken as belligerent. "Bullshit" was used to mean "something that makes no sense"; it's more concise and means the exact same thing. There's no need for Dragon_Child to be punished or even given a warning. He did nothing wrong. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Just want to make a point on my way out. It is a complete shame that someone can begin by using "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" but not be considered in violation but my non-profane and justifiably angry response is considered harassment. Read the conversation, he started the yelling, and when I wouldn't do as he asked he begins swearing. Obviously this is not the place for me, consider the case closed, as I will depart to more civil pastures. Good day. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I did apologize for my comments as I realized they were inappropriate and misplaced. But now I see all that matters is who you actually suck up to. Then the rules of conduct mean nothing...go and get a program to filter non-adult sites (sheesh), how about we stick to the rules and take quick action against such sick behavior. But hey its your world, do as you will. A bid all a fine farewell. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 06:23, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I wasn't even a part of all of this and I can't help but think you're being completely ridiculous. Swearing is suddenly adult now? I suppose you haven't been on an elementary school playground for decades. Nevermind that elementary school children shouldn't even be accessing this site, as it's hosted in the United States and is subject to COPPA. I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I refuse to censor myself just because someone under the age of 13 ''might'' see my words. I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either. And if that person ''does'' care, they can use a Firefox add-on to filter it out. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:27, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I sorry, but, I must simply add my own two cents to this discussion. Sepsis, you claim that you are leaving the website to protect your children, while you are the one that is acting like a child. A person upset you, so you're going to run away? Honestly, this may seem a little cruel, but I can say that I hope you do leave, since, if you can't be mature and look past the pieces you don't like, you don't deserve to even be an admin. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 10:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow im surprised how rediculous everyone else is being, I mean come on just cause kids are swearing does not make it appropriate, if you swear even if it is not meant as an insult or direct attack, people can still take offense, the people refusing to clean up theiur language are the childish ones here, not everyone likes or can stand reading swearing, and as a general curtosey you should keep your language as clean as possible, or is that not how it works nowadays? Just because yobbish kids and those a lesser abbility to communicate other then through cosntant swearing do it, does not mean that it is acceptable for a community based site. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey, guess what. I'm NOT "refusing to clean up my language". Rith asked me, personally, to be nicer and swear less. I agreed. That's not "refusing", by any sense of the word. Nor do I have a "lesser ability to communicate", indeed, I was able to make clear all of my points in the discussion, while other people refused to back up even the smallest claims, and got angry and abusive because, god forbid, someone asked them for a cite. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:17, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Ok, I donn't want to drag balance and what not into this conversation thats for the talk apge of the article. When did I target the refusal at you Dragon Child? If you can communicate so well then why swear? Could have avoided this entire stupid situation. What other people refused to back up these claims? Do you mean Sepsis? Didn't he mention the Design & Devlopment articles? The point is Dragon Child, that being rude is unhelpful to a discussion as is swearing and yelling [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I apologize. I wrongly assumed the refusal was aimed at me. As for why... let me apologize ahead of time for this post, as I'll need to swear to be even slightly comprehensible here. Is there any word in the English language that conveys the same meaning and emotion as "bullshit" ? The fuck, sure, I should have left that out. But "Bullshit" - that word doesn't really have any true synonyms. Sepsis refused to back up his claims, yes. You can't make a cite of "It's somewhere there". If you can't provide a link, it may as well not exist. To call me an overwhelmed moron to go finding HIS cite for HIM was being rude and unhelpful. I, at the very least, expect people to have the same sort of intellectual integrity and honesty as you'd use to write a highschool paper or in a highschool debate team. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the place where it was cited about the large size would be particualrly hard to find seeing as it was either in one of Mike Mearls Blog Posts or on the forum where mike mearl posted. Though I have read it I know I have. And yes to ask you to go find his cite is rude and unhelpful but that just falls into the region of pot meet kettle, two wrongs dont make a write blah blah. Hes left now. It's over. Let's go back to balancing that giant race :D [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:35, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::None of this discussion even matters at this point, considering that, once people have set their mind into a way of thinking, it'll take a massive effort to sway them (that happens to be a basic fact of psychology). Both sides of this arguement have already set their mind 'in stone', if you will, and the other side will not change them. The only part of this discussion that even matters now, is that Sepsis is leaving the wiki over something as simply as what words were used. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Sepsis leaving is a tad silly. But what can we do? Nothing thats what.[[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:53, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What we can do is clear up this policy. I've made clear that I, personally, feel that it's the responsibility of the offended to avoid those more relaxed about it, not the other way around. After all, what if someone suddenly took offense to the inclusion of demons in the wiki? Since it's something which is part of our little subculture and not meant to offend, we'd tell them very kindly to freak off (and notice how ridiculous substitute words are).<br />
::::::I say we put it to a vote. There's really no other fair way to decide policy. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 13:36, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The difference of course being swearing is not part of our subculture. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 14:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::True. Swearing is part of our culture, not our subculture. Most people swear in informal contexts. In any case, a vote would decide this. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::How would a vote solve anything? Just based on what has been presented we obviously won't reach a consensus, and how can anything but a consensus be considered fair? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:45, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::If the admins say it's ok, then it's OK. If the admins say it's not, then it's not, and other people shouldn't try to force others into not doing so. How is forcing someone to not do something, even though it isn't against the rules, just because someone else is offended fair? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:49, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::[[Meta Pages#Policies]]; swearing is a violation of our policies. For swearing above, however, no one is issued a warning since it was just a discussion about the swearing on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You have to follow two links to even see that, and what the second link is isn't even at all obvious (indeed, I didn't even see the second link until it was pointed out to me), and then only works if you consider the word fuck "Gross-profanity". It also seems you might consider the word "bullshit" "gross profanity", as your claim that I don't need to be warned from this page. That seems... extremely harsh. You can hear "gross profanity" in R rated movies? There's no way that that rule can be reasonably interpreted to forbidding the word "bullshit", and I'd even argue that "fuck" is still not "gross profanity" when used as an emphasizer. The rule needs to be made clear. And, for what its worth, I much more easily found rules against not providing citations and personal attacks, which you didn't so quickly react to as you apparently did to what I said on this page... [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:41, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::And now, indeed. You've proven that you consider the word "fuck" to be a "gross profanity" (which took searching to even find it was against the rules), yet you don't consider these to be harassment (which is clearly against the rules), and I QUOTE: "you are being ignorant and rude", "I don't deal with morons", "If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material.", "your a complete and utter moron", "you have proven you aren't even close enough to being worthy of my (or anyones really) time.", "Wow that answers a lot, an ignorant rant boy", "your opinions really are completly worthless.". So... right. That doesn't seem fair. At all. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]. However you are right, you both deserve a warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, I pointed that page out, and noted that it's two clicks from the rule-thread, AND the fact that what it means isn't even clear, and there's no real reason to believe that sweearing is agaisnt the rules there according to the summary. What does "gross civility" even mean to you. I expressed confusion, and then... told I'm not allowed to do "gross incivility". Is this just going to be circular, where I'm told I'm just going to be warned whenever someone feels like, with no real rules to it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::* Rudeness<br />
:::::* Insults and name-calling<br />
:::::Should fall under those options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:55, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That doesn't answer my question. I hoenstly don't believe I was "rude", at all. Indeed, according to what you just said here, you just warned me for <i>something that isn't even against the rules</i>, because you warned me for swearing, and according to you, "gross profanity" is defined as "rudeness, insults, and name-calling". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:58, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - Wikipedia policies page. Hence, you could have used alternate words to make your point. It doesn't say you can't, but if you can use other words to make the same description then you should. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Except, Sabre, that's on neither of the two pages I was linked to. I asked for where in the rules it said that, and a clarification on what it means. I was not provided with it, and indeed, I was then immediately told that the rule I was warned under <i>never existed</i>. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Dragonchild, it doesn't matter what you believe, policy is policy, just sit down be quiet and go and contribute to the wiki, seriosuly your acting like your being fined by the police sheesh. The fact of that matter is you swore, you broke the policy. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 06:37, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Fine, swearing is against the rules. Am I no longer allowed to say the word "Damn" ? Should we now censor 71 different wiki pages? Hmm, no, that seems silly. Prehaps, just prehaps, as this rule doesn't actually appear anywhere, and indeed, Green Dragon just gave a similiar interpretation to me - <i>that this rule doesn't exist</i>, despite the fact that he claimed earlier it did - the rule should be clarified. Sure, I'll take the warning, whatever, but I want the rule clarified. Unclear rules only exist to allow the mods to warn and ban whoever they like, for whatever damn (whoops! is that warning #2?) reason they please, with no sense of justification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow, so instead of being queit you act like a saracastic and slightly arragont jerk. If your nto happy with hwo things are meant to work here, then dont come ehre simple as. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:10, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am assuming Green Dragon will be reasonable and clarify the rule, which I will then follow. It is not being "sarcastic and arrogant" to point out what I did (indeed, if you see above, it is true). I don't see how I'm being a "jerk" - I'm asking for a rule clarification. Like I said, I fully expect Green Dragon will give one, seeing as he seems reasonable enough. If I were to take your suggestion, I'd throw a fit and leave in a huff every time a website has an unclear rule. That seems overly childish. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::No ionstead what you did was throw a fit and target moderators in general sayign that unclear rules jsut allow them to ban whoever they like. I'm actually a moderator of my own private forum, I assure you thats not how it works. And im sorry I was overeacting the jerk wbit was unescessarry. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:57, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I didn't "target" anyone. Well, ok, I targeted the mods on the WOTC boards and ENWorld boards, that purposely use unclear rules to keep the places "intellectually pure". I more meant it was a warning - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being passive agressive, <i>I honestly think Green Dragon is a reasonable person, as are the rest of the admins and mods here, unlike the rest of almost every D&D board and chat ever</i>. Unclear rules serve no purpose except power tripping. Rules are there to prevent bad behavior that you don't like. If the rule is clear, people will be much less likely to do that bad behavior (indeed, I would not have sworn had I know it was against the rules). If the rule is unclear, people will not know not to do that bad behavior, due to it being, well, unclear and open to interpretation. What benefit does an unclear rule have? The only benefit is that it may be used as a justification by a moderator to ban people over something that isn't explicitly against the rules. If someone ends up doing something you end up not liking later that's not against the rules yet, you add it, and then warn the person for LATER doing, or else you're being unfair. Clear rules are totally necessary and have no downside. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wanting clarification != throwing a fit. (Note: Calling him a jerk breaches the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Civility Policy] under "Insults and name-calling") (That was a joke by the way). The wikipedia policies are far too strict; they build on the idea that massive amounts of people are going to use the site and a large portion of massive amounts of people are much more easily offended; especially those that use the internet (because that somehow means people get offended easily; textual based insults are so scathing). This wiki is a far more specialized wiki and, in my opinion, will attract the attention of people who have heard swearing. They've read it. They've seen it. They've tasted it's rainbow. This site doesn't need supastrictpolicies because it's not like Wikipedia; our userbase isn't several million. A small amount of people can interact calmly, as long as they stop blowing things way out of preportion. Someone said shit, fuck, hell, damn, bollocks, tits, blah, blah, blah. I could go on Google right now, type in one word and find worse in a single click. I could go on DICTIONARY DOT COM and find worse in a few tappity taps. Facebook? Boom, I took a quiz yesterday about FETISHES. YouTube? Boom, I watched a video the other day that used amazing amounts of the word "Fuck" in a short time. Films that kids have seen are worse than the shit that occurs here. Before I was ten, I'd seen a guy rip out his own eyeball, tear off his arm, tell people to fuck off, stab people, beat people, etc, etc. I've seen a 12a film use the word bitch and more (Hell, I've seen PG films that have used the word Shit). This is just overly censoring things and now we're moving into 1984 country, where soon Big Brother will rain down upon you with it's Thought Police. DO YOU WANT THAT?! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:25, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You have a good point calling some a jerk is name calling and I can recognise a joke btw. :). And no I dont want Big Brother thought police going on. I hate that sort of thing anything that surpresses my freedom I tend to be agaisnt. Your right the wiki rules are to strict. ANd of course people have heard swearing, tasted its rainbow and all that, it does not mean everyone WANTS to see it and taste it. This whole thing is getting rediculous now and I will take responsibility for any rediculousness (is that even a word?) I have added to it. Also, I thought Green Dragon had clarified it with the link to wiki thingy ma bob. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm going to make one final argument, for now. One of the admins/sysops/whatever he is, Daniel Draco, said up thread he didn't believe that swearing was against the rules. By this, I argue if he doesn't know, it's not reasonable for a normal user to know it's not against the rules. And finally, to what extent is swearing against the rules need to be clarified. I have yet to be provided with a good sub-in word for "Bullshit". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Bovine poop. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:48, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Swearing is against policy since not only are our policies partly defined by Wikipedia's policies however people swearing also tends to end up sparking discussions like this one. I beleive this is the third time a discussion involving swearing has taken place, all with the same result. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:00, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Then why not make it explicitly so? The rules clearly aren't explicit, as proof enough by Draco not knowing. Obviously, it's unclear. If people keep breaking a rule because the rule is unclear, isn't it your responsibility to make the rule more clear? I'm not even arguing for changing it, I'm arguing for defining it. Otherwise, if you're the only one who knows what the rule actually means or if it even exists, how can you be surprised when people break it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:11, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] was most likely just confused as to the rules (he may not have read all of the policies on Wikipedia). But the policies could not be more clear (save the three warnings policy which is D&D Wiki specific); they are found in the [[Meta Pages]] (''Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.'') under "''Policies''". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:46, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yes, they could be. The rules specifically prohibit "gross profanity". That's what they say about swearing. And I asked outright- what is Gross Profanity? You gave me an explanation that did not include swearing. This has left me INCREDIBLY confused. Is ANY swearing, even "damn" and such gross profanity? Is it gross profanity only past a certain point of words? Etc. Please clarify. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:50, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]<br />
::::::::::* Rudeness<br />
::::::::::* Insults and name-calling <br />
::::::::::Once again any swearing should fall under one of these options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not... really? I don't think every single use of a swear word, ever, is rude. Are we still counting words such as damn, shit, etc, as swear-words that are always rude, even when not directed at other people? If so, fine, I'll go along with it but I think it's silly. It reminds me of the WOTC boards where you couldn't talk about circumstance bonuses, or cocking a crossbow. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I don't see how swearing falls under either of those categories unless it's saying "you fucker" in relation to someone, or something similar. And I think a great deal of people here, myself included, will be ''extremely'' unhappy if swearing in general is banned. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You are right. Swearing is tolerated if it does not break any [[Meta Pages#Policies|policies]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So, for example, "This is a piece of shit" would be unacceptable, but "This class is fucking amazing" would be acceptable? If so, perfect. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion. Thank you so much for clearing this up. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 14:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I wish to thank you all for creating and maintaining this Wiki.<br />
<br />
It's beautifully styled, diligently edited and organized and has proven its usefulness many times already for me.<br />
<br />
[[User:Skypher|Skypher]] 08:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Massive Screw-ups ==<br />
<br />
So, okay... I think I am completely justified in saying that in my short time here, I have already made a bad impression. I would like to know... How can I interact here without doing so? 'Cause as you may or may not know, I made a flaw (which itself was extremely flawed), which, from what I can only tell was rightly judged as unbalanced, and I think I've already made a permanent scar on my reputation here, which generally reflects my experience everywhere on the Internet. So I'm wondering, how can I constructively and successfully contribute to D&Dwiki, perhaps enough that my noobishness will be compensated for?<br />
[[User:Jadebrain|Jadebrain]]11:27, 31 May 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I think the fact that you've contributed is amazing. Nothing negative. Everyone has different opinions on things placed on the wiki, all one can do is add theirs to the collective. You're a valued part of the wiki and we appreciate your articles. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:21, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I concur with Hooper, and would like to add that nobody is going to remember the bad flaw. Most first uploads are crap. Just the way it is. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:38, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Honestly, everybody was a noob once, but it's no big deal. It was hard for me when I first started out here. Surgo did point me toward the Frank and K stuff, which helped a lot (especially Tome of Necromancy, where I got the vampire-staking rules for my Vampire Hunter PrCs...). Also, at the risk of it being a shameless plug, Lord Dhazriel was a big source of inspiration, and there's a couple others who've posted some amazing entries. I for one would be more than happy to look at your work, if you'd look at mine. Quid pro quo, and all that. Stick around, and it'll get a lot better (I did.)! -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:24, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you want to contribute a class or a feat or whatever, think about what you've seen recently or what you want in your own game. Nothing gets motivation going for me like trying to bring something from another genre into DnD 3.5. Or trying to figure out how to model an ability. Look at my user page for some of the stuff I've done. Most of it was seeing or playing something and deciding to try to model it in DnD. So far, I've done Neji from Naruto, Yusuke Urameshi from Yu Yu Hakusho, and the Dragoon from Final Fantasy, especially Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I also wrote my own version of the Drunken Master. But when someone in one of my games wants to, say, run up walls and stand on the ceiling, or he wants a parkour-like ability...Well, then I've got to write something to help him out, and pride demands that it be worthwhile. So if I write anything I'm really proud of, and I can get up the motivation, I put it on the Wiki for review and for whoever wants it. Or for whoever wants to write the ability himself but could use a rough idea of how you manage a, for example, Shoryuken uppercut. Anyway, try some experiments and don't take it personally when people say it sucks. You'll get better, and they should be giving a rationale for their reasoning or advice for improvement. --[[User:Genowhirl|Genowhirl]] 21:14, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adult Content on the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
Hey, GoldDragon here. I was browsing user pages, when I came upon Angel Black's page and found a nude picture. I'm not terribly concerned by it, but there was no advisory warning, and I wondered if there should be. I was foolish enough to bring this up in the Tavern, which sparked a... vigorous debate. Anyway, I know there's a template for an adult content warning, but I didn't think it appropriate for a lowly peon such as me to edit someone else's user page. I have very young players who enjoy this site, but their parents would be upset at me if their children discovered such a page and weren't at least warned to shove off. my point is, should there be a content advisory warning on said user page? what is the line in the sand concerning when one is needed and when not? [[User:GoldDragon|Dragon]] 22:58, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Template:Adult Theme]] if you are interested. And it's usefulness should be discussed on [[Template Talk:Adult Theme]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:47, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vatireans ==<br />
<br />
Please help me recreate my race. To tell you guys the truth when my friend(absconder)told me that my race was over powered and would be erased i did not belive him, foolishly.im new at this so please give me some tips on makeing the Vatireans fit the criteria. P.S. i am contacting you green dragon because i dont no how to talk to sepsis. -true warrior<br />
<br />
:Thank you so much for being so helpful and not deleting my race.im am obviosly new at this.-true warrior<br />
<br />
::Could you guys make the changes yuo want and ill look at them tomarrow,(Vatireans).-true warrior<br />
::P.S. actullaly edit the Vatireans please.<br />
<br />
::Please write back and help.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::pleases write back. -true warrior<br />
<br />
::::please respond,great green dragon.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::::You can ask these same kind of questions and see the reasons as to why your race was nominated for deletion on it's talk page; [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:21, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== Arachonnomicon; the Book of Spiderkind ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I recently finished the [[Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook)|Arachonomicon]]. Could you look over it to see if it ready to be a featured article, please? Thanks in advance. <br><br />
--&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:16, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
I had ask this question two times, but I hadn't got an answer. How do I make templates? Some pages really need templates. --[[User:Chihuahua0|chihuahua0]] 15:51, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by templates? Adding them to a page or making a new one? If a new one just add it in the template namespace. If adding one to the page just copy and paste it from the preload. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gratzi, Sir.<br />
<br />
== Warmage ==<br />
<br />
Here ([[WarMage DnD Class)]]) is a user article under construction, which is a copy of the miniatures handbook's Warmage. I'm pretty sure he's breaking the rules here, so I'd be thankful if you'd check on it. P.S. I'm hoping "Buerocrat" is the right kind of person to come to with this, It's all greek to me. {{Unsigned|Connery55|18:03, 15 June 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Given that the editing for that page says "only from the book", I'm guessing that he is right. I've added the delete template (if I'm wrong, please remove it) under the premise that posting SRD material is a copyright violation. Good catch on that, but please sign your post next time. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|ThunderGod Cid]] 19:51, 15 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for setting up that page. I haven't been able to do much the since I set up some "Heroes" campaign stuff last week because I have been sick which restricts me from really doing anything that involves breathing, which is every thing but siting underwater. I'm working on setting up another Campaign setting but it has 4 four race types with a whole lot of different races. Hopefully I can get it up and running. [[User:Meepers|Meep]] 12:24, 16 June 2009 (MDT) P.S. Does (MDT) stand for mountain date time?<br />
<br />
:::7 seconds of [http://www.google.com google] informs us that MDT is Mountain Daylight Time. During the change of seasons, I think it changes to MST as well (which is Mountain Standard Time). Make sure you take this into account when setting your [[SRD:Water Clock|water clock]]. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== numbers ==<br />
<br />
I noticed in the recent changes area, that next to the links there are numbers in parenthacies, I was wondering what those numbers mean? (example: . m True Fiend (DnD Class); 22:57 . . (+56) )--[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:03, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:That's how many characters were either removed or added to the page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:13, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::ah, thanks! it was bugging me --[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== i have a question. ==<br />
<br />
When is worldwide D&D day this year?<br />
<br />
== Rating System ==<br />
<br />
In the tavern, we were discussing the class rating system. It seems to be the general consensus that, as is, it simply doesn't work. A numerical system with categories doesn't do much in the way of giving a general appraisal of a class -- flavor, a 100% subjective measure, is considered equally with such absolutes as wording and formatting. In addition, a very large number of the ratings are given no explanation, miscategorized, or just make no sense. This could all be fixed if it was changed to a three-level non-numerical rating system (as proposed by Dragon Child): Needs Work, Usable, and Excellent. The crap ratings could be filtered out by requiring admin approval of all ratings -- an MoI to User:Admin could alert us and it wouldn't be very time-consuming to give a yea or nay. In the case of multiple ratings, we take the mathematical mode, erring towards Usable in case of a tie. This simplification has the added benefits of being smaller on the page and being usable on more than just classes -- finally, feats and equipment and other things could be rated. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:04, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just noting my 100% agreement here. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 00:07, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Part of the idea was that this would also be a progression that would encourage users to participate with more feedback. You wouldn't be allowed to give a "Needs Work" rating without saying what it needed work ON - certain abilities being too strong/weak, wording needing improved, or just it needed better wikification. Once the class was improved, the rating could then be changed from Needs Work to Usable, or Excellent. This is also a much clearer system, IMO. What's a 4 compared to a 5? Not entirely clear. What's an Excellent? Something you REALLY like, and want to play right now or include in your game. What's a Usable? Something you'd let someone else play, see no problems with, or just have minor disagreements about. What's Needs Work? Something that's not quite yet ready to play. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wow. Sometimes simplicity is just beautiful. Here are the only things that I see possibly being an issue with a system like this:<br />
:::*Will people still know what aspects should be considered in a "good rating"?<br />
:::*How much justification do they need to give in their rating post?<br />
:::*What led you to the conclusion that 3 tiers are the right way to go?<br />
:::*Are you sure a mode is better than converting to a median number?<br />
:::*This is a problem with the current rating system as well, but when is a page considered changed enough to require ratings to be nullified?<br />
:::On a more minor note, "Needs Work" should be named "Needs Improvement". I'm looking forward to hear more about this idea. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 06:33, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::*We can easily make a page with guidelines on that. On that note, Dragon Child made a very good point in the Tavern that flavor, being totally subjective, should not be considered at all -- the F&K Fighter, for example, would be considered excellent by many, but is totally lacking in flavor (as is intended for the generic "fighter" class). In my opinion, all that should be considered are power, formatting, and clarity.<br />
::::*It shouldn't need much. As long as they do justify it, and the rational parts make sense (even if we disagree with the opinion parts, such as "it's stronger than a monk and monks are overpowered"), it should be fine.<br />
::::*More than that and it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference in value between them. The tiers boil down to "bad, good, great", which is really the categorization that ratings seek to define -- the whole point of a rating is to figure out which of those three something is.<br />
::::*It could be median. I don't really know which would work better, I just figured mode would be simpler to figure out.<br />
::::*If something that was mentioned in the justification is changed, the rating is nullified. For example, if someone said an ability called Smite Teletubby was too powerful, and then the mechanics of the ability are changed, the rating is negated until the rater verifies that they still feel that it's overpowered, or that their other points of justification still make them say it needs improvement.<br />
::::*Probably a better phrase, yeah. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 09:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How do you compromise different rating? Say five users rate a page and it gets Excellent, Usable, Usable, Needs Improvement, and Needs Improvement. What does that measure out to? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:57, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Under both the Mode (which I'd prefer using) and the Median, it would get Usable. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::We should set up a vote for this lasting 1 week. I'm pretty sure I already know what the community will respond with... Could someone more involved with this set up a more formal proposal? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:52, 30 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Formal proposal? Meh, no need for that. All we need right now is a yea or nay from GD on setting up a vote. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:02, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Do we really need GD to set up the vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:23, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. Just need someone who knows the templates and formatting system to change around the template for the new system, as well as the display pages. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:38, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I can do that. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles]] system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The idea was this new review system could be used for ''everything''. I find the categories linked to be more than a bit unsatisfying because they are only for bad articles, not good articles. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:57, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I am of the opinion a numerical (or word) based rating system (as explained above) detriments articles more then it helps compared to a system where the unuseable articles are reviewed and helped in a article-based manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So effectively, [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]], you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:35, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm not that much of a pessimist. To be honest you read what I said wrong. In my opinion articles should be considered unuseable when they are not useable and instead of just rating them to bring them to a useable statis templates should be added to them on a article by article basis to bring them up to a useable statis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:51, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::So everything would be considered usable then, and there would be nothing that's considered exceptional? Because that's what it looks like you're suggesting. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::''Edit conflict, but I'm keeping what I wrote... I'm somewhat echoing Surgo.''<br />
::::::I didn't mean to suggest you were a pessimist. I was just asking for a bit of clarification. I agree that we need to template articles with areas they need to improve (stub, needs balance, etc.). The issue I have with this approach is that we don't have a marker to say "this has been looked at and is good". We have markers to say "This needs improvement" and we can find all of the ones without those markers, but inevitably I foresee many articles falling through the cracks. They won't have the stub template added even when they are stubs.<br />
::::::Maybe part of it is that our admins here need some D&D wiki specific required reading about what they are supposed to do. I know there are a lot of folks here that regularly patrol recent comments. If we have a page describing what we should look out for, then patrolling RC will become much more productive I'm sure. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:09, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Arguably every reader of a homebrewed article should read it with an analytical mindset. Especially if one is going to implement it into their campaign they should. As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements. Specifically I do not see why we need to add another system for reviewing articles when we can instead just raise the unplayability bar. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:57, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::''"As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements"'' -- that's a horrible idea. Someone who thinks the monk is the pinnacle of balance should not ever be going around putting "this is unbalanced" templates on anything. Raising the unplayability bar still leaves a large gap between the minimum allowed and articles that should be considered exceptional. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 18:46, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Just dropping a question here, but, for singling out exceptional articles, don't you guys already have something for that? "Featured Articles"? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:59, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Which never seem to change and have strange requirements like "must have a picture". [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::So you are saying we need to make a playability bar. Correct with either another system implementation or with the current system applied to all cases and as the only reviewing system. It's related to [[Balance System]], however it would have to be done differently in any case (and should). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:35, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing what is currently used for classes (rating system) applied across other categories, such as spells and races, but I understand that this discussion's inception was in part due to dissatisfaction with the current system as it stands, or at the very least concerns over how such a thing would translate. The four core categories (power, wording, formatting, flavor), however, seem to be fairly universal in my mind. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:42, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::You must have missed the many arguments over what those categories are even supposed to mean...I have no idea what Green Dragon's latest message is supposed to mean, so I just want to reaffirm my support for the original idea that started this thread. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:06, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I always go back to that table whenever I rate a class, and I think it does an okay job at defining each area, except for the formatting bit (too lenient, IMO, high rating must be earned, not proxy by following the preload). I can understand where debates might crop up, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:34, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the [[Rating System]] and the [[Character Class Design Guidelines (DnD Guideline)|Character Class Design Guidelines]] combined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wouldn't a playability bar be something akin to a rating system? And as far as templates vs. ratings is concerned, I think that is a bit of a 'your mileage may vary' thing. I mean, low numbers may motivate one person, and a big fat stub/wikify template may motivate others. Either way, that still has the same issues that a rating system does. That is, some people may considered something balanced, and others may not. Does such an article deserve to carry the <nowiki>{{NeedsBalance}}</nowiki> template? I guess what I'm saying is that numbers (a rating system) offer a much cleaner compromise than a debate over whether an article is balanced. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:25, 10 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Something I think you aren't getting, Green_Dragon, is that another goal -- and the one I and the others who brought this up care about -- with ratings is to inform casual readers of the wiki what classes are good and usable and which are not. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem is, some people think classes are usable and others don't. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which is why the proposed rating system would use the mode of the given rates. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 20:44, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I can see this arguement going back and forth like this for easily another 2 weeks. People don't like the current rating system, the boss man doesn't think the system is needed, but the people think that a system is needed, and that one thought keeps poking it's head back into the discussion, "Some people think classes are usable and others don't." I will personally not read anything past this post since it has already given me a headache, but I'm adding my two cents all the same. Yes, flavor is a subjective part of an article, and that paticular part of the rating system feels a bit superflous when you think about it, though, it could serve a purpose. For example, if a classes fluff describes it as, say, "A mighty spellcaster who tears down the heavens with but a thought", and then, when you get to class features, it doesn't even get spells, then that may fall into a '''What?/5''' on the flavor rating, but of course, who is going to be that stupid? I personally think that getting rid of the system all together though, that may be a troublesome idea, considering that the rating system is convenient for the fact that it can show up on the 'list of classes' page, and give a person a warning before they let their computer load the page, just to see a box that says 'Need Balance, come back later' pop up on their screen. People are rather impatient, and, loading 5 pages that are utter junk in a row may turn them away from the site. As for the 'Mol an admin to get a rating approved' idea, I think that is a touch of brilliance that Michealanjilo (don't know if I spelled that correctly) would be envious of, and that it ought to be impletemented immediately, regardless of the decision reached here. As for the Mode/Median Dichotomy, I personally like the way that numbered ratings look, and the feeling you get when you see a '''20/20''' on one of your favorite classes, and can't say that I would feel the same should I get 3 Excellents, but that is simply personal perference. Wrapping up this post, my advice would be to keep the rating system, knock of the flavor part, and add the 'Mol me' switch, but otherwise, keep things the same. Well, I hand the floor to the next person to post, enjoy the discussion everybody. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::My problem with the rating system as it is is, that a class that's 5/5 power, but 2/5 formatting because someone wants there to be more flavor, an example character, an "in the world" section and epic rules (yes, despite the fact that they're useless, I've seen someone rate down someone else for not having EPIC RULES before) is completely and totally different than one that was rated 2/5 formatting and 5/5 power. One of them is likely MUCH more usable in a game, while another just needs some quick fixes. Yet they're rated exactly the same on the "Out of 20" scale, which is why I really don't like that scale. I'd rather just look at classes by power. In addition, if there are mods for rating allowances (which I agree with), IMO they should be seperate from the admins. Green likely has a lot on his plate, and if the rating allowance is just set to a small number of users/mods, that means there can be no inter-mod quarrels. I'd nominate someone like Jota, in addition to some of the current mods like Draco and Surgo, myself, as these should be checked often and may involve a bit of back and forth. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:02, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: It seems the big problem with ratings is the fact that everyone's balance point is completely different. We all know, and no offense to anyone, That someone who agrees with Frank and K's teachings is going to have a radically different view to someone who doesn't. So no matter what the new rating system is, it will still be based on a balance point that at least 50% of the wiki disagrees with. And honestly, it is unlikely the class will get a second rating unless someone is passionate enough, all it takes is one bad rating to completely mess up a classes chance to be read by newcomers in the future, i know i don't even look at most classes with a rating under 12. I had an idea recently however about a new approach to rating, and inlight of what seems to be an impending overhaul, i will place it here. I notice on some of the other wiki's i peruse, (Bulbapedia, wikipedia etc.) that they have "Projects", like Project: Music and Lyrics, where they try to put in all the lyrics for all the songs on the wiki. I think we should get a group of about five people, regular wiki dwellers, with good and varied ideas on balance, into a sort of committee, A Project: Quality, if you will, to go over classes and give their unified opinion on them. One good rating and one bad rating that remain stagnant and unchangeing on a page don't do much. but a unified and collective and well thought out rating is much more likely to be appreciated instead of an IP saying, "WOW, this is really OP, lulz." The commitee could regulate when pages change and when ratings can be nullified, and if there all really devoted, start looking over new classes and old ones and discussing as a group an overall rating for them, whatever the new rating system may be. Perhaps this commitee could add a nice commentary and review to select classes. A article cleanup crew would also be nice, but i know that i cant have Christmas in july.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 01:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a committee to rate classes. Much neater, cleaner, and conflict-less than just anyone being able to rate things. We need to be very careful who is on that committee, though; the more varied the views on balance are, the more likely there is to be conflict. Every single member of the committee would need to be very flexible, and needs to recognize that they are, objectively, no more correct in their views as anyone else on the committee. One way to potentially help avoid disagreements is to come up with general categories of views on balance, and have each ratable page be in a category indicating how the author intended to balance it. For example, off the top of my head, there's Same Game Test balance, balance against similar classes from the core, balance against the strongest classes of the core, balance against similar classes from the entire game, etc. That way, instead of rating on balance from a scattered set of viewpoints, we rate based on the target that the author was trying to hit. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 01:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I don't like the idea of a committee, that narrows the views of the rankings. If the committee is primarily balancing to CR = ECL then they would rate down classes that are attempting for SRD power (and vice versa). A similar problem is when you are saying play testing, if a person uses a class effectively then it can be powerful but if they don't have an opportunity to or don't understand the benefits that the class has or just doesn't play a member of that class effectively then it may be considered much weaker. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe ranking classes for flavor, formatting and wording, but have a different rating system for power. CR = ECL would be one of the options, having a power ranking for that. Or it can be SRD power ranking. I think that flavor should be focused on more though. Have flavor out of 10, formatting out of 5, wording out of 5 and CR = ECL or SRD power ranking percentages, with under 100 being lower powered, 100 being exact and over 100 being high powered. Alternatively it could be a bar with low power at the bottom, SRD standard near the middle, CR = ECL near the end and higher powered at the end. (using lower and higher, not under and over. This is due to the fact that it seems friendlier.) That alternate bar could be out of 100, with the titles at 0, 33, 66 and 100. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:48, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Part of what started this whole discussion is how none of us liked having separate ratings for flavor, formatting, and wording. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 09:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am in favor of either a word-based rating system or a committee or both (somehow). I don't think anything more complex is needed, nor would it be helpful. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:18, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I agree strongly with the idea that classes should have a disclaimer with the power level they were going for. Otherwise, a class going for SRD power would be poorly rated by a user who basis his balance views of ECL=CR, and that isnt fair for someone whose view on balance is different. We could sort each of the balance points (SRD, ECL=CR, Overpowered, Strong SRD, what have you...) Into different categories, so people coming to this site with a specific idea of power can find there niche right away. Perhaps there could be a description on each of the category pages as well. I am still completely up for the idea of a committee, a committee that can be well versed in all these balance points (which i know there are a few of them in the tavern) and willing to review classes at their balance point.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 10:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that flavor is the most important part of the class, it should have its own rating. Formatting and wording can get stuck together, they are only for clarification anyway. I think that having a disclaimer for which power level is good and the word-based rating system can work with the committee, they just have to write a review on an article basically. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:17, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Rating systems, disclaimers for varying levels of power... It all sounds quite exciting, but what would measuring by multiple yardsticks do, besides confuse the hell out of everyone involved? People are liable to not even know what of these power categories their class is going to end up in. Not everybody is apt at discerning balance, which is exactly why some sort of rating system has been introduced in the first place, I think. While I don't have problems with it existing, the types of pages that actually get ratings is so limited and small (i.e., only classes and prestige classes) that it says little about the wiki's general quality standard. Everything else, from spells to equipment to creatures and other random miscellanea is pretty much ignored. There, but not so as you'd notice unless you're willing to wade through hundred miles of swampland with a pig on a leash to find the odd truffle or two. <br />
<br />
::::What I'm proposing is that a sort of 'Editor's Choice' template be made in which any of the admins/sysops can tag the pages they like. Most admins of this wiki are veterans in D&D, and know what they're on about. It's a real simple concept really. If you navigate to a page and see a little frame at the top that states one of the admins like it, it's likely the people'll be willing to look further into it. It would be a simple matter to separate the Bayeux Tapestries from the sea of toilet paper that is the wiki if people were at least given an indication to which articles might be up to snuff. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 21:19, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As I asked before, isn't that what "featured articles" is for? Yes, I know it hardly changes, but I also know there was a discussion somewhere about fixing that. Swap the featured articles more often, add more to the candidates, and doesn't that fit your criteria of "editor's choice"? The only thing I'm asking is, why make something new when you can use what you've got? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well, there's still this nonsense baggage like how a featured article "must have an image" (even if it's something like a transmutation spell that hardly needs one). Perhaps if those requirements were deleted. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Why make somethign new when you can use what you've got?" What we "got" Doesn't seem to be working.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 22:49, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A page doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles of what constitutes a featured article in order to obtain approval. If the contents of the article are useful, usable, readable and well construed, there should be a way for people to tell. It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. A simple little thumbnail of, I dunno, a silver chalice or something, with the caption 'this article is Good' next to it should suffice. On the whole, writing featured articles is like writing the legislation. You have to suffer through countless articles and subparagraphs that you'd never deal with were it ever used in a campaign. As a result, pages like [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|this]] read as though you're drowning in wallpaper paste. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::If theoretically the rating system was removed I agree that the main issue would be that one would not be able to quickly pull a judgement of a certain class from [[DnD Base Classes]] page. Personally I think one of the main reasons the classes area is such a mess is since a rating system was implemented. I am under the impression people do not challenge themselves when adding an article if the goal in mind is to make it adhere to a rating system. And, for that reason, I think the entire class section is such a mess. If (on the preload) we changed the reviewing templates to the D&D-Wiki wide ones and added them to the top (not the bottom) and removed the rating system I think people would submit better classes and this entire prolem would be fixed. Also, that is what FA are for, and I agree that [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is not FA quality. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:32, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a editor's choice thing. It can show good and mostly complete articles, not only the best of the best (which the FA show). This would incorporate flavor and power, with the main formatting to be handled by other templates. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:59, 13 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think I was misunderstood. What I mean about using the featured articles for editor's choice was that we -change- the featured articles criteria to reflect what is being discussed here. That was my suggestion. Now, if no one thinks that idea is a good one, fine. I'm just clarifying. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|17:11, 16 July 2009}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think that Featured Articles should be the best of the best. We can also have recommended articles and use able articles, with the recommended being better in flavor, wording and layout while the use able ones are still usable but not as high quality. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 06:46, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Here's an Official Proposal.<br />
:::::::::::::A committe is formed known as the Ratings Committee, or RC for short. The RC is composed of 9 members, each of varied preferences and opinions, to form it. The RC members must each contribute to the RC once every month, or be replaced. The RC members gain the powers as follows<br />
:::::::::::::*An RC member is able to select an article he feels is particularly good and exemplifies what the wiki should be. He may Favor the article.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with one Favor gains a Bronze Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 3 Favors is upgraded to a Silver Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 6 Favors gains a Gold Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*If eight RC members all Favor an article, it becomes a Featured Article (in addition to the Gold Star), and is given (unit of time - 1 week? 2 weeks?) on the front page. This may lead to a Featured Article queue. That's fine - it's better than a lack of one. All Featured Articles will get their fair share.<br />
:::::::::::::*If an article as two or less Favors, and at least six other Ratings Committee members believe that the article does not deserve a Bronze Star, they may do so. This, hopefully, will be EXTREMELY rare - I can't see it really happening ever if the committee is chosen wisely.<br />
For the initial Ratings Committee, I proposal the following members -- Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, and Genowhirl. That is eight members. I would not normally nominate myself, however, at Aarnott's insistance, I will do so, on the basis that you shouldn't push a job on others you're not willing to do yourself. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:03, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I like this idea a lot, except for one thing -- I don't think it should tie into the featured article system at all. "Editor's choice" articles by themselves are a fine system. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:08, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Just noting my agreement with this idea. Having 9 experienced members take a look at articles like this will allow them to improve with useful constructive criticism. Regular users can still use the wiki normally and articles can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think this is an excellent compromise to all of the ideas presented so far. I think we should try it out for a month or two and see how it goes. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:14, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And best of all, we can remove that horrible rating system too! I know everyone wanted to do that. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:15, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I agree to this proposal and think it is a fine system to add to the wiki.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 12:36, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I support the proposal, and am happy to accept my role in it. I'd also like to suggest creation of a User:Ratings_Committee, so that it can be MoI'd to bring an article or discussion to the entire committee's attention, similar to User:Admin. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 12:47, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not opposed to the idea, although I'm not as opposed to the current rating as others seem to be. I guess it would be nice to be able to say good things about races, spells, and things other than classes. I'll wait for an official proposal page to spring up before evaluating the idea in further detail. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:53, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I support the proposal. As the wiki is a mutable project, a trial run to test it out would be pleasing. I would like to note that I would prefer to keep the old FA nomination system in addition to this new Ratings Committee system. The old FA nomination system will still allow any user or IP to voice their opinion. So, who wants to build the Templates for the Stars and other required materials and pages? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:20, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::The idea was that while anyone could voice their opinions, nominate articles, and pressure/goad the Committee, but only they had the final say. That way, yes, IPs get their say, but we're also not pretending like the "This is overpowered because I don't understand the rules" stuff matters. If it has to be someone's call if something is a FA or not, while not leave it up to the same people who are going to be rating things anyway? We can fix two birds with one stone, and get the FAs moving and rotating again, a discussion people seemed to have basically abadoned. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 18:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yeah, after a bit more thought on it, drop the old FA nominating system. With the User:Ratings_Committee, getting ahold of the RC will be easy and quick while allowing anyone to voice their opinion on an article. Would a Category work well for Ratings Requests, or would then anyone just plop in the category and clog it up? Doing it by starting a discussion on the User:Ratings_Committee would probably work best, as it would require actual communication, hopefully minimizing problems. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:36, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay, so if this gets implemented how is a RC group which looks over recent contributions and gives them favors better then a RC group who adds templates to articles on a article-by-article basis to show that articles mistakes? Or how were you guys planning on implementing the current reviewing system and this RC group to look over recent contributions together? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Because not everything that's "not good" has mistakes. Yes, the group - and EVERYONE for that matter - should still apply the articles to bad template. However, we should still be able to reward and exemplify especially good articles. It also helps people who are looking for material to use to see the best articles set aside. I would basically suggest a talk page, where anyone can post stuff for the RC to see, and would be removed after they looked it over. It wouldn't need EVERY RC member to look over EVERY article, they only have to rate the ones they want to. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: I support Dragon Child's stuff. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 20:27, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::: After speaking with Surgo, who's opinion I greatly respect, I'd like to change the people whom I nominated for the RC role. I had originalyl nominated Genowhirl, who while is plenty fair and clever, doesn't post to other parts of the wiki nearly as much as I had anticipated. Instead, I'd like to replace his nomination with that of Sam Kay's, who is far more active, and in addition, knows 4e quite well. I feel that this better rounds out the knowledges and opinions of the RC, and makes it quite a diverse group. In addition, I feel a new rule needs to be added - an RC is not allowed to Favor his own articles. Instead, there will be one user (prehaps someone who's in-line to become RC, or just Green Dragon) who is allowed to Favor articles written by RCs, and only those articles, in the author's stead. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:19, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::: How does this solve the problem of classes at different power levels? Are we going to have a template for that? or make it part of the author template? --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:09, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::If the author feels that his class is being passed up due to its power level, then he needs to explain it in the talk page, and give reasons on why he think that power level is valid. There is no set categories we can fairly make, it should be up for each author to defend the power level on their own. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 16:30, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I think the idea for templates for power level was a good one, such as a template for things balanced to SRD, and things balanced to F&K etc. I think that i would be ok with the idea of the author justifying his balance if i know that the RC would be open to there balance description, my one worry would be people rating with preconceived notions of power that differ from a standard view of power. But you did pick a very versatile group, so i suppose that would rarely happen. Im just voiceing all my concerns, because i feel all concerns should be addressed before something like this is implemented. I still love the idea. [[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 17:34, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Balance to SRD doesn't work. What are you balancing AGAINST? The monsters? Rogue? Druid? Monk? Wizard? fighter? Those are all different balance points. Thus, the category "balanced against SRD" isn't useful. F&K balance against SRD too, you know. They balance against the monsters, wizard, and druid. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:52, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If the author makes their target of balance clear enough, the RC should absolutely judge against that target, rather than their own preferred target. Of course, if no adequately described target is given, that leaves the RC free to judge as they please. Perhaps we should add something to the preloads or author template to describe target of balance. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:08, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have done [[User:TK-Squared/Lavabox/Stars|this]] for you. It is my proposal for the new Author box. It works easily, like this! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:10, 23 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD, no offense, but I'm REALLY REALLY against what you did on the Gravity Warrior page. That stuff NEEDS to go into the discussion. First, it makes it look like one of the better classes on the wiki has major problems, which it doesn't. Second, you put some stuff in the balance box that I and I bet Rith flat-out disagree with, and it's not something that you can be proven right about. That's basically holding the page hostage - "Change this to MY opinion, or you get an ugly tag telling everyone its unbalanced". If it had major problems or was obviously bad, sure, that's one thing. But this doesn't! You don't even explain WHY it's unbalanced, just pointing to the talk page, where the person who "reviewed" it and said it was unbalanced wasn't even using the class as written, but instead used sweeping changes that everyone said were the problem. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I am debating if it is a better idea to add the things I wrote onto the talk page and (on those templates) just put "see talk" or somesuch. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm all for throwing the balance template on badly written classes. But Gravity Warrior isn't badly written. It really, really needs to go onto the talk page, saying why you think it's unbalanced. The only major argument saying it was was not intellectually honest and thoroughly disproven, so it's a bit useless to just say "see talk page", too, and why it's unbalanced needs to be fleshed out on the talk page more (it isn't, IMO). [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:56, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't think any one user should be able to just slap a bunch of huge, ugly templates on a page. I was under the impression that everyone agreed with the RC idea, in one form or another. And then you went and did that, which I don't think anyone supported as a form of page review. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:58, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Wow, a lot has happened since my last visit to this discussion. First of all, I think the idea of an RC is exactly what we need, it's clean, it's concise, and it weeds out most of the idiocy that plagues the better pages on this wiki, all in one fell swoop too. As for the template issues. I personally don't see their purpose, seeing as they should only be put on one of two types of pages. Ones that are flawed, but their creators will not be around often enough to fix them, in which case the delete template is the same thing, only with a goal, considering that the 'Needs Balance' category is meant to store pages that need balancing, and wait for someone to come along and actually do that job (which, I can gauruntee you, will only happen to one out a thousand classes that will get plopped into that category), whereas, the 'Candidates For Deletion' category is there to '''GET RID OF''' these articles and free up the namespaces so that better page can be made in there stead (The real difference is that the Delete template removes unsavory items from the wiki, whereas the Needs Balance template lets them stew). Or, one the other hand, the Needs Balance template could be applied to a page that is simply ridiculously bad, in which case, the Delete template is still better. From my point of view, these new templates are simply baby-proofed versions of the Delete template. Also, please note that the context you attempted to use the templates did not make sense, you could have very easily have posted your concerns on the classes talk page and gotten the same result. As for the actual balance of said class, I shall leave that to the other talk page. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:52, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay. But what about changing all the pages (once the dpl has been improved upon (so one can pipe categories in a |category= paramater using "What Links Here" or who knows what)) to something like [[4e User Races]] where one sees which races need to be improved upon, it's a bit of a ranking level (to get ones article into the top category), and from their it's a bit of another ranking another level (to get it to FA status). Although it would be nice if one could better define columns or better define |mode=category in the dpl2 as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:18, 31 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Complaint ==<br />
