Talk:D&D Wiki Magazine/Issue 4
From D&D Wiki
Yo, I know I've not been hugely involved in magazine creation stuff thus far. Where do we stand on havin' any Pathfinder content in the magazine? I'd be tempted to try put enough Pathfinder edition articles together if there's a possibility of magazining it. No worries though if we're just sticking to WotC editions though, I won't be offended~ --SgtLion (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2016 (MDT)
- If it fits the theme, and there's enough material for a few pages, then I'll take it! Marasmusine (talk) 10:25, 1 November 2016 (MDT)
An acid is a molecule capable of donating a proton to another molecule that is similarly capable of receiving protons. Through processes like redox and... Whats that? Wrong acid? Ah, sorry, my mistake.
Acid is the common name for Lysergic acid diethylamide, a psychedelic drug famous for it's widespread use in the 60's and for probably inspiring creatures like the Illith- Oh, wrong acid again? Well sorry for my science, guys...
Acid is a misnomer for Corrosive Substances, a fluid that damages various materials that it touches, including metals and organic materials, causing dangerous chemical burns. The word comes from the Latin corrodere, to gnaw. In DnD, the substance is famous for dissolving anything and everything except for what it's container is made of, including things of the same material as the container. This function is what makes people hate oozes so much.
Speaking of which...
The Ooze. Gelatinous cubes. Slimes. There is just something disturbing about these D&D originals. Is it the disgusting and squick filled names? Is that they remind us a little too much of that thing (you know which one) growing in the fridge? Is it just because they are just too inhuman, unreadable, immovable, implacable, unbribable, for us to really comprehend them? Or is it because every time we run into them we have to buy new weapons and armor?
Whatever it is, Oozes are one of the most instantly recognizable monsters in D&D, alongside fellow original D&D monsters like Illithids and Beholders. Just about every D&D campaign has to include at least one random encounter with these mildly moist sounding monsters.
Unfortunately, D&D suffers from an inexplicable lack of material for these things with confusingly dessert based names. After all, what is it about mindless, inhumane, immune to half the playbook, and incapable of really carrying things that doesn't just scream "Player Character?" Well fear not, dear reader, for within the ancient, leather bound, dust covered pages before you (or on your computer screen), you will find races, classes, and feats designed to deliver the power of these disturbingly attractive* monsters to into the your innocent hands. Use them well, and make sure to avoid salt.
So I wrote an intro thing with my tongue decidedly in my cheek. The * part is purely for the sheer hilarity of that dichotomy. I pushed the borders of what may be acceptable, so feel free to suggest edits. --Salasay Δ 19:47, 1 November 2016 (MDT)
- Updated to add acid portion and push the envelope a little more. --Salasay Δ 10:05, 14 January 2017 (MST)
- I'm not trying to be nitpicky or anything, but I think that "their" in the fourth sentence should be a "there". SirSprinkles (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2016 (MDT)
- Thank you Salasay, I will certainly use that, I've got a good feeling about this issue. Marasmusine (talk) 02:19, 2 November 2016 (MDT)
- So are we actually okay with numbers 4, 6, and 9 being Grinch references? Because I really hope we can do that. I see this issue being really funny if we play our card right. Maybe include some humorous sidebars throughout or something. --Salasay Δ 21:33, 21 November 2016 (MST)
Hey. I'd like to suggest the Oozes (5e Creature). Not the page itself, but the pages on it, as they're all oozes. Also, I believe I've fixed most of the issues with the Possessed Ooze Knight (5e Creature). SirSprinkles (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2016 (MST)
- YOU HAVE MADE A LOT OF OOZES. Marasmusine (talk) 14:40, 8 November 2016 (MST)
- Haha, I suppose I have XD. Also, digging through my older contributions for suggestions, I find my old slime-based race, the Silmarin (5e Race). I realise that the description could be expanded somewhat, and I'll try and do so, but until then, a suggestion for the magazine. SirSprinkles (talk) 17:03, 9 November 2016 (MST)
Let's finish this.
My focus is back on the magazine. I have updated the WIP link, please take a look to see what gaps need filling. I will accept anything acid-related as well, there must be loads of stuff. Give me links for anything on the wiki that looks good, and if possible balance-check and edit to bring to standards. Thank-you for any help, I can't do this on my own!
- When I get a chance, I'll add an acid portion to the editorial. Maybe puke fun at the chemical vs role-playing definitions or something. --Salasay Δ 16:40, 11 January 2017 (MST)
To do: Illustrations. Also give me links for any appopriate copyleft-license images. 05:50, 8 January 2017 (MST)
Submission: Adamantine Ooze
- Thank-you. I don't suppose you could take a look at Ochremancer (3.5e Class) and Caustic (3.5e Prestige Class)? Marasmusine (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2017 (MST)
5E Ooze Bloodline
I just finished the first iteration of my Ooze Bloodline and posted it to the wiki. If someone else can go over it and make sure it's balanced enough to add to the wiki, I would appreciate that. I haven't added fluff yet, but I will within a few days. Here's the link: Ooze Bloodline (5e Archetype) --OwenLeaf (talk) 07:39, 27 January 2017 (MST)
Are discussions, like mentioned on Talk:Main Page#Discussion, going to be added? Ones I would love to see: Discussion:Had an argument with another player about my psionic power "Entangling Ectoplasm", what is your take on this?, and Discussion:Ooze Questions (for example). It would be interesting to see these discussions revisited for 5e and maybe even 4e. --Green Dragon (talk) 15:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Is this still accepting submissions? If so, I'd like to submit Slimefolk (5e Race). Slime Girl and Slime People got rejected for being stubs and missing a lot of information, and I have cleaned them up and made them into something I'd like to think is usable. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs) . . 22:28, 16 August 2017 (MDT)