User talk:Geodude671

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
User talk:Geodude671


Hey, I'm from Arizona too! Small world, huh? --Calibri (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2018 (MDT)

I guess so! :) — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 18:14, 6 April 2018 (MDT)

Would you like to do some collaborative worldbuilding?[edit]

Please leave me a a message here if you're interested! Quincy (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2018 (MST)

Premature and speedy deletion[edit]

Yowza, Geodude. I was drawn, as I am often am with speedy deletions, to the history of the Tuna and sweetcorn page. It's been brought up before that we should, at the very least, wait a few hours for the editing to stop, before placing any IRR templates on an article. Yet in this case, with an article that seems to me like was a potentially ideal (and, given time, could've been a viable and possibly even funny) candidate for Template:April Fools, you've speedy deleted it, under the snowball clause, a total of eight minutes since its last edit. I have no issue with taking a strong arm to articles, but I feel that, not only is placing improvement template on an article that is being actively edited pretty jarring to the editor, and placing a deletion template on an article being actively edited is pretty upsetting, but literally speedy deleting it without any real reason such as policy violation, mid-edit. I mean, I get it, the page was bad, but were I that editor, that would just make me quit a site, on the spot. Unless I'm somehow massively misconstruing the situation, could we please chill on the immediate, jarring, and almost kind of insulting, interruptions of new editors trying to get to grips with things? --SgtLion (talk) 03:21, 11 February 2018 (MST)

While I do frankly think the page was spam, it still shouldn't have been deleted as the author may have been in the process of changing/completing the page. Another issue I just recently noticed was in your selective use of the snowball clause on the wiki. "If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process." is what Wikipedia has on the snowball clause. If this clause where to be enforced, someone can raise concerns about a page and add the delete template to it and if the reasons for adding the delete template were agreed upon the page, the page can be immediately deleted according to the clause. Since, this clause seems to go against the spirt of collaborative work on D&D wiki, might I suggest that the clause not be used again in favor of other alternatives?--Blobby383b (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2018 (MST)

Hey, Geodude! This may seem like an odd request...[edit]

But can you please temporarily restore Improved Guard (5e Feat) for me? Pretty please, with sugar on top? Quincy (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2018 (MST)

Sure, here you go. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 21:20, 12 February 2018 (MST)
Thank you very much! Quincy (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2018 (MST)


Alexander II Colonel Hat.png Right! Stop that!

It's far too silly!

Don't take this too seriously. Another user just wants you to know something you said crosses their boundaries of sensibility.

You've been coloneled for coloneling me and/or ConcealedLight for ConcealedLight threatening to trout me for trouting ConcealedLight for trouting DraconicMan.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 05:38, 13 February 2018 (MST)

so common courtesy is no longer a thing and variant pages for overpowered versions are no longer a thing?[edit]

Hello Geodude671, I am Drakonsblade. I find it interesting and rather rude that you find it appropriate to change things about someone else's work without even saying a thing to them first, or giving any kind of constructive criticism to help them develop as creators or writers at all, to my other point I was lead to believe that overpowered variants were allowed when I originally came here to make my race and even in the help precedent page it says and I quote "This is the "D&D Wiki". Not the "elitist D&D game design hobbyists wiki". We expect quality workmanship and civil discourse, not theoretical system mastery and snobery. We should work together to improve each others work, not only for the good of the wiki as a whole, but for the good of ourselves and each other as fellow hobbyists and wikians. D&D is an extremely flexible game, and that's a good thing. Above all, promote fun through kindness. Unless someone is actually acting in bad faith, there's no need to get all serious and bent out of shape.

This wiki is our collective table. These people you are interacting with are your allies- maybe even distant friends. Treat them like it." and yet you feel the need to enforce YOUR vision upon someone else's hard work time and effort. That disturbs me because it greatly differentiates from what that page says.--Drakonsblade (talk) 10:35, 16 February 2018 (MST)