<br />
ha dude dnt want to sound like im complaining your something but peoples homebrewing is kinda slack on this site i wanted to look at the complete classes and got excited but no one finishes any thing the races are exelent just a little change and we can fix them up but the classes deffently need some work because their exelent pertensail for dnd hope u can get the word out to fix things up because this site is exlent for ideas and its not all their sorry if its not my place to tell you<br />
<br />
:Well, what you've got to remember about creating an entire class is that it takes a LOT of time: you have to make sure everything works, that it is not totally broken, you have to find and link parts such as [[ranger]] or [[Knowledge]], and you have to come up with background information to support some of the parts of the class. I know from experience that making a class takes a few hours at the least. Heck when I made [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)|The Ethereal Hunter]], I was so exhausted at the end that I didn't even include a sample NPC (need to get around to that). If this came across as an angered defensive position on the matter, I didn't mean it to be. If you are a user, please sign your comments by putting four ~ marks at the end like so. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:29, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating, please? ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a prestige class and got some feedback on it, did some edits, and I'm still not sure if it will fly. Could you rate it and tell me what I should change? It would be awesome if you could..<br />
<br />
[[Ascendant Knight (DnD Prestige Class)]]<br />
<br />
Thank you!<br />
<br />
:Your wish is command (although just this once). -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:36, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hands of a wiseman? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a homebrewed feat or is it somewhere in another book somewhere? I am currently playing a D&D 3.5 game and I would really like to use this feat for my healer, but my GM won't let me use it unless it is somewhere "authenticate".<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time and have a great day! {{unsigned|Copper Gryphon}}<br />
<br />
:[[Hands of a Wiseman (3.5e Feat)]] is homebrew material, meaning it was made by independent author(s), at home most likely. Homebrewing is common. You should speak to your GM about allowing such material after his reviewal and approval of course for each article. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:12, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I have banned admins before - this is not the first time (I mean historically for short periods of time). This is ''literally'' my website; so I need no explanation. Also, if things to continue to happen as they have before, it could happen again. I was banned from my own website, the servers are probably 100 ft. away from me right now, I need no explanation in my head. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Well, that's it then. You told us before if we didn't like you and your arbitrary rules, to go make our own website. That's exactly what we did. Goodbye. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:53, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ciao, tyrant. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:55, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=403862User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-14T04:30:30Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Make Love, Not War */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== A Thousand Apologies ==<br />
<br />
I've never "edited" a Wiki page before. I thought everything was being sent to you as a suggestion, and after I submitted my suggestions, I noticed the actual page changed. I want to apologize personally. I may have the original chirurgeon saved to my computer when my players first found and downloaded it, and I can fix everything as soon as I locate it. Again, I apologize profusely, and I suppose I've learned my lesson. I won't be clicking "edit" any more, since it actually changes the page instead of makes suggestions.<br />
<br />
That said, is there a way to send suggestions to users about an entry in Wiki? {{Unsigned|76.187.167.233|14:49, 5 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:That's what the talk page is for -- click on the tab that says "Discussion" instead of the one that says edit. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:50, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Also, we can revert any changes to a page because wikis store the entire history of the page (each edit). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:22, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hello, thank you and questions! ==<br />
<br />
Hi there,<br />
Many thanks for your welcome and good wishes. whilst I may not be a total dead loss between the ears I am still learning slowly how to set out my formats and pages and wanted to ask you about a few things please...<br />
# How can I delete a page once it is made? There is a page referencing "Tekman", the forerunner of my deity Teknos, which I need to have removed please.<br />
# Can you please send me [if you have time] any constructive criticism about the pages I have completed thus far - ARE they complete? Do I need to do much more to them or are they functional for the time being? How could they be improved? And so on<br />
# Am I out of order for adding materials in this way? Have I broken some form of etiquette of which I am otherwise unaware? Please let me know - for example, is it OK top be asking you so many questions?<br />
Thanks for your time. [[User:Rorschach Moondark|Rorschach Moondark]] 09:29, 8 May 2009 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:Learning wiki-syntax should not be too difficult, and once one gets proficient things start looking better and things start fitting better to our preload standards. But anyways...<br />
:# To delete a page please refer to [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]].<br />
:# Sorry... I really do not have the time to take a look at the content you have submitted right now. If you want some critique you may want to ask on the talk page for people's opinions.<br />
:# And I am not sure how you have been adding material, but if you are following the preload and the naming conventions rules it should be alright.<br />
:Hope this helps a bit. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Racial Champion ==<br />
<br />
where is this feat. books, site, i cant find it anywhere. what does it do? {{Unsigned|Masterkycoo|01:48, 9 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure off the top of my head and I do not want to spend the time to look, sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:27, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Chat ==<br />
<br />
Hi I'm not completley new but I've really been enjoying dand wiki. but i thought of an idea for your site, maybe you could set up a chat other then the tavern specifically for dnd campaigns and maybe you could have a few people start some campaigns for 3.5 or 4e or both its just an idea so i wont be offended if nothing happens but please think about it as i think it would be very interesting. [[User:Apfa10|Apfa10]] 23:55, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You would have to ask [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to be certain however if one can create a sub-group chat then it should work. Comparable to how one creates a personal non-logged chat with another member. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Membership ==<br />
<br />
Can you remove myself and all my contributions off this wiki ASAP? I've had it with the regulars... -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 19:48, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Please sign your posts! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:29, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Never mind. I'll stay, but I'll just have to keep my temper in check. I've been having a bad couple weeks, and I apologize. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 20:12, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry if you feel like you're picked on, or you can't handle some of the stuff being said in irc. If you feel like you are being attacked the best course of action is non-action! Hope you feel better and continue to post on the wiki! -- [[User:Sleaker|Sleaker]] 21:06, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would recommend that you just don't log into the tavern. It can have negative effects sometimes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:25, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Storm Elf5's come back? ==<br />
<br />
Hey green dragon! Its been a while since I last visited, I had some computer issues. Anyway, I was wondering, what happened to my homebrew deity with the name of Grininthar or something like that. BTW, the site is great. [[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 16:56, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You have to remember the name correctly. <s>Gririnthar (DnD Deity)</s>. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:21, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Or now that you moved the page; [[Grininthar (DnD Deity)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3.5e Magical Armors ==<br />
<br />
Hey, not really familiar with the whole wiki/HTML things, but I tried to fix it up a little bit to match the armors. I apologize if it's not correct. If it is fine just a quick 'you're good' would be great and I'll finish editing all the ones that I can. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:01, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, [[3.5e Magical Armors]] is formatted correctly, if that is what you are wondering. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:25, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Oop, I actually meant to say the [[3.5e Magical Weapons|magical weapons]], which was incorrect as per your statement, and the one which I was trying to fix; my apologies for the miscommunication. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:20, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I have balanced Storm Elves ==<br />
<br />
Hey Green Dragon!<br />
<br />
I have done some work balancing my 4e race, [[Storm Elves (4e Race)|Storm Elves]] and I was wondering you or another admin could remove the ''Needs Balance'' template if you think it dosen't need any more balancing. There is also another template at the top of the page (''Stub'' I think) and I wanted to know how to begin to remove it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 05:59, 13 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Newbie Having A Small Problem ==<br />
<br />
Hello Green Dragon, I'm new to D&D Wiki and I have a small question that needs a little explaining. I wanted to submit a new Base Class to get feedback on it, so I followed the procedure your site had set up to make classes. I was about halfway done with fully creating the class when I saved the page and went to sleep. Unfortunately, when I wanted to continue from where I left off, I couldn't find the saved page. Where would I be able to find the page so that I can continue from where I left off? The Base Class was supposed to be made for 3.5e Homebrew and was entitled "The Ethereal Hunter". Really appreciate the help because I spent a good deal of time trying to learn and understand how to make a class here. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 06:49, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Not Green Dragon, but are you sure you saved the class? No "Ethereal Hunter" comes up via search function and [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Narrssuras+Stalking+Leopard&namespace=&year=&month=-1 your edit history] shows nothing by that name either. If you did it while you weren't logged in that could explain why it doesn't appear on your user contributions, but other than that I think perhaps something malfunctioned when you went to save the page. Hope that helps a little, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 09:22, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Within the last 30 days there hasn't been an 'Ethereal Hunter' saved by anyone. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 09:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the response anyway. Luckily, I learned that if you are going to fill something out that can span over several page, it is good to make a copy, so I did. Almost done with the Ethereal Hunter now. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:28, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, I've got everything done with my new class and everything is up for it. The only problems I'm having now are actually understanding what I'm doing wrong for my class to adhere to the rules. Some assistance would be helpful, here is the class [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)]]. Thanks in advance, [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 19:20, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Refer to the class' talk page for this discussion. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 19:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Will do, and thanks. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 03:26, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Axefighter ==<br />
<br />
I created a class in the beginning of August of 2008. I recently checked on it and it has disappeared. Its disappeared off of the classes page and off my contributions page. I would just like to know what happened and if it is possible to bring it back to the class list. Because I never wrote the class down anywhere else I don't know how to make an Axefighter.<br />
--[[User:Mightycolin|Mightycolin]] 05:40, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:It got deleted I believe. Not trying to be rude, however poorly made classes get deleted. If you would like it reverted you can ask on [[Talk:Axefighter (DnD Class)]]. [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mightycolin]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:41, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Had a similar problem before as well...to all those that read this here's some valuable advice for you...Back up your files or edits, even if it is temporary, just copy and paste the entire edit into a Word or Notepad document before saving the page. It will prevent any frustration with regards to loosing material (Trust me, I would have had to completely rewrite a class I made on this site if I hadn't backed it up in a word document.) Fellow Aspiring Creator [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 08:58, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== help ==<br />
<br />
i posted a race and it is not showing up {{unsigned|Ewokdruid}}<br />
<br />
:The problem was with the footer. I have since fixed it and it should show up now in the LA Variable listings. Also, perhaps you should check out the [[DnD Race Editing Instructions]] (it explains why your race didn't show up). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 10:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Abbreviations ==<br />
<br />
[[List of Book Abbreviations (DnD Other)]]. Back on May 19th you made some revisions to my List of Abbreviations. You also left a comment, 'why only WOTC?'. I dont know where to find the proper abbreviations for non-WOTC, but ifyou know of places, I will add to the list. TY --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 22:42, 26 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If they do not really exist then nevermind. Also, you want to consider adding the abbreviation to the book entry within the [[Publication List]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Class: Palibar ==<br />
<br />
Hello i was wondering how do power points/day work? {{Unsigned|Alf|21:54, 27 May 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I cannot find that class however for the [[SRD:Psychic Warrior#Power Points/Day]] it's like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:19, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Map Builder ==<br />
<br />
Hey thanks for the welcome. I don't think I need help on wiki formatting (I'm quite regularly doing some background cleanup on wikipedia, not to mention a software engineer), but thanks for the link anyway.<br />
<br />
I did have a question, though, do you know a good way to make a world map using only free tools (small budget ><)? [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 02:11, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You can use GIMP, it has a random map generator and with some basic editing you can end up with things like [this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Image:FFRegionsMap.png]. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:36, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I want more control than Random, sorry. [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 05:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A good link to a map builder should be found [[DnD Links|here]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nature Bound Class ==<br />
<br />
Why did you set my class for deletion? It has only been on site for 2 days, whereas ive seen pages with only a template and no info typed in sit on site for months without a delete template. Don't get me wrong, I love the wiki, but that is just wrong.--[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 15:32, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I did not see those classes. If you have some spare time it would be quite appreciated if you add the appropriate templates to them. Classes should be added at least mostly finished (finished on a word processing program with the preload cut and pasted into it for example). Sorry if this sounds frank, but this issue has been brought up before and I just want to clear up why it is okay to add templates to newly added material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:49, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== why? ==<br />
<br />
i(true warrior)have a question. why are you going to delete my race? please write back.<br />
<br />
<br />
-true warrior<br />
<br />
:Refer to the [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)|races talk page]]. Ask there what you can do to fix it. And please sign your posts using --~~ ~~ (without spaces). --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:25, 29 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== PLEEEEEEEEEASE!!! ===<br />
<br />
DONT ERASE RACE! THER IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!<br />
<br />
=== why ===<br />
<br />
why are you going to erase my race? what did i ever do to you?<br />
<br />
How do you make class features?-asked by arshan272<br />
<br />
== Harassment ==<br />
<br />
After trtying to have a level headed discussion with [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], about balance in 4e, he bacame rude and rather aggressive. His attitude and use of foul language has really put me off. I understand he may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material written concerning 4e design, but even after pointing him to the source he refuses to at least agree to disagree. Again given the volume of information, if you haven't been reading since day one it may be overwhelming. But if he dosen't have time to read it, doesn't mean he needs to vile. I will return to the wiki next week.But I must say if he remains I will not. I refuse to be spoken to like that. Thank you for your time. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 07:44, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There ''is'' a /ignore command in the Tavern if for some reason you can't get along or see eye-to-eye with another user. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:40, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Sepsis, if Dragon Child is being like that, don't bother with him. Some people just don't have good manners. I generally stay out of the Tavern as it is... But you can talk to me about it anytime. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This is totally unfair. Look at what I actually said. The crux of what I said was "If you want something to be called unbalanced because it can't be used in YOUR personal games, that's bullshit". Do you honestly think you can go around slapping an "unbalanced" tag on everything in the wiki that you don't like and have it be OK? The problem wasn't you "not pointing out the source". Indeed, you claimed Mike Mearls or whoever said something... and then provided no link, no cite. I was supposed to go find it myself. I don't even know if it actually exists. That's as good as not pointing anything out. And at no point did I actually disagree with you. I actually stated, large size in 4e may very well be overpowered. I didn't say otherwise, and even said as much. There's no agreeing to disagree when I don't actually disagree. All I was saying is, you really needed a stronger argument then "A designer, somewhere, said you shouldn't do that". That may be wrong, you may be mistaken, the designer himself may have had faulty logic. In short, it's not that I "didn't have the time" to read it, it's that I was never shown where it was, or given any reason to believe it actually exists. You didn't have the time to back up your arguments. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:08, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::No this has nothing to do with our discussion. This is all about your language and attitude. You are not on an "adult-only" site, and have no right to start swearing and arguing because the mood strikes you. I don't need that garbage on my screen with my kids around you are rude and immature and that is that, any arguments you could have made to support yourself is done, once I reached the "F-word" in your comment I stopped reading (in fact this will be the last time I even look at anything you say). Nothing you say will ever carry any wieght with me. If you have to resort to that, then you are too stupid to listen to. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:16, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: I would like to make a counter-point. Sepsis has constantly been closed-minded and disruptive towards Dragon Child at all points. His so-called "swearing" (an idea that I, myself, find absolutely preposterous. They're words, not knives) does nothing to hinder the fact he was simple stating some quite well thought out arguments against Sepsis' so-called "everything is broken that doesn't go with the design" philosophy (so called by me). Throughout the discussion on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]], Sepsis was uncooperative and he threw the insults; not Dragon Child. Dragon just said a word or two that are commonly overreacted against; so he suddenly became "ignorant", "rude" and a "moron". Frankly, I think Sepsis is harassing Dragon child; as to say he has broken the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia Civility Policy] (Personal attacks and aggressive behaviour). --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:30, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with TK. I'm not a fan of avoiding words arbitrarily assigned to be "vulgar" in public, and I certainly don't want to in a conversation between adults. If a child or guardian thereof doesn't want to see curse words, it is that person's responsibility to avoid them. The only time when it makes sense for the one swearing to avoid the one offended is when the offended cannot avoid the swearer; since Sepsis can easily keep his kids away from those conversations, it is (and no insensitivity meant here) not at all anyone else's problem. Two minutes of searching found me [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351 this firefox add-on], which allows one to censor browsing when one's children use the computer. I'm sure there are many other such free utilities. I'm sure you can even find something that censors specific words rather than whole pages, if you want to go that mild. Point is, "fucking" was used for emphasis; that's not an insult or attack that could be taken as belligerent. "Bullshit" was used to mean "something that makes no sense"; it's more concise and means the exact same thing. There's no need for Dragon_Child to be punished or even given a warning. He did nothing wrong. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Just want to make a point on my way out. It is a complete shame that someone can begin by using "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" but not be considered in violation but my non-profane and justifiably angry response is considered harassment. Read the conversation, he started the yelling, and when I wouldn't do as he asked he begins swearing. Obviously this is not the place for me, consider the case closed, as I will depart to more civil pastures. Good day. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I did apologize for my comments as I realized they were inappropriate and misplaced. But now I see all that matters is who you actually suck up to. Then the rules of conduct mean nothing...go and get a program to filter non-adult sites (sheesh), how about we stick to the rules and take quick action against such sick behavior. But hey its your world, do as you will. A bid all a fine farewell. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 06:23, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I wasn't even a part of all of this and I can't help but think you're being completely ridiculous. Swearing is suddenly adult now? I suppose you haven't been on an elementary school playground for decades. Nevermind that elementary school children shouldn't even be accessing this site, as it's hosted in the United States and is subject to COPPA. I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I refuse to censor myself just because someone under the age of 13 ''might'' see my words. I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either. And if that person ''does'' care, they can use a Firefox add-on to filter it out. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:27, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I sorry, but, I must simply add my own two cents to this discussion. Sepsis, you claim that you are leaving the website to protect your children, while you are the one that is acting like a child. A person upset you, so you're going to run away? Honestly, this may seem a little cruel, but I can say that I hope you do leave, since, if you can't be mature and look past the pieces you don't like, you don't deserve to even be an admin. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 10:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow im surprised how rediculous everyone else is being, I mean come on just cause kids are swearing does not make it appropriate, if you swear even if it is not meant as an insult or direct attack, people can still take offense, the people refusing to clean up theiur language are the childish ones here, not everyone likes or can stand reading swearing, and as a general curtosey you should keep your language as clean as possible, or is that not how it works nowadays? Just because yobbish kids and those a lesser abbility to communicate other then through cosntant swearing do it, does not mean that it is acceptable for a community based site. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey, guess what. I'm NOT "refusing to clean up my language". Rith asked me, personally, to be nicer and swear less. I agreed. That's not "refusing", by any sense of the word. Nor do I have a "lesser ability to communicate", indeed, I was able to make clear all of my points in the discussion, while other people refused to back up even the smallest claims, and got angry and abusive because, god forbid, someone asked them for a cite. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:17, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Ok, I donn't want to drag balance and what not into this conversation thats for the talk apge of the article. When did I target the refusal at you Dragon Child? If you can communicate so well then why swear? Could have avoided this entire stupid situation. What other people refused to back up these claims? Do you mean Sepsis? Didn't he mention the Design & Devlopment articles? The point is Dragon Child, that being rude is unhelpful to a discussion as is swearing and yelling [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I apologize. I wrongly assumed the refusal was aimed at me. As for why... let me apologize ahead of time for this post, as I'll need to swear to be even slightly comprehensible here. Is there any word in the English language that conveys the same meaning and emotion as "bullshit" ? The fuck, sure, I should have left that out. But "Bullshit" - that word doesn't really have any true synonyms. Sepsis refused to back up his claims, yes. You can't make a cite of "It's somewhere there". If you can't provide a link, it may as well not exist. To call me an overwhelmed moron to go finding HIS cite for HIM was being rude and unhelpful. I, at the very least, expect people to have the same sort of intellectual integrity and honesty as you'd use to write a highschool paper or in a highschool debate team. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the place where it was cited about the large size would be particualrly hard to find seeing as it was either in one of Mike Mearls Blog Posts or on the forum where mike mearl posted. Though I have read it I know I have. And yes to ask you to go find his cite is rude and unhelpful but that just falls into the region of pot meet kettle, two wrongs dont make a write blah blah. Hes left now. It's over. Let's go back to balancing that giant race :D [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:35, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::None of this discussion even matters at this point, considering that, once people have set their mind into a way of thinking, it'll take a massive effort to sway them (that happens to be a basic fact of psychology). Both sides of this arguement have already set their mind 'in stone', if you will, and the other side will not change them. The only part of this discussion that even matters now, is that Sepsis is leaving the wiki over something as simply as what words were used. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Sepsis leaving is a tad silly. But what can we do? Nothing thats what.[[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:53, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What we can do is clear up this policy. I've made clear that I, personally, feel that it's the responsibility of the offended to avoid those more relaxed about it, not the other way around. After all, what if someone suddenly took offense to the inclusion of demons in the wiki? Since it's something which is part of our little subculture and not meant to offend, we'd tell them very kindly to freak off (and notice how ridiculous substitute words are).<br />
::::::I say we put it to a vote. There's really no other fair way to decide policy. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 13:36, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The difference of course being swearing is not part of our subculture. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 14:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::True. Swearing is part of our culture, not our subculture. Most people swear in informal contexts. In any case, a vote would decide this. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::How would a vote solve anything? Just based on what has been presented we obviously won't reach a consensus, and how can anything but a consensus be considered fair? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:45, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::If the admins say it's ok, then it's OK. If the admins say it's not, then it's not, and other people shouldn't try to force others into not doing so. How is forcing someone to not do something, even though it isn't against the rules, just because someone else is offended fair? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:49, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::[[Meta Pages#Policies]]; swearing is a violation of our policies. For swearing above, however, no one is issued a warning since it was just a discussion about the swearing on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You have to follow two links to even see that, and what the second link is isn't even at all obvious (indeed, I didn't even see the second link until it was pointed out to me), and then only works if you consider the word fuck "Gross-profanity". It also seems you might consider the word "bullshit" "gross profanity", as your claim that I don't need to be warned from this page. That seems... extremely harsh. You can hear "gross profanity" in R rated movies? There's no way that that rule can be reasonably interpreted to forbidding the word "bullshit", and I'd even argue that "fuck" is still not "gross profanity" when used as an emphasizer. The rule needs to be made clear. And, for what its worth, I much more easily found rules against not providing citations and personal attacks, which you didn't so quickly react to as you apparently did to what I said on this page... [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:41, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::And now, indeed. You've proven that you consider the word "fuck" to be a "gross profanity" (which took searching to even find it was against the rules), yet you don't consider these to be harassment (which is clearly against the rules), and I QUOTE: "you are being ignorant and rude", "I don't deal with morons", "If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material.", "your a complete and utter moron", "you have proven you aren't even close enough to being worthy of my (or anyones really) time.", "Wow that answers a lot, an ignorant rant boy", "your opinions really are completly worthless.". So... right. That doesn't seem fair. At all. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]. However you are right, you both deserve a warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, I pointed that page out, and noted that it's two clicks from the rule-thread, AND the fact that what it means isn't even clear, and there's no real reason to believe that sweearing is agaisnt the rules there according to the summary. What does "gross civility" even mean to you. I expressed confusion, and then... told I'm not allowed to do "gross incivility". Is this just going to be circular, where I'm told I'm just going to be warned whenever someone feels like, with no real rules to it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::* Rudeness<br />
:::::* Insults and name-calling<br />
:::::Should fall under those options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:55, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That doesn't answer my question. I hoenstly don't believe I was "rude", at all. Indeed, according to what you just said here, you just warned me for <i>something that isn't even against the rules</i>, because you warned me for swearing, and according to you, "gross profanity" is defined as "rudeness, insults, and name-calling". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:58, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - Wikipedia policies page. Hence, you could have used alternate words to make your point. It doesn't say you can't, but if you can use other words to make the same description then you should. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Except, Sabre, that's on neither of the two pages I was linked to. I asked for where in the rules it said that, and a clarification on what it means. I was not provided with it, and indeed, I was then immediately told that the rule I was warned under <i>never existed</i>. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Dragonchild, it doesn't matter what you believe, policy is policy, just sit down be quiet and go and contribute to the wiki, seriosuly your acting like your being fined by the police sheesh. The fact of that matter is you swore, you broke the policy. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 06:37, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Fine, swearing is against the rules. Am I no longer allowed to say the word "Damn" ? Should we now censor 71 different wiki pages? Hmm, no, that seems silly. Prehaps, just prehaps, as this rule doesn't actually appear anywhere, and indeed, Green Dragon just gave a similiar interpretation to me - <i>that this rule doesn't exist</i>, despite the fact that he claimed earlier it did - the rule should be clarified. Sure, I'll take the warning, whatever, but I want the rule clarified. Unclear rules only exist to allow the mods to warn and ban whoever they like, for whatever damn (whoops! is that warning #2?) reason they please, with no sense of justification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow, so instead of being queit you act like a saracastic and slightly arragont jerk. If your nto happy with hwo things are meant to work here, then dont come ehre simple as. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:10, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am assuming Green Dragon will be reasonable and clarify the rule, which I will then follow. It is not being "sarcastic and arrogant" to point out what I did (indeed, if you see above, it is true). I don't see how I'm being a "jerk" - I'm asking for a rule clarification. Like I said, I fully expect Green Dragon will give one, seeing as he seems reasonable enough. If I were to take your suggestion, I'd throw a fit and leave in a huff every time a website has an unclear rule. That seems overly childish. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::No ionstead what you did was throw a fit and target moderators in general sayign that unclear rules jsut allow them to ban whoever they like. I'm actually a moderator of my own private forum, I assure you thats not how it works. And im sorry I was overeacting the jerk wbit was unescessarry. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:57, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I didn't "target" anyone. Well, ok, I targeted the mods on the WOTC boards and ENWorld boards, that purposely use unclear rules to keep the places "intellectually pure". I more meant it was a warning - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being passive agressive, <i>I honestly think Green Dragon is a reasonable person, as are the rest of the admins and mods here, unlike the rest of almost every D&D board and chat ever</i>. Unclear rules serve no purpose except power tripping. Rules are there to prevent bad behavior that you don't like. If the rule is clear, people will be much less likely to do that bad behavior (indeed, I would not have sworn had I know it was against the rules). If the rule is unclear, people will not know not to do that bad behavior, due to it being, well, unclear and open to interpretation. What benefit does an unclear rule have? The only benefit is that it may be used as a justification by a moderator to ban people over something that isn't explicitly against the rules. If someone ends up doing something you end up not liking later that's not against the rules yet, you add it, and then warn the person for LATER doing, or else you're being unfair. Clear rules are totally necessary and have no downside. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wanting clarification != throwing a fit. (Note: Calling him a jerk breaches the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Civility Policy] under "Insults and name-calling") (That was a joke by the way). The wikipedia policies are far too strict; they build on the idea that massive amounts of people are going to use the site and a large portion of massive amounts of people are much more easily offended; especially those that use the internet (because that somehow means people get offended easily; textual based insults are so scathing). This wiki is a far more specialized wiki and, in my opinion, will attract the attention of people who have heard swearing. They've read it. They've seen it. They've tasted it's rainbow. This site doesn't need supastrictpolicies because it's not like Wikipedia; our userbase isn't several million. A small amount of people can interact calmly, as long as they stop blowing things way out of preportion. Someone said shit, fuck, hell, damn, bollocks, tits, blah, blah, blah. I could go on Google right now, type in one word and find worse in a single click. I could go on DICTIONARY DOT COM and find worse in a few tappity taps. Facebook? Boom, I took a quiz yesterday about FETISHES. YouTube? Boom, I watched a video the other day that used amazing amounts of the word "Fuck" in a short time. Films that kids have seen are worse than the shit that occurs here. Before I was ten, I'd seen a guy rip out his own eyeball, tear off his arm, tell people to fuck off, stab people, beat people, etc, etc. I've seen a 12a film use the word bitch and more (Hell, I've seen PG films that have used the word Shit). This is just overly censoring things and now we're moving into 1984 country, where soon Big Brother will rain down upon you with it's Thought Police. DO YOU WANT THAT?! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:25, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You have a good point calling some a jerk is name calling and I can recognise a joke btw. :). And no I dont want Big Brother thought police going on. I hate that sort of thing anything that surpresses my freedom I tend to be agaisnt. Your right the wiki rules are to strict. ANd of course people have heard swearing, tasted its rainbow and all that, it does not mean everyone WANTS to see it and taste it. This whole thing is getting rediculous now and I will take responsibility for any rediculousness (is that even a word?) I have added to it. Also, I thought Green Dragon had clarified it with the link to wiki thingy ma bob. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm going to make one final argument, for now. One of the admins/sysops/whatever he is, Daniel Draco, said up thread he didn't believe that swearing was against the rules. By this, I argue if he doesn't know, it's not reasonable for a normal user to know it's not against the rules. And finally, to what extent is swearing against the rules need to be clarified. I have yet to be provided with a good sub-in word for "Bullshit". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Bovine poop. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:48, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Swearing is against policy since not only are our policies partly defined by Wikipedia's policies however people swearing also tends to end up sparking discussions like this one. I beleive this is the third time a discussion involving swearing has taken place, all with the same result. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:00, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Then why not make it explicitly so? The rules clearly aren't explicit, as proof enough by Draco not knowing. Obviously, it's unclear. If people keep breaking a rule because the rule is unclear, isn't it your responsibility to make the rule more clear? I'm not even arguing for changing it, I'm arguing for defining it. Otherwise, if you're the only one who knows what the rule actually means or if it even exists, how can you be surprised when people break it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:11, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] was most likely just confused as to the rules (he may not have read all of the policies on Wikipedia). But the policies could not be more clear (save the three warnings policy which is D&D Wiki specific); they are found in the [[Meta Pages]] (''Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.'') under "''Policies''". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:46, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yes, they could be. The rules specifically prohibit "gross profanity". That's what they say about swearing. And I asked outright- what is Gross Profanity? You gave me an explanation that did not include swearing. This has left me INCREDIBLY confused. Is ANY swearing, even "damn" and such gross profanity? Is it gross profanity only past a certain point of words? Etc. Please clarify. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:50, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]<br />
::::::::::* Rudeness<br />
::::::::::* Insults and name-calling <br />
::::::::::Once again any swearing should fall under one of these options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not... really? I don't think every single use of a swear word, ever, is rude. Are we still counting words such as damn, shit, etc, as swear-words that are always rude, even when not directed at other people? If so, fine, I'll go along with it but I think it's silly. It reminds me of the WOTC boards where you couldn't talk about circumstance bonuses, or cocking a crossbow. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I don't see how swearing falls under either of those categories unless it's saying "you fucker" in relation to someone, or something similar. And I think a great deal of people here, myself included, will be ''extremely'' unhappy if swearing in general is banned. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You are right. Swearing is tolerated if it does not break any [[Meta Pages#Policies|policies]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So, for example, "This is a piece of shit" would be unacceptable, but "This class is fucking amazing" would be acceptable? If so, perfect. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion. Thank you so much for clearing this up. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 14:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I wish to thank you all for creating and maintaining this Wiki.<br />
<br />
It's beautifully styled, diligently edited and organized and has proven its usefulness many times already for me.<br />
<br />
[[User:Skypher|Skypher]] 08:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Massive Screw-ups ==<br />
<br />
So, okay... I think I am completely justified in saying that in my short time here, I have already made a bad impression. I would like to know... How can I interact here without doing so? 'Cause as you may or may not know, I made a flaw (which itself was extremely flawed), which, from what I can only tell was rightly judged as unbalanced, and I think I've already made a permanent scar on my reputation here, which generally reflects my experience everywhere on the Internet. So I'm wondering, how can I constructively and successfully contribute to D&Dwiki, perhaps enough that my noobishness will be compensated for?<br />
[[User:Jadebrain|Jadebrain]]11:27, 31 May 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I think the fact that you've contributed is amazing. Nothing negative. Everyone has different opinions on things placed on the wiki, all one can do is add theirs to the collective. You're a valued part of the wiki and we appreciate your articles. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:21, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I concur with Hooper, and would like to add that nobody is going to remember the bad flaw. Most first uploads are crap. Just the way it is. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:38, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Honestly, everybody was a noob once, but it's no big deal. It was hard for me when I first started out here. Surgo did point me toward the Frank and K stuff, which helped a lot (especially Tome of Necromancy, where I got the vampire-staking rules for my Vampire Hunter PrCs...). Also, at the risk of it being a shameless plug, Lord Dhazriel was a big source of inspiration, and there's a couple others who've posted some amazing entries. I for one would be more than happy to look at your work, if you'd look at mine. Quid pro quo, and all that. Stick around, and it'll get a lot better (I did.)! -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:24, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you want to contribute a class or a feat or whatever, think about what you've seen recently or what you want in your own game. Nothing gets motivation going for me like trying to bring something from another genre into DnD 3.5. Or trying to figure out how to model an ability. Look at my user page for some of the stuff I've done. Most of it was seeing or playing something and deciding to try to model it in DnD. So far, I've done Neji from Naruto, Yusuke Urameshi from Yu Yu Hakusho, and the Dragoon from Final Fantasy, especially Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I also wrote my own version of the Drunken Master. But when someone in one of my games wants to, say, run up walls and stand on the ceiling, or he wants a parkour-like ability...Well, then I've got to write something to help him out, and pride demands that it be worthwhile. So if I write anything I'm really proud of, and I can get up the motivation, I put it on the Wiki for review and for whoever wants it. Or for whoever wants to write the ability himself but could use a rough idea of how you manage a, for example, Shoryuken uppercut. Anyway, try some experiments and don't take it personally when people say it sucks. You'll get better, and they should be giving a rationale for their reasoning or advice for improvement. --[[User:Genowhirl|Genowhirl]] 21:14, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adult Content on the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
Hey, GoldDragon here. I was browsing user pages, when I came upon Angel Black's page and found a nude picture. I'm not terribly concerned by it, but there was no advisory warning, and I wondered if there should be. I was foolish enough to bring this up in the Tavern, which sparked a... vigorous debate. Anyway, I know there's a template for an adult content warning, but I didn't think it appropriate for a lowly peon such as me to edit someone else's user page. I have very young players who enjoy this site, but their parents would be upset at me if their children discovered such a page and weren't at least warned to shove off. my point is, should there be a content advisory warning on said user page? what is the line in the sand concerning when one is needed and when not? [[User:GoldDragon|Dragon]] 22:58, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Template:Adult Theme]] if you are interested. And it's usefulness should be discussed on [[Template Talk:Adult Theme]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:47, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vatireans ==<br />
<br />
Please help me recreate my race. To tell you guys the truth when my friend(absconder)told me that my race was over powered and would be erased i did not belive him, foolishly.im new at this so please give me some tips on makeing the Vatireans fit the criteria. P.S. i am contacting you green dragon because i dont no how to talk to sepsis. -true warrior<br />
<br />
:Thank you so much for being so helpful and not deleting my race.im am obviosly new at this.-true warrior<br />
<br />
::Could you guys make the changes yuo want and ill look at them tomarrow,(Vatireans).-true warrior<br />
::P.S. actullaly edit the Vatireans please.<br />
<br />
::Please write back and help.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::pleases write back. -true warrior<br />
<br />
::::please respond,great green dragon.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::::You can ask these same kind of questions and see the reasons as to why your race was nominated for deletion on it's talk page; [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:21, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== Arachonnomicon; the Book of Spiderkind ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I recently finished the [[Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook)|Arachonomicon]]. Could you look over it to see if it ready to be a featured article, please? Thanks in advance. <br><br />
--&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:16, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
I had ask this question two times, but I hadn't got an answer. How do I make templates? Some pages really need templates. --[[User:Chihuahua0|chihuahua0]] 15:51, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by templates? Adding them to a page or making a new one? If a new one just add it in the template namespace. If adding one to the page just copy and paste it from the preload. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gratzi, Sir.<br />
<br />
== Warmage ==<br />
<br />
Here ([[WarMage DnD Class)]]) is a user article under construction, which is a copy of the miniatures handbook's Warmage. I'm pretty sure he's breaking the rules here, so I'd be thankful if you'd check on it. P.S. I'm hoping "Buerocrat" is the right kind of person to come to with this, It's all greek to me. {{Unsigned|Connery55|18:03, 15 June 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Given that the editing for that page says "only from the book", I'm guessing that he is right. I've added the delete template (if I'm wrong, please remove it) under the premise that posting SRD material is a copyright violation. Good catch on that, but please sign your post next time. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|ThunderGod Cid]] 19:51, 15 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for setting up that page. I haven't been able to do much the since I set up some "Heroes" campaign stuff last week because I have been sick which restricts me from really doing anything that involves breathing, which is every thing but siting underwater. I'm working on setting up another Campaign setting but it has 4 four race types with a whole lot of different races. Hopefully I can get it up and running. [[User:Meepers|Meep]] 12:24, 16 June 2009 (MDT) P.S. Does (MDT) stand for mountain date time?<br />
<br />
:::7 seconds of [http://www.google.com google] informs us that MDT is Mountain Daylight Time. During the change of seasons, I think it changes to MST as well (which is Mountain Standard Time). Make sure you take this into account when setting your [[SRD:Water Clock|water clock]]. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== numbers ==<br />
<br />
I noticed in the recent changes area, that next to the links there are numbers in parenthacies, I was wondering what those numbers mean? (example: . m True Fiend (DnD Class); 22:57 . . (+56) )--[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:03, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:That's how many characters were either removed or added to the page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:13, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::ah, thanks! it was bugging me --[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== i have a question. ==<br />
<br />
When is worldwide D&D day this year?<br />
<br />
== Rating System ==<br />
<br />
In the tavern, we were discussing the class rating system. It seems to be the general consensus that, as is, it simply doesn't work. A numerical system with categories doesn't do much in the way of giving a general appraisal of a class -- flavor, a 100% subjective measure, is considered equally with such absolutes as wording and formatting. In addition, a very large number of the ratings are given no explanation, miscategorized, or just make no sense. This could all be fixed if it was changed to a three-level non-numerical rating system (as proposed by Dragon Child): Needs Work, Usable, and Excellent. The crap ratings could be filtered out by requiring admin approval of all ratings -- an MoI to User:Admin could alert us and it wouldn't be very time-consuming to give a yea or nay. In the case of multiple ratings, we take the mathematical mode, erring towards Usable in case of a tie. This simplification has the added benefits of being smaller on the page and being usable on more than just classes -- finally, feats and equipment and other things could be rated. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:04, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just noting my 100% agreement here. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 00:07, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Part of the idea was that this would also be a progression that would encourage users to participate with more feedback. You wouldn't be allowed to give a "Needs Work" rating without saying what it needed work ON - certain abilities being too strong/weak, wording needing improved, or just it needed better wikification. Once the class was improved, the rating could then be changed from Needs Work to Usable, or Excellent. This is also a much clearer system, IMO. What's a 4 compared to a 5? Not entirely clear. What's an Excellent? Something you REALLY like, and want to play right now or include in your game. What's a Usable? Something you'd let someone else play, see no problems with, or just have minor disagreements about. What's Needs Work? Something that's not quite yet ready to play. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wow. Sometimes simplicity is just beautiful. Here are the only things that I see possibly being an issue with a system like this:<br />
:::*Will people still know what aspects should be considered in a "good rating"?<br />
:::*How much justification do they need to give in their rating post?<br />
:::*What led you to the conclusion that 3 tiers are the right way to go?<br />
:::*Are you sure a mode is better than converting to a median number?<br />
:::*This is a problem with the current rating system as well, but when is a page considered changed enough to require ratings to be nullified?<br />
:::On a more minor note, "Needs Work" should be named "Needs Improvement". I'm looking forward to hear more about this idea. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 06:33, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::*We can easily make a page with guidelines on that. On that note, Dragon Child made a very good point in the Tavern that flavor, being totally subjective, should not be considered at all -- the F&K Fighter, for example, would be considered excellent by many, but is totally lacking in flavor (as is intended for the generic "fighter" class). In my opinion, all that should be considered are power, formatting, and clarity.<br />
::::*It shouldn't need much. As long as they do justify it, and the rational parts make sense (even if we disagree with the opinion parts, such as "it's stronger than a monk and monks are overpowered"), it should be fine.<br />
::::*More than that and it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference in value between them. The tiers boil down to "bad, good, great", which is really the categorization that ratings seek to define -- the whole point of a rating is to figure out which of those three something is.<br />
::::*It could be median. I don't really know which would work better, I just figured mode would be simpler to figure out.<br />
::::*If something that was mentioned in the justification is changed, the rating is nullified. For example, if someone said an ability called Smite Teletubby was too powerful, and then the mechanics of the ability are changed, the rating is negated until the rater verifies that they still feel that it's overpowered, or that their other points of justification still make them say it needs improvement.<br />
::::*Probably a better phrase, yeah. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 09:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How do you compromise different rating? Say five users rate a page and it gets Excellent, Usable, Usable, Needs Improvement, and Needs Improvement. What does that measure out to? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:57, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Under both the Mode (which I'd prefer using) and the Median, it would get Usable. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::We should set up a vote for this lasting 1 week. I'm pretty sure I already know what the community will respond with... Could someone more involved with this set up a more formal proposal? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:52, 30 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Formal proposal? Meh, no need for that. All we need right now is a yea or nay from GD on setting up a vote. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:02, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Do we really need GD to set up the vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:23, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. Just need someone who knows the templates and formatting system to change around the template for the new system, as well as the display pages. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:38, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I can do that. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles]] system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The idea was this new review system could be used for ''everything''. I find the categories linked to be more than a bit unsatisfying because they are only for bad articles, not good articles. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:57, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I am of the opinion a numerical (or word) based rating system (as explained above) detriments articles more then it helps compared to a system where the unuseable articles are reviewed and helped in a article-based manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So effectively, [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]], you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:35, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm not that much of a pessimist. To be honest you read what I said wrong. In my opinion articles should be considered unuseable when they are not useable and instead of just rating them to bring them to a useable statis templates should be added to them on a article by article basis to bring them up to a useable statis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:51, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::So everything would be considered usable then, and there would be nothing that's considered exceptional? Because that's what it looks like you're suggesting. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::''Edit conflict, but I'm keeping what I wrote... I'm somewhat echoing Surgo.''<br />
::::::I didn't mean to suggest you were a pessimist. I was just asking for a bit of clarification. I agree that we need to template articles with areas they need to improve (stub, needs balance, etc.). The issue I have with this approach is that we don't have a marker to say "this has been looked at and is good". We have markers to say "This needs improvement" and we can find all of the ones without those markers, but inevitably I foresee many articles falling through the cracks. They won't have the stub template added even when they are stubs.<br />
