Talk:3.5e Homebrew/Archive 2

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Knowledge Arcana[edit]

I'm working with Dave on this. This article is currently slated for 3-5 issues out. That means that we have the article in the development pipeline, but we do not yet have a home for it.

--Dmilewski 05:36, 21 April 2006 (MST)

New Server[edit]

DanDWiki has recently undergone a major change in its configuration. I have moved the server from being hosted by GoDaddy to my own server. The site should be quite a bit faster now.

--Blue Dragon 22:42, 29 April 2006 (MDT)

Deleting DnD Vehicles[edit]

I am going to be deleting DnD Vehicles, as I see no reason for it. D&D is not like D20 Modern where vehicles are a big deal. If anyone ever actually makes a vehicle it can go in 3.5e Other. A new section is not needed, although if more than 5 vehicles are put in 3.5e Other then I consider making a new section. Deleted the it. --Green Dragon 13:19, 12 June 2006 (MDT)

That was my idea, Green_Dragon. --Pz.Az.04Maus 13:29, 12 June 2006 (MDT)
Yes, I know, I just think that it has no reason to be there. Put the vehicles you make in 3.5e Other, if enough are made, then a DnD Vehicles can be made. --Green Dragon 13:50, 12 June 2006 (MDT)
I'm thinking of adding my friends airship template into here, it's rather cool, and i'll be making sandships shortly. --Shadethedemon 0:30, 06 August 2006 (NewYork time)
Enough vehicles for a new section? --Green Dragon 21:33, 3 October 2006 (MDT)
Why not put them under DnD Equipment? —Sledged 18:08, 7 October 2006 (MDT)
Very good idea, I think that would work well. --Green Dragon 22:36, 8 October 2006 (MDT)
Yeah it is, should I just make the Vehicle header when I put it up? --DeadlyNightShade 08:37, 14 October 2006 (MDT)
Yes, just make a new section when you put your first vehicle on D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 11:33, 15 October 2006 (MDT)

Template Links[edit]

Shouldn't links to the templates be within the respective subject pages (e.g. Link to the NPC template on the NPCs page, link to the PrC template on the PrCs page, etc...)?

Yes they should, I just have not got around to putting them in their places... Would you like to? Or should I when I am not doing something else on the site? --Green Dragon 09:47, 30 September 2006 (MDT)
I'd say whoever has time to do them first. I've put it on my TODO list. Would you like to keeps the links on D&D page, in addition to having them in their respective pages, or no? —Sledged 13:18, 30 September 2006 (MDT)
No, get rid of the links from this page.... Just makes it more confusing and look worse. --Green Dragon 18:58, 30 September 2006 (MDT)
Does that look better? --Green Dragon 11:05, 1 October 2006 (MDT)
Looks great! —Sledged 12:02, 2 October 2006 (MDT)

Merge Class Pages[edit]

I think classes and PrCs should be merged together. Is anyone opposed to such an idea? —Sledged 11:00, 5 October 2006 (MDT)

I don't think I really want that. I consider PrC's very different from Classes, and I don't see any reason why it would be good to merge them. What is your reason for wanting this? --Green Dragon 19:31, 5 October 2006 (MDT)
The foremost reason is the same for why I want to merge the pages dealing with special abilities in the SRD. It does little good to separate out items that fall under the same category. Next, though you may consider PrCs different, others may not feel the same, and the fact of the matter is that PrCs are classes. Lastly, I think it would be good to have some consistancy with how the classes are laid out. Base classes and NPC classes are grouped together on one page, but PrCs are on another. They should either each have their own page—one for base classes, one for NPC classes, and one for PrCs—or they should all be under one page. I'd prefer the latter just to cut down on the number of pages. —Sledged 19:28, 6 October 2006 (MDT)
I consider PrC's very different from classes. The reason I believe that it would be good to have a separate page for PrC's is because when many people come here they would not consider PrC's to be under Classes, and they would then assume that D&D Wiki has no PrC's. However, on the other hand, it would help to merge Classes and PrC's, it would create one less thing on Dungeons and Dragons. Still, however, I believe that visitors would have a hard time finding the PrC's. I think most people do not consider PrC's to be Classes. --Green Dragon 12:13, 7 October 2006 (MDT)
What if the link was qualified like so:
  • Classes (Base, Prestige, and NPC)
Sledged 13:20, 7 October 2006 (MDT)
I was thinking about that, but then that one would be the only link with black words after it, making it stand out where all the other do not. I still am not sure what a good solution would be. --Green Dragon 15:53, 7 October 2006 (MDT)
Could do the same for the other sections:


Campaign Settings Worlds and Options
Character Optimizations Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better
Classes Base, Prestige, and NPC
Deities Phenomenal Cosmic Power!
Equipment Weapons, Armor, Food & Drink, Vehicles, Magic Items, etc...
Feats General, Epic, Divine, Racial, etc...
Monsters Creatures and Templates
NPCs Good Guys, Bad Guys, and Ugly Guys
Other Leftovers, Anyone?
Quests Where Do You Want To Go Today?
Races Dragons, Giants, Aberrations, Oh My!
Complex Special Ability Components 0–9th and Epic
Variant Rules Marching to the Beat of a Different Drummer


Sledged 18:08, 7 October 2006 (MDT)
I think the above way would work very well. By the way, I love some of the description you made. Lastly, when you merge DnD Prestige Classes into DnD Classes please make a seperate section for Classes, PrC's, and NPCs. I hope all goes well with this new way. --Green Dragon 22:40, 8 October 2006 (MDT)
I'm glad you're amused. I was hoping they'd get a chuckle. I threw in a lot of the descriptions simply so we could see how they'd look, and I was having trouble thinking of clear and concise descriptions using ten words or less. —Sledged 16:42, 9 October 2006 (MDT)
I must say, they turned out very well. Good job. --Green Dragon 11:34, 15 October 2006 (MDT)