I judged Drakoniant (5e Race) to be too powerful, and I attempted to de-power the race to a point comparable to the first-party races while still keeping the spirit of the page. They still have a faster land speed than most other humanoid races, they still have a natural weapon, and they still fly.
I sincerely apologize if I seemed "elitist" when I made this edit. However, I did judge the page's use of {{Design Disclaimer}} to be inappropriate. As you have stated in the design disclaimer itself, "this race is not balanced by 5e" and per Help:Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Templates "This template is not justification for, nor is this template intended to identify pages as being...broken." Thus, {{needsbalance}} or de-powering of the page is appropriate. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 11:09, 16 February 2018 (MST)
I will never lie on this part in particular "this race is not balanced by 5e standards" that is entirely and wholeheartedly true and that's because it is made and balanced via compromise with logical thought and reasoning and some 5e standards. By logical reasoning, my race, as well as any race that at minimum stands at 7ft tall, should logically be as fast as a wood elf since the length of the gait is actually much larger than most elves, humans, and tieflings, etc. this doesn't even touch on the fact that my race is digitigrade and I don't honestly feel like launching into a whole different speal about the differences in speed between the two types of legs that I already went into in my disclaimer but I digress. While a wood elf is fast due to their inherent magic. As to the flying, their flying works just like a dragon's does they build up the physical and magical strength required to lift themselves into the air with their wings, their flight speed was set at level 5 because that allows for them to build up the physical strength as well as the magical strength required to lift such heavy being into the air. This entire thing up to now hasn't even touched on the fact that you deleted the "base" page which I tried to upload under an OP variant page without so much as a word in the discussion page you literally looked it over, saw it was my base race and pressed delete, there wasn't even a deletion tag assigned to it before you deleted it. YOU made no effort what so ever to try and talk about it with me, and while it 'may' be within your rights as an admin to do so it is also the actions like this that make you out to be an "elitist".--Drakonsblade (talk) 11:48, 16 February 2018 (MST)
Drakoniant(variant) (5e Race) was deleted without following the proper process because it was nearly identical to the old, deleted version of Drakoniant (5e Race). I wasn't the person who deleted the original page, that was SgtLion. I did add {{delete}} to the page, but the page sat there with no objection to the deletion template for nearly a month. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 12:17, 16 February 2018 (MST)
The new page or the old page because the variant page wasn't up there anywhere near as long as a month? on another note what happened to allowance to put up overpowered versions of the race in variant pages? last time I was here that was allowed wasn't it?--Drakonsblade (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2018 (MST)
on a sperate note what is the point of homebrew if not to make things different from the standard game?--Drakonsblade (talk) 12:34, 16 February 2018 (MST)
The page that had a deletion template for nearly a month is the old, deleted version of Drakoniant (5e Race).
Yes, the point of homebrew is to alter or add on to the standard game. In general, though, the new content being added in should "fit in" with first-party content already in the game, because you're creating content for an existing game rather than making a game of your own. Here on the wiki we have a general consensus that we should be enforcing balance, because this makes content fun for everybody at the table rather than just the one person playing it, and it lets people browse the site with an understanding that content is likely to be suitable for their use. We have standards on this wiki that content must adhere to (even if it sometimes takes a while for those standards to be enforced). If you want to keep your race in its unbalanced state, you can move it into your userspace, where other users are not allowed to edit, except for administrators to remove content that breaks sitewide rules (per Help:Behavioral Policy#User Pages). If you do not know how to do this, I or another user would be willing to help you or do it for you. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 12:56, 16 February 2018 (MST)
Thank you for informing me about moving it to my userspace, I was unaware of that possibility and would like to ask for your, or someone else's help in transferring it there. P.s. sorry about the late time of this post.--Drakonsblade (talk) 00:57, 17 February 2018 (MST)
To store a page in your userspace, you create a subpage of your userpage. For example, I have in my userspace User:Geodude671/5e Pages Needing Balance. The actual name of the page is "5e Pages Needing Balance," but the "User:Geodude671/" portion of the title designates the page as being a subpage of User:Geodude671. If you want to move Drakoniant (5e Race) to your userspace, click the "move" tab at the top of the page and change the title to User:Drakonsblade/Drakoniant or something similar. You will also need to remove all categories from the page so that it doesn't show up on automated lists like 5e Races. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 07:08, 17 February 2018 (MST)

Humanoid and "x" types[edit]

There's been a lot of lobbying for FA votes so I thought I would finally try to partake and noticed Earth Giant getting a lot of attention; figured lets check it out. Giantkin trait is pretty awesome I think and it is just like the Chimera's Monstrosity thing. Would it be better to flavor these like Fey Ancestry of the elf? It would coincide with first party content that has only humanoids as well. Just something I found curious and thought it could be food for thought. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2018 (MST)