::::::Maybe part of it is that our admins here need some D&D wiki specific required reading about what they are supposed to do. I know there are a lot of folks here that regularly patrol recent comments. If we have a page describing what we should look out for, then patrolling RC will become much more productive I'm sure. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:09, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Arguably every reader of a homebrewed article should read it with an analytical mindset. Especially if one is going to implement it into their campaign they should. As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements. Specifically I do not see why we need to add another system for reviewing articles when we can instead just raise the unplayability bar. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:57, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::''"As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements"'' -- that's a horrible idea. Someone who thinks the monk is the pinnacle of balance should not ever be going around putting "this is unbalanced" templates on anything. Raising the unplayability bar still leaves a large gap between the minimum allowed and articles that should be considered exceptional. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 18:46, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Just dropping a question here, but, for singling out exceptional articles, don't you guys already have something for that? "Featured Articles"? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:59, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Which never seem to change and have strange requirements like "must have a picture". [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::So you are saying we need to make a playability bar. Correct with either another system implementation or with the current system applied to all cases and as the only reviewing system. It's related to [[Balance System]], however it would have to be done differently in any case (and should). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:35, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing what is currently used for classes (rating system) applied across other categories, such as spells and races, but I understand that this discussion's inception was in part due to dissatisfaction with the current system as it stands, or at the very least concerns over how such a thing would translate. The four core categories (power, wording, formatting, flavor), however, seem to be fairly universal in my mind. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:42, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::You must have missed the many arguments over what those categories are even supposed to mean...I have no idea what Green Dragon's latest message is supposed to mean, so I just want to reaffirm my support for the original idea that started this thread. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:06, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I always go back to that table whenever I rate a class, and I think it does an okay job at defining each area, except for the formatting bit (too lenient, IMO, high rating must be earned, not proxy by following the preload). I can understand where debates might crop up, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:34, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the [[Rating System]] and the [[Character Class Design Guidelines (DnD Guideline)|Character Class Design Guidelines]] combined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wouldn't a playability bar be something akin to a rating system? And as far as templates vs. ratings is concerned, I think that is a bit of a 'your mileage may vary' thing. I mean, low numbers may motivate one person, and a big fat stub/wikify template may motivate others. Either way, that still has the same issues that a rating system does. That is, some people may considered something balanced, and others may not. Does such an article deserve to carry the <nowiki>{{NeedsBalance}}</nowiki> template? I guess what I'm saying is that numbers (a rating system) offer a much cleaner compromise than a debate over whether an article is balanced. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:25, 10 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Something I think you aren't getting, Green_Dragon, is that another goal -- and the one I and the others who brought this up care about -- with ratings is to inform casual readers of the wiki what classes are good and usable and which are not. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem is, some people think classes are usable and others don't. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which is why the proposed rating system would use the mode of the given rates. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 20:44, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I can see this arguement going back and forth like this for easily another 2 weeks. People don't like the current rating system, the boss man doesn't think the system is needed, but the people think that a system is needed, and that one thought keeps poking it's head back into the discussion, "Some people think classes are usable and others don't." I will personally not read anything past this post since it has already given me a headache, but I'm adding my two cents all the same. Yes, flavor is a subjective part of an article, and that paticular part of the rating system feels a bit superflous when you think about it, though, it could serve a purpose. For example, if a classes fluff describes it as, say, "A mighty spellcaster who tears down the heavens with but a thought", and then, when you get to class features, it doesn't even get spells, then that may fall into a '''What?/5''' on the flavor rating, but of course, who is going to be that stupid? I personally think that getting rid of the system all together though, that may be a troublesome idea, considering that the rating system is convenient for the fact that it can show up on the 'list of classes' page, and give a person a warning before they let their computer load the page, just to see a box that says 'Need Balance, come back later' pop up on their screen. People are rather impatient, and, loading 5 pages that are utter junk in a row may turn them away from the site. As for the 'Mol an admin to get a rating approved' idea, I think that is a touch of brilliance that Michealanjilo (don't know if I spelled that correctly) would be envious of, and that it ought to be impletemented immediately, regardless of the decision reached here. As for the Mode/Median Dichotomy, I personally like the way that numbered ratings look, and the feeling you get when you see a '''20/20''' on one of your favorite classes, and can't say that I would feel the same should I get 3 Excellents, but that is simply personal perference. Wrapping up this post, my advice would be to keep the rating system, knock of the flavor part, and add the 'Mol me' switch, but otherwise, keep things the same. Well, I hand the floor to the next person to post, enjoy the discussion everybody. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::My problem with the rating system as it is is, that a class that's 5/5 power, but 2/5 formatting because someone wants there to be more flavor, an example character, an "in the world" section and epic rules (yes, despite the fact that they're useless, I've seen someone rate down someone else for not having EPIC RULES before) is completely and totally different than one that was rated 2/5 formatting and 5/5 power. One of them is likely MUCH more usable in a game, while another just needs some quick fixes. Yet they're rated exactly the same on the "Out of 20" scale, which is why I really don't like that scale. I'd rather just look at classes by power. In addition, if there are mods for rating allowances (which I agree with), IMO they should be seperate from the admins. Green likely has a lot on his plate, and if the rating allowance is just set to a small number of users/mods, that means there can be no inter-mod quarrels. I'd nominate someone like Jota, in addition to some of the current mods like Draco and Surgo, myself, as these should be checked often and may involve a bit of back and forth. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:02, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: It seems the big problem with ratings is the fact that everyone's balance point is completely different. We all know, and no offense to anyone, That someone who agrees with Frank and K's teachings is going to have a radically different view to someone who doesn't. So no matter what the new rating system is, it will still be based on a balance point that at least 50% of the wiki disagrees with. And honestly, it is unlikely the class will get a second rating unless someone is passionate enough, all it takes is one bad rating to completely mess up a classes chance to be read by newcomers in the future, i know i don't even look at most classes with a rating under 12. I had an idea recently however about a new approach to rating, and inlight of what seems to be an impending overhaul, i will place it here. I notice on some of the other wiki's i peruse, (Bulbapedia, wikipedia etc.) that they have "Projects", like Project: Music and Lyrics, where they try to put in all the lyrics for all the songs on the wiki. I think we should get a group of about five people, regular wiki dwellers, with good and varied ideas on balance, into a sort of committee, A Project: Quality, if you will, to go over classes and give their unified opinion on them. One good rating and one bad rating that remain stagnant and unchangeing on a page don't do much. but a unified and collective and well thought out rating is much more likely to be appreciated instead of an IP saying, "WOW, this is really OP, lulz." The commitee could regulate when pages change and when ratings can be nullified, and if there all really devoted, start looking over new classes and old ones and discussing as a group an overall rating for them, whatever the new rating system may be. Perhaps this commitee could add a nice commentary and review to select classes. A article cleanup crew would also be nice, but i know that i cant have Christmas in july.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 01:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a committee to rate classes. Much neater, cleaner, and conflict-less than just anyone being able to rate things. We need to be very careful who is on that committee, though; the more varied the views on balance are, the more likely there is to be conflict. Every single member of the committee would need to be very flexible, and needs to recognize that they are, objectively, no more correct in their views as anyone else on the committee. One way to potentially help avoid disagreements is to come up with general categories of views on balance, and have each ratable page be in a category indicating how the author intended to balance it. For example, off the top of my head, there's Same Game Test balance, balance against similar classes from the core, balance against the strongest classes of the core, balance against similar classes from the entire game, etc. That way, instead of rating on balance from a scattered set of viewpoints, we rate based on the target that the author was trying to hit. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 01:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I don't like the idea of a committee, that narrows the views of the rankings. If the committee is primarily balancing to CR = ECL then they would rate down classes that are attempting for SRD power (and vice versa). A similar problem is when you are saying play testing, if a person uses a class effectively then it can be powerful but if they don't have an opportunity to or don't understand the benefits that the class has or just doesn't play a member of that class effectively then it may be considered much weaker. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe ranking classes for flavor, formatting and wording, but have a different rating system for power. CR = ECL would be one of the options, having a power ranking for that. Or it can be SRD power ranking. I think that flavor should be focused on more though. Have flavor out of 10, formatting out of 5, wording out of 5 and CR = ECL or SRD power ranking percentages, with under 100 being lower powered, 100 being exact and over 100 being high powered. Alternatively it could be a bar with low power at the bottom, SRD standard near the middle, CR = ECL near the end and higher powered at the end. (using lower and higher, not under and over. This is due to the fact that it seems friendlier.) That alternate bar could be out of 100, with the titles at 0, 33, 66 and 100. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:48, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Part of what started this whole discussion is how none of us liked having separate ratings for flavor, formatting, and wording. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 09:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am in favor of either a word-based rating system or a committee or both (somehow). I don't think anything more complex is needed, nor would it be helpful. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:18, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I agree strongly with the idea that classes should have a disclaimer with the power level they were going for. Otherwise, a class going for SRD power would be poorly rated by a user who basis his balance views of ECL=CR, and that isnt fair for someone whose view on balance is different. We could sort each of the balance points (SRD, ECL=CR, Overpowered, Strong SRD, what have you...) Into different categories, so people coming to this site with a specific idea of power can find there niche right away. Perhaps there could be a description on each of the category pages as well. I am still completely up for the idea of a committee, a committee that can be well versed in all these balance points (which i know there are a few of them in the tavern) and willing to review classes at their balance point.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 10:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that flavor is the most important part of the class, it should have its own rating. Formatting and wording can get stuck together, they are only for clarification anyway. I think that having a disclaimer for which power level is good and the word-based rating system can work with the committee, they just have to write a review on an article basically. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:17, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Rating systems, disclaimers for varying levels of power... It all sounds quite exciting, but what would measuring by multiple yardsticks do, besides confuse the hell out of everyone involved? People are liable to not even know what of these power categories their class is going to end up in. Not everybody is apt at discerning balance, which is exactly why some sort of rating system has been introduced in the first place, I think. While I don't have problems with it existing, the types of pages that actually get ratings is so limited and small (i.e., only classes and prestige classes) that it says little about the wiki's general quality standard. Everything else, from spells to equipment to creatures and other random miscellanea is pretty much ignored. There, but not so as you'd notice unless you're willing to wade through hundred miles of swampland with a pig on a leash to find the odd truffle or two. <br />
<br />
::::What I'm proposing is that a sort of 'Editor's Choice' template be made in which any of the admins/sysops can tag the pages they like. Most admins of this wiki are veterans in D&D, and know what they're on about. It's a real simple concept really. If you navigate to a page and see a little frame at the top that states one of the admins like it, it's likely the people'll be willing to look further into it. It would be a simple matter to separate the Bayeux Tapestries from the sea of toilet paper that is the wiki if people were at least given an indication to which articles might be up to snuff. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 21:19, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As I asked before, isn't that what "featured articles" is for? Yes, I know it hardly changes, but I also know there was a discussion somewhere about fixing that. Swap the featured articles more often, add more to the candidates, and doesn't that fit your criteria of "editor's choice"? The only thing I'm asking is, why make something new when you can use what you've got? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well, there's still this nonsense baggage like how a featured article "must have an image" (even if it's something like a transmutation spell that hardly needs one). Perhaps if those requirements were deleted. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Why make somethign new when you can use what you've got?" What we "got" Doesn't seem to be working.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 22:49, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A page doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles of what constitutes a featured article in order to obtain approval. If the contents of the article are useful, usable, readable and well construed, there should be a way for people to tell. It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. A simple little thumbnail of, I dunno, a silver chalice or something, with the caption 'this article is Good' next to it should suffice. On the whole, writing featured articles is like writing the legislation. You have to suffer through countless articles and subparagraphs that you'd never deal with were it ever used in a campaign. As a result, pages like [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|this]] read as though you're drowning in wallpaper paste. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::If theoretically the rating system was removed I agree that the main issue would be that one would not be able to quickly pull a judgement of a certain class from [[DnD Base Classes]] page. Personally I think one of the main reasons the classes area is such a mess is since a rating system was implemented. I am under the impression people do not challenge themselves when adding an article if the goal in mind is to make it adhere to a rating system. And, for that reason, I think the entire class section is such a mess. If (on the preload) we changed the reviewing templates to the D&D-Wiki wide ones and added them to the top (not the bottom) and removed the rating system I think people would submit better classes and this entire prolem would be fixed. Also, that is what FA are for, and I agree that [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is not FA quality. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:32, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a editor's choice thing. It can show good and mostly complete articles, not only the best of the best (which the FA show). This would incorporate flavor and power, with the main formatting to be handled by other templates. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:59, 13 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think I was misunderstood. What I mean about using the featured articles for editor's choice was that we -change- the featured articles criteria to reflect what is being discussed here. That was my suggestion. Now, if no one thinks that idea is a good one, fine. I'm just clarifying. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|17:11, 16 July 2009}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think that Featured Articles should be the best of the best. We can also have recommended articles and use able articles, with the recommended being better in flavor, wording and layout while the use able ones are still usable but not as high quality. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 06:46, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Here's an Official Proposal.<br />
:::::::::::::A committe is formed known as the Ratings Committee, or RC for short. The RC is composed of 9 members, each of varied preferences and opinions, to form it. The RC members must each contribute to the RC once every month, or be replaced. The RC members gain the powers as follows<br />
:::::::::::::*An RC member is able to select an article he feels is particularly good and exemplifies what the wiki should be. He may Favor the article.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with one Favor gains a Bronze Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 3 Favors is upgraded to a Silver Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 6 Favors gains a Gold Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*If eight RC members all Favor an article, it becomes a Featured Article (in addition to the Gold Star), and is given (unit of time - 1 week? 2 weeks?) on the front page. This may lead to a Featured Article queue. That's fine - it's better than a lack of one. All Featured Articles will get their fair share.<br />
:::::::::::::*If an article as two or less Favors, and at least six other Ratings Committee members believe that the article does not deserve a Bronze Star, they may do so. This, hopefully, will be EXTREMELY rare - I can't see it really happening ever if the committee is chosen wisely.<br />
For the initial Ratings Committee, I proposal the following members -- Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, and Genowhirl. That is eight members. I would not normally nominate myself, however, at Aarnott's insistance, I will do so, on the basis that you shouldn't push a job on others you're not willing to do yourself. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:03, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I like this idea a lot, except for one thing -- I don't think it should tie into the featured article system at all. "Editor's choice" articles by themselves are a fine system. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:08, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Just noting my agreement with this idea. Having 9 experienced members take a look at articles like this will allow them to improve with useful constructive criticism. Regular users can still use the wiki normally and articles can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think this is an excellent compromise to all of the ideas presented so far. I think we should try it out for a month or two and see how it goes. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:14, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And best of all, we can remove that horrible rating system too! I know everyone wanted to do that. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:15, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I agree to this proposal and think it is a fine system to add to the wiki.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 12:36, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I support the proposal, and am happy to accept my role in it. I'd also like to suggest creation of a User:Ratings_Committee, so that it can be MoI'd to bring an article or discussion to the entire committee's attention, similar to User:Admin. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 12:47, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not opposed to the idea, although I'm not as opposed to the current rating as others seem to be. I guess it would be nice to be able to say good things about races, spells, and things other than classes. I'll wait for an official proposal page to spring up before evaluating the idea in further detail. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:53, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I support the proposal. As the wiki is a mutable project, a trial run to test it out would be pleasing. I would like to note that I would prefer to keep the old FA nomination system in addition to this new Ratings Committee system. The old FA nomination system will still allow any user or IP to voice their opinion. So, who wants to build the Templates for the Stars and other required materials and pages? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:20, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::The idea was that while anyone could voice their opinions, nominate articles, and pressure/goad the Committee, but only they had the final say. That way, yes, IPs get their say, but we're also not pretending like the "This is overpowered because I don't understand the rules" stuff matters. If it has to be someone's call if something is a FA or not, while not leave it up to the same people who are going to be rating things anyway? We can fix two birds with one stone, and get the FAs moving and rotating again, a discussion people seemed to have basically abadoned. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 18:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yeah, after a bit more thought on it, drop the old FA nominating system. With the User:Ratings_Committee, getting ahold of the RC will be easy and quick while allowing anyone to voice their opinion on an article. Would a Category work well for Ratings Requests, or would then anyone just plop in the category and clog it up? Doing it by starting a discussion on the User:Ratings_Committee would probably work best, as it would require actual communication, hopefully minimizing problems. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:36, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay, so if this gets implemented how is a RC group which looks over recent contributions and gives them favors better then a RC group who adds templates to articles on a article-by-article basis to show that articles mistakes? Or how were you guys planning on implementing the current reviewing system and this RC group to look over recent contributions together? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Because not everything that's "not good" has mistakes. Yes, the group - and EVERYONE for that matter - should still apply the articles to bad template. However, we should still be able to reward and exemplify especially good articles. It also helps people who are looking for material to use to see the best articles set aside. I would basically suggest a talk page, where anyone can post stuff for the RC to see, and would be removed after they looked it over. It wouldn't need EVERY RC member to look over EVERY article, they only have to rate the ones they want to. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: I support Dragon Child's stuff. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 20:27, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::: After speaking with Surgo, who's opinion I greatly respect, I'd like to change the people whom I nominated for the RC role. I had originalyl nominated Genowhirl, who while is plenty fair and clever, doesn't post to other parts of the wiki nearly as much as I had anticipated. Instead, I'd like to replace his nomination with that of Sam Kay's, who is far more active, and in addition, knows 4e quite well. I feel that this better rounds out the knowledges and opinions of the RC, and makes it quite a diverse group. In addition, I feel a new rule needs to be added - an RC is not allowed to Favor his own articles. Instead, there will be one user (prehaps someone who's in-line to become RC, or just Green Dragon) who is allowed to Favor articles written by RCs, and only those articles, in the author's stead. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:19, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::: How does this solve the problem of classes at different power levels? Are we going to have a template for that? or make it part of the author template? --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:09, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::If the author feels that his class is being passed up due to its power level, then he needs to explain it in the talk page, and give reasons on why he think that power level is valid. There is no set categories we can fairly make, it should be up for each author to defend the power level on their own. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 16:30, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I think the idea for templates for power level was a good one, such as a template for things balanced to SRD, and things balanced to F&K etc. I think that i would be ok with the idea of the author justifying his balance if i know that the RC would be open to there balance description, my one worry would be people rating with preconceived notions of power that differ from a standard view of power. But you did pick a very versatile group, so i suppose that would rarely happen. Im just voiceing all my concerns, because i feel all concerns should be addressed before something like this is implemented. I still love the idea. [[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 17:34, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Balance to SRD doesn't work. What are you balancing AGAINST? The monsters? Rogue? Druid? Monk? Wizard? fighter? Those are all different balance points. Thus, the category "balanced against SRD" isn't useful. F&K balance against SRD too, you know. They balance against the monsters, wizard, and druid. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:52, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If the author makes their target of balance clear enough, the RC should absolutely judge against that target, rather than their own preferred target. Of course, if no adequately described target is given, that leaves the RC free to judge as they please. Perhaps we should add something to the preloads or author template to describe target of balance. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:08, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have done [[User:TK-Squared/Lavabox/Stars|this]] for you. It is my proposal for the new Author box. It works easily, like this! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:10, 23 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD, no offense, but I'm REALLY REALLY against what you did on the Gravity Warrior page. That stuff NEEDS to go into the discussion. First, it makes it look like one of the better classes on the wiki has major problems, which it doesn't. Second, you put some stuff in the balance box that I and I bet Rith flat-out disagree with, and it's not something that you can be proven right about. That's basically holding the page hostage - "Change this to MY opinion, or you get an ugly tag telling everyone its unbalanced". If it had major problems or was obviously bad, sure, that's one thing. But this doesn't! You don't even explain WHY it's unbalanced, just pointing to the talk page, where the person who "reviewed" it and said it was unbalanced wasn't even using the class as written, but instead used sweeping changes that everyone said were the problem. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I am debating if it is a better idea to add the things I wrote onto the talk page and (on those templates) just put "see talk" or somesuch. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm all for throwing the balance template on badly written classes. But Gravity Warrior isn't badly written. It really, really needs to go onto the talk page, saying why you think it's unbalanced. The only major argument saying it was was not intellectually honest and thoroughly disproven, so it's a bit useless to just say "see talk page", too, and why it's unbalanced needs to be fleshed out on the talk page more (it isn't, IMO). [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:56, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't think any one user should be able to just slap a bunch of huge, ugly templates on a page. I was under the impression that everyone agreed with the RC idea, in one form or another. And then you went and did that, which I don't think anyone supported as a form of page review. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:58, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Wow, a lot has happened since my last visit to this discussion. First of all, I think the idea of an RC is exactly what we need, it's clean, it's concise, and it weeds out most of the idiocy that plagues the better pages on this wiki, all in one fell swoop too. As for the template issues. I personally don't see their purpose, seeing as they should only be put on one of two types of pages. Ones that are flawed, but their creators will not be around often enough to fix them, in which case the delete template is the same thing, only with a goal, considering that the 'Needs Balance' category is meant to store pages that need balancing, and wait for someone to come along and actually do that job (which, I can gauruntee you, will only happen to one out a thousand classes that will get plopped into that category), whereas, the 'Candidates For Deletion' category is there to '''GET RID OF''' these articles and free up the namespaces so that better page can be made in there stead (The real difference is that the Delete template removes unsavory items from the wiki, whereas the Needs Balance template lets them stew). Or, one the other hand, the Needs Balance template could be applied to a page that is simply ridiculously bad, in which case, the Delete template is still better. From my point of view, these new templates are simply baby-proofed versions of the Delete template. Also, please note that the context you attempted to use the templates did not make sense, you could have very easily have posted your concerns on the classes talk page and gotten the same result. As for the actual balance of said class, I shall leave that to the other talk page. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:52, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay. But what about changing all the pages (once the dpl has been improved upon (so one can pipe categories in a |category= paramater using "What Links Here" or who knows what)) to something like [[4e User Races]] where one sees which races need to be improved upon, it's a bit of a ranking level (to get ones article into the top category), and from their it's a bit of another ranking another level (to get it to FA status). Although it would be nice if one could better define columns or better define |mode=category in the dpl2 as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:18, 31 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Complaint ==<br />
<br />
ha dude dnt want to sound like im complaining your something but peoples homebrewing is kinda slack on this site i wanted to look at the complete classes and got excited but no one finishes any thing the races are exelent just a little change and we can fix them up but the classes deffently need some work because their exelent pertensail for dnd hope u can get the word out to fix things up because this site is exlent for ideas and its not all their sorry if its not my place to tell you<br />
<br />
:Well, what you've got to remember about creating an entire class is that it takes a LOT of time: you have to make sure everything works, that it is not totally broken, you have to find and link parts such as [[ranger]] or [[Knowledge]], and you have to come up with background information to support some of the parts of the class. I know from experience that making a class takes a few hours at the least. Heck when I made [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)|The Ethereal Hunter]], I was so exhausted at the end that I didn't even include a sample NPC (need to get around to that). If this came across as an angered defensive position on the matter, I didn't mean it to be. If you are a user, please sign your comments by putting four ~ marks at the end like so. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:29, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating, please? ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a prestige class and got some feedback on it, did some edits, and I'm still not sure if it will fly. Could you rate it and tell me what I should change? It would be awesome if you could..<br />
<br />
[[Ascendant Knight (DnD Prestige Class)]]<br />
<br />
Thank you!<br />
<br />
:Your wish is command (although just this once). -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:36, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hands of a wiseman? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a homebrewed feat or is it somewhere in another book somewhere? I am currently playing a D&D 3.5 game and I would really like to use this feat for my healer, but my GM won't let me use it unless it is somewhere "authenticate".<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time and have a great day! {{unsigned|Copper Gryphon}}<br />
<br />
:[[Hands of a Wiseman (3.5e Feat)]] is homebrew material, meaning it was made by independent author(s), at home most likely. Homebrewing is common. You should speak to your GM about allowing such material after his reviewal and approval of course for each article. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:12, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There only explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved involves a murderous psycho who threatened you with death unless you banned us, and I think we can immediately rule that out. Therefore, you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=403859User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-14T04:28:09Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Make Love, Not War */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== A Thousand Apologies ==<br />
<br />
I've never "edited" a Wiki page before. I thought everything was being sent to you as a suggestion, and after I submitted my suggestions, I noticed the actual page changed. I want to apologize personally. I may have the original chirurgeon saved to my computer when my players first found and downloaded it, and I can fix everything as soon as I locate it. Again, I apologize profusely, and I suppose I've learned my lesson. I won't be clicking "edit" any more, since it actually changes the page instead of makes suggestions.<br />
<br />
That said, is there a way to send suggestions to users about an entry in Wiki? {{Unsigned|76.187.167.233|14:49, 5 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:That's what the talk page is for -- click on the tab that says "Discussion" instead of the one that says edit. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:50, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Also, we can revert any changes to a page because wikis store the entire history of the page (each edit). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:22, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hello, thank you and questions! ==<br />
<br />
Hi there,<br />
Many thanks for your welcome and good wishes. whilst I may not be a total dead loss between the ears I am still learning slowly how to set out my formats and pages and wanted to ask you about a few things please...<br />
# How can I delete a page once it is made? There is a page referencing "Tekman", the forerunner of my deity Teknos, which I need to have removed please.<br />
# Can you please send me [if you have time] any constructive criticism about the pages I have completed thus far - ARE they complete? Do I need to do much more to them or are they functional for the time being? How could they be improved? And so on<br />
# Am I out of order for adding materials in this way? Have I broken some form of etiquette of which I am otherwise unaware? Please let me know - for example, is it OK top be asking you so many questions?<br />
Thanks for your time. [[User:Rorschach Moondark|Rorschach Moondark]] 09:29, 8 May 2009 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:Learning wiki-syntax should not be too difficult, and once one gets proficient things start looking better and things start fitting better to our preload standards. But anyways...<br />
:# To delete a page please refer to [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]].<br />
:# Sorry... I really do not have the time to take a look at the content you have submitted right now. If you want some critique you may want to ask on the talk page for people's opinions.<br />
:# And I am not sure how you have been adding material, but if you are following the preload and the naming conventions rules it should be alright.<br />
:Hope this helps a bit. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Racial Champion ==<br />
<br />
where is this feat. books, site, i cant find it anywhere. what does it do? {{Unsigned|Masterkycoo|01:48, 9 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure off the top of my head and I do not want to spend the time to look, sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:27, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Chat ==<br />
<br />
Hi I'm not completley new but I've really been enjoying dand wiki. but i thought of an idea for your site, maybe you could set up a chat other then the tavern specifically for dnd campaigns and maybe you could have a few people start some campaigns for 3.5 or 4e or both its just an idea so i wont be offended if nothing happens but please think about it as i think it would be very interesting. [[User:Apfa10|Apfa10]] 23:55, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You would have to ask [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to be certain however if one can create a sub-group chat then it should work. Comparable to how one creates a personal non-logged chat with another member. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Membership ==<br />
<br />
Can you remove myself and all my contributions off this wiki ASAP? I've had it with the regulars... -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 19:48, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Please sign your posts! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:29, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Never mind. I'll stay, but I'll just have to keep my temper in check. I've been having a bad couple weeks, and I apologize. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 20:12, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry if you feel like you're picked on, or you can't handle some of the stuff being said in irc. If you feel like you are being attacked the best course of action is non-action! Hope you feel better and continue to post on the wiki! -- [[User:Sleaker|Sleaker]] 21:06, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would recommend that you just don't log into the tavern. It can have negative effects sometimes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:25, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Storm Elf5's come back? ==<br />
<br />
Hey green dragon! Its been a while since I last visited, I had some computer issues. Anyway, I was wondering, what happened to my homebrew deity with the name of Grininthar or something like that. BTW, the site is great. [[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 16:56, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You have to remember the name correctly. <s>Gririnthar (DnD Deity)</s>. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:21, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Or now that you moved the page; [[Grininthar (DnD Deity)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3.5e Magical Armors ==<br />
<br />
Hey, not really familiar with the whole wiki/HTML things, but I tried to fix it up a little bit to match the armors. I apologize if it's not correct. If it is fine just a quick 'you're good' would be great and I'll finish editing all the ones that I can. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:01, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, [[3.5e Magical Armors]] is formatted correctly, if that is what you are wondering. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:25, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Oop, I actually meant to say the [[3.5e Magical Weapons|magical weapons]], which was incorrect as per your statement, and the one which I was trying to fix; my apologies for the miscommunication. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:20, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I have balanced Storm Elves ==<br />
<br />
Hey Green Dragon!<br />
<br />
I have done some work balancing my 4e race, [[Storm Elves (4e Race)|Storm Elves]] and I was wondering you or another admin could remove the ''Needs Balance'' template if you think it dosen't need any more balancing. There is also another template at the top of the page (''Stub'' I think) and I wanted to know how to begin to remove it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 05:59, 13 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Newbie Having A Small Problem ==<br />
<br />
Hello Green Dragon, I'm new to D&D Wiki and I have a small question that needs a little explaining. I wanted to submit a new Base Class to get feedback on it, so I followed the procedure your site had set up to make classes. I was about halfway done with fully creating the class when I saved the page and went to sleep. Unfortunately, when I wanted to continue from where I left off, I couldn't find the saved page. Where would I be able to find the page so that I can continue from where I left off? The Base Class was supposed to be made for 3.5e Homebrew and was entitled "The Ethereal Hunter". Really appreciate the help because I spent a good deal of time trying to learn and understand how to make a class here. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 06:49, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Not Green Dragon, but are you sure you saved the class? No "Ethereal Hunter" comes up via search function and [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Narrssuras+Stalking+Leopard&namespace=&year=&month=-1 your edit history] shows nothing by that name either. If you did it while you weren't logged in that could explain why it doesn't appear on your user contributions, but other than that I think perhaps something malfunctioned when you went to save the page. Hope that helps a little, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 09:22, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Within the last 30 days there hasn't been an 'Ethereal Hunter' saved by anyone. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 09:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the response anyway. Luckily, I learned that if you are going to fill something out that can span over several page, it is good to make a copy, so I did. Almost done with the Ethereal Hunter now. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:28, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, I've got everything done with my new class and everything is up for it. The only problems I'm having now are actually understanding what I'm doing wrong for my class to adhere to the rules. Some assistance would be helpful, here is the class [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)]]. Thanks in advance, [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 19:20, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Refer to the class' talk page for this discussion. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 19:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Will do, and thanks. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 03:26, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Axefighter ==<br />
<br />
I created a class in the beginning of August of 2008. I recently checked on it and it has disappeared. Its disappeared off of the classes page and off my contributions page. I would just like to know what happened and if it is possible to bring it back to the class list. Because I never wrote the class down anywhere else I don't know how to make an Axefighter.<br />
--[[User:Mightycolin|Mightycolin]] 05:40, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:It got deleted I believe. Not trying to be rude, however poorly made classes get deleted. If you would like it reverted you can ask on [[Talk:Axefighter (DnD Class)]]. [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mightycolin]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:41, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Had a similar problem before as well...to all those that read this here's some valuable advice for you...Back up your files or edits, even if it is temporary, just copy and paste the entire edit into a Word or Notepad document before saving the page. It will prevent any frustration with regards to loosing material (Trust me, I would have had to completely rewrite a class I made on this site if I hadn't backed it up in a word document.) Fellow Aspiring Creator [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 08:58, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== help ==<br />
<br />
i posted a race and it is not showing up {{unsigned|Ewokdruid}}<br />
<br />
:The problem was with the footer. I have since fixed it and it should show up now in the LA Variable listings. Also, perhaps you should check out the [[DnD Race Editing Instructions]] (it explains why your race didn't show up). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 10:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Abbreviations ==<br />
<br />
[[List of Book Abbreviations (DnD Other)]]. Back on May 19th you made some revisions to my List of Abbreviations. You also left a comment, 'why only WOTC?'. I dont know where to find the proper abbreviations for non-WOTC, but ifyou know of places, I will add to the list. TY --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 22:42, 26 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If they do not really exist then nevermind. Also, you want to consider adding the abbreviation to the book entry within the [[Publication List]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Class: Palibar ==<br />
<br />
Hello i was wondering how do power points/day work? {{Unsigned|Alf|21:54, 27 May 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I cannot find that class however for the [[SRD:Psychic Warrior#Power Points/Day]] it's like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:19, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Map Builder ==<br />
<br />
Hey thanks for the welcome. I don't think I need help on wiki formatting (I'm quite regularly doing some background cleanup on wikipedia, not to mention a software engineer), but thanks for the link anyway.<br />
<br />
I did have a question, though, do you know a good way to make a world map using only free tools (small budget ><)? [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 02:11, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You can use GIMP, it has a random map generator and with some basic editing you can end up with things like [this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Image:FFRegionsMap.png]. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:36, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I want more control than Random, sorry. [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 05:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A good link to a map builder should be found [[DnD Links|here]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nature Bound Class ==<br />
<br />
Why did you set my class for deletion? It has only been on site for 2 days, whereas ive seen pages with only a template and no info typed in sit on site for months without a delete template. Don't get me wrong, I love the wiki, but that is just wrong.--[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 15:32, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I did not see those classes. If you have some spare time it would be quite appreciated if you add the appropriate templates to them. Classes should be added at least mostly finished (finished on a word processing program with the preload cut and pasted into it for example). Sorry if this sounds frank, but this issue has been brought up before and I just want to clear up why it is okay to add templates to newly added material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:49, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== why? ==<br />
<br />
i(true warrior)have a question. why are you going to delete my race? please write back.<br />
<br />
<br />
-true warrior<br />
<br />
:Refer to the [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)|races talk page]]. Ask there what you can do to fix it. And please sign your posts using --~~ ~~ (without spaces). --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:25, 29 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== PLEEEEEEEEEASE!!! ===<br />
<br />
DONT ERASE RACE! THER IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!<br />
<br />
=== why ===<br />
<br />
why are you going to erase my race? what did i ever do to you?<br />
<br />
How do you make class features?-asked by arshan272<br />
<br />
== Harassment ==<br />
<br />
After trtying to have a level headed discussion with [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], about balance in 4e, he bacame rude and rather aggressive. His attitude and use of foul language has really put me off. I understand he may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material written concerning 4e design, but even after pointing him to the source he refuses to at least agree to disagree. Again given the volume of information, if you haven't been reading since day one it may be overwhelming. But if he dosen't have time to read it, doesn't mean he needs to vile. I will return to the wiki next week.But I must say if he remains I will not. I refuse to be spoken to like that. Thank you for your time. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 07:44, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There ''is'' a /ignore command in the Tavern if for some reason you can't get along or see eye-to-eye with another user. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:40, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Sepsis, if Dragon Child is being like that, don't bother with him. Some people just don't have good manners. I generally stay out of the Tavern as it is... But you can talk to me about it anytime. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This is totally unfair. Look at what I actually said. The crux of what I said was "If you want something to be called unbalanced because it can't be used in YOUR personal games, that's bullshit". Do you honestly think you can go around slapping an "unbalanced" tag on everything in the wiki that you don't like and have it be OK? The problem wasn't you "not pointing out the source". Indeed, you claimed Mike Mearls or whoever said something... and then provided no link, no cite. I was supposed to go find it myself. I don't even know if it actually exists. That's as good as not pointing anything out. And at no point did I actually disagree with you. I actually stated, large size in 4e may very well be overpowered. I didn't say otherwise, and even said as much. There's no agreeing to disagree when I don't actually disagree. All I was saying is, you really needed a stronger argument then "A designer, somewhere, said you shouldn't do that". That may be wrong, you may be mistaken, the designer himself may have had faulty logic. In short, it's not that I "didn't have the time" to read it, it's that I was never shown where it was, or given any reason to believe it actually exists. You didn't have the time to back up your arguments. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:08, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::No this has nothing to do with our discussion. This is all about your language and attitude. You are not on an "adult-only" site, and have no right to start swearing and arguing because the mood strikes you. I don't need that garbage on my screen with my kids around you are rude and immature and that is that, any arguments you could have made to support yourself is done, once I reached the "F-word" in your comment I stopped reading (in fact this will be the last time I even look at anything you say). Nothing you say will ever carry any wieght with me. If you have to resort to that, then you are too stupid to listen to. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:16, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: I would like to make a counter-point. Sepsis has constantly been closed-minded and disruptive towards Dragon Child at all points. His so-called "swearing" (an idea that I, myself, find absolutely preposterous. They're words, not knives) does nothing to hinder the fact he was simple stating some quite well thought out arguments against Sepsis' so-called "everything is broken that doesn't go with the design" philosophy (so called by me). Throughout the discussion on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]], Sepsis was uncooperative and he threw the insults; not Dragon Child. Dragon just said a word or two that are commonly overreacted against; so he suddenly became "ignorant", "rude" and a "moron". Frankly, I think Sepsis is harassing Dragon child; as to say he has broken the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia Civility Policy] (Personal attacks and aggressive behaviour). --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:30, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with TK. I'm not a fan of avoiding words arbitrarily assigned to be "vulgar" in public, and I certainly don't want to in a conversation between adults. If a child or guardian thereof doesn't want to see curse words, it is that person's responsibility to avoid them. The only time when it makes sense for the one swearing to avoid the one offended is when the offended cannot avoid the swearer; since Sepsis can easily keep his kids away from those conversations, it is (and no insensitivity meant here) not at all anyone else's problem. Two minutes of searching found me [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351 this firefox add-on], which allows one to censor browsing when one's children use the computer. I'm sure there are many other such free utilities. I'm sure you can even find something that censors specific words rather than whole pages, if you want to go that mild. Point is, "fucking" was used for emphasis; that's not an insult or attack that could be taken as belligerent. "Bullshit" was used to mean "something that makes no sense"; it's more concise and means the exact same thing. There's no need for Dragon_Child to be punished or even given a warning. He did nothing wrong. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Just want to make a point on my way out. It is a complete shame that someone can begin by using "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" but not be considered in violation but my non-profane and justifiably angry response is considered harassment. Read the conversation, he started the yelling, and when I wouldn't do as he asked he begins swearing. Obviously this is not the place for me, consider the case closed, as I will depart to more civil pastures. Good day. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I did apologize for my comments as I realized they were inappropriate and misplaced. But now I see all that matters is who you actually suck up to. Then the rules of conduct mean nothing...go and get a program to filter non-adult sites (sheesh), how about we stick to the rules and take quick action against such sick behavior. But hey its your world, do as you will. A bid all a fine farewell. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 06:23, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I wasn't even a part of all of this and I can't help but think you're being completely ridiculous. Swearing is suddenly adult now? I suppose you haven't been on an elementary school playground for decades. Nevermind that elementary school children shouldn't even be accessing this site, as it's hosted in the United States and is subject to COPPA. I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I refuse to censor myself just because someone under the age of 13 ''might'' see my words. I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either. And if that person ''does'' care, they can use a Firefox add-on to filter it out. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:27, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I sorry, but, I must simply add my own two cents to this discussion. Sepsis, you claim that you are leaving the website to protect your children, while you are the one that is acting like a child. A person upset you, so you're going to run away? Honestly, this may seem a little cruel, but I can say that I hope you do leave, since, if you can't be mature and look past the pieces you don't like, you don't deserve to even be an admin. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 10:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow im surprised how rediculous everyone else is being, I mean come on just cause kids are swearing does not make it appropriate, if you swear even if it is not meant as an insult or direct attack, people can still take offense, the people refusing to clean up theiur language are the childish ones here, not everyone likes or can stand reading swearing, and as a general curtosey you should keep your language as clean as possible, or is that not how it works nowadays? Just because yobbish kids and those a lesser abbility to communicate other then through cosntant swearing do it, does not mean that it is acceptable for a community based site. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey, guess what. I'm NOT "refusing to clean up my language". Rith asked me, personally, to be nicer and swear less. I agreed. That's not "refusing", by any sense of the word. Nor do I have a "lesser ability to communicate", indeed, I was able to make clear all of my points in the discussion, while other people refused to back up even the smallest claims, and got angry and abusive because, god forbid, someone asked them for a cite. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:17, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Ok, I donn't want to drag balance and what not into this conversation thats for the talk apge of the article. When did I target the refusal at you Dragon Child? If you can communicate so well then why swear? Could have avoided this entire stupid situation. What other people refused to back up these claims? Do you mean Sepsis? Didn't he mention the Design & Devlopment articles? The point is Dragon Child, that being rude is unhelpful to a discussion as is swearing and yelling [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I apologize. I wrongly assumed the refusal was aimed at me. As for why... let me apologize ahead of time for this post, as I'll need to swear to be even slightly comprehensible here. Is there any word in the English language that conveys the same meaning and emotion as "bullshit" ? The fuck, sure, I should have left that out. But "Bullshit" - that word doesn't really have any true synonyms. Sepsis refused to back up his claims, yes. You can't make a cite of "It's somewhere there". If you can't provide a link, it may as well not exist. To call me an overwhelmed moron to go finding HIS cite for HIM was being rude and unhelpful. I, at the very least, expect people to have the same sort of intellectual integrity and honesty as you'd use to write a highschool paper or in a highschool debate team. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the place where it was cited about the large size would be particualrly hard to find seeing as it was either in one of Mike Mearls Blog Posts or on the forum where mike mearl posted. Though I have read it I know I have. And yes to ask you to go find his cite is rude and unhelpful but that just falls into the region of pot meet kettle, two wrongs dont make a write blah blah. Hes left now. It's over. Let's go back to balancing that giant race :D [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:35, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::None of this discussion even matters at this point, considering that, once people have set their mind into a way of thinking, it'll take a massive effort to sway them (that happens to be a basic fact of psychology). Both sides of this arguement have already set their mind 'in stone', if you will, and the other side will not change them. The only part of this discussion that even matters now, is that Sepsis is leaving the wiki over something as simply as what words were used. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Sepsis leaving is a tad silly. But what can we do? Nothing thats what.[[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:53, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What we can do is clear up this policy. I've made clear that I, personally, feel that it's the responsibility of the offended to avoid those more relaxed about it, not the other way around. After all, what if someone suddenly took offense to the inclusion of demons in the wiki? Since it's something which is part of our little subculture and not meant to offend, we'd tell them very kindly to freak off (and notice how ridiculous substitute words are).<br />
::::::I say we put it to a vote. There's really no other fair way to decide policy. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 13:36, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The difference of course being swearing is not part of our subculture. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 14:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::True. Swearing is part of our culture, not our subculture. Most people swear in informal contexts. In any case, a vote would decide this. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::How would a vote solve anything? Just based on what has been presented we obviously won't reach a consensus, and how can anything but a consensus be considered fair? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:45, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::If the admins say it's ok, then it's OK. If the admins say it's not, then it's not, and other people shouldn't try to force others into not doing so. How is forcing someone to not do something, even though it isn't against the rules, just because someone else is offended fair? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:49, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::[[Meta Pages#Policies]]; swearing is a violation of our policies. For swearing above, however, no one is issued a warning since it was just a discussion about the swearing on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You have to follow two links to even see that, and what the second link is isn't even at all obvious (indeed, I didn't even see the second link until it was pointed out to me), and then only works if you consider the word fuck "Gross-profanity". It also seems you might consider the word "bullshit" "gross profanity", as your claim that I don't need to be warned from this page. That seems... extremely harsh. You can hear "gross profanity" in R rated movies? There's no way that that rule can be reasonably interpreted to forbidding the word "bullshit", and I'd even argue that "fuck" is still not "gross profanity" when used as an emphasizer. The rule needs to be made clear. And, for what its worth, I much more easily found rules against not providing citations and personal attacks, which you didn't so quickly react to as you apparently did to what I said on this page... [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:41, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::And now, indeed. You've proven that you consider the word "fuck" to be a "gross profanity" (which took searching to even find it was against the rules), yet you don't consider these to be harassment (which is clearly against the rules), and I QUOTE: "you are being ignorant and rude", "I don't deal with morons", "If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material.", "your a complete and utter moron", "you have proven you aren't even close enough to being worthy of my (or anyones really) time.", "Wow that answers a lot, an ignorant rant boy", "your opinions really are completly worthless.". So... right. That doesn't seem fair. At all. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]. However you are right, you both deserve a warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, I pointed that page out, and noted that it's two clicks from the rule-thread, AND the fact that what it means isn't even clear, and there's no real reason to believe that sweearing is agaisnt the rules there according to the summary. What does "gross civility" even mean to you. I expressed confusion, and then... told I'm not allowed to do "gross incivility". Is this just going to be circular, where I'm told I'm just going to be warned whenever someone feels like, with no real rules to it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::* Rudeness<br />
:::::* Insults and name-calling<br />
:::::Should fall under those options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:55, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That doesn't answer my question. I hoenstly don't believe I was "rude", at all. Indeed, according to what you just said here, you just warned me for <i>something that isn't even against the rules</i>, because you warned me for swearing, and according to you, "gross profanity" is defined as "rudeness, insults, and name-calling". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:58, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - Wikipedia policies page. Hence, you could have used alternate words to make your point. It doesn't say you can't, but if you can use other words to make the same description then you should. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Except, Sabre, that's on neither of the two pages I was linked to. I asked for where in the rules it said that, and a clarification on what it means. I was not provided with it, and indeed, I was then immediately told that the rule I was warned under <i>never existed</i>. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Dragonchild, it doesn't matter what you believe, policy is policy, just sit down be quiet and go and contribute to the wiki, seriosuly your acting like your being fined by the police sheesh. The fact of that matter is you swore, you broke the policy. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 06:37, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Fine, swearing is against the rules. Am I no longer allowed to say the word "Damn" ? Should we now censor 71 different wiki pages? Hmm, no, that seems silly. Prehaps, just prehaps, as this rule doesn't actually appear anywhere, and indeed, Green Dragon just gave a similiar interpretation to me - <i>that this rule doesn't exist</i>, despite the fact that he claimed earlier it did - the rule should be clarified. Sure, I'll take the warning, whatever, but I want the rule clarified. Unclear rules only exist to allow the mods to warn and ban whoever they like, for whatever damn (whoops! is that warning #2?) reason they please, with no sense of justification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow, so instead of being queit you act like a saracastic and slightly arragont jerk. If your nto happy with hwo things are meant to work here, then dont come ehre simple as. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:10, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am assuming Green Dragon will be reasonable and clarify the rule, which I will then follow. It is not being "sarcastic and arrogant" to point out what I did (indeed, if you see above, it is true). I don't see how I'm being a "jerk" - I'm asking for a rule clarification. Like I said, I fully expect Green Dragon will give one, seeing as he seems reasonable enough. If I were to take your suggestion, I'd throw a fit and leave in a huff every time a website has an unclear rule. That seems overly childish. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::No ionstead what you did was throw a fit and target moderators in general sayign that unclear rules jsut allow them to ban whoever they like. I'm actually a moderator of my own private forum, I assure you thats not how it works. And im sorry I was overeacting the jerk wbit was unescessarry. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:57, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I didn't "target" anyone. Well, ok, I targeted the mods on the WOTC boards and ENWorld boards, that purposely use unclear rules to keep the places "intellectually pure". I more meant it was a warning - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being passive agressive, <i>I honestly think Green Dragon is a reasonable person, as are the rest of the admins and mods here, unlike the rest of almost every D&D board and chat ever</i>. Unclear rules serve no purpose except power tripping. Rules are there to prevent bad behavior that you don't like. If the rule is clear, people will be much less likely to do that bad behavior (indeed, I would not have sworn had I know it was against the rules). If the rule is unclear, people will not know not to do that bad behavior, due to it being, well, unclear and open to interpretation. What benefit does an unclear rule have? The only benefit is that it may be used as a justification by a moderator to ban people over something that isn't explicitly against the rules. If someone ends up doing something you end up not liking later that's not against the rules yet, you add it, and then warn the person for LATER doing, or else you're being unfair. Clear rules are totally necessary and have no downside. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wanting clarification != throwing a fit. (Note: Calling him a jerk breaches the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Civility Policy] under "Insults and name-calling") (That was a joke by the way). The wikipedia policies are far too strict; they build on the idea that massive amounts of people are going to use the site and a large portion of massive amounts of people are much more easily offended; especially those that use the internet (because that somehow means people get offended easily; textual based insults are so scathing). This wiki is a far more specialized wiki and, in my opinion, will attract the attention of people who have heard swearing. They've read it. They've seen it. They've tasted it's rainbow. This site doesn't need supastrictpolicies because it's not like Wikipedia; our userbase isn't several million. A small amount of people can interact calmly, as long as they stop blowing things way out of preportion. Someone said shit, fuck, hell, damn, bollocks, tits, blah, blah, blah. I could go on Google right now, type in one word and find worse in a single click. I could go on DICTIONARY DOT COM and find worse in a few tappity taps. Facebook? Boom, I took a quiz yesterday about FETISHES. YouTube? Boom, I watched a video the other day that used amazing amounts of the word "Fuck" in a short time. Films that kids have seen are worse than the shit that occurs here. Before I was ten, I'd seen a guy rip out his own eyeball, tear off his arm, tell people to fuck off, stab people, beat people, etc, etc. I've seen a 12a film use the word bitch and more (Hell, I've seen PG films that have used the word Shit). This is just overly censoring things and now we're moving into 1984 country, where soon Big Brother will rain down upon you with it's Thought Police. DO YOU WANT THAT?! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:25, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You have a good point calling some a jerk is name calling and I can recognise a joke btw. :). And no I dont want Big Brother thought police going on. I hate that sort of thing anything that surpresses my freedom I tend to be agaisnt. Your right the wiki rules are to strict. ANd of course people have heard swearing, tasted its rainbow and all that, it does not mean everyone WANTS to see it and taste it. This whole thing is getting rediculous now and I will take responsibility for any rediculousness (is that even a word?) I have added to it. Also, I thought Green Dragon had clarified it with the link to wiki thingy ma bob. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm going to make one final argument, for now. One of the admins/sysops/whatever he is, Daniel Draco, said up thread he didn't believe that swearing was against the rules. By this, I argue if he doesn't know, it's not reasonable for a normal user to know it's not against the rules. And finally, to what extent is swearing against the rules need to be clarified. I have yet to be provided with a good sub-in word for "Bullshit". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Bovine poop. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:48, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Swearing is against policy since not only are our policies partly defined by Wikipedia's policies however people swearing also tends to end up sparking discussions like this one. I beleive this is the third time a discussion involving swearing has taken place, all with the same result. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:00, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Then why not make it explicitly so? The rules clearly aren't explicit, as proof enough by Draco not knowing. Obviously, it's unclear. If people keep breaking a rule because the rule is unclear, isn't it your responsibility to make the rule more clear? I'm not even arguing for changing it, I'm arguing for defining it. Otherwise, if you're the only one who knows what the rule actually means or if it even exists, how can you be surprised when people break it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:11, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] was most likely just confused as to the rules (he may not have read all of the policies on Wikipedia). But the policies could not be more clear (save the three warnings policy which is D&D Wiki specific); they are found in the [[Meta Pages]] (''Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.'') under "''Policies''". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:46, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yes, they could be. The rules specifically prohibit "gross profanity". That's what they say about swearing. And I asked outright- what is Gross Profanity? You gave me an explanation that did not include swearing. This has left me INCREDIBLY confused. Is ANY swearing, even "damn" and such gross profanity? Is it gross profanity only past a certain point of words? Etc. Please clarify. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:50, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]<br />
