https://www.dandwiki.com/w/api.php?action=feedcontributions&user=84.108.164.233&feedformat=atomD&D Wiki - User contributions [en]2024-03-28T13:27:43ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.8https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=231215Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-22T02:21:49Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Special:Contributions/84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
# swift and immediate actions. i get one swift action per round with no cost. what if i want to use another swift action or two? or another immediate action or two? can i "pay" a move action for one or two swift or immediate actions? is there a formal or informal exchange rate? it can be very beneficial to be able to counter more than once. or change stances more than once per round.<br />
# how does 'strike of perfect clarity' interact with critical hits? is the +100 to damage doubled or is it added after you double the regular damage?<br />
# if i am asking too much, do tell. while using 'sudden leap', one incurs AoO unless one succeeds a tumble check. does tumbling while using a sudden leap reduce the distance jumped as tumbling during normal movement does?<br />
# the setting sun throw maneuvers require a (succesful touch attack and a) trip attempt. does this mean these maneuvers cannot be used on larger than large creatures (assuming one is medium sized and according to trip rules)? if so, it is quite restrictive especially for a discipline which boasts dealing well with giants (as in the story of eventide's edge).<br />
#: how does one resolve throwing someone 10 feet or more away and then attacking him? he is out of reach! i suppose you could rule that the subsequent attack is possible only if you throw him where you can reach him with a melee weapon. but would you allow a reach weapon capable of tripping to be used in the throw? what is a throw? is it something you do unarmed (like tripping though there are weapons which can trip)? can you use trip weapons for this attack? reach trip weapons? if unarmed is necessary, is one hand enough? can i hold a weapon (even a reach weapon) in the other hand? <br />
#:: actually, i just read in the discussion thread somewehere that the improved trip feat allows you an attack only if the original action was an attack. since the original action is not an attack but is a throw, or a trip, you get a trip which is irrelevent.<br />
# what about maneuvers and the 'fussion' power? if indeed one can ready a maneuver once only (meaning that maneuvers readied is not like spell slots) then what happens when one uses the 'fussion' power and has the same maneuver readied as the character to be fussioned with?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
# There's no simple "yes" or "no" to that question. It depends on the feat and the maneuver in question. Concerning [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]] and emerald razor, the only move action that can be done with spring attack is [[SRD:Move Actions#Move|move]] and the only standard action that can be done is an [[SRD:Standard Actions#Attack|attack action]] with a melee weapon. Emerald razor is a standard action, but even though you make an attack as part of the maneuver, it is not an attack action, so it can't be performed with [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]]. Pretty much the only maneuvers that can be done with Spring Attack are the ones that have a swift or an immediate action as their initiation action. Mixing maneuvers all depends on what kind of action each requires. In a single round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift (or immediate) action, or instead of a standard and move action, you can perform a full-round action. So you could use shadow jaunt (standard), shadow stride (move), and shadow blink (swift) all in the same round. If you have the shadow pounce ability, you'll get three full-round attacks in one round.<br />
# As the rules are written, no, but I'd allow an exchange of a move or standard action to perform a swift action (maybe even an immediate action). Especially since the rules allow one to perform another move action in place of a standard action.<br />
# Page 43, "You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit. You treat it just as you would extra damage from another special ability, such as sneak attack."<br />
# Not entirely sure on this one. As best as I can tell, it follows the normal rules of movement, so yes, you halve the result of the Jump check (round down to the nearest 5-foot increment). At least that's how I'd handle it.<br />
# I can't find anything that makes setting sun maneuvers an exception to that rule. Within the SRD storm giants and cloud giants are the only giants that are larger than Large, so that claim could still hold true with stone giants, ettins, trolls, ogres, etc... Another interpretation is that these are throws not trips, so they're only subject to the limitations of the trip attempt check. However, the [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080124a FAQ] implies that they are trips, so you get the benefit of Improved Trip with every throw (another +4 and and an extra attack with a successful throw).<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:30, 19 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
(In regard to 9) - Do you know if a Duskblade's spell channeling is a standard action or a full round action? Because that would be a lot of damage for low levels with a houserule like that Sledged. Blade of Blood, Blade of Blood, Greatsword, Shocking grasp -- 13d6 + 1.5x str damage? I'd also get a spellstoring weapon and store shocking grasp for an extra 5d6 :P. Even at level 1 - Blade of Blood x2 + greatsword = 7d6 damage (though 10 to you will be very poor at this level).<br />
<br />
Note that Quickened spells and powers do not work with this because you can only cast 1 of them a round (until epic feats).<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080219115121</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 19 11:51 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Arcane channeling is a standard action, unless you do it as part of a full-attack action, then it's a [[SRD:Action Types#Not an Action|not an action]].<br />
<br />
Casting ''blade of blood'' twice on the same weapon won't be any different than casting it once. See [[SRD:Casting Spells#Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths|Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths]]. The same goes for multiple ''[[SRD:Shocking Grasp|shocking grasp]]'' effects.<br />
<br />
In one of the various books, I think they updated Quicken Spell so that it's now a swift action.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Why_arent_there_%22optimized%22_epic_spells%3F&diff=231200Discussion:Why arent there "optimized" epic spells?2008-02-22T01:42:22Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== <!-- Insert your questions title here --> == <br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
i saw some examples of epic spells in the epic handbook and some homebrew epic spells are given. still, one would expect some optimizations like in character builds. how to use a seed (or seeds) to best effects. what combinations work well. alternatives and such. these optimizations should have variable spellcraft rather than fixed ones. i mean, it is only natural since as you progress, your spellcraft check progresses and one would obviously wanna improve earlier epic spells or develope new ones that are on the very cusp of his spellcraft check which make for more powerful spells. as an example, here is my (limited) version of an epic fireball (which is clearly drawn from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Epic_Fireball_%28DnD_Epic_Spell%29).<br />
<br />
epic fireball<br />
<br />
spellcraft DC: 61+(4 times Y)+(2 times X)+(2 times W)-Z<br />
<br />
evocation[fire]<br />
<br />
components: V,S, XP<br />
<br />
casting time: one standard action<br />
<br />
range: 300 times X feet (X is a variable)<br />
<br />
area: 20 ft times Y radius ball<br />
<br />
duration: instantaneous<br />
<br />
saving throw: reflex half<br />
<br />
spell resistance:yes<br />
<br />
to develope: Seed: Energy (DC 19). Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), Change area from bolt to ball (+2 DC), Increase area by (Y times 100)% (+(4 times Y) DC), Increase range by (X times 100)% (+(2 times X) DC), Increase Damage to (10+W)d6 (+(2 times W) DC), Increase damage dice four steps (+40 DC). Mitigating factors: 20d6 backlash (-20 DC), Burn (Z times 100) XP (-Z DC). <br />
<br />
Epic Fireball is a massive ball of fire that detonates with a mass of flames. It deals (10+W)d20 (which is 105+(10.5 times W) on average) points of fire damage. Unattended objects also take this damage. The spell can barely be controlled and the caster takes 20d6 points of damage as it is released (in addition to burning (Z times 100) XP). <br />
<br />
notes: the reduction in casting time is necessary for it to be useful in ongoing combat. of course, if one feels one will have the minute to cast it effectively, one can forego the +20 added to casting time. <br />
<br />
increasing the damage die by one step adds one effective hp of damage per die except for the last step which adds 4. adding a die adds 3.5 or 4.5 or 5.5 or 6.5 whenever the die is d6,d8,d10,d12 respectively. so there is a question of balance between adding a die of damage and increasing the die of damage by one step. the calculations are straightforward and in the particular case of going for maximum increase in die damage (4 steps) then it is worth it always.<br />
<br />
you can clearly play with other factors to change the spellcraft DC. IMO, this template should be used either against a small number of area concentrated tough enemies (maximize damage and minimize area) or against a large number of not so tough enemies spread along a large area (minimize damage and maximize area). if you want to kill just one superstrong guy, you would use the destroy seed and maximize the damage die to d20 and then maximize the number of damage dies. then again, there are issues of spell resistance...<br />
<br />
this is of course an awkward and unclear way to state things. variables are bad for understanding. still, some attempt should be made.<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Why_arent_there_%22optimized%22_epic_spells%3F&diff=231196Discussion:Why arent there "optimized" epic spells?2008-02-22T01:38:00Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== <!-- Insert your questions title here --> == <br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
i saw some examples of epic spells in the epic handbook and some homebrew epic spells are given. still, one would expect some optimizations like in character builds. how to use a seed (or seeds) to best effects. what combinations work well. alternatives and such. these optimizations should have variable spellcraft rather than fixed ones. i mean, it is only natural since as you progress, your spellcraft check progresses and one would obviously wanna improve earlier epic spells or develope new ones that are on the very cusp of his spellcraft check which make for more powerful spells. as an example, here is my (limited) version of an epic fireball (which is clearly drawn from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Epic_Fireball_%28DnD_Epic_Spell%29).<br />
<br />
epic fireball<br />
<br />
spellcraft DC: 61+(4 times Y)+(2 times X)+(2 times W)-Z<br />
<br />
evocation[fire]<br />
<br />
components: V,S, XP<br />
<br />
casting time: one standard action<br />
<br />
range: 300 times X feet (X is a variable)<br />
<br />
area: 20 ft times Y radius ball<br />
<br />
duration: instantaneous<br />
<br />
saving throw: reflex half<br />
<br />
spell resistance:yes<br />
<br />
to develope: Seed: Energy (DC 19). Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), Change area from bolt to ball (+2 DC), Increase area by (Y times 100)% (+(4 times Y) DC), Increase range by (X times 100)% (+(2 times X) DC), Increase Damage to (10+W)d6 (+(2 times W) DC), Increase damage dice four steps (+40 DC). Mitigating factors: 20d6 backlash (-20 DC), Burn (Z times 100) XP (-Z DC). <br />
<br />
Epic Fireball is a massive ball of fire that detonates with a mass of flames. It deals (10+W)d20 (which is 105+(10.5 times W)) points of fire damage. Unattended objects also take this damage. The spell can barely be controlled and the caster takes 20d6 points of damage as it is released (in addition to burning (Z times 100) XP). <br />
<br />
notes: the reduction in casting time is necessary for it to be useful in ongoing combat. of course, if one feels one will have the minute to cast it effectively, one can forego the +20 added to casting time. <br />
<br />
increasing the damage die by one step adds one effective hp of damage per die except for the last step which adds 4. adding a die adds 3.5 or 4.5 or 5.5 or 6.5 whenever the die is d6,d8,d10,d12 respectively. so there is a question of balance between adding a die of damage and increasing the die of damage by one step. the calculations are atraightforward and in the particular case of going for maximum increase in die damage (4 steps) then it is worth it always.<br />
<br />
you can clearly play with other factors to change the spellcraft DC. IMO, this template should be used either against a small number of area concentrated tough enemies (maximize damage and minimize area) or against a large number of not so tough enemies spread along a large area (minimize damage and maximize area). if i want to kill just one superstrong guy, i would use the destroy seed and maximize the damage die to d20 and then maximize the number of damage dies.<br />
<br />
this is of course an awkward and unclear way to state things. variables are bad for understanding. still, some attempt should be made.<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Why_arent_there_%22optimized%22_epic_spells%3F&diff=231194Discussion:Why arent there "optimized" epic spells?2008-02-22T01:37:00Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== <!-- Insert your questions title here --> == <br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
i saw some examples of epic spells in the epic handbook and some homebrew epic spells are given. still, one would expect some optimizations like in character builds. how to use a seed (or seeds) to best effects. what combinations work well. alternatives and such. these optimizations should have variable spellcraft rather than fixed ones. i mean, it is only natural since as you progress, your spellcraft check progresses and one would obviously wanna improve earlier epic spells or develope new ones that are on the very cusp of his spellcraft check which make for more powerful spells. as an example, here is my (limited) version of an epic fireball (which is clearly drawn from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Epic_Fireball_%28DnD_Epic_Spell%29).<br />
<br />
epic fireball<br />
<br />
spellcraft DC: 61+(4 times Y)+(2 times X)+(2 times W)-Z<br />
<br />
evocation[fire]<br />
<br />
components: V,S, XP<br />
<br />
casting time: one standard action<br />
<br />
range: 300 times X (X is a variable)<br />
<br />
area: 20 ft times Y radius ball<br />
<br />
duration: instantaneous<br />
<br />
saving throw: reflex half<br />
<br />
spell resistance:yes<br />
<br />
to develope: Seed: Energy (DC 19). Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), Change area from bolt to ball (+2 DC), Increase area by (Y times 100)% (+(4 times Y) DC), Increase range by (X times 100)% (+(2 times X) DC), Increase Damage to (10+W)d6 (+(2 times W) DC), Increase damage dice four steps (+40 DC). Mitigating factors: 20d6 backlash (-20 DC), Burn (Z times 100) XP (-Z DC). <br />
<br />
Epic Fireball is a massive ball of fire that detonates with a mass of flames. It deals (10+W)d20 (which is 105+(10.5 times W)) points of fire damage. Unattended objects also take this damage. The spell can barely be controlled and the caster takes 20d6 points of damage as it is released (in addition to burning (Z times 100) XP). <br />
<br />
notes: the reduction in casting time is necessary for it to be useful in ongoing combat. of course, if one feels one will have the minute to cast it effectively, one can forego the +20 added to casting time. <br />
<br />
increasing the damage die by one step adds one effective hp of damage per die except for the last step which adds 4. adding a die adds 3.5 or 4.5 or 5.5 or 6.5 whenever the die is d6,d8,d10,d12 respectively. so there is a question of balance between adding a die of damage and increasing the die of damage by one step. the calculations are atraightforward and in the particular case of going for maximum increase in die damage (4 steps) then it is worth it always.<br />
<br />
you can clearly play with other factors to change the spellcraft DC. IMO, this template should be used either against a small number of area concentrated tough enemies (maximize damage and minimize area) or against a large number of not so tough enemies spread along a large area (minimize damage and maximize area). if i want to kill just one superstrong guy, i would use the destroy seed and maximize the damage die to d20 and then maximize the number of damage dies.<br />
<br />
this is of course an awkward and unclear way to state things. variables are bad for understanding. still, some attempt should be made.<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Why_arent_there_%22optimized%22_epic_spells%3F&diff=231193Discussion:Why arent there "optimized" epic spells?2008-02-22T01:36:04Z<p>84.108.164.233: New page: == <!-- Insert your questions title here --> == === ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> === i saw some examples of epic spells in the epic handbook and some homebrew epic spells ...</p>
<hr />
<div>== <!-- Insert your questions title here --> == <br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:36, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
i saw some examples of epic spells in the epic handbook and some homebrew epic spells are given. still, one would expect some optimizations like in character builds. how to use a seed (or seeds) to best effects. what combinations work well. alternatives and such. these optimizations should have variable spellcraft rather than fixed ones. i mean, it is only natural since as you progress, your spellcraft check progresses and one would obviously wanna improve earlier epic spells or develope new ones that are on the very cusp of his spellcraft check which make for more powerful spells. as an example, here is my (limited) version of an epic fireball (which is clearly drawn from http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Epic_Fireball_%28DnD_Epic_Spell%29).<br />
<br />
epic fireball<br />
spellcraft DC: 61+(4 times Y)+(2 times X)+(2 times W)-Z<br />
evocation[fire]<br />
components: V,S, XP<br />
casting time: one standard action<br />
range: 300 times X (X is a variable)<br />
area: 20 ft times Y radius ball<br />
duration: instantaneous<br />
saving throw: reflex half<br />
spell resistance:yes<br />
to develope: Seed: Energy (DC 19). Factors: 1-action casting time (+20 DC), Change area from bolt to ball (+2 DC), Increase area by (Y times 100)% (+(4 times Y) DC), Increase range by (X times 100)% (+(2 times X) DC), Increase Damage to (10+W)d6 (+(2 times W) DC), Increase damage dice four steps (+40 DC). Mitigating factors: 20d6 backlash (-20 DC), Burn (Z times 100) XP (-Z DC). <br />
<br />
Epic Fireball is a massive ball of fire that detonates with a mass of flames. It deals (10+W)d20 (which is 105+(10.5 times W)) points of fire damage. Unattended objects also take this damage. The spell can barely be controlled and the caster takes 20d6 points of damage as it is released (in addition to burning (Z times 100) XP). <br />
<br />
notes: the reduction in casting time is necessary for it to be useful in ongoing combat. of course, if one feels one will have the minute to cast it effectively, one can forego the +20 added to casting time. <br />
<br />
increasing the damage die by one step adds one effective hp of damage per die except for the last step which adds 4. adding a die adds 3.5 or 4.5 or 5.5 or 6.5 whenever the die is d6,d8,d10,d12 respectively. so there is a question of balance between adding a die of damage and increasing the die of damage by one step. the calculations are atraightforward and in the particular case of going for maximum increase in die damage (4 steps) then it is worth it always.<br />