Hey, for some reason I didn't see this before. That's an idea, I suppose, and I would like to see what you come up with. The traits that give "humanoid and x type" are mainly there for flavor and to make sure that a race is affected by an effect that they reasonably should be affected by (for example, a succubus character should be affected by things that specifically target fiends) while not making the race immune to a bevy of spells that target humanoids specifically (for example, hold person). — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 17:02, 4 March 2018 (MST)
In regards to Earth Giant specifically, I'd recommend designing around high hit points, strength, athletics and perception. The race design is already done but these four elements exist in the monster manual giants except for athletics on hill giants.
The succubus idea, I'd rather give "Succubi Charm" per long rest, may cast charm person as the spell. Both ideas draw on the races lore or heritage vs giving them the creature type.
These are just my thoughts on race design and trying to keep things closer to 5e first party content. I don't think there's anything wrong with what people have done assigning to creature types to races, yet. "dun dun dun" lol BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:51, 6 March 2018 (MST)

The Minotaur not having the one size lager skill[edit]

Hey I was planing on using the Minotaur race for my next character mostly cause when a friend of mine recommended me this race it had this skill formerly know as power build "You count as one size larger when determining your carrying capacity and the weight you can push, drag, or lift" I was wondering what the reason was to removing it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ‎Buddy18181 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

I removed it because I made the race Large-sized :) — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 16:56, 4 March 2018 (MST)

Oath of censorship.[edit]

Thanks for restoring it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:247:c300:3729:74d3:6a88:f03f:456d (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

I never deleted it in the first place, but okay. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 18:57, 8 March 2018 (MST)

Dragon Mage[edit]

Yes i am just catching up with some school work and trying to see what the original creator wanted to do with it.why is something wrong.Alucarddragonborn (talk) 11:14, 9 March 2018 (MST)

Spiderfolk, Enduria's guide[edit]

Sorry this took so long! I'm very unfarmiliar with the whole system and I dont even know if what I'm doing is right! Anyways, on topic, Several months back you asked me about my spiderfolk race, and I've only now realised you have to reply by commenting on your thing.

Sorry to confuse you, however there was no source book. The idea of a spiderfolk race originates from a different user, one who posted the original race. Enduria’s Guide is my own tag; detailing when I find good ideas and revise them. By no means are my changes ever mandatory, that’s why I do entirely different posts and mention that I’m not the creator. Again, sorry. If you’re wondering where all the world building came from, I wrote that up. Thats on me. I tried to stay close to the source material, and got within d&d 5e expectations. --TEG (talk) 11:54, 9 March 2018 (MST)

It hurts my first response was posted at 8:36, 14 February 2018, and I was wondering why you werent relying at all :/

Hi, sorry! I didn't reply because I didn't think your message needed one; I asked you a question and you answered it very well and covered everything, so I didn't feel the need to ask for clarification on anything. I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by not replying; in hindsight I should have at least posted "Okay, I understand" or something similar. — Geodude671 Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 13:06, 9 March 2018 (MST)

The Many Adventures of Balancing[edit]

Hey, I came to discuss my race, the Daemonii. I have heard the criticisms you’ve posted on the discussion page and have heard them since day one. The reason I left it alone is that honestly, I was surprised to see that it got nominated and was thinking to myself, “Really? Wow.” When I created it, it was mostly just a means to experiment rather than something I was trying to make avant-garde, which probably is why the lore is not very interesting and why it seems to be so powerful. However, the transformation trait wasn’t a part of the original idea. Someone else randomly made the race even more overpowered than what it currently is! They gave it the transformation trait, made the Constitution score increase 2 instead of 1, gave it a resistance to necrotic damage, made it able to be Large or Medium, and made the claws do 2d6 slashing instead of 1d4! I brought most of it back to the original idea but kept the demon form for some reason (I don’t remember why). Having seen the critiques posted in the discussion section, I’ve removed the demon form trait, but that is all. I wanted to discuss with you how else to fix up the race, before doing anything else; alternatives for traits, ways to balance them, and more interesting lore, that sort of thing. —Dinomaster337 (talk) 20 March 2018 (MST)

Neo Tarrasque[edit]