::::::::::* Rudeness<br />
::::::::::* Insults and name-calling <br />
::::::::::Once again any swearing should fall under one of these options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not... really? I don't think every single use of a swear word, ever, is rude. Are we still counting words such as damn, shit, etc, as swear-words that are always rude, even when not directed at other people? If so, fine, I'll go along with it but I think it's silly. It reminds me of the WOTC boards where you couldn't talk about circumstance bonuses, or cocking a crossbow. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I don't see how swearing falls under either of those categories unless it's saying "you fucker" in relation to someone, or something similar. And I think a great deal of people here, myself included, will be ''extremely'' unhappy if swearing in general is banned. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You are right. Swearing is tolerated if it does not break any [[Meta Pages#Policies|policies]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So, for example, "This is a piece of shit" would be unacceptable, but "This class is fucking amazing" would be acceptable? If so, perfect. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion. Thank you so much for clearing this up. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 14:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I wish to thank you all for creating and maintaining this Wiki.<br />
<br />
It's beautifully styled, diligently edited and organized and has proven its usefulness many times already for me.<br />
<br />
[[User:Skypher|Skypher]] 08:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Massive Screw-ups ==<br />
<br />
So, okay... I think I am completely justified in saying that in my short time here, I have already made a bad impression. I would like to know... How can I interact here without doing so? 'Cause as you may or may not know, I made a flaw (which itself was extremely flawed), which, from what I can only tell was rightly judged as unbalanced, and I think I've already made a permanent scar on my reputation here, which generally reflects my experience everywhere on the Internet. So I'm wondering, how can I constructively and successfully contribute to D&Dwiki, perhaps enough that my noobishness will be compensated for?<br />
[[User:Jadebrain|Jadebrain]]11:27, 31 May 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I think the fact that you've contributed is amazing. Nothing negative. Everyone has different opinions on things placed on the wiki, all one can do is add theirs to the collective. You're a valued part of the wiki and we appreciate your articles. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:21, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I concur with Hooper, and would like to add that nobody is going to remember the bad flaw. Most first uploads are crap. Just the way it is. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:38, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Honestly, everybody was a noob once, but it's no big deal. It was hard for me when I first started out here. Surgo did point me toward the Frank and K stuff, which helped a lot (especially Tome of Necromancy, where I got the vampire-staking rules for my Vampire Hunter PrCs...). Also, at the risk of it being a shameless plug, Lord Dhazriel was a big source of inspiration, and there's a couple others who've posted some amazing entries. I for one would be more than happy to look at your work, if you'd look at mine. Quid pro quo, and all that. Stick around, and it'll get a lot better (I did.)! -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:24, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you want to contribute a class or a feat or whatever, think about what you've seen recently or what you want in your own game. Nothing gets motivation going for me like trying to bring something from another genre into DnD 3.5. Or trying to figure out how to model an ability. Look at my user page for some of the stuff I've done. Most of it was seeing or playing something and deciding to try to model it in DnD. So far, I've done Neji from Naruto, Yusuke Urameshi from Yu Yu Hakusho, and the Dragoon from Final Fantasy, especially Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I also wrote my own version of the Drunken Master. But when someone in one of my games wants to, say, run up walls and stand on the ceiling, or he wants a parkour-like ability...Well, then I've got to write something to help him out, and pride demands that it be worthwhile. So if I write anything I'm really proud of, and I can get up the motivation, I put it on the Wiki for review and for whoever wants it. Or for whoever wants to write the ability himself but could use a rough idea of how you manage a, for example, Shoryuken uppercut. Anyway, try some experiments and don't take it personally when people say it sucks. You'll get better, and they should be giving a rationale for their reasoning or advice for improvement. --[[User:Genowhirl|Genowhirl]] 21:14, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adult Content on the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
Hey, GoldDragon here. I was browsing user pages, when I came upon Angel Black's page and found a nude picture. I'm not terribly concerned by it, but there was no advisory warning, and I wondered if there should be. I was foolish enough to bring this up in the Tavern, which sparked a... vigorous debate. Anyway, I know there's a template for an adult content warning, but I didn't think it appropriate for a lowly peon such as me to edit someone else's user page. I have very young players who enjoy this site, but their parents would be upset at me if their children discovered such a page and weren't at least warned to shove off. my point is, should there be a content advisory warning on said user page? what is the line in the sand concerning when one is needed and when not? [[User:GoldDragon|Dragon]] 22:58, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Template:Adult Theme]] if you are interested. And it's usefulness should be discussed on [[Template Talk:Adult Theme]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:47, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vatireans ==<br />
<br />
Please help me recreate my race. To tell you guys the truth when my friend(absconder)told me that my race was over powered and would be erased i did not belive him, foolishly.im new at this so please give me some tips on makeing the Vatireans fit the criteria. P.S. i am contacting you green dragon because i dont no how to talk to sepsis. -true warrior<br />
<br />
:Thank you so much for being so helpful and not deleting my race.im am obviosly new at this.-true warrior<br />
<br />
::Could you guys make the changes yuo want and ill look at them tomarrow,(Vatireans).-true warrior<br />
::P.S. actullaly edit the Vatireans please.<br />
<br />
::Please write back and help.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::pleases write back. -true warrior<br />
<br />
::::please respond,great green dragon.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::::You can ask these same kind of questions and see the reasons as to why your race was nominated for deletion on it's talk page; [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:21, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== Arachonnomicon; the Book of Spiderkind ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I recently finished the [[Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook)|Arachonomicon]]. Could you look over it to see if it ready to be a featured article, please? Thanks in advance. <br><br />
--&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:16, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
I had ask this question two times, but I hadn't got an answer. How do I make templates? Some pages really need templates. --[[User:Chihuahua0|chihuahua0]] 15:51, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by templates? Adding them to a page or making a new one? If a new one just add it in the template namespace. If adding one to the page just copy and paste it from the preload. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gratzi, Sir.<br />
<br />
== Warmage ==<br />
<br />
Here ([[WarMage DnD Class)]]) is a user article under construction, which is a copy of the miniatures handbook's Warmage. I'm pretty sure he's breaking the rules here, so I'd be thankful if you'd check on it. P.S. I'm hoping "Buerocrat" is the right kind of person to come to with this, It's all greek to me. {{Unsigned|Connery55|18:03, 15 June 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Given that the editing for that page says "only from the book", I'm guessing that he is right. I've added the delete template (if I'm wrong, please remove it) under the premise that posting SRD material is a copyright violation. Good catch on that, but please sign your post next time. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|ThunderGod Cid]] 19:51, 15 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for setting up that page. I haven't been able to do much the since I set up some "Heroes" campaign stuff last week because I have been sick which restricts me from really doing anything that involves breathing, which is every thing but siting underwater. I'm working on setting up another Campaign setting but it has 4 four race types with a whole lot of different races. Hopefully I can get it up and running. [[User:Meepers|Meep]] 12:24, 16 June 2009 (MDT) P.S. Does (MDT) stand for mountain date time?<br />
<br />
:::7 seconds of [http://www.google.com google] informs us that MDT is Mountain Daylight Time. During the change of seasons, I think it changes to MST as well (which is Mountain Standard Time). Make sure you take this into account when setting your [[SRD:Water Clock|water clock]]. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== numbers ==<br />
<br />
I noticed in the recent changes area, that next to the links there are numbers in parenthacies, I was wondering what those numbers mean? (example: . m True Fiend (DnD Class); 22:57 . . (+56) )--[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:03, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:That's how many characters were either removed or added to the page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:13, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::ah, thanks! it was bugging me --[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== i have a question. ==<br />
<br />
When is worldwide D&D day this year?<br />
<br />
== Rating System ==<br />
<br />
In the tavern, we were discussing the class rating system. It seems to be the general consensus that, as is, it simply doesn't work. A numerical system with categories doesn't do much in the way of giving a general appraisal of a class -- flavor, a 100% subjective measure, is considered equally with such absolutes as wording and formatting. In addition, a very large number of the ratings are given no explanation, miscategorized, or just make no sense. This could all be fixed if it was changed to a three-level non-numerical rating system (as proposed by Dragon Child): Needs Work, Usable, and Excellent. The crap ratings could be filtered out by requiring admin approval of all ratings -- an MoI to User:Admin could alert us and it wouldn't be very time-consuming to give a yea or nay. In the case of multiple ratings, we take the mathematical mode, erring towards Usable in case of a tie. This simplification has the added benefits of being smaller on the page and being usable on more than just classes -- finally, feats and equipment and other things could be rated. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:04, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just noting my 100% agreement here. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 00:07, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Part of the idea was that this would also be a progression that would encourage users to participate with more feedback. You wouldn't be allowed to give a "Needs Work" rating without saying what it needed work ON - certain abilities being too strong/weak, wording needing improved, or just it needed better wikification. Once the class was improved, the rating could then be changed from Needs Work to Usable, or Excellent. This is also a much clearer system, IMO. What's a 4 compared to a 5? Not entirely clear. What's an Excellent? Something you REALLY like, and want to play right now or include in your game. What's a Usable? Something you'd let someone else play, see no problems with, or just have minor disagreements about. What's Needs Work? Something that's not quite yet ready to play. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wow. Sometimes simplicity is just beautiful. Here are the only things that I see possibly being an issue with a system like this:<br />
:::*Will people still know what aspects should be considered in a "good rating"?<br />
:::*How much justification do they need to give in their rating post?<br />
:::*What led you to the conclusion that 3 tiers are the right way to go?<br />
:::*Are you sure a mode is better than converting to a median number?<br />
:::*This is a problem with the current rating system as well, but when is a page considered changed enough to require ratings to be nullified?<br />
:::On a more minor note, "Needs Work" should be named "Needs Improvement". I'm looking forward to hear more about this idea. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 06:33, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::*We can easily make a page with guidelines on that. On that note, Dragon Child made a very good point in the Tavern that flavor, being totally subjective, should not be considered at all -- the F&K Fighter, for example, would be considered excellent by many, but is totally lacking in flavor (as is intended for the generic "fighter" class). In my opinion, all that should be considered are power, formatting, and clarity.<br />
::::*It shouldn't need much. As long as they do justify it, and the rational parts make sense (even if we disagree with the opinion parts, such as "it's stronger than a monk and monks are overpowered"), it should be fine.<br />
::::*More than that and it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference in value between them. The tiers boil down to "bad, good, great", which is really the categorization that ratings seek to define -- the whole point of a rating is to figure out which of those three something is.<br />
::::*It could be median. I don't really know which would work better, I just figured mode would be simpler to figure out.<br />
::::*If something that was mentioned in the justification is changed, the rating is nullified. For example, if someone said an ability called Smite Teletubby was too powerful, and then the mechanics of the ability are changed, the rating is negated until the rater verifies that they still feel that it's overpowered, or that their other points of justification still make them say it needs improvement.<br />
::::*Probably a better phrase, yeah. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 09:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How do you compromise different rating? Say five users rate a page and it gets Excellent, Usable, Usable, Needs Improvement, and Needs Improvement. What does that measure out to? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:57, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Under both the Mode (which I'd prefer using) and the Median, it would get Usable. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::We should set up a vote for this lasting 1 week. I'm pretty sure I already know what the community will respond with... Could someone more involved with this set up a more formal proposal? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:52, 30 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Formal proposal? Meh, no need for that. All we need right now is a yea or nay from GD on setting up a vote. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:02, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Do we really need GD to set up the vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:23, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. Just need someone who knows the templates and formatting system to change around the template for the new system, as well as the display pages. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:38, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I can do that. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles]] system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The idea was this new review system could be used for ''everything''. I find the categories linked to be more than a bit unsatisfying because they are only for bad articles, not good articles. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:57, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I am of the opinion a numerical (or word) based rating system (as explained above) detriments articles more then it helps compared to a system where the unuseable articles are reviewed and helped in a article-based manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So effectively, [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]], you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:35, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm not that much of a pessimist. To be honest you read what I said wrong. In my opinion articles should be considered unuseable when they are not useable and instead of just rating them to bring them to a useable statis templates should be added to them on a article by article basis to bring them up to a useable statis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:51, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::So everything would be considered usable then, and there would be nothing that's considered exceptional? Because that's what it looks like you're suggesting. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::''Edit conflict, but I'm keeping what I wrote... I'm somewhat echoing Surgo.''<br />
::::::I didn't mean to suggest you were a pessimist. I was just asking for a bit of clarification. I agree that we need to template articles with areas they need to improve (stub, needs balance, etc.). The issue I have with this approach is that we don't have a marker to say "this has been looked at and is good". We have markers to say "This needs improvement" and we can find all of the ones without those markers, but inevitably I foresee many articles falling through the cracks. They won't have the stub template added even when they are stubs.<br />
::::::Maybe part of it is that our admins here need some D&D wiki specific required reading about what they are supposed to do. I know there are a lot of folks here that regularly patrol recent comments. If we have a page describing what we should look out for, then patrolling RC will become much more productive I'm sure. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:09, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Arguably every reader of a homebrewed article should read it with an analytical mindset. Especially if one is going to implement it into their campaign they should. As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements. Specifically I do not see why we need to add another system for reviewing articles when we can instead just raise the unplayability bar. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:57, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::''"As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements"'' -- that's a horrible idea. Someone who thinks the monk is the pinnacle of balance should not ever be going around putting "this is unbalanced" templates on anything. Raising the unplayability bar still leaves a large gap between the minimum allowed and articles that should be considered exceptional. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 18:46, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Just dropping a question here, but, for singling out exceptional articles, don't you guys already have something for that? "Featured Articles"? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:59, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Which never seem to change and have strange requirements like "must have a picture". [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::So you are saying we need to make a playability bar. Correct with either another system implementation or with the current system applied to all cases and as the only reviewing system. It's related to [[Balance System]], however it would have to be done differently in any case (and should). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:35, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing what is currently used for classes (rating system) applied across other categories, such as spells and races, but I understand that this discussion's inception was in part due to dissatisfaction with the current system as it stands, or at the very least concerns over how such a thing would translate. The four core categories (power, wording, formatting, flavor), however, seem to be fairly universal in my mind. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:42, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::You must have missed the many arguments over what those categories are even supposed to mean...I have no idea what Green Dragon's latest message is supposed to mean, so I just want to reaffirm my support for the original idea that started this thread. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:06, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I always go back to that table whenever I rate a class, and I think it does an okay job at defining each area, except for the formatting bit (too lenient, IMO, high rating must be earned, not proxy by following the preload). I can understand where debates might crop up, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:34, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the [[Rating System]] and the [[Character Class Design Guidelines (DnD Guideline)|Character Class Design Guidelines]] combined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wouldn't a playability bar be something akin to a rating system? And as far as templates vs. ratings is concerned, I think that is a bit of a 'your mileage may vary' thing. I mean, low numbers may motivate one person, and a big fat stub/wikify template may motivate others. Either way, that still has the same issues that a rating system does. That is, some people may considered something balanced, and others may not. Does such an article deserve to carry the <nowiki>{{NeedsBalance}}</nowiki> template? I guess what I'm saying is that numbers (a rating system) offer a much cleaner compromise than a debate over whether an article is balanced. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:25, 10 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Something I think you aren't getting, Green_Dragon, is that another goal -- and the one I and the others who brought this up care about -- with ratings is to inform casual readers of the wiki what classes are good and usable and which are not. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem is, some people think classes are usable and others don't. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which is why the proposed rating system would use the mode of the given rates. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 20:44, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I can see this arguement going back and forth like this for easily another 2 weeks. People don't like the current rating system, the boss man doesn't think the system is needed, but the people think that a system is needed, and that one thought keeps poking it's head back into the discussion, "Some people think classes are usable and others don't." I will personally not read anything past this post since it has already given me a headache, but I'm adding my two cents all the same. Yes, flavor is a subjective part of an article, and that paticular part of the rating system feels a bit superflous when you think about it, though, it could serve a purpose. For example, if a classes fluff describes it as, say, "A mighty spellcaster who tears down the heavens with but a thought", and then, when you get to class features, it doesn't even get spells, then that may fall into a '''What?/5''' on the flavor rating, but of course, who is going to be that stupid? I personally think that getting rid of the system all together though, that may be a troublesome idea, considering that the rating system is convenient for the fact that it can show up on the 'list of classes' page, and give a person a warning before they let their computer load the page, just to see a box that says 'Need Balance, come back later' pop up on their screen. People are rather impatient, and, loading 5 pages that are utter junk in a row may turn them away from the site. As for the 'Mol an admin to get a rating approved' idea, I think that is a touch of brilliance that Michealanjilo (don't know if I spelled that correctly) would be envious of, and that it ought to be impletemented immediately, regardless of the decision reached here. As for the Mode/Median Dichotomy, I personally like the way that numbered ratings look, and the feeling you get when you see a '''20/20''' on one of your favorite classes, and can't say that I would feel the same should I get 3 Excellents, but that is simply personal perference. Wrapping up this post, my advice would be to keep the rating system, knock of the flavor part, and add the 'Mol me' switch, but otherwise, keep things the same. Well, I hand the floor to the next person to post, enjoy the discussion everybody. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::My problem with the rating system as it is is, that a class that's 5/5 power, but 2/5 formatting because someone wants there to be more flavor, an example character, an "in the world" section and epic rules (yes, despite the fact that they're useless, I've seen someone rate down someone else for not having EPIC RULES before) is completely and totally different than one that was rated 2/5 formatting and 5/5 power. One of them is likely MUCH more usable in a game, while another just needs some quick fixes. Yet they're rated exactly the same on the "Out of 20" scale, which is why I really don't like that scale. I'd rather just look at classes by power. In addition, if there are mods for rating allowances (which I agree with), IMO they should be seperate from the admins. Green likely has a lot on his plate, and if the rating allowance is just set to a small number of users/mods, that means there can be no inter-mod quarrels. I'd nominate someone like Jota, in addition to some of the current mods like Draco and Surgo, myself, as these should be checked often and may involve a bit of back and forth. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:02, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: It seems the big problem with ratings is the fact that everyone's balance point is completely different. We all know, and no offense to anyone, That someone who agrees with Frank and K's teachings is going to have a radically different view to someone who doesn't. So no matter what the new rating system is, it will still be based on a balance point that at least 50% of the wiki disagrees with. And honestly, it is unlikely the class will get a second rating unless someone is passionate enough, all it takes is one bad rating to completely mess up a classes chance to be read by newcomers in the future, i know i don't even look at most classes with a rating under 12. I had an idea recently however about a new approach to rating, and inlight of what seems to be an impending overhaul, i will place it here. I notice on some of the other wiki's i peruse, (Bulbapedia, wikipedia etc.) that they have "Projects", like Project: Music and Lyrics, where they try to put in all the lyrics for all the songs on the wiki. I think we should get a group of about five people, regular wiki dwellers, with good and varied ideas on balance, into a sort of committee, A Project: Quality, if you will, to go over classes and give their unified opinion on them. One good rating and one bad rating that remain stagnant and unchangeing on a page don't do much. but a unified and collective and well thought out rating is much more likely to be appreciated instead of an IP saying, "WOW, this is really OP, lulz." The commitee could regulate when pages change and when ratings can be nullified, and if there all really devoted, start looking over new classes and old ones and discussing as a group an overall rating for them, whatever the new rating system may be. Perhaps this commitee could add a nice commentary and review to select classes. A article cleanup crew would also be nice, but i know that i cant have Christmas in july.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 01:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a committee to rate classes. Much neater, cleaner, and conflict-less than just anyone being able to rate things. We need to be very careful who is on that committee, though; the more varied the views on balance are, the more likely there is to be conflict. Every single member of the committee would need to be very flexible, and needs to recognize that they are, objectively, no more correct in their views as anyone else on the committee. One way to potentially help avoid disagreements is to come up with general categories of views on balance, and have each ratable page be in a category indicating how the author intended to balance it. For example, off the top of my head, there's Same Game Test balance, balance against similar classes from the core, balance against the strongest classes of the core, balance against similar classes from the entire game, etc. That way, instead of rating on balance from a scattered set of viewpoints, we rate based on the target that the author was trying to hit. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 01:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I don't like the idea of a committee, that narrows the views of the rankings. If the committee is primarily balancing to CR = ECL then they would rate down classes that are attempting for SRD power (and vice versa). A similar problem is when you are saying play testing, if a person uses a class effectively then it can be powerful but if they don't have an opportunity to or don't understand the benefits that the class has or just doesn't play a member of that class effectively then it may be considered much weaker. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe ranking classes for flavor, formatting and wording, but have a different rating system for power. CR = ECL would be one of the options, having a power ranking for that. Or it can be SRD power ranking. I think that flavor should be focused on more though. Have flavor out of 10, formatting out of 5, wording out of 5 and CR = ECL or SRD power ranking percentages, with under 100 being lower powered, 100 being exact and over 100 being high powered. Alternatively it could be a bar with low power at the bottom, SRD standard near the middle, CR = ECL near the end and higher powered at the end. (using lower and higher, not under and over. This is due to the fact that it seems friendlier.) That alternate bar could be out of 100, with the titles at 0, 33, 66 and 100. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:48, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Part of what started this whole discussion is how none of us liked having separate ratings for flavor, formatting, and wording. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 09:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am in favor of either a word-based rating system or a committee or both (somehow). I don't think anything more complex is needed, nor would it be helpful. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:18, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I agree strongly with the idea that classes should have a disclaimer with the power level they were going for. Otherwise, a class going for SRD power would be poorly rated by a user who basis his balance views of ECL=CR, and that isnt fair for someone whose view on balance is different. We could sort each of the balance points (SRD, ECL=CR, Overpowered, Strong SRD, what have you...) Into different categories, so people coming to this site with a specific idea of power can find there niche right away. Perhaps there could be a description on each of the category pages as well. I am still completely up for the idea of a committee, a committee that can be well versed in all these balance points (which i know there are a few of them in the tavern) and willing to review classes at their balance point.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 10:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that flavor is the most important part of the class, it should have its own rating. Formatting and wording can get stuck together, they are only for clarification anyway. I think that having a disclaimer for which power level is good and the word-based rating system can work with the committee, they just have to write a review on an article basically. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:17, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Rating systems, disclaimers for varying levels of power... It all sounds quite exciting, but what would measuring by multiple yardsticks do, besides confuse the hell out of everyone involved? People are liable to not even know what of these power categories their class is going to end up in. Not everybody is apt at discerning balance, which is exactly why some sort of rating system has been introduced in the first place, I think. While I don't have problems with it existing, the types of pages that actually get ratings is so limited and small (i.e., only classes and prestige classes) that it says little about the wiki's general quality standard. Everything else, from spells to equipment to creatures and other random miscellanea is pretty much ignored. There, but not so as you'd notice unless you're willing to wade through hundred miles of swampland with a pig on a leash to find the odd truffle or two. <br />
<br />
::::What I'm proposing is that a sort of 'Editor's Choice' template be made in which any of the admins/sysops can tag the pages they like. Most admins of this wiki are veterans in D&D, and know what they're on about. It's a real simple concept really. If you navigate to a page and see a little frame at the top that states one of the admins like it, it's likely the people'll be willing to look further into it. It would be a simple matter to separate the Bayeux Tapestries from the sea of toilet paper that is the wiki if people were at least given an indication to which articles might be up to snuff. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 21:19, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As I asked before, isn't that what "featured articles" is for? Yes, I know it hardly changes, but I also know there was a discussion somewhere about fixing that. Swap the featured articles more often, add more to the candidates, and doesn't that fit your criteria of "editor's choice"? The only thing I'm asking is, why make something new when you can use what you've got? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well, there's still this nonsense baggage like how a featured article "must have an image" (even if it's something like a transmutation spell that hardly needs one). Perhaps if those requirements were deleted. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Why make somethign new when you can use what you've got?" What we "got" Doesn't seem to be working.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 22:49, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A page doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles of what constitutes a featured article in order to obtain approval. If the contents of the article are useful, usable, readable and well construed, there should be a way for people to tell. It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. A simple little thumbnail of, I dunno, a silver chalice or something, with the caption 'this article is Good' next to it should suffice. On the whole, writing featured articles is like writing the legislation. You have to suffer through countless articles and subparagraphs that you'd never deal with were it ever used in a campaign. As a result, pages like [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|this]] read as though you're drowning in wallpaper paste. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::If theoretically the rating system was removed I agree that the main issue would be that one would not be able to quickly pull a judgement of a certain class from [[DnD Base Classes]] page. Personally I think one of the main reasons the classes area is such a mess is since a rating system was implemented. I am under the impression people do not challenge themselves when adding an article if the goal in mind is to make it adhere to a rating system. And, for that reason, I think the entire class section is such a mess. If (on the preload) we changed the reviewing templates to the D&D-Wiki wide ones and added them to the top (not the bottom) and removed the rating system I think people would submit better classes and this entire prolem would be fixed. Also, that is what FA are for, and I agree that [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is not FA quality. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:32, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a editor's choice thing. It can show good and mostly complete articles, not only the best of the best (which the FA show). This would incorporate flavor and power, with the main formatting to be handled by other templates. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:59, 13 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think I was misunderstood. What I mean about using the featured articles for editor's choice was that we -change- the featured articles criteria to reflect what is being discussed here. That was my suggestion. Now, if no one thinks that idea is a good one, fine. I'm just clarifying. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|17:11, 16 July 2009}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think that Featured Articles should be the best of the best. We can also have recommended articles and use able articles, with the recommended being better in flavor, wording and layout while the use able ones are still usable but not as high quality. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 06:46, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Here's an Official Proposal.<br />
:::::::::::::A committe is formed known as the Ratings Committee, or RC for short. The RC is composed of 9 members, each of varied preferences and opinions, to form it. The RC members must each contribute to the RC once every month, or be replaced. The RC members gain the powers as follows<br />
:::::::::::::*An RC member is able to select an article he feels is particularly good and exemplifies what the wiki should be. He may Favor the article.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with one Favor gains a Bronze Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 3 Favors is upgraded to a Silver Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 6 Favors gains a Gold Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*If eight RC members all Favor an article, it becomes a Featured Article (in addition to the Gold Star), and is given (unit of time - 1 week? 2 weeks?) on the front page. This may lead to a Featured Article queue. That's fine - it's better than a lack of one. All Featured Articles will get their fair share.<br />
:::::::::::::*If an article as two or less Favors, and at least six other Ratings Committee members believe that the article does not deserve a Bronze Star, they may do so. This, hopefully, will be EXTREMELY rare - I can't see it really happening ever if the committee is chosen wisely.<br />
For the initial Ratings Committee, I proposal the following members -- Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, and Genowhirl. That is eight members. I would not normally nominate myself, however, at Aarnott's insistance, I will do so, on the basis that you shouldn't push a job on others you're not willing to do yourself. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:03, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I like this idea a lot, except for one thing -- I don't think it should tie into the featured article system at all. "Editor's choice" articles by themselves are a fine system. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:08, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Just noting my agreement with this idea. Having 9 experienced members take a look at articles like this will allow them to improve with useful constructive criticism. Regular users can still use the wiki normally and articles can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think this is an excellent compromise to all of the ideas presented so far. I think we should try it out for a month or two and see how it goes. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:14, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And best of all, we can remove that horrible rating system too! I know everyone wanted to do that. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:15, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I agree to this proposal and think it is a fine system to add to the wiki.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 12:36, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I support the proposal, and am happy to accept my role in it. I'd also like to suggest creation of a User:Ratings_Committee, so that it can be MoI'd to bring an article or discussion to the entire committee's attention, similar to User:Admin. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 12:47, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not opposed to the idea, although I'm not as opposed to the current rating as others seem to be. I guess it would be nice to be able to say good things about races, spells, and things other than classes. I'll wait for an official proposal page to spring up before evaluating the idea in further detail. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:53, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I support the proposal. As the wiki is a mutable project, a trial run to test it out would be pleasing. I would like to note that I would prefer to keep the old FA nomination system in addition to this new Ratings Committee system. The old FA nomination system will still allow any user or IP to voice their opinion. So, who wants to build the Templates for the Stars and other required materials and pages? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:20, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::The idea was that while anyone could voice their opinions, nominate articles, and pressure/goad the Committee, but only they had the final say. That way, yes, IPs get their say, but we're also not pretending like the "This is overpowered because I don't understand the rules" stuff matters. If it has to be someone's call if something is a FA or not, while not leave it up to the same people who are going to be rating things anyway? We can fix two birds with one stone, and get the FAs moving and rotating again, a discussion people seemed to have basically abadoned. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 18:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yeah, after a bit more thought on it, drop the old FA nominating system. With the User:Ratings_Committee, getting ahold of the RC will be easy and quick while allowing anyone to voice their opinion on an article. Would a Category work well for Ratings Requests, or would then anyone just plop in the category and clog it up? Doing it by starting a discussion on the User:Ratings_Committee would probably work best, as it would require actual communication, hopefully minimizing problems. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:36, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay, so if this gets implemented how is a RC group which looks over recent contributions and gives them favors better then a RC group who adds templates to articles on a article-by-article basis to show that articles mistakes? Or how were you guys planning on implementing the current reviewing system and this RC group to look over recent contributions together? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Because not everything that's "not good" has mistakes. Yes, the group - and EVERYONE for that matter - should still apply the articles to bad template. However, we should still be able to reward and exemplify especially good articles. It also helps people who are looking for material to use to see the best articles set aside. I would basically suggest a talk page, where anyone can post stuff for the RC to see, and would be removed after they looked it over. It wouldn't need EVERY RC member to look over EVERY article, they only have to rate the ones they want to. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: I support Dragon Child's stuff. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 20:27, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::: After speaking with Surgo, who's opinion I greatly respect, I'd like to change the people whom I nominated for the RC role. I had originalyl nominated Genowhirl, who while is plenty fair and clever, doesn't post to other parts of the wiki nearly as much as I had anticipated. Instead, I'd like to replace his nomination with that of Sam Kay's, who is far more active, and in addition, knows 4e quite well. I feel that this better rounds out the knowledges and opinions of the RC, and makes it quite a diverse group. In addition, I feel a new rule needs to be added - an RC is not allowed to Favor his own articles. Instead, there will be one user (prehaps someone who's in-line to become RC, or just Green Dragon) who is allowed to Favor articles written by RCs, and only those articles, in the author's stead. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:19, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::: How does this solve the problem of classes at different power levels? Are we going to have a template for that? or make it part of the author template? --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:09, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::If the author feels that his class is being passed up due to its power level, then he needs to explain it in the talk page, and give reasons on why he think that power level is valid. There is no set categories we can fairly make, it should be up for each author to defend the power level on their own. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 16:30, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I think the idea for templates for power level was a good one, such as a template for things balanced to SRD, and things balanced to F&K etc. I think that i would be ok with the idea of the author justifying his balance if i know that the RC would be open to there balance description, my one worry would be people rating with preconceived notions of power that differ from a standard view of power. But you did pick a very versatile group, so i suppose that would rarely happen. Im just voiceing all my concerns, because i feel all concerns should be addressed before something like this is implemented. I still love the idea. [[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 17:34, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Balance to SRD doesn't work. What are you balancing AGAINST? The monsters? Rogue? Druid? Monk? Wizard? fighter? Those are all different balance points. Thus, the category "balanced against SRD" isn't useful. F&K balance against SRD too, you know. They balance against the monsters, wizard, and druid. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:52, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If the author makes their target of balance clear enough, the RC should absolutely judge against that target, rather than their own preferred target. Of course, if no adequately described target is given, that leaves the RC free to judge as they please. Perhaps we should add something to the preloads or author template to describe target of balance. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:08, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have done [[User:TK-Squared/Lavabox/Stars|this]] for you. It is my proposal for the new Author box. It works easily, like this! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:10, 23 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD, no offense, but I'm REALLY REALLY against what you did on the Gravity Warrior page. That stuff NEEDS to go into the discussion. First, it makes it look like one of the better classes on the wiki has major problems, which it doesn't. Second, you put some stuff in the balance box that I and I bet Rith flat-out disagree with, and it's not something that you can be proven right about. That's basically holding the page hostage - "Change this to MY opinion, or you get an ugly tag telling everyone its unbalanced". If it had major problems or was obviously bad, sure, that's one thing. But this doesn't! You don't even explain WHY it's unbalanced, just pointing to the talk page, where the person who "reviewed" it and said it was unbalanced wasn't even using the class as written, but instead used sweeping changes that everyone said were the problem. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I am debating if it is a better idea to add the things I wrote onto the talk page and (on those templates) just put "see talk" or somesuch. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm all for throwing the balance template on badly written classes. But Gravity Warrior isn't badly written. It really, really needs to go onto the talk page, saying why you think it's unbalanced. The only major argument saying it was was not intellectually honest and thoroughly disproven, so it's a bit useless to just say "see talk page", too, and why it's unbalanced needs to be fleshed out on the talk page more (it isn't, IMO). [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:56, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't think any one user should be able to just slap a bunch of huge, ugly templates on a page. I was under the impression that everyone agreed with the RC idea, in one form or another. And then you went and did that, which I don't think anyone supported as a form of page review. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:58, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Wow, a lot has happened since my last visit to this discussion. First of all, I think the idea of an RC is exactly what we need, it's clean, it's concise, and it weeds out most of the idiocy that plagues the better pages on this wiki, all in one fell swoop too. As for the template issues. I personally don't see their purpose, seeing as they should only be put on one of two types of pages. Ones that are flawed, but their creators will not be around often enough to fix them, in which case the delete template is the same thing, only with a goal, considering that the 'Needs Balance' category is meant to store pages that need balancing, and wait for someone to come along and actually do that job (which, I can gauruntee you, will only happen to one out a thousand classes that will get plopped into that category), whereas, the 'Candidates For Deletion' category is there to '''GET RID OF''' these articles and free up the namespaces so that better page can be made in there stead (The real difference is that the Delete template removes unsavory items from the wiki, whereas the Needs Balance template lets them stew). Or, one the other hand, the Needs Balance template could be applied to a page that is simply ridiculously bad, in which case, the Delete template is still better. From my point of view, these new templates are simply baby-proofed versions of the Delete template. Also, please note that the context you attempted to use the templates did not make sense, you could have very easily have posted your concerns on the classes talk page and gotten the same result. As for the actual balance of said class, I shall leave that to the other talk page. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:52, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay. But what about changing all the pages (once the dpl has been improved upon (so one can pipe categories in a |category= paramater using "What Links Here" or who knows what)) to something like [[4e User Races]] where one sees which races need to be improved upon, it's a bit of a ranking level (to get ones article into the top category), and from their it's a bit of another ranking another level (to get it to FA status). Although it would be nice if one could better define columns or better define |mode=category in the dpl2 as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:18, 31 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Complaint ==<br />
<br />
ha dude dnt want to sound like im complaining your something but peoples homebrewing is kinda slack on this site i wanted to look at the complete classes and got excited but no one finishes any thing the races are exelent just a little change and we can fix them up but the classes deffently need some work because their exelent pertensail for dnd hope u can get the word out to fix things up because this site is exlent for ideas and its not all their sorry if its not my place to tell you<br />
<br />
:Well, what you've got to remember about creating an entire class is that it takes a LOT of time: you have to make sure everything works, that it is not totally broken, you have to find and link parts such as [[ranger]] or [[Knowledge]], and you have to come up with background information to support some of the parts of the class. I know from experience that making a class takes a few hours at the least. Heck when I made [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)|The Ethereal Hunter]], I was so exhausted at the end that I didn't even include a sample NPC (need to get around to that). If this came across as an angered defensive position on the matter, I didn't mean it to be. If you are a user, please sign your comments by putting four ~ marks at the end like so. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:29, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating, please? ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a prestige class and got some feedback on it, did some edits, and I'm still not sure if it will fly. Could you rate it and tell me what I should change? It would be awesome if you could..<br />
<br />
[[Ascendant Knight (DnD Prestige Class)]]<br />
<br />
Thank you!<br />
<br />
:Your wish is command (although just this once). -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:36, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hands of a wiseman? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a homebrewed feat or is it somewhere in another book somewhere? I am currently playing a D&D 3.5 game and I would really like to use this feat for my healer, but my GM won't let me use it unless it is somewhere "authenticate".<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time and have a great day! {{unsigned|Copper Gryphon}}<br />
<br />
:[[Hands of a Wiseman (3.5e Feat)]] is homebrew material, meaning it was made by independent author(s), at home most likely. Homebrewing is common. You should speak to your GM about allowing such material after his reviewal and approval of course for each article. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:12, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::You could organize the a userpage subsection of yours - until the dpl can be improved to make it work dynamic - into something related to [[User:TK-Squared/Shit That Needs Deleting]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. Also they are admins once again; no worries on that end. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:30, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::What about the worry of you randomly banning people again for no good reason, offering no explanation as to why they were banned and then bringing the site down because of said banning? If I were them, I'd worry about that. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:34, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Alright, hopefully they understood. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:35, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: As one of the people banned, I'd say they don't. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 21:36, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::As another of those people (having been banned while offline and totally uninvolved, adding further bafflement to the situation), I'd agree with TK. You have offered absolutely no explanation of why we were banned and the site was taken down. To assume that we understand your motives simply by reading your ''silence'' is preposterous. There is only one explanation I can think of that justifies banning people who were not at all involved: having been told that you were going to die unless you banned us all. So either there's a murderous psycho out there who despises this site's admins (but not enough to actually kill them), or you screwed up and we need concrete and uncompromisable assurance that you not only will not, but CAN not do this again. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 22:28, 13 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Sandbox&diff=403496D&D Wiki:Sandbox2009-08-12T22:03:17Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a sandbox. It will be cleaned around once every three hours. Play around in this sandbox to see how things look, however please do not edit above the line!<br />
<br />
''Last cleaned at Wed Aug 12 16:01:03 2009 by [[User:Dandwiki Helper|Dandwiki Helper]]. <sub>([http://www.dandwiki.com/cgi-bin/sandbox.cgi clean the sandbox now])</sub>''<br />
----<br />
<br />
Just showing someone this old userpage.<br />
<br />
===About Me===<br />
<br />
;Likes<br />
I love Jesus, God, & the Holy Spirit. I love the bible, my leaders, my country, my church, my flag, National Socialist Ideology, and my National Socialist membership, and (of course) D&D Wiki!!!<br />
<br />
;Dislikes<br />
I hate liberals (especially Hillary Clinton), <small><small><small>s</small></small></small>atan, atheists, heretics, non-mormons, sand niggers (god-damned allah followers), commies, gays, lesbos, darkies, and my wife. I also hate vegetarians and vegetables alike (if theres even a difference lol)!! <br />
<br />
;Hobbies<br />
D&D Wiki, going to church, doing my bills so that I may pay tithing (I'm a rebel; I pay 20% lol), playing D&D, drinking beer & shooting deer, fixing up my truck, polishing my gun, and watching the sunday sports. <br />
<br />
;Heroes<br />
<big><big><big>G</big></big></big>od, Jesus, Gordon B Hinkley ( I call him Gordy lol), Bush, Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson, Anne Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, and my 12 year old son John.<br />
<br />
;Links<br />
http://www.lds.org/ (info on truth)<br />
http://www.mormon.org/ (more info on truth)<br />
http://www.familysearch.org/ (rediscover your roots!)<br />
http://www.nsm88.org/index2.html (smash capitalism and communism!!!)<br />
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/ (had to have it)<br />
<br />
[[Image:TempleNight.jpg|500px]]<br />
[[Image:Joseph smith.jpg|500px]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=403480User talk:Green Dragon2009-08-12T21:21:48Z<p>Daniel Draco: New section: The Tavern</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=00:12, 8 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Spell<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=TheWarforgedArtificer<br />
|date_time=23:58, 7 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Half-Troll_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Formatting<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=14:57, 3 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== A Thousand Apologies ==<br />
<br />
I've never "edited" a Wiki page before. I thought everything was being sent to you as a suggestion, and after I submitted my suggestions, I noticed the actual page changed. I want to apologize personally. I may have the original chirurgeon saved to my computer when my players first found and downloaded it, and I can fix everything as soon as I locate it. Again, I apologize profusely, and I suppose I've learned my lesson. I won't be clicking "edit" any more, since it actually changes the page instead of makes suggestions.<br />
<br />
That said, is there a way to send suggestions to users about an entry in Wiki? {{Unsigned|76.187.167.233|14:49, 5 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:That's what the talk page is for -- click on the tab that says "Discussion" instead of the one that says edit. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:50, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Also, we can revert any changes to a page because wikis store the entire history of the page (each edit). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:22, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hello, thank you and questions! ==<br />
<br />
Hi there,<br />
Many thanks for your welcome and good wishes. whilst I may not be a total dead loss between the ears I am still learning slowly how to set out my formats and pages and wanted to ask you about a few things please...<br />
# How can I delete a page once it is made? There is a page referencing "Tekman", the forerunner of my deity Teknos, which I need to have removed please.<br />
# Can you please send me [if you have time] any constructive criticism about the pages I have completed thus far - ARE they complete? Do I need to do much more to them or are they functional for the time being? How could they be improved? And so on<br />
# Am I out of order for adding materials in this way? Have I broken some form of etiquette of which I am otherwise unaware? Please let me know - for example, is it OK top be asking you so many questions?<br />
Thanks for your time. [[User:Rorschach Moondark|Rorschach Moondark]] 09:29, 8 May 2009 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:Learning wiki-syntax should not be too difficult, and once one gets proficient things start looking better and things start fitting better to our preload standards. But anyways...<br />
:# To delete a page please refer to [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]].<br />
:# Sorry... I really do not have the time to take a look at the content you have submitted right now. If you want some critique you may want to ask on the talk page for people's opinions.<br />
:# And I am not sure how you have been adding material, but if you are following the preload and the naming conventions rules it should be alright.<br />
:Hope this helps a bit. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Racial Champion ==<br />
<br />
where is this feat. books, site, i cant find it anywhere. what does it do? {{Unsigned|Masterkycoo|01:48, 9 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure off the top of my head and I do not want to spend the time to look, sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:27, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Chat ==<br />
<br />
Hi I'm not completley new but I've really been enjoying dand wiki. but i thought of an idea for your site, maybe you could set up a chat other then the tavern specifically for dnd campaigns and maybe you could have a few people start some campaigns for 3.5 or 4e or both its just an idea so i wont be offended if nothing happens but please think about it as i think it would be very interesting. [[User:Apfa10|Apfa10]] 23:55, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You would have to ask [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to be certain however if one can create a sub-group chat then it should work. Comparable to how one creates a personal non-logged chat with another member. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Membership ==<br />
<br />
Can you remove myself and all my contributions off this wiki ASAP? I've had it with the regulars... -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 19:48, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Please sign your posts! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:29, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Never mind. I'll stay, but I'll just have to keep my temper in check. I've been having a bad couple weeks, and I apologize. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 20:12, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry if you feel like you're picked on, or you can't handle some of the stuff being said in irc. If you feel like you are being attacked the best course of action is non-action! Hope you feel better and continue to post on the wiki! -- [[User:Sleaker|Sleaker]] 21:06, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would recommend that you just don't log into the tavern. It can have negative effects sometimes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:25, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Storm Elf5's come back? ==<br />
<br />
Hey green dragon! Its been a while since I last visited, I had some computer issues. Anyway, I was wondering, what happened to my homebrew deity with the name of Grininthar or something like that. BTW, the site is great. [[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 16:56, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You have to remember the name correctly. <s>Gririnthar (DnD Deity)</s>. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:21, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Or now that you moved the page; [[Grininthar (DnD Deity)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3.5e Magical Armors ==<br />
<br />
Hey, not really familiar with the whole wiki/HTML things, but I tried to fix it up a little bit to match the armors. I apologize if it's not correct. If it is fine just a quick 'you're good' would be great and I'll finish editing all the ones that I can. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:01, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, [[3.5e Magical Armors]] is formatted correctly, if that is what you are wondering. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:25, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Oop, I actually meant to say the [[3.5e Magical Weapons|magical weapons]], which was incorrect as per your statement, and the one which I was trying to fix; my apologies for the miscommunication. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:20, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I have balanced Storm Elves ==<br />
<br />
Hey Green Dragon!<br />
<br />
I have done some work balancing my 4e race, [[Storm Elves (4e Race)|Storm Elves]] and I was wondering you or another admin could remove the ''Needs Balance'' template if you think it dosen't need any more balancing. There is also another template at the top of the page (''Stub'' I think) and I wanted to know how to begin to remove it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 05:59, 13 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Newbie Having A Small Problem ==<br />
<br />
Hello Green Dragon, I'm new to D&D Wiki and I have a small question that needs a little explaining. I wanted to submit a new Base Class to get feedback on it, so I followed the procedure your site had set up to make classes. I was about halfway done with fully creating the class when I saved the page and went to sleep. Unfortunately, when I wanted to continue from where I left off, I couldn't find the saved page. Where would I be able to find the page so that I can continue from where I left off? The Base Class was supposed to be made for 3.5e Homebrew and was entitled "The Ethereal Hunter". Really appreciate the help because I spent a good deal of time trying to learn and understand how to make a class here. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 06:49, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Not Green Dragon, but are you sure you saved the class? No "Ethereal Hunter" comes up via search function and [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Narrssuras+Stalking+Leopard&namespace=&year=&month=-1 your edit history] shows nothing by that name either. If you did it while you weren't logged in that could explain why it doesn't appear on your user contributions, but other than that I think perhaps something malfunctioned when you went to save the page. Hope that helps a little, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 09:22, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Within the last 30 days there hasn't been an 'Ethereal Hunter' saved by anyone. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 09:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the response anyway. Luckily, I learned that if you are going to fill something out that can span over several page, it is good to make a copy, so I did. Almost done with the Ethereal Hunter now. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:28, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, I've got everything done with my new class and everything is up for it. The only problems I'm having now are actually understanding what I'm doing wrong for my class to adhere to the rules. Some assistance would be helpful, here is the class [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)]]. Thanks in advance, [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 19:20, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Refer to the class' talk page for this discussion. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 19:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Will do, and thanks. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 03:26, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Axefighter ==<br />