<br />
you can clearly play with other factors to change the spellcraft DC. IMO, this template should be used either against a small number of area concentrated tough enemies (maximize damage and minimize area) or against a large number of not so tough enemies spread along a large area (minimize damage and maximize area). if i want to kill just one superstrong guy, i would use the destroy seed and maximize the damage die to d20 and then maximize the number of damage dies.<br />
<br />
this is of course an awkward and unclear way to state things. variables are bad for understanding. still, some attempt should be made.<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=230890Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-21T13:16:02Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Special:Contributions/84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
# swift and immediate actions. i get one swift action per round with no cost. what if i want to use another swift action or two? or another immediate action or two? can i "pay" a move action for one or two swift or immediate actions? is there a formal or informal exchange rate? it can be very beneficial to be able to counter more than once. or change stances more than once per round.<br />
# how does 'strike of perfect clarity' interact with critical hits? is the +100 to damage doubled or is it added after you double the regular damage?<br />
# if i am asking too much, do tell. while using 'sudden leap', one incurs AoO unless one succeeds a tumble check. does tumbling while using a sudden leap reduce the distance jumped as tumbling during normal movement does?<br />
# the setting sun throw maneuvers require a (succesful touch attack and a) trip attempt. does this mean these maneuvers cannot be used on larger than large creatures (assuming one is medium sized and according to trip rules)? if so, it is quite restrictive especially for a discipline which boasts dealing well with giants (as in the story of eventide's edge).<br />
#: how does one resolve throwing someone 10 feet or more away and then attacking him? he is out of reach! i suppose you could rule that the subsequent attack is possible only if you throw him where you can reach him with a melee weapon. but would you allow a reach weapon capable of tripping to be used in the throw? what is a throw? is it something you do unarmed (like tripping though there are weapons which can trip)? can you use trip weapons for this attack? reach trip weapons? if unarmed is necessary, is one hand enough? can i hold a weapon (even a reach weapon) in the other hand? <br />
#:: actually, i just read in the discussion thread somewehere that the improved trip feat allows you an attack only if the original action was an attack. since the original action is not an attack but is a throw, or a trip, you get a trip which is irrelevent.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
# There's no simple "yes" or "no" to that question. It depends on the feat and the maneuver in question. Concerning [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]] and emerald razor, the only move action that can be done with spring attack is [[SRD:Move Actions#Move|move]] and the only standard action that can be done is an [[SRD:Standard Actions#Attack|attack action]] with a melee weapon. Emerald razor is a standard action, but even though you make an attack as part of the maneuver, it is not an attack action, so it can't be performed with [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]]. Pretty much the only maneuvers that can be done with Spring Attack are the ones that have a swift or an immediate action as their initiation action. Mixing maneuvers all depends on what kind of action each requires. In a single round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift (or immediate) action, or instead of a standard and move action, you can perform a full-round action. So you could use shadow jaunt (standard), shadow stride (move), and shadow blink (swift) all in the same round. If you have the shadow pounce ability, you'll get three full-round attacks in one round.<br />
# As the rules are written, no, but I'd allow an exchange of a move or standard action to perform a swift action (maybe even an immediate action). Especially since the rules allow one to perform another move action in place of a standard action.<br />
# Page 43, "You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit. You treat it just as you would extra damage from another special ability, such as sneak attack."<br />
# Not entirely sure on this one. As best as I can tell, it follows the normal rules of movement, so yes, you halve the result of the Jump check (round down to the nearest 5-foot increment). At least that's how I'd handle it.<br />
# I can't find anything that makes setting sun maneuvers an exception to that rule. Within the SRD storm giants and cloud giants are the only giants that are larger than Large, so that claim could still hold true with stone giants, ettins, trolls, ogres, etc... Another interpretation is that these are throws not trips, so they're only subject to the limitations of the trip attempt check. However, the [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080124a FAQ] implies that they are trips, so you get the benefit of Improved Trip with every throw (another +4 and and an extra attack with a successful throw).<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:30, 19 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
(In regard to 9) - Do you know if a Duskblade's spell channeling is a standard action or a full round action? Because that would be a lot of damage for low levels with a houserule like that Sledged. Blade of Blood, Blade of Blood, Greatsword, Shocking grasp -- 13d6 + 1.5x str damage? I'd also get a spellstoring weapon and store shocking grasp for an extra 5d6 :P. Even at level 1 - Blade of Blood x2 + greatsword = 7d6 damage (though 10 to you will be very poor at this level).<br />
<br />
Note that Quickened spells and powers do not work with this because you can only cast 1 of them a round (until epic feats).<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080219115121</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 19 11:51 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Arcane channeling is a standard action, unless you do it as part of a full-attack action, then it's a [[SRD:Action Types#Not an Action|not an action]].<br />
<br />
Casting ''blade of blood'' twice on the same weapon won't be any different than casting it once. See [[SRD:Casting Spells#Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths|Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths]]. The same goes for multiple ''[[SRD:Shocking Grasp|shocking grasp]]'' effects.<br />
<br />
In one of the various books, I think they updated Quicken Spell so that it's now a swift action.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:How_does_one_craft_his_own_spells%3F&diff=230889Discussion:How does one craft his own spells?2008-02-21T13:11:30Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* How does one craft his own spells? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== How does one craft his own spells? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>23:23, 26 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I have seen it mentioned many places that one can do 'independent research' to form your own spells. I know of epic spells but this seems to suggest one can produce non-epic spells. Yet no matter where I look I cannot find it.<br />
<br />
Where is such information, how does it work? I've a great many >10 spells to make. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Mkill|Mkill]]&nbsp;<small><small>04:20, 27 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Do you mean writing spells as a player / DM or letting a wizard character research spells? <br />
<br />
For the second case, I don't know whether there are rules for this is the DMG or DMG II, if not, the DM should just set a number of spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana / religion) checks, one per week of research. Each week research should also require a certain amount of gp. After a certain number of successful checks at a certain DC, the spell is researched.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>13:58, 27 July 2007</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I mean the first though the second is related. Say my character has interest in crafting a spell which creates artificial limbs (none which I know of exist), and of course do this in game to have the excuse of knowing it.<br />
<br />
That said, any idea how I should judge the DC for making these spells? I've only been geusstimating crudely.... like a cantrip would be DC 5, if anything, while a level 9 spell is much higher... but what?<br />
<br />
I'd say level 9 = DC 90 but that's too high, you're well into epic by the time you get DC 9. The other thing is doing by grades of 5... which still puts it at DC 50. Any suggestions?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Rakankou|Rakankou]]&nbsp;<small><small>15:10, 27 July 2007</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
The v3.5 DMG covers this on page 198. In a nutshell, the player first writes the entire spell (preferably with the cooperation of the DM). Then the character spends a certain number of weeks researching the spell (with the appropriate resources), at the end of which he makes a single Spellcraft check (DC 10 + spell level) to learn the spell. If the check is successful and the DM allows the spell, the character learns the spell.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Mkill|Mkill]]&nbsp;<small><small>19:47, 27 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Eiji, once you have written your spells don't forget to post them here!<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:39, 28 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Thanks for all the help.<br />
<br />
The DM seems to like it. It will be a bit of a while before it is actually crafted in game but I've put it up for review. I hope the spell level is correct. You can find it at [[Dopple Arms (DnD Spell)|Dopple Arms]].<br />
<br />
We've homebrewed up a sort of golem-making spell to grant him artificial limbs (different as it is far weaker and far safer than trying to turn out armless fighter into a half golem). I wonder where I would put that idea? I used animated object and geas/quest to make a spirit-free moving arm able to be controlled, and put in special rules on how dispelling was a danger (disabling your arms for a few rounds) and disjunction destroying them. However, no fear of Will saves.<br />
<br />
That, and I've changed the stat adjustments accordingly, with basic plain metal arms giving -2 Dex and no bonuses. Arms that also contain Bull's Strength and fine crafting (masterwork) give +2 Str and -2 Dex. And I'll figure out something for special materials. In our campaign mithril is hard to come by, so the justification that mithril limbs, being lighter, lack the -2 Dex, but this may not work so well in more mithril-rich worlds.<br />
<br />
Oh yeah, even though we're using these ad hoc animated arms, I'm still crafting this spell out of the sheer usefulness of it all. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>06:11, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
cant you use 'tome and blood' chapter 5 (spells), researching new spells? page 81. they have a rather expansive explanation of how to research a new spell, how to limit its power, what level it should be. the book is from 2001 but still, it seems appropriate even now. gives benchmark spells and stuff like that.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Does_Mithral_Armor_actually_change_the_armor_type%3F&diff=230888Discussion:Does Mithral Armor actually change the armor type?2008-02-21T13:10:59Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* Does Mithral Armor change the armor type */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Does Mithral Armor change the armor type == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:42, 23 May 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
From the SRD:<br />
<br />
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other <br />
limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light <br />
armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are <br />
decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by <br />
3 (to a minimum of 0).<br />
<br />
Does this mean that a ranger does not lose the use of combat styles in Mithral breastplate? Is that considered an "other limitation", or is that something different since it is a requirement?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20070606131144</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2007 May 24 10:53 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
From the [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a FAQ]:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><p>'''Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate? What about a character proficient with medium armor, such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with mithral full plate armor?'''</p><br />
<br />
<p>The description of mithral on page 284 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is less precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor proficiency rules. The simplest answer—and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use—is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the Dungeon Master’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a number of precedents, including the descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks).</p><br />
<br />
<p>Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).</p><br />
<br />
<p>The same would be true of any other special material that uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf, on page 120 of the EBERRON Campaign Setting).</p></blockquote><br />
<br />
I've seen this question before, and in almost any forum, you'll get an equal number of "yes"s and "no"s. The real problem is that they're both right. I prefer to keep it simple and just consider it light armor for all purposes, but I wouldn't protest if a DM ruled otherwise.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]&nbsp;<small><small>14:40, 24 May 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Mithral has sucktacular wording. <br />
<br />
The mithral definition allows armor to be lightened for limited purposes. As far as I can tell, the FAQ interpretation has mithral lighten armor in all ways, no limitations. The chain shirt matches this more expansive interpretation. <br />
<br />
I come down on the "no" side. For the proficiency trade-off to mean something, there must be an actual tradeoff. As it stands right now, there is no trade-off.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>06:08, 25 May 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Thanks! That answers it for me. I'm going to rule on the "no" side as well. I agree that trade-offs should actually be trade-offs.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20070606131144</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2007 May 25 12:33 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Just want to point out that there is already a trade-off: the cost. It's like the trade-off for having a masterwork item versus its normal counterpart. The question is that whether or not you think it's a significant trade-off.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:54, 5 June 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
True. It is just such a weak trade off. Perhaps I will make a small custom rule for mithral that makes it cost an armor enhancement bonus per type category the armor was before (+1 light, +2 medium, +3 heavy). This mainly has to do with potential duskblade abuse...<br />
<br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>06:10, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
btw, does a mithral breastplate have an armor check penalty? breastplate has armor check penalty three, mithral reduces it by two, and mithral is also always masterwork which is supposed to give another reduction by one. then again, does the mithral reduction include masterwork reduction?<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:What_is_the_hp_of,_oooh,_a_mountain%3F&diff=230887Discussion:What is the hp of, oooh, a mountain?2008-02-21T13:10:22Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* How much hp would an average mountain have? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== How much hp would an average mountain have? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:35, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
For the purpose of showing off the ridiculous power of a plot device, I was going to have it destroy a mountain, and for effect, come with dice rolls en masse. But how much hp would a mountain have anyway? What is the break DC?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:34, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Well that all depends on the size of the mountain, both in height and width. How big are you thinking? Smallest possible? Everest? Olympus mons?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>13:09, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
According to the DMG, "unworked stone" (i.e. the stuff a mountain would be made of) has a Break DC of 65, Hardness of 8, and 900 hp per 10ft by 10ft section. So, how big is your mountain? <br />
<br />
Lets say you have one that is 1500 meters tall (from the ground, not sea level), and 1000 by 1000 metres on it's base. The profile is an isoscelese triangle. The area of a cone (which is simular to a mountain) is (πr<sup>2</sup>h)/3.<br />
<br />
First, we need to convert meters to feet. 4921 ft tall, 3280 ft wide. R=1640. πx1640<sup>2</sup>x4921= 4.158061742x10<sup>10</sup>. 4.158061742x10<sup>10</sup>/3= 1.386020581x10<sup>10</sup>. 1.386020581x10<sup>10</sup>/10 (to get the number of 10 ft<sup>3</sup>) =1386020581. 1386020581x900 (to get the approximate number of Hp for the mountain) is 1.247418523x10<sup>12</sup>. Converted from standard form, that is 1000000000000x1.247418523= 1247418523000 Hp.<br />
<br />
<big><big><big><big>1247418523000 Hp.</big></big></big></big><br />
<br />
That means that you have to deal 1247418523000+(8xnumber of attacks used to destroy a mountain)= 1247418523008 for a single blow (which I assume is the point).<br />
<br />
<big><big><big><big>1247418523008</big></big></big></big><br />
<br />
That is one mean creature...<br />
<br />
Although this is all in approximations.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>21:31, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Sweeeeeet jesus!<br />
<br />
Sound good to me. I'll round it off to 1,200,000,000,000 and proceed from there. You guys are a great help! ''':D'''<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>08:26, 12 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Although that is a mountain that is 1500 meters tallm and 1000 by 1000 meters base.<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
<br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>06:10, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