Getting more people to the site[edit]

I added a link the this site under the wikipedia article for Dungeons and Dragons. I hope that helps drive some people here.--Sand-reckoner 12:27, 22 October 2006 (MDT)

It looks good, and I hope it does make more people come here. Thanks for doing that. --Green Dragon 15:53, 22 October 2006 (MDT)
Honestly, it helped a ton. Before the links D&D Wiki was averaging 150 unique visitors per day, now it is averaging 500 unique visitors per day. Thanks again for doing that. --Green Dragon 14:25, 2 December 2006 (MST)
You know, most of the D&D related articles on Wikipedia (last I checked, anyway), don't have a link to this wiki. I happened to stumble across one that did, which is how I ended up here. If you want more traffic, it would behoove you to put links on as many pages as possible. --Cúthalion 22:28, 17 February 2007 (MST)
Why not make a page for Dandwiki itself on wikipedia? --DeadlyNightShade 13:37, 22 June 2007 (MDT)
That's how I found DnDWiki! And a wikipedia page might be a good idea. --Aarnott 13:47, 22 June 2007 (MDT)
Same here. THe link on other wikipedias does work. --Sam Kay 04:45, 11 August 2007 (MDT)
Someone go for it. Also, we are now averaging 1200 unique visitors/day and 57,000 hits a day (quite an improvement). --Green Dragon 12:54, 11 August 2007 (MDT)

Design...[edit]

Hey guys, I'm new here, but I registered just to say that this page's design is really not made for all monitors. The descriptions for the sections are too far on the right from the article sections, and quite frankly I didn't notice them at first. By the way, I'm writing from a laptop monitor, and I find it rather hard to read.

Just a suggestion, but I think you should work the template so that the descriptions are much closer to the article titles.

Thanks! --CDevine 19:31, 1 December 2006 (MST)

Thanks for the feedback. How bad is it? Do you have to scroll to see the descriptions? What browser are you using. —Sledged 19:52, 1 December 2006 (MST)
I have a fairly large monitor on my desktop PC, (21 inch) and it is a bit of a pain to look over to the far other site to find the description. I think this is what CDevine is talking about, the large gap of nothing between the links and the descriptions. So, I would also say it would not hurt to change it round. Any ideas of how to make it look good, make it easy to find what one is looking for, and make sure the Dungeons and Dragons page does not get to long? --Green Dragon 14:22, 2 December 2006 (MST)

For Players

For DMs


What do you think of this? —Sledged 20:14, 4 December 2006 (MST)
I don't really like it, to long. It might be good to shorten it so smaller screens (laptops in particular) can see all the links at once. --Green Dragon 23:09, 4 December 2006 (MST)
How about now? —Sledged 09:27, 5 December 2006 (MST)
This is more in line with the direction of development of other pages. I'm all for giving the listing pages a more coherent look and feel. --Dmilewski 10:36, 5 December 2006 (MST)
Much better. However, it could be improved by getting some order other than alphabetical into the re-design. Such as (I know, I know...) For the Player, For the DM, etc. Your ideas? --Green Dragon 17:33, 5 December 2006 (MST)
Don't see why not. Let's try this. —Sledged 18:27, 5 December 2006 (MST)
I like it. Fits with the new style well. --EldritchNumen 18:24, 6 December 2006 (MST)
It's good, go for it. --Green Dragon 18:32, 6 December 2006 (MST)
Much better and easier to read. Looks good. --Green Dragon 18:50, 6 December 2006 (MST)
Just noticed the change, I like it. --Calidore Chase 02:37, 8 December 2006 (MST)

New D&D DM help page[edit]

Yeah sorry if Im posting this in the wrong place, but I'd like to propose an Idea: My Idea is to put up an editable space in the site where more seasoned DM's could post some useful tricks of the trade which they think newer DM's might be able to use. just an idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tjaden (talkcontribs) 2007-01-15, 18:00:03. Please sign your posts!

Right now the place for that kind of material is Other. —Sledged 17:09, 15 January 2007 (MST)
Thats correct, other is the place for such a thing. --Green Dragon 18:37, 15 January 2007 (MST)

Open Game License Content?[edit]

There's lots of open game license content out there we could host. Should we integrate it? How do we want to integrate it? Do we want an Open Game License (OGL) namespace? Do we want namespaces for each source? What's the best practice? --Dmilewski 12:47, 10 February 2007 (MST)

For the moment just add it like normal with the correct templates and a locked page. OGL content is treated as normal content that cannot be edited except for formatting. --Green Dragon 14:05, 10 February 2007 (MST)
I like the idea of an OGL namespace, although I'm not sure I could articulate why. --Cúthalion 07:59, 16 February 2007 (MST)
I could. OGC from marketed products have a different weight (for lack of a better term) to them than, the user contributions. This is partly because we like to think that said products have gone though several review process and have been play-tested (whether or not this is actually the case). Because of this, people will tend to favor them over other material (except for possibly their own). Personally, I was thinking instead of having a OGL namespace, have one namespace for each publisher that produces d20 and d20M OGC (e.g. WotC, WW (White Wolf), MG (Mongoose), GR (Green Ronin), SP (Sovern Press), etc...). And all the OGC they've published would go under their respective namespaces (except, of course, for the SRD and the MSRD which already have their own namespaces). —Sledged (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2007 (MST)
I've changed my stance, one OGL or OGC namespace. Categories can be available for each publisher. —Sledged (talk) 14:28, 18 January 2008 (MST)
Hm... For now I say keep it as normal namespace, we can change it later once namespace probems are fixed (maybe change the namespace - I am not sure yet). --Green Dragon 10:32, 16 February 2007 (MST)

Other => Discussion & Guidelines[edit]

"Other" in this context sounds like game mechanics that are not classes, feats, etc., and hence not central to the game. The subtext makes it sound like you'd never want to look there unless you're having trouble sleeping. It's a rare newbie who would bother.

