Talk:3.5e Base Classes
From D&D Wiki
 Druid Protector doesn't appear
The Druid Protector class I just added doesn't appear here, although it does on the other two index screens. Did I mess up the description format? --Cúthalion 11:57, 6 February 2007 (MST)
- Yes. You used the NPC description template instead of the Base Class Description Template. Also you did not make the "Balance" template correct. I have fixed the problems and I hope it is better. --Green Dragon 12:55, 6 February 2007 (MST)
- Oops. Thanks. --Cúthalion 12:59, 6 February 2007 (MST)
- No problem. However, this discussion should have taken place on Talk of Druid Protector and not here. No worries however. --Green Dragon 11:50, 7 February 2007 (MST)
Is that just a typo? --Pwsnafu 22:25, 7 March 2007 (MST)
Update Wait a sec, there's also Yocham. Could this be a progamming bug? --Pwsnafu 22:28, 7 March 2007 (MST)
- Must be: the pages seem to have the right dpl tags and categories. I'll leave Blue Dragon an MoI. —EldritchNumen 01:11, 8 March 2007 (MST)
 Crap Crap Crap Crap!
- Could you grab the four other categories and then do the calculations? --Aarnott 14:31, 21 February 2008 (MST)
- I can, but I want to do it and have it only display the overall rating (unless it's desired that all the component ratings are displayed, too). There's a number of limitations with DPL's custom output formatting mechanism, but I now have a couple of ideas for work-arounds. —Sledged (talk) 15:18, 21 February 2008 (MST)
- Looks good! --Green Dragon 21:55, 21 February 2008 (MST)
 Five main types?
Shouldn't 'skilled' be a main type? It's doesn't really fit into any of the other categories and yet there are a ton of classes that are primarily 'skilled' over something like 'bad guy' or 'combat-focused.' -- Jota 17:44, 30 January 2009 (MST)
- I agree, skilled really should be one of the main groups, though I also think there should be at least a few sub-types in each type, you know in case someones looking for a paticular class with a paticular style, for example: Aggressive Combat-focused, Defensive Combat-focused, Agile Combat-focused, Unarmed Combat-focused could be the sub-categories of Combat-focused, and there ought to be a category labelled special for everyone who wants to add classes with unusual themes (IMO of course) → Rith (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2009 (MST)
- Nowaday there too many types to even list. unique abilities, martial adept, incarnum user etc. --Lord Dhazriel 12:36, 18 March 2009 (MDT)
 Splitting The Page
The page need to be splitted, I say each letter should get it own page. Splitting them by type would require every classes to have a listed type (some don't making job a bit harder) and many classes have multiple types, listing many twice. --Lord Dhazriel 12:36, 18 March 2009 (MDT)
 Improving Quality of the Wiki
I suggest we have a separate page for rated classes and unrated classes. Try adding "|category=Rated" to the dpl code on this page and click preview to see what I mean. We could also find a way to split the classes by letter. --Aarnott 11:20, 14 April 2009 (MDT)
- Yeah, but then do you think the non-rated ones would still be viewed? And do you think people would add fake ratings to get theirs into the "rated" section? --Green Dragon 12:17, 14 April 2009 (MDT)
- People tend to read any comments to talk pages (even if it doesn't really apply to them). Fake ratings would probably be disputed (and perhaps prompt people to add real ratings). Would the non-rated ones be viewed? Probably not. This would encourage users to actually rate classes and get their classes rated. I've noticed that when classes get rated, they often get improved soon after. Encouraging rating like this would seem to be beneficial. --Aarnott 12:22, 14 April 2009 (MDT)
- Want to keep this discussion going. Is anyone opposed to trying this out? We can always revert if it doesn't work out well. --Aarnott 11:10, 15 April 2009 (MDT)
- I think we should so it. Or at least try it out. --Lord Dhazriel 11:13, 15 April 2009 (MDT)
- I really like this idea, ive been having the idea for awhile for a "Mass rate everything" project, maybe in the end we can sort articles by rating, havin a special "elite" section.Summerscythe 12:15, 15 April 2009 (MDT)
- I have implemented the change. Take a look at DnD Classes. I like this a lot more. There may only be like 20 rated classes, but at least I know what I'm getting into when I look for a class (ie. I would completely ignore the White base class as it is written now). --Aarnott 15:13, 15 April 2009 (MDT)
- I will tomorrow. Since you didn't write them, I wouldn't see why it would be a problem for you to rate them, however. --Aarnott 17:28, 15 April 2009 (MDT)