actually, unworked stone has 900hp per 5x10x10 http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Epic_Obstacles which means 1800hp per 10 feet cubed. 10 feet cubed is roughly 3.1 meters cubed or roughly 30 cubic meters. this means that one cubic meter has 1800/30=60hp. the volume of a 1000 meters high mountain with a cone shape is (height times area of base)/3. height is 1000. area of base is pi times 500 squared which is roughly 785,000 hence the volume of the mountain is 261,666,666 cubic meters. say 260,000,000 cubic meters. hence the hp of the mountain is 15,600,000,000. say for simplicity sake 15,000,000,000 hp. this result has 2 less digits then the one quoted above and is "only" 15 billion hp. now, that would take roughly 430,000,000 fireballs (more if caster is less than 10th level). more actually since i did not take into account hardness. does hardness count? anyway, at, say, 100 spells a day that will take, oh, 4,300,000 days or 11,780 years. it would take even more using magic missile! or 'mage hand' to remove the dirt by "hand". dammit! just dig! you lazy bastard!<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Required_reading&diff=230886Discussion:Required reading2008-02-21T13:08:33Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* What is the best DnD literature of all time? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== What is the best DnD literature of all time? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sir Milo Teabag|Sir Milo Teabag]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:57, 30 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I am refering here not to things published by Wizards of the Coast (although those are included). I here refer to anything that stimulates the imagination of the DM, or maybe makes him laugh, or adds spice to his campaign in any way. Anything that every player should have on their bookshelf. If you wish, put a reason as well. <br />
<br />
# Lord of the Rings (hard to argue with this)<br />
# Beowulf ('''the BOOK! Not the movie!''')<br />
# Order of the Stick (it's just funny)<br />
# ECS<br />
<br />
Please Continue this. <br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:DeadChainer|Chainer]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:05, 30 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I'd add The Wheel Of Time by Robert Jordan and The Drizzt Do'Urden saga by RA Salvatore. Robert Jordan's books tell stories like they should be told. A perfectly balanced medly of action, drama, comedy and suspense. RA Salvatore mixes loads of action with philosophy. Both authors write stories of epic proportions with fasinating characters any reader can fall in love with. Any good DM has to be a good story teller and be able to make what he creates real and interesting to his players.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:44, 30 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# Raymond E Feists Riftwar Saga (Specifically the first two books)<br />
# Terry Brooks Shannara Series<br />
# Anne McCaffrey Dragonriders of Pern<br />
# Raymond E Feist Fairie Tale<br />
# Christopher Moore Lamb<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>02:07, 31 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# The lord of the rings. My favourate book.<br />
# The Hobbit.<br />
# The Earthsea Quartet (A Wizard of Earthsea).<br />
# Age of the Five by Trudi Canavan.<br />
# The Magician's Guild by Trudi Canavan.<br />
# The Old Kingdom Series (Sabriel, Lirael and Abhorsen) by Garth Nix.<br />
# The Edge Chronicles, Paul Stuart and Chriss Riddel.<br />
<br />
Yes, read the Wheel of Time, but don't believe what it says on the cover, and watch out for the books in which nothing happens. They get abit boring.<br />
<br />
;Not for the faint of heart<br />
<br />
Many of these books are almost impossible for people to understand and should only be read by those of great reading skill.<br />
<br />
# The Silmarillion.<br />
# Unfinnished Tales.<br />
# The History of Middle Earth.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Wackymynd|Wackymynd]]&nbsp;<small><small>15:05, 31 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
''The Merlin Conspiracy'' and ''The Game'', both by Diana Wynne Jones, have inspirational parts, but they still wouldn't rank very high. These probably aren't the only good ones she's written, though. Diana Wynne Jones is my favorite author!<br />
<br />
=== [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:53, 31 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
''The Deathgate Cycle'' by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman is a must have. Excellent fantasy reading with a good mix of serious themes and a lighthearted nature.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Pwsnafu|Pwsnafu]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:43, 1 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Apart from what's up there (I second ''Deathgate'' though)<br />
<br />
# Discworld series. <br />
# Hitchhiker series. More sci-fi, but has inspiration for unique magic items.<br />
# ''Witches of Eileanan'' series by Kate Forsyth. I highly push this.<br />
# ''A Song of Ice and Fire'' series. Focus on politics and character rather than high magic.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:DeadChainer|Chainer]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:08, 2 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Lol, Yes some Wheel of Time books seem more to do about people talking and nothing happening but the series as a whole is well constructed. I've not read the Deathgate cycle but I shall. I hope its not like all the other books she has written. I always feel like I am reading a poorly runned D&D game instead of a story with plots, climax, resolution, etc.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Cronocke|Cronocke]]&nbsp;<small><small>21:54, 7 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
It's a shame this is limited to books, as I might recommend some anime series. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_of_Lodoss_War Record of Lodoss War] paints a somewhat generic story, but tells it as well as any TV series would. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayers Slayers] merrily lampoons both D&D and anime stereotypes, with a swordsman as dumb as a brick as a major character. Lastly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_Explorers Ruin Explorers], which shows an alternative way to string a party together - separate groups, or individuals, who meet up again and again in different places, until banding together not out of friendship - they hate each other - but out of a common goal.<br />
<br />
As far as books, hm. I've heard the Redwall series is good, but never took the time to read much of it. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned, though. It may not be very magical, and the stories may get slightly repetitive eventually, but the series returns several times to the many generations who use a legendary, powerful sword forged of "meteorite metal"...<br />
<br />
=== [[User:123098zxcmnb|123098zxcmnb]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:45, 10 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien: LOTR is really the base for dnd. They are also an excellent series.<br />
# The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien: Prequel to LOTR<br />
# Earthsea Trilogy, by Ursula K. Le Guin: Series about a wizard Ged. Very well written. Earthsea could even be used as a campaign setting.<br />
# The Lost Years of Merlin, by T.A. Barron: Series about merlin. Provides some interesting races usable in dnd.<br />
# The Tree of Avalon, by T.A. Barron: Again, provides interesting races, like the half eagle and fire people (I forgot their name).<br />
# Redwall, by Brian Jacques: Good series, around a world where good and evil rodents fight endless wars. They get a bit repetitive but they are quite good. Has unique magic items. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Flession|Flession]]&nbsp;<small><small>01:07, 12 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
First off, if someone can actually tell me how to post in the format you all are using, I would greatly appreciate it.<br />
<br />
Second off. I have one thing to contribute to this that has not already been added: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonriders_of_Pern Dragonriders of Pern] It's loosely where I got my screen name from, as well as the fact that if you enjoy dragons, you'll enjoy this...although I can't wait to see people implement the rules they follow for mating :D<br />
<br />
Yes, Dragonriders of Pern is really good. Anne McCaffrey's other series, which does not seem to have a name but includes books like ''To Ride Pegasus'' that would be great for a psionics campaign.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sir Milo Teabag|Sir Milo Teabag]] <small><small>09:28, 12 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
All this looks good... I now am beginning to consider Song of Roland for this list. Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080112050130</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 January 12 05:01 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
{{disquot|quote=First off, if someone can actually tell me how to post in the format you all are using, I would greatly appreciate it.|user=[[User:Flession|Flession]]}}<br />
In the "edit" view of this page, there are three lines that read:<br />
<br />
<nowiki><!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===</nowiki><br />
<br />
Copy the line that starts with <code>===</code> then paste it above the first comment line.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Flession|Flession]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:19, 12 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Many thanks.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Kelly|Kelly]]&nbsp;<small><small>09:16, 17 January 2008</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I'm afraid to say that aside from Tolkien, I think a lot of the stuff brought up here so far is pretty derivative and uninteresting, especially Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan. And I love the Earthsea books, but they really are much more about philosophy and personal growth than the action-adventure that makes a DnD game. Here are some books that inspired Gygax and the other early game designers that created our hobby:<br />
<br />
The ''Swords'' series by Fritz Lieber, seven books chronicling the adventures of barbarian warrior Fafhrd and the swordsman-thief The Gray Mouser. Brilliantly written stuff by one of the absolute masters of the genre.<br />
<br />
The ''Eternal Champion'' books by Michael Moorcock, especially the ''Elric'' series. Elric is the original heroic fantasy antihero, the sorcerer ex-emperor of the amoral not-quite human Melniboneans, an albino who needs either drugs or his demon-sword Stormbringer to give him the strength to survive.<br />
<br />
Jack Vance's ''Dying Earth'' books. Wonderful stories, and Vance's system of magic is the basis for DnD's. Also, Vance's character Cugel the Clever is one of the templates (along with the Gray Mouser) for the rogue character class.<br />
<br />
All of the works of Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E. Howard, especially Smith's ''Hyperborea'' and Howard's ''Conan'' books.<br />
<br />
''Jirel of Joiry'' by C.L. Moore. Sadly not nearly as well known as the above works, Jirel is a warrior woman of medieval France, ruler of castle Joiry. Jirel is one of if not the first female sword-and-sorcery protagonist, created by Catherine Lucille Moore in the unenlightened 1930's, which is why she chose to hide her gender behind her initials.<br />
<br />
Pretty much all the fantasy works of Poul Anderson, but especially ''The Broken Sword'' and ''Three Hearts and Three Lions''. Anderson knew his Nordic, Celtic, and general medieval mythology and folklore inside and out, backwards forwards and sideways, and created amazing works from it. An interesting bit of trivia: the encounter with a troll "Three Hearts and Three Lions" was the direct inspiration for the DnD version of that monster.<br />
<br />
"The Worm Ouroborous" by E.R. Eddison, another early classic of high-fantasy heroic adventure. Written in poetic, almost Elizabethan style - if Shakespeare had written sword and sorcery, it would be this. Difficult for the modern reader, but worth it.<br />
<br />
One very important note: in most of the above works, the characters are '''adventurers'''. They go out looking for treasure and adventure (or particular magical knowledge, in Elric's case), find and fight strange creatures, blow their money, and do it again, as opposed to the stories of Tolkien and his many imitators, where the entire story revolves around a single quest to save the world. They are the OPC's -Original Player Characters.<br />
<br />
Also very important, if for their influence if not specific stories that translate to DnD - Lord Dunsany, H.P. Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgeson, George Macdonald, Mervyn Peake, Robert Holdstock, Tanith lee's ''Lords of Darkness'' series, Roger Zelazny, and early Ray Bradbury.<br />
<br />
As far as current writers go, China Mieville wins hands down as far as 'inspiration for gamers' goes. His books centered around the city of New Crobazoan (''Perdido Street Station, The Scar, and The Iron Council'') are incredible, and would make an awesome fantasy/steampunk game setting.<br />
<br />
Oh, and lastly, Cervates ''Don Quixote'' must be mentioned. The woeful knight is really the first role-playing gamer, in a way (okay, he's a LARPer, it's true), determined to live out his fantasies in a mundane and unromantic world.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>09:27, 17 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
If you don't like derivative things, then Dungeons and Dragons is not for you. Much of the game is construted upon ideas from other sources such as mythologies and books like ''The Lord of the Rings'' (even if the creators refuse to admit it). The fact is, the human mind is influenced by the things we see and read. A book can never be 100% origional. <br />
<br />
I do admit that some attempt at origionality must me made for a book to be good. But at the same time, remaining true to the origionals is important. I like to see Tolkien's elves elseware (so long as the author hasn't ruined them), but I also like to see new ideas like, say, the bells of the necromancer in ''Sabriel'', ''Lirael'' and ''Abhorsen''.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:14, 17 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# WATCH some Shakespeare. (Shakespeare isn't for reading.) <br />
# Oz series by Frank Baum. <br />
# Mark Twain<br />
# Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)<br />
<br />
From these books, you garnish less about fantasy and more about character and situation. Especially, how personality is expressed in words and behavior. And that, my friends, is the core of Role-Playing.<br />
<br />
You may not think that Oz has anything to do with today's fantasy, but you'd be wrong. Oz was the first wildly successful fantasy series. Think "Harry Potter in 1910". They're a good bit of fun, too. As D&D has always had its whimsical side, this is great fodder to feed that part of the game.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Silver Dragon|Silver Dragon]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:27, 27 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I would really like to recommend Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. His works may seem bland at first, but as you get to know the characters better it gets really good. In the eighth, ninth, and the first half of the tenth, especially, it's really boring. In the eleventh, however... lets just say words can't describe it... except Robert Jordan's words... I really recommend this book.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]&nbsp;<small><small>13:07, 27 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Some other series I would recommend are the Belgariad and Malorian series by David Eddings. Although I have not read them for a number of years, I remember them as captivating and, overall, just fun. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>06:08, 21 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
how can you ppl mention drizzt and not dragonlance?! regardless, i would recommend the elric saga by moorcock. excellent dark fantasy. in fact a few more by moorcock which shall remain unnamed. goodkind's sword of truth series is very good. for those with the patience for it, the chronicles of thomas covenant by donaldson.<br />
<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Required_reading&diff=230885Discussion:Required reading2008-02-21T13:07:13Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* What is the best DnD literature of all time? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== What is the best DnD literature of all time? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sir Milo Teabag|Sir Milo Teabag]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:57, 30 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I am refering here not to things published by Wizards of the Coast (although those are included). I here refer to anything that stimulates the imagination of the DM, or maybe makes him laugh, or adds spice to his campaign in any way. Anything that every player should have on their bookshelf. If you wish, put a reason as well. <br />
<br />
# Lord of the Rings (hard to argue with this)<br />
# Beowulf ('''the BOOK! Not the movie!''')<br />
# Order of the Stick (it's just funny)<br />
# ECS<br />
<br />
Please Continue this. <br />
Thank you.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:DeadChainer|Chainer]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:05, 30 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I'd add The Wheel Of Time by Robert Jordan and The Drizzt Do'Urden saga by RA Salvatore. Robert Jordan's books tell stories like they should be told. A perfectly balanced medly of action, drama, comedy and suspense. RA Salvatore mixes loads of action with philosophy. Both authors write stories of epic proportions with fasinating characters any reader can fall in love with. Any good DM has to be a good story teller and be able to make what he creates real and interesting to his players.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:44, 30 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# Raymond E Feists Riftwar Saga (Specifically the first two books)<br />
# Terry Brooks Shannara Series<br />
# Anne McCaffrey Dragonriders of Pern<br />
# Raymond E Feist Fairie Tale<br />
# Christopher Moore Lamb<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>02:07, 31 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# The lord of the rings. My favourate book.<br />
# The Hobbit.<br />
# The Earthsea Quartet (A Wizard of Earthsea).<br />
# Age of the Five by Trudi Canavan.<br />
# The Magician's Guild by Trudi Canavan.<br />
# The Old Kingdom Series (Sabriel, Lirael and Abhorsen) by Garth Nix.<br />
# The Edge Chronicles, Paul Stuart and Chriss Riddel.<br />
<br />
Yes, read the Wheel of Time, but don't believe what it says on the cover, and watch out for the books in which nothing happens. They get abit boring.<br />
<br />
;Not for the faint of heart<br />
<br />
Many of these books are almost impossible for people to understand and should only be read by those of great reading skill.<br />
<br />
# The Silmarillion.<br />
# Unfinnished Tales.<br />
# The History of Middle Earth.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Wackymynd|Wackymynd]]&nbsp;<small><small>15:05, 31 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
''The Merlin Conspiracy'' and ''The Game'', both by Diana Wynne Jones, have inspirational parts, but they still wouldn't rank very high. These probably aren't the only good ones she's written, though. Diana Wynne Jones is my favorite author!<br />
<br />
=== [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]]&nbsp;<small><small>16:53, 31 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
''The Deathgate Cycle'' by Margaret Weis and Tracy Hickman is a must have. Excellent fantasy reading with a good mix of serious themes and a lighthearted nature.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Pwsnafu|Pwsnafu]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:43, 1 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Apart from what's up there (I second ''Deathgate'' though)<br />
<br />