In practice, most of the Other contents are discussion or guidelines for development -- exactly what newbies need to read. How about splitting it into three sections:

  • Guidelines : guidelines for content creation
  • Discussion : general discussion on various topics
  • Variant Rules : homebrew content not covered by the other headings (move to existing section)

Some additional hierarchy might also be helpful. Something like:

For Players
  • Content
    • Classes
    • Equipment
    • Feats/Flaws
    • Races
    • Complex Special Ability Components
  • Guidelines
  • Discussion
  • Examples
    • Character Optimizations
For DMs
  • ...

What do you think? --Cúthalion 08:25, 16 February 2007 (MST)

That would more closely match the SRD. In general, good observations. Make a full mockup of it. The more complete, the better. When we agree, we'll implement the new landing page directly off the mockup.--Dmilewski 09:37, 16 February 2007 (MST)
Hmm... How about this? --Cúthalion 10:35, 16 February 2007 (MST)

For Players

For DMs

Note that I ordered the resources topically rather than alphabetically. I'm not wedded to that change. I also lowercased the subtexts; ditto. Oh, yeah, and I renamed Character Optimizations to something a newbie could understand. (I thought it meant something totally different when I first saw it.) --Cúthalion 10:35, 16 February 2007 (MST)
Well, if we're going to have it mirror the way the SRD is organized:
For Players
For DMs
General
Sledged (talk) 15:25, 16 February 2007 (MST)
Fine by me. Ah, I just figured out what you're comparing with. --Cúthalion 20:19, 16 February 2007 (MST)
I like Sledged's suggestions. My only complaint is regarding the naming of "Variant Rules." The name implies that any rules in the category have an analog that they have revised or reworked in some way. In many cases, the material here is actually additional or supplemental rules rather than just variant ones. Could we name the section something more inviting to rules additions? A great example of what I mean is Evil Weather (3.5e Variant Rule). This is not a variant of any existing rules, per se; rather, in is an addition and supplement to the existing rules that provides rules for situations and possibilities currently not adjudicated by the SRD rule set. I propose a title like "Supplementary Rules" to address this (admittedly linguistic and semantic) problem. --EldritchNumen 02:29, 17 February 2007 (MST)
How about now? —Sledged (talk) 11:42, 17 February 2007 (MST)
I think that "Rules" should cover all rule articles. Subtitle that "New and Variant Rules". Under that you can have new rules, variant rules, commentary on rules, etc. With the current split, I see confusion about which category a rules article belongs under. --Dmilewski 11:52, 18 February 2007 (MST)
I like the suggestion:
  • Rules
    New, Supplemental, and Variant Rules
--EldritchNumen 16:38, 20 February 2007 (MST)
Also, I would like to see the "For Players" being first, then the "For DM's" and last (far right) being "General". I see content being more important than the general material, what do you think? --Green Dragon 10:27, 26 February 2007 (MST)
It looks good with the general on the right. —EldritchNumen 15:40, 27 February 2007 (MST)
What do you guys think of a TODO link being present in the "general" category? --Green Dragon 18:35, 27 February 2007 (MST)
I think it's fine there, but I hate how it's cap-locked. Is there any reason why it does not read "To-Do List"? In any case, it is good to have somewhere, and it would fit best either there (in the menu) or perhaps in the discussion section (i.e. as a user-created, dynamic list of jobs to be done around the wiki). —EldritchNumen 15:14, 28 February 2007 (MST)
"Do the dog." It's funny (in context with the "Walk the taxes"), but maybe not the best choice for the main Dungeons and Dragons page. Other than that I think it is ready to be made then implemented. --Green Dragon 20:41, 28 February 2007 (MST)
Agreed. We should either change it to "prepare the dog" or ex it entirely. —EldritchNumen 01:09, 1 March 2007 (MST)
Alright, now it's just time to make the pages... --Green Dragon 13:07, 3 March 2007 (MST)
And move everything from 3.5e Other to more appropriate pages (and/or assign them to more applicable categories). —Sledged (talk) 11:43, 8 March 2007 (MST)
Sledged, would you mind dealing with Guidelines as you have the most knowledge in this area? --Green Dragon 12:02, 23 March 2007 (MDT)
Done. All guidelines (or my best estimation of what are guidelines) are now Guidelines. —Sledged (talk) 14:29, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
Thank you :). --Green Dragon 20:03, 25 March 2007 (MDT)
New landing page is on — I hope it is better. --Green Dragon 13:41, 8 April 2007 (MDT)

Question: How do we want the layout of DnD Rules to look? Also, which rules will be labeled as variant and which will be labeled as supplemental? --Green Dragon 13:15, 11 March 2007 (MDT)

I don't think it will really matter. Let's just call them all PAGENAME (DnD Rule). It should be obvious which are new and which are variants, I think... —EldritchNumen 16:04, 12 March 2007 (MDT)
Hm... See, I was thinking it might be nice to separate DnD Rules into two separate columns; one for variant rules and the other for supplement rules. However, all the categories would need to be changed etc. Also, I agree that (DnD Rule) should be the identifier. What do you think? --Green Dragon 23:49, 12 March 2007 (MDT)
When implementing the new page, can you add a category for Web resources somewhere? There's lots of good tools out there on the web related to D&D.--Dmilewski 07:32, 21 March 2007 (MDT)
Let's have it be PAGENAME (DnD Rule), and then use categories: [[Category:Variant Rule]] and [[Category:Supplemental Rule]]. And, as Doug mentioned, we should have [[Category:Web Resource]]. Using the categories we can split the list in two like you (and I) prefer, but still can have all the page names followed by simply (DnD Rule). —EldritchNumen
Okay, if we are going to include Web Recourses in DnD Rules than should we have three columns, one for Supplement Rules, another for Variant Rules, and a final one for Web Resources? --Green Dragon 17:31, 27 March 2007 (MDT)
Actually, the place for Web Resources is probably under Guidelines, since it would largely help in "creating [and balancing] wiki content." I would think that Rules should probably just have the two columns... what does everyone else think? —EldritchNumen 19:30, 27 March 2007 (MDT)
I agree now. Makes sense. --Green Dragon 22:36, 27 March 2007 (MDT)

Baby[edit]

You thought that the SRD project was big? Welcome Joy Elizabeth. 7 lbs, 7 oz (encumbrance 15 lbs, as this includes lots of other baby equipment). 21.5" long. "Class is Baby 1." Her first level feat is "Fatigue Adults" and she's chosen the spell eagle's spleandor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dmilewski (talkcontribs) 22:20, 26 February 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts!