 Some Rating Nonsense Needs to Stop
Classes need to stop being rated down in formatting, flavor, whatever because they strip out the bottom parts of the preload ("X in the world" etc.). That crap was added in to books by Wizards halfway through the 3.5 life cycle to increase page count without increasing effort. That means if you look through the first half of the Complete series, they won't even have that crap! It really should be up to the author whether they include those bullshit redundant sections or not, and pages should not be rated down if they do not. It's possible to have good flavor without putting it in those retarded sections! Surgo 19:05, 16 April 2009 (MDT)
- Also: In the time it takes to rate Formatting down for not having interwiki links, those interwiki links can be added instead. When I make classes, I put interwiki links where I feel they are appropriate. If you think more are necessary in a page, you should add them. Nobody will object, and it will take the same amount of time as reading the class to find the missing interwiki links in the first place. Surgo 19:14, 16 April 2009 (MDT)
- They are not adhering to D&D Wiki's formatting standards and they need to. As such they are getting rated within the mindset of conforming to D&D Wiki's base class formatting and flavor standards. If it is really bothering you, you can add this pages' dpl to the Frank and K Sourcebook class pages and just exclude the flavor and formatting ratings. Also, all in all, not using the preload is only bringing them down 4 ratings point (three in formatting and one in flavor; and then one again in the flavor section for no NPC). --Green Dragon 21:52, 16 April 2009 (MDT)
- If you were to use a letter grading system, bringing down four points is two letter grades. But I have three questions, then:
- Why does having or not having an example NPC impact flavor at all?
- If religiously sticking to the preload is a requirement for a good rating in formatting, why is it even a preload instead of a form?
- Why is that part of the formatting standards in the first place? Both options are valid formatting options used by Wizards of the Coast.
- So, yeah. Those are my questions about this (and my implied problems with it). Surgo 22:14, 16 April 2009 (MDT)
- If you were to use a letter grading system, bringing down four points is two letter grades. But I have three questions, then:
- You may have noticed I rate a lot of classes. Yes, I could go in and fix all the formatting problems with them as I rate them, but then I will be cleaning up after people who make these classes forever. If I instead let the author know, "Hey, your formatting is a bit off.", they may, in the future, not make the same mistakes. In regards to the pre-loads, It is a guideline, not a stencil, you have many options with all of the pre-loads, and I feel we would lose many options if it were instead turned into a form. --Ganre 01:59, 17 April 2009 (MDT)
- Hmmph, well Surgo, the requirement for a good rating in formatting isn't "religiously sticking to the preload," as you so thickly put it, but rather, that you try and make the page look good, and, on D&D Wiki, a good looking page has at least some flavor related text at the bottom of the page. Flavor is a rating on whether or not the page is a good read (for me at least), and that includes class features and how they work back into the feel of the class. I've been rating the Frank & K classes generously in regard to flavor, since the idea behind each one seems unique and interesting. Now then, to cap. Power is the balance of the class. Wording is how the page reads and how easily it is understood, Formatting is how good the page looks. Flavor is the general idea behind the class. 2 for for the page, 2 for what the page is about, seems like a decent way to rate an entry on a wiki, doesn't it? (Also, I agree with Ganre, making the class preload into a form would erase a good sized list of options available to people who make classes) → Rith (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2009 (MDT)
- Power is how well the class in question compares to WotC's most balanced classes (or creatures of the appropriate level when appropriate).
- Wording is how well it adheres to the English grammar guidelines.
- Formatting is how well it adheres to D&D Wiki's formatting guidlines (as laid out in the preload). If one has a problem with the preload it should be brought up on its corresponding talk page.
- Flavor is the general spirit of the article (but the example NPC does fall under flavor since one is not reading the class for the NPC, but rather reading the NPC for an example of the class. Aka a bit of flavor added onto the class).