# Discworld series. <br />
# Hitchhiker series. More sci-fi, but has inspiration for unique magic items.<br />
# ''Witches of Eileanan'' series by Kate Forsyth. I highly push this.<br />
# ''A Song of Ice and Fire'' series. Focus on politics and character rather than high magic.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:DeadChainer|Chainer]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:08, 2 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Lol, Yes some Wheel of Time books seem more to do about people talking and nothing happening but the series as a whole is well constructed. I've not read the Deathgate cycle but I shall. I hope its not like all the other books she has written. I always feel like I am reading a poorly runned D&D game instead of a story with plots, climax, resolution, etc.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Cronocke|Cronocke]]&nbsp;<small><small>21:54, 7 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
It's a shame this is limited to books, as I might recommend some anime series. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Record_of_Lodoss_War Record of Lodoss War] paints a somewhat generic story, but tells it as well as any TV series would. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slayers Slayers] merrily lampoons both D&D and anime stereotypes, with a swordsman as dumb as a brick as a major character. Lastly, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruin_Explorers Ruin Explorers], which shows an alternative way to string a party together - separate groups, or individuals, who meet up again and again in different places, until banding together not out of friendship - they hate each other - but out of a common goal.<br />
<br />
As far as books, hm. I've heard the Redwall series is good, but never took the time to read much of it. I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned, though. It may not be very magical, and the stories may get slightly repetitive eventually, but the series returns several times to the many generations who use a legendary, powerful sword forged of "meteorite metal"...<br />
<br />
=== [[User:123098zxcmnb|123098zxcmnb]]&nbsp;<small><small>18:45, 10 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# The Lord of the Rings, by J.R.R. Tolkien: LOTR is really the base for dnd. They are also an excellent series.<br />
# The Hobbit, by J.R.R. Tolkien: Prequel to LOTR<br />
# Earthsea Trilogy, by Ursula K. Le Guin: Series about a wizard Ged. Very well written. Earthsea could even be used as a campaign setting.<br />
# The Lost Years of Merlin, by T.A. Barron: Series about merlin. Provides some interesting races usable in dnd.<br />
# The Tree of Avalon, by T.A. Barron: Again, provides interesting races, like the half eagle and fire people (I forgot their name).<br />
# Redwall, by Brian Jacques: Good series, around a world where good and evil rodents fight endless wars. They get a bit repetitive but they are quite good. Has unique magic items. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Flession|Flession]]&nbsp;<small><small>01:07, 12 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
First off, if someone can actually tell me how to post in the format you all are using, I would greatly appreciate it.<br />
<br />
Second off. I have one thing to contribute to this that has not already been added: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dragonriders_of_Pern Dragonriders of Pern] It's loosely where I got my screen name from, as well as the fact that if you enjoy dragons, you'll enjoy this...although I can't wait to see people implement the rules they follow for mating :D<br />
<br />
Yes, Dragonriders of Pern is really good. Anne McCaffrey's other series, which does not seem to have a name but includes books like ''To Ride Pegasus'' that would be great for a psionics campaign.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sir Milo Teabag|Sir Milo Teabag]] <small><small>09:28, 12 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
All this looks good... I now am beginning to consider Song of Roland for this list. Also Sir Gawain and the Green Knight.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080112050130</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 January 12 05:01 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
{{disquot|quote=First off, if someone can actually tell me how to post in the format you all are using, I would greatly appreciate it.|user=[[User:Flession|Flession]]}}<br />
In the "edit" view of this page, there are three lines that read:<br />
<br />
<nowiki><!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===</nowiki><br />
<br />
Copy the line that starts with <code>===</code> then paste it above the first comment line.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Flession|Flession]]&nbsp;<small><small>22:19, 12 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Many thanks.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Kelly|Kelly]]&nbsp;<small><small>09:16, 17 January 2008</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I'm afraid to say that aside from Tolkien, I think a lot of the stuff brought up here so far is pretty derivative and uninteresting, especially Terry Brooks and Robert Jordan. And I love the Earthsea books, but they really are much more about philosophy and personal growth than the action-adventure that makes a DnD game. Here are some books that inspired Gygax and the other early game designers that created our hobby:<br />
<br />
The ''Swords'' series by Fritz Lieber, seven books chronicling the adventures of barbarian warrior Fafhrd and the swordsman-thief The Gray Mouser. Brilliantly written stuff by one of the absolute masters of the genre.<br />
<br />
The ''Eternal Champion'' books by Michael Moorcock, especially the ''Elric'' series. Elric is the original heroic fantasy antihero, the sorcerer ex-emperor of the amoral not-quite human Melniboneans, an albino who needs either drugs or his demon-sword Stormbringer to give him the strength to survive.<br />
<br />
Jack Vance's ''Dying Earth'' books. Wonderful stories, and Vance's system of magic is the basis for DnD's. Also, Vance's character Cugel the Clever is one of the templates (along with the Gray Mouser) for the rogue character class.<br />
<br />
All of the works of Clark Ashton Smith and Robert E. Howard, especially Smith's ''Hyperborea'' and Howard's ''Conan'' books.<br />
<br />
''Jirel of Joiry'' by C.L. Moore. Sadly not nearly as well known as the above works, Jirel is a warrior woman of medieval France, ruler of castle Joiry. Jirel is one of if not the first female sword-and-sorcery protagonist, created by Catherine Lucille Moore in the unenlightened 1930's, which is why she chose to hide her gender behind her initials.<br />
<br />
Pretty much all the fantasy works of Poul Anderson, but especially ''The Broken Sword'' and ''Three Hearts and Three Lions''. Anderson knew his Nordic, Celtic, and general medieval mythology and folklore inside and out, backwards forwards and sideways, and created amazing works from it. An interesting bit of trivia: the encounter with a troll "Three Hearts and Three Lions" was the direct inspiration for the DnD version of that monster.<br />
<br />
"The Worm Ouroborous" by E.R. Eddison, another early classic of high-fantasy heroic adventure. Written in poetic, almost Elizabethan style - if Shakespeare had written sword and sorcery, it would be this. Difficult for the modern reader, but worth it.<br />
<br />
One very important note: in most of the above works, the characters are '''adventurers'''. They go out looking for treasure and adventure (or particular magical knowledge, in Elric's case), find and fight strange creatures, blow their money, and do it again, as opposed to the stories of Tolkien and his many imitators, where the entire story revolves around a single quest to save the world. They are the OPC's -Original Player Characters.<br />
<br />
Also very important, if for their influence if not specific stories that translate to DnD - Lord Dunsany, H.P. Lovecraft, William Hope Hodgeson, George Macdonald, Mervyn Peake, Robert Holdstock, Tanith lee's ''Lords of Darkness'' series, Roger Zelazny, and early Ray Bradbury.<br />
<br />
As far as current writers go, China Mieville wins hands down as far as 'inspiration for gamers' goes. His books centered around the city of New Crobazoan (''Perdido Street Station, The Scar, and The Iron Council'') are incredible, and would make an awesome fantasy/steampunk game setting.<br />
<br />
Oh, and lastly, Cervates ''Don Quixote'' must be mentioned. The woeful knight is really the first role-playing gamer, in a way (okay, he's a LARPer, it's true), determined to live out his fantasies in a mundane and unromantic world.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>09:27, 17 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
If you don't like derivative things, then Dungeons and Dragons is not for you. Much of the game is construted upon ideas from other sources such as mythologies and books like ''The Lord of the Rings'' (even if the creators refuse to admit it). The fact is, the human mind is influenced by the things we see and read. A book can never be 100% origional. <br />
<br />
I do admit that some attempt at origionality must me made for a book to be good. But at the same time, remaining true to the origionals is important. I like to see Tolkien's elves elseware (so long as the author hasn't ruined them), but I also like to see new ideas like, say, the bells of the necromancer in ''Sabriel'', ''Lirael'' and ''Abhorsen''.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:14, 17 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
# WATCH some Shakespeare. (Shakespeare isn't for reading.) <br />
# Oz series by Frank Baum. <br />
# Mark Twain<br />
# Sir Arthur Conan Doyle (Sherlock Holmes)<br />
<br />
From these books, you garnish less about fantasy and more about character and situation. Especially, how personality is expressed in words and behavior. And that, my friends, is the core of Role-Playing.<br />
<br />
You may not think that Oz has anything to do with today's fantasy, but you'd be wrong. Oz was the first wildly successful fantasy series. Think "Harry Potter in 1910". They're a good bit of fun, too. As D&D has always had its whimsical side, this is great fodder to feed that part of the game.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Silver Dragon|Silver Dragon]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:27, 27 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I would really like to recommend Robert Jordan's Wheel of Time. His works may seem bland at first, but as you get to know the characters better it gets really good. In the eighth, ninth, and the first half of the tenth, especially, it's really boring. In the eleventh, however... lets just say words can't describe it... except Robert Jordan's words... I really recommend this book.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]]&nbsp;<small><small>13:07, 27 January 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Some other series I would recommend are the Belgariad and Malorian series by David Eddings. Although I have not read them for a number of years, I remember them as captivating and, overall, just fun. <br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
how can you ppl mention drizzt and not dragonlance?! regardless, i would recommend the elric saga by moorcock. excellent dark fantasy. in fact a few more by moorcock which shall remain unnamed. goodkind's sword of truth series is very good. for those with the patience for it, the chronicles of thomas covenant by donaldson.<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:What_is_the_hp_of,_oooh,_a_mountain%3F&diff=230880Discussion:What is the hp of, oooh, a mountain?2008-02-21T12:50:03Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* How much hp would an average mountain have? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== How much hp would an average mountain have? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>11:35, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
For the purpose of showing off the ridiculous power of a plot device, I was going to have it destroy a mountain, and for effect, come with dice rolls en masse. But how much hp would a mountain have anyway? What is the break DC?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:34, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Well that all depends on the size of the mountain, both in height and width. How big are you thinking? Smallest possible? Everest? Olympus mons?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>13:09, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
According to the DMG, "unworked stone" (i.e. the stuff a mountain would be made of) has a Break DC of 65, Hardness of 8, and 900 hp per 10ft by 10ft section. So, how big is your mountain? <br />
<br />
Lets say you have one that is 1500 meters tall (from the ground, not sea level), and 1000 by 1000 metres on it's base. The profile is an isoscelese triangle. The area of a cone (which is simular to a mountain) is (πr<sup>2</sup>h)/3.<br />
<br />
First, we need to convert meters to feet. 4921 ft tall, 3280 ft wide. R=1640. πx1640<sup>2</sup>x4921= 4.158061742x10<sup>10</sup>. 4.158061742x10<sup>10</sup>/3= 1.386020581x10<sup>10</sup>. 1.386020581x10<sup>10</sup>/10 (to get the number of 10 ft<sup>3</sup>) =1386020581. 1386020581x900 (to get the approximate number of Hp for the mountain) is 1.247418523x10<sup>12</sup>. Converted from standard form, that is 1000000000000x1.247418523= 1247418523000 Hp.<br />
<br />
<big><big><big><big>1247418523000 Hp.</big></big></big></big><br />
<br />
That means that you have to deal 1247418523000+(8xnumber of attacks used to destroy a mountain)= 1247418523008 for a single blow (which I assume is the point).<br />
<br />
<big><big><big><big>1247418523008</big></big></big></big><br />
<br />
That is one mean creature...<br />
<br />
Although this is all in approximations.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>21:31, 11 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Sweeeeeet jesus!<br />
<br />
Sound good to me. I'll round it off to 1,200,000,000,000 and proceed from there. You guys are a great help! ''':D'''<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]]&nbsp;<small><small>08:26, 12 December 2007 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Although that is a mountain that is 1500 meters tallm and 1000 by 1000 meters base.<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
actually, unworked stone has 900hp per 5x10x10 http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Epic_Obstacles which means 1800hp per 10 feet cubed. 10 feet cubed is roughly 3.1 meters cubed or roughly 30 cubic meters. this means that one cubic meter has 1800/30=60hp. the volume of a 1000 meters high mountain with a cone shape is (height times area of base)/3. height is 1000. area of base is pi times 500 squared which is roughly 785,000 hence the volume of the mountain is 261,666,666 cubic meters. say 260,000,000 cubic meters. hence the hp of the mountain is 15,600,000,000. say for simplicity sake 15,000,000,000 hp. this result has 2 less digits then the one quoted above and is "only" 15 billion hp. now, that would take roughly 430,000,000 fireballs (more if caster is less than 10th level). more actually since i did not take into account hardness. does hardness count? anyway, at, say, 100 spells a day that will take, oh, 4,300,000 days or 11,780 years. it would take even more using magic missile! or 'mage hand' to remove the dirt by "hand". dammit! just dig! you lazy bastard!<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Does_Mithral_Armor_actually_change_the_armor_type%3F&diff=230878Discussion:Does Mithral Armor actually change the armor type?2008-02-21T11:45:54Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* Does Mithral Armor change the armor type */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Does Mithral Armor change the armor type == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:42, 23 May 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
From the SRD:<br />
<br />
Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other <br />
limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light <br />
armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are <br />
decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by <br />
3 (to a minimum of 0).<br />
<br />
Does this mean that a ranger does not lose the use of combat styles in Mithral breastplate? Is that considered an "other limitation", or is that something different since it is a requirement?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20070606131144</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2007 May 24 10:53 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
From the [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a FAQ]:<br />
<br />
<blockquote style="font-style: italic;"><p>'''Is a character proficient with light armor, such as a rogue, considered to be proficient with mithral breastplate? What about a character proficient with medium armor, such as a barbarian—is he considered proficient with mithral full plate armor?'''</p><br />
<br />
<p>The description of mithral on page 284 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide is less precise than it could be in defining how it interacts with armor proficiency rules. The simplest answer—and the one that the Sage expects most players and DMs use—is that mithral armor is treated as one category lighter for all purposes, including proficiency. This isn’t exactly what the Dungeon Master’s Guide says, but it’s a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rule (and it’s supported by a number of precedents, including the descriptions of various specific mithral armors described on page 220 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide and a variety of NPC stat blocks).</p><br />
<br />
<p>Thus, a ranger or rogue could wear a mithral breastplate without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as light armor), and each could use any ability dependent on wearing light or no armor (such as evasion or the ranger’s combat style). A barbarian could wear mithral full plate armor without suffering a nonproficiency penalty (since it’s treated as medium armor), and he could use any ability dependent on wearing medium or lighter armor (such as fast movement).</p><br />
<br />
<p>The same would be true of any other special material that uses the same or similar language as mithral (such as darkleaf, on page 120 of the EBERRON Campaign Setting).</p></blockquote><br />
<br />
I've seen this question before, and in almost any forum, you'll get an equal number of "yes"s and "no"s. The real problem is that they're both right. I prefer to keep it simple and just consider it light armor for all purposes, but I wouldn't protest if a DM ruled otherwise.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]]&nbsp;<small><small>14:40, 24 May 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Mithral has sucktacular wording. <br />
<br />
The mithral definition allows armor to be lightened for limited purposes. As far as I can tell, the FAQ interpretation has mithral lighten armor in all ways, no limitations. The chain shirt matches this more expansive interpretation. <br />
<br />
I come down on the "no" side. For the proficiency trade-off to mean something, there must be an actual tradeoff. As it stands right now, there is no trade-off.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>06:08, 25 May 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Thanks! That answers it for me. I'm going to rule on the "no" side as well. I agree that trade-offs should actually be trade-offs.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20070606131144</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2007 May 25 12:33 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Just want to point out that there is already a trade-off: the cost. It's like the trade-off for having a masterwork item versus its normal counterpart. The question is that whether or not you think it's a significant trade-off.<br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:54, 5 June 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
True. It is just such a weak trade off. Perhaps I will make a small custom rule for mithral that makes it cost an armor enhancement bonus per type category the armor was before (+1 light, +2 medium, +3 heavy). This mainly has to do with potential duskblade abuse...<br />
<br />
<br />