Congrats and welcome to parenthood! What class—er... that is, how much did she weigh and how long was she? —Sledged (talk) 21:44, 26 February 2007 (MST)
Congratulations to you and your wife, I am glad all went well. I hope you look forward to your wiki-break, and I hope you like being a father. Congratulations. --Green Dragon 22:00, 26 February 2007 (MST)
Wait until I post the baby class for April Fools. With two months of paternity leave saved up, I'll be relaxing. (Supporting a wife and baby is far easier than supporting 350 users and computers. You might say "supporting babies is hard", but it's no harder than supporting yet another system with no documentation. :P--Dmilewski 08:13, 27 February 2007 (MST)

Web Resources[edit]

Where should we put links for Web Resources? Any suggestions? There's some cool stuff out that that we should link to. And are we ever going to the DnD Landing Page???--Dmilewski 18:22, 20 March 2007 (MDT)

Did you post this? For some reason it does not sound like you, hm... Anyway, we are "currently working" on the new D&D landing page - see above. If you want to help — please do! Also, what kind of "Web Resources" are you talking about? --Green Dragon 22:08, 20 March 2007 (MDT)
Yeah, it's me. I was thinking of things like: PCGen, Map Generators, Encounter Generators, Random Dungeon generators, character sheets, ENWorld, etc. There's lots and lots of good d20 material out there. --Dmilewski 07:30, 21 March 2007 (MDT)
Hm... Possibly reference them below the last result in 3.5e Other? --Green Dragon 19:39, 21 March 2007 (MDT)

Traps?[edit]

Just found this site through the roleplaying tips newsletter. Looks interesting, but we need more content I think. I made a contribution to the deities section with Sarem. Where might I put an entry on some simple traps? I can't see a good place to put them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.238.137 (talkcontribs) 2007-04-26 05:51:43. Please sign your posts!

For now put them under equipment. —Sledged (talk) 07:27, 26 April 2007 (MDT)
I just made spaces for them on D&D Wiki. See User Mundane Traps, 3.5e Magical Traps, and User Epic Traps all accessible via DnD Equipment. Hope this helps. --Green Dragon 22:09, 26 April 2007 (MDT)
Ok. Equipment looked the most appropriate, but is under 'for players', so doesn't quite fit. But it'll do for now. Thanks. I should get an account... o_0 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.75.238.138 (talkcontribs) 03:20, 27 April 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Sure, I'd recommend it. —Sledged (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2007 (MDT)
Anyway, I agree, traps are not for players. Also, many things in Equipment is not meant for players to buy, but to get from the DM — like artifacts. So, what do you think about the idea of making Equipment under both "For Players" and "For DM's"? --Green Dragon 17:03, 30 April 2007 (MDT)
I fear that would cause confusion; it is possible that some might think there are two equipment pages, one with items for players and the other with items for dms. I think it works under "For Players;" there is always going to be some overlap between many of the categories. –EldritchNumen 02:04, 1 May 2007 (MDT)
Also, hopefully, any DM who uses this site will not just use and look at content from the "For DM's". I think it will work as DM's normally care more than players and therefor should browse the site more, looking for what they want. --Green Dragon 20:32, 1 May 2007 (MDT)
Agreed. –EldritchNumen 00:15, 2 May 2007 (MDT)

monk fighting styles[edit]

I have a collection of monk fighting styles (WotC Forum thread) that I want to move here. Am I right that there is no template for that, yet? Can somebody guide me through the steps for making such a template? --Mkill 12:11, 11 June 2007 (MDT)

No template or preload for it yet. Before you try to add them, get permission from the author(s) first. We try to have a strict policy on that. While you're waiting for responses from the authors, the OCG from the UA is currently being transcribed onto the wiki here. If you add the text for the fighting styles, I'll figure out the mark-up, template, and preload. —Sledged (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2007 (MDT)
Okay, let me ask for permission...
<makes mouth shaped puppets with both hands>
Left hand: Hey mkill, can I add your monk fighting styles to D&D Wiki?
Right hand: Mhh, okay, before they get pruned...
Left hand: Thanks, man!
<starts typing again>
SCNR :P --Mkill 12:39, 11 June 2007 (MDT)
Ok, I created Heavenly Sword (DnD Monk Fighting Style) as an example. More to come and thank you for the offer to make a template! --Mkill 12:52, 11 June 2007 (MDT)
Didn't need a template, but I did put together a preload for it. —Sledged (talk) 08:27, 12 June 2007 (MDT)
Great. I just checked, the monk fighting styles were introduced in Unearthed Arcana (p.52) under OGL, so we could put the original SRD ones here, too. --Mkill 09:10, 12 June 2007 (MDT)

Categories for spells by level[edit]

I felt it would be good to have spells collected in categories by level, so I created more categories following the model of the existing Category:0-level. But then I realised this can't quite be the solution. First of all, it is not clear what is meant by 0-level, after all, besides spell levels, there is also psionic power levels, character levels, dungeon levels etc. etc. But even a category like Category:1st level spell has the problem that different spells can be different level for different character classes (which I think is a D&D game design flaw but that's the way it is).