<br />
I created a class in the beginning of August of 2008. I recently checked on it and it has disappeared. Its disappeared off of the classes page and off my contributions page. I would just like to know what happened and if it is possible to bring it back to the class list. Because I never wrote the class down anywhere else I don't know how to make an Axefighter.<br />
--[[User:Mightycolin|Mightycolin]] 05:40, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:It got deleted I believe. Not trying to be rude, however poorly made classes get deleted. If you would like it reverted you can ask on [[Talk:Axefighter (DnD Class)]]. [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mightycolin]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:41, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Had a similar problem before as well...to all those that read this here's some valuable advice for you...Back up your files or edits, even if it is temporary, just copy and paste the entire edit into a Word or Notepad document before saving the page. It will prevent any frustration with regards to loosing material (Trust me, I would have had to completely rewrite a class I made on this site if I hadn't backed it up in a word document.) Fellow Aspiring Creator [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 08:58, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== help ==<br />
<br />
i posted a race and it is not showing up {{unsigned|Ewokdruid}}<br />
<br />
:The problem was with the footer. I have since fixed it and it should show up now in the LA Variable listings. Also, perhaps you should check out the [[DnD Race Editing Instructions]] (it explains why your race didn't show up). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 10:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Abbreviations ==<br />
<br />
[[List of Book Abbreviations (DnD Other)]]. Back on May 19th you made some revisions to my List of Abbreviations. You also left a comment, 'why only WOTC?'. I dont know where to find the proper abbreviations for non-WOTC, but ifyou know of places, I will add to the list. TY --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 22:42, 26 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If they do not really exist then nevermind. Also, you want to consider adding the abbreviation to the book entry within the [[Publication List]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Class: Palibar ==<br />
<br />
Hello i was wondering how do power points/day work? {{Unsigned|Alf|21:54, 27 May 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I cannot find that class however for the [[SRD:Psychic Warrior#Power Points/Day]] it's like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:19, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Map Builder ==<br />
<br />
Hey thanks for the welcome. I don't think I need help on wiki formatting (I'm quite regularly doing some background cleanup on wikipedia, not to mention a software engineer), but thanks for the link anyway.<br />
<br />
I did have a question, though, do you know a good way to make a world map using only free tools (small budget ><)? [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 02:11, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You can use GIMP, it has a random map generator and with some basic editing you can end up with things like [this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Image:FFRegionsMap.png]. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:36, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I want more control than Random, sorry. [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 05:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A good link to a map builder should be found [[DnD Links|here]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nature Bound Class ==<br />
<br />
Why did you set my class for deletion? It has only been on site for 2 days, whereas ive seen pages with only a template and no info typed in sit on site for months without a delete template. Don't get me wrong, I love the wiki, but that is just wrong.--[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 15:32, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I did not see those classes. If you have some spare time it would be quite appreciated if you add the appropriate templates to them. Classes should be added at least mostly finished (finished on a word processing program with the preload cut and pasted into it for example). Sorry if this sounds frank, but this issue has been brought up before and I just want to clear up why it is okay to add templates to newly added material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:49, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== why? ==<br />
<br />
i(true warrior)have a question. why are you going to delete my race? please write back.<br />
<br />
<br />
-true warrior<br />
<br />
:Refer to the [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)|races talk page]]. Ask there what you can do to fix it. And please sign your posts using --~~ ~~ (without spaces). --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:25, 29 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== PLEEEEEEEEEASE!!! ===<br />
<br />
DONT ERASE RACE! THER IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!<br />
<br />
=== why ===<br />
<br />
why are you going to erase my race? what did i ever do to you?<br />
<br />
How do you make class features?-asked by arshan272<br />
<br />
== Harassment ==<br />
<br />
After trtying to have a level headed discussion with [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], about balance in 4e, he bacame rude and rather aggressive. His attitude and use of foul language has really put me off. I understand he may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material written concerning 4e design, but even after pointing him to the source he refuses to at least agree to disagree. Again given the volume of information, if you haven't been reading since day one it may be overwhelming. But if he dosen't have time to read it, doesn't mean he needs to vile. I will return to the wiki next week.But I must say if he remains I will not. I refuse to be spoken to like that. Thank you for your time. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 07:44, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There ''is'' a /ignore command in the Tavern if for some reason you can't get along or see eye-to-eye with another user. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:40, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Sepsis, if Dragon Child is being like that, don't bother with him. Some people just don't have good manners. I generally stay out of the Tavern as it is... But you can talk to me about it anytime. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This is totally unfair. Look at what I actually said. The crux of what I said was "If you want something to be called unbalanced because it can't be used in YOUR personal games, that's bullshit". Do you honestly think you can go around slapping an "unbalanced" tag on everything in the wiki that you don't like and have it be OK? The problem wasn't you "not pointing out the source". Indeed, you claimed Mike Mearls or whoever said something... and then provided no link, no cite. I was supposed to go find it myself. I don't even know if it actually exists. That's as good as not pointing anything out. And at no point did I actually disagree with you. I actually stated, large size in 4e may very well be overpowered. I didn't say otherwise, and even said as much. There's no agreeing to disagree when I don't actually disagree. All I was saying is, you really needed a stronger argument then "A designer, somewhere, said you shouldn't do that". That may be wrong, you may be mistaken, the designer himself may have had faulty logic. In short, it's not that I "didn't have the time" to read it, it's that I was never shown where it was, or given any reason to believe it actually exists. You didn't have the time to back up your arguments. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:08, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::No this has nothing to do with our discussion. This is all about your language and attitude. You are not on an "adult-only" site, and have no right to start swearing and arguing because the mood strikes you. I don't need that garbage on my screen with my kids around you are rude and immature and that is that, any arguments you could have made to support yourself is done, once I reached the "F-word" in your comment I stopped reading (in fact this will be the last time I even look at anything you say). Nothing you say will ever carry any wieght with me. If you have to resort to that, then you are too stupid to listen to. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:16, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: I would like to make a counter-point. Sepsis has constantly been closed-minded and disruptive towards Dragon Child at all points. His so-called "swearing" (an idea that I, myself, find absolutely preposterous. They're words, not knives) does nothing to hinder the fact he was simple stating some quite well thought out arguments against Sepsis' so-called "everything is broken that doesn't go with the design" philosophy (so called by me). Throughout the discussion on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]], Sepsis was uncooperative and he threw the insults; not Dragon Child. Dragon just said a word or two that are commonly overreacted against; so he suddenly became "ignorant", "rude" and a "moron". Frankly, I think Sepsis is harassing Dragon child; as to say he has broken the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia Civility Policy] (Personal attacks and aggressive behaviour). --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:30, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with TK. I'm not a fan of avoiding words arbitrarily assigned to be "vulgar" in public, and I certainly don't want to in a conversation between adults. If a child or guardian thereof doesn't want to see curse words, it is that person's responsibility to avoid them. The only time when it makes sense for the one swearing to avoid the one offended is when the offended cannot avoid the swearer; since Sepsis can easily keep his kids away from those conversations, it is (and no insensitivity meant here) not at all anyone else's problem. Two minutes of searching found me [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351 this firefox add-on], which allows one to censor browsing when one's children use the computer. I'm sure there are many other such free utilities. I'm sure you can even find something that censors specific words rather than whole pages, if you want to go that mild. Point is, "fucking" was used for emphasis; that's not an insult or attack that could be taken as belligerent. "Bullshit" was used to mean "something that makes no sense"; it's more concise and means the exact same thing. There's no need for Dragon_Child to be punished or even given a warning. He did nothing wrong. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Just want to make a point on my way out. It is a complete shame that someone can begin by using "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" but not be considered in violation but my non-profane and justifiably angry response is considered harassment. Read the conversation, he started the yelling, and when I wouldn't do as he asked he begins swearing. Obviously this is not the place for me, consider the case closed, as I will depart to more civil pastures. Good day. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I did apologize for my comments as I realized they were inappropriate and misplaced. But now I see all that matters is who you actually suck up to. Then the rules of conduct mean nothing...go and get a program to filter non-adult sites (sheesh), how about we stick to the rules and take quick action against such sick behavior. But hey its your world, do as you will. A bid all a fine farewell. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 06:23, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I wasn't even a part of all of this and I can't help but think you're being completely ridiculous. Swearing is suddenly adult now? I suppose you haven't been on an elementary school playground for decades. Nevermind that elementary school children shouldn't even be accessing this site, as it's hosted in the United States and is subject to COPPA. I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I refuse to censor myself just because someone under the age of 13 ''might'' see my words. I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either. And if that person ''does'' care, they can use a Firefox add-on to filter it out. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:27, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I sorry, but, I must simply add my own two cents to this discussion. Sepsis, you claim that you are leaving the website to protect your children, while you are the one that is acting like a child. A person upset you, so you're going to run away? Honestly, this may seem a little cruel, but I can say that I hope you do leave, since, if you can't be mature and look past the pieces you don't like, you don't deserve to even be an admin. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 10:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow im surprised how rediculous everyone else is being, I mean come on just cause kids are swearing does not make it appropriate, if you swear even if it is not meant as an insult or direct attack, people can still take offense, the people refusing to clean up theiur language are the childish ones here, not everyone likes or can stand reading swearing, and as a general curtosey you should keep your language as clean as possible, or is that not how it works nowadays? Just because yobbish kids and those a lesser abbility to communicate other then through cosntant swearing do it, does not mean that it is acceptable for a community based site. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey, guess what. I'm NOT "refusing to clean up my language". Rith asked me, personally, to be nicer and swear less. I agreed. That's not "refusing", by any sense of the word. Nor do I have a "lesser ability to communicate", indeed, I was able to make clear all of my points in the discussion, while other people refused to back up even the smallest claims, and got angry and abusive because, god forbid, someone asked them for a cite. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:17, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Ok, I donn't want to drag balance and what not into this conversation thats for the talk apge of the article. When did I target the refusal at you Dragon Child? If you can communicate so well then why swear? Could have avoided this entire stupid situation. What other people refused to back up these claims? Do you mean Sepsis? Didn't he mention the Design & Devlopment articles? The point is Dragon Child, that being rude is unhelpful to a discussion as is swearing and yelling [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I apologize. I wrongly assumed the refusal was aimed at me. As for why... let me apologize ahead of time for this post, as I'll need to swear to be even slightly comprehensible here. Is there any word in the English language that conveys the same meaning and emotion as "bullshit" ? The fuck, sure, I should have left that out. But "Bullshit" - that word doesn't really have any true synonyms. Sepsis refused to back up his claims, yes. You can't make a cite of "It's somewhere there". If you can't provide a link, it may as well not exist. To call me an overwhelmed moron to go finding HIS cite for HIM was being rude and unhelpful. I, at the very least, expect people to have the same sort of intellectual integrity and honesty as you'd use to write a highschool paper or in a highschool debate team. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the place where it was cited about the large size would be particualrly hard to find seeing as it was either in one of Mike Mearls Blog Posts or on the forum where mike mearl posted. Though I have read it I know I have. And yes to ask you to go find his cite is rude and unhelpful but that just falls into the region of pot meet kettle, two wrongs dont make a write blah blah. Hes left now. It's over. Let's go back to balancing that giant race :D [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:35, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::None of this discussion even matters at this point, considering that, once people have set their mind into a way of thinking, it'll take a massive effort to sway them (that happens to be a basic fact of psychology). Both sides of this arguement have already set their mind 'in stone', if you will, and the other side will not change them. The only part of this discussion that even matters now, is that Sepsis is leaving the wiki over something as simply as what words were used. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Sepsis leaving is a tad silly. But what can we do? Nothing thats what.[[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:53, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What we can do is clear up this policy. I've made clear that I, personally, feel that it's the responsibility of the offended to avoid those more relaxed about it, not the other way around. After all, what if someone suddenly took offense to the inclusion of demons in the wiki? Since it's something which is part of our little subculture and not meant to offend, we'd tell them very kindly to freak off (and notice how ridiculous substitute words are).<br />
::::::I say we put it to a vote. There's really no other fair way to decide policy. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 13:36, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The difference of course being swearing is not part of our subculture. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 14:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::True. Swearing is part of our culture, not our subculture. Most people swear in informal contexts. In any case, a vote would decide this. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::How would a vote solve anything? Just based on what has been presented we obviously won't reach a consensus, and how can anything but a consensus be considered fair? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:45, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::If the admins say it's ok, then it's OK. If the admins say it's not, then it's not, and other people shouldn't try to force others into not doing so. How is forcing someone to not do something, even though it isn't against the rules, just because someone else is offended fair? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:49, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::[[Meta Pages#Policies]]; swearing is a violation of our policies. For swearing above, however, no one is issued a warning since it was just a discussion about the swearing on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You have to follow two links to even see that, and what the second link is isn't even at all obvious (indeed, I didn't even see the second link until it was pointed out to me), and then only works if you consider the word fuck "Gross-profanity". It also seems you might consider the word "bullshit" "gross profanity", as your claim that I don't need to be warned from this page. That seems... extremely harsh. You can hear "gross profanity" in R rated movies? There's no way that that rule can be reasonably interpreted to forbidding the word "bullshit", and I'd even argue that "fuck" is still not "gross profanity" when used as an emphasizer. The rule needs to be made clear. And, for what its worth, I much more easily found rules against not providing citations and personal attacks, which you didn't so quickly react to as you apparently did to what I said on this page... [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:41, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::And now, indeed. You've proven that you consider the word "fuck" to be a "gross profanity" (which took searching to even find it was against the rules), yet you don't consider these to be harassment (which is clearly against the rules), and I QUOTE: "you are being ignorant and rude", "I don't deal with morons", "If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material.", "your a complete and utter moron", "you have proven you aren't even close enough to being worthy of my (or anyones really) time.", "Wow that answers a lot, an ignorant rant boy", "your opinions really are completly worthless.". So... right. That doesn't seem fair. At all. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]. However you are right, you both deserve a warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, I pointed that page out, and noted that it's two clicks from the rule-thread, AND the fact that what it means isn't even clear, and there's no real reason to believe that sweearing is agaisnt the rules there according to the summary. What does "gross civility" even mean to you. I expressed confusion, and then... told I'm not allowed to do "gross incivility". Is this just going to be circular, where I'm told I'm just going to be warned whenever someone feels like, with no real rules to it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::* Rudeness<br />
:::::* Insults and name-calling<br />
:::::Should fall under those options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:55, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That doesn't answer my question. I hoenstly don't believe I was "rude", at all. Indeed, according to what you just said here, you just warned me for <i>something that isn't even against the rules</i>, because you warned me for swearing, and according to you, "gross profanity" is defined as "rudeness, insults, and name-calling". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:58, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - Wikipedia policies page. Hence, you could have used alternate words to make your point. It doesn't say you can't, but if you can use other words to make the same description then you should. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Except, Sabre, that's on neither of the two pages I was linked to. I asked for where in the rules it said that, and a clarification on what it means. I was not provided with it, and indeed, I was then immediately told that the rule I was warned under <i>never existed</i>. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Dragonchild, it doesn't matter what you believe, policy is policy, just sit down be quiet and go and contribute to the wiki, seriosuly your acting like your being fined by the police sheesh. The fact of that matter is you swore, you broke the policy. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 06:37, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Fine, swearing is against the rules. Am I no longer allowed to say the word "Damn" ? Should we now censor 71 different wiki pages? Hmm, no, that seems silly. Prehaps, just prehaps, as this rule doesn't actually appear anywhere, and indeed, Green Dragon just gave a similiar interpretation to me - <i>that this rule doesn't exist</i>, despite the fact that he claimed earlier it did - the rule should be clarified. Sure, I'll take the warning, whatever, but I want the rule clarified. Unclear rules only exist to allow the mods to warn and ban whoever they like, for whatever damn (whoops! is that warning #2?) reason they please, with no sense of justification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow, so instead of being queit you act like a saracastic and slightly arragont jerk. If your nto happy with hwo things are meant to work here, then dont come ehre simple as. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:10, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am assuming Green Dragon will be reasonable and clarify the rule, which I will then follow. It is not being "sarcastic and arrogant" to point out what I did (indeed, if you see above, it is true). I don't see how I'm being a "jerk" - I'm asking for a rule clarification. Like I said, I fully expect Green Dragon will give one, seeing as he seems reasonable enough. If I were to take your suggestion, I'd throw a fit and leave in a huff every time a website has an unclear rule. That seems overly childish. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::No ionstead what you did was throw a fit and target moderators in general sayign that unclear rules jsut allow them to ban whoever they like. I'm actually a moderator of my own private forum, I assure you thats not how it works. And im sorry I was overeacting the jerk wbit was unescessarry. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:57, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I didn't "target" anyone. Well, ok, I targeted the mods on the WOTC boards and ENWorld boards, that purposely use unclear rules to keep the places "intellectually pure". I more meant it was a warning - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being passive agressive, <i>I honestly think Green Dragon is a reasonable person, as are the rest of the admins and mods here, unlike the rest of almost every D&D board and chat ever</i>. Unclear rules serve no purpose except power tripping. Rules are there to prevent bad behavior that you don't like. If the rule is clear, people will be much less likely to do that bad behavior (indeed, I would not have sworn had I know it was against the rules). If the rule is unclear, people will not know not to do that bad behavior, due to it being, well, unclear and open to interpretation. What benefit does an unclear rule have? The only benefit is that it may be used as a justification by a moderator to ban people over something that isn't explicitly against the rules. If someone ends up doing something you end up not liking later that's not against the rules yet, you add it, and then warn the person for LATER doing, or else you're being unfair. Clear rules are totally necessary and have no downside. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wanting clarification != throwing a fit. (Note: Calling him a jerk breaches the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Civility Policy] under "Insults and name-calling") (That was a joke by the way). The wikipedia policies are far too strict; they build on the idea that massive amounts of people are going to use the site and a large portion of massive amounts of people are much more easily offended; especially those that use the internet (because that somehow means people get offended easily; textual based insults are so scathing). This wiki is a far more specialized wiki and, in my opinion, will attract the attention of people who have heard swearing. They've read it. They've seen it. They've tasted it's rainbow. This site doesn't need supastrictpolicies because it's not like Wikipedia; our userbase isn't several million. A small amount of people can interact calmly, as long as they stop blowing things way out of preportion. Someone said shit, fuck, hell, damn, bollocks, tits, blah, blah, blah. I could go on Google right now, type in one word and find worse in a single click. I could go on DICTIONARY DOT COM and find worse in a few tappity taps. Facebook? Boom, I took a quiz yesterday about FETISHES. YouTube? Boom, I watched a video the other day that used amazing amounts of the word "Fuck" in a short time. Films that kids have seen are worse than the shit that occurs here. Before I was ten, I'd seen a guy rip out his own eyeball, tear off his arm, tell people to fuck off, stab people, beat people, etc, etc. I've seen a 12a film use the word bitch and more (Hell, I've seen PG films that have used the word Shit). This is just overly censoring things and now we're moving into 1984 country, where soon Big Brother will rain down upon you with it's Thought Police. DO YOU WANT THAT?! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:25, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You have a good point calling some a jerk is name calling and I can recognise a joke btw. :). And no I dont want Big Brother thought police going on. I hate that sort of thing anything that surpresses my freedom I tend to be agaisnt. Your right the wiki rules are to strict. ANd of course people have heard swearing, tasted its rainbow and all that, it does not mean everyone WANTS to see it and taste it. This whole thing is getting rediculous now and I will take responsibility for any rediculousness (is that even a word?) I have added to it. Also, I thought Green Dragon had clarified it with the link to wiki thingy ma bob. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm going to make one final argument, for now. One of the admins/sysops/whatever he is, Daniel Draco, said up thread he didn't believe that swearing was against the rules. By this, I argue if he doesn't know, it's not reasonable for a normal user to know it's not against the rules. And finally, to what extent is swearing against the rules need to be clarified. I have yet to be provided with a good sub-in word for "Bullshit". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Bovine poop. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:48, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Swearing is against policy since not only are our policies partly defined by Wikipedia's policies however people swearing also tends to end up sparking discussions like this one. I beleive this is the third time a discussion involving swearing has taken place, all with the same result. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:00, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Then why not make it explicitly so? The rules clearly aren't explicit, as proof enough by Draco not knowing. Obviously, it's unclear. If people keep breaking a rule because the rule is unclear, isn't it your responsibility to make the rule more clear? I'm not even arguing for changing it, I'm arguing for defining it. Otherwise, if you're the only one who knows what the rule actually means or if it even exists, how can you be surprised when people break it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:11, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] was most likely just confused as to the rules (he may not have read all of the policies on Wikipedia). But the policies could not be more clear (save the three warnings policy which is D&D Wiki specific); they are found in the [[Meta Pages]] (''Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.'') under "''Policies''". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:46, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yes, they could be. The rules specifically prohibit "gross profanity". That's what they say about swearing. And I asked outright- what is Gross Profanity? You gave me an explanation that did not include swearing. This has left me INCREDIBLY confused. Is ANY swearing, even "damn" and such gross profanity? Is it gross profanity only past a certain point of words? Etc. Please clarify. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:50, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]<br />
::::::::::* Rudeness<br />
::::::::::* Insults and name-calling <br />
::::::::::Once again any swearing should fall under one of these options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not... really? I don't think every single use of a swear word, ever, is rude. Are we still counting words such as damn, shit, etc, as swear-words that are always rude, even when not directed at other people? If so, fine, I'll go along with it but I think it's silly. It reminds me of the WOTC boards where you couldn't talk about circumstance bonuses, or cocking a crossbow. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I don't see how swearing falls under either of those categories unless it's saying "you fucker" in relation to someone, or something similar. And I think a great deal of people here, myself included, will be ''extremely'' unhappy if swearing in general is banned. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You are right. Swearing is tolerated if it does not break any [[Meta Pages#Policies|policies]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So, for example, "This is a piece of shit" would be unacceptable, but "This class is fucking amazing" would be acceptable? If so, perfect. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion. Thank you so much for clearing this up. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 14:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I wish to thank you all for creating and maintaining this Wiki.<br />
<br />
It's beautifully styled, diligently edited and organized and has proven its usefulness many times already for me.<br />
<br />
[[User:Skypher|Skypher]] 08:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Massive Screw-ups ==<br />
<br />
So, okay... I think I am completely justified in saying that in my short time here, I have already made a bad impression. I would like to know... How can I interact here without doing so? 'Cause as you may or may not know, I made a flaw (which itself was extremely flawed), which, from what I can only tell was rightly judged as unbalanced, and I think I've already made a permanent scar on my reputation here, which generally reflects my experience everywhere on the Internet. So I'm wondering, how can I constructively and successfully contribute to D&Dwiki, perhaps enough that my noobishness will be compensated for?<br />
[[User:Jadebrain|Jadebrain]]11:27, 31 May 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I think the fact that you've contributed is amazing. Nothing negative. Everyone has different opinions on things placed on the wiki, all one can do is add theirs to the collective. You're a valued part of the wiki and we appreciate your articles. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:21, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I concur with Hooper, and would like to add that nobody is going to remember the bad flaw. Most first uploads are crap. Just the way it is. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:38, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Honestly, everybody was a noob once, but it's no big deal. It was hard for me when I first started out here. Surgo did point me toward the Frank and K stuff, which helped a lot (especially Tome of Necromancy, where I got the vampire-staking rules for my Vampire Hunter PrCs...). Also, at the risk of it being a shameless plug, Lord Dhazriel was a big source of inspiration, and there's a couple others who've posted some amazing entries. I for one would be more than happy to look at your work, if you'd look at mine. Quid pro quo, and all that. Stick around, and it'll get a lot better (I did.)! -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:24, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you want to contribute a class or a feat or whatever, think about what you've seen recently or what you want in your own game. Nothing gets motivation going for me like trying to bring something from another genre into DnD 3.5. Or trying to figure out how to model an ability. Look at my user page for some of the stuff I've done. Most of it was seeing or playing something and deciding to try to model it in DnD. So far, I've done Neji from Naruto, Yusuke Urameshi from Yu Yu Hakusho, and the Dragoon from Final Fantasy, especially Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I also wrote my own version of the Drunken Master. But when someone in one of my games wants to, say, run up walls and stand on the ceiling, or he wants a parkour-like ability...Well, then I've got to write something to help him out, and pride demands that it be worthwhile. So if I write anything I'm really proud of, and I can get up the motivation, I put it on the Wiki for review and for whoever wants it. Or for whoever wants to write the ability himself but could use a rough idea of how you manage a, for example, Shoryuken uppercut. Anyway, try some experiments and don't take it personally when people say it sucks. You'll get better, and they should be giving a rationale for their reasoning or advice for improvement. --[[User:Genowhirl|Genowhirl]] 21:14, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adult Content on the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
Hey, GoldDragon here. I was browsing user pages, when I came upon Angel Black's page and found a nude picture. I'm not terribly concerned by it, but there was no advisory warning, and I wondered if there should be. I was foolish enough to bring this up in the Tavern, which sparked a... vigorous debate. Anyway, I know there's a template for an adult content warning, but I didn't think it appropriate for a lowly peon such as me to edit someone else's user page. I have very young players who enjoy this site, but their parents would be upset at me if their children discovered such a page and weren't at least warned to shove off. my point is, should there be a content advisory warning on said user page? what is the line in the sand concerning when one is needed and when not? [[User:GoldDragon|Dragon]] 22:58, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Template:Adult Theme]] if you are interested. And it's usefulness should be discussed on [[Template Talk:Adult Theme]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:47, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vatireans ==<br />
<br />
Please help me recreate my race. To tell you guys the truth when my friend(absconder)told me that my race was over powered and would be erased i did not belive him, foolishly.im new at this so please give me some tips on makeing the Vatireans fit the criteria. P.S. i am contacting you green dragon because i dont no how to talk to sepsis. -true warrior<br />
<br />
:Thank you so much for being so helpful and not deleting my race.im am obviosly new at this.-true warrior<br />
<br />
::Could you guys make the changes yuo want and ill look at them tomarrow,(Vatireans).-true warrior<br />
::P.S. actullaly edit the Vatireans please.<br />
<br />
::Please write back and help.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::pleases write back. -true warrior<br />
<br />
::::please respond,great green dragon.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::::You can ask these same kind of questions and see the reasons as to why your race was nominated for deletion on it's talk page; [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:21, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== Arachonnomicon; the Book of Spiderkind ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I recently finished the [[Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook)|Arachonomicon]]. Could you look over it to see if it ready to be a featured article, please? Thanks in advance. <br><br />
--&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:16, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
I had ask this question two times, but I hadn't got an answer. How do I make templates? Some pages really need templates. --[[User:Chihuahua0|chihuahua0]] 15:51, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by templates? Adding them to a page or making a new one? If a new one just add it in the template namespace. If adding one to the page just copy and paste it from the preload. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gratzi, Sir.<br />
<br />
== Warmage ==<br />
<br />
Here ([[WarMage DnD Class)]]) is a user article under construction, which is a copy of the miniatures handbook's Warmage. I'm pretty sure he's breaking the rules here, so I'd be thankful if you'd check on it. P.S. I'm hoping "Buerocrat" is the right kind of person to come to with this, It's all greek to me. {{Unsigned|Connery55|18:03, 15 June 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Given that the editing for that page says "only from the book", I'm guessing that he is right. I've added the delete template (if I'm wrong, please remove it) under the premise that posting SRD material is a copyright violation. Good catch on that, but please sign your post next time. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|ThunderGod Cid]] 19:51, 15 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for setting up that page. I haven't been able to do much the since I set up some "Heroes" campaign stuff last week because I have been sick which restricts me from really doing anything that involves breathing, which is every thing but siting underwater. I'm working on setting up another Campaign setting but it has 4 four race types with a whole lot of different races. Hopefully I can get it up and running. [[User:Meepers|Meep]] 12:24, 16 June 2009 (MDT) P.S. Does (MDT) stand for mountain date time?<br />
<br />
:::7 seconds of [http://www.google.com google] informs us that MDT is Mountain Daylight Time. During the change of seasons, I think it changes to MST as well (which is Mountain Standard Time). Make sure you take this into account when setting your [[SRD:Water Clock|water clock]]. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== numbers ==<br />
<br />
I noticed in the recent changes area, that next to the links there are numbers in parenthacies, I was wondering what those numbers mean? (example: . m True Fiend (DnD Class); 22:57 . . (+56) )--[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:03, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:That's how many characters were either removed or added to the page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:13, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::ah, thanks! it was bugging me --[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== i have a question. ==<br />
<br />
When is worldwide D&D day this year?<br />
<br />
== Rating System ==<br />
<br />
In the tavern, we were discussing the class rating system. It seems to be the general consensus that, as is, it simply doesn't work. A numerical system with categories doesn't do much in the way of giving a general appraisal of a class -- flavor, a 100% subjective measure, is considered equally with such absolutes as wording and formatting. In addition, a very large number of the ratings are given no explanation, miscategorized, or just make no sense. This could all be fixed if it was changed to a three-level non-numerical rating system (as proposed by Dragon Child): Needs Work, Usable, and Excellent. The crap ratings could be filtered out by requiring admin approval of all ratings -- an MoI to User:Admin could alert us and it wouldn't be very time-consuming to give a yea or nay. In the case of multiple ratings, we take the mathematical mode, erring towards Usable in case of a tie. This simplification has the added benefits of being smaller on the page and being usable on more than just classes -- finally, feats and equipment and other things could be rated. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:04, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just noting my 100% agreement here. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 00:07, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Part of the idea was that this would also be a progression that would encourage users to participate with more feedback. You wouldn't be allowed to give a "Needs Work" rating without saying what it needed work ON - certain abilities being too strong/weak, wording needing improved, or just it needed better wikification. Once the class was improved, the rating could then be changed from Needs Work to Usable, or Excellent. This is also a much clearer system, IMO. What's a 4 compared to a 5? Not entirely clear. What's an Excellent? Something you REALLY like, and want to play right now or include in your game. What's a Usable? Something you'd let someone else play, see no problems with, or just have minor disagreements about. What's Needs Work? Something that's not quite yet ready to play. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wow. Sometimes simplicity is just beautiful. Here are the only things that I see possibly being an issue with a system like this:<br />
:::*Will people still know what aspects should be considered in a "good rating"?<br />
:::*How much justification do they need to give in their rating post?<br />
:::*What led you to the conclusion that 3 tiers are the right way to go?<br />
:::*Are you sure a mode is better than converting to a median number?<br />
:::*This is a problem with the current rating system as well, but when is a page considered changed enough to require ratings to be nullified?<br />
:::On a more minor note, "Needs Work" should be named "Needs Improvement". I'm looking forward to hear more about this idea. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 06:33, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::*We can easily make a page with guidelines on that. On that note, Dragon Child made a very good point in the Tavern that flavor, being totally subjective, should not be considered at all -- the F&K Fighter, for example, would be considered excellent by many, but is totally lacking in flavor (as is intended for the generic "fighter" class). In my opinion, all that should be considered are power, formatting, and clarity.<br />
::::*It shouldn't need much. As long as they do justify it, and the rational parts make sense (even if we disagree with the opinion parts, such as "it's stronger than a monk and monks are overpowered"), it should be fine.<br />
::::*More than that and it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference in value between them. The tiers boil down to "bad, good, great", which is really the categorization that ratings seek to define -- the whole point of a rating is to figure out which of those three something is.<br />
::::*It could be median. I don't really know which would work better, I just figured mode would be simpler to figure out.<br />
::::*If something that was mentioned in the justification is changed, the rating is nullified. For example, if someone said an ability called Smite Teletubby was too powerful, and then the mechanics of the ability are changed, the rating is negated until the rater verifies that they still feel that it's overpowered, or that their other points of justification still make them say it needs improvement.<br />
::::*Probably a better phrase, yeah. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 09:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How do you compromise different rating? Say five users rate a page and it gets Excellent, Usable, Usable, Needs Improvement, and Needs Improvement. What does that measure out to? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:57, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Under both the Mode (which I'd prefer using) and the Median, it would get Usable. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::We should set up a vote for this lasting 1 week. I'm pretty sure I already know what the community will respond with... Could someone more involved with this set up a more formal proposal? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:52, 30 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Formal proposal? Meh, no need for that. All we need right now is a yea or nay from GD on setting up a vote. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:02, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Do we really need GD to set up the vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:23, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. Just need someone who knows the templates and formatting system to change around the template for the new system, as well as the display pages. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:38, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I can do that. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles]] system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The idea was this new review system could be used for ''everything''. I find the categories linked to be more than a bit unsatisfying because they are only for bad articles, not good articles. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:57, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I am of the opinion a numerical (or word) based rating system (as explained above) detriments articles more then it helps compared to a system where the unuseable articles are reviewed and helped in a article-based manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So effectively, [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]], you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:35, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm not that much of a pessimist. To be honest you read what I said wrong. In my opinion articles should be considered unuseable when they are not useable and instead of just rating them to bring them to a useable statis templates should be added to them on a article by article basis to bring them up to a useable statis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:51, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::So everything would be considered usable then, and there would be nothing that's considered exceptional? Because that's what it looks like you're suggesting. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::''Edit conflict, but I'm keeping what I wrote... I'm somewhat echoing Surgo.''<br />
::::::I didn't mean to suggest you were a pessimist. I was just asking for a bit of clarification. I agree that we need to template articles with areas they need to improve (stub, needs balance, etc.). The issue I have with this approach is that we don't have a marker to say "this has been looked at and is good". We have markers to say "This needs improvement" and we can find all of the ones without those markers, but inevitably I foresee many articles falling through the cracks. They won't have the stub template added even when they are stubs.<br />
::::::Maybe part of it is that our admins here need some D&D wiki specific required reading about what they are supposed to do. I know there are a lot of folks here that regularly patrol recent comments. If we have a page describing what we should look out for, then patrolling RC will become much more productive I'm sure. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:09, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Arguably every reader of a homebrewed article should read it with an analytical mindset. Especially if one is going to implement it into their campaign they should. As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements. Specifically I do not see why we need to add another system for reviewing articles when we can instead just raise the unplayability bar. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:57, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::''"As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements"'' -- that's a horrible idea. Someone who thinks the monk is the pinnacle of balance should not ever be going around putting "this is unbalanced" templates on anything. Raising the unplayability bar still leaves a large gap between the minimum allowed and articles that should be considered exceptional. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 18:46, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Just dropping a question here, but, for singling out exceptional articles, don't you guys already have something for that? "Featured Articles"? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:59, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Which never seem to change and have strange requirements like "must have a picture". [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::So you are saying we need to make a playability bar. Correct with either another system implementation or with the current system applied to all cases and as the only reviewing system. It's related to [[Balance System]], however it would have to be done differently in any case (and should). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:35, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing what is currently used for classes (rating system) applied across other categories, such as spells and races, but I understand that this discussion's inception was in part due to dissatisfaction with the current system as it stands, or at the very least concerns over how such a thing would translate. The four core categories (power, wording, formatting, flavor), however, seem to be fairly universal in my mind. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:42, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::You must have missed the many arguments over what those categories are even supposed to mean...I have no idea what Green Dragon's latest message is supposed to mean, so I just want to reaffirm my support for the original idea that started this thread. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:06, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I always go back to that table whenever I rate a class, and I think it does an okay job at defining each area, except for the formatting bit (too lenient, IMO, high rating must be earned, not proxy by following the preload). I can understand where debates might crop up, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:34, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the [[Rating System]] and the [[Character Class Design Guidelines (DnD Guideline)|Character Class Design Guidelines]] combined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wouldn't a playability bar be something akin to a rating system? And as far as templates vs. ratings is concerned, I think that is a bit of a 'your mileage may vary' thing. I mean, low numbers may motivate one person, and a big fat stub/wikify template may motivate others. Either way, that still has the same issues that a rating system does. That is, some people may considered something balanced, and others may not. Does such an article deserve to carry the <nowiki>{{NeedsBalance}}</nowiki> template? I guess what I'm saying is that numbers (a rating system) offer a much cleaner compromise than a debate over whether an article is balanced. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:25, 10 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Something I think you aren't getting, Green_Dragon, is that another goal -- and the one I and the others who brought this up care about -- with ratings is to inform casual readers of the wiki what classes are good and usable and which are not. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem is, some people think classes are usable and others don't. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which is why the proposed rating system would use the mode of the given rates. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 20:44, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I can see this arguement going back and forth like this for easily another 2 weeks. People don't like the current rating system, the boss man doesn't think the system is needed, but the people think that a system is needed, and that one thought keeps poking it's head back into the discussion, "Some people think classes are usable and others don't." I will personally not read anything past this post since it has already given me a headache, but I'm adding my two cents all the same. Yes, flavor is a subjective part of an article, and that paticular part of the rating system feels a bit superflous when you think about it, though, it could serve a purpose. For example, if a classes fluff describes it as, say, "A mighty spellcaster who tears down the heavens with but a thought", and then, when you get to class features, it doesn't even get spells, then that may fall into a '''What?/5''' on the flavor rating, but of course, who is going to be that stupid? I personally think that getting rid of the system all together though, that may be a troublesome idea, considering that the rating system is convenient for the fact that it can show up on the 'list of classes' page, and give a person a warning before they let their computer load the page, just to see a box that says 'Need Balance, come back later' pop up on their screen. People are rather impatient, and, loading 5 pages that are utter junk in a row may turn them away from the site. As for the 'Mol an admin to get a rating approved' idea, I think that is a touch of brilliance that Michealanjilo (don't know if I spelled that correctly) would be envious of, and that it ought to be impletemented immediately, regardless of the decision reached here. As for the Mode/Median Dichotomy, I personally like the way that numbered ratings look, and the feeling you get when you see a '''20/20''' on one of your favorite classes, and can't say that I would feel the same should I get 3 Excellents, but that is simply personal perference. Wrapping up this post, my advice would be to keep the rating system, knock of the flavor part, and add the 'Mol me' switch, but otherwise, keep things the same. Well, I hand the floor to the next person to post, enjoy the discussion everybody. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::My problem with the rating system as it is is, that a class that's 5/5 power, but 2/5 formatting because someone wants there to be more flavor, an example character, an "in the world" section and epic rules (yes, despite the fact that they're useless, I've seen someone rate down someone else for not having EPIC RULES before) is completely and totally different than one that was rated 2/5 formatting and 5/5 power. One of them is likely MUCH more usable in a game, while another just needs some quick fixes. Yet they're rated exactly the same on the "Out of 20" scale, which is why I really don't like that scale. I'd rather just look at classes by power. In addition, if there are mods for rating allowances (which I agree with), IMO they should be seperate from the admins. Green likely has a lot on his plate, and if the rating allowance is just set to a small number of users/mods, that means there can be no inter-mod quarrels. I'd nominate someone like Jota, in addition to some of the current mods like Draco and Surgo, myself, as these should be checked often and may involve a bit of back and forth. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:02, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: It seems the big problem with ratings is the fact that everyone's balance point is completely different. We all know, and no offense to anyone, That someone who agrees with Frank and K's teachings is going to have a radically different view to someone who doesn't. So no matter what the new rating system is, it will still be based on a balance point that at least 50% of the wiki disagrees with. And honestly, it is unlikely the class will get a second rating unless someone is passionate enough, all it takes is one bad rating to completely mess up a classes chance to be read by newcomers in the future, i know i don't even look at most classes with a rating under 12. I had an idea recently however about a new approach to rating, and inlight of what seems to be an impending overhaul, i will place it here. I notice on some of the other wiki's i peruse, (Bulbapedia, wikipedia etc.) that they have "Projects", like Project: Music and Lyrics, where they try to put in all the lyrics for all the songs on the wiki. I think we should get a group of about five people, regular wiki dwellers, with good and varied ideas on balance, into a sort of committee, A Project: Quality, if you will, to go over classes and give their unified opinion on them. One good rating and one bad rating that remain stagnant and unchangeing on a page don't do much. but a unified and collective and well thought out rating is much more likely to be appreciated instead of an IP saying, "WOW, this is really OP, lulz." The commitee could regulate when pages change and when ratings can be nullified, and if there all really devoted, start looking over new classes and old ones and discussing as a group an overall rating for them, whatever the new rating system may be. Perhaps this commitee could add a nice commentary and review to select classes. A article cleanup crew would also be nice, but i know that i cant have Christmas in july.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 01:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a committee to rate classes. Much neater, cleaner, and conflict-less than just anyone being able to rate things. We need to be very careful who is on that committee, though; the more varied the views on balance are, the more likely there is to be conflict. Every single member of the committee would need to be very flexible, and needs to recognize that they are, objectively, no more correct in their views as anyone else on the committee. One way to potentially help avoid disagreements is to come up with general categories of views on balance, and have each ratable page be in a category indicating how the author intended to balance it. For example, off the top of my head, there's Same Game Test balance, balance against similar classes from the core, balance against the strongest classes of the core, balance against similar classes from the entire game, etc. That way, instead of rating on balance from a scattered set of viewpoints, we rate based on the target that the author was trying to hit. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 01:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I don't like the idea of a committee, that narrows the views of the rankings. If the committee is primarily balancing to CR = ECL then they would rate down classes that are attempting for SRD power (and vice versa). A similar problem is when you are saying play testing, if a person uses a class effectively then it can be powerful but if they don't have an opportunity to or don't understand the benefits that the class has or just doesn't play a member of that class effectively then it may be considered much weaker. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe ranking classes for flavor, formatting and wording, but have a different rating system for power. CR = ECL would be one of the options, having a power ranking for that. Or it can be SRD power ranking. I think that flavor should be focused on more though. Have flavor out of 10, formatting out of 5, wording out of 5 and CR = ECL or SRD power ranking percentages, with under 100 being lower powered, 100 being exact and over 100 being high powered. Alternatively it could be a bar with low power at the bottom, SRD standard near the middle, CR = ECL near the end and higher powered at the end. (using lower and higher, not under and over. This is due to the fact that it seems friendlier.) That alternate bar could be out of 100, with the titles at 0, 33, 66 and 100. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:48, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Part of what started this whole discussion is how none of us liked having separate ratings for flavor, formatting, and wording. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 09:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am in favor of either a word-based rating system or a committee or both (somehow). I don't think anything more complex is needed, nor would it be helpful. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:18, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I agree strongly with the idea that classes should have a disclaimer with the power level they were going for. Otherwise, a class going for SRD power would be poorly rated by a user who basis his balance views of ECL=CR, and that isnt fair for someone whose view on balance is different. We could sort each of the balance points (SRD, ECL=CR, Overpowered, Strong SRD, what have you...) Into different categories, so people coming to this site with a specific idea of power can find there niche right away. Perhaps there could be a description on each of the category pages as well. I am still completely up for the idea of a committee, a committee that can be well versed in all these balance points (which i know there are a few of them in the tavern) and willing to review classes at their balance point.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 10:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that flavor is the most important part of the class, it should have its own rating. Formatting and wording can get stuck together, they are only for clarification anyway. I think that having a disclaimer for which power level is good and the word-based rating system can work with the committee, they just have to write a review on an article basically. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:17, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Rating systems, disclaimers for varying levels of power... It all sounds quite exciting, but what would measuring by multiple yardsticks do, besides confuse the hell out of everyone involved? People are liable to not even know what of these power categories their class is going to end up in. Not everybody is apt at discerning balance, which is exactly why some sort of rating system has been introduced in the first place, I think. While I don't have problems with it existing, the types of pages that actually get ratings is so limited and small (i.e., only classes and prestige classes) that it says little about the wiki's general quality standard. Everything else, from spells to equipment to creatures and other random miscellanea is pretty much ignored. There, but not so as you'd notice unless you're willing to wade through hundred miles of swampland with a pig on a leash to find the odd truffle or two. <br />
<br />
::::What I'm proposing is that a sort of 'Editor's Choice' template be made in which any of the admins/sysops can tag the pages they like. Most admins of this wiki are veterans in D&D, and know what they're on about. It's a real simple concept really. If you navigate to a page and see a little frame at the top that states one of the admins like it, it's likely the people'll be willing to look further into it. It would be a simple matter to separate the Bayeux Tapestries from the sea of toilet paper that is the wiki if people were at least given an indication to which articles might be up to snuff. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 21:19, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As I asked before, isn't that what "featured articles" is for? Yes, I know it hardly changes, but I also know there was a discussion somewhere about fixing that. Swap the featured articles more often, add more to the candidates, and doesn't that fit your criteria of "editor's choice"? The only thing I'm asking is, why make something new when you can use what you've got? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well, there's still this nonsense baggage like how a featured article "must have an image" (even if it's something like a transmutation spell that hardly needs one). Perhaps if those requirements were deleted. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Why make somethign new when you can use what you've got?" What we "got" Doesn't seem to be working.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 22:49, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A page doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles of what constitutes a featured article in order to obtain approval. If the contents of the article are useful, usable, readable and well construed, there should be a way for people to tell. It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. A simple little thumbnail of, I dunno, a silver chalice or something, with the caption 'this article is Good' next to it should suffice. On the whole, writing featured articles is like writing the legislation. You have to suffer through countless articles and subparagraphs that you'd never deal with were it ever used in a campaign. As a result, pages like [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|this]] read as though you're drowning in wallpaper paste. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::If theoretically the rating system was removed I agree that the main issue would be that one would not be able to quickly pull a judgement of a certain class from [[DnD Base Classes]] page. Personally I think one of the main reasons the classes area is such a mess is since a rating system was implemented. I am under the impression people do not challenge themselves when adding an article if the goal in mind is to make it adhere to a rating system. And, for that reason, I think the entire class section is such a mess. If (on the preload) we changed the reviewing templates to the D&D-Wiki wide ones and added them to the top (not the bottom) and removed the rating system I think people would submit better classes and this entire prolem would be fixed. Also, that is what FA are for, and I agree that [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is not FA quality. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:32, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a editor's choice thing. It can show good and mostly complete articles, not only the best of the best (which the FA show). This would incorporate flavor and power, with the main formatting to be handled by other templates. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:59, 13 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think I was misunderstood. What I mean about using the featured articles for editor's choice was that we -change- the featured articles criteria to reflect what is being discussed here. That was my suggestion. Now, if no one thinks that idea is a good one, fine. I'm just clarifying. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|17:11, 16 July 2009}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think that Featured Articles should be the best of the best. We can also have recommended articles and use able articles, with the recommended being better in flavor, wording and layout while the use able ones are still usable but not as high quality. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 06:46, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Here's an Official Proposal.<br />
:::::::::::::A committe is formed known as the Ratings Committee, or RC for short. The RC is composed of 9 members, each of varied preferences and opinions, to form it. The RC members must each contribute to the RC once every month, or be replaced. The RC members gain the powers as follows<br />
:::::::::::::*An RC member is able to select an article he feels is particularly good and exemplifies what the wiki should be. He may Favor the article.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with one Favor gains a Bronze Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 3 Favors is upgraded to a Silver Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 6 Favors gains a Gold Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*If eight RC members all Favor an article, it becomes a Featured Article (in addition to the Gold Star), and is given (unit of time - 1 week? 2 weeks?) on the front page. This may lead to a Featured Article queue. That's fine - it's better than a lack of one. All Featured Articles will get their fair share.<br />