btw, does a mithral breastplate have an armor check penalty? breastplate has armor check penalty three, mithral reduces it by two, and mithral is also always masterwork which is supposed to give another reduction by one. then again, does the mithral reduction include masterwork reduction?<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:How_does_one_craft_his_own_spells%3F&diff=230877Discussion:How does one craft his own spells?2008-02-21T11:35:54Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* How does one craft his own spells? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== How does one craft his own spells? == <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>23:23, 26 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I have seen it mentioned many places that one can do 'independent research' to form your own spells. I know of epic spells but this seems to suggest one can produce non-epic spells. Yet no matter where I look I cannot find it.<br />
<br />
Where is such information, how does it work? I've a great many >10 spells to make. <br />
<br />
=== [[User:Mkill|Mkill]]&nbsp;<small><small>04:20, 27 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Do you mean writing spells as a player / DM or letting a wizard character research spells? <br />
<br />
For the second case, I don't know whether there are rules for this is the DMG or DMG II, if not, the DM should just set a number of spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana / religion) checks, one per week of research. Each week research should also require a certain amount of gp. After a certain number of successful checks at a certain DC, the spell is researched.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>13:58, 27 July 2007</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
I mean the first though the second is related. Say my character has interest in crafting a spell which creates artificial limbs (none which I know of exist), and of course do this in game to have the excuse of knowing it.<br />
<br />
That said, any idea how I should judge the DC for making these spells? I've only been geusstimating crudely.... like a cantrip would be DC 5, if anything, while a level 9 spell is much higher... but what?<br />
<br />
I'd say level 9 = DC 90 but that's too high, you're well into epic by the time you get DC 9. The other thing is doing by grades of 5... which still puts it at DC 50. Any suggestions?<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Rakankou|Rakankou]]&nbsp;<small><small>15:10, 27 July 2007</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
The v3.5 DMG covers this on page 198. In a nutshell, the player first writes the entire spell (preferably with the cooperation of the DM). Then the character spends a certain number of weeks researching the spell (with the appropriate resources), at the end of which he makes a single Spellcraft check (DC 10 + spell level) to learn the spell. If the check is successful and the DM allows the spell, the character learns the spell.<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Mkill|Mkill]]&nbsp;<small><small>19:47, 27 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Eiji, once you have written your spells don't forget to post them here!<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Eiji|Eiji]]&nbsp;<small><small>12:39, 28 July 2007 (MDT)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
Thanks for all the help.<br />
<br />
The DM seems to like it. It will be a bit of a while before it is actually crafted in game but I've put it up for review. I hope the spell level is correct. You can find it at [[Dopple Arms (DnD Spell)|Dopple Arms]].<br />
<br />
We've homebrewed up a sort of golem-making spell to grant him artificial limbs (different as it is far weaker and far safer than trying to turn out armless fighter into a half golem). I wonder where I would put that idea? I used animated object and geas/quest to make a spirit-free moving arm able to be controlled, and put in special rules on how dispelling was a danger (disabling your arms for a few rounds) and disjunction destroying them. However, no fear of Will saves.<br />
<br />
That, and I've changed the stat adjustments accordingly, with basic plain metal arms giving -2 Dex and no bonuses. Arms that also contain Bull's Strength and fine crafting (masterwork) give +2 Str and -2 Dex. And I'll figure out something for special materials. In our campaign mithril is hard to come by, so the justification that mithril limbs, being lighter, lack the -2 Dex, but this may not work so well in more mithril-rich worlds.<br />
<br />
Oh yeah, even though we're using these ad hoc animated arms, I'm still crafting this spell out of the sheer usefulness of it all. <br />
<br />
<br />
cant you use 'tome and blood' chapter 5 (spells), researching new spells? page 81. they have a rather expansive explanation of how to research a new spell, how to limit its power, what level it should be. the book is from 2001 but still, it seems appropriate even now. gives benchmark spells and stuff like that.<br />
<br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Mithral_Golem&diff=230863SRD Talk:Mithral Golem2008-02-21T08:33:03Z<p>84.108.164.233: buggy link</p>
<hr />
<div>== buggy link ==<br />
<br />
in "construction", the last entry is a link to the wish spell and it is buggy.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Jump_Skill&diff=230713SRD Talk:Jump Skill2008-02-21T05:57:23Z<p>84.108.164.233: buggy link</p>
<hr />
<div>== buggy link ==<br />
<br />
in "special", two lines below, there is a buggy link to the 'run' feat.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=230695Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-21T05:36:44Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Special:Contributions/84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
# swift and immediate actions. i get one swift action per round with no cost. what if i want to use another swift action or two? or another immediate action or two? can i "pay" a move action for one or two swift or immediate actions? is there a formal or informal exchange rate? it can be very beneficial to be able to counter more than once. or change stances more than once per round.<br />
# how does 'strike of perfect clarity' interact with critical hits? is the +100 to damage doubled or is it added after you double the regular damage?<br />
# if i am asking too much, do tell. while using 'sudden leap', one incurs AoO unless one succeeds a tumble check. does tumbling while using a sudden leap reduce the distance jumped as tumbling during normal movement does?<br />
# the setting sun throw maneuvers require a (succesful touch attack and a) trip attempt. does this mean these maneuvers cannot be used on larger than large creatures (assuming one is medium sized and according to trip rules)? if so, it is quite restrictive especially for a discipline which boasts dealing well with giants (as in the story of eventide's edge).<br />
#: how does one resolve throwing someone 10 feet or more away and then attacking him? he is out of reach! i suppose you could rule that the subsequent attack is possible only if you throw him where you can reach him with a melee weapon. but would you allow a reach weapon capable of tripping to be used in the throw? what is a throw? is it something you do unarmed (like tripping though there are weapons which can trip)? can you use trip weapons for this attack? reach trip weapons? if unarmed is necessary, is one hand enough? can i hold a weapon (even a reach weapon) in the other hand?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
# There's no simple "yes" or "no" to that question. It depends on the feat and the maneuver in question. Concerning [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]] and emerald razor, the only move action that can be done with spring attack is [[SRD:Move Actions#Move|move]] and the only standard action that can be done is an [[SRD:Standard Actions#Attack|attack action]] with a melee weapon. Emerald razor is a standard action, but even though you make an attack as part of the maneuver, it is not an attack action, so it can't be performed with [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]]. Pretty much the only maneuvers that can be done with Spring Attack are the ones that have a swift or an immediate action as their initiation action. Mixing maneuvers all depends on what kind of action each requires. In a single round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift (or immediate) action, or instead of a standard and move action, you can perform a full-round action. So you could use shadow jaunt (standard), shadow stride (move), and shadow blink (swift) all in the same round. If you have the shadow pounce ability, you'll get three full-round attacks in one round.<br />
# As the rules are written, no, but I'd allow an exchange of a move or standard action to perform a swift action (maybe even an immediate action). Especially since the rules allow one to perform another move action in place of a standard action.<br />
# Page 43, "You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit. You treat it just as you would extra damage from another special ability, such as sneak attack."<br />
# Not entirely sure on this one. As best as I can tell, it follows the normal rules of movement, so yes, you halve the result of the Jump check (round down to the nearest 5-foot increment). At least that's how I'd handle it.<br />
# I can't find anything that makes setting sun maneuvers an exception to that rule. Within the SRD storm giants and cloud giants are the only giants that are larger than Large, so that claim could still hold true with stone giants, ettins, trolls, ogres, etc... Another interpretation is that these are throws not trips, so they're only subject to the limitations of the trip attempt check. However, the [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4dnd/20080124a FAQ] implies that they are trips, so you get the benefit of Improved Trip with every throw (another +4 and and an extra attack with a successful throw).<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:30, 19 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
(In regard to 9) - Do you know if a Duskblade's spell channeling is a standard action or a full round action? Because that would be a lot of damage for low levels with a houserule like that Sledged. Blade of Blood, Blade of Blood, Greatsword, Shocking grasp -- 13d6 + 1.5x str damage? I'd also get a spellstoring weapon and store shocking grasp for an extra 5d6 :P. Even at level 1 - Blade of Blood x2 + greatsword = 7d6 damage (though 10 to you will be very poor at this level).<br />
<br />
Note that Quickened spells and powers do not work with this because you can only cast 1 of them a round (until epic feats).<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080219115121</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 19 11:51 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Arcane channeling is a standard action, unless you do it as part of a full-attack action, then it's a [[SRD:Action Types#Not an Action|not an action]].<br />
<br />
Casting ''blade of blood'' twice on the same weapon won't be any different than casting it once. See [[SRD:Casting Spells#Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths|Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths]]. The same goes for multiple ''[[SRD:Shocking Grasp|shocking grasp]]'' effects.<br />
<br />
In one of the various books, I think they updated Quicken Spell so that it's now a swift action.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Whip&diff=230458SRD Talk:Whip2008-02-21T01:33:19Z<p>84.108.164.233: buggy link</p>
<hr />
<div>== buggy link ==<br />
<br />
link below "description" is buggy.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=229975Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-20T11:03:59Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Special:Contributions/84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
# swift and immediate actions. i get one swift action per round with no cost. what if i want to use another swift action or two? or another immediate action or two? can i "pay" a move action for one or two swift or immediate actions? is there a formal or informal exchange rate? it can be very beneficial to be able to counter more than once. or change stances more than once per round.<br />
# how does 'strike of perfect clarity' interact with critical hits? is the +100 to damage doubled or is it added after you double the regular damage?<br />
# if i am asking too much, do tell. while using 'sudden leap', one incurs AoO unless one succeeds a tumble check. does tumbling while using a sudden leap reduce the distance jumped as tumbling during normal movement does?<br />
# the setting sun throw maneuvers require a (succesful touch attack and a) trip attempt. does this mean these maneuvers cannot be used on larger than large creatures (assuming one is medium sized and according to trip rules)? if so, it is quite restrictive especially for a discipline which boasts dealing well with giants (as in the story of eventide's edge).<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
# There's no simple "yes" or "no" to that question. It depends on the feat and the maneuver in question. Concerning [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]] and emerald razor, the only move action that can be done with spring attack is [[SRD:Move Actions#Move|move]] and the only standard action that can be done is an [[SRD:Standard Actions#Attack|attack action]] with a melee weapon. Emerald razor is a standard action, but even though you make an attack as part of the maneuver, it is not an attack action, so it can't be performed with [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]]. Pretty much the only maneuvers that can be done with Spring Attack are the ones that have a swift or an immediate action as their initiation action. Mixing maneuvers all depends on what kind of action each requires. In a single round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift (or immediate) action, or instead of a standard and move action, you can perform a full-round action. So you could use shadow jaunt (standard), shadow stride (move), and shadow blink (swift) all in the same round. If you have the shadow pounce ability, you'll get three full-round attacks in one round.<br />
# As the rules are written, no, but I'd allow an exchange of a move or standard action to perform a swift action (maybe even an immediate action). Especially since the rules allow one to perform another move action in place of a standard action.<br />
# Page 43, "You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit. You treat it just as you would extra damage from another special ability, such as sneak attack."<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:30, 19 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
(In regard to 9) - Do you know if a Duskblade's spell channeling is a standard action or a full round action? Because that would be a lot of damage for low levels with a houserule like that Sledged. Blade of Blood, Blade of Blood, Greatsword, Shocking grasp -- 13d6 + 1.5x str damage? I'd also get a spellstoring weapon and store shocking grasp for an extra 5d6 :P. Even at level 1 - Blade of Blood x2 + greatsword = 7d6 damage (though 10 to you will be very poor at this level).<br />
<br />
Note that Quickened spells and powers do not work with this because you can only cast 1 of them a round (until epic feats).<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080219115121</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 19 11:51 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Arcane channeling is a standard action, unless you do it as part of a full-attack action, then it's a [[SRD:Action Types#Not an Action|not an action]].<br />
<br />
Casting ''blade of blood'' twice on the same weapon won't be any different than casting it once. See [[SRD:Casting Spells#Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths|Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths]]. The same goes for multiple ''[[SRD:Shocking Grasp|shocking grasp]]'' effects.<br />
<br />
In one of the various books, I think they updated Quicken Spell so that it's now a swift action.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=229971Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-20T09:59:01Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Special:Contributions/84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
# swift and immediate actions. i get one swift action per round with no cost. what if i want to use another swift action or two? or another immediate action or two? can i "pay" a move action for one or two swift or immediate actions? is there a formal or informal exchange rate? it can be very beneficial to be able to counter more than once. or change stances more than once per round.<br />
# how does 'strike of perfect clarity' interact with critical hits? is the +100 to damage doubled or is it added after you double the regular damage?<br />
# if i am asking too much, do tell. while using 'sudden leap', one incurs AoO unless one succeeds a tumble check. does tumbling while using a sudden leap reduce the distance jumped as tumbling during normal movement does?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
# There's no simple "yes" or "no" to that question. It depends on the feat and the maneuver in question. Concerning [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]] and emerald razor, the only move action that can be done with spring attack is [[SRD:Move Actions#Move|move]] and the only standard action that can be done is an [[SRD:Standard Actions#Attack|attack action]] with a melee weapon. Emerald razor is a standard action, but even though you make an attack as part of the maneuver, it is not an attack action, so it can't be performed with [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]]. Pretty much the only maneuvers that can be done with Spring Attack are the ones that have a swift or an immediate action as their initiation action. Mixing maneuvers all depends on what kind of action each requires. In a single round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift (or immediate) action, or instead of a standard and move action, you can perform a full-round action. So you could use shadow jaunt (standard), shadow stride (move), and shadow blink (swift) all in the same round. If you have the shadow pounce ability, you'll get three full-round attacks in one round.<br />
# As the rules are written, no, but I'd allow an exchange of a move or standard action to perform a swift action (maybe even an immediate action). Especially since the rules allow one to perform another move action in place of a standard action.<br />
# Page 43, "You do not multiply extra damage from a strike with a successful critical hit. You treat it just as you would extra damage from another special ability, such as sneak attack."<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:30, 19 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
(In regard to 9) - Do you know if a Duskblade's spell channeling is a standard action or a full round action? Because that would be a lot of damage for low levels with a houserule like that Sledged. Blade of Blood, Blade of Blood, Greatsword, Shocking grasp -- 13d6 + 1.5x str damage? I'd also get a spellstoring weapon and store shocking grasp for an extra 5d6 :P. Even at level 1 - Blade of Blood x2 + greatsword = 7d6 damage (though 10 to you will be very poor at this level).<br />
<br />
Note that Quickened spells and powers do not work with this because you can only cast 1 of them a round (until epic feats).<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080219115121</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 19 11:51 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Arcane channeling is a standard action, unless you do it as part of a full-attack action, then it's a [[SRD:Action Types#Not an Action|not an action]].<br />
<br />
Casting ''blade of blood'' twice on the same weapon won't be any different than casting it once. See [[SRD:Casting Spells#Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths|Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths]]. The same goes for multiple ''[[SRD:Shocking Grasp|shocking grasp]]'' effects.<br />
<br />
In one of the various books, I think they updated Quicken Spell so that it's now a swift action.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=229919Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-20T04:30:53Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Special:Contributions/84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