So, to make it short, the only solution I see is to create small categories like Category:1st level wizard spell. Is that okay with everyone here? I'm not sure about the category philosophy of this wiki. --Mkill 07:47, 13 June 2007 (MDT)

I've wrestled with that question. In short, you've got a mess. If you really want to categorize, I suggest Category:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell 1, Category:Cleric Spell 2, etc. This way, you use something closer to WotC notation and the spells get grouped by their caster type. Note that there are a few rare spells that are wizard, but not sorcerer. The categories themselves should get categorized to their specific class spell category.--Dmilewski 07:59, 13 June 2007 (MDT)
I am the one that started some of those categories and also saw the problem, so I stopped. I would have to agree with Dmilewski on the category names. Also, overall, I think it would be a good idea to categorize them, even if the categories may seem a little silly. --Green Dragon 10:35, 13 June 2007 (MDT)
I started to organize the spells by spell level. I've started with the SRD and finished letter A.
Format for a Sor/Wiz 1 spell: Category:Level 1 Spell and Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 1. --Mkill 03:35, 23 July 2007 (MDT)
Thanks. Good slogging. --Dmilewski 06:57, 23 July 2007 (MDT)

Feat categories Music / Song and Magic / Magical[edit]

Discussion moved: Talk:DnD Feats#Feat categories Music / Song and Magic / Magical.

Dungeon and Dragon magizines[edit]

did you guys hear that WotC decided to stop making them? --Shadethedemon 21:45, 17 June 2007 (MDT)

Yep. It's sad to see friends go. It will be good to see new friends show up. I've thought about this. Only those who bought Dragon or Dungeon got those magazine. Now, when you get their service, you get access to everything published by the service. When errata shows up or a problem needs to get fixed in an article, the source file can be changed. The longer the site remains open, the more content it contains, and the more the site has to offer. I find those compelling ideas. --Dmilewski 05:24, 18 June 2007 (MDT)
It might be really cool to post a quick synopsis about content that is found solely in these mags, or in resources which utilize them (like Draconomicon, Dragon Compendium Vol. 1, etc.), in much the same manner as I was describing summarizing Wizards D&D publications on their own pages on Talk:Master List Project (3.5e Other). --xido 03:50, 6 November 2007 (MST)

Cheesy Goodness[edit]

Ok, I assume this is the best place to put this up. If it isn't feel free to place it accordingly.

My Gundam RPG game has been put under a temporary hiatus do to us transfering over to another server and finishing up the old version. So, to pass the time, the admin and myself decided to throw a big D&D tourney.

The catch is that you have to build the Cheesiest character concept you can think of and duke it out with other players. Plus, you have to deal with some people with a sick, twisted imagination. Nothing will be what it seems.

All the character creation rules as well as how the tournament rankings are located right here

If you wish to join, let me know right here. At the moment, registration is down on my forums and this would be the best way to let me know. -- Flession 07:59, 28 June 2007 (MDT)

Templates with (Creature) in the title[edit]

I just noticed that most (all?) of the Templates from the SRD have titles like SRD:Half-Fiend (Creature), when it should be SRD:Half-Fiend (Template). I mean, what's the use of those bracket explanations when they're wrong. Does anybody mind if I change this? --Mkill 06:06, 18 July 2007 (MDT)

I completely endorse the change (not that my endorsement means much). I had noted that before and forgot to make a mention of it. --Aarnott 07:07, 18 July 2007 (MDT)
Good catch. Thanks. --Dmilewski 08:22, 18 July 2007 (MDT)

Help wanted: Sorting all spells by class and level[edit]

Some may have already noticed, I created new categories in the Format [[Category:<Class> <Level>]] to make finding the right spell easier. I have also finished recategorizing all spells in the SRD .

Now I need your help: We need to sort out all user-created spells, and while we are at it, all psionic powers too. This is just too much for one user, so it would be great if you participate.

Simply open Category:Spell, choose a letter you like and start recategorizing all spells there. It's pretty easy, just check whether there are already categories with the class name, and add a space and the spell level to it. For example, A level 1 Bard spell should be categorized as [[Category:Bard 1]]. Sorcerers and Wizards would use [[Category:Sorcerer/Wizard 1]].

If you managed to complete letter, leave a note here.

Thank you! --Mkill 06:25, 2 August 2007 (MDT)

The place to say this is in the To-Do List, not here. This is for discussions on D&D and this site, not a place for getting help. Sorry. --Green Dragon 06:58, 2 August 2007 (MDT)
It's a talk page. I used it for D&D-related talk. Calm down, please. --Mkill 07:46, 2 August 2007 (MDT)
No problem, I just wanted to make sure that you knew about our To-Do List (I imagined you did, and I am sure you do (even before I said that I bet you knew about it...)) :P. --Green Dragon 08:14, 2 August 2007 (MDT)
Well, I found it after I was here for a week, good that somebody now made it possible to go there from the main page. --Mkill 06:43, 12 August 2007 (MDT)
You mean Dungeons and Dragons, right? Also, I am pretty sure that that link has been on Dungeons and Dragons as long as you have been here, however I may have to check history on that one... --Green Dragon 13:58, 12 August 2007 (MDT)

Links[edit]

I propose Links (DnD Other) be promoted up to the DnD Home page. Any comments? --Dmilewski 10:12, 17 September 2007 (MDT)