- Or does someone have a different idea as to how we should have each section be organized? --Green Dragon 16:14, 17 April 2009 (MDT)
- Again I ask then: if we need to religiously stick to the preload to get a good formatting rating, why is it a preload and not a form? Surgo 10:40, 21 April 2009 (MDT)
- So people learn wiki-syntax and people have more freedom when editing (one does not have to follow the preload - only if one wants a good formatting rating). --Green Dragon 12:07, 22 April 2009 (MDT)
- One merely needs to look at about half of the classes uploaded here to see that the idea of people learning wiki-syntax from the preload is a complete failure. But I guess now is a great time to bring up the other point: why is this considered "D&D Wiki's formatting guidelines"? I maintain that those bottom sections that I always strip out are retarded and should not be required. Surgo 13:05, 22 April 2009 (MDT)
- Two points:
- As far as people learning wiki-syntax--some people are just stupid or lazy. In the first case it is unlikely they will learn, and the latter they could learn but are unlikely to. I think people who can learn probably review other classes ahead of time and get the gist of things. When someone starts off horribly it is probably an indication of what to expect from that person.
- About the formatting:
- For the epic level table, the table and the title always overlap for me, so I put in an extra break. Does this happen to anyone else?
- The EL whatever:... what does that even mean? I would assume it is Encounter Level but then why is whatever left of the colon or why is there a colon at all?
- -- Jota 15:37, 22 April 2009 (MDT)
- Two points:
- People will learn wiki-syntax. If we had used forms all along no one would understand wiki-syntax like they possibly do today. And I changed the EL area on the preload. Finally, what exactly do you mean by an extra line break in the epic level table? --Green Dragon 07:45, 1 May 2009 (MDT)
- I mean that when I load a page the epic table and the epic table's title overlap so that the title is in the background of the table within the table. Does that make sense? -- Jota 12:00, 1 May 2009 (MDT)
- Makes sense to me (considering it also happens to me as well). I use Safari (on a mac), if that info helps for sorting this out.--Ganteka 12:17, 1 May 2009 (MDT)
 Half-Bear-Polar (3.5e Race)?
Why is Half-Bear-Polar (3.5e Race) linked to this page? (Kildairem 12:39, 16 July 2009 (MDT))
 Massive list of unfinished classes
Hi there, I was looking at some of the unfinished or problemed classes and I wondered why there are so many that never come to completion. A lot of classes are set up but never finished and have not been touched in year(s). Personally I would delete the awefully formatted or described ones that have been abandoned long ago while trying to salvage as many as one can. How and what guidelines would you suggest to follow in order to rank classes for deletion or salvation? Also there are so many classes (and that's a good thing) but it may be time to place them catagorized. Crashpilot 17:04, 28 February 2011 (MST)
- Do you have interest in helping the section? This is good to know so we can see if anything, other than the ordinary, can be done. Ordinarily (e.g. currently) the Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles method is used to improve, review, and the remove articles (of course, deletion should only happen if the page cannot be played — not just "have not been touched in year(s)", as an example). --Green Dragon 19:48, 28 February 2011 (MST)
- I deleted my original statement here and came to the conclusion that what I had in mind is not realisticly possible over an acceptable amount of time. Just after a mere 15 or so classes I realised that the wild-growth of unfinished classes whithout any serious attempt to make them work or test them has led to the total desintegration of quality to the class page alone let alone other pages. I understand that wiki has an natural disposition to imperfection but normally they do enjoy a very large active community that adresses these problems. D&D (And I realy want to be positive because I love the game!) sadly does not enjoy such a massive community. There seems to be no quality control over anything written by members and there is no incentive placed to make sure sandboxed classes actually get finished but are published anyway. The result: 100+ classes that are not up to standard and (seriously) the majority will never ever come there unless by fortune someone whishes to adjust them. D&D is not common knowledge that is described in encyclopedia but artisticly self induced media to append a fantasy based game. People will naturally not be inticed to finish someone else's fantasy but will prefer to design his own perception to matters unlike the true description of the functionality of a nuclear reactor that has a set function and known evolution resulting in a page which has 90% unfinished ideas. Baseline I want to place here: What where you thinking? I see a wiki here with loads of, if not, brilliant input on a popular fantasy game while being surrounded by utter garbage and lazy attempts or ignorence for quality. I understand that managing such sites takes hard and dedicated work (thumbs up) but the lack of governed quality on user input that will not always be clearly be understood by others, following a lot of personal views and rules that, again, is not the intulectual property of their own while being fantasy in the first place will ultimatly secure the downfall of the site. My cry towards you, please for the love of god, do not just accept anything that is not near finished (if not finished) regardlessly. Instead create a sandbox that allows people to play around in, and those that are serious about publishing their work will actually make effort to do so!. I mean what would you rather do? Take a nice picture that someone else has created and erase the imperfections and finish it not clearly understanding it's meaning, or create your own perspective of that picture and show that to that person? If you were to finish it in the first place to begin with. As the gamers have nicely put: Argue on! --Crashpilot 11:20, 1 March 2011 (MST).