# swift and immediate actions. i get one swift action per round with no cost. what if i want to use another swift action or two? or another immediate action or two? can i "pay" a move action for one or two swift or immediate actions? is there a formal or informal exchange rate? it can be very beneficial to be able to counter more than once. or change stances more than once per round.<br />
# how does 'strike of perfect clarity' interact with critical hits? is the +100 to damage doubled or is it added after you double the regular damage?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
# There's no simple "yes" or "no" to that question. It depends on the feat and the maneuver in question. Concerning [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]] and emerald razor, the only move action that can be done with spring attack is [[SRD:Move Actions#Move|move]] and the only standard action that can be done is an [[SRD:Standard Actions#Attack|attack action]] with a melee weapon. Emerald razor is a standard action, but even though you make an attack as part of the maneuver, it is not an attack action, so it can't be performed with [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]]. Pretty much the only maneuvers that can be done with Spring Attack are the ones that have a swift or an immediate action as their initiation action. Mixing maneuvers all depends on what kind of action each requires. In a single round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift (or immediate) action, or instead of a standard and move action, you can perform a full-round action. So you could use shadow jaunt (standard), shadow stride (move), and shadow blink (swift) all in the same round. If you have the shadow pounce ability, you'll get three full-round attacks in one round.<br />
# As the rules are written, no, but I'd allow an exchange of a move or standard action to perform a swift action (maybe even an immediate action). Especially since the rules allow one to perform another move action in place of a standard action.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
=== [[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]]&nbsp;<small><small>10:30, 19 February 2008 (MST)</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
(In regard to 9) - Do you know if a Duskblade's spell channeling is a standard action or a full round action? Because that would be a lot of damage for low levels with a houserule like that Sledged. Blade of Blood, Blade of Blood, Greatsword, Shocking grasp -- 13d6 + 1.5x str damage? I'd also get a spellstoring weapon and store shocking grasp for an extra 5d6 :P. Even at level 1 - Blade of Blood x2 + greatsword = 7d6 damage (though 10 to you will be very poor at this level).<br />
<br />
Note that Quickened spells and powers do not work with this because you can only cast 1 of them a round (until epic feats).<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080219115121</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 19 11:51 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
Arcane channeling is a standard action, unless you do it as part of a full-attack action, then it's a [[SRD:Action Types#Not an Action|not an action]].<br />
<br />
Casting ''blade of blood'' twice on the same weapon won't be any different than casting it once. See [[SRD:Casting Spells#Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths|Same Effect More than Once in Different Strengths]]. The same goes for multiple ''[[SRD:Shocking Grasp|shocking grasp]]'' effects.<br />
<br />
In one of the various books, I think they updated Quicken Spell so that it's now a swift action.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=228138Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-19T11:18:10Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[Special:Contributions/84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
# swift and immediate actions. i get one swift action per round with no cost. what if i want to use another swift action or two? or another immediate action or two? can i "pay" a move action for one or two swift or immediate actions? is there a formal or informal exchange rate? it can be very beneficial to be able to counter more than once. or change stances more than once per round.<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding-left: 0; padding-bottom: 0; padding-right: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
# There's no simple "yes" or "no" to that question. It depends on the feat and the maneuver in question. Concerning [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]] and emerald razor, the only move action that can be done with spring attack is [[SRD:Move Actions#Move|move]] and the only standard action that can be done is an [[SRD:Standard Actions#Attack|attack action]] with a melee weapon. Emerald razor is a standard action, but even though you make an attack as part of the maneuver, it is not an attack action, so it can't be performed with [[SRD:Spring Attack|Spring Attack]]. Pretty much the only maneuvers that can be done with Spring Attack are the ones that have a swift or an immediate action as their initiation action. Mixing maneuvers all depends on what kind of action each requires. In a single round, you can perform one standard action, one move action, and one swift (or immediate) action, or instead of a standard and move action, you can perform a full-round action. So you could use shadow jaunt (standard), shadow stride (move), and shadow blink (swift) all in the same round. If you have the shadow pounce ability, you'll get three full-round attacks in one round.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=227353Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-18T03:24:56Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
# can i incorporate a maneuver into a feat or vice versa? like using emerald razor while using the spring attack feat. can i use a counter during a maneuver?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
# There's no blanket rule that says teleport abilities are always magic/psionic, even though it seems like there should be. So as they're written, those abilities are extraordinary.<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Iron_Colossus&diff=226852SRD Talk:Iron Colossus2008-02-17T02:19:39Z<p>84.108.164.233: correction</p>
<hr />
<div>== correction ==<br />
<br />
"Hit Dice: 96d10 (603 hp hp) "</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Discussion:Tome_of_Battle_Questions_%26_Answers&diff=226177Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions & Answers2008-02-16T01:17:11Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* 84.108.164.233&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Tome of Battle Questions ==<br />
<br />
=== [[User:84.108.164.233|84.108.164.233]]&nbsp;<small><small>2008-02-11 15:20</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though.<br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?<br />
# ok, so there are "other" maneuvers. as for the three shadow hand teleportation maneuvers. are they not supernatural? it does not state it is supernatural and strictly speaking, a maneuver is extraordinary unless stated otherwise. however, teleportation powers are never nonmagical. so which is it?<br />
<br />
<h3 style="height: 0px; border-bottom: 1px solid; overflow: hidden; padding: 0; margin: 0;">Sledged-20080213120512</h3><br />
{| class="d20" style="padding: 0; margin: 0; text-align: left; width: 100%; border: none;" cellspacing="0"<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="font-size: larger; border: none; font-weight: bold;" | [[User:Sledged|Sledged]] <span style="font-weight: normal; font-size: smaller">([[User talk:Sledged|talk]])<br/><span style="font-size: smaller;">2008 February 15 12:05 (MDT)</span></span><br />
|-<br />
| style="border: none;" |<br />
# Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks.<br />
# As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells).<br />
# I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums.<br />
# Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) may not be taken as part of any full-round action.<br />
# I believe damage is caused by the landing. This is one of those instances where the DM has to use his/her/its best judgement. In the case of flying creatures, I'd rule it that they still take damage, because the attack is so sudden they're not able to compensate fast enough to avoid the impact. With the astral plane, I'd rule that the target would have to be thrown into an object whose mass is greater than or equal to the target itself in order for damage to be done.<br />
# Shadow blink is an "other" maneuver. If you look at the sample shadow sun ninja on page 130, you'll see he has shadow jaunt, which is listed under "other." Stances are not maneuvers which is why they're always collectively referred to as "stances and maneuvers."<br />
|- class="even"<br />
| style="border-left: none; border-right: none; border-top: none; font-size: smaller; line-height: 1.5em;" | ''There's no better laugh than the one that you're ashamed to share with your mother.''<div class="right">—Stephen Notley, creator of ''[http://www.angryflower.com/ Bob the Angry Flower]''</div><br />
''A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof was to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.''<div class="right">—Ford Prefect in "Mostly Harmless" by Douglas Adams</div><br />
|}<br />
<br />
<!-- DO NOT REMOVE OR EDIT THIS LINE NOR ANYTHING BELOW IT<br />
<br />
To make a comment, copy the following line and paste it above the "DO NOT REMOVE" line:<br />
<br />
=== ~~~&nbsp;<small><small>~~~~~</small></small> ===<br />
<br />
--><br />
<br />
{{Forumfooter|Discussion}}<br />
__NOTOC__</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=225999SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-15T20:41:42Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* tome of battle */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)?<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though. <br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
#:Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
#: As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
#: I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
#: Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) my not be taken as part of any full-round action. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.<br />
# what is the 'shadow blink' shadow hand "maneuver"? tome of battle doesnt state. just says "teleportation". is it a maneuver? if so, strike counter or boost? stance?! or other? also, does a stance count as a maneuver for the purposes of determining whether one has, say, three maneuvers of a certain discipline to qualify for a maneuver which has a prerequisite of three maneuvers?</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=225516SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-15T01:16:48Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* tome of battle */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)?<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though. <br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
#:Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
#: As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
#: I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
#: Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) my not be taken as part of any full-round action. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=225514SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-15T01:15:11Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* tome of battle */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)?<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though. <br />
<br />
# what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect.<br />
#:Mostly for flavor, but as you pointed some maneuvers require skill checks. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
#: As best as I can tell, ''Tome of Battle'' was meant to narrow the gap between spellcasters and melee types. Your typical cleric makes a better melee type than barbarians, fighters, paladins, and rangers. 60 points of damage with a single attack is not so bad. A 11th-level wizard deals an average of 77 points of damage to a single creature with ''[[SRD:Disintegrate|disintegrate]]'', an average of 38.5 points of damage to up to 12 creatures with ''[[SRD:Chain Lightning|chain lighting]]'', and can effectively kill a single creature using ''[[SRD:Flesh to Stone|flesh to stone]]'' (all 6th-level spells). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
#: I can't find anything that explicitly says so, but I think each maneuver can be prepared only once. Try contacting WotC help, or ask on the Wizards forums. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
# can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?<br />
#: Standard actions (like [[SRD:Manyshot|Manyshot]]) my not be taken as part of any full-round action. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:05, 13 February 2008 (MST)<br />
#: is the damage cause by using a maneuver like 'tornado throw' caused by what happens after the throw or before the throw? cause if the subject is capable of flight or if the maneuver is carried out in the astral plane then this maneuver is useless if the damage is caused after the throw.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Dragon_Type&diff=224850SRD Talk:Dragon Type2008-02-13T16:55:34Z<p>84.108.164.233: buggy link</p>
<hr />
<div>== buggy link ==<br />
<br />
"a dragon has the following featured"<br />
the saving throw part has a fudged link.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=224814SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-13T15:39:59Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* tome of battle */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)?<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though. 1. what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect. <br />
<br />
2. also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
<br />
3. i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.<br />
<br />
4. can a strike maneuver taking one standard action to initiate be part of a full attack action or can it be followed only by a move action (or preceded by one)?</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=224272SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-11T22:22:07Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* tome of battle */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)?<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though. 1. what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline has no or very little effect. <br />
<br />
2. also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
<br />
3. i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=224271SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-11T22:20:46Z<p>84.108.164.233: New section: tome of battle</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)?<br />
<br />
== tome of battle ==<br />
<br />
well, after a suggestion i read about vestiges by Sledged (which was great fun), i read tome of battle as well and i was similarly overjoyed. putting aside my own personal aversion to giving a fighter so many supernatural abilities which mimic spells (i speak of desert wind and shadow hand mostly), i thought the disciplines which gave "regular" extraordinary maneuvers were very much like it "should" be.<br />
<br />
some questions though. 1. what are the skills associated with the disciplines good for? some are useful like concentration and diamond mind and sense motive and setting sun, both of which make extensive use of the skills in many useful maneuvers, but for many of the other disciplines, i did not see any use of the skills associated with them. what did i miss? it cant be that a skill is associated with a discipline to no or very little effect. <br />
<br />
2. also, something in the skill relating to the discipline seems a little broken. the diamond mind discipline has the 'insightful strike' which substitutes regular damage of an attack with a constitution checks (1d20+ranks+modifier). this seems highly suspect since magic can easily increase the bonus of this check greatly and in fact, such a bonus would be very cheap costwise (bonus squared times 100. for +20 cost would be 4000!). this could easily double the effective bonus for the constitution check and considering it is added to 1d20, well, that makes for a very deadly attack at a very low price. and if you use 'insightful attack, greater', well, the damage is doubled! this means an 11th level swordsage with 14 ranks in concentration and some magic item which gives a, say, +15 to concentration checks (not unreasonable! very reasonable in fact imo), damages (d20+29)x2 using the 'insightful attack, greater' which is a 6th lvl maneuver. this is an average of 80 hit points of damage. granted, the attack must be successful or the maneuver is spent, but this is true for all maneuvers and all who do this kind of damage are of much higher lvl and are not so easily "buffed up" by a cheap magic item.<br />
<br />
3. i am unsure on whether you can prepare the same maneuver twice.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Golem_Armor&diff=223747SRD Talk:Golem Armor2008-02-10T17:28:36Z<p>84.108.164.233: buggy link</p>
<hr />
<div>== buggy link ==<br />
<br />
there's a buggy link there.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=223514SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-09T16:41:15Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* Question Regarding Epic Levels */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.<br />
<br />
::::::::: just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)?</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=223513SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-09T16:36:47Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* Question Regarding Epic Levels */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Question Regarding Epic Levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
:::Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (''[[Eberron Campaign Setting]]''), invocations (''[[Complete Arcane]]''), soulmelds (''[[Magic of Incarnum]]''), vestiges (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), utterances (''[[Tome of Magic (3.5e)]]''), and stances and maneuvers (''[[Tome of Battle]]''), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's ''[http://www.greenronin.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Store_Code=1001&Product_Code=grr1306&Category_Code= Psychic's Handbook]'' which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:::::By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:<br />
::::::#creating magic items. [[SRD:Creating Magic Items]] does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
::::::# epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it. <br />
::::::{{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::::::Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some ''figurines of wondrous power'' are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.<br />
:::::::I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level. <br />
:::::::As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Atropal&diff=223443SRD Talk:Atropal2008-02-09T10:08:48Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* Typo */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Typo ==<br />
<br />
It says "Undead Msatery" in the feats. The link's fine, but the typo needs fixing. {{unsigned|MorkaisChosen|2007-12-12 14:56}}<br />
<br />
:Got it. Thanks. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:05, 12 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::the feats, devastating critiall, double 'l'.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Druid&diff=222697SRD Talk:Druid2008-02-08T19:05:20Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* Buggy Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Strike-outs ==<br />
<br />
I notice that several sections are struck (stricken?) out and replaced. I'm guessing this reflects changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Is this correct? Is there any reason to keep the original text? I presume the wiki has an archive of earlier versions. --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 10:28, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