Hm... Were you thinking of adding as part of "General" or as a DM resource? --Green Dragon 17:30, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
General. There's lots of good stuff out there that we could advertise better. --Dmilewski 18:36, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
I guess... I am not really for advertising other sites from D&D Wiki, but whatever. It will help people find what they are looking for. Add it to general. --Green Dragon 18:46, 17 September 2007 (MDT)
There are lots of sites that do things that D&D Wiki doesn't do. For example, we don't do 1st Edition, but there are folks who've rewritten it to GNU OpenDoc. We also don't do character generators, but we want folks to know where to find them. That, and there's all these resources that I don't know about, and I want other people to find them for me. I only stumbled on the 1E rewrite by accident!--Dmilewski 07:13, 21 September 2007 (MDT)
I see. I guess it is not that bad of an idea, it does have some use (the only thing I am worried about is people wanting us to advertise their creations in a non-wiki style (for example a PDF) but I guess we can just refuse them...). --Green Dragon 23:10, 23 September 2007 (MDT)

Treasure[edit]

Perhaps it would be usefull to have a section for treasure on this page. There are many good home brew ideas out there. Pluss I have a list of links to wikipedia that discribes the varios gems in the DMG. It is very usefull to be able to discribe the gem beond its gold value. For example: What the hell is Rhodochrosite? well look how pretty it is... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodochrosite —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mander (talkcontribs) 11:18, 8 October 2007 (MDT). Please sign your posts!

Ooh, shiny! Me want! --Sam Kay 12:26, 8 October 2007 (MDT)
You write it. We'll argue about where it goes. Just do it! --Dmilewski 18:53, 8 October 2007 (MDT)
Hm... Thinking ahead... DnD Equipment may actually be the very place for treasure... ideas? --Green Dragon 16:03, 9 October 2007 (MDT)
sounds good to me --Mander 01:42, 23 October 2007 (MDT)
actualy now that I look at it more closly, that is exactly where it should be. There is no doubt. --Mander 01:46, 23 October 2007 (MDT)
Now it just needs to be made... :). --Green Dragon 22:45, 24 October 2007 (MDT)

A Question: Sunder[edit]

Discussion moved to Discussion:Can you critical on a sunder attack? as this is an improper place for a question EldritchNumen 01:50, 11 October 2007 (MDT)

Invocations[edit]

Discussion moved to Talk:3.5e Complex Special Ability Components#Invocations as it referred to spells/powers specificially. --Green Dragon 23:10, 30 October 2007 (MDT)

Groups[edit]

I think it would be helpful for local and online groups to be able to form on the wikipages, so that members can find groups in their region who are also interested in D&D and related hobbies. I submit the WFR RPG, Gaming, and Creative Writing Guild as an example. I personally invite all D&Dwiki.com members to join, as I have seen immense amounts of talent here. Secondly, because of my own initiatives to make the group stronger and more prominent, I would like to enable both online and physical presence in strong wikis like this and in Elftown.com. Currently, the WFR is hosted in the 'Other' section. This kind of makes me have an icky taste in the back of my mouth, however. The WFR Guild hosts some of the brightest, most creative and best networked international amateur members on the web, and I would like to extend this capacity to those wonderful and talented people here as well.

The WFR, when considered a part of this potential new section, will be hosting groups locally in both Baton Rouge, LA, USA, and in the Mid-Michigan, USA, areas, as well as being a fully online presence, based out of Elftown, and given status here as an official Guild of D&D Wiki. Please, thank you, and feel welcome in my Guild, friends. We will consider it your Guild too. I personally focus on D&D as a gaming medium, but the WFR welcomes any creative talent in the fiction genre(s). -- xido 16:57, 4 November 2007 (MST)

First off, what are you recommending? Do you want D&D Wiki to make a separate section for WFR? Not trying to be rude, but why? Also, why do you feel that 3.5e Other is not the place for the WFR? --Green Dragon 23:18, 11 November 2007 (MST)
Well, my original section title for the WFR was (DnD Group), which was changed to fit into the other category. This doesn't bother me too badly, but it might be nice to give people a place to post information about groups, so that they can begin networking with others who might also be in their area. Groups are important to gaming, so I figured it would be a good idea. Either way, the WFR's information is posted, and will most likely stay that way, so it is no biggie. I just wonder if it may inspire others to begin posting information about their own local groups and networks. I know the RPGA helps with this a little bit, but even that can be a bit tedious sometimes. DnD Other is fine for now, but is others begin stating an interest in joining or creating groups, could it potentially be reconsidered? Otherwise, I am openly welcoming any contributing member of D&D Wiki to join, regardless. Sorry to be a bother on this topic, but since details will finish being ironed out soon, I assure you that I will not be this big of a pusher in the future. -- xido 19:59, 14 November 2007 (MST)

Character pages[edit]

Why do we not have a section for people to post their characters to the wiki? Is there not already a template for this? Should I make one? -- xido 03:54, 6 November 2007 (MST)

If you talking about the d20 stats and descriptions for characters, DnD NPCs is the place for them. —Sledged (talk) 09:31, 6 November 2007 (MST)
This is helpful. I can see that it has some form of template. How could I doctor this to include Inath stats, and are there limitations on posting such content about a character as history, personality, etc.? -- xido 14:23, 6 November 2007 (MST)
I don't know enough about the Inath stats to say "yes" or "no." What are the bigger differences between them and the core rules? —Sledged (talk) 11:52, 12 November 2007 (MST)
Inath adds a few elements, such as Ego and Spirit Rolls, new Craft Skills, Knowledge (Inath - Energy Paths), Talents, Affinities, and a differing system for naming level/caste. I am sure I could doctor up a selection of edits to make a template for this need, but I am also wondering if even a non-Inath character is allowed to have such things on their info page as history, personality, connections, etc. I did not immediately see this information on any of the NPC pages (which is nice to know that we have those), but I only skimmed quickly while I was doing a few other things as well. I appreciate the input and help. -- xido 20:03, 14 November 2007 (MST)
Well, as far as history, personality, connections, etc, that stuff wouldn't go in the stat block template unless there's game rule info that goes with them (i.e. bonuses, penalties, weaknesses, etc...). General character descriptions like that appear under the stat block. (See Namfoodle for an example.) WotC designed the stat block so that game info pertaining to encounters and combat is readily available to make game play move faster and to keep DMs from overlooking certain abilities that might be relevant to the encounter. —Sledged (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2007 (MST)
That is extremely helpful. I will try to put together a synopsis of additions that would need to be added to any given Inath Character, and I asked about the personality/history/etc, because I have a few Inath NPCs that have extensive histories and info about them to add.
I appreciate the help, ya'll. -- xido 00:09, 16 November 2007 (MST)

Gaming Environment on D&D Wiki[edit]

Also, the WFR requires a minimum amount of information, even for a free-form, non-statistic-driven gaming environment. Could their be something like this for the wiki alone?