:::::::::::::*If an article as two or less Favors, and at least six other Ratings Committee members believe that the article does not deserve a Bronze Star, they may do so. This, hopefully, will be EXTREMELY rare - I can't see it really happening ever if the committee is chosen wisely.<br />
For the initial Ratings Committee, I proposal the following members -- Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, and Genowhirl. That is eight members. I would not normally nominate myself, however, at Aarnott's insistance, I will do so, on the basis that you shouldn't push a job on others you're not willing to do yourself. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:03, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I like this idea a lot, except for one thing -- I don't think it should tie into the featured article system at all. "Editor's choice" articles by themselves are a fine system. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:08, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Just noting my agreement with this idea. Having 9 experienced members take a look at articles like this will allow them to improve with useful constructive criticism. Regular users can still use the wiki normally and articles can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think this is an excellent compromise to all of the ideas presented so far. I think we should try it out for a month or two and see how it goes. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:14, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And best of all, we can remove that horrible rating system too! I know everyone wanted to do that. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:15, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I agree to this proposal and think it is a fine system to add to the wiki.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 12:36, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I support the proposal, and am happy to accept my role in it. I'd also like to suggest creation of a User:Ratings_Committee, so that it can be MoI'd to bring an article or discussion to the entire committee's attention, similar to User:Admin. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 12:47, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not opposed to the idea, although I'm not as opposed to the current rating as others seem to be. I guess it would be nice to be able to say good things about races, spells, and things other than classes. I'll wait for an official proposal page to spring up before evaluating the idea in further detail. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:53, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I support the proposal. As the wiki is a mutable project, a trial run to test it out would be pleasing. I would like to note that I would prefer to keep the old FA nomination system in addition to this new Ratings Committee system. The old FA nomination system will still allow any user or IP to voice their opinion. So, who wants to build the Templates for the Stars and other required materials and pages? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:20, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::The idea was that while anyone could voice their opinions, nominate articles, and pressure/goad the Committee, but only they had the final say. That way, yes, IPs get their say, but we're also not pretending like the "This is overpowered because I don't understand the rules" stuff matters. If it has to be someone's call if something is a FA or not, while not leave it up to the same people who are going to be rating things anyway? We can fix two birds with one stone, and get the FAs moving and rotating again, a discussion people seemed to have basically abadoned. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 18:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yeah, after a bit more thought on it, drop the old FA nominating system. With the User:Ratings_Committee, getting ahold of the RC will be easy and quick while allowing anyone to voice their opinion on an article. Would a Category work well for Ratings Requests, or would then anyone just plop in the category and clog it up? Doing it by starting a discussion on the User:Ratings_Committee would probably work best, as it would require actual communication, hopefully minimizing problems. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:36, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay, so if this gets implemented how is a RC group which looks over recent contributions and gives them favors better then a RC group who adds templates to articles on a article-by-article basis to show that articles mistakes? Or how were you guys planning on implementing the current reviewing system and this RC group to look over recent contributions together? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Because not everything that's "not good" has mistakes. Yes, the group - and EVERYONE for that matter - should still apply the articles to bad template. However, we should still be able to reward and exemplify especially good articles. It also helps people who are looking for material to use to see the best articles set aside. I would basically suggest a talk page, where anyone can post stuff for the RC to see, and would be removed after they looked it over. It wouldn't need EVERY RC member to look over EVERY article, they only have to rate the ones they want to. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: I support Dragon Child's stuff. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 20:27, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::: After speaking with Surgo, who's opinion I greatly respect, I'd like to change the people whom I nominated for the RC role. I had originalyl nominated Genowhirl, who while is plenty fair and clever, doesn't post to other parts of the wiki nearly as much as I had anticipated. Instead, I'd like to replace his nomination with that of Sam Kay's, who is far more active, and in addition, knows 4e quite well. I feel that this better rounds out the knowledges and opinions of the RC, and makes it quite a diverse group. In addition, I feel a new rule needs to be added - an RC is not allowed to Favor his own articles. Instead, there will be one user (prehaps someone who's in-line to become RC, or just Green Dragon) who is allowed to Favor articles written by RCs, and only those articles, in the author's stead. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:19, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::: How does this solve the problem of classes at different power levels? Are we going to have a template for that? or make it part of the author template? --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:09, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::If the author feels that his class is being passed up due to its power level, then he needs to explain it in the talk page, and give reasons on why he think that power level is valid. There is no set categories we can fairly make, it should be up for each author to defend the power level on their own. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 16:30, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I think the idea for templates for power level was a good one, such as a template for things balanced to SRD, and things balanced to F&K etc. I think that i would be ok with the idea of the author justifying his balance if i know that the RC would be open to there balance description, my one worry would be people rating with preconceived notions of power that differ from a standard view of power. But you did pick a very versatile group, so i suppose that would rarely happen. Im just voiceing all my concerns, because i feel all concerns should be addressed before something like this is implemented. I still love the idea. [[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 17:34, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Balance to SRD doesn't work. What are you balancing AGAINST? The monsters? Rogue? Druid? Monk? Wizard? fighter? Those are all different balance points. Thus, the category "balanced against SRD" isn't useful. F&K balance against SRD too, you know. They balance against the monsters, wizard, and druid. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:52, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If the author makes their target of balance clear enough, the RC should absolutely judge against that target, rather than their own preferred target. Of course, if no adequately described target is given, that leaves the RC free to judge as they please. Perhaps we should add something to the preloads or author template to describe target of balance. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:08, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have done [[User:TK-Squared/Lavabox/Stars|this]] for you. It is my proposal for the new Author box. It works easily, like this! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:10, 23 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD, no offense, but I'm REALLY REALLY against what you did on the Gravity Warrior page. That stuff NEEDS to go into the discussion. First, it makes it look like one of the better classes on the wiki has major problems, which it doesn't. Second, you put some stuff in the balance box that I and I bet Rith flat-out disagree with, and it's not something that you can be proven right about. That's basically holding the page hostage - "Change this to MY opinion, or you get an ugly tag telling everyone its unbalanced". If it had major problems or was obviously bad, sure, that's one thing. But this doesn't! You don't even explain WHY it's unbalanced, just pointing to the talk page, where the person who "reviewed" it and said it was unbalanced wasn't even using the class as written, but instead used sweeping changes that everyone said were the problem. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I am debating if it is a better idea to add the things I wrote onto the talk page and (on those templates) just put "see talk" or somesuch. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm all for throwing the balance template on badly written classes. But Gravity Warrior isn't badly written. It really, really needs to go onto the talk page, saying why you think it's unbalanced. The only major argument saying it was was not intellectually honest and thoroughly disproven, so it's a bit useless to just say "see talk page", too, and why it's unbalanced needs to be fleshed out on the talk page more (it isn't, IMO). [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:56, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't think any one user should be able to just slap a bunch of huge, ugly templates on a page. I was under the impression that everyone agreed with the RC idea, in one form or another. And then you went and did that, which I don't think anyone supported as a form of page review. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:58, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Wow, a lot has happened since my last visit to this discussion. First of all, I think the idea of an RC is exactly what we need, it's clean, it's concise, and it weeds out most of the idiocy that plagues the better pages on this wiki, all in one fell swoop too. As for the template issues. I personally don't see their purpose, seeing as they should only be put on one of two types of pages. Ones that are flawed, but their creators will not be around often enough to fix them, in which case the delete template is the same thing, only with a goal, considering that the 'Needs Balance' category is meant to store pages that need balancing, and wait for someone to come along and actually do that job (which, I can gauruntee you, will only happen to one out a thousand classes that will get plopped into that category), whereas, the 'Candidates For Deletion' category is there to '''GET RID OF''' these articles and free up the namespaces so that better page can be made in there stead (The real difference is that the Delete template removes unsavory items from the wiki, whereas the Needs Balance template lets them stew). Or, one the other hand, the Needs Balance template could be applied to a page that is simply ridiculously bad, in which case, the Delete template is still better. From my point of view, these new templates are simply baby-proofed versions of the Delete template. Also, please note that the context you attempted to use the templates did not make sense, you could have very easily have posted your concerns on the classes talk page and gotten the same result. As for the actual balance of said class, I shall leave that to the other talk page. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:52, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay. But what about changing all the pages (once the dpl has been improved upon (so one can pipe categories in a |category= paramater using "What Links Here" or who knows what)) to something like [[4e User Races]] where one sees which races need to be improved upon, it's a bit of a ranking level (to get ones article into the top category), and from their it's a bit of another ranking another level (to get it to FA status). Although it would be nice if one could better define columns or better define |mode=category in the dpl2 as well. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:18, 31 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Complaint ==<br />
<br />
ha dude dnt want to sound like im complaining your something but peoples homebrewing is kinda slack on this site i wanted to look at the complete classes and got excited but no one finishes any thing the races are exelent just a little change and we can fix them up but the classes deffently need some work because their exelent pertensail for dnd hope u can get the word out to fix things up because this site is exlent for ideas and its not all their sorry if its not my place to tell you<br />
<br />
:Well, what you've got to remember about creating an entire class is that it takes a LOT of time: you have to make sure everything works, that it is not totally broken, you have to find and link parts such as [[ranger]] or [[Knowledge]], and you have to come up with background information to support some of the parts of the class. I know from experience that making a class takes a few hours at the least. Heck when I made [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)|The Ethereal Hunter]], I was so exhausted at the end that I didn't even include a sample NPC (need to get around to that). If this came across as an angered defensive position on the matter, I didn't mean it to be. If you are a user, please sign your comments by putting four ~ marks at the end like so. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:29, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating, please? ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a prestige class and got some feedback on it, did some edits, and I'm still not sure if it will fly. Could you rate it and tell me what I should change? It would be awesome if you could..<br />
<br />
[[Ascendant Knight (DnD Prestige Class)]]<br />
<br />
Thank you!<br />
<br />
:Your wish is command (although just this once). -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:36, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hands of a wiseman? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a homebrewed feat or is it somewhere in another book somewhere? I am currently playing a D&D 3.5 game and I would really like to use this feat for my healer, but my GM won't let me use it unless it is somewhere "authenticate".<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time and have a great day! {{unsigned|Copper Gryphon}}<br />
<br />
:[[Hands of a Wiseman (3.5e Feat)]] is homebrew material, meaning it was made by independent author(s), at home most likely. Homebrewing is common. You should speak to your GM about allowing such material after his reviewal and approval of course for each article. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:12, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sure, the Email will be arriving soon. I had a special pdf. sheet I made for recruiting people in real life, it would be nice to send it to you via Email. On a less formal setting, I give you full permission to edit anything but the History (Though you can add things). --[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 10:20, 29 July 2009<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I don't mean to be rude or anything, however I changed my opinion. I think I am going to start a 3.5e campaign and just start from a small town outwards. Sorry to have been a bother, thanks for your time. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:46, 30 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Gravity Warrior Edits ==<br />
<br />
I just want to say two things:<br />
# I put the breaks on the epic table, because otherwise the hit dice overlap with the table. In my personal opinion, that's one of the problems with the current preload.<br />
# Under the advancement section, I changed it to rogue and monk, singular, as gravity warriors multiclass to '''become''' rogues/monks, but the multiclass '''into''' the rogue or monk classes. <br />
I put this here because I don't want to start something (an edit war, so to speak), but I don't think either of those edits are correct, nor do I think the other grammar you changed was wrong; your changes were merely a matter of personal preference rather than right/wrong. You also took out a few commas, that with all due respect, were correct in their placement. Again, no disrespect intended, I just think those changes were mostly unneccessary, and in an instance or two, wrong. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 18:02, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I don't care about the second point you brought up (it just needs to follow the English grammar rules &mdash; other then that I do not care). However, do you use IE or FF? I run Ubuntu and for me the coding on the epic table looks fine. However, since I use Ubuntu, I cannot see how the coding would look like on IE. Also, since your table coding looks (about) the same it's proably fine. If, however, this is a problem for all the class pages when one uses IE do you think you could let me know? I would be more then willing to change the preload if it is a class-wide problem. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:10, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm using Safari (my laptop's a Mac), but I'll check on my family's home computer (Windows, has both IE and something else). And yes, it is a class-wide problem, at least with Safari. As far as the second point, I was pointing out that I felt I changed it to follow proper English grammar rules, and then you changed it to something that didn't agree (from what I have learned). That could be wrong, but English is my forte. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 19:36, 27 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Wood Elves ==<br />
<br />
Just a heads up, but according to the MM, Wood Elves' ability mods are +2 strength, +2 dexterity, -2 Constitution, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma.<br />
<br />
The SRD wood elf page doesn't have the -2 to charisma.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
-Eonir777<br />
<br />
== Template Limitation Dates ==<br />
<br />
I was hoping not to have to bother you directly with this, sir, but it has not been getting any attention by enough important people. I am moving the discussion page I created to here instead. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 12:30, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I was talking with Ganteka earlier today about this. Now, I know that when an article has the delete template, it is deleted after two weeks if no edits have been made. Now, as some may have noticed, I've been busy recently, at the end of June and now, with a large templating project. I've been putting stub, wikify, and delete on articles that need them.<br />
:In the case of all templates that are not delete, Ganteka informed me they just sit there, perpetually, -unless- someone takes pity on them. With the templating project I've been working on, the category pages for these template may get bloated with a mountain of articles that never get attention.<br />
:Now, since it is unreasonable to ask the people of the wiki to collectively clean up these articles any more than they already are, I propose this: A limitation date on articles with Stub or Wikify, funtioning similar to the cutoff for Delete. If no one attempts to salvage a page with Stub or Wikify in X amount of time, the template is changed to Delete, and then the article is on the final two-week deathwatch for someone to rescue it. This way, articles will, one way or another, not sit and rot in template categories other than Delete. This ensures that the artciles that are truly worth preserving are preserved, and articles that no one can be botherd to fix are alowed to die their quiet deaths.<br />
:I propose that the cutoff time for articles with the Stub or Wikify templates be in the realm of two-to-six months.<br />
:Discuss. --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:20, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I've already been doing this, it's a good idea -- takes out the trash. Some stuff is "vaguely savable" I guess but if no one cares enough to actually save it I don't really want it on the wiki. --[[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:52, 14 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I've just been sticking the delete on things, figuring if someone wants them, fine, if not, they're better off deleted. That's probably not the best way to do things (which is why I've only done it with massively neglected articles), but it seems we all in accordance so one extent or another. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:07, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To clarify: I'm talking about implementing a set, clearly defined, official, and universal(meaning everyone/anyone does this, not just one or two random people) policy to ensure that these articles are cleaned out regularly, the reason for this being the extensive templating I have been doing recently may overfill the categories, and then nothing gets done because no one will bother to look through to find fixable stuff. As said, I am thinking the set date for template-swapping could be somewhere from two to six months. In addition, swapping the templates should -only- be done if an article in question has zero edits for the set time period. What does everyone think about this? (making an official policy for this I mean, and this proposition is mainly being made to all the admins, as they are the ones who will ultimately decided this). --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:11, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I started [[Template:Reviewing Template]] which (given some help) could ''potentially'' do what you are looking for. One could either build a bot based of time to change the templates (then this template would already be done - all that would need to be changed would be for [[Template:Delete]] to be added as another template option), or one could find or build an extension in MW which makes things be able to be based of time (my prefered option. Then like how [[Template:Delete]] currently does things with time could be reverse engineered to instead of displaying the time it was added display a countdown until the template dynamically changes to [[Template:Delete]] (and then the two week time limit would come up) &mdash; quite beautiful to be honest). The main issue with that right now if you look into this) is that [[template:Delete]]'s time thing is hard-coded into D&D Wiki's MW and not an extension (although solvable if one finds or builds a time extension for MW as I mentioned above). Also, continuing on with the problems with the second option, one would have to (I would willingly look into this) make a way to have [[Template:Delete]] show up as a catch-all template holder on [[Template:Reviewing Template]]. The easiest, messiest, and way which just adds another layer of people which need to work and no one which wants to do the mundane tasks like that would be to just manually change all the templates as their time comes up. This way would (in my opinion) just add another problem onto the problem though. So, if you know of an easy way to make any of these options to work let me know please (I don't mean to be frank or condescending with this last sentence here &mdash; I just meant to write a wrap up sentence). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:16, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I don't know anything about coding or bots or what you're talking about. If I am not misunderstanding you, I didn't know there even was any actual coding time attached to the Delete template, I just thought is was only the official policy that articles are deleted after two weeks of no edits, even though that doesn't actually happen often. All I'm suggesting is that a similar official policy be applied to changing wikify and stub templates to delete. It doesn't matter how it's done; I just thought is was going to be a manual thing anyway, to be honest. And since this is not actual deletion or anything requiring mod or admin powers; -I- could change templates, if necessary. All I'm thinking of is having an official policy that says so. Nothing more.<br />
::::::So, in that vein, what do you think? What should the time be? Two months of no edits? Six months? Something in between? Something else? {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|14:35, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Ah, damn. So you would willingly take the third option. Personally I think if one uses the third option (as I mentioned above) a lot of problems will happen. Manually doing things like that is always a problem (in my opinion). Personally, if a time extension for MW is present, template switching could be made dynamic and [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]] could be continued to be manual (so one looks over everything which gets deleted and one can not do malicious adding of [[Template:Delete]] onto finished pages, going unnoticed, and getting the page removed by a bot). On the time frame aspect I think that 1-2 months is a good indicator of inactivity on an article. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:41, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Honestly? I have no idea what you're talking about; about making stuff dynamic or whatever "MW" is. I don't know anything about this. And I don't understand how changing the templates manually will be a problem. I just know I am willing to do the changes manually and systematically if everyone else is too busy, and the policy is implemented.<br />
::::::::And i think a time limted of two months/sixty days (fixing things move slow around here, sometimes) is a good time. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|15:48, 28 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::::No reason to get annoyed. MW is MediaWiki - the code base D&D Wiki is based on. One can add extensions to it to improve it (such as the dpl, SMW (Semantic MediaWiki - e.g. [[DnD Flaws]]), extensions etc). If an extension does something with time then we could make template switching dynamic (or maybe reverse engineer the hard code behind [[Template:Delete]]'s time thing to make an extension which could work). If you ''really'' do not want to talk about theoretical implications of a dynamic template reviewing system with the base template being [[Template:Delete]] then sorry. I think 2 months is fine if you want to do everything manually. Or one could just look at the article and decide again (since it would all be done manually anyway). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:56, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I apologize, my above post was not meant to be in any annoyed tone. Curse ambiguous text.<br />
::::::::::As for all the stuff that I "really" don't want to talk about...it's actually that I "really" don't know or understand it. I have not learned real coding yet, I have no idea what this coding thing you're trying to tell me is. I really wish I -did- know, but...I don't. So, getting off that note, two months sounds good. Do any other mods or admins need to weigh in on this? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:15, 28 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Undead Disciple ==<br />
<br />
Hi, I've been working on a 3.5 class called the Undead Disciple and I'm worried its overpowered. Could you take a look at it please?--[[User:Knk42|Knk42]] 09:28, 2 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 4e Demigods Breadcrumb? ==<br />
<br />
Hate to bother you, but i am wondering if there is a breadcrumb for 4e demigods and if so what is it? Thanks for your time, [[User:Kildairem|Kildairem]] 20:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There, I just made some for the deities section. [[Template:3.5e Demigod Deities Breadcrumb]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:36, 4 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== What the Hell ==<br />
<br />
You've had weeks to protest against the rating committee, something decided upon and agreed upon by virtually every active user here. And you wait until it all gets set up to suddenly decide to delete it? What the hell, yo? [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:59, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:We are using logic here. The method above improves D&D Wiki's accessibility and that is key. Less pages mean less places for people to get confused on. I hope you understand - your way is faulty in logic. Please watch out or a ban could be in ordnance. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:07, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::How exactly is 'my way faulty in logic'? Did you even read the pages and pages of text we've posted above about this issue? And why on earth would you respond ''now'' of all times by deleting what we've set up, instead of responding weeks ago? I think all of us have a right to be annoyed and angry for that reason alone. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:08, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, of course I did. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:10, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::We agreed almost unanimously that this quality censor was going to be for the good of this wiki. So I agree with the aforementioned complaint. Why would you suddenly override everybody involved and delete it? --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:12, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::You have stepped far over your bounds as a benevolent dictator; you've just gone right down into despotism. Unban Surgo; he didn't implement anything. He suggested it; he didn't create a new Author template, he didn't change the Spell template nor did he add the pages. If you want to ban someone; ban ME. I did all of that. I messed with your precious little templates in attempt to help the Wikipedia project for D&D. Don't do something stupid like that; banning me is fine; banning Surgo for that, is not. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 22:15, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, this is my website. You may like to start your own if you are so inclined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:23, 9 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Make Love, Not War ==<br />
<br />
Time to put a nice little flower on that banhammer of yours, let's bury this hatchet and just...get along? --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:14, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I know, I am still thinking of hierarchy more. Since I was banned by another one of them I will wait to unban them until I hear more of the full story - from their side (emails, etc. I got a few just they have not explained why [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] ended up banning me for a bit, etc)). I would say once both of those issues are resolved then I most likely unban them depending. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:22, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Well understandibly everyone is a bit sour of the matter. Those involved feel like an apology is due from you as the actions you took were unbalanced as a response to a simple talk-page arguement. The subsequent banning of all administrators, even those offline - those that were not involved - is not in my opinion a fair response in any situation. To prevent the loss of dedicated and active users who make up a considerable amount of the current contributions to the wiki I would advise perhaps admitting an overreaction to the matter would be approapriate to clear up this whole incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 23:45, 10 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Right, I said once I deal with hierarchy (in my head for D&D Wiki) a bit more I will deal with it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:02, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::In reference to the Aarnott banning (not to butt in, I was just present in the Tavern at the time) he was hoping you would take it as a hint to step back and "cool down", as many said in not so many words. He meant no offense by it, just was trying to send a message since talking through posting was ignored when it came to Surgo and Sulacu. -[[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]] 01:16, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Just putting my 2 cents in. I haven't been very active on DnD Wiki this year but I've still tried to help on minor things where I can. I didn't even know you were banned.. Also, we have google ad's on here now? --[[User:118.208.168.99|118.208.168.99 (Sabre070)]] 01:37, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Right, but none should ''ever'' ban me (this is my website). Other then that I am trying out Google ads for a bit (layout and usefulness) to see if I like them or not and if they will stay on D&D Wiki. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:25, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I would think that lifting the ban on them now would not be too out of the question given that their user rights have been revoked (so it's not like they could ban you again). You don't necessarily have to give them back all their privledges, but keeping them banned seems somewhat excessive. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|TG Cid]] 17:48, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Acting as if you are the ''only'' contributor to this wiki at this moment will only lead to stagnation of the wiki along with a lack of administrators to moderate as well. To put it plainly, you've had a chance to redeem yourself to a good portion of the active users you've banned, but instead decided against doing so and have lost the respect and trust of those administrators even if they were not involved in the incident. --[[User:Ehsteve|Ehsteve]] 19:01, 11 August 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== The Tavern ==<br />
<br />
If you don't mind, please come to the tavern. Things must be discussed. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:21, 12 August 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Mage%27s_Minute_Meteors_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=401955Mage's Minute Meteors (3.5e Spell)2009-08-08T01:26:57Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Locked Page}}'''Author:''' Diogo Fernandes (yarethon)<br />
{{Spell<br />
| name=Mage's Minute Meteors<br />
| school=Evocation<br />
| desc=[[Fire Effect|Fire]]<br />
| lvl= Sor/Wis 3<br />
| comp= V,S,M,F<br />
| casttime= 1 standard action<br />
| range= Medium (100ft +10ft/level)<br />
| tsea=t <br />
| subj= Up to five creatures or objects per round, no two of which can be more than 15 feet apart during that round.<br />
| dur= 1 minute/level (D)<br />
| save= None; see below<br />
| save= Yes<br />
}}<br />
<br />
This spell allows the caster to create tiny globes of fire, one for each caster level (to a maximum of 10). When the meteors meet with any solid surface, they each deal 2d4 points of fire damage to the creatures or objects so hit. Any creature or flammable object that takes damage form at least one meteor, must abide by the rules of [[SRD:Environment (Rules)|catching fire]], except that the fire lasts only for 1d4 rounds, base DC 15.<br />
<br />
Each meteor can strike only one creature or object, but more than one can hit the same target. If hit by multiple meteors, the target needs to save only once, but the save DC increases by +2 for every successful hit after the first during the same round.<br />
<br />
The meteors are treated as ranged touch attacks, and those who miss their targets are treated as missing thrown [[Splash|splash weapons]] (''Player's Handbook'', pg 158) that land on a random adjacent square from the original target, dealing 1 point of fire damage to all within that square.<br />
<br />
The meteors can be fired with a swift action (allowing 1 meteor per round to be fired) or as a full round action ( allowing up to 5 meteors per round to be fired). In either case the caster uses his full base attack bonus to all meteors.<br />
<br />
The spell ends when all the fire spheres are gone, when the caster dismisses the spell or when the duration expires.<br />
<br />
This Spell does not function underwater.<br />
<br />
'''Material component:''' saltpetre (salitre) and sulfur (enxofre) rolled together with pitch.<br />
<br />
'''Focus:''' A golden tube (100 gp).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Sorcerer/Wizards Spells Breadcrumb}}<br/><br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Spell]]<br />
[[Category:Evocation School]]<br />
[[Category:Fire Effect]]<br />
[[Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 3]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Kartan%27s_Variable_Volume_Fireball_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=401953Kartan's Variable Volume Fireball (3.5e Spell)2009-08-08T01:26:44Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{OGL Top}}{{author|author_name=Vrecknidj |date_created=April 1, 2006 |status=Done}}<br />
{{Spell<br />
| name=Kartan's Variable Volume Fireball<br />
| school=Evocation<br />
| desc=[[Fire Effect|Fire]]<br />
| lvl= Sor/Wiz 5<br />
| comp= V, S, M<br />
| casttime= 1 standard action<br />
| range= Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)<br />
| tsea=a <br />
| subj= 20-ft.-radius spread<br />
| dur= Instantaneous<br />
| save= Reflex half<br />
| sr= Yes<br />
}}<br />
<br />
''Kartan's variable volume fireball'' produces a ''[[fireball]]'' that causes an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure. There are, however, modifications to this spell that the caster can make upon casting. Other than these modifications, this spell is in all respects a ''[[fireball]]'' spell.<br />
<br />
Upon casting the spell, the caster indicates whether the spell has a greater or smaller radius than the usual 20-ft. radius. For every 5 feet that the radius decreases, the spell's damage increases by +1 per die. For instance, Kartan casts this spell at a two adjacent targets, and so makes the radius of the spell 5 feet (affecting a 2x2 square area on a map). This is a three-step decrease in radius (20 to 15, 15 to 10, and 10 to 5), thereby increasing the damage to d6+6 per die. If Kartan is 13th level, this spell does 13d6+39 damage (but only to those two targets).<br />
<br />
Similarly, for every 5 feet that the radius increases, the spell's damage decreases by -1 per die (to a minimum of 1 point per die). Kartan casts this spell at a whole horde of orcs, and increases its radius to 40 feet. This is a four-step increase in radius, so the spell does d6-4 per die of damage (minimum of 1). As Kartan is 13th level, this spell does 13d6-52 points (to make things easier, roll 13d6, count every result as a 1 unless the die shows a 6, in which case it's a 2).<br />
<br />
This spell's minimum radius is 5 feet and its maximum radius is 45 feet. These may be altered by certain [[:Category:Metamagic Feat|metamagic feats]].<br />
<br />
'''Material Component:''' A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.<br><br />
<br />
Copyright, where applicable, retained by author (David J. Paul) as per [[Wizards of the Coast (terminology)|WotC's]] OGL<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells Breadcrumb}}<br/><br />
{{OGL Locked Page}}<br />
{{OGL Bottom|the Kartan's Variable Volume Fireball Spell|any of this}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Spell]]<br />
[[Category:Evocation School]]<br />
[[Category:Fire Effect]]<br />
[[Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 5]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Help_Needed_--_WotC_Articles&diff=401509Discussion:Help Needed -- WotC Articles2009-08-07T16:20:35Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Daniel Draco&nbsp;<small><small>10:17, 7 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Help Needed -- WotC Articles == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:27, 3 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Alright, for a while now I've been emailing WotC repeatedly as they "consider" my request for them to allow us to host their old 3e articles. Realistically, they're probably not considering it. So, I need other people to email them their support and want of this. Email them at [mailto:wizardscusthelp@wizards.com wizardscusthelp@wizards.com], and be sure to mention my incident number, 090803-000218.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:32, 3 August 2009 (MDT) ===<br />
<br />
More information about this project can be found [[User talk:Admin|here]].<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:17, 7 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
And behold, the anticlimax:<br />
<br />
:Dear Daniel,<br />
<br />
:Thank you for contacting Wizards to request permission to host D&D articles on your website. <small>However, Wizards does not provide permission for other sites to host our articles at this time.</small><br />
<br />
<br />
:Best regards,<br />
<br />
:Hilary<br />
<br />
:<small>''Hilary Ross''</small><br />
:<small>''Publishing Contracts Administrator''</small><br />
:<small>''Wizards of the Coast LLC''</small><br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Help_Needed_--_WotC_Articles&diff=401508Discussion:Help Needed -- WotC Articles2009-08-07T16:19:40Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Daniel Draco&nbsp;<small><small>10:17, 7 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Help Needed -- WotC Articles == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:27, 3 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Alright, for a while now I've been emailing WotC repeatedly as they "consider" my request for them to allow us to host their old 3e articles. Realistically, they're probably not considering it. So, I need other people to email them their support and want of this. Email them at [mailto:wizardscusthelp@wizards.com wizardscusthelp@wizards.com], and be sure to mention my incident number, 090803-000218.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:32, 3 August 2009 (MDT) ===<br />
<br />
More information about this project can be found [[User talk:Admin|here]].<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:17, 7 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
And behold, the anticlimax:<br />
<br />
:Dear Daniel,<br />
<br />
:Thank you for contacting Wizards to request permission to host D&D articles on your website. <small>However, Wizards does not provide permission for other sites to host our articles at this time.</small><br />
<br />
<br />
:Best regards,<br />
<br />
:Hilary<br />
<small><br />
:''Hilary Ross''<br />
:''Publishing Contracts Administrator''<br />
:''Wizards of the Coast LLC''<br />
</small><br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Help_Needed_--_WotC_Articles&diff=401507Discussion:Help Needed -- WotC Articles2009-08-07T16:17:45Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Daniel Draco&nbsp;<small><small>10:17, 7 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Help Needed -- WotC Articles == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:27, 3 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Alright, for a while now I've been emailing WotC repeatedly as they "consider" my request for them to allow us to host their old 3e articles. Realistically, they're probably not considering it. So, I need other people to email them their support and want of this. Email them at [mailto:wizardscusthelp@wizards.com wizardscusthelp@wizards.com], and be sure to mention my incident number, 090803-000218.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:32, 3 August 2009 (MDT) ===<br />
<br />
More information about this project can be found [[User talk:Admin|here]].<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:17, 7 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
And behold, the anticlimax:<br />
<br />
:Dear Daniel,<br />
<br />
:Thank you for contacting Wizards to request permission to host D&D articles on your website. However, Wizards does not provide permission for other sites to host our articles at this time.<br />
<br />
<br />
:Best regards,<br />
<br />
:Hilary<br />
<br />
:Hilary Ross <br />
:Publishing Contracts Administrator <br />
:Wizards of the Coast LLC<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Help_Needed_--_WotC_Articles&diff=401506Discussion:Help Needed -- WotC Articles2009-08-07T16:17:13Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Help Needed -- WotC Articles == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:27, 3 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Alright, for a while now I've been emailing WotC repeatedly as they "consider" my request for them to allow us to host their old 3e articles. Realistically, they're probably not considering it. So, I need other people to email them their support and want of this. Email them at [mailto:wizardscusthelp@wizards.com wizardscusthelp@wizards.com], and be sure to mention my incident number, 090803-000218.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 16:32, 3 August 2009 (MDT) ===<br />
<br />
More information about this project can be found [[User talk:Admin|here]].<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:17, 7 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
And behold, the anticlimax:<br />
<br />
Dear Daniel,<br />
<br />
Thank you for contacting Wizards to request permission to host D&D articles on your website. However, Wizards does not provide permission for other sites to host our articles at this time.<br />
<br />
<br />
Best regards,<br />
<br />
Hilary<br />
<br />
Hilary Ross <br />
Publishing Contracts Administrator <br />
Wizards of the Coast LLC<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Sandbox&diff=400010D&D Wiki:Sandbox2009-08-05T02:01:10Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a sandbox. It will be cleaned around once every three hours. Play around in this sandbox to see how things look, however please do not edit above the line!<br />
<br />
''Last cleaned at Tue Aug 4 16:01:03 2009 by [[User:Dandwiki Helper|Dandwiki Helper]]. <sub>([http://www.dandwiki.com/cgi-bin/sandbox.cgi clean the sandbox now])</sub>''<br />
----<br />
<br />
This illustrious metal carries a dark sheen, seemingly absorbing most of the light that falls upon it and reflecting but little. It carries a dark gray color, but behind its commonplace appearance lurks an ancient, forgotten power. In its raw state, proteum has the ability to draw forth substance from aether and protomatter, leading it to be a powerful catalyst to the natural formation of planes. Arcane physicists even theorize that this metal played a great part in the formation of the known cosmos itself due to its properties, and was therefore styled with the man-given name 'proteum'.</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=D%26D_Wiki:Sandbox&diff=400009D&D Wiki:Sandbox2009-08-05T02:00:03Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>This is a sandbox. It will be cleaned around once every three hours. Play around in this sandbox to see how things look, however please do not edit above the line!<br />
<br />
''Last cleaned at Tue Aug 4 16:01:03 2009 by [[User:Dandwiki Helper|Dandwiki Helper]]. <sub>([http://www.dandwiki.com/cgi-bin/sandbox.cgi clean the sandbox now])</sub>''<br />
----<br />
<br />
This illustrious metal carries a silvery sheen, seeming to reflect all of the light that falls upon it and revitalizing the air around it. It carries a silvery gray color and seems unbelievably delicate as if a rock fell on it then it would break, but behind its commonplace appearance lurks an ancient, forgotten power Said to. In its raw state, Uru has the ability to solidify the substance of aether and therefore solidify spritual essence, making it powerful and feared across the planes. Divine physicists even theorize that this metal played a great part in the formation of the very soul itself due to its properties, and was given the name 'Uru'.</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Avatar_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=398963Avatar (3.5e Spell)2009-08-03T23:47:23Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{OGL Top}}<br />
__NOTOC__<br />
''Allows caster to take on aspects of a patron deity''<br />
{{Spell<br />
|name=Avatar<br />
|school=[[Transmutation]] <br />
|desc=[[Fear Effect|Fear]]<br />
|lvl=Clr 8<br />
|comp=V, S, DF<br />
|casttime=1 Full round<br />
|range=Personal<br />
|dur=1 minute/level<br />
|tsea=You<br />
|subj=You<br />
|save=<br />
|sr=<br />
}}<br />
<br />
===Spell Effect===<br />
<br />
A cleric must concentrate and commune with his god intensely for one full round before this spell takes effect. Once in effect, the cleric experiences several changes in his appearance, behavior and abilities. After the spell has run its course, the cleric is considered fatigued and must rest in order to recover.<br />
<br />
The exact nature of the changes that the cleric undergoes depends upon his patron deity. All effects are in addition to the cleric's normal abilities and limitations. All Will saves required in the description below are made at a difficult class per this spell.<br />
<br />
====Lawful Good Deities====<br />
<br />
The cleric is infused with the god's power of nobility and justice. He grows taller, straighter, and the fire of righteousness burns in his eyes. The cleric gains a +2 AC bonus and a a +2 bonus to all attack and damage rolls, as well as +1 hit points per level, for the duration of the spell. The cleric can automatically ''detect evil'' for the duration of the spell and is considered to have just cast ''dispel evil'' once a successful casting of this spell is completed, receiving that spell's benefits and powers. The cleric gains a +5 bonus to all undead turn checks. Chaotic evil enemies must make Will saving throws or be affected as by a 'fear'' spell. <br />
<br />
====Neutral Good Deities====<br />
<br />
The cleric's mien soften, and his eyes reflect infinite mercy and kindness. A pale radiance surrounds him, telling all that he bears the blessing of good. As a free action, up to 3 times during the duration of this spell, the cleric may radiate healing energy to his allies, the effects of which duplicate ''healing circle''. In addition, enemies who wish to attack the cleric directly or or even use hit point damage area effect spells that would include in the cleric in the radius, must make a Will saving throw each round or be unable to do so. Such enemies can still choose another target or attack method that round. Neutral evil enemies who can see the cleric must make Will saving throws or be affected as by a ''fear'' spell. <br />
<br />
====Chaotic Good Deities====<br />
<br />
The cleric is bathed in a gree radiance, and his features grow more earthy. His skin begins to resemble tree bark, and his hair transforms into leaves. The cleric gains a +4 morel bonus to attacks with bow, and he may cast ''dominate animal'' and ''control plants'' twice each during the duration of ths spell. Any animals or plants that attempt to attack the cleric must make a Will saving throw or lose interest and wader away Lawful evil enemies who can see the cleric must make Will saving throws or be affected as by a ''fear'' spell. <br />
<br />
====Lawful Neutral Deities====<br />
<br />
The cleric's face grows stern and impassive. His overall demeanor is severe, and his raiment becomes muted, almost gray. The cleric gains a +3 AC bonus and may inherently ''detect chaos''. The cleric may cast ''protection from chaos', ''dispel chaos'', and ''order's wrath'' once each during the duration of this spell. Chaotic neutral enemies who can see the cleric must make [[Will]] saving throws or be affected by a ''fear '' spell. <br />
<br />
====Chaotic Neutral Deities====<br />
<br />
The cleric's form grows indistinct, and the colors of his garments swirl and change. He becomes a living embodiment of disorder and chaos. The distortion grants the cleric a +2 luck bonus to all rolls. The cleric may inherently ''detect law'' and my cast ''protection from law'', ''dispel law'', and ''chaos hammer'' once each, while this spell in in effect. Lawful neutral enemies who can see the cleric must make Will saving throws or be affected as by a ''fear'' spell.<br />
<br />
====Lawful Evil Deities====<br />
<br />
The light of burning villages flickers in the cleric's eyes, and an expression of unrelenting bloodlust spreads across his face. The cleric gains a +2 AC bonus and a +2 morale bonus to all attack and damage rolls. Further, the cleric receives the benefits of ''divine power'' for the duration of th spell, and if the cleric wields a mace or scepter, it is affected as though by ''magic weapon'' for the duration of the spell. All lawful evil creatures and characters in sight of the cleric and the cleric himself gain a +2 bonus to all Will saving throws due to the cleric's fearless, inspiration demeanor. Chaotic good enemies who can see the cleric must make a Wills saving throw or be affected as by a ''fear'' spell.<br />
<br />
====Neutral Evil Deities====<br />
<br />
The cleric's face grows haggard and shadowy. He grows hunched and mad-eyed. The cleric gains a +2 bonus to all saving throws and to AC. For the duration of the spell, the cleric can make touch attacks as if he had cast ''chill touch''. In addition, the touch attack may also deliver 'insanity'' on one successful touch attack of the cleric's choice and ''confusion'' on any two successful touch attacks. The cleric can not deliver both ''confusion'' and ''insanity'' on the same touch attack.<br />
<br />
Additionally, each round, good-aligned creatures or characters who wish to attack the cleric must make Will saving throws or be too overcome with revulsion to do so. Such enemies can still choose another target or attack method that round. <br />
<br />
Neutral good enemies who see the cleric must make Will saving throws or be affected as by a ''fear'' spell. <br />
<br />
====Chaotic Evil Deities====<br />
<br />
The cleric's skin grows red, and his eyes glow like lava. His body seems to grow squatter but more powerful. The cleric gains a +2 AC bonus and a +4 bonus to damage. He is surrounded by a ''fire shield'' (warm version), as though he had cast it when he cast this spell. As a free action, up to three times during the duration of this spell, the cleric may radiate pain to his enemies, the effects of which duplicate ''circle of doom''. Lawful good enemies who can see the cleric must make Will saving throws or be affected as by a ''fear'' spell. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
<br />
<br />
''Relics & Rituals'' Copyright 2001, Clark Peterson.<br />
<br />
Permission to use this content granted via "Designation of Open Game Content", page 1, ''Relics & Rituals''. Alterations were made to this entry to avoid items designated as product identity or to bring the entry in line with the 3.5 rules set. ''Avatar'' is reserved product identity, and not Open Game Content. <br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Cleric Spells Breadcrumb}}<br/><br />
{{Publishers Breadcrumb}} &rarr; [[White Wolf Publishing]] &rarr; [[Relics & Rituals]]<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Spell]]<br />
[[Category:Cleric 8]]<br />
[[Category:Transmutation School]]<br />
[[Category:Fear Effect]]<br />
[[Category:Scarred Lands]]<br />
[[Category:Relics & Rituals]]<br />
[[Category:Sword & Sorcery Studios]]<br />
{{OGL Bottom|Relics & Rituals|OGC}}</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Mage%27s_Minute_Meteors_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=398959Mage's Minute Meteors (3.5e Spell)2009-08-03T23:46:40Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{Locked Page}}'''Author:''' Diogo Fernandes (yarethon)<br />
{{Spell<br />
| name=Mage's Minute Meteors<br />
| school=[[Evocation]] <br />
| desc=[[Fire Effect|Fire]]<br />
| lvl= Sor/Wis 3<br />
| comp= V,S,M,F<br />
| casttime= 1 standard action<br />
| range= Medium (100ft +10ft/level)<br />
| tsea=t <br />
| subj= Up to five creatures or objects per round, no two of which can be more than 15 feet apart during that round.<br />
| dur= 1 minute/level (D)<br />
| save= None; see below<br />
| save= Yes<br />
}}<br />
<br />
This spell allows the caster to create tiny globes of fire, one for each caster level (to a maximum of 10). When the meteors meet with any solid surface, they each deal 2d4 points of fire damage to the creatures or objects so hit. Any creature or flammable object that takes damage form at least one meteor, must abide by the rules of [[SRD:Environment (Rules)|catching fire]], except that the fire lasts only for 1d4 rounds, base DC 15.<br />
<br />
Each meteor can strike only one creature or object, but more than one can hit the same target. If hit by multiple meteors, the target needs to save only once, but the save DC increases by +2 for every successful hit after the first during the same round.<br />
<br />
The meteors are treated as ranged touch attacks, and those who miss their targets are treated as missing thrown [[Splash|splash weapons]] (''Player's Handbook'', pg 158) that land on a random adjacent square from the original target, dealing 1 point of fire damage to all within that square.<br />
<br />
The meteors can be fired with a swift action (allowing 1 meteor per round to be fired) or as a full round action ( allowing up to 5 meteors per round to be fired). In either case the caster uses his full base attack bonus to all meteors.<br />
<br />
The spell ends when all the fire spheres are gone, when the caster dismisses the spell or when the duration expires.<br />
<br />
This Spell does not function underwater.<br />
<br />
'''Material component:''' saltpetre (salitre) and sulfur (enxofre) rolled together with pitch.<br />
<br />
'''Focus:''' A golden tube (100 gp).<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Sorcerer/Wizards Spells Breadcrumb}}<br/><br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Spell]]<br />
[[Category:Evocation School]]<br />
[[Category:Fire Effect]]<br />
[[Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 3]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Kartan%27s_Variable_Volume_Fireball_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=398915Kartan's Variable Volume Fireball (3.5e Spell)2009-08-03T23:08:39Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{OGL Top}}{{author|author_name=Vrecknidj |date_created=April 1, 2006 |status=Done}}<br />
{{Spell<br />
| name=Kartan's Variable Volume Fireball<br />
| school=[[Evocation]] <br />
| desc=[[Fire Effect|Fire]]<br />
| lvl= Sor/Wiz 5<br />
| comp= V, S, M<br />
| casttime= 1 standard action<br />
| range= Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)<br />
| tsea=a <br />
| subj= 20-ft.-radius spread<br />
| dur= Instantaneous<br />
| save= Reflex half<br />
| sr= Yes<br />
}}<br />
<br />
''Kartan's variable volume fireball'' produces a ''[[fireball]]'' that causes an explosion of flame that detonates with a low roar and deals 1d6 points of fire damage per caster level (maximum 15d6) to every creature within the area. Unattended objects also take this damage. The explosion creates almost no pressure. There are, however, modifications to this spell that the caster can make upon casting. Other than these modifications, this spell is in all respects a ''[[fireball]]'' spell.<br />
<br />
Upon casting the spell, the caster indicates whether the spell has a greater or smaller radius than the usual 20-ft. radius. For every 5 feet that the radius decreases, the spell's damage increases by +1 per die. For instance, Kartan casts this spell at a two adjacent targets, and so makes the radius of the spell 5 feet (affecting a 2x2 square area on a map). This is a three-step decrease in radius (20 to 15, 15 to 10, and 10 to 5), thereby increasing the damage to d6+6 per die. If Kartan is 13th level, this spell does 13d6+39 damage (but only to those two targets).<br />
<br />
Similarly, for every 5 feet that the radius increases, the spell's damage decreases by -1 per die (to a minimum of 1 point per die). Kartan casts this spell at a whole horde of orcs, and increases its radius to 40 feet. This is a four-step increase in radius, so the spell does d6-4 per die of damage (minimum of 1). As Kartan is 13th level, this spell does 13d6-52 points (to make things easier, roll 13d6, count every result as a 1 unless the die shows a 6, in which case it's a 2).<br />
<br />
This spell's minimum radius is 5 feet and its maximum radius is 45 feet. These may be altered by certain [[:Category:Metamagic Feat|metamagic feats]].<br />
<br />
'''Material Component:''' A tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur.<br><br />
<br />
Copyright, where applicable, retained by author (David J. Paul) as per [[Wizards of the Coast (terminology)|WotC's]] OGL<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells Breadcrumb}}<br/><br />
{{OGL Locked Page}}<br />
{{OGL Bottom|the Kartan's Variable Volume Fireball Spell|any of this}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Spell]]<br />
[[Category:Evocation School]]<br />
[[Category:Fire Effect]]<br />
[[Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 5]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Ahriman%27s_Undying_Land_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=398902Ahriman's Undying Land (3.5e Spell)2009-08-03T22:47:21Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{OGL Top}}<br />
{{author<br />
|author_name=Steve Russell<br />
|date_created=March 26, 2006<br />
|isnotuser=true<br />
|status=Done}}<br />
{{Spell<br />
|name=Ahriman's Undying Land<br />
|school=[[Necromancy]] <br />
|desc=[[Evil Effect|Evil]]<br />
|lvl= Clr 9, Sor/Wiz 9<br />
|comp= V, S, M<br />
|casttime= 24 hours<br />
|range= Touch<br />
|tsea=a <br />
|subj= 10-ft. radius per level, emanating from the touched point<br />
|dur= 1 day per level of caster<br />
|save= See text<br />
|sr= See text<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[[3e Summary::''Ahriman's undying land'' makes a particular site, building, or structure an profane area that creates [[Undead|undead]].]] This has two effects. First, all [[Turn|turning]] and [[Rebuke|rebuking]] checks made to turn [[Undead|undead]] in an 'Ahriman's undying land'' take a -2 penalty.<br />
<br />
Second it causes any creature that dies in the area of affect to be instantaneously affected by ''[[animate dead|animate dead]]''. This effect functions throughout the entire site and effects all creatures who die in the area of affect. Unlike the normal ''[[animate dead]]'' spell, these undead are always [[Zombie|zombies]], do not follow your spoken commands and only attack the nearest living creature in the area of affect. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed [[Zombie|zombie]] can&rsquo;t be animated again.) You cannot cause a creature of greater [[Hit Dice]] than your caster level to animate as a zombie (''[[desecrate]]'' has no affect on this limit.) <br />
<br />
''Zombies:'' A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy.<br />
An area can receive only one ''Ahriman's undying land'' spell at a time.<br />
<br />
'''Material Component:''' Herbs, oils, and incense worth at least 4,000 gp.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Cleric Spells Breadcrumb}}<br /><br />
{{3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells Breadcrumb}}<br />
{{OGL Locked Page}}<br />
{{OGL Bottom|''Ahriman's Undying Land'' (copyright 2003 Steve Russell)|''Ahriman's Undying Land''}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Spell]]<br />
[[Category:Necromancy School]]<br />
[[Category:Evil Effect]]<br />
[[Category:Cleric 9]]<br />
[[Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 9]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Ahriman%27s_Undying_Land_(3.5e_Spell)&diff=398899Ahriman's Undying Land (3.5e Spell)2009-08-03T22:47:05Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>{{OGL Top}}<br />
{{author<br />
|author_name=Steve Russell<br />
|date_created=March 26, 2006<br />
|isnotuser=true<br />
|status=Done}}<br />
{{Spell<br />
|name=Ahriman's Undying Land<br />
|school=[[Necromancy]] <br />
|desc=[[Evil Effect|Evil]]<br />
|lvl= Clr 9, Sor/Wiz 9<br />
|comp= V, S, M<br />
|casttime= 24 hours<br />
|range= Touch<br />
|tsea=a <br />
|subj= 10-ft. radius per level, emanating from the touched point<br />
|dur= 1 day per level of caster<br />
|save= See text<br />
|sr= See text<br />
}}<br />
<br />
[[3e Summary::''Ahriman's undying land'' makes a particular site, building, or structure an profane area that creates [[Undead|undead]].]] This has two effects. First, all [[Turn|turning]] and [[Rebuke|rebuking]] checks made to turn [[Undead|undead]] in an 'Ahriman's undying land'' take a -2 penalty.<br />
<br />
Second it causes any creature that dies in the area of affect to be instantaneously affected by ''[[animate dead|animate dead]]''. This effect functions throughout the entire site and effects all creatures who die in the area of affect. Unlike the normal ''[[animate dead]]'' spell, these undead are always [[Zombie|zombies]], do not follow your spoken commands and only attack the nearest living creature in the area of affect. They remain animated until they are destroyed. (A destroyed [[Zombie|zombie]] can&rsquo;t be animated again.) You cannot cause a creature of greater [[Hit Dice]] than your caster level to animate as a zombie (''[[desecrate]]'' has no affect on this limit.) <br />
<br />
''Zombies:'' A zombie can be created only from a mostly intact corpse. The corpse must be that of a creature with a true anatomy.<br />
An area can receive only one ''Ahriman's undying land'' spell at a time.<br />
<br />
'''Material Component:''' Herbs, oils, and incense worth at least 4,000 gp.<br />
<br />
<br />
----<br />
{{3.5e Cleric Spells Breadcrumb}}<br />
{{3.5e Sorcerer/Wizard Spells Breadcrumb}}<br />
{{OGL Locked Page}}<br />
{{OGL Bottom|''Ahriman's Undying Land'' (copyright 2003 Steve Russell)|''Ahriman's Undying Land''}}<br />
[[Category:DnD]]<br />
[[Category:User]]<br />
[[Category:Spell]]<br />
[[Category:Necromancy School]]<br />
[[Category:Evil Effect]]<br />
[[Category:Cleric 9]]<br />
[[Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 9]]</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Help_Needed_--_WotC_Articles&diff=398881Discussion:Help Needed -- WotC Articles2009-08-03T22:27:12Z<p>Daniel Draco: </p>
<hr />
<div>== Help Needed -- WotC Articles == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:27, 3 August 2009 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Alright, for a while now I've been emailing WotC repeatedly as they "consider" my request for them to allow us to host their old 3e articles. Realistically, they're probably not considering it. So, I need other people to email them their support and want of this. Email them at [mailto:wizardscusthelp@wizards.com wizardscusthelp@wizards.com], and be sure to mention my incident number, 090803-000218.<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Help_Needed_--_WotC_Articles&diff=398879Discussion:Help Needed -- WotC Articles2009-08-03T22:26:39Z<p>Daniel Draco: New page: == Help Needed -- WotC Articles == Alright, for a while now I've been emailing WotC repeatedly as they "consider" my request for them to allow us to host their old 3e articles. Realistic...</p>
<hr />
<div>== Help Needed -- WotC Articles == <br />
<br />
Alright, for a while now I've been emailing WotC repeatedly as they "consider" my request for them to allow us to host their old 3e articles. Realistically, they're probably not considering it. So, I need other people to email them their support and want of this. Email them at [mailto:wizardscusthelp@wizards.com], and be sure to mention my incident number, 090803-000218.<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User:Daniel_Draco&diff=398774User:Daniel Draco2009-08-03T14:14:30Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Homebrew */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{AdminBadge}}<br />
<br />
I love D&D, and have probably spent more time making homebrew than actually playing the game. Most of my material has, to my knowledge, never been playtested. So please, take a look at my homebrew, feel free to use it. If you have any comments, no matter how minor, please let me know. Criticism, suggestions, praise, ratings, anything is welcomed. As you peruse my material, please keep in mind that some of my earlier material is downright crappy, and that I probably haven't taken a second look at most of my things. So, if you find something to be badly-made, don't give up on my material. Just look at some of my newer things.<br />
<br />
As of 16:52, 29 March 2009 (MDT), I have 77 pages of D&D 3e homebrew, which accounts for 0.821% of all of the wiki's 9381 pages of D&D 3e homebrew.<br />
<br />
[[#Contact|I'd love to hear about how my work is used!]]<br />
<br />
==Homebrew==<br />
<br />
{| class="column" style="width: 100%;" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0"<br />
! colspan=4 | <big>Total Homebrew: 75</big><br />
|-<br />
| style="width: 25%" |<br />
'''Base Classes:''' 6<br><br />
'''Creatures:''' 2<br><br />
'''Cursed Items:''' 1<br><br />
'''Feats:''' 8<br><br />
'''Flaws:''' 3<br />
| style="width: 25%" |<br />
'''Invocations:''' 3<br><br />
'''Magic Weapons:''' 1<br><br />
'''Materials:''' 1<br><br />
'''NPCs:''' 4<br><br />
'''Character Optimizations:''' 1<br />
| style="width: 25%" |<br />
'''Prestige Classes:''' 14<br><br />
'''Races:''' 3<br><br />
'''Spells:''' 1<br><br />
'''Creature Templates:''' 2<br><br />
'''Variant Rules:''' 1<br />
| style="width: 25%" |<br />
'''Weapons:''' 2<br><br />
'''Weapon Enhancements:''' 17<br><br />
'''Wondrous Items:''' 3<br><br />
'''Others:''' 2<br />
|}<br />
<br><br />
{| class="sortable d20"<br />