:No, it's to identify the changes from official [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a errata]. Personally, I like to be able to compare the old with the new to see exactly what changed. However, I've been meaning to initially hide the diffs and use javascript to reveal what's been changed. One of the many things on my TODO list. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:07, 6 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: Understood. Thanks. --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 12:31, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
== Anchors ==<br />
<br />
One of the things I like about [http://www.d20srd.org/ d20srd.org] is that I can link to practically any paragraph from my own pages, e.g. [http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#animalCompanion Animal Companion]. I can't do that the way this wiki is formatted, and I can't go in and add the anchors because the page is locked. Is there a solution to this? --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 10:35, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
: Yes, the solution is to ask a sysop to do it. Behold! [[Druid (SRD Class)#Animal Companion|Animal Companion]]!! &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:07, 6 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: And all the others, too! Thank you very much. :) --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 12:20, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
:::Now this just needs to be done on the rest of the SRD... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:45, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Well, gee, I'd love to volunteer. Too bad it requires a sysop. :) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 12:49, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::One word (even though I don't think you would make it, yet) - [[Requests for Adminship|Rfa]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:10, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Are you kidding? Then I'd have to go in and stick in all those anchors myself -- not to mention fixing all the problems caused by overzealous newbies. No, thanks! :) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:40, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::lol... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:00, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Do you have any idea just how BIG of a job that is? Wow. That's all I'm saying. Wow. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Er... gives something to do in the SRD? (not that i'm saying I will do it - I rarely help with the SRD, however I may help...) --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:32, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I suggest making h5 headers where you can instead of what I did with the druid.<br />
<br />
::::Example:<br />
::::{| style="border: 1px solid;"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
=====Woodland Stride (Ex)=====<br />
<br />
Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. However, thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion still affect her.<br />
<br />
=====Trackless Step (Ex)=====<br />
<br />
Starting at 3rd level, a druid leaves no trail in natural surroundings and cannot be tracked. She may choose to leave a trail if so desired.<br />
<br />
=====Resist Nature’s Lure (Ex)=====<br />
<br />
Starting at 4th level, a druid gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against the spell-like abilities of [[:Category:Fey|fey]].<br />
|}<br />
::::instead of:<br />
::::{| style="border: 1px solid;"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
<span id="Woodland Stride">'''Woodland Stride (Ex):'''</span> Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. However, thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion still affect her.<br />
<br />
<span id="Trackless Step">'''Trackless Step (Ex):'''</span> Starting at 3rd level, a druid leaves no trail in natural surroundings and cannot be tracked. She may choose to leave a trail if so desired.<br />
<br />
<span id="Resist Nature's Lure">'''Resist Nature’s Lure (Ex):'''</span> Starting at 4th level, a druid gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against the spell-like abilities of [[:Category:Fey|fey]].<br />
|}<br />
::::for three reasons:<br />
::::# The wiki anchors it for you.<br />
::::# Though the effort in editing is minor, on such a large scale, it's good to cut corners where you can.<br />
::::# And it's just a little bit easier to read. Looks less crowded.<br />
::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I like the other way, it's more like the books. Even though Mediawiki auto-anchors your way the other way is more like WotC books. I place my vote for the second way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Either way is a passel of work. I favor using L5's, as it's not actually obvious to a casual contributor that there's an anchor in the text. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Buggy Links ==<br />
<br />
below explanation of timeless body, link for animal companion is fudged. Also, epid druid feats, energy resistance feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|04:10, 2 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I repaired all broken links. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:13, 2 February 2008 (MST)</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Druid&diff=222696SRD Talk:Druid2008-02-08T19:04:41Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* Buggy Links */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Strike-outs ==<br />
<br />
I notice that several sections are struck (stricken?) out and replaced. I'm guessing this reflects changes from 3.0 to 3.5. Is this correct? Is there any reason to keep the original text? I presume the wiki has an archive of earlier versions. --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 10:28, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
:No, it's to identify the changes from official [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20040125a errata]. Personally, I like to be able to compare the old with the new to see exactly what changed. However, I've been meaning to initially hide the diffs and use javascript to reveal what's been changed. One of the many things on my TODO list. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:07, 6 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: Understood. Thanks. --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 12:31, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
== Anchors ==<br />
<br />
One of the things I like about [http://www.d20srd.org/ d20srd.org] is that I can link to practically any paragraph from my own pages, e.g. [http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/druid.htm#animalCompanion Animal Companion]. I can't do that the way this wiki is formatted, and I can't go in and add the anchors because the page is locked. Is there a solution to this? --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 10:35, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
: Yes, the solution is to ask a sysop to do it. Behold! [[Druid (SRD Class)#Animal Companion|Animal Companion]]!! &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:07, 6 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: And all the others, too! Thank you very much. :) --''[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 12:20, 6 February 2007 (MST)''<br />
<br />
:::Now this just needs to be done on the rest of the SRD... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 12:45, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Well, gee, I'd love to volunteer. Too bad it requires a sysop. :) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 12:49, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::One word (even though I don't think you would make it, yet) - [[Requests for Adminship|Rfa]]. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 13:10, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Are you kidding? Then I'd have to go in and stick in all those anchors myself -- not to mention fixing all the problems caused by overzealous newbies. No, thanks! :) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:40, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::lol... --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 14:00, 7 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Do you have any idea just how BIG of a job that is? Wow. That's all I'm saying. Wow. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Er... gives something to do in the SRD? (not that i'm saying I will do it - I rarely help with the SRD, however I may help...) --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 10:32, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::I suggest making h5 headers where you can instead of what I did with the druid.<br />
<br />
::::Example:<br />
::::{| style="border: 1px solid;"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
=====Woodland Stride (Ex)=====<br />
<br />
Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. However, thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion still affect her.<br />
<br />
=====Trackless Step (Ex)=====<br />
<br />
Starting at 3rd level, a druid leaves no trail in natural surroundings and cannot be tracked. She may choose to leave a trail if so desired.<br />
<br />
=====Resist Nature’s Lure (Ex)=====<br />
<br />
Starting at 4th level, a druid gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against the spell-like abilities of [[:Category:Fey|fey]].<br />
|}<br />
::::instead of:<br />
::::{| style="border: 1px solid;"<br />
|-<br />
|<br />
<span id="Woodland Stride">'''Woodland Stride (Ex):'''</span> Starting at 2nd level, a druid may move through any sort of undergrowth (such as natural thorns, briars, overgrown areas, and similar terrain) at her normal speed and without taking damage or suffering any other impairment. However, thorns, briars, and overgrown areas that have been magically manipulated to impede motion still affect her.<br />
<br />
<span id="Trackless Step">'''Trackless Step (Ex):'''</span> Starting at 3rd level, a druid leaves no trail in natural surroundings and cannot be tracked. She may choose to leave a trail if so desired.<br />
<br />
<span id="Resist Nature's Lure">'''Resist Nature’s Lure (Ex):'''</span> Starting at 4th level, a druid gains a +4 bonus on saving throws against the spell-like abilities of [[:Category:Fey|fey]].<br />
|}<br />
::::for three reasons:<br />
::::# The wiki anchors it for you.<br />
::::# Though the effort in editing is minor, on such a large scale, it's good to cut corners where you can.<br />
::::# And it's just a little bit easier to read. Looks less crowded.<br />
::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:00, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I like the other way, it's more like the books. Even though Mediawiki auto-anchors your way the other way is more like WotC books. I place my vote for the second way. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 18:44, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::Either way is a passel of work. I favor using L5's, as it's not actually obvious to a casual contributor that there's an anchor in the text. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Buggy Links ==<br />
<br />
below explanation of timeless body, link for animal companion is fudged. Also, epid druid feats, energy resistance feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|04:10, 2 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:I repaired all broken links. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:13, 2 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and this also: "Bonuses still accrue, and the druid still dies of old age when her time is up. <br />
<br />
{{:SRD:Druid's Animal Companion}} <br />
<br />
"<br />
the link for animal companion i would guess.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Evil_Domain&diff=222670SRD Talk:Evil Domain2008-02-08T18:28:11Z<p>84.108.164.233: buggy link</p>
<hr />
<div>== buggy link ==<br />
<br />
got a buggy link there.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Death_Domain&diff=222659SRD Talk:Death Domain2008-02-08T17:58:00Z<p>84.108.164.233: New section: buggy links</p>
<hr />
<div>==Death Kness==<br />
<br />
Death Kness is probably meant to be Death Knell. --[[User:Daniel Draco|Daniel Draco]] 21:22, 1 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 22:40, 1 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== buggy links ==<br />
<br />
two buggy links there.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Creating_Magic_Items&diff=222572SRD Talk:Creating Magic Items2008-02-08T16:03:37Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* mistake? */</p>
<hr />
<div>== Buggy Links ==<br />
<br />
In "Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values", first line, last entry, gloves of dexterity link is fudged. also, in "Intelligent Item Creation" the link for intelligent items is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|05:44, 2 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Fixed links. Thanks.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:07, 2 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== mistake? ==<br />
<br />
in 'Table: Summary of Magic Item Creation Costs' http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Creating_Magic_Items the line for scrolls, last collumn states that the base price of a scroll is '12.5 × level of spell × level of caster' where it should be '25 × level of spell × level of caster' if i am not mistaken.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Creating_Magic_Items&diff=222571SRD Talk:Creating Magic Items2008-02-08T16:03:00Z<p>84.108.164.233: New section: mistake?</p>
<hr />
<div>== Buggy Links ==<br />
<br />
In "Table: Estimating Magic Item Gold Piece Values", first line, last entry, gloves of dexterity link is fudged. also, in "Intelligent Item Creation" the link for intelligent items is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|05:44, 2 February 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:Fixed links. Thanks.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:07, 2 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== mistake? ==<br />
<br />
in 'Table: Summary of Magic Item Creation Costs' the line for scrolls, last collumn states that the base price of a scroll is '12.5 × level of spell × level of caster' where it should be '25 × level of spell × level of caster' if i am not mistaken.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Mohrg&diff=222112SRD Talk:Mohrg2008-02-07T08:47:46Z<p>84.108.164.233: create spawn</p>
<hr />
<div>== create spawn ==<br />
<br />
create spawn should be a line down.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Feats&diff=222103SRD Talk:Feats2008-02-07T07:28:29Z<p>84.108.164.233: New section: buggy link</p>
<hr />
<div>== Feats compendium ==<br />
Would [http://www.devinweb.com/featlisting.htm such a thing] infringes copyright? If not, I think it would be worth doing it. We already have the NBoF, a compendium of WotC’s would be a nice addition and would help establish dandwiki as a reference.<br /><small>[[User:David Latapie|David Latapie]] ([[User_talk:David Latapie|✒]] | [[Special:Emailuser/David Latapie|@]]) — [http://blog.empyree.org/en blog]</small> 04:58, 11 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:WotC already has a compedium of their own feats. See the SRD main page. It should also now show up on the Feats page.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 11 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::[http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats here] is the link to the WotC Feat Index if you are curious. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 20:46, 11 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Yes, I know it and use it (although I prefer better-layouted, officious versions). But to have such a list here would help making us a one-stop reference point and would also allow us to integrate NBoF and homebrew feats. Plus, the discussion page could be used for disambiguation. Yeah, I know is it a long work, but maybe that can be built over time.<br /><small>[[User:David Latapie|David Latapie]] ([[User_talk:David Latapie|✒]] | [[Special:Emailuser/David Latapie|@]]) — [http://blog.empyree.org/en blog]</small> 04:57, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::If you would like to compile such I thing D&D Wiki would be more than happy to have it here, however.... I know I am not interested in adding it, and do not have the time to do such a thing. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 21:04, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Uh... ==<br />
<br />
Why is fast healing part of this table? Is that the name of an epic feat or is it misplaced? &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 17:55, 6 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
: It was misplaced. Thanks. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:08, 6 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Actually, there is an epic feat called Fast Healing, which grants the benefits of the special ability of the same name. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== buggy link ==<br />
<br />
the damage reduction epic feat's link links to an explanation of damage reduction, the property, and not to damage reduction, the feat.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Psion_Discipline_Powers&diff=222098SRD Talk:Psion Discipline Powers2008-02-07T06:41:20Z<p>84.108.164.233: levitate, psionic</p>
<hr />
<div>== levitate, psionic ==<br />
<br />
the 'levitate, psionic' power is on the nomad powers list as well as the psion/wilder power list. no power should be on the psion/wilder powers list and on a discipline power list. i checked the xph and it is the same there as well which is a mistake. it should be addressed somehow.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Psion/Wilder_Powers&diff=222080SRD Talk:Psion/Wilder Powers2008-02-07T05:46:27Z<p>84.108.164.233: correction</p>
<hr />
<div>== correction ==<br />
<br />
the 'psion blast' power is augmentable and is not marked as such.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=222075SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-07T05:38:12Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* question regarding epic levels */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== question regarding epic levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
also, another question: say a 21st level wizard developes an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develope and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develope an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develope an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment: 1. creating magic items. http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Creating_Magic_Items does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).<br />
<br />
2. epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=222072SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-07T05:23:25Z<p>84.108.164.233: /* question regarding epic levels */</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== question regarding epic levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.<br />
<br />
also, another question: say a 21st level wizard developes an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develope and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develope an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develope an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? {{unsigned|84.108.164.233|2008-02-06 11:05}}<br />
<br />
:By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment: 1. creating magic items. http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Creating_Magic_Items does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers?<br />
<br />
2. epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it.</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:System_Reference_Document&diff=221800SRD Talk:System Reference Document2008-02-06T17:05:04Z<p>84.108.164.233: New section: question regarding epic levels</p>
