From D&D Wiki
- 1 Categorizing strikes again
- 2 Discussion Migration From DnD Prestige Classes
- 3 New DPL use
- 4 Rating System
- 5 Suggested class categories
- 6 Racial Paragon Class Addenum
- 7 Should non users be restricted from ratic classes?
- 8 New Infobox for Base Classes
- 9 Prestige Class Layout
- 10 E6 Classes
- 11 Class Deletion
- 12 Grouping
Categorizing strikes again
No more manual list keeping. Categories do it all! :) --Oneiros 15:25, 18 July 2006 (MDT)
Discussion Migration From DnD Prestige Classes
lol wot tha heck?? see bad idea to let ppl edit yer site. well here ya go.....
What exactly is the purpose of all these words in the Prestige Class area? I sure would like to know. --Pz.Az.04Maus 11:44, 31 May 2006 (MDT) Oh, and give Good spelling a chance as well.
- Thanks for finding this, and saying something about it. I made all the things that were in here a PrC, called the Blink Warrior, and made that a stub. That was kinda weird that someone put a PrC on a talk page, but oh well. --Green Dragon 13:48, 31 May 2006 (MDT)
Complusive Categorization Disorder
Is there suppose to be a table on this page, with Prestige class descriptions or what-not? Otherwise, why not simply point to the Category for prestige classes? Or maybe populate this page with links to category pages with Homebrew-only PrC's and another for SRD-Only PrCs, similar to the way the 3.5e Races page is setup. --Oneiros 07:30, 18 July 2006 (MDT)
- Yes, yes, someone needs to do that. I'm sorry, I can not I'm in Germany right now, if you could I would be very happy. --Green Dragon 08:14, 18 July 2006 (MDT)
- All done, with a new "Add New PrC" page, and navigation links on the top of the categories. Did the same to the Base and NPC Class pages. --Oneiros 15:49, 18 July 2006 (MDT)
New DPL use
Hello all, I have created a new extension which will make use of DPL technology for the classes and anything else that uses a table with a list of values. The basic use is as follows:
add into each item:
<dplc>CONTENT IN THE TABLE INCLUDING TEMPLATES WITH SOME SUPPORT FOR TABLES (HTML IS RECOMMENDED)</dplc>
Then use <DPL2CU> instead of <DPL> inside of the table, and it should work. This is still in beta, so let me know if there are any problems but you may now begin to use it. This should remove dependencies for each item, making it both easier to add in new ones, update items, and remove items. Let me know what you all think, --Blue Dragon 22:05, 27 December 2006 (MST)
- Sleek! —Sledged 22:11, 27 December 2006 (MST)
- ...now time to implement it all over D&D Wiki... --Green Dragon 00:43, 28 December 2006 (MST)
- Mind if a get a gander at the php code behind the extension? —Sledged 14:06, 16 January 2007 (MST)
- I MoI'ed Blue Dragon, he should respond soon... --Green Dragon 16:58, 16 January 2007 (MST)
Newbie here. I can't help noticing most of the homebrew classes are unrated, and those that are rated usually have just one person's rather subjective opinion. I've started to rate some of them myself, and given up. I wonder if others give up for the same reasons.
- The monolithic 1 to 10 rating doesn't convey all the different types of evaluation you might want to make -- relative balance, ease of use, etc.
- It's too hard to grok the difference between, say, a 5 and a 6.
- The prose comment requirement is a turn-off. It's easier just to rattle off numbers.
What would you think of using the NBoF rating system instead? This would eliminate these problems, which would hopefully encourage more ratings. It would also provide more useful information for the reader who's trying to decide whether or not to look at this class.
Just a thought.
--Cúthalion 21:58, 3 February 2007 (MST)
- Hm... And would every single person rate for all the types that the NBoF has, or could one just rate for one? --Green Dragon 20:37, 4 February 2007 (MST)
- Okay, for some reason I never got an email for this one (or didn't see it).