!Name||Type||Date Created||Rating||class="unsortable"|Notes<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Arcing (DnD Equipment)|Arcing]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Artifice Adept (DnD Prestige Class)|Artifice Adept]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2008-05-16</span>May 16, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Banhammer (DnD Equipment)|Banhammer]]||Magic Weapon||<span style="display:none">&2008-07-12</span>July 12, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Basic Pirate (DnD Class)|Basic Pirate]]||Base Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-15</span>September 15, 2007||<span style="display:none">70</span>14/20||A joint effort with [[User:Valentine the Rogue|Valentine the Rogue]]<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Bear Lore (DnD Skill)|Bear Lore]]||Other||<span style="display:none">&2009-04-06</span>April 6, 2009||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Bear-chucks (3.5e Equipment)|Bear-chucks]]||Weapon||<span style="display:none">&2009-01-03</span>January 3, 2009||&mdash;||That's right, I actually made this.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Blazing (DnD Equipment)|Blazing]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Boots of the Swift Step (DnD Equipment)|Boots of the Swift Step]]||Wondrous Item||<span style="display:none">&2008-07-10</span>July 10, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Chirurgeon (DnD Class)|Chirurgeon]]||Base Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-04-28</span>April 28, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Clinically Depressed Robot (DnD Flaw)|Clinically Depressed Robot]]||Flaw||<span style="display:none">&2008-04-01</span>April 1, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Coin of Mortality (DnD Equipment)|Coin of Mortality]]||Cursed Item||<span style="display:none">&2007-10-15</span>October 15, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Craft Flare (DnD Feat)|Craft Flare]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2007-10-09</span>December 9, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Damian Morte (DnD NPC)|Damian Morte]]||NPC||<span style="display:none">&2007-10-01</span>October 1, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Danielle Umbra (DnD NPC)|Danielle Umbra]]||NPC||<span style="display:none">&2007-10-07</span>October 7, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Dark Arcana (DnD Invocation)|Dark Arcana]]||Invocation||<span style="display:none">&2007-11-10</span>November 10, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Daunting Assailant (DnD Class)|Daunting Assailant]]||Base Class||<span style="display:none">&2009-03-24</span>March 24, 2009||&mdash;||A class based on Rorschach of Watchmen<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Detect Disease (DnD Spell)|Detect Disease]]||Spell||<span style="display:none">&2007-07-04</span>July 10, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Dust of Magic Finding (DnD Equipment)|Dust of Magic Finding]]||Wondrous Item||<span style="display:none">&2007-07-13</span>July 13, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Eidolon Aspirant (DnD Prestige Class)|Eidolon Aspirant]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2009-06-05</span>June 5, 2009||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Eldritch Mind (DnD Alternate Class Feature)|Eldritch Mind]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-12-03</span>December 3, 2007||&mdash;||Variant of the Eldritch Theurge from Complete Mage<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Enduring (DnD Equipment)|Enduring]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Epic Multiclassing (DnD Epic Feat)|Epic Multiclassing]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2007-06-19</span>June 19, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Evil Clown (DnD Class)|Evil Clown]]||Base Class||<span style="display:none">&2008-06-27</span>June 27, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Fell Archery (DnD Invocation)|Fell Archery]]||Invocation||<span style="display:none">&2007-11-10</span>November 10, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Fell Warrior (DnD Prestige Class)|Fell Warrior]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-11-09</span>November 9, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Force Blast (DnD Invocation)|Force Blast]]||Invocation||<span style="display:none">&2008-02-03</span>February 3, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Full of Surprises (DnD Feat)|Full of Surprises]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2008-06-19</span>June 19, 2008||&mdash;||Racial feat for Eiji's awesome creation, Eijilund Plushies<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Gravitist (DnD Prestige Class)|Gravitist]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-06-08</span>June 8, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Great Chaos (DnD Equipment)|Great Chaos]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Great Evil (DnD Equipment)|Great Evil]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Great Good (DnD Equipment)|Great Good]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Great Law (DnD Equipment)|Great Law]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Manyspell Storing, Greater (DnD Equipment)|Greater Manyspell Storing]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-12-11</span>December 11, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spell Heightening, Greater (DnD Equipment)|Greater Spell Heightening]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spellcatching, Greater (DnD Equipment)|Greater Spellcatching]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2008-05-10</span>May 10, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Group fighting (DnD Variant Rule)|Group Fighting]]||Variant Rule||<span style="display:none">&2007-05-20</span>May 20, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Healing Personified (DnD Optimized Character Build)|Healing Personified]]||Character Optimization||<span style="display:none">&2007-11-08</span>November 8, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Heartless (DnD Flaw)|Heartless]]||Flaw||<span style="display:none">&2007-04-28</span>April 28, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Hellscorched Spell (DnD Feat)|Hellscorched Spell]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2008-12-06</span>December 6, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Improved Whip Proficiency (DnD Feat)|Improved Whip Proficiency]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2008-06-30</span>June 30, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spell Heightening, Improved (DnD Equipment)|Improved Spell Heightening]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Knight of the Order of the Union (DnD Prestige Class)|Knight of the Order of the Union]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-06-10</span>June 10, 2007||&mdash;||Related to the [[Endhaven (DnD Campaign Setting)|Endhaven]] campaign setting.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spell Heightening, Least (DnD Equipment)|Least Spell Heightening]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spell Heightening, Lesser (DnD Equipment)|Lesser Spell Heightening]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Magician (DnD Feat)|Magician]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2009-06-16</span>June 16, 2009||&mdash;||The idea of the Archetype Feat is [[User:Lord_Dhazriel|Lord Dhazriel's]].<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Mystic Knight (DnD Class)|Mystic Knight]]||Base Class||<span style="display:none">&2009-06-17</span>June 17, 2009||&mdash;||Based on the job of the same name from Final Fantasy V.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Mystic Leech (DnD Creature)|Mystic Leech]]||Creature||<span style="display:none">&2007-11-28</span>November 28, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Mystic Revenant (DnD Template)|Mystic Revenant]]||Template||<span style="display:none">&2007-11-30</span>November 30, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Nullsteel (3.5e Equipment)|Nullsteel]]||Material||<span style="display:none">&2007-11-30</span>November 30, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Occult Mind (DnD Prestige Class)|Occult Mind]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-12-04</span>December 4, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Order of the Union (Endhaven Supplement)|Order of the Union]]||Other||<span style="display:none">&2007-06-10</span>June 10, 2007||&mdash;||Related to the [[Endhaven (DnD Campaign Setting)|Endhaven]] campaign setting.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Prophet (DnD Prestige Class)|Prophet]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-06-17</span>June 17, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Quadrimurfractiphobia (DnD Flaw)|Quadrimurfractiphobia]]||Flaw||<span style="display:none">&2008-03-17</span>March 17, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Rhodotauric Elixir (DnD Equipment)|Rhodotauric Elixir]]||Wondrous Item||<span style="display:none">&2008-11-27</span>November 27, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Shæné (DnD Creature)|Shæné]]||Creature||<span style="display:none">&2007-05-07</span>May 7, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Shæné (DnD Race)|Shæné]]||Race||<span style="display:none">&2007-04-30</span>April 30, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Shæné Shadowwright (DnD Prestige Class)|Shæné Shadowwright]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-05-05</span>May 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Somnoccultist (DnD Class)|Somnoccultist]]||Base Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-12-07</span>December 7, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Sonic Mage (DnD Prestige Class)|Sonic Mage]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-05-17</span>May 17, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Soul Collector (DnD Prestige Class)|Soul Collector]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-05-08</span>May 8, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spell Empowering (DnD Equipment)|Spell Empowering]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spell Extending (DnD Equipment)|Spell Extending]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spell Maximizing (DnD Equipment)|Spell Maximizing]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-05</span>September 5, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Spellcatching (DnD Equipment)|Spellcatching]]||Weapon Enhancement||<span style="display:none">&2007-12-11</span>December 11, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Sublime Incarnate (DnD Prestige Class)|Sublime Incarnate]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2008-09-19</span>September 19, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Twisted Creature (DnD Template)|Twisted Creature]]||Template||<span style="display:none">&2007-06-22</span>June 22, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Unarmed Mind Blade (DnD Feat)|Unarmed Mind Blade]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2008-04-30</span>April 30, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Unseen (DnD Prestige Class)|Unseen]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2008-04-19</span>April 19, 2008||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Vermin Acolyte (DnD Prestige Class)|Vermin Acolyte]]||Prestige Class||<span style="display:none">&2007-06-10</span>June 10, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Victor the Black (DnD NPC)|Victor the Black]]||NPC||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-27</span>September 27, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Wastecrawler (DnD Race)|Wastecrawler]]||Race||<span style="display:none">&2008-06-02</span>June 2, 2008||&mdash;||The first race I made with a set of random race generation tables that I am developing.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Chain, Weighted (DnD Equipment)|Weighted Chain]]||Weapon||<span style="display:none">&2007-07-02</span>July 2, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Witch (DnD NPC)|Witch]]||NPC||<span style="display:none">&2007-09-21</span>September 21, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Woodekin (DnD Race)|Woodekin]]||Race||<span style="display:none">&2007-08-06</span>August 6, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
|[[Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency (DnD Feat)|Wrong-size Weapon Proficiency]]||Feat||<span style="display:none">&2007-07-04</span>July 4, 2007||&mdash;||<!--placeholder--><br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Awards==<br />
{| class="d20"<br />
! Award || Granted By || My Comments<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| Anti-Vandal Barnstar <small>(&times;6)</small> || Green Dragon || I do what I can.<br />
|- class="{{Odd-Even}}"<br />
| "Creepiest guy in the party by far" || Bunnie || Woot! I win!<br />
|}<br />
<br />
==Works in progress==<br />
These have mostly been long-term sandboxes for me, but occasionally I have something I'm actually working on in here.<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/wip]]<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/wip2]]<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/wip3]]<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/wip4]]<br />
<br />
==Miscellaneous==<br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/ideas|Ideas]] - hasn't been used in a while<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Random Character Concept Generator|Random Character Concept Generator]] - picks two random classes from all WotC 3e base classes and Dragon Compendium base classes<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/WotC failures|WotC Failures]] - classes that WotC made and are viable concepts, but didn't work out<br />
<br />
==Character Sheets==<br />
{| class="d20"<br />
|+ Expanded Alignments<br />
|-<br />
| || '''Exalted''' || '''Good''' || '''Moral''' || '''Neutral''' || '''Immoral''' || '''Evil''' || '''Vile'''<br />
|-<br />
| '''Axiomatic''' || || || Drekk || || || || Gred<br />
|-<br />
| '''Lawful''' || || Wobaita || || || || Tik || Nicodemus, Wisixu<br />
|-<br />
| '''Orderly''' || Venn || || || Gene || || Mort || Ket<br />
|-<br />
| '''Neutral''' || Dalen, Taewo || || Phineas || Ivan, Percival, <span style="color: gray"><small>''(average)''</small></span> || || || Kresk<br />
|-<br />
| '''Disorderly''' || K'zekti || || || Faith, Tran, Varbolna || || || Dob<br />
|-<br />
| '''Chaotic''' || Ktenkath || Glevend, Hooke || || || || ||<br />
|-<br />
| '''Anarchic''' || Clang || Giavi, Nit || Squish || Mario || || ||<br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Current===<br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Gred|Gred]] - Eternal Night<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Ivan|Ivan]] - Eternal Night<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Dalen|Dalen]] - Faltharis<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/K'zekti|K'zekti]] - Legacy of Darkness<br><br />
<br />
===Retired===<br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Nit|Nit]] - Animerron<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Wobaita|Wobaita]] - Broken Planet<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Dob|Dob]] - Eternal Night<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Wisixu|Wisixu]] - Eternal Night<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Squish|Squish]] - Haven<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Varbolna|Varbolna]] - Legacy of Darkness<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Giavi|Giavi]] - The Mourners<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Bregen|Bregen]] - World of Lore<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Phineas|Phineas]] - World of Lore<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Taewo|Taewo]] - Reclaimed<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Tik|Tik]] - Ancestry<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Ktenkath|Ktenkath]] - Divine Quest<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Glevend|Glevend]] - Divine Quest (cohort)<br><br />
[[User:Daniel Draco/Clang|Clang]] - World of Ruin<br />
<br />
==Quotes==<br />
<br />
{| align=center border=0 cellpadding=4 cellspacing=4 style="text-align: center; background:gray; color:white"<br />
! style= "background:black" | <big><big>Attention!</big></big><br />
|-<br />
| '''This section contains adult content which some may find offensive.'''<br/><small>Please do not view this section if you are offended by such material or are sane.</small><br />
|}<br />
<br />
===Spanambula===<br />
<br />
* '''Spanambula:''' ohhhhhhh.... Eiiiijiiiii....<br />
* '''Spanambula:''' When I woke up this morning, I did not expect to factor in the exploding penises.<br />
<br />
===SteelOrochu===<br />
<br />
* '''SteelOrochu:''' i have an unexplained urge to hump spans leg<br />
* '''SteelOrochu:''' I SAID PENIS BITCH<br />
:'''SteelOrochu:''' PENIS PENIS PENIS<br />
* '''SteelOrochu:''' im bored enough i could choke a kitten right now<br />
<br />
===Lumi===<br />
<br />
* '''Lumi:''' I said "Nice to meet you! I'm HARD GAY!!!!!"<br />
<br />
===Ganteka===<br />
<br />
* '''Ganteka:''' apparently I'm unquotable<br />
* '''Ganteka:''' I appear to be the straight man in this comedy routine somehow<br />
* '''Ganteka:''' I have cactus-like reflexes<br />
* '''Ganteka:''' "I am merely the puppet shell of a chaos beast seed within my body waiting to hatch. Pass the mutton"<br />
* '''Ganteka:''' The Present: Inspired by the future of the past.<br />
<br />
===Eiji===<br />
<br />
* '''Eiji:''' Eiji is the terror which faps in the night.<br />
: '''Eiji:''' FLAPS FLAPS!!!<br />
<br />
===Risek===<br />
<br />
* '''Risek:''' Actually, the last time I kissed a guy I felt pretty gay..<br />
* '''Risek:''' Um...AFKish, painting my nails..<br />
<br />
===Lothar===<br />
<br />
* '''Lothar:''' now remember everyone eat your vaggies!<br />
<br />
===Bunnie===<br />
<br />
* '''Bunnie:''' I can't decide on a gender...<br />
* '''Bunnie:''' I has a wiener now<br />
* '''Bunnie:''' I'll take the buttsecks<br />
* '''Bunnie:''' DD, you make my penis hard.<br />
* '''Bunnie:''' DD, I love the feel your your steel toed admin boot on my posterior.<br />
* '''Bunnie:''' I have penis butter filling<br />
: '''Bunnie:''' peanut<br />
<br />
===Salazar666===<br />
<br />
* '''Salazar666:''' oh fuck off, If you can't handle the heat, don't stick your penis in a fire elemental<br />
<br />
===Lord Dhazriel===<br />
<br />
* '''Lord_Dhazriel:''' it why Charsima is no longer considered physical attractiveness<br />
: '''Lord_Dhazriel:''' because having big boobs shouldn't make your spells more difficult to resist<br />
<br />
===Portiapendragon===<br />
<br />
* '''Portiapendragon:''' Now, now. Violence is not the answer.<br />
: '''Portiapendragon:''' Violence is the question. Yes is the answer.<br />
<br />
===Sulacu===<br />
* '''Sulacu:''' You fat, swollen stump of an inbred pygmea fuckchat<br />
* '''Sulacu:''' I AM A SHARK. I AM A SHARK. FELLATE ME, FOR VERILY I AM A SHARK<br />
* '''Sulacu:''' Xuan's mind is all like 'brb, epiphany'<br />
<br />
===GoldDragon===<br />
* '''GoldDragon:''' dammit TK, you really bring out the gay in me.<br />
<br />
===Various===<br />
<br />
* '''TK-Squared:''' Span taps two forests and plays [http://sc.tri-bit.com/images/6/6c/m0033.jpg <nowiki>http://sc.tri-bit.com/images/6/6c/m0033.jpg</nowiki>]<br />
: '''Sulacu:''' Hm. I ttly want to <╝ that<br />
* '''Valentine_the_R:''' Why<br />
: '''Valentine_the_R:''' Are<br />
: '''Valentine_the_R:''' Some<br />
: '''Valentine_the_R:''' People<br />
: '''Valentine_the_R:''' So<br />
: '''Valentine_the_R:''' Re<br />
: '''Valentine_the_R:''' Tar<br />
: '''Valentine_the_R:''' Ted<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Retarded, dumbfuck.<br />
* '''Bunnie:''' Because Bunnie answers to NO ONE<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' hey Bun?<br />
: '''Bunnie:''' Hey DD<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' you just answered to me<br />
: '''Bunnie:''' ...<br />
: '''Bunnie:''' Fuck you DD<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' Let's just stop fighting for a minute.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Fight would imply you have a chance.<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' At least my mom wasn't in crack whore magazine, TK.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' They have a magazine about Crack Whores?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Holy shit, that's awesome!<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' I'm above this I'm above this. Shout up you cock sucking thnder cunt.<br />
: '''Surgo:''' best quote ever<br />
: '''Surgo:''' "I'm above this...wait I'm not"<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' I shall shout up!<br />
* '''TK-Squared:''' INCEST IS BAD, MOTHERFUCKER.<br />
: '''I99_3_181_66:''' You keep talking 'bout insest, TK.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Dude, I spelt it right for you.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' How do you spell it wrong?<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' No. I have no family issues. You on the other hand... I'm not so sure.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Of course you're not sure.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' You don't know my family.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Dumbass.<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' You're a sick fuck, you know that?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' You're like captain obvious on steroids.<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' I have an IQ of 210.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' You got a 0 on your 21.<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' No, is a retard that posts stupid stuff on mesage boards.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' No is a retard?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Who is no?<br />
* '''I99_3_181_66:''' I'm sorry.<br />
: '''I99_3_181_66:''' That you're a BTARD!<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Is that like Bastard with the as?<br />
: '''I99_3_181_66:''' I'm insulting up. and if you're to slow to get that, you shouldn't be on the computer with out perental supervison.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' You're insulting up?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Is it like... A ladder?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Was "Btard" the next level?<br />
* '''GarfieldofBorg:''' Good riddence that TK is gone.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Hi<br />
* '''TK-Squared:''' Daniel.<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' yes?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' My one true love.<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' ...<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Let us elope.<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' o.o<br />
* '''ElderBiniChild:''' dude what is there not to like about a monk?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' What is there to like?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Multiple Ability Dependacies?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Lack of proficincy in unarmed attacks?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Dependancies on magic items like no other?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' A medium attack bonus for a melee class?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' d8 HD?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Subpar damage?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Maybe... Maybe... The ability to not wear armour?<br />
: *** ElderBiniChild [~7f000001@tundra] has quit [Quit: CGI:IRC]<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' the truth is always hard.<br />
* '''A_Mysterious_Cl:''' And you assume that I have a desire for sex. You are incorrect.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Because you're fat.<br />
: '''A_Mysterious_Cl:''' Irrelevant.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Butterball.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' It's not really a lack of desire for sex, it's more the fact that no-one WANTS to have sex with you. amrite or amirite?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' OR IS THAT IRRELEVANT?<br />
: '''A_Mysterious_Cl:''' No, TK, you are quite wrong.<br />
: '''A_Mysterious_Cl:''' I have had a girlfriend once. Broke my heart to have to break up with her.<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' "Griflriend".<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Do you mean<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' a real doll?<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' Did she break under your MOUNTAINOUS WEIGHT?<br />
: '''A_Mysterious_Cl:''' No, a living breathing human being with thoughts and feelings of her own. And your assumption makes no sense. Why in hell would I sit on her?<br />
* '''Dragon_Child:''' Who the hell sends their first email to a class that you've never talked to yet with the subject: <From the desk of (teacher name)><br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' (teacher name) does<br />
: '''TK-Squared:''' (teacher nmae) does.<br />
: '''Dragon_Child:''' Go fuck yourselves<br />
* '''Ganteka:''' 4 is a manly number<br />
: '''Ganteka:''' 8 is totally girly<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' Yup. 4 has a hole and a shaft, and 8 has two holes.<br />
: '''Ehsteve:''' then what the fuck is 9?<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' a guy with a curved wang<br />
: '''Ehsteve:''' what about 6?<br />
: '''Daniel Draco:''' same guy facing the other way<br />
: '''Ehsteve:''' what about 69?<br />
: <nowiki>***</nowiki> Lord_Dhazriel [~7f000001@tundra] has joined #tavern<br />
: '''Ehsteve:''' GAY!<br />
: '''Daniel_Draco:''' gay<br />
: '''Lord_Dhazriel:''' back<<br />
: '''Ehsteve:''' wow<br />
: '''Lord_Dhazriel:''' ...<br />
<br />
==Practical Quotes==<br />
<br />
===Dragon Child===<br />
*'''Dragon_Child:''' Common would be the language that, if it was LOTR movie, would not be subtitled.<br />
<br />
==Contact==<br />
To contact me, use one of the following methods:<br />
<br />
'''skype:''' dorandraco<br><br />
'''aim:''' doran draco<br><br />
'''email:''' [mailto:dorandraco@gmail.com dorandraco@gmail.com]<br><br />
'''here:''' Daniel Draco</div>Daniel Dracohttps://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Green_Dragon&diff=395347User talk:Green Dragon2009-07-26T21:58:38Z<p>Daniel Draco: /* Rating System */</p>
<hr />
<div>{{:User:Green Dragon/Top Template}}<br />
{{Messages of Interest|messages=<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:40, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Power<br />
|section=Strangeness<br />
|notifier=Taritus<br />
|date_time=13:39, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:4e_Base_Classes<br />
|section=Fragments<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=11:00, 17 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Ironbound_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=locked<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Dungeons_and_Dragons<br />
|section=DPL?<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=22:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:4e_Artifact_Part_1<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=21:34, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Rod_of_Orcus_(4e_Artifact)<br />
|section=Template Issues<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=16:08, 11 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Elves,_Dar&#39;oka_Deep_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=/* Typo */<br />
|notifier=GaaaaaH<br />
|date_time=05:47, 7 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Arachonomicon;_the_Book_of_Spiderkind_(4e_Sourcebook)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=12:39, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=User_talk:Green_Dragon<br />
|section=Harassment<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:45, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Giant_(4e_Race)<br />
|section=Response<br />
|notifier=Sepsis<br />
|date_time=07:37, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Category_talk:Martial_Adept<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=19:57, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Nature_Bound_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabreheim<br />
|date_time=15:26, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Anti-Magic_Orb_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Detect-Magic Orb<br />
|notifier=Sulacu<br />
|date_time=19:31, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Daunting_Assailant_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Daniel Draco<br />
|date_time=15:46, 8 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(3.5e_Template)<br />
|section=Can&#39;t Access the Page Anymore<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=15:27, 6 April 2009 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Weapon_Desc<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sabre070<br />
|date_time=21:52, 7 November 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=Moving to new MediaWiki version<br />
|notifier=Blue Dragon<br />
|date_time=13:36, 28 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Bodily_Relics<br />
|section=Talk:Bodily Relics?<br />
|notifier=Rithaniel<br />
|date_time=10:28, 16 October 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Abyssal_Heritor_Feats<br />
|section=DPL<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=11:08, 28 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Soul-Mate_(DnD_Feat)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=23:03, 19 July 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Snake-Sword_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:07, 30 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=WYSIWYG extension<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=10:35, 20 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Snow_Silver_(3.5e_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ice Paul the III<br />
|date_time=13:21, 6 June 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Kisame93<br />
|date_time=08:16, 26 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=UA_talk:Variant_Rules<br />
|section=Two Complete Chapters<br />
|notifier=OptimizationFanatic<br />
|date_time=15:15, 11 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Angels,_LoD_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=LA<br />
|notifier=Lord Dhazriel<br />
|date_time=05:51, 6 May 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Expanded_Religions_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Featured Article Nomination<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=07:23, 28 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Regiment_(DnD_Template)<br />
|section=Call out for help!<br />
|notifier=Aarnott<br />
|date_time=16:58, 17 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Template_talk:Main_Page_FA<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=13:21, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Publishers_of_d20_and_D&amp;D_Products<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=11:15, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Mesoamerican_Gods_and_Goddessess_(DnD_Pantheon)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=09:59, 16 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Caligynephobia<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Ramses IV<br />
|date_time=17:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=02:30, 15 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Barkeeper_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Calidore Chase<br />
|date_time=09:52, 11 March 2008 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment/Preload<br />
|section=Problems<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=22:03, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Cost and Weight<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=20:06, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Form_talk:DnD_Equipment<br />
|section=Date<br />
|notifier=Hawk<br />
|date_time=19:42, 29 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Catgirl/Nekomusume/Nekomimi_(DnD_Race)<br />
|section=Dogs<br />
|notifier=Xdeletedx<br />
|date_time=16:28, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Brawling_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=Sooo tired...<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=00:04, 26 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Marksman_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Eiji<br />
|date_time=13:11, 24 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:User_Base_Classes<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sledged<br />
|date_time=14:27, 19 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Vest_of_the_Bold_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cronocke<br />
|date_time=05:17, 18 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Pedistal_of_Truth_(DnD_Equipment)<br />
|section=Format Format<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=09:40, 16 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Performer_(DnD_Prestige_Class)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Cerin616<br />
|date_time=18:22, 11 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Main_Page<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=07:20, 5 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Paladin_Mount_from_first_level_(DnD_Variant_Rule)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Sam Kay<br />
|date_time=09:35, 4 February 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Myrmidon_(DnD_Class)<br />
|section=all of it<br />
|notifier=Tetsurga<br />
|date_time=17:54, 31 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:DnD_Maps<br />
|section=Maybe this should be in environments after all?<br />
|notifier=EldritchNumen<br />
|date_time=12:32, 3 January 2008 (MST)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Talk:Chromatic_Dwarf_(DnD_Creature)<br />
|section=Race<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:45, 1 June 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=Combat_School_(DnD_Variant_Rules)<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:57, 21 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=MediaWiki:Sharedupload<br />
|section=<br />
|notifier=Green Dragon<br />
|date_time=23:01, 14 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
{{MoI-Row<br />
|page=dndmedia:D&D_Wiki_Media_talk:Copyrights<br />
|section=Image documentation<br />
|notifier=Cuthalion<br />
|date_time=14:11, 11 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
}}<br />
}}<br />
<br />
{{Archives<br />
|label1= Archive 1 (Discussions 1 &ndash; 30)<br />
|label2= Archive 2 (Discussions 31 &ndash; 60)<br />
|label3= Archive 3 (Discussions 61 &ndash; 90)<br />
|label4= Archive 4 (Discussions 91 &ndash; 120)<br />
|label5= Archive 5 (Discussions 121 &ndash; 150)<br />
|label6= Archive 6 (Discussions 151 &ndash; 180)<br />
|label7= Archive 7 (Discussions 181 &ndash; 210)<br />
|label8= Archive 8 (Discussions 211 &ndash; 240)<br />
|label9= Archive 9 (Discussions 241 &ndash; 270)<br />
|label10= Archive 10 (Discussions 271 &ndash; 300)<br />
|label11= Archive 11 (Discussions 301 &ndash; 330)<br />
|label12= Archive 12 (Discussions 331 &ndash; 360)<br />
|label13= Archive 13 (Discussions 361 &ndash; 390)<br />
|label14= Archive 14 {Discussions 391 &ndash; 420)<br />
}}<br />
<br />
== Admin Talk ==<br />
<br />
{{:User talk:Admin}}<br />
<br />
== A Thousand Apologies ==<br />
<br />
I've never "edited" a Wiki page before. I thought everything was being sent to you as a suggestion, and after I submitted my suggestions, I noticed the actual page changed. I want to apologize personally. I may have the original chirurgeon saved to my computer when my players first found and downloaded it, and I can fix everything as soon as I locate it. Again, I apologize profusely, and I suppose I've learned my lesson. I won't be clicking "edit" any more, since it actually changes the page instead of makes suggestions.<br />
<br />
That said, is there a way to send suggestions to users about an entry in Wiki? {{Unsigned|76.187.167.233|14:49, 5 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:That's what the talk page is for -- click on the tab that says "Discussion" instead of the one that says edit. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:50, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Also, we can revert any changes to a page because wikis store the entire history of the page (each edit). --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 15:22, 5 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hello, thank you and questions! ==<br />
<br />
Hi there,<br />
Many thanks for your welcome and good wishes. whilst I may not be a total dead loss between the ears I am still learning slowly how to set out my formats and pages and wanted to ask you about a few things please...<br />
# How can I delete a page once it is made? There is a page referencing "Tekman", the forerunner of my deity Teknos, which I need to have removed please.<br />
# Can you please send me [if you have time] any constructive criticism about the pages I have completed thus far - ARE they complete? Do I need to do much more to them or are they functional for the time being? How could they be improved? And so on<br />
# Am I out of order for adding materials in this way? Have I broken some form of etiquette of which I am otherwise unaware? Please let me know - for example, is it OK top be asking you so many questions?<br />
Thanks for your time. [[User:Rorschach Moondark|Rorschach Moondark]] 09:29, 8 May 2009 (MDT) <br />
<br />
:Learning wiki-syntax should not be too difficult, and once one gets proficient things start looking better and things start fitting better to our preload standards. But anyways...<br />
:# To delete a page please refer to [[:Category:Candidates for Deletion]].<br />
:# Sorry... I really do not have the time to take a look at the content you have submitted right now. If you want some critique you may want to ask on the talk page for people's opinions.<br />
:# And I am not sure how you have been adding material, but if you are following the preload and the naming conventions rules it should be alright.<br />
:Hope this helps a bit. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:32, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Racial Champion ==<br />
<br />
where is this feat. books, site, i cant find it anywhere. what does it do? {{Unsigned|Masterkycoo|01:48, 9 May 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:I'm not sure off the top of my head and I do not want to spend the time to look, sorry. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:27, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Campaign Setting Chat ==<br />
<br />
Hi I'm not completley new but I've really been enjoying dand wiki. but i thought of an idea for your site, maybe you could set up a chat other then the tavern specifically for dnd campaigns and maybe you could have a few people start some campaigns for 3.5 or 4e or both its just an idea so i wont be offended if nothing happens but please think about it as i think it would be very interesting. [[User:Apfa10|Apfa10]] 23:55, 9 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You would have to ask [[User:Blue Dragon|Blue Dragon]] to be certain however if one can create a sub-group chat then it should work. Comparable to how one creates a personal non-logged chat with another member. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Membership ==<br />
<br />
Can you remove myself and all my contributions off this wiki ASAP? I've had it with the regulars... -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 19:48, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
: Please sign your posts! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 17:29, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Never mind. I'll stay, but I'll just have to keep my temper in check. I've been having a bad couple weeks, and I apologize. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 20:12, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Sorry if you feel like you're picked on, or you can't handle some of the stuff being said in irc. If you feel like you are being attacked the best course of action is non-action! Hope you feel better and continue to post on the wiki! -- [[User:Sleaker|Sleaker]] 21:06, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I would recommend that you just don't log into the tavern. It can have negative effects sometimes. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:25, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Storm Elf5's come back? ==<br />
<br />
Hey green dragon! Its been a while since I last visited, I had some computer issues. Anyway, I was wondering, what happened to my homebrew deity with the name of Grininthar or something like that. BTW, the site is great. [[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 16:56, 10 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You have to remember the name correctly. <s>Gririnthar (DnD Deity)</s>. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 08:21, 11 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Or now that you moved the page; [[Grininthar (DnD Deity)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:27, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== 3.5e Magical Armors ==<br />
<br />
Hey, not really familiar with the whole wiki/HTML things, but I tried to fix it up a little bit to match the armors. I apologize if it's not correct. If it is fine just a quick 'you're good' would be great and I'll finish editing all the ones that I can. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:01, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Yes, [[3.5e Magical Armors]] is formatted correctly, if that is what you are wondering. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:25, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Oop, I actually meant to say the [[3.5e Magical Weapons|magical weapons]], which was incorrect as per your statement, and the one which I was trying to fix; my apologies for the miscommunication. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:20, 12 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== I think I have balanced Storm Elves ==<br />
<br />
Hey Green Dragon!<br />
<br />
I have done some work balancing my 4e race, [[Storm Elves (4e Race)|Storm Elves]] and I was wondering you or another admin could remove the ''Needs Balance'' template if you think it dosen't need any more balancing. There is also another template at the top of the page (''Stub'' I think) and I wanted to know how to begin to remove it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thanks,<br />
--[[User:Storm Elf5|Storm Elf5]] 05:59, 13 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Newbie Having A Small Problem ==<br />
<br />
Hello Green Dragon, I'm new to D&D Wiki and I have a small question that needs a little explaining. I wanted to submit a new Base Class to get feedback on it, so I followed the procedure your site had set up to make classes. I was about halfway done with fully creating the class when I saved the page and went to sleep. Unfortunately, when I wanted to continue from where I left off, I couldn't find the saved page. Where would I be able to find the page so that I can continue from where I left off? The Base Class was supposed to be made for 3.5e Homebrew and was entitled "The Ethereal Hunter". Really appreciate the help because I spent a good deal of time trying to learn and understand how to make a class here. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 06:49, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Not Green Dragon, but are you sure you saved the class? No "Ethereal Hunter" comes up via search function and [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Narrssuras+Stalking+Leopard&namespace=&year=&month=-1 your edit history] shows nothing by that name either. If you did it while you weren't logged in that could explain why it doesn't appear on your user contributions, but other than that I think perhaps something malfunctioned when you went to save the page. Hope that helps a little, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear. --[[User:Jota|Jota]] 09:22, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Within the last 30 days there hasn't been an 'Ethereal Hunter' saved by anyone. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 09:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thanks for the response anyway. Luckily, I learned that if you are going to fill something out that can span over several page, it is good to make a copy, so I did. Almost done with the Ethereal Hunter now. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:28, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Ok, I've got everything done with my new class and everything is up for it. The only problems I'm having now are actually understanding what I'm doing wrong for my class to adhere to the rules. Some assistance would be helpful, here is the class [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)]]. Thanks in advance, [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 19:20, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Refer to the class' talk page for this discussion. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 19:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Will do, and thanks. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 03:26, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Axefighter ==<br />
<br />
I created a class in the beginning of August of 2008. I recently checked on it and it has disappeared. Its disappeared off of the classes page and off my contributions page. I would just like to know what happened and if it is possible to bring it back to the class list. Because I never wrote the class down anywhere else I don't know how to make an Axefighter.<br />
--[[User:Mightycolin|Mightycolin]] 05:40, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:It got deleted I believe. Not trying to be rude, however poorly made classes get deleted. If you would like it reverted you can ask on [[Talk:Axefighter (DnD Class)]]. [http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mightycolin]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:41, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Had a similar problem before as well...to all those that read this here's some valuable advice for you...Back up your files or edits, even if it is temporary, just copy and paste the entire edit into a Word or Notepad document before saving the page. It will prevent any frustration with regards to loosing material (Trust me, I would have had to completely rewrite a class I made on this site if I hadn't backed it up in a word document.) Fellow Aspiring Creator [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 08:58, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== help ==<br />
<br />
i posted a race and it is not showing up {{unsigned|Ewokdruid}}<br />
<br />
:The problem was with the footer. I have since fixed it and it should show up now in the LA Variable listings. Also, perhaps you should check out the [[DnD Race Editing Instructions]] (it explains why your race didn't show up). --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 10:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Abbreviations ==<br />
<br />
[[List of Book Abbreviations (DnD Other)]]. Back on May 19th you made some revisions to my List of Abbreviations. You also left a comment, 'why only WOTC?'. I dont know where to find the proper abbreviations for non-WOTC, but ifyou know of places, I will add to the list. TY --[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 22:42, 26 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If they do not really exist then nevermind. Also, you want to consider adding the abbreviation to the book entry within the [[Publication List]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:35, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Class: Palibar ==<br />
<br />
Hello i was wondering how do power points/day work? {{Unsigned|Alf|21:54, 27 May 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I cannot find that class however for the [[SRD:Psychic Warrior#Power Points/Day]] it's like that. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:19, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Map Builder ==<br />
<br />
Hey thanks for the welcome. I don't think I need help on wiki formatting (I'm quite regularly doing some background cleanup on wikipedia, not to mention a software engineer), but thanks for the link anyway.<br />
<br />
I did have a question, though, do you know a good way to make a world map using only free tools (small budget ><)? [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 02:11, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You can use GIMP, it has a random map generator and with some basic editing you can end up with things like [this http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Image:FFRegionsMap.png]. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:36, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I want more control than Random, sorry. [[User:InaVegt|InaVegt]] 05:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::A good link to a map builder should be found [[DnD Links|here]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Nature Bound Class ==<br />
<br />
Why did you set my class for deletion? It has only been on site for 2 days, whereas ive seen pages with only a template and no info typed in sit on site for months without a delete template. Don't get me wrong, I love the wiki, but that is just wrong.--[[User:Sabreheim|Sabreheim]] 15:32, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I did not see those classes. If you have some spare time it would be quite appreciated if you add the appropriate templates to them. Classes should be added at least mostly finished (finished on a word processing program with the preload cut and pasted into it for example). Sorry if this sounds frank, but this issue has been brought up before and I just want to clear up why it is okay to add templates to newly added material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:49, 28 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== why? ==<br />
<br />
i(true warrior)have a question. why are you going to delete my race? please write back.<br />
<br />
<br />
-true warrior<br />
<br />
:Refer to the [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)|races talk page]]. Ask there what you can do to fix it. And please sign your posts using --~~ ~~ (without spaces). --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:25, 29 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
=== PLEEEEEEEEEASE!!! ===<br />
<br />
DONT ERASE RACE! THER IS NOTHING WRONG WITH IT!!!<br />
<br />
=== why ===<br />
<br />
why are you going to erase my race? what did i ever do to you?<br />
<br />
How do you make class features?-asked by arshan272<br />
<br />
== Harassment ==<br />
<br />
After trtying to have a level headed discussion with [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]], about balance in 4e, he bacame rude and rather aggressive. His attitude and use of foul language has really put me off. I understand he may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material written concerning 4e design, but even after pointing him to the source he refuses to at least agree to disagree. Again given the volume of information, if you haven't been reading since day one it may be overwhelming. But if he dosen't have time to read it, doesn't mean he needs to vile. I will return to the wiki next week.But I must say if he remains I will not. I refuse to be spoken to like that. Thank you for your time. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 07:44, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:There ''is'' a /ignore command in the Tavern if for some reason you can't get along or see eye-to-eye with another user. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:40, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Sepsis, if Dragon Child is being like that, don't bother with him. Some people just don't have good manners. I generally stay out of the Tavern as it is... But you can talk to me about it anytime. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::This is totally unfair. Look at what I actually said. The crux of what I said was "If you want something to be called unbalanced because it can't be used in YOUR personal games, that's bullshit". Do you honestly think you can go around slapping an "unbalanced" tag on everything in the wiki that you don't like and have it be OK? The problem wasn't you "not pointing out the source". Indeed, you claimed Mike Mearls or whoever said something... and then provided no link, no cite. I was supposed to go find it myself. I don't even know if it actually exists. That's as good as not pointing anything out. And at no point did I actually disagree with you. I actually stated, large size in 4e may very well be overpowered. I didn't say otherwise, and even said as much. There's no agreeing to disagree when I don't actually disagree. All I was saying is, you really needed a stronger argument then "A designer, somewhere, said you shouldn't do that". That may be wrong, you may be mistaken, the designer himself may have had faulty logic. In short, it's not that I "didn't have the time" to read it, it's that I was never shown where it was, or given any reason to believe it actually exists. You didn't have the time to back up your arguments. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:08, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::No this has nothing to do with our discussion. This is all about your language and attitude. You are not on an "adult-only" site, and have no right to start swearing and arguing because the mood strikes you. I don't need that garbage on my screen with my kids around you are rude and immature and that is that, any arguments you could have made to support yourself is done, once I reached the "F-word" in your comment I stopped reading (in fact this will be the last time I even look at anything you say). Nothing you say will ever carry any wieght with me. If you have to resort to that, then you are too stupid to listen to. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:16, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::: I would like to make a counter-point. Sepsis has constantly been closed-minded and disruptive towards Dragon Child at all points. His so-called "swearing" (an idea that I, myself, find absolutely preposterous. They're words, not knives) does nothing to hinder the fact he was simple stating some quite well thought out arguments against Sepsis' so-called "everything is broken that doesn't go with the design" philosophy (so called by me). Throughout the discussion on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]], Sepsis was uncooperative and he threw the insults; not Dragon Child. Dragon just said a word or two that are commonly overreacted against; so he suddenly became "ignorant", "rude" and a "moron". Frankly, I think Sepsis is harassing Dragon child; as to say he has broken the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia Civility Policy] (Personal attacks and aggressive behaviour). --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:30, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I agree with TK. I'm not a fan of avoiding words arbitrarily assigned to be "vulgar" in public, and I certainly don't want to in a conversation between adults. If a child or guardian thereof doesn't want to see curse words, it is that person's responsibility to avoid them. The only time when it makes sense for the one swearing to avoid the one offended is when the offended cannot avoid the swearer; since Sepsis can easily keep his kids away from those conversations, it is (and no insensitivity meant here) not at all anyone else's problem. Two minutes of searching found me [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/4351 this firefox add-on], which allows one to censor browsing when one's children use the computer. I'm sure there are many other such free utilities. I'm sure you can even find something that censors specific words rather than whole pages, if you want to go that mild. Point is, "fucking" was used for emphasis; that's not an insult or attack that could be taken as belligerent. "Bullshit" was used to mean "something that makes no sense"; it's more concise and means the exact same thing. There's no need for Dragon_Child to be punished or even given a warning. He did nothing wrong. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Just want to make a point on my way out. It is a complete shame that someone can begin by using "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" but not be considered in violation but my non-profane and justifiably angry response is considered harassment. Read the conversation, he started the yelling, and when I wouldn't do as he asked he begins swearing. Obviously this is not the place for me, consider the case closed, as I will depart to more civil pastures. Good day. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I did apologize for my comments as I realized they were inappropriate and misplaced. But now I see all that matters is who you actually suck up to. Then the rules of conduct mean nothing...go and get a program to filter non-adult sites (sheesh), how about we stick to the rules and take quick action against such sick behavior. But hey its your world, do as you will. A bid all a fine farewell. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 06:23, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I wasn't even a part of all of this and I can't help but think you're being completely ridiculous. Swearing is suddenly adult now? I suppose you haven't been on an elementary school playground for decades. Nevermind that elementary school children shouldn't even be accessing this site, as it's hosted in the United States and is subject to COPPA. I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I refuse to censor myself just because someone under the age of 13 ''might'' see my words. I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either. And if that person ''does'' care, they can use a Firefox add-on to filter it out. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:27, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::I sorry, but, I must simply add my own two cents to this discussion. Sepsis, you claim that you are leaving the website to protect your children, while you are the one that is acting like a child. A person upset you, so you're going to run away? Honestly, this may seem a little cruel, but I can say that I hope you do leave, since, if you can't be mature and look past the pieces you don't like, you don't deserve to even be an admin. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 10:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow im surprised how rediculous everyone else is being, I mean come on just cause kids are swearing does not make it appropriate, if you swear even if it is not meant as an insult or direct attack, people can still take offense, the people refusing to clean up theiur language are the childish ones here, not everyone likes or can stand reading swearing, and as a general curtosey you should keep your language as clean as possible, or is that not how it works nowadays? Just because yobbish kids and those a lesser abbility to communicate other then through cosntant swearing do it, does not mean that it is acceptable for a community based site. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Hey, guess what. I'm NOT "refusing to clean up my language". Rith asked me, personally, to be nicer and swear less. I agreed. That's not "refusing", by any sense of the word. Nor do I have a "lesser ability to communicate", indeed, I was able to make clear all of my points in the discussion, while other people refused to back up even the smallest claims, and got angry and abusive because, god forbid, someone asked them for a cite. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:17, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:Ok, I donn't want to drag balance and what not into this conversation thats for the talk apge of the article. When did I target the refusal at you Dragon Child? If you can communicate so well then why swear? Could have avoided this entire stupid situation. What other people refused to back up these claims? Do you mean Sepsis? Didn't he mention the Design & Devlopment articles? The point is Dragon Child, that being rude is unhelpful to a discussion as is swearing and yelling [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I apologize. I wrongly assumed the refusal was aimed at me. As for why... let me apologize ahead of time for this post, as I'll need to swear to be even slightly comprehensible here. Is there any word in the English language that conveys the same meaning and emotion as "bullshit" ? The fuck, sure, I should have left that out. But "Bullshit" - that word doesn't really have any true synonyms. Sepsis refused to back up his claims, yes. You can't make a cite of "It's somewhere there". If you can't provide a link, it may as well not exist. To call me an overwhelmed moron to go finding HIS cite for HIM was being rude and unhelpful. I, at the very least, expect people to have the same sort of intellectual integrity and honesty as you'd use to write a highschool paper or in a highschool debate team. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I believe the place where it was cited about the large size would be particualrly hard to find seeing as it was either in one of Mike Mearls Blog Posts or on the forum where mike mearl posted. Though I have read it I know I have. And yes to ask you to go find his cite is rude and unhelpful but that just falls into the region of pot meet kettle, two wrongs dont make a write blah blah. Hes left now. It's over. Let's go back to balancing that giant race :D [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:35, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::None of this discussion even matters at this point, considering that, once people have set their mind into a way of thinking, it'll take a massive effort to sway them (that happens to be a basic fact of psychology). Both sides of this arguement have already set their mind 'in stone', if you will, and the other side will not change them. The only part of this discussion that even matters now, is that Sepsis is leaving the wiki over something as simply as what words were used. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 11:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Sepsis leaving is a tad silly. But what can we do? Nothing thats what.[[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:53, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What we can do is clear up this policy. I've made clear that I, personally, feel that it's the responsibility of the offended to avoid those more relaxed about it, not the other way around. After all, what if someone suddenly took offense to the inclusion of demons in the wiki? Since it's something which is part of our little subculture and not meant to offend, we'd tell them very kindly to freak off (and notice how ridiculous substitute words are).<br />
::::::I say we put it to a vote. There's really no other fair way to decide policy. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 13:36, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::The difference of course being swearing is not part of our subculture. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 14:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::True. Swearing is part of our culture, not our subculture. Most people swear in informal contexts. In any case, a vote would decide this. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::How would a vote solve anything? Just based on what has been presented we obviously won't reach a consensus, and how can anything but a consensus be considered fair? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 17:45, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::If the admins say it's ok, then it's OK. If the admins say it's not, then it's not, and other people shouldn't try to force others into not doing so. How is forcing someone to not do something, even though it isn't against the rules, just because someone else is offended fair? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:49, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::[[Meta Pages#Policies]]; swearing is a violation of our policies. For swearing above, however, no one is issued a warning since it was just a discussion about the swearing on [[Talk:Giant (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You have to follow two links to even see that, and what the second link is isn't even at all obvious (indeed, I didn't even see the second link until it was pointed out to me), and then only works if you consider the word fuck "Gross-profanity". It also seems you might consider the word "bullshit" "gross profanity", as your claim that I don't need to be warned from this page. That seems... extremely harsh. You can hear "gross profanity" in R rated movies? There's no way that that rule can be reasonably interpreted to forbidding the word "bullshit", and I'd even argue that "fuck" is still not "gross profanity" when used as an emphasizer. The rule needs to be made clear. And, for what its worth, I much more easily found rules against not providing citations and personal attacks, which you didn't so quickly react to as you apparently did to what I said on this page... [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:41, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::And now, indeed. You've proven that you consider the word "fuck" to be a "gross profanity" (which took searching to even find it was against the rules), yet you don't consider these to be harassment (which is clearly against the rules), and I QUOTE: "you are being ignorant and rude", "I don't deal with morons", "If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material.", "your a complete and utter moron", "you have proven you aren't even close enough to being worthy of my (or anyones really) time.", "Wow that answers a lot, an ignorant rant boy", "your opinions really are completly worthless.". So... right. That doesn't seem fair. At all. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]. However you are right, you both deserve a warning. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Yes, I pointed that page out, and noted that it's two clicks from the rule-thread, AND the fact that what it means isn't even clear, and there's no real reason to believe that sweearing is agaisnt the rules there according to the summary. What does "gross civility" even mean to you. I expressed confusion, and then... told I'm not allowed to do "gross incivility". Is this just going to be circular, where I'm told I'm just going to be warned whenever someone feels like, with no real rules to it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::* Rudeness<br />
:::::* Insults and name-calling<br />