- I would like to mention to make sure you are looking at the situation in all regards. People will improve things too. My personal examples? I have many. You may want to take a look at the Blood Knight (3.5e Prestige Class). 4e Races has quite a few examples if you really look. You are right that many of the classes here are in the lower section, which many may not use. But in all regards, that is not to say that the articles have no future or use. Others may only care about the game rules (table and class features) or idea and re-balance things anyway to fit it into their game (in the processes using all classes). --Green Dragon 17:06, 1 March 2011 (MST)
- You are right, first I appoligise couse I may have been intimidated by the mere 550 entries below I may have also have misunderstood the intentions of this site. I realize now that I accedently confused quality with quantity which is more important, any of those rules slapped together can be used in a campaign regardlessly I agree and given an unlimited amount of time that will even happen. I will never deny that you, or many others may I add, have done their upmost best to fix items and articles and all praises to you and them!. Now I also want to help, I also want to fix imperfections so this site may grow to be the best DnD reference site in the world, but I will not do it with the knowledge that it is just trying to mop the floor dry while some 80 firetrucks outside that are hosing my floor wet. --Crashpilot 15:09, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- Dividing the page into base classes with no or one or many improving, reviewing, or removing templates present makes it so, were you to divide articles, you would be "directing the firetrucks" hoses. Is this enough in your opinion? In all reality, I agree that lumping articles of varying quality together makes them less usable, and dividing the page into base classes with no or one or many improving, reviewing, or removing templates present was my solution. --Green Dragon 16:12, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- Haha, well this will be my last remarks on this discussion. I'm not here to make enemies and the site is constructual good in what it is supposed to do. I do realize that the current division is infact already something that I proposed, and functions like a good filter towards the general public, (including me). The real reason why I started this is because as a new member of the site the list below looks like hoarding and that kinda looks a bit awefull, now I do have to recognize that not everything is possible. I have looked at quite a few by now and I realise that there are actually a lot of classes out there that do make sense and only realy need minor editing to get up to standard and are usable by anyone. I see no alternative except for jumping in and get dirty with them. --Crashpilot 18:57, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- If you do not mind, what does hoarding mean with regard to content organization? When you mention that you see no alternative, the current method of organization is by no means the best possible. It is just a method to address problems, and I am making certain that you understand the method of organization as to come up with a better or maybe to learn something you didn't know before. Who knows. --Green Dragon 20:09, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- You missed my point there, I suggested a page where people can post their sandboxed classes >before< placing them on the main page. There a reviewing template may be added by the user that created something and you, me, or anyone else with dedication to the site can inspect it quickly, not on balance but on functionality and completion and ask the one that created it nicely if he or she whishes to improve or include missing items or someone with interrest may, before the reviewer will move it to class to the page to be rated uppon. Cinse 3.5 is dead and no more changes will occur it is safe to say that any user whishing to contribute can clearly finish his or her class with or without help. Anyone that doesn't care and abandones his class will atleast do so with the knowledge that his unfinished class will probably never see full potential and may be deleted over time. That's what psychcollogists call, insentive. --Crashpilot 15:09, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- Personal sandboxxed classes do not show up (no categories), so that is already the case. Inspection is why I added the improving, reviewing, or removing templates to the preload (to make it so personally one, or when one goes though the area with the articles with one or many improving, reviewing, or removing templates present they review the submissions). Is this enough in your opinion? --Green Dragon 16:12, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- Fair enough, I rest my case... --Crashpilot 18:57, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- A lot of the classes are in the lower section. To help them out, you could add starting packages to each of them. Thoughts on this idea? --Green Dragon 17:06, 1 March 2011 (MST)