- My assumption is that people would give a rating in each category, but I suppose there could be a "no opinion" option. --Cúthalion 12:11, 12 February 2007 (MST)
- I want more input from other people before this goes any farther... I have not made up my mind yet and I want to see what other people have to say. So, wait to change anything until a decision has been made. --Green Dragon 23:53, 12 February 2007 (MST)
- Certainly. Besides, I wouldn't know how to implement the change if I wanted to. --Cúthalion 08:03, 13 February 2007 (MST)
- Anyone have any opinions on this matter, or should I have to MoI people? --Green Dragon 22:33, 13 February 2007 (MST)
- Wow! I would definitely push for this. Maybe have a quick online-survey-like system to make it faster. And a comment field for feedback. But for now, we can just post a quick comment and do the calculations by hand. I assume this'll go to a vote later, so put my vote as for. --Pwsnafu 17:31, 14 March 2007 (MDT)
- The thing is that an extension would be needed for this idea to not go though the wiki - actually more of a nasty hack from Blue Dragon. Also, I do not see why it would attract more raters, the current way one only needs to give one rating (not 5) and their is only one rating overall for the class (so it is not as confusing). The current way may not be as accurate as the NBoF method however it is easier to do though a wiki and it works. The ratings are not just used to tell visitors which classes to use and which to not to use they also help in the development of each class as people improve them. The current system makes a very good way for people to improve classes, not just get the balance known to visitors. For all these reasons I put my vote against. --Green Dragon 21:31, 15 March 2007 (MDT)
- I also vote against. No matter the utility of any rating system (whether CSS analysis or the NBoF categories or our own), what it most important is that we provide a way for people to offer feedback that improves the class. I think it is important to keep in mind that any class must be examined on its own merits, and no cookie-cutter rating system will be able to effectively take into consideration all the aspects that make a class balanced and playable. Ultimately, I think that "rather subjective opinion[s]" are absolutely necessary in rating a class, since-- as the designers themselves tell us-- designing classes is only part formula: the rest is art. Cuthalion mentioned what is perhaps the most important part: subjectivity is necessary, since only through a personal interaction with the class can that class be fully grokked. Perhaps certain people will use a five, and others a six-- but, in the end, what is important is that they explain their vote and, if it is warranted, offer suggestions. —EldritchNumen 18:13, 18 March 2007 (MDT)
Suggested class categories
I believe we currently offer the following base class categories.
One category is conspicuously missing:
You may also want to add:
--Cúthalion 12:24, 12 February 2007 (MST)
- Yes, we do need "Highly Skilled" designation. And I pretty much agree with the rest.--Dmilewski 14:11, 12 February 2007 (MST)
- I agree as well. Would you like to make all the changes and implement these new categories (all of them)? Your categories look much better. --Green Dragon 23:55, 12 February 2007 (MST)
- Will do.
- Do you have a preference between "Stealthy", "Skilled", and "Highly Skilled"?
- I'll add the new categories to my own classes and whatever other homebrew classes I get around to. However, if you want to add them to the SRD classes or the templates, I believe that's a job for (breathy Darth Vader voice) a sysop. --Cúthalion 08:08, 13 February 2007 (MST)
- Will do.
- Lol... However, SRD classes do not use the categories like DnD Classes do, yet. Also, I think "Skilled" is the best option. --Green Dragon 22:34, 13 February 2007 (MST)
Racial Paragon Class Addenum
I'd like to request permission to add a link to the following topic - which, albeit old, provided some very useful material for our DM - under the category, "Racial Paragon Classes." It may provide useful material for others. :)
Thank you, Burunduk 09:29, 14 February 2007 (MST)
- That is okay, as long as you have permission from the authors of the classes or you are the author. Feel free to add them once this criteria has been met. Thanks. --Green Dragon 16:34, 15 February 2007 (MST)
Should non users be restricted from ratic classes?
Perhaps non users should be restricted from rating classes on the account of the fact that we cannot garentee a fair rating from non-users- if they are so desperate to have their say on a class, they can join for free in about a minute or so anyway. And we can monitor uses to make sure that ratings are given fairly.
- I, first off, see no easy way of restricting them and, second off, feel that they should have as much say as a user. I feel that wikis are not, and should not, be a classist system. They should try to let everyone have as much say as the next person, even if he/she has taken the time to become a user. I am against resticting IP's from rating. --Green Dragon 22:32, 22 August 2007 (MDT)
- Agreed. Let's judge each on a case-by-case basis. Some IPs offer... less than useful comments, edits, etc. But, it must be noted, many others do not, and instead improve the wiki through thoughtful suggestions, warranted criticisms, and another watchful eye for grammatical edits. I don't think it is appropriate to block them from rating the classes; besides, if we feel that they simply failed to understand our system before using it, we can simply nullify the rating (as we did with the Monks of Time and History). –EldritchNumen 00:26, 24 August 2007 (MDT)
- Fair enough. It was only a suggestion, though perhaps people who wan't to rate things should get an account... --Sam Kay 05:39, 24 August 2007 (MDT)
New Infobox for Base Classes
It's a bit crowded at the top of the class pages, so here's a demo to consolidate the top templates. Be sure to follow the "Rate this class" link to see the whole demo. Questions? Comments? Likes? Dislikes? —Sledged (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2008 (MST)
- If I'm reading it correctly, ie that the balance and authorship sections have been merged into one box framed right of the first section, I like it a lot. My only question regards what happens to those pages with images right of the first section, as seems to be common? --Arohanui 16:54, 22 January 2008 (MST)
- I really like it, I'd love to see that be the standard, for all classes, not just base ones. It would be nice to see it for other things as well, feats, spells, etc. Full support from me. --Daniel Draco 17:02, 22 January 2008 (MST)
- Spiffy--Dmilewski 19:21, 22 January 2008 (MST)
- I think it takes the focus off of the balance, however... Maybe if the balance section was bolded. Also, how much space does this truly save? Finally are we going to put this up where Template:Author currently resides (by the table of contents) or keep it below the class header? --Green Dragon 00:26, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- Well, my goal wasn't really to save space. It was to tidy up the templates at the top; make it look a little neater. I've bolded the user ratings and made it the font larger. As far as placement, I had planned on putting it where author template is now, but for demo purposes, I put it by itself below the first header. Here's another demo to see it without the other templates above the header. —Sledged (talk) 11:47, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- It is growing on me, and I really like the changes to the balance section. The only thing I think it now needs is some color, maybe have the balance section use the old balance color, or something? I don't know, it just seems very plain right now... --Green Dragon 13:13, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- I do not see a difference... --Green Dragon 20:56, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- Is the skin updater still not working for you? --Green Dragon 10:14, 28 January 2008 (MST)
- I like it, let's add it. --Green Dragon 14:41, 30 January 2008 (MST)
→Reverted indentation to one colon
- Hm... The dpl is not working with the Aztec Warrior as well as the authors name is not auto-formatted. Some things need to be fixed... :P. --Green Dragon 20:54, 30 January 2008 (MST)
- The dpl still needs the old balance and null templates until all the base classes have the infobox. Once all the pages have been changed, the dpl can be changed to pull data from the infobox, and the old templates can be removed. I didn't do the auto-linking with the author field, because an article may have more than one author. The same goes for the adopter field. —Sledged (talk) 09:06, 31 January 2008 (MST)
- In the box would be elegent. --Arohanui 18:25, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- I wonder if the image ought to go below the info, so that the info can most easily be found at the top, and so that the image remains down nearer the description. It's looking good though. Terrific idea, the whole thing. --Arohanui 16:08, 24 January 2008 (MST)
- Personally, I like it better on top. --Daniel Draco 16:39, 24 January 2008 (MST)
- I prefer it below. Could it be made configurable? --Arohanui 18:21, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Prestige Class Layout
So after applying the PrC infobox template to all the PrCs, I see that there's a much needed unified layout for them. And since we never got around to defining that layout, I present the evaluational prestige class layout. —Sledged (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2008 (MST)
- What about psionic abilities? --Green Dragon 23:17, 25 February 2008 (MST)
- Psionic abilities won't look much different than they do with the base psionic classes except that those that extend existing abilities instead of having their own progression will have a column titled "Manifesting" and the rows will say "+1 level of existing manifesting class." —Sledged (talk) 14:35, 26 February 2008 (MST)
- Sorry, I was not thinking. For some reason I was comparing this to the preload... I was very tired :S, and sorry about the confusion. --Green Dragon 22:59, 26 February 2008 (MST)
- If there is a website and not a forum about E6 then we could add a link to it from DnD Links. --Green Dragon 07:47, 1 May 2009 (MDT)
- We already have a handful of E8 (most are from Cora), E6 become more and more popular. I was wondering if it wass worth it to create a section for them. --Lord Dhazriel 12:35, 1 May 2009 (MDT)
i think we should delete classes that have little to nothing other than the template on the page if that status isnt fixed within a month (or whatever) of the pages creation. that people with a similar idea can come latter and use the name over if it is a common name (a name like zealot or dragoon) so they dont have to come up with a stupid sounding name, since the one they wanted is taken, and they dont want to edit the other guys work incase the origonator cames back to work on it. it would also make it easier to find usable classes since you wouldnt have to look at a bunch of classes that have a cool name or header tag, but nothing else on the page, such as class features. i would also like to delete variants that are no different from the origional (such as the base class dragoon variant, wich is a copy of the origional with nothing changed but the title. Zau 16:47, 4 August 2009 (MDT)
- You may want to post your ideas on User talk:Green Dragon#Template Limitation Dates. --Green Dragon 16:49, 4 August 2009 (MDT)
Why are only the Prestige Classes grouped with rated and unrated pages? -- saint23thomas -- 03:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
- As the class-specific templates get sorted out and replaced with the correct Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates all the groups here will follow the base class layout. This is a work in progress. Let me know if you are interested in helping, of course. --Green Dragon 15:36, 22 August 2010 (MDT)