<hr />
<div>==SRD ToDo List==<br />
<br />
These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.<br />
<br />
* Wikify rules terms within the SRD<br />
* Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like [[dispel good]], [[dispel law|law]], and [[dispel chaos|chaos]] have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell ([[dispel evil]]). —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"<br />
* Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.<br />
* Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.<br />
* Spells: link "Focus" notations.<br />
* Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.<br />
* Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
** Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
===Completed Tasks===<br />
* Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)<br />
* Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested [[Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table|here]]). ([[SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies|done]], but probably needs to be moved --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))<br />
* Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example <nowiki>[[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]]</nowiki> Being handled by [[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]]<br />
* Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* I'd like to combine the game rule information in the [[SRD:Races|races]] page and the [[SRD:Creatures as Races|creatures as races]] page into one single page. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
* Add ''inflict'' category of spells. Done. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.<br />
* Shift Epic Spells to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Shift Powers to Powers template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Removed the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):<br />
** [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|Movement modes]] moved to the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].<br />
** [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|Nonabilities]] moved to [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]].<br />
** [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] moved to the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].<br />
** [[SRD:Natural Weapons|Natural weapons]] moved to the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules.<br />
** [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|Manufactured weapons]] split up and moved to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimmed out overly redundant text) and the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and re-title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting."<br />
* Type magic items by their body slots.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Added footer template to all feats.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]]<br />
* Add Assassin (Level) Category to all [[Assassin]] spells. Same with [[Blackguard]].--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Change all [[:Category:Teleportation|Teleportation]] to [[:Category:Teleportation Effect|Teleportation Effect]] or [[:Category:Teleportation Subschool|Teleporation Subschool]]<br />
* Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Review creature type descriptions for links.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Correct red links inside the SRD. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Collected all combat pages onto the [[SRD:Combat]] page. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
* I recommend changing all the "back to" [[System Reference Document]] links to just [[SRD]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*::All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.<br />
*:::All feats now have the footer template.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
* Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Spells.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from magic items.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Remove page name tags from Feats. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.<br />
*: The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Blue tried an update. There were issues. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:::Accomplished by Sledged.<br />
* Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)<br />
* Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Automated linking of common terms. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
* Add templates to [[SRD:Buckler]] and [[SRD:Tower Shield]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== SRD Requests ==<br />
<br />
These are requested things to do.<br />
<br />
* Anchor subsections of the SRD (see <span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:Druid (SRD Class)|action=edit}} druid]</span> for example; requested [[Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors|here]]).<br />
<br />
::This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Okay. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given [[Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?|this discussion]], I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout [[Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|here]] using the [[druid]] as a guinea pig with notes on the [[Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)|talk page]].<br />
<br />
* Remove the entries from the [[SRD:Special Abilities|special abilities]] section that aren't special abilities; specifically [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]], [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]], [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]], and [[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|treasure]]. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 21:55, 26 February 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::<span style="color: gray;">Where would we put them?--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest putting [[SRD:Movement Modes (Special Ability)|movement modes]], in the special movement rules section of [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance#Special Movement Rules|movement, position, and distance]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">The intro text before the "Strength" header of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under the "The Abilities" header in the [[SRD:Ability Scores|ability score rules]]. The rest of [[SRD:Nonabilities (Special Ability)|nonabilities]] can go under their relevant ability description.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">[[SRD:Treasure (Special Ability)|Treasure]] could go either in the [[SRD:Treasure|treasure rules]] or the treasure section in [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]].</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I'd give [[SRD:Natural Weapons|natural weapons]] it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries|reading creature entries]] under either attack or full attack.</span><br />
<br />
:::<span style="color: gray;">I suggest moving the first paragraph of [[SRD:Manufactured Weapons (Special Ability)|manufactured weapons]] to the full attack section of [[SRD:Reading Creature Entries#Treasure|reading creature entries]] (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the [[SRD:Special Attacks|special attacks]] section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)</span><br />
<br />
::::<span style="color: gray;">I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)</span><br />
<br />
* Reorganize the character class information: Demo [[Multiclass Characters (SRD Evaluation)|Page 1: Multiclass Characters]] and [[SRD:Character Classes|Page 2:Character Classes]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*: Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
*:: Done. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
</span><br />
<br />
==Ability Modifiers==<br />
<br />
Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --[[User:Calidore Chase|Calidore Chase]] 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==New SRD Landing Page==<br />
<br />
I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here. <br />
<br />
Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially [[User:Green Dragon]] for coming up with the winning design, and [[User:Sledged]] for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::It looks much better. Well done, all-- [[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)<br />
<br />
==SRD Question==<br />
<br />
Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:This should be answered in ''Heroes of Horror''. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- [[User:Sepsis|Sepsis]] 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
: I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:: ''':)''' &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::: Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Redirects for common pages ==<br />
<br />
I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type <nowiki>[[Dex]]</nowiki> and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having <nowiki>[[Magic Missile]]</nowiki> redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. <nowiki>[[Shield]]</nowiki>), and how would one decide to which page they go. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.<br />
<br />
:::Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --[[User:80.175.250.218|80.175.250.218]] 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:: What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --[[User:Cuthalion|Cúthalion]] 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Moved Epic Level Basics ==<br />
<br />
After looking over the [[SRD:Epic Level Basics|epic level basics rules]], there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Looks good. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Help me find... ==<br />
<br />
...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? {{Unsigned|156.1.60.60|11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:::"Open Game Content" as defined in the [[Open Game License v1.0a]]. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's [http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20 d20 section] of their site for more information.) &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::: Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. &mdash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::To quote [[User talk:Green Dragon#Thanks for the PM|Green Dragon]] (since he has said well enough already):<br />
<br />
::::::''Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.''<br />
<br />
::::::&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::::Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P [[User:Armond|Armond]] 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
::::::::Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! ''':)'''--[[User:Sam Kay|Sam Kay]] 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::::::::Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== To do: Special Abilities ==<br />
<br />
Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? [[User:Armond|Armond]] 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Movement modes ==<br />
<br />
So I've moved movement modes under [[SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance]]. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).<br />
<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|- style="text-align: center;"<br />
! A<br />
! B<br />
! C<br />
|-<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
::: 1.1.5.4 Movement Modes<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.1 Burrow<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.2 Climb<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.3 Fly<br />
:::: 1.1.5.4.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
:: 1.1.6 Movement Modes<br />
::: 1.1.6.1 Burrow<br />
::: 1.1.6.2 Climb<br />
::: 1.1.6.3 Fly<br />
::: 1.1.6.4 Swim<br />
|1 Movement, Position, and Distance<br />
: 1.1 Tactical Movement<br />
:: 1.1.5 Special Movement Rules<br />
: 1.2 Movement Modes<br />
:: 1.2.1 Burrow<br />
:: 1.2.2 Climb<br />
:: 1.2.3 Fly<br />
:: 1.2.4 Swim<br />
|}<br />
&mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I vote for B. [[User:Armond|Armond]] 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I agree. &ndash;[[User:EldritchNumen|EldritchNumen]] 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::I am for B or C. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::B it is. &mdash;[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Landing Page ==<br />
<br />
SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the [[SRD:Combat]] that is on the landing page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== (Rule) or ==<br />
<br />
I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --[[User:Aarnott|Aarnott]] 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have [[SRD:Attack of Opportunity]] etc.<br />
:And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --[[User:Mkill|Mkill]] 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. [[Stunned]] is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, [[Alchemical Siver]] refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, [[How Combat Works]]. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms]. <br />
<br />
::If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Subrace Naming Conventions ==<br />
<br />
So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):<br />
<br />
'''(A) Standard Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf<br />
* Elf<br />
* Gnome<br />
* Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Dwarf, Hill<br />
* Elf, High<br />
* Gnome, Rock<br />
* Halfling, Lightfoot<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Hill Dwarf<br />
* High Elf<br />
* Rock Gnome<br />
* Lightfoot Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* (Hill) Dwarf<br />
* (High) Elf<br />
* (Rock) Gnome<br />
* (Lightfoot) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Deep<br />
* Elf, Aquatic<br />
* Gnome, Forest<br />
* Halfling, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Deep Dwarf<br />
* Aquatic Elf<br />
* Forest Gnome<br />
* Deep Halfling<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* (Deep) Dwarf<br />
* (Aquatic) Elf<br />
* (Forest) Gnome<br />
* (Deep) Halfling<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)<br />
* Elf, Dark (Drow)<br />
* Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Duergar<br />
* Drow<br />
* Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Dwarf, Duergar<br />
* Elf, Drow<br />
* Gnome, Svirfneblin<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Dwarf, Gray<br />
* Elf, Dark<br />
* Gnome, Deep<br />
|<br />
'''V'''<br />
* Duergar (Gray Dwarf)<br />
* Drow (Dark Elf)<br />
* Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
'''(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces'''<br />
{| class="column"<br />
|<br />
'''I'''<br />
* Goblin (Blue)<br />
* Halfling (Tallfellow)<br />
* Troll (Scrag)<br />
|<br />
'''II'''<br />
* Blue<br />
* Tallfellow<br />
* Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''III'''<br />
* Goblin, Blue<br />
* Halfling, Tallfellow<br />
* Troll, Scrag<br />
|<br />
'''IV'''<br />
* Blue (Goblin)<br />
* Tallfellow (Halfling)<br />
* Scrag (Troll)<br />
|}<br />
<br />
The first column of each list is my own preference.<br />
<br />
''Note:'' Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. [[SRD:Dwarves (Race)]]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named [[Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)]]... I would not worry much about it though, I will live ''':)'''. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
:::Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: [[SRD:Elf, Dark&mdash;Drow (Race)]]. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
::::To me that looks like a better option. --[[User:Green Dragon|Green Dragon]] 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Unearth Arcana ==<br />
<br />
I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - [[user:Mayhew18|Mayhew18]]<br />
<br />
: A UA transcript is [[UA:Variant Rules|here]]. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the [[UA Talk:Variant Rules#Notes to Contributers|guidelines]]. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.<br />
: The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)<br />
<br />
== Level Dependent Abilitites ==<br />
<br />
I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. {{Unsigned|T G Geko|10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Auto-Creating Links ==<br />
<br />
I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.<br />
<br />
I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.<br />
<br />
* Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way. <br />
* Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.<br />
* Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.<br />
* Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, <nowiki>[[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]</nowiki>. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.<br />
* Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)<br />
<br />
If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== Psion Skill Problem ==<br />
<br />
For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
:That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::: sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.<br />
:::i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki ([[SRD:Skills]])<br />
:::i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here [[SRD:Psion Discipline Powers]].<br />
:::::the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in [[SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List]].<br />
:::::the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in [[SRD:Ranger Spell List]].<br />
:::::in this link [[SRD:Magic Armor]] the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Rings]] it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.<br />
:::::in [[SRD:Scrolls]] the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.<br />
:::::also, in here [[SRD:Random Psionic Items]]<br />
:::::sorry for the nitpicking. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
::::::By all means, point out any errors you see. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
:::::CustServ response (080128-000211):<br />
::::::''Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.''<br />
:::::—[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
revisit of previous correction: in rings [[SRD:Rings]] the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
and on [[SRD:Psionic Feats]] the psionic fist feat link is fudged. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Skills]] and [[SRD:Table of Skill Synergies]] on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.<br />
<br />
on [[SRD:Epic Feats]] there is a variety of fudged links. {{Unsigned|84.108.164.233|02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST)}}<br />
<br />
: Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —[[User:Sledged|Sledged]] ([[User talk:Sledged|talk]]) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
::Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --[[User:Dmilewski|Dmilewski]] 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)<br />
<br />
== question regarding epic levels ==<br />
<br />
as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. <br />
it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something?<br />
<br />
also, another question: say a 21st level wizard developes an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develope and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develope an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develope an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own?</div>84.108.164.233https://www.dandwiki.com/w/index.php?title=SRD_Talk:Epic_Psionic_Powers&diff=221637SRD Talk:Epic Psionic Powers2008-02-06T11:52:48Z<p>84.108.164.233: buggy links</p>
<hr />
<div>== buggy links ==<br />
<br />
the animate dead seed link is fudged.</div>84.108.164.233