- Yes I got some ideas, first off force new contributors to be complete, its beter to prevent then cure, then fixing the below makes sense and I would be more then glad to help. I am not familliar with wiki syntax for admins and such so I have no clue if there even is an mechanic that may automatically add missing stuff. But I do realize that every class is different and before just adding something the class needs to be inspected and starting packages can be added accordingly. I do not see some clear way other then getting in there personally and operate by hand. --Crashpilot 15:09, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- If something cannot be played, it is made a candidate for deletion. If it is only a little more it is marked as abandoned (also a candidate for deletion eventually). Still not complete and it stays in the area without a description, and will be less used. Is this enough in your opinion? --Green Dragon 16:12, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- "Is this enough in your opinion?"(quote), I see that line a lot in the answers. I agree it may seem like an attack or something similar, but realy I am only trying to understand the reasoning behind certain descisions. My opinion doesn't matter much at this point I have only been here just over a week and by far I do not understand the history of the site, policies and other maintaining factors and what ever else has happened over what... 5 years? I'm just a rookie with a keyboard and a brain, not knowledge. I am trying to figure out why there are so many unfinished items, is it due to general maintanance? Not enough active members maybe or does no-one care to begin with?, I mean there is only so much one member can do if he or she even feels obliged in the first place, or is it an inherent flaw in the content creation system. This doesn't mean I blame you or any other admins for that matter, I do understand you are not superman and maintaining such a large site is hard work. The system you discribed above looks like an excelent manner to rate / rank or destroy items but I was unfortunate enough to land on 4 classes just at the start that where unplayable and they were there for years if I may believe the history tab. By now I realise that there are a lot of decent classes in there that lack a few items, mostly stuff that seems to be added later on due to the 3.5 revision. But even on that I am not sure.--Crashpilot 18:57, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- I mean what I say in the most literal sense, disregarding innuendos and so when possible. I literally mean "in your opinion — is this enough?" I value your opinion, of course, but opinions do not prevail on D&D Wiki. Reasoning (for the most part) does. For example policies and so are subversive to reasoning (for the most part too, of course things like Template:Delete exist).
- Why are there so many unfinished items? Probably because Template:Delete is used when it's not playable, and most things are playable to some regard.
- Yes, there are not enough people looking over content. You could jump in. No need to correct the classes, but just adding the appropriate Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles is a great help. If you are interested in doing this and if you need direction or advice please ask and I will be more then willing to elicit help. --Green Dragon 20:09, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- I am not angry or something even remotely close to that, this site is full of good and even brilliant articles that will help anyone that loves the game. And will be an inspiration to many. But honoust is honoust, I have to wade ten miles, knee deep through sewer material before reaching such items and it can be so easily be avoided with just some very basic control. Again this is not a site where milions of hobby or educated electronical engineers are trying to discribe a capacitor but a site of personal intellectual property that mostly will end in interest at the point where the author will lose interrest. Will it ever be used? Sure, so are the the random generators at many sites to think up for character names, encounters, loot and other items, being essentially a bunch of computer rules slapped together and even that is atleast carefully thought out of. Is that reeeaaaly a good argument for an article to exist?, in my opinion, no. Then again that is just my opinion. If you want I can write you a program that will slap together any amount of rules, skills, and abilities in the manual and i'll let the community come up with names for the 1 billion combinations of classes. And more importantly, they will get used at some point :P. However it will take some time to create something like that, a database, mhh maybe some relational tables that actually intergrates abilities, it may have potential you know... come to think of it, one billion classes, no other site would have that! (I hope you catch my point there) --Crashpilot 15:09, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- Although the improving, reviewing, or removing templates determine the layout of this page, they themselves have not been added fully to articles which need it. Someone to add those templates, as they should be added, is needed. Maybe that's why you are still having trouble finding articles which fit your game. --Green Dragon 16:12, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- Ok then I may try to start there, I can go through, let's say 10 of them and try to judge them honoustly. You can then inspect the work done and if the judging is agreeable I can start to plow through the list. As for my game, well, no, fact is atm, that I am now currently playing instead of DM-ing. I nearly alway's create my own classes because I like to make them, and I did that before I found DnD wiki and it took me a month to create that is why I must play it^^ so for the moment nothing on this site will fit my game. The reason I am here is because I have never seen such an collection of work on DnD on any site so far and I just love to read on other peoples perceptions. Some are even brilliant in my eyes and that, well geeky or not, makes me happy :P, but a lot are poor attempts aswell. And as of that I leave it where it is and will review this conversation in a year or so too see how silly I was. Ty for your patience green dragon.--Crashpilot 18:57, 2 March 2011 (MST)
- Yes, if you go through ten of them I would provide feedback. --Green Dragon 20:09, 2 March 2011 (MST)