Am I totally off kilter here? -- xido 03:54, 6 November 2007 (MST)

New Section: Maps?[edit]

Cяow Castle

Here is an idea. Perhaps a section in Homebrew for maps. I have pages and pages of great maps that I will never be able to use again. They need a little clean up to make them readable and understandable without explanation, but I would LOVE to share them. I would scan them and load them as image files.--Mander 19:15, 30 November 2007 (MST)

I think it's a great idea. Having maps is often very useful. What sorts of maps are you interested in adding? I ask to try to determine if a map section is necessary and (if so) where it should be placed. If the maps are coming in with not much supporting information, we could just make a random maps vault. On the other hand, dungeons maps can easily fit into the "adventures" section and overland maps into "campaign settings." What does everyone else think? A general map category or inclusion/sub-categorization within adventures and CSs? –EldritchNumen 17:36, 1 December 2007 (MST)
Why not put them in Environments? --Sam Kay 10:23, 3 December 2007 (MST)
The maps that I was going to use are right out of my DM notebook. I was planing on cleaning them up a bit so they are easyer to understand, giving them a map key, and then scaning them into an image file. I would probably add a little text to give it a descrition, background, and context. If some one has a better idea on how to do this that would be great.
I have all sorts of good maps: ruins, caves, mines, sewer hideouts, forest ambushes, shrines, crypts, taverns, towers... all sorts of goodies. --Mander 19:48, 3 December 2007 (MST)
Maps are always a good thing to have. Even without descriptions of areas, having a map layout handy is nice when you have an unexpected encounter and you need a setting for it. As far as where to put them, if they are a fully described map with encounters and such, I think they should be under "adventures". If they are just a map, perhaps we should add a "map vault" (or whatever). I'm not sure that overland maps would be in "campaign settings". I think the "campaign settings" is more appropriate for descriptions of worlds and/or regions with emphasis on the specifics of the inhabitants and geographic/demographic traits of the area. If it is just a map of an overland area, it would fit more into "adventures" or just "random maps" in my opinion. --Skwyd 10:47, 4 December 2007 (MST)
Also, when some one is adding their campain setting, they could always include links to the maps that are relevant. This is another reason why maps wouldnt need to be in "campaign settings." For example, if you have a very magical treasure, that is vital to your campain, it would be listed in the treasure section, and you would provide a link during your campaign description.--Mander 12:33, 4 December 2007 (MST)
Actualy, I think I would rather just see a section called Maps, under "For DMs" on the Homebrew section.--Mander 13:13, 4 December 2007 (MST)
You can see my example off to the right. --Mander 13:32, 4 December 2007 (MST)
I think I also agree that a general "Map Vault" tab is the best option. Just to clarify, I was suggesting that overland maps could be placed in a subcategory with the CS just for the aforementioned purposes of linking to by developing CSes. For the time being, go ahead and continue to upload the maps to media.dandwiki. Once we decide the best course of action we can easily stick them onto the DnD Splash Page. –EldritchNumen 21:41, 4 December 2007 (MST)
Honestly, how useful do you guys think a section just for maps would be? Wouldn't it be more helpful to just write a little quest that uses the map and add the map to that page? That would basically provide a background for the map, the map itself, and something for the DM to use right away all-in-one. I mean, what I am getting at, is that do you guys think that Maps need their own area or can just be integrated into Quests? --Green Dragon 16:36, 5 December 2007 (MST)
I don't think that is the best course of action. Quests really need more though out background, including plot information and NPCs. Really, a quest that is merely a dungeon-dive without any background, plot, character development, etc. is pretty weak and is usually not tremendously fun to play through (including quests whose entire depth is "kill x number of y enemy", etc. If we wanted that we would play WoW). I think there is a lot of benefit to having just random maps that people can use for various purposes (and it could be fun to bring the wiki together in that way, as people link the maps to all sorts of different purposes). Besides, sometimes I like to just design maps/locations and see what people will do with them. And, in the end, I'd rather not see the quests section glutted with the sort of shallow adventures that arise from a "little quest." The best quests, as I mentioned, have somewhat detailed plots (or at least persuasive backgrounds). So, I'd prefer a sort of Map Vault (though, of course, people should be encouraged to still add maps to the quests section and also to freely link to the maps, including building quests around them if they prefer). What does everyone else think? –EldritchNumen 19:40, 5 December 2007 (MST)
I think a map vault would be good. This can include generic maps such as bridges, taverns, basements, towers, etc. This is a good, basic resource. Right now, the wiki is weak on adventure content. We have lots of campaign settings, but few, if any, actual adventures. This would be a step to ramping up that infrastructure.--Dmilewski 05:54, 6 December 2007 (MST)
I often day dream about finding a databank of D&D maps that I could use for whatever I wanted. Sorta like the NPC section, I just look through it and then come across something realy sweet. I add the context to make it fit. Do you ever wish you had a lay out for a tavern that wasnt the same old tavern you always draw? Ever wish you could just whip out a simple tower strong hold? Or maybe you arnt sure what you are looking for, but just need some ideas? Just like the NPC section, and the Treasure section, I see the Map section as a depot of random ideas that can be fit into a campain as needed.
PS, this conversation has been indented 12 times! its getting out of hand. Soon it will be one word wide. --Mander 15:08, 6 December 2007 (MST)
First off, 13 indents is the number after which it goes back to one (so if someone replies to this comment...). Anyway, a "Maps" section has been added, tell me if that was what you guys had in mind. --Green Dragon 17:05, 6 December 2007 (MST)

→Reverted Indentation to One Colon

Okay, I've totally revised the maps section and have added all the maps currently in the Media Repository/DnD Wiki to the page(s). Let me know what you guys think. How does it look? EDIT: Whoops, forgot to sign the other day. Here it is: –EldritchNumen 17:54, 10 January 2008 (MST)


I'm currently using maptool (Brilliant for those who play dnd online, or for if you wish to screen shot it and use it in your own campaigns. It would be good to have a section for this program, as well as png maps and suchlike. My suggestion for this quandary about the maps, is have a set of links as thus:

    Campaign Settings - Worlds (World Names) - World Maps
                                             - City Maps
                                             - Cultures and Demography
                      - Full Campaigns (Campaign Name) - Setting
                                                       - Localities
                                                       - Storyline/Plot Hooks
                                                       - Characters
                                                       - Encounters
                      - Campaign Pieces - Random Encounters
                                        - Random Maps
                                        - Random NPCs

That way, u have everything where u need it, and it's not too much trouble to "mix and match". No looting around the whole site, and it's all in one place. (Posted By Triga, Tues 09 09 08)

New Addition to Template:Author[edit]

It seems like a good idea to clarify whether the author cares if their homebrew stuff is "edited mercilessly". I propose that we add something like this:

Created By
Aarnott (talk)
Editing: Ask me first please!
Status: In Progress...

In order to avoid disputes on talk pages (See Talk:Pirate (DnD Class)). I think a default value that should always show up should be "Not specified" -- or something to that effect. --Aarnott 12:59, 3 January 2008 (MST)

I agree. Perhaps it would be good to add a template to the preloads that asks users to ask them first before editing? --Sam Kay 13:14, 3 January 2008 (MST)
Shazam!!! —Sledged (talk) 13:23, 3 January 2008 (MST)
Since we now have a area that deals with editing rights should we have it default to something that promotes editing to help make all the content on D&D Wiki better or should we keep it how it is—defaulting to nothing? I am for making it default to something that promotes editing just so new users will feel more inclined to edit :P. --Green Dragon 19:26, 4 January 2008 (MST)
Yes. Perhaps "Feel free to edit constructivly"? --Sam Kay 09:31, 7 January 2008 (MST)
I would also put a link to a new page that talks about editing etiquette. I think that would be helpful and user-friendly. --Aarnott 09:56, 7 January 2008 (MST)
I agree. –EldritchNumen 13:29, 7 January 2008 (MST)
I made it so. We can always revert it back. Please help contribute to the Constructive Editing (DnD Guideline) page! That way we can explain how the community here works, or better yet, start helping everyone work towards an ideal. --Aarnott 12:39, 30 January 2008 (MST)
I don't know... Do we really want it to default that parameter? Will that make Template:Author to large? Also, I think the wording is a little aggressive, I would recommend something like "Please feel free to edit constructively! Just my thoughts. --Green Dragon 13:37, 30 January 2008 (MST)
I can't say I know what you mean by too large. I agree with the aggressive wording though so I changed it. I think it is a good idea, but it is a pretty big change in its own way. It sort of changes the default policy on editing all homebrew stuff. I'd love to hear what everyone thinks. --Aarnott 13:51, 30 January 2008 (MST)
Added to the DnD Base Class Infobox. —Sledged (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2008 (MST)
You know, I think this will have a very good impact. It should, hopefully, make more users edit and fix minor problems they see. Good idea Aarnott! --Green Dragon 02:00, 31 January 2008 (MST)

Copyrighted material[edit]

What's the stance on taking material that's a copyright and turning it into D&D rules? I have some ideas for the various Warhammer gods (especially the Dark Gods of Chaos), and I'd like to know if I'm allowed to put them up. MorkaisChosen 04:38, 12 February 2008 (MST)

You have to add template:copyright disclaimer {{copyright disclaimer}} in the back to footer thing (above the categories, below the "back to" bit. Don't forget Gork and Mork, and The Great Maw. Does your username come from warhammer? --Sam Kay 07:11, 12 February 2008 (MST)
I would also think that having a reference to your sourced materials would also be professional. APA Formatting is the referencing technique I am familiar with: [1]. If the publication has an online location that it can be purchased or reviewed, that would also be good to add to that reference, and of course, by adding that info to a page about the source on the Publication List would also be very effective referencing techniques. The 'copyright disclaimer' should take care of the rest, but those extra steps will make it easier for a reader to decide that that information is just what they need for their next game.  ;)
If those fictional entities are attached to any established culture or mythos on Earth, that might also be helpful. Wikipedia entries are always easy to link to on here. I always love seeing new stuff. I am just so scared that one of these days, some jerk-face with a bug up his butt to cause a scene is going to show up here and start talking about suing the site, or shutting it down because of so-called 'intellectual property' rights. This world can be so lame sometimes, you know?
Anyways, best wishes to you, and best of luck with the new pages and content.  ;) -- xido 07:37, 12 February 2008 (MST)
Thank you for the help... I'll get started on this! Gork and Mork will definitely go up sometime (I'm an Orc player...). The username is a Warhammer thing- Morkai is part of the mythology of the Fenrisians in 40K- specifically the two-headed wolf who guards the gates of Death. MorkaisChosen 04:01, 14 February 2008 (MST)
I just had a look at GW's IP policy, and the closest bit it says is not to use their IP in combination with other people's- so as long as I don't say something like "Gork is an ancient rival of Gruumsh" I think it's OK under their policy. MorkaisChosen 04:10, 14 February 2008 (MST)
Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors