Talk:Living Dead (4e Creature)

From D&D Wiki

[edit] Featured Article Nomination

I'm nominating this article, because as we get closer to Halloween, I feel folks might want to add a new touch of horror to their games. -- Sepsis 18:21, 29 September 2008 (MDT)

Comment — This needs some links, either to Wikipedia or to the 4e glossary. --Green Dragon 10:53, 6 October 2008 (MDT)

External links have always been a weak spot for me, I'm always unsure as to what should get a link and what shouldn't. Any help with this would be apprieciated. -- Sepsis 21:24, 6 October 2008 (MDT)

Nevermind about the external links. I don't think there is really any point in linking things to Wikipedia from this page. Also, I added some links to the first paragraph, although in some instances I had to link to 3.5e material (like the Holy water link, or all the Type's links (although that may be justified because they link to redirects in any case, which could be changed to disambiguated pages later with the 4e SRD)). What are your thoughts on the amount of links present? Also, what are the thoughts on linking to 3.5e material from 4e pages? --Green Dragon 13:35, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I like keeping the links to just the first paragraph, unless something seems to need them later such as some of the thins in the Living Death section, and possibly the word Arcana in the Lore section. While some 3.5 links may be harmless (such as Holy Water), but most just won't fit. Turning for example is so different now, I don't think it fits. Which begs the question, when will we be able to start building the 4e SRD. I think the time is right, and we need to really get the Wiki up to snuff with the current ed. -- Sepsis 15:03, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

The 4e SRD is not available for people to put on websites (without paying a 2000 dollar fee or something) until January of next year. We have to wait until then at least, however, then, I completely agree, we need to start building the 4e SRD. Maybe like UA or maybe like the old SRD, who knows. Also, I linked turning to the 4e Glossary (4e Other), so no confusion should be present. Although it seems like a lot of things are missing in it, like creatures and so. I tried to link the creatures in the encounters area to the 4e Glossary (4e Other), but they were not in the 4e Glossary (4e Other). Also, I have to disagree. I feel that links should be present throughout. --Green Dragon 11:30, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Then I shall add the additional links, but aside from a few in the Living Death section, I'm unsure how many more are needed. As I said I'm not great with those, and always fear I'll overdo them -- Sepsis 12:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

I would just go at it. I think there are not enough things that can be linked to on the 4e pages anyway, so therefore it would not end up being an overkill of links; that is if the links are relevant. I would just link to the things that are in the 4e Glossary (4e Other) or link to the things, that are alike to the 3.5e version, to the current 3.5e SRD version. --Green Dragon 09:04, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

I feel that it still needs more links. Other then that, as far as I can tell, it looks great. --Green Dragon 15:09, 26 October 2008 (MDT)

I added more links into the standard text areas (specifically in Lore and Adventure Ideas), but the only other place I can think of is within the Statblocks themselves. Do you think I should add them there, or leave them be? And by the way Thank You for your help and compliment. -- Sepsis 16:14, 26 October 2008 (MDT)

Ya, I would add links in the statblock. Also, as an afterthought, I think it would be good to add some links which link to another part of the page, for example zombie grab would link to zombie grab (''[[#Zombie Grab|zombie grab]]'') when it's added with {{#anc:. --Green Dragon 15:08, 27 October 2008 (MDT)

I've put Links into the Statblocks (although I couldn't get the "same page" links to work properly), tell me what you think. -- Sepsis 21:22, 27 October 2008 (MDT)

I think the links are starting to get better (I just hope that users will not keep clicking the links and get disappointed when it keeps going to the same page, just a different line). Anyway, I added some "same page" links which link to living death, however I didn't end up adding the {{#anc: thing because it was already a header. Also, I'm glad to have helped make this creature what it now is, and thank you so much for taking your time to add this to D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 15:10, 28 October 2008 (MDT)

I agree with you on the Links thing, just let me know when we are ready to go on the SRDs for 4e and I'll be more then happy to work on those with everyone. also, I'm just glad that this has earned the honor of being a Featured Article (the LD have always been a pet monster of mine) and I hope my other contributions at least add a little something to our community. -- Sepsis 15:45, 28 October 2008 (MDT)

Comment — I changed the header depths in an attempt to look more like the header sizes and depths in the Monster Manual. Any thoughts on the header depths as they are now? --Green Dragon 11:43, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

Erg, the damn MM. As far as I can observe some creatures use a system were the articles name is a L2 header, the tactics an L4 header, and the Lore and Encounter Groups are L3 headers (e.g. Gnolls). However others use a system where the articles name is a L2 header and the rest are all L3 headers (e.g. Goblins). Although still the issue of what header depths should be used with the sub-creature entries is present. Seeing how the MM just uses the creature name from the stat block as their headers... Ya, so any thoughts on what we should use? --Green Dragon 14:09, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I just made only the first, the Living Dead, and the Shamblers, headers the main headers. Thoughts on it like this? --Green Dragon 10:53, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

I removed the redundant first header (this is what Wikipedia seems to be doing these days). Thoughts on it like this? --Green Dragon 11:42, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

I think I just figured out what the MM had in mind... Thoughts on it like this? Also, are the header depths okay, or should they all be made one deaper? --Green Dragon 09:39, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

I think this really is what the MM has in mind, and so if no one has any major objections to it, I think it can stay in this new format. --Green Dragon 09:31, 26 October 2008 (MDT)

Comment — In the Monster Manual they always seem to have Encounter Groups give specific encounter's as well as descriptive text. I feel that a few specific encounters should be included here. --Green Dragon 11:47, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

Added the Encounter Groups. -- Sepsis 12:51, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

Not trying to be rude or anything, and I know on the page it states that it is normally a 2:1 ratio, but do you think that maybe some flavor and change could be added to the encounter groups area? To the casual eye it just looks like everything is multiplied three times over. I was thinking maybe another creature or two could be added, creatures which would work with the Living Dead of course. --Green Dragon 13:40, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I'll give it a look over, it's just living dead don't play well with others. Still some other undead may want to hang around them for their cast-offs. I should be able to spice them up. -- Sepsis 14:24, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I've spiced up the Encounters. Tell me what you think, -- Sepsis 15:03, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

The current encounters look a lot better now, in my opinion. Although do you think it would be a good idea to add a few more encounters, maybe two more or so, or do you think that would just get in the way and not really be used by players? I don't know, do you ever use the encounters in the 4e books or do you just glaze over them? --Green Dragon 11:08, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Well it seems the max in the MM is normally 3, and as how I don't ever use them (the DMG formula is good enough for me), I think any more would just be a waste. -- Sepsis 12:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

I can't really tell if their is a standard number of encounters per creature in the MM. I've seen up to six and as low as one once, I think, so I would agree, 3 is a standard number for the creature's encounters. And, if the viewer is not interested in the encounters area anyway, then it's a hassle for them with more. --Green Dragon 08:56, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

Comment — I would say that this needs to follow the When to italicize and capitalize guideline. I started with a bit, but it all needs to be looked at still. Also, does this follow the rule for classes were the name is not capitalized throughout? --Green Dragon 12:58, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I believe I've corrected both the italicization and capitalization issues...but you may want to give it another look over -- Sepsis 13:19, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I think you may have missed the stat block's, but other then that it looks good. --Green Dragon 11:17, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Fixed those up, and added appropriate Keywords. -- Sepsis 12:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Comment — A few things on this page separate this from the standard creature entries (such as Living Death and Adventure Ideas), and I think we need to decide were on the page they should be located. I, personally, disagree with the Living Death were it is right now. In the MM they always have the stat block then following it the tactics. Putting the Living Death right there is, as far as I can tell, not the standard. I think it may be better above Adventure Ideas or at least below the Tactics area. Thoughts? --Green Dragon 13:10, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I originally had it above the Adventure Ideas section, but moved it when I added the Encounter Groups. I'll move it back to just under the Tactics entry. That seems more standard. I want the Adventure Ideas to be located just below the other Encounter info. because it seems to fit best there. -- Sepsis 13:19, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

A agree, this way the reader sees the game information then learns how all this is possible (from an "in game" perspective). Although, what are your thoughts on the header depth for the Living Death and the Adventure Ideas area? To me it seems to stick out as odd in the Table of Contents, although I see the reason for the header depths (because it affects both the Shambler and the Standard Living Dead). --Green Dragon 13:56, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I know, both the Lore and the Encounter Group sections just seem out of place being sub-sections of Living Death. If they could not appear that way it would look better. -- Sepsis 14:24, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

I changed the headers around a bit (see comment above). I hope it doesn't look that way now (although now the problem could be that it looks like the "Adventure Ideas" and the "Living Death" do not apply to the Shamblers as well). --Green Dragon 11:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

How about if all the info from Tactics on were place in another section titled Encounter Information (or some such). I know it's not standard to the MM, but it may help segregate those areas. -- Sepsis 12:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

I changed the headers around a bit again (see comment above). I think I finally got what the MM has in mind. Your thoughts on it like this? --Green Dragon 09:39, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

Ya, I like that. it seems to flow well, and the Contents look good. -- Sepsis 11:11, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

Ya, I agree. It seems to make a lot more sense then the previous header's, in my opinion. --Green Dragon 09:32, 26 October 2008 (MDT)

Comment — As I was looking through the MM I noticed that many of the sub-creature's have their own pictures (like the angels), although, however, others do not (like the Hobgoblins). What are the thoughts on having two separate images on this page, one for the living dead shamblers, and another for the living dead? Or do you think it would just clutter the page and not really add to it? --Green Dragon 13:50, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

While I love pics, finding an appropriate pic, that just dosen't seem redundant would take a little time. I think the one pick should work. Particularly since the shamblers are minions. -- Sepsis 14:24, 22 October 2008 (MDT)

Do you think we should include Image:Greenrot.JPG onto this page (maybe around the Living Death area, or anywhere not too close to the top I guess)? Or is that specific to the Living Dead (DnD Creature)? --Green Dragon 11:04, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

I added the image by the Living Death section, I think it works well there. -- Sepsis 12:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

With the expanded description of the Living Death, I think the image will look better on the right. -- Sepsis 12:36, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Do you think the image would look better in the "Living Dead Lore" section? I can't make up my mind, because it's both at the start of the non-minion Living Dead section, but it is also a bit near to the top of the page. Also, do you feel a bit lopsided when viewing this page, or do you think it's okay with the Template:Author and the two images all on that side of the page? --Green Dragon 09:13, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

I like the image there next to the Living Death section, and I don't really feel the page has a lopsided look with the images and Author info. on the same side. -- Sepsis 11:11, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

Ya, I agree. It really does not work on the left side because of the header on the other side anyway too. --Green Dragon 14:59, 26 October 2008 (MDT)

Comment — Is the name of this creature politically correct in the English language, or is it an oxymoron? I was thinking about it, and dead things really cannot be living... Does it work as "Living Dead (4e Creature), or does it need to be named "Living Dead, the (4e Creature)? --Green Dragon 11:13, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

I originally debated calling them "The Living Dead", but as no other monster in the MM uses an Article I didn't want to start. -- Sepsis 12:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Eh, on second thought, I think, it works like it is. I'm pretty sure people should get the idea. --Green Dragon 08:56, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

Comment — I was looking at the 3.5e version of this creature (or the D20M version, I can't remember), and the image was left aligned and around as large as the template is high or maybe a bit larger then that (not shorter though, because that would have looked funny). In an artistic sense, what are people's thoughts on images larger then the thumb default on a featured article? Would it get in the way of a reader when they are trying to use the game content, or would it lure people to stay on the page? --Green Dragon 11:38, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Too large of an image my be distracting. I think thumbs work well. -- Sepsis 12:00, 23 October 2008 (MDT)

Ya, I agree. And now with the second image added, there would really be no point to make it any larger. --Green Dragon 08:56, 24 October 2008 (MDT)

Support — Without a doubt this article meets or exceeds all the Featured Article criteria. Although more links could be added (especially when the 4e SRD starts coming around), and the balance could be triple checked, I see this article as a very good article with an interesting and original idea behind it. I just made the Living Dead a Featured Article and, of course, if anyone sees anything wrong please mention it. Also if you are interested in changing the featured article synopsis, please take a look at Template:Featured Article Synopsis. --Green Dragon 15:08, 27 October 2008 (MDT)

I would love to hear any feedback folks may have after playing (or even just playtesting) these Monsters. Although I have used them extensivly in my previous 3.5 campaign, Moertus, and didn't find any balance issues. Still that was 3.5 version, I have only used the 4e version in a few encounters, again though with no problems. -- Sepsis 21:22, 27 October 2008 (MDT)

[edit] Picture thoughts

I've never seen zombies so...watery... I feel as though we need a slightly better picture for this. Surgo 16:25, 27 October 2008 (MDT)

I'm always up for any Pics you may have or can find that will work. I've not had the best of luck with finding PD images that look appropriate. -- Sepsis 20:30, 27 October 2008 (MDT)