:::::Should fall under those options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:55, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::That doesn't answer my question. I hoenstly don't believe I was "rude", at all. Indeed, according to what you just said here, you just warned me for <i>something that isn't even against the rules</i>, because you warned me for swearing, and according to you, "gross profanity" is defined as "rudeness, insults, and name-calling". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:58, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - Wikipedia policies page. Hence, you could have used alternate words to make your point. It doesn't say you can't, but if you can use other words to make the same description then you should. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Except, Sabre, that's on neither of the two pages I was linked to. I asked for where in the rules it said that, and a clarification on what it means. I was not provided with it, and indeed, I was then immediately told that the rule I was warned under <i>never existed</i>. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Dragonchild, it doesn't matter what you believe, policy is policy, just sit down be quiet and go and contribute to the wiki, seriosuly your acting like your being fined by the police sheesh. The fact of that matter is you swore, you broke the policy. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 06:37, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Fine, swearing is against the rules. Am I no longer allowed to say the word "Damn" ? Should we now censor 71 different wiki pages? Hmm, no, that seems silly. Prehaps, just prehaps, as this rule doesn't actually appear anywhere, and indeed, Green Dragon just gave a similiar interpretation to me - <i>that this rule doesn't exist</i>, despite the fact that he claimed earlier it did - the rule should be clarified. Sure, I'll take the warning, whatever, but I want the rule clarified. Unclear rules only exist to allow the mods to warn and ban whoever they like, for whatever damn (whoops! is that warning #2?) reason they please, with no sense of justification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Wow, so instead of being queit you act like a saracastic and slightly arragont jerk. If your nto happy with hwo things are meant to work here, then dont come ehre simple as. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:10, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I am assuming Green Dragon will be reasonable and clarify the rule, which I will then follow. It is not being "sarcastic and arrogant" to point out what I did (indeed, if you see above, it is true). I don't see how I'm being a "jerk" - I'm asking for a rule clarification. Like I said, I fully expect Green Dragon will give one, seeing as he seems reasonable enough. If I were to take your suggestion, I'd throw a fit and leave in a huff every time a website has an unclear rule. That seems overly childish. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 09:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::No ionstead what you did was throw a fit and target moderators in general sayign that unclear rules jsut allow them to ban whoever they like. I'm actually a moderator of my own private forum, I assure you thats not how it works. And im sorry I was overeacting the jerk wbit was unescessarry. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 09:57, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I didn't "target" anyone. Well, ok, I targeted the mods on the WOTC boards and ENWorld boards, that purposely use unclear rules to keep the places "intellectually pure". I more meant it was a warning - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being passive agressive, <i>I honestly think Green Dragon is a reasonable person, as are the rest of the admins and mods here, unlike the rest of almost every D&D board and chat ever</i>. Unclear rules serve no purpose except power tripping. Rules are there to prevent bad behavior that you don't like. If the rule is clear, people will be much less likely to do that bad behavior (indeed, I would not have sworn had I know it was against the rules). If the rule is unclear, people will not know not to do that bad behavior, due to it being, well, unclear and open to interpretation. What benefit does an unclear rule have? The only benefit is that it may be used as a justification by a moderator to ban people over something that isn't explicitly against the rules. If someone ends up doing something you end up not liking later that's not against the rules yet, you add it, and then warn the person for LATER doing, or else you're being unfair. Clear rules are totally necessary and have no downside. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Wanting clarification != throwing a fit. (Note: Calling him a jerk breaches the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Civility Civility Policy] under "Insults and name-calling") (That was a joke by the way). The wikipedia policies are far too strict; they build on the idea that massive amounts of people are going to use the site and a large portion of massive amounts of people are much more easily offended; especially those that use the internet (because that somehow means people get offended easily; textual based insults are so scathing). This wiki is a far more specialized wiki and, in my opinion, will attract the attention of people who have heard swearing. They've read it. They've seen it. They've tasted it's rainbow. This site doesn't need supastrictpolicies because it's not like Wikipedia; our userbase isn't several million. A small amount of people can interact calmly, as long as they stop blowing things way out of preportion. Someone said shit, fuck, hell, damn, bollocks, tits, blah, blah, blah. I could go on Google right now, type in one word and find worse in a single click. I could go on DICTIONARY DOT COM and find worse in a few tappity taps. Facebook? Boom, I took a quiz yesterday about FETISHES. YouTube? Boom, I watched a video the other day that used amazing amounts of the word "Fuck" in a short time. Films that kids have seen are worse than the shit that occurs here. Before I was ten, I'd seen a guy rip out his own eyeball, tear off his arm, tell people to fuck off, stab people, beat people, etc, etc. I've seen a 12a film use the word bitch and more (Hell, I've seen PG films that have used the word Shit). This is just overly censoring things and now we're moving into 1984 country, where soon Big Brother will rain down upon you with it's Thought Police. DO YOU WANT THAT?! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 10:25, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::You have a good point calling some a jerk is name calling and I can recognise a joke btw. :). And no I dont want Big Brother thought police going on. I hate that sort of thing anything that surpresses my freedom I tend to be agaisnt. Your right the wiki rules are to strict. ANd of course people have heard swearing, tasted its rainbow and all that, it does not mean everyone WANTS to see it and taste it. This whole thing is getting rediculous now and I will take responsibility for any rediculousness (is that even a word?) I have added to it. Also, I thought Green Dragon had clarified it with the link to wiki thingy ma bob. [[User:ShadowyFigure|ShadowyFigure]] 11:18, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm going to make one final argument, for now. One of the admins/sysops/whatever he is, Daniel Draco, said up thread he didn't believe that swearing was against the rules. By this, I argue if he doesn't know, it's not reasonable for a normal user to know it's not against the rules. And finally, to what extent is swearing against the rules need to be clarified. I have yet to be provided with a good sub-in word for "Bullshit". [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 11:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Bovine poop. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 11:48, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Swearing is against policy since not only are our policies partly defined by Wikipedia's policies however people swearing also tends to end up sparking discussions like this one. I beleive this is the third time a discussion involving swearing has taken place, all with the same result. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:00, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Then why not make it explicitly so? The rules clearly aren't explicit, as proof enough by Draco not knowing. Obviously, it's unclear. If people keep breaking a rule because the rule is unclear, isn't it your responsibility to make the rule more clear? I'm not even arguing for changing it, I'm arguing for defining it. Otherwise, if you're the only one who knows what the rule actually means or if it even exists, how can you be surprised when people break it? [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:11, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] was most likely just confused as to the rules (he may not have read all of the policies on Wikipedia). But the policies could not be more clear (save the three warnings policy which is D&D Wiki specific); they are found in the [[Meta Pages]] (''Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.'') under "''Policies''". --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:46, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yes, they could be. The rules specifically prohibit "gross profanity". That's what they say about swearing. And I asked outright- what is Gross Profanity? You gave me an explanation that did not include swearing. This has left me INCREDIBLY confused. Is ANY swearing, even "damn" and such gross profanity? Is it gross profanity only past a certain point of words? Etc. Please clarify. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:50, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::[[w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility]]<br />
::::::::::* Rudeness<br />
::::::::::* Insults and name-calling <br />
::::::::::Once again any swearing should fall under one of these options. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Not... really? I don't think every single use of a swear word, ever, is rude. Are we still counting words such as damn, shit, etc, as swear-words that are always rude, even when not directed at other people? If so, fine, I'll go along with it but I think it's silly. It reminds me of the WOTC boards where you couldn't talk about circumstance bonuses, or cocking a crossbow. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I don't see how swearing falls under either of those categories unless it's saying "you fucker" in relation to someone, or something similar. And I think a great deal of people here, myself included, will be ''extremely'' unhappy if swearing in general is banned. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:You are right. Swearing is tolerated if it does not break any [[Meta Pages#Policies|policies]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::So, for example, "This is a piece of shit" would be unacceptable, but "This class is fucking amazing" would be acceptable? If so, perfect. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion. Thank you so much for clearing this up. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 14:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Thank you for the clarification. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 14:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks ==<br />
<br />
I wish to thank you all for creating and maintaining this Wiki.<br />
<br />
It's beautifully styled, diligently edited and organized and has proven its usefulness many times already for me.<br />
<br />
[[User:Skypher|Skypher]] 08:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Massive Screw-ups ==<br />
<br />
So, okay... I think I am completely justified in saying that in my short time here, I have already made a bad impression. I would like to know... How can I interact here without doing so? 'Cause as you may or may not know, I made a flaw (which itself was extremely flawed), which, from what I can only tell was rightly judged as unbalanced, and I think I've already made a permanent scar on my reputation here, which generally reflects my experience everywhere on the Internet. So I'm wondering, how can I constructively and successfully contribute to D&Dwiki, perhaps enough that my noobishness will be compensated for?<br />
[[User:Jadebrain|Jadebrain]]11:27, 31 May 2009 (EST)<br />
<br />
:I think the fact that you've contributed is amazing. Nothing negative. Everyone has different opinions on things placed on the wiki, all one can do is add theirs to the collective. You're a valued part of the wiki and we appreciate your articles. &nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid blue; -moz-border-radius:10px">[[User:Hooper|'''<span style="background-color:White; color:FireBrick; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Hooper </span>''']][[User talk:Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Hooper|<span style="background-color:red; color:blue; -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:21, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I concur with Hooper, and would like to add that nobody is going to remember the bad flaw. Most first uploads are crap. Just the way it is. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:38, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Honestly, everybody was a noob once, but it's no big deal. It was hard for me when I first started out here. Surgo did point me toward the Frank and K stuff, which helped a lot (especially Tome of Necromancy, where I got the vampire-staking rules for my Vampire Hunter PrCs...). Also, at the risk of it being a shameless plug, Lord Dhazriel was a big source of inspiration, and there's a couple others who've posted some amazing entries. I for one would be more than happy to look at your work, if you'd look at mine. Quid pro quo, and all that. Stick around, and it'll get a lot better (I did.)! -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos Specialist]] 12:24, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you want to contribute a class or a feat or whatever, think about what you've seen recently or what you want in your own game. Nothing gets motivation going for me like trying to bring something from another genre into DnD 3.5. Or trying to figure out how to model an ability. Look at my user page for some of the stuff I've done. Most of it was seeing or playing something and deciding to try to model it in DnD. So far, I've done Neji from Naruto, Yusuke Urameshi from Yu Yu Hakusho, and the Dragoon from Final Fantasy, especially Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I also wrote my own version of the Drunken Master. But when someone in one of my games wants to, say, run up walls and stand on the ceiling, or he wants a parkour-like ability...Well, then I've got to write something to help him out, and pride demands that it be worthwhile. So if I write anything I'm really proud of, and I can get up the motivation, I put it on the Wiki for review and for whoever wants it. Or for whoever wants to write the ability himself but could use a rough idea of how you manage a, for example, Shoryuken uppercut. Anyway, try some experiments and don't take it personally when people say it sucks. You'll get better, and they should be giving a rationale for their reasoning or advice for improvement. --[[User:Genowhirl|Genowhirl]] 21:14, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Adult Content on the Wiki ==<br />
<br />
Hey, GoldDragon here. I was browsing user pages, when I came upon Angel Black's page and found a nude picture. I'm not terribly concerned by it, but there was no advisory warning, and I wondered if there should be. I was foolish enough to bring this up in the Tavern, which sparked a... vigorous debate. Anyway, I know there's a template for an adult content warning, but I didn't think it appropriate for a lowly peon such as me to edit someone else's user page. I have very young players who enjoy this site, but their parents would be upset at me if their children discovered such a page and weren't at least warned to shove off. my point is, should there be a content advisory warning on said user page? what is the line in the sand concerning when one is needed and when not? [[User:GoldDragon|Dragon]] 22:58, 31 May 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[Template:Adult Theme]] if you are interested. And it's usefulness should be discussed on [[Template Talk:Adult Theme]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:47, 1 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Vatireans ==<br />
<br />
Please help me recreate my race. To tell you guys the truth when my friend(absconder)told me that my race was over powered and would be erased i did not belive him, foolishly.im new at this so please give me some tips on makeing the Vatireans fit the criteria. P.S. i am contacting you green dragon because i dont no how to talk to sepsis. -true warrior<br />
<br />
:Thank you so much for being so helpful and not deleting my race.im am obviosly new at this.-true warrior<br />
<br />
::Could you guys make the changes yuo want and ill look at them tomarrow,(Vatireans).-true warrior<br />
::P.S. actullaly edit the Vatireans please.<br />
<br />
::Please write back and help.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::pleases write back. -true warrior<br />
<br />
::::please respond,great green dragon.-true warrior<br />
<br />
:::::You can ask these same kind of questions and see the reasons as to why your race was nominated for deletion on it's talk page; [[Talk:Vatireans (4e Race)]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:21, 2 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
.<br />
<br />
== Arachonnomicon; the Book of Spiderkind ==<br />
<br />
Hi. I recently finished the [[Arachonomicon; the Book of Spiderkind (4e Sourcebook)|Arachonomicon]]. Could you look over it to see if it ready to be a featured article, please? Thanks in advance. <br><br />
--&nbsp;<small><span style="border: 1px solid; -moz-border<br />
radius:10px">[[Image:SamAutosig.JPG]]'''[[User:Sam Kay|<span style="-moz-border-radius-topleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px"> Sam Kay </span>''']][[User talk:Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;talk&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Contributions/Sam Kay|<span style="">&nbsp;&nbsp;contribs&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]][[Special:Emailuser/Sam Kay|<span style=" -moz-border-radius-bottomright:10px; -moz-border-radius-topright:10px">&nbsp;&nbsp;email&nbsp;&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 10:16, 3 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Templates ==<br />
<br />
I had ask this question two times, but I hadn't got an answer. How do I make templates? Some pages really need templates. --[[User:Chihuahua0|chihuahua0]] 15:51, 4 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:What do you mean by templates? Adding them to a page or making a new one? If a new one just add it in the template namespace. If adding one to the page just copy and paste it from the preload. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
Gratzi, Sir.<br />
<br />
== Warmage ==<br />
<br />
Here ([[WarMage DnD Class)]]) is a user article under construction, which is a copy of the miniatures handbook's Warmage. I'm pretty sure he's breaking the rules here, so I'd be thankful if you'd check on it. P.S. I'm hoping "Buerocrat" is the right kind of person to come to with this, It's all greek to me. {{Unsigned|Connery55|18:03, 15 June 2009 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Given that the editing for that page says "only from the book", I'm guessing that he is right. I've added the delete template (if I'm wrong, please remove it) under the premise that posting SRD material is a copyright violation. Good catch on that, but please sign your post next time. - [[User:ThunderGod Cid|ThunderGod Cid]] 19:51, 15 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for setting up that page. I haven't been able to do much the since I set up some "Heroes" campaign stuff last week because I have been sick which restricts me from really doing anything that involves breathing, which is every thing but siting underwater. I'm working on setting up another Campaign setting but it has 4 four race types with a whole lot of different races. Hopefully I can get it up and running. [[User:Meepers|Meep]] 12:24, 16 June 2009 (MDT) P.S. Does (MDT) stand for mountain date time?<br />
<br />
:::7 seconds of [http://www.google.com google] informs us that MDT is Mountain Daylight Time. During the change of seasons, I think it changes to MST as well (which is Mountain Standard Time). Make sure you take this into account when setting your [[SRD:Water Clock|water clock]]. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== numbers ==<br />
<br />
I noticed in the recent changes area, that next to the links there are numbers in parenthacies, I was wondering what those numbers mean? (example: . m True Fiend (DnD Class); 22:57 . . (+56) )--[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:03, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:That's how many characters were either removed or added to the page. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 22:13, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::ah, thanks! it was bugging me --[[User:Blackdragon8186|Blackdragon8186]] 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== i have a question. ==<br />
<br />
When is worldwide D&D day this year?<br />
<br />
== Rating System ==<br />
<br />
In the tavern, we were discussing the class rating system. It seems to be the general consensus that, as is, it simply doesn't work. A numerical system with categories doesn't do much in the way of giving a general appraisal of a class -- flavor, a 100% subjective measure, is considered equally with such absolutes as wording and formatting. In addition, a very large number of the ratings are given no explanation, miscategorized, or just make no sense. This could all be fixed if it was changed to a three-level non-numerical rating system (as proposed by Dragon Child): Needs Work, Usable, and Excellent. The crap ratings could be filtered out by requiring admin approval of all ratings -- an MoI to User:Admin could alert us and it wouldn't be very time-consuming to give a yea or nay. In the case of multiple ratings, we take the mathematical mode, erring towards Usable in case of a tie. This simplification has the added benefits of being smaller on the page and being usable on more than just classes -- finally, feats and equipment and other things could be rated. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 00:04, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just noting my 100% agreement here. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 00:07, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Part of the idea was that this would also be a progression that would encourage users to participate with more feedback. You wouldn't be allowed to give a "Needs Work" rating without saying what it needed work ON - certain abilities being too strong/weak, wording needing improved, or just it needed better wikification. Once the class was improved, the rating could then be changed from Needs Work to Usable, or Excellent. This is also a much clearer system, IMO. What's a 4 compared to a 5? Not entirely clear. What's an Excellent? Something you REALLY like, and want to play right now or include in your game. What's a Usable? Something you'd let someone else play, see no problems with, or just have minor disagreements about. What's Needs Work? Something that's not quite yet ready to play. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wow. Sometimes simplicity is just beautiful. Here are the only things that I see possibly being an issue with a system like this:<br />
:::*Will people still know what aspects should be considered in a "good rating"?<br />
:::*How much justification do they need to give in their rating post?<br />
:::*What led you to the conclusion that 3 tiers are the right way to go?<br />
:::*Are you sure a mode is better than converting to a median number?<br />
:::*This is a problem with the current rating system as well, but when is a page considered changed enough to require ratings to be nullified?<br />
:::On a more minor note, "Needs Work" should be named "Needs Improvement". I'm looking forward to hear more about this idea. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 06:33, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::*We can easily make a page with guidelines on that. On that note, Dragon Child made a very good point in the Tavern that flavor, being totally subjective, should not be considered at all -- the F&K Fighter, for example, would be considered excellent by many, but is totally lacking in flavor (as is intended for the generic "fighter" class). In my opinion, all that should be considered are power, formatting, and clarity.<br />
::::*It shouldn't need much. As long as they do justify it, and the rational parts make sense (even if we disagree with the opinion parts, such as "it's stronger than a monk and monks are overpowered"), it should be fine.<br />
::::*More than that and it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference in value between them. The tiers boil down to "bad, good, great", which is really the categorization that ratings seek to define -- the whole point of a rating is to figure out which of those three something is.<br />
::::*It could be median. I don't really know which would work better, I just figured mode would be simpler to figure out.<br />
::::*If something that was mentioned in the justification is changed, the rating is nullified. For example, if someone said an ability called Smite Teletubby was too powerful, and then the mechanics of the ability are changed, the rating is negated until the rater verifies that they still feel that it's overpowered, or that their other points of justification still make them say it needs improvement.<br />
::::*Probably a better phrase, yeah. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 09:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::How do you compromise different rating? Say five users rate a page and it gets Excellent, Usable, Usable, Needs Improvement, and Needs Improvement. What does that measure out to? -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 10:57, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Under both the Mode (which I'd prefer using) and the Median, it would get Usable. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 10:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::We should set up a vote for this lasting 1 week. I'm pretty sure I already know what the community will respond with... Could someone more involved with this set up a more formal proposal? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 07:52, 30 June 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::Formal proposal? Meh, no need for that. All we need right now is a yea or nay from GD on setting up a vote. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:02, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Do we really need GD to set up the vote? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 20:23, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::No. Just need someone who knows the templates and formatting system to change around the template for the new system, as well as the display pages. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:38, 4 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I can do that. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 08:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the [[Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles]] system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:The idea was this new review system could be used for ''everything''. I find the categories linked to be more than a bit unsatisfying because they are only for bad articles, not good articles. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 14:57, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I am of the opinion a numerical (or word) based rating system (as explained above) detriments articles more then it helps compared to a system where the unuseable articles are reviewed and helped in a article-based manner. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:06, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::So effectively, [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]], you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad? --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 16:35, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I'm not that much of a pessimist. To be honest you read what I said wrong. In my opinion articles should be considered unuseable when they are not useable and instead of just rating them to bring them to a useable statis templates should be added to them on a article by article basis to bring them up to a useable statis. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:51, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::So everything would be considered usable then, and there would be nothing that's considered exceptional? Because that's what it looks like you're suggesting. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:01, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::''Edit conflict, but I'm keeping what I wrote... I'm somewhat echoing Surgo.''<br />
::::::I didn't mean to suggest you were a pessimist. I was just asking for a bit of clarification. I agree that we need to template articles with areas they need to improve (stub, needs balance, etc.). The issue I have with this approach is that we don't have a marker to say "this has been looked at and is good". We have markers to say "This needs improvement" and we can find all of the ones without those markers, but inevitably I foresee many articles falling through the cracks. They won't have the stub template added even when they are stubs.<br />
::::::Maybe part of it is that our admins here need some D&D wiki specific required reading about what they are supposed to do. I know there are a lot of folks here that regularly patrol recent comments. If we have a page describing what we should look out for, then patrolling RC will become much more productive I'm sure. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 17:09, 8 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::Arguably every reader of a homebrewed article should read it with an analytical mindset. Especially if one is going to implement it into their campaign they should. As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements. Specifically I do not see why we need to add another system for reviewing articles when we can instead just raise the unplayability bar. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:57, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::''"As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements"'' -- that's a horrible idea. Someone who thinks the monk is the pinnacle of balance should not ever be going around putting "this is unbalanced" templates on anything. Raising the unplayability bar still leaves a large gap between the minimum allowed and articles that should be considered exceptional. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 18:46, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Just dropping a question here, but, for singling out exceptional articles, don't you guys already have something for that? "Featured Articles"? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 18:59, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Which never seem to change and have strange requirements like "must have a picture". [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 19:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::So you are saying we need to make a playability bar. Correct with either another system implementation or with the current system applied to all cases and as the only reviewing system. It's related to [[Balance System]], however it would have to be done differently in any case (and should). --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:35, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing what is currently used for classes (rating system) applied across other categories, such as spells and races, but I understand that this discussion's inception was in part due to dissatisfaction with the current system as it stands, or at the very least concerns over how such a thing would translate. The four core categories (power, wording, formatting, flavor), however, seem to be fairly universal in my mind. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 20:42, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::You must have missed the many arguments over what those categories are even supposed to mean...I have no idea what Green Dragon's latest message is supposed to mean, so I just want to reaffirm my support for the original idea that started this thread. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 21:06, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I always go back to that table whenever I rate a class, and I think it does an okay job at defining each area, except for the formatting bit (too lenient, IMO, high rating must be earned, not proxy by following the preload). I can understand where debates might crop up, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 21:34, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the [[Rating System]] and the [[Character Class Design Guidelines (DnD Guideline)|Character Class Design Guidelines]] combined. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Wouldn't a playability bar be something akin to a rating system? And as far as templates vs. ratings is concerned, I think that is a bit of a 'your mileage may vary' thing. I mean, low numbers may motivate one person, and a big fat stub/wikify template may motivate others. Either way, that still has the same issues that a rating system does. That is, some people may considered something balanced, and others may not. Does such an article deserve to carry the <nowiki>{{NeedsBalance}}</nowiki> template? I guess what I'm saying is that numbers (a rating system) offer a much cleaner compromise than a debate over whether an article is balanced. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:25, 10 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::Something I think you aren't getting, Green_Dragon, is that another goal -- and the one I and the others who brought this up care about -- with ratings is to inform casual readers of the wiki what classes are good and usable and which are not. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 17:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::The problem is, some people think classes are usable and others don't. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 20:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Which is why the proposed rating system would use the mode of the given rates. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 20:44, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I can see this arguement going back and forth like this for easily another 2 weeks. People don't like the current rating system, the boss man doesn't think the system is needed, but the people think that a system is needed, and that one thought keeps poking it's head back into the discussion, "Some people think classes are usable and others don't." I will personally not read anything past this post since it has already given me a headache, but I'm adding my two cents all the same. Yes, flavor is a subjective part of an article, and that paticular part of the rating system feels a bit superflous when you think about it, though, it could serve a purpose. For example, if a classes fluff describes it as, say, "A mighty spellcaster who tears down the heavens with but a thought", and then, when you get to class features, it doesn't even get spells, then that may fall into a '''What?/5''' on the flavor rating, but of course, who is going to be that stupid? I personally think that getting rid of the system all together though, that may be a troublesome idea, considering that the rating system is convenient for the fact that it can show up on the 'list of classes' page, and give a person a warning before they let their computer load the page, just to see a box that says 'Need Balance, come back later' pop up on their screen. People are rather impatient, and, loading 5 pages that are utter junk in a row may turn them away from the site. As for the 'Mol an admin to get a rating approved' idea, I think that is a touch of brilliance that Michealanjilo (don't know if I spelled that correctly) would be envious of, and that it ought to be impletemented immediately, regardless of the decision reached here. As for the Mode/Median Dichotomy, I personally like the way that numbered ratings look, and the feeling you get when you see a '''20/20''' on one of your favorite classes, and can't say that I would feel the same should I get 3 Excellents, but that is simply personal perference. Wrapping up this post, my advice would be to keep the rating system, knock of the flavor part, and add the 'Mol me' switch, but otherwise, keep things the same. Well, I hand the floor to the next person to post, enjoy the discussion everybody. &rarr; [[User:Rithaniel|<span style=color:Gray; -moz-border-radius-topleft:25px; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px">Rith</span>]]<sup> [[User talk:Rithaniel|<span style=color:black; -moz-border-radius-bottomleft:20px; -moz-border-radius-topleft:20px">(talk)</span>]]</sup> 23:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::My problem with the rating system as it is is, that a class that's 5/5 power, but 2/5 formatting because someone wants there to be more flavor, an example character, an "in the world" section and epic rules (yes, despite the fact that they're useless, I've seen someone rate down someone else for not having EPIC RULES before) is completely and totally different than one that was rated 2/5 formatting and 5/5 power. One of them is likely MUCH more usable in a game, while another just needs some quick fixes. Yet they're rated exactly the same on the "Out of 20" scale, which is why I really don't like that scale. I'd rather just look at classes by power. In addition, if there are mods for rating allowances (which I agree with), IMO they should be seperate from the admins. Green likely has a lot on his plate, and if the rating allowance is just set to a small number of users/mods, that means there can be no inter-mod quarrels. I'd nominate someone like Jota, in addition to some of the current mods like Draco and Surgo, myself, as these should be checked often and may involve a bit of back and forth. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 00:02, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::: It seems the big problem with ratings is the fact that everyone's balance point is completely different. We all know, and no offense to anyone, That someone who agrees with Frank and K's teachings is going to have a radically different view to someone who doesn't. So no matter what the new rating system is, it will still be based on a balance point that at least 50% of the wiki disagrees with. And honestly, it is unlikely the class will get a second rating unless someone is passionate enough, all it takes is one bad rating to completely mess up a classes chance to be read by newcomers in the future, i know i don't even look at most classes with a rating under 12. I had an idea recently however about a new approach to rating, and inlight of what seems to be an impending overhaul, i will place it here. I notice on some of the other wiki's i peruse, (Bulbapedia, wikipedia etc.) that they have "Projects", like Project: Music and Lyrics, where they try to put in all the lyrics for all the songs on the wiki. I think we should get a group of about five people, regular wiki dwellers, with good and varied ideas on balance, into a sort of committee, A Project: Quality, if you will, to go over classes and give their unified opinion on them. One good rating and one bad rating that remain stagnant and unchangeing on a page don't do much. but a unified and collective and well thought out rating is much more likely to be appreciated instead of an IP saying, "WOW, this is really OP, lulz." The commitee could regulate when pages change and when ratings can be nullified, and if there all really devoted, start looking over new classes and old ones and discussing as a group an overall rating for them, whatever the new rating system may be. Perhaps this commitee could add a nice commentary and review to select classes. A article cleanup crew would also be nice, but i know that i cant have Christmas in july.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 01:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a committee to rate classes. Much neater, cleaner, and conflict-less than just anyone being able to rate things. We need to be very careful who is on that committee, though; the more varied the views on balance are, the more likely there is to be conflict. Every single member of the committee would need to be very flexible, and needs to recognize that they are, objectively, no more correct in their views as anyone else on the committee. One way to potentially help avoid disagreements is to come up with general categories of views on balance, and have each ratable page be in a category indicating how the author intended to balance it. For example, off the top of my head, there's Same Game Test balance, balance against similar classes from the core, balance against the strongest classes of the core, balance against similar classes from the entire game, etc. That way, instead of rating on balance from a scattered set of viewpoints, we rate based on the target that the author was trying to hit. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 01:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I don't like the idea of a committee, that narrows the views of the rankings. If the committee is primarily balancing to CR = ECL then they would rate down classes that are attempting for SRD power (and vice versa). A similar problem is when you are saying play testing, if a person uses a class effectively then it can be powerful but if they don't have an opportunity to or don't understand the benefits that the class has or just doesn't play a member of that class effectively then it may be considered much weaker. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Maybe ranking classes for flavor, formatting and wording, but have a different rating system for power. CR = ECL would be one of the options, having a power ranking for that. Or it can be SRD power ranking. I think that flavor should be focused on more though. Have flavor out of 10, formatting out of 5, wording out of 5 and CR = ECL or SRD power ranking percentages, with under 100 being lower powered, 100 being exact and over 100 being high powered. Alternatively it could be a bar with low power at the bottom, SRD standard near the middle, CR = ECL near the end and higher powered at the end. (using lower and higher, not under and over. This is due to the fact that it seems friendlier.) That alternate bar could be out of 100, with the titles at 0, 33, 66 and 100. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 04:48, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::Part of what started this whole discussion is how none of us liked having separate ratings for flavor, formatting, and wording. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 09:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::I am in favor of either a word-based rating system or a committee or both (somehow). I don't think anything more complex is needed, nor would it be helpful. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 10:18, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I agree strongly with the idea that classes should have a disclaimer with the power level they were going for. Otherwise, a class going for SRD power would be poorly rated by a user who basis his balance views of ECL=CR, and that isnt fair for someone whose view on balance is different. We could sort each of the balance points (SRD, ECL=CR, Overpowered, Strong SRD, what have you...) Into different categories, so people coming to this site with a specific idea of power can find there niche right away. Perhaps there could be a description on each of the category pages as well. I am still completely up for the idea of a committee, a committee that can be well versed in all these balance points (which i know there are a few of them in the tavern) and willing to review classes at their balance point.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 10:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I think that flavor is the most important part of the class, it should have its own rating. Formatting and wording can get stuck together, they are only for clarification anyway. I think that having a disclaimer for which power level is good and the word-based rating system can work with the committee, they just have to write a review on an article basically. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:17, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Rating systems, disclaimers for varying levels of power... It all sounds quite exciting, but what would measuring by multiple yardsticks do, besides confuse the hell out of everyone involved? People are liable to not even know what of these power categories their class is going to end up in. Not everybody is apt at discerning balance, which is exactly why some sort of rating system has been introduced in the first place, I think. While I don't have problems with it existing, the types of pages that actually get ratings is so limited and small (i.e., only classes and prestige classes) that it says little about the wiki's general quality standard. Everything else, from spells to equipment to creatures and other random miscellanea is pretty much ignored. There, but not so as you'd notice unless you're willing to wade through hundred miles of swampland with a pig on a leash to find the odd truffle or two. <br />
<br />
::::What I'm proposing is that a sort of 'Editor's Choice' template be made in which any of the admins/sysops can tag the pages they like. Most admins of this wiki are veterans in D&D, and know what they're on about. It's a real simple concept really. If you navigate to a page and see a little frame at the top that states one of the admins like it, it's likely the people'll be willing to look further into it. It would be a simple matter to separate the Bayeux Tapestries from the sea of toilet paper that is the wiki if people were at least given an indication to which articles might be up to snuff. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 21:19, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::As I asked before, isn't that what "featured articles" is for? Yes, I know it hardly changes, but I also know there was a discussion somewhere about fixing that. Swap the featured articles more often, add more to the candidates, and doesn't that fit your criteria of "editor's choice"? The only thing I'm asking is, why make something new when you can use what you've got? --[[User:TheWarforgedArtificer|TheWarforgedArtificer]] 22:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::Well, there's still this nonsense baggage like how a featured article "must have an image" (even if it's something like a transmutation spell that hardly needs one). Perhaps if those requirements were deleted. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 22:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::"Why make somethign new when you can use what you've got?" What we "got" Doesn't seem to be working.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 22:49, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::A page doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles of what constitutes a featured article in order to obtain approval. If the contents of the article are useful, usable, readable and well construed, there should be a way for people to tell. It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. A simple little thumbnail of, I dunno, a silver chalice or something, with the caption 'this article is Good' next to it should suffice. On the whole, writing featured articles is like writing the legislation. You have to suffer through countless articles and subparagraphs that you'd never deal with were it ever used in a campaign. As a result, pages like [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|this]] read as though you're drowning in wallpaper paste. --[[User:Sulacu|Sulacu]] 22:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::If theoretically the rating system was removed I agree that the main issue would be that one would not be able to quickly pull a judgement of a certain class from [[DnD Base Classes]] page. Personally I think one of the main reasons the classes area is such a mess is since a rating system was implemented. I am under the impression people do not challenge themselves when adding an article if the goal in mind is to make it adhere to a rating system. And, for that reason, I think the entire class section is such a mess. If (on the preload) we changed the reviewing templates to the D&D-Wiki wide ones and added them to the top (not the bottom) and removed the rating system I think people would submit better classes and this entire prolem would be fixed. Also, that is what FA are for, and I agree that [[Cassia (DnD Deity)|Cassia]] is not FA quality. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:32, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::I like the idea of a editor's choice thing. It can show good and mostly complete articles, not only the best of the best (which the FA show). This would incorporate flavor and power, with the main formatting to be handled by other templates. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 01:59, 13 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::I think I was misunderstood. What I mean about using the featured articles for editor's choice was that we -change- the featured articles criteria to reflect what is being discussed here. That was my suggestion. Now, if no one thinks that idea is a good one, fine. I'm just clarifying. {{Unsigned|TheWarforgedArtificer|17:11, 16 July 2009}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::::I think that Featured Articles should be the best of the best. We can also have recommended articles and use able articles, with the recommended being better in flavor, wording and layout while the use able ones are still usable but not as high quality. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 06:46, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::Here's an Official Proposal.<br />
:::::::::::::A committe is formed known as the Ratings Committee, or RC for short. The RC is composed of 9 members, each of varied preferences and opinions, to form it. The RC members must each contribute to the RC once every month, or be replaced. The RC members gain the powers as follows<br />
:::::::::::::*An RC member is able to select an article he feels is particularly good and exemplifies what the wiki should be. He may Favor the article.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with one Favor gains a Bronze Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 3 Favors is upgraded to a Silver Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*An article with at least 6 Favors gains a Gold Star.<br />
:::::::::::::*If eight RC members all Favor an article, it becomes a Featured Article (in addition to the Gold Star), and is given (unit of time - 1 week? 2 weeks?) on the front page. This may lead to a Featured Article queue. That's fine - it's better than a lack of one. All Featured Articles will get their fair share.<br />
:::::::::::::*If an article as two or less Favors, and at least six other Ratings Committee members believe that the article does not deserve a Bronze Star, they may do so. This, hopefully, will be EXTREMELY rare - I can't see it really happening ever if the committee is chosen wisely.<br />
For the initial Ratings Committee, I proposal the following members -- Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, and Genowhirl. That is eight members. I would not normally nominate myself, however, at Aarnott's insistance, I will do so, on the basis that you shouldn't push a job on others you're not willing to do yourself. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:03, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I like this idea a lot, except for one thing -- I don't think it should tie into the featured article system at all. "Editor's choice" articles by themselves are a fine system. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:08, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Just noting my agreement with this idea. Having 9 experienced members take a look at articles like this will allow them to improve with useful constructive criticism. Regular users can still use the wiki normally and articles can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think this is an excellent compromise to all of the ideas presented so far. I think we should try it out for a month or two and see how it goes. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:14, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::And best of all, we can remove that horrible rating system too! I know everyone wanted to do that. [[User:Surgo|Surgo]] 12:15, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I agree to this proposal and think it is a fine system to add to the wiki.[[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 12:36, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::I support the proposal, and am happy to accept my role in it. I'd also like to suggest creation of a User:Ratings_Committee, so that it can be MoI'd to bring an article or discussion to the entire committee's attention, similar to User:Admin. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 12:47, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I'm not opposed to the idea, although I'm not as opposed to the current rating as others seem to be. I guess it would be nice to be able to say good things about races, spells, and things other than classes. I'll wait for an official proposal page to spring up before evaluating the idea in further detail. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 13:53, 20 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I support the proposal. As the wiki is a mutable project, a trial run to test it out would be pleasing. I would like to note that I would prefer to keep the old FA nomination system in addition to this new Ratings Committee system. The old FA nomination system will still allow any user or IP to voice their opinion. So, who wants to build the Templates for the Stars and other required materials and pages? --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:20, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::The idea was that while anyone could voice their opinions, nominate articles, and pressure/goad the Committee, but only they had the final say. That way, yes, IPs get their say, but we're also not pretending like the "This is overpowered because I don't understand the rules" stuff matters. If it has to be someone's call if something is a FA or not, while not leave it up to the same people who are going to be rating things anyway? We can fix two birds with one stone, and get the FAs moving and rotating again, a discussion people seemed to have basically abadoned. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 18:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Yeah, after a bit more thought on it, drop the old FA nominating system. With the User:Ratings_Committee, getting ahold of the RC will be easy and quick while allowing anyone to voice their opinion on an article. Would a Category work well for Ratings Requests, or would then anyone just plop in the category and clog it up? Doing it by starting a discussion on the User:Ratings_Committee would probably work best, as it would require actual communication, hopefully minimizing problems. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 18:36, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::Okay, so if this gets implemented how is a RC group which looks over recent contributions and gives them favors better then a RC group who adds templates to articles on a article-by-article basis to show that articles mistakes? Or how were you guys planning on implementing the current reviewing system and this RC group to look over recent contributions together? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 19:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Because not everything that's "not good" has mistakes. Yes, the group - and EVERYONE for that matter - should still apply the articles to bad template. However, we should still be able to reward and exemplify especially good articles. It also helps people who are looking for material to use to see the best articles set aside. I would basically suggest a talk page, where anyone can post stuff for the RC to see, and would be removed after they looked it over. It wouldn't need EVERY RC member to look over EVERY article, they only have to rate the ones they want to. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 20:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::: I support Dragon Child's stuff. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 20:27, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::::::: After speaking with Surgo, who's opinion I greatly respect, I'd like to change the people whom I nominated for the RC role. I had originalyl nominated Genowhirl, who while is plenty fair and clever, doesn't post to other parts of the wiki nearly as much as I had anticipated. Instead, I'd like to replace his nomination with that of Sam Kay's, who is far more active, and in addition, knows 4e quite well. I feel that this better rounds out the knowledges and opinions of the RC, and makes it quite a diverse group. In addition, I feel a new rule needs to be added - an RC is not allowed to Favor his own articles. Instead, there will be one user (prehaps someone who's in-line to become RC, or just Green Dragon) who is allowed to Favor articles written by RCs, and only those articles, in the author's stead. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 12:19, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::: How does this solve the problem of classes at different power levels? Are we going to have a template for that? or make it part of the author template? --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 16:09, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::::::If the author feels that his class is being passed up due to its power level, then he needs to explain it in the talk page, and give reasons on why he think that power level is valid. There is no set categories we can fairly make, it should be up for each author to defend the power level on their own. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 16:30, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
{{Discussion Indentation Revert}}<br />
<br />
:I think the idea for templates for power level was a good one, such as a template for things balanced to SRD, and things balanced to F&K etc. I think that i would be ok with the idea of the author justifying his balance if i know that the RC would be open to there balance description, my one worry would be people rating with preconceived notions of power that differ from a standard view of power. But you did pick a very versatile group, so i suppose that would rarely happen. Im just voiceing all my concerns, because i feel all concerns should be addressed before something like this is implemented. I still love the idea. [[User:Summerscythe|Summerscythe]] 17:34, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Balance to SRD doesn't work. What are you balancing AGAINST? The monsters? Rogue? Druid? Monk? Wizard? fighter? Those are all different balance points. Thus, the category "balanced against SRD" isn't useful. F&K balance against SRD too, you know. They balance against the monsters, wizard, and druid. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 17:52, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::If the author makes their target of balance clear enough, the RC should absolutely judge against that target, rather than their own preferred target. Of course, if no adequately described target is given, that leaves the RC free to judge as they please. Perhaps we should add something to the preloads or author template to describe target of balance. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 18:08, 22 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::: I have done [[User:TK-Squared/Lavabox/Stars|this]] for you. It is my proposal for the new Author box. It works easily, like this! --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 18:10, 23 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::GD, no offense, but I'm REALLY REALLY against what you did on the Gravity Warrior page. That stuff NEEDS to go into the discussion. First, it makes it look like one of the better classes on the wiki has major problems, which it doesn't. Second, you put some stuff in the balance box that I and I bet Rith flat-out disagree with, and it's not something that you can be proven right about. That's basically holding the page hostage - "Change this to MY opinion, or you get an ugly tag telling everyone its unbalanced". If it had major problems or was obviously bad, sure, that's one thing. But this doesn't! You don't even explain WHY it's unbalanced, just pointing to the talk page, where the person who "reviewed" it and said it was unbalanced wasn't even using the class as written, but instead used sweeping changes that everyone said were the problem. [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::I am debating if it is a better idea to add the things I wrote onto the talk page and (on those templates) just put "see talk" or somesuch. Your thoughts? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::I'm all for throwing the balance template on badly written classes. But Gravity Warrior isn't badly written. It really, really needs to go onto the talk page, saying why you think it's unbalanced. The only major argument saying it was was not intellectually honest and thoroughly disproven, so it's a bit useless to just say "see talk page", too, and why it's unbalanced needs to be fleshed out on the talk page more (it isn't, IMO). [[User:Dragon Child|Dragon Child]] 15:56, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I don't think any one user should be able to just slap a bunch of huge, ugly templates on a page. I was under the impression that everyone agreed with the RC idea, in one form or another. And then you went and did that, which I don't think anyone supported as a form of page review. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 15:58, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Complaint ==<br />
<br />
ha dude dnt want to sound like im complaining your something but peoples homebrewing is kinda slack on this site i wanted to look at the complete classes and got excited but no one finishes any thing the races are exelent just a little change and we can fix them up but the classes deffently need some work because their exelent pertensail for dnd hope u can get the word out to fix things up because this site is exlent for ideas and its not all their sorry if its not my place to tell you<br />
<br />
:Well, what you've got to remember about creating an entire class is that it takes a LOT of time: you have to make sure everything works, that it is not totally broken, you have to find and link parts such as [[ranger]] or [[Knowledge]], and you have to come up with background information to support some of the parts of the class. I know from experience that making a class takes a few hours at the least. Heck when I made [[Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class)|The Ethereal Hunter]], I was so exhausted at the end that I didn't even include a sample NPC (need to get around to that). If this came across as an angered defensive position on the matter, I didn't mean it to be. If you are a user, please sign your comments by putting four ~ marks at the end like so. [[User:Narrssuras Stalking Leopard|Omen]] 09:29, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Rating, please? ==<br />
<br />
I recently made a prestige class and got some feedback on it, did some edits, and I'm still not sure if it will fly. Could you rate it and tell me what I should change? It would be awesome if you could..<br />
<br />
[[Ascendant Knight (DnD Prestige Class)]]<br />
<br />
Thank you!<br />
<br />
:Your wish is command (although just this once). -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 01:36, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hands of a wiseman? ==<br />
<br />
Is this a homebrewed feat or is it somewhere in another book somewhere? I am currently playing a D&D 3.5 game and I would really like to use this feat for my healer, but my GM won't let me use it unless it is somewhere "authenticate".<br />
<br />
Thanks for your time and have a great day! {{unsigned|Copper Gryphon}}<br />
<br />
:[[Hands of a Wiseman (DnD Feat)]] is homebrew material, meaning it was made by independent author(s), at home most likely. Homebrewing is common. You should speak to your GM about allowing such material after his reviewal and approval of course for each article. --[[User:Ganteka|Ganteka]] 22:12, 5 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Hit Points in v3.5 help. ==<br />
<br />
I have a question about hit points in v3.5 and i cannot confirm if i am correct or not.<br />
<br />
My question:<br />
<br />
When you reach a new bonus with your constitution score (from +1 to +2) do you gain 1 hp per class level, or just another hp at the level your new constitution bonus takes effect.<br />
<br />
I have always assumed that you would gain 1 hp per class level when this occurs as, unless im wrong, you lose 1 hp per level when you your constitution bonus drops a point.<br />
<br />
:[[SRD:Constitution]] states: "If a character’s Constitution score changes enough to alter his or her Constitution modifier, the character’s hit points also increase or decrease accordingly." I mean, a raging barbarian gets bonus hit points from his Constitution increase. Why wouldn't you normally gain from such a benefit? I've always played like that (retroactive increases), anyway. Hope this helps, even if the link isn't explicitly clear. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 00:55, 6 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I'm pretty sure bonus HP due to a CON increase are awarded retroactively. I've noticed they are in d20 products for the PC and console, so I'm certain they're awarded the same way in regular D&D. We always played it like that anyway. -- [[User:Mythos Specialist|Mythos]] 16:22, 7 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::It is awarded retroactively, though you may want to play this differently. Sometimes it doesn't make sense for a person to gain a large amount of hit points for (almost) no reason. --[[User:Sabre070|Sabre070]] 05:01, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Thanks! ==<br />
<br />
Thanks, I really appreciate you taking the time to send me a message. Hopefully, it was manual otherwise, oops! :p <br />
<br />
I have one question though. I was creating a campaign setting for the 4th edition, and I've noticed the wiki is lacking in material for this edition. Could you tell me what things are availible to me? On a related note, whenever I use the 4th edition power template, a footer appears beneath it, like in [[LAI Class: Archer|here]]. How do I get rid of it?<br />
<br />
Also, very quickly, my campaign was put under 0 for lacking pages, but I've been steadily adding them. How will my campaign get out of 0?<br />
<br />
Thanks! ~[[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 17:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)`<br />
<br />
:[[4e Homebrew]]. Since when can Campaign Settings get rated as 0? I think you mean your class. I would post something on it's talk page ans ask what you need to do to improve it. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:37, 9 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::Here is what I mean. Without code wrapping '{{,}}'<br />
::stub|missing nearly all pages<br />
::Campaign Setting Rating=0<br />
::How do I fix that? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|07:31, 10 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
:::I agree with you about [[Template:4e Power]] and how it automatically adds the breadcrumb to all the powers gets very damn annoying (okay, I've never actually added my own 4e class. I'm just talking about the layout). We currently add homebrew power's into their own linked to pages with each class having it's own page ([[4e Powers]] - the ones under "homebrew designation"). The reason the breadcrumb is included in that template is because the idea when they were made was for each to have it's own page. The reasoning was so other classes could use the same powers, like a mix of 3.5e spells 4e powers optimized for functionality; however I feel that their is a better way to do it. What are your thoughts on having something more compared to a pool of 4e powers and each class transcluding them into their page (or creating a link list - comparable to the 3.5e spell lists for each class)? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 15:24, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::I took a look at your campaign setting - [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] and you were right. It was rated as 0. I changed the formatting and layout a bit and changed the rating to 2, however I did not really read it so the rating could be off. And above with the code warping and dpl mixed with categories idea did you man to ask how does one change a campaign settings rating? Since it uses a template it just pulls a parameter from the template page; so one just has to change the number at the end to the new rating. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:06, 11 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::Also which edition does [[LAI (DnD Campaign Setting)|LAI]] use? Your 4e class is in there but much of it is using 3.5e material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::What do you mean? I designed the class after how it looks like in the 4e handbooks, and it says in the running and history of LAI section that it uses 4e. So how do I manage to get the Power to appear without the footer? Do I link into it like with the menu and find some way to make them fit in the powers section? My idea on that power linkage thing is to have it so that powers could have a powersource tab add to it as well as a link on the power to the classes it belongs to, so that you can search up the power, then see the classes it leads to on the power itself.-- [[User:Celen Joad|Celen Joad]] 7:44, 15 July 2009 (GST +10)<br />
<br />
:::::::Removing those footers on class pages is a bit of an issue. The template was designed to work so that each homebrew class added has it's own power page and each template has it's own page. I am not positive if you agree or not however I think that that organizational structure for powers is a bit extraneous (for example your class has about six powers. Six powers on such a massive page (to me at least) comes off as a bit much). I changed your class a bit to show you more of what I mean. The first edit I did (with the revision history is [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class%3A_Archer&diff=391450&oldid=374143] and then I reverted it back to the old revision [http://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=LAI_Class:_Archer&diff=next&oldid=391450]). One of the powers does not have a breadcrumb but if one notices it is changed to say "Attack" to say "Class Feature" (or something like that). I am not positive with either way to organize the powers on your class. Also the template could be changed so one has to add a footer manually. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:39, 15 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::::::I made [[Template:4e Power/Sandbox]]. If you would not mind let me know what you think. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 17:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::It looks great! Finally we can have powers without the footers! Huzzah. On the subject on the changes to the Archer class: Would you like to join LAI? You are amazing! Your tweaks have made the Archer class a rich and more in depth class than I alone (Seeing as I'm the only one in PnP LAI) could make! I give you full permission to edit anything on LAI as long as it dosen't affect the larger whole of the story! BTW the Tribal Civil war didn't happen, more like a World War among the cities.<br />
:::::::::Serious about the LAI joining thing, will you? {{Unsigned|Celen Joad|03:33, 19 July 2009 (MDT)}}<br />
<br />
::::::::::Could you email me about joining LAI so I can think about it more? I don't want to start helping LAI and have strange ideas for LAI which you disagree with. Although I am pretty certain I want to continue developing it, with permission. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:58, 21 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::::Could you email me and let me know if it is okay for me to edit your CS soon and so we can discuss ideas? I want to start a 4e campaign in a day or so and I would prefer to use LAI. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:12, 25 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Appologies in advance==<br />
For all the annoying MOIs past and future to fix little errors that i find in locked pages. [[User:GaaaaaH|- GaaaaaH]] 05:03, 12 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
==Spoiler Alert==<br />
Is there a way to hide the contents of an article until the viewer clicks on a link... like a 'for DM's Eyes only' warning on adventure pages. --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 11:29, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] has something to that effect on his user page. I don't know what in the coding makes it work like that, but it might be a place to start. -- [[User:Jota|Jota]] 12:32, 26 July 2009 (MDT)<br />
<br />
<center><br />
{|class="{{d20}} collapsible hidden" style="width:75%; text-align:left;"<br />
|+ For DM's Only<br />
|-<br />
| The information stored in this "For DM Only" table is, as the name stipulates, for the eyes of the Dungeon Master only. In such; <br />
<br />
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Integer vel odio tellus. Maecenas eu sagittis nunc. Cras pharetra neque magna. Aliquam ut lectus posuere tellus scelerisque vehicula eu a magna. Duis nulla sapien, tempus id semper eu, sollicitudin nec tortor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Mauris venenatis mollis commodo. Vestibulum laoreet, erat eu iaculis porttitor, odio enim ultricies dolor, quis pellentesque arcu erat sed purus. Integer accumsan, lacus non consectetur molestie, augue nibh fermentum nisl, nec tristique dolor urna at mauris. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<br />
|}<br />
</center><br />
<br />
:: Easily made into a template. --[[User:TK-Squared|TK-Squared]] 12:42, 26 July 2009 (MDT)</div>Daniel Draco