I'm curious why you reverted my changes to Neo Tarrasque (5e Creature), changing the wording of several abilities and adding the Unkillable trait. I don't see what the problem, if any, there is with them. That said, there might be something about them that violates wiki rules or something that I didn't know about. Thank you for answering this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2603:3015:27a4:0:48f6:e3a8:aa1:d8cf (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

I reverted your edits because they didn't just change the way several abilities were worded, but because they also changed the way those abilities worked in a way that I did not believe was beneficial. The "unkillable" trait does make sense for the tarrasque to have, but I believed it increased the strength of the creature in a way that would feel frustrating to players and basically reduces the encounter to "have this spell or lose," as opposed to other additions to the vanilla tarrasque such as Earthbind Aura and the AoE attacks which are intended to make a fight against the tarrasque to be more fun and tactically interesting. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 22:56, 26 March 2018 (MDT)
Your edits also blurred the line between standard attacks and special abilities, included incorrect wording, and still made the tarrasque vulnerable to flying-based attacks. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2018 (MDT)

Okay. Thank you. Your choice to revert the changes makes a lot more sense now. That said, I still believe that that Tail Sweep and Shockwave should be worded as (Recharge 4-6) instead of (Recharge 4). See the SRD: Red Dragon Wyrmling (5e Creature) for an example. Dragon breath has (Recharge 5-6) instead of (Recharge 5). Unless this was intentional to make it so that the tarrasque could only recharge one ability per turn? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2603:3015:27a4:0:1d04:a9b1:a495:4581 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

That was exactly the intention. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 12:45, 28 March 2018 (MDT)

Hexblade subclass[edit]

First of all good job on this, im actually playing a character who tried to be this with multiclassing and i think that just using this subclass wouldve been alot easier. In regards to absorb elements, i put it there because the homebrew spell elemental armor was already there and that just seems like a direct upgrade from both absorb elements and armor of agathys which doesnt seem balanced. I also put eldritch blast because it's the standard lock cantrip and seeing as how you can take an invocation with this class it seemed weird that you couldnt take the cantrip that has quite a few invocations tied to it. additionally firesweep seems really similar to green flame blade so you may want to consider adding that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kinv (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!

Drakiin race[edit]

Hello! First of all I would like to thank you for helping me get my race together! My information and traits were getting jumbled between what I wanted versus what would be a good balance. I do have a few questions though, (1) Why did you remove the proficiency in arcane trait I gave? (2) Should I also give them a detect magic at will ability? (3) Was the Draconic roar I gave the race to strong or just unfitting?

The Arcana proficiency was replaced with the Eladrin Magic, taking inspiration from the trait given to the Eladrin subrace in Unearthed Arcana. I felt that giving them spellcasting would better reflect their affinity for magic, as the Arcana skill mainly represents knowledge about magic rather than any magical ability a character might have. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SunRise18 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts!
Both the at-will Detect Magic and the Draconic Roar traits would probably be more appropriate as racial feats than as racial traits, mimicking the Drow High Magic and Dragon Fear feats in Xanathar's Guide to Everything. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 13:41, 15 April 2018 (MDT)
Okay! Thank you! Your revisions do make a lot more sense. Thanks for your help! SunRise18 (talk) 21:27, 15 April 2018 (MDT) =SunRise18 23:25, 15 April 2018 (EST)

Dragon Mage (5e Class)[edit]

im sorry to say but i cant continue the work on the dragon mage class ive got some problems with some of my classes.--Alucarddragonborn (talk) 14:14, 16 April 2018 (MDT)

What specific issues are you running into? — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 14:15, 16 April 2018 (MDT)

I just dont have the time and my internet connection is slow and i also have my graduation to look forward too.--Alucarddragonborn (talk) 12:29, 18 April 2018 (MDT)


If I offended you when I put what I posted on I'm a true European not a Socialist page, I'm sorry. He kinda pissed me off. --Redrum 18:39, 18 April 2018 (MDT)

Gunslinger and IRR templates[edit]

Hi Geodude671, in regards to this, could you please make the effort to check the history, and the talk pages, before re-adding templates and accusing the author of not trying to address the templates, discuss them, or want the article in a playable state? I get most of our userbase are lazy peeps, but it's important not to call bull on those are making an effort at good content, and an effort to talk on the talk page, and an effort to address templates. Or am I misunderstanding something here? --SgtLion (talk) 13:32, 20 April 2018 (MDT)
Personal tools
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!
system reference documents
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors