User talk:Guy

From D&D Wiki

(Redirected from User:Guy/Sandbox)
Jump to: navigation, search

If you are looking to start a conversation regarding a specific article, I would prefer you start it on that article's talk page instead of on my user talk page.
To start a new conversation, click the "+" up top, or hold "shift alt +" on your keyboard.

Welcome to D&D Wiki![edit]


Hello Guy, and welcome to D&D Wiki! I hope you are enjoying D&D Wiki and have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing, we recommend you make sure your user preferences match your preferences.


If you have any questions about a specific page please ask it on that page's talk page. If you have a D&D-related question, you can ask it on DnD Discussions. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be asked here. If you need to contact another user, please use their talk page.


Syntax can be very difficult, and if you need help a good place to start is Help:Editing on Wikipedia (or even their Introduction page). This will explain basic wiki formatting and should provide quite a few useful links that explain more specific areas of wiki formatting. Help:Portal also provides detailed explanation of information important specifically to this community.


A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I'm sure you will find us friendly. To enable the community to function, a number of policies are in effect. Most importantly, we follow and expect you to follow Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and etiquette when discussing anything. As most work has multiple authors, please do not delete content without following our removal process. When posting a comment on a talk page, please ensure you sign your name with four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the signature icon (Signature icon.png). This will automatically produce your name and the date. I hope you come to enjoy D&D Wiki and the community. Welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --SirSprinkles (talk) 12:38, 22 February 2017 (MST)

New creature template fields[edit]

Hi Guy, I'm trying out the new fields and it seems to be working great. I don't know why I didn't think of this when I first made the template. It will problems with miscalculations of HP etc. Once you are happy that it all works OK, you or I can update the preload removing the redundant fields. Marasmusine (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2017 (MST)

Thanks for testing it out. I haven't tested out every possible combination of factors, but at this point I'm pretty sure there won't be any major problems. I'm glad you like it. I edited the preload as you suggested, but of course feel free to tweak it. — Guy (talk | edits) 03:50, 1 March 2017 (MST)

Good Job![edit]

Choco chip cookie.jpg WikiCookie                            
Thanks so much for all your hard work on templates such as Template:5c and Template:5s. Keep it up! SirSprinkles (talk) 03:10, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for the cookie! I will savor it. — Guy (talk | edits) 09:49, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

New Celestial Creatures Looking for General Feedback[edit]

Hello Guy! I've recently created and posted a big slew of new celestial satblocks, based on the angelic enemies encountered in the Bayonetta series of games, and I'm currently looking for feedback on their overall statblocks. If you, Marasmusine, SirSprinkles, SgtLion, or anybody else in the wiki have any feedback or general comments at all regarding my posted creatures, then please don’t hesitate to let me know, so that I can better fine-tune them for actual campaign use later down the line.
Links to all of my posted creatures can be found on my user page if you don't want to scroll through the entire homebrew monsters section. Clockwerk66 (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, sure, I'll look at some. Let me know if there's any in particular you want reviewed. I've barely played the Bayonetta series itself, so I can't much comment on how the creatures are interpreted, but I can examine CR values and such. — Guy (talk | edits) 04:56, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Waste of Time?[edit]

Is everything okay? Marasmusine (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Things could be better, but don't worry about it. Thanks for your concern, though. - Guy (talk) 14:11, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
You SURE you're okay? Why did you delete your whole user page? Clockwerk66 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
What would it take to view the previous version of Guy's user page? -- 19:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
From this page, click the "user page" tab at the top. Once you're on that page, click the "history" tab. You can see any previous version of a page in there by clicking the time/date. The history tab is an extremely useful tool in general. - Guy (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Majora's Mask[edit]

Hello Guy. Recently, someone created a page for Majora's Mask. I've done some work in bringing it up to scratch, but (having little experience with Majora's Mask) I'm stumped as to what benefits it might grant. Do you have any ideas? SirSprinkles (talk) 00:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I saw that page, but personally I disagree with how it is handled. Most of how Majora's Mask actually functions in Majora's Mask is revealed at the climax of the game, and hints that it would be better as a creature than as equipment.
Donning the mask causes you to become possessed with an ancient evil creature that uses you as a puppet for a month or less, before discarding your body to transform itself into (at least) one of four different creatures, one of which is essentially a moving and flying version of the mask. It is heavily implied that the creature regenerates its sealed power as you wear it, and you have little to no control over yourself while the mask is worn.
If the mask was to be equipment, I think it would definitely be a cursed item. Considering the everything however I think it would better as a shapechanging creature (Majora (5e Creature)) that could take the shape of a mask as one of its forms.
If someone wanted to keep the mask as a non-cursed homebrew item, though, it would definitely grant the following effects. All of these were used by the wearing skull kid in The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. There is never a proper fight involving the skull kid, so it's a relatively small list:
  • The wearer's voice and speech patterns are altered to become more "demonic." There's an obvious pitch change of the skull kid's vocal sound effects, but it's difficult to say the exact difference is considering there's no audible dialogue.
  • A sharp increase in intelligence and cunning. (Canonically this might just be replacing the wearer's mental stats with Majora's.)
  • The ability to maintain constant effortless levitation-based flight. This flight never ceases, even when the wearer is damaged or their concentration is compromised. I would guess a speed of 40 feet.
  • The ability to bring the moon to crash down into the planet over the course of about three days.
  • The ability to cast bestow curse and something akin to true polymorph. He is able to change Link into a deku scrub, a man into a child, and similar transformations, but always does so as a prank. Nonetheless he does this sparringly and when directly confronted does not use these abilities, suggesting they have limited use. (Of note is that even though Majora transforms, in the battle against it does not take anything greater than a Large form, so the spell used may not be quite as powerful as true polymorph.)
Later, Hyrule Warriors Legends made the skull kid wearing Majora's Mask a playable character, and showed several specific combat abilities. The game isn't considered canon, but still:
  • The ability to quickly hurl numerous orbs of violet-colored fiery energy (or "dark energy") to inflict small area damage, usually in quick succession. Comparable to casting a 1st level acid splash 5 to 10 times in succession.
  • The ability to hurl one huge orb of "dark energy" to inflict damage across a wider area, comparable to fireball.
  • The ability to blow out a wave of dark energy in all directions, comparable to thunderwave.
  • "Laser Vision," akin to that of Superman, shot from the eyes in the mask.
  • The ability to summon a tornado (about 20 feet across and 80 feet up) and a small meteor (which explodes across an area of about 20 feet).
Hope that helps.
- Guy (talk) 05:49, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Zelda nut here, and I'd like to say a few things.

  • The Moon being dropped on Termina is a bit more showing the powers of the Mask. The fact it's bringing down the freaking MOON possibly indicates the fact that nothing is out of the Mask's powers.
  • Changing Link into a Deku Scrub, making Kafei a kid, and even shattering the Great Fairies of Termina into sprites seemed to be Skull Kid's ideas of pranks. This gives a possible indication of, while Majora's Mask is sentient, all it does is be the initial whisper to possible suitors, control a host and let them have their idea of "fun," as we see in the eponymous game. It seems OP and powered, but it's a mix of "bestow curse" with the reality-changing power of a Wish spell. Except there's not much of a "Monkey's Paw" to say "this happens, but a bad thing happens to compensate." Link showing up in Termina was probably a giant DM's intervention at fixing the issue. Or maybe Skull Kid was a child DM for the world and screwed everything up, so the Players had to fill Link's role when the DM resumed, and retconned it to the Mask's fault...
  • The lasers were a part of the first phase of the final battle in the game. If you had the Fierce Deity Mask and used it, chances are, you probably pwned the Majora fights with the Lazer Beamz and never saw Majora's attacks. Hyrule Warrior's interpretations of moves and abilities do have origins from the actual franchise.

That's my input at least. Nightmares are dreams too... (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2017 (UTC)


Barnstar.png Barnstar                            
I award you a barnstar for diligently finding areas of improvement within D&D Wiki's infrastructure, and constructively implementing the solution. Keep it up! --Green Dragon (talk) 13:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! I appreciate it. - Guy (talk) 13:50, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

All-Nighter as Independent Feat?[edit]

Hallo, Guy! I read your Feats (Hyrule Supplement) page, and this All-Nighter feat sounded awesome. This, I think, is what makes a good example of 5e feat. If you approve, I would like to make it an independent feat, with standalone page and all, with maybe a bit of modification. What do you think? --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 08:13, 5 July 2017 (MDT)

Ohi! I'm glad you like it. I just made it, as per your suggestion, but of course feel free to tweak it however. - Guy (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2017 (MDT)
Woah, that was fast! Thank you for your approval - I'll take gear from now on. Thanks! --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2017 (MDT)

Race Conversion[edit]

Hey Guy, how familiar are you with creating creatures? I was wondering whether you could help me turn the necrolyte race that has a cool core idea but is unbalanced into a creature? I can understand if you can't, but if not, could you at least point me in a direction of someone who could possibly help? Thank you for your time either way, --Blobby383b (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2017 (MDT)

Nevermind... I will look elsewhere for help.--Blobby383b (talk) 16:46, 29 July 2017 (MDT)


Rainbow trout transparent.png Whack!

You've been slapped around a bit with a large trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something silly.

Vandalising pages you are the primary contributor for is still vandalizing pages Guy. Please don't do it again. --ConcealedLightThis user is an administrator (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2018 (MDT)

Sword Breaker[edit]

Hi Guy, you've moved the sword breaker to a variant page ID. I'm wondering what the original is? Marasmusine (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2018 (MDT)

One can see in the history, this version was the one I was referring to as the "previous version," and I've already put that version back up on Sword Breaker (5e Equipment). - Guy (talk) 09:56, 19 May 2018 (MDT)
Only now it doesn't have the correct page history per our license. We can list variants on the same page, like we did at Katana (5e Equipment). Marasmusine (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2018 (MDT)
If you insist that's best, I have no means to prevent you from deleting Sword Breaker (5e Equipment) and moving Sword Breaker, Variant (5e Equipment) back to that name. - Guy (talk) 10:02, 19 May 2018 (MDT)

Hey bro[edit]

Just saying, this is my idea, and I am going to do it. Don't steal this from me—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Budew2222 (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.

Stealing what? Are you referring to those creature pages? I was trying to improve the creatures existing on this wiki so that others can use them without problems or frustration; I barely even changed anything. I don't know what you think I'm "stealing." - Guy (talk) 12:10, 8 June 2018 (MDT)
Sorry about that bro, I was tired and frustrated, and as you implimented that thing I had just got done with another one and lost all me data. You had no wy of knowin, but It made me a little mad. Im sorryBudew2222 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2018 (MDT)
Oh. No worries, then. Conflicting edits can suck, for sure, and no one wants those to happen. I try to make a habit of copy-pasting my edit before I hit save or preview, so it doesn't get lost with an unexpected "conflicting edit" message. - Guy (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2018 (MDT)

Class Damage Guideline[edit]

Can you justify your recent reversion and why you thought it would be acceptable to do this without discussing you disapproval on a talk page first or at least in an edit summary? —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2018 (MDT)

Similar to moving the page without discussing on a talk page first? Summaries aren't discussion. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
The Class Damage Guide clearly belonged in the 5e Class Design Guide, like the Class Do's and Don'ts does. There isn't a reason to keep these pages separate. In a situation like that its fine to be bold and just go for it. If there is a issue taken, then justification needs to be given and while a summary isn't a discussion it exists as that, a summary. Leaving it blank and reverting otherwise valid edits is simply in poor spirit and the whole purpose of this is to ask for justification for behavior rather then blankly reverting edits as Guy has done. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
First, I agree with BSFM here. I feel I shouldn't need to point out the double standard being presented.
Second, my "reversion" did not merely revert one edit as you are implying it did. I replaced it with several edits I believed to be more fitting to accomplish the goal I thought you were trying to achieve, anyway.
But as requested, here are some of my justifications:
  • At the moment of the copy-paste, the content of the Class Design Guide and the Class Damage Guide were conflicting in several ways. Just as an example, I made this edit from my smartphone to better accommodate the transclusion. If the content was properly altered to better fit the two pieces together, that would be a step in the right direction.
  • It is more useful to have a smaller page when directing someone to a specific point. In my opinion, transclusion should be more commonly used outside of templates.
  • The appearance of stolen authorship. This is a problem with merging pages in general, but merely copy-pasting from one page to another can give false impressions of contribution credit.
  • There is no reason Class Damage (5e Guideline) needs to be a redirect page instead of a transcluded page.
The only reason I didn't do the same to the other pages you merged was because:
  • I didn't have a hand in them directly.
  • I fully expected you to lash out at me in response to my edits, in one way or another, despite the fact what I would've done would have been effectively equivalent to what you did. I believe it would have been—and at present, is—easier to defend my edits when they are made in regards to content with which I am more familiar.
- Guy (talk) 10:23, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
I don't think asking for justification is lashing out but you are free to view my comments negatively if you wish. The content you viewed as conflicting could of been edited on the new page. I disagree since you can just link the header in the link. It's a wiki, I'm sure you know the Help:Attribution policy well enough by now, and the edit summary states where the text come from so there shouldn't be an issue of authorship. Also, disagree, the page was turned into a redirect to not require the updating of every link that linked to that page. I'd discussed it previously with Geo and he agreed that the pages were unnecessary and should be moved to the main pages. I'd also, given a edit summary as stated prior, so I don't think your comparison of our actions is valid. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
If you had asked "What is the purpose of this edit?" or "Why did you do this?" in an appropriate place, I would be much less inclined to view your words negatively. On the note of an appropriate place, it is possible someone who has watched Class Damage (5e Guideline) would want to be part of this discussion, or at least know it occurred. I know there are numerous pages I've watched and am interested in, and would like to know if a discussion like this occurred regarding any one of them.
You mention Help:Attribution Policy, which I find ironic. That page itself suggests the use of the history page. By copy-pasting content, you vastly mitigate—almost remove entirely—the history of Class Damage (5e Guideline) from the more visible public record.
"Also, disagree, the page was not turned into a redirect to not require the updating of every link that linked to that page." I'm confused by this. You'll notice very little links to Class Damage (5e Guideline), and even if there was, I had already provided a link at the top of that page to 5e Class Design Guide. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say, here.
I'm not sure where you and Geo discussed that matter, but it would have been nice to do it on the talk page of the affected content. At least that way an interested party they could have a say, too.
I stand by my points. I assume you stand by yours. Clearly, we disagree. Based on how things seem to be going lately, and that you apparently have Geodude671 on your side, I fully expect my opinion to be brushed aside and for the matter to be resolved in a way I find unfavorable. I'm not going to engage an edit war over this. - Guy (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
Okay, in order to make progress on this beyond, "I disagree", I'll make the following compromises based on your points:
  • The page will be moved to be contained within the Class Design Guide and will include the positive edits you've made.
  • The original page will retain its page history but its content will be a redirect to the header it was moved under within the 5e Class Design Guide.
  • The edit where the Damage Guide is copied in, will explicitly state that its content was taken from the Class Damage (5e Guideline), including a link to the said page and I will even denounce ownership of any content added. Something like, "The page Class Damage (5e Guideline) has been integrated into this page. I do not take authorship for any of the content added to this page by this edit."
I believe that addresses the majority of your points. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2018 (MDT)
Your original plan was to blank the page and turn it into a redirect, rather than just transcluding it. Your new plan is to blank the page and turn it into a redirect, rather than just transcluding it, but throw up a weird message at the top of that section. That sounds like a compromise to you?
Just do whatever you want. Leave out the message. - Guy (talk) 04:58, 22 June 2018 (MDT)
Ok. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 05:51, 22 June 2018 (MDT)
I understand a need/desire for an explanation why someone undid edits. For me, it was nice you explained your edit but to comment on a user page why they didn't do what you didn't do doesn't seem fair. Personally, I like the smaller pages vs lumping it into a big wall of text guideline but we'd argue in circles all day which is better.
As a sidenote, requesting/demanding justification isn't playing nice with others in my opinion. "Hey how come you undid my edits?" "Can you help me understand your recent edit on this page?" These help convey a willingness to listen and discuss instead of possibly giving a user "bad vibes". No user is another users superior here, and I feel when justification is requested/demanded it gets communicated that ranks exist. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:50, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
I just asked a question and then answered your interjection. You don't need to inform me of this additional information that I already know. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
I almost feel the need to apologize on CL's behalf just because this occurred on my talk page. BSFM was giving his opinion in a matter that was obviously intended to be helpful. - Guy (talk) 15:10, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
Thanks Guy, and I’m sorry to both of you. This is your talk page and the question was for you and unlike when users step in to help out others on talk pages, my original comment was unnecessary because it wasn’t constructive or helpful and maybe extra conflict could’ve been avoided. As I said on CL’s page, I will try better when I help. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:30, 21 June 2018 (MDT)
Thanks. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 00:49, 22 June 2018 (MDT)

Link as a D&D character[edit]

Hey Guy, I asked on Discord and Geo suggested use the Hyrule setting to make a character based on Link. What options would be ideal for a 4th level Link? And what is your opinion for non-hyrule race/class build for this idea. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:33, 30 June 2018 (MDT)

That depends largely on which Link you're trying to emulate. The one from Breath of the Wild has pretty distinct capabilities from the one in Twilight Princess, and both are different from the original one from The Legend of Zelda & Adventure of Link.
Under normal DnD rules, pretty much every Link would take its first level in fighter (either vanilla or Hyrulean). Link is famously "proficient with anything as soon as he touches it," which fits fighter; outside of a couple instances, he can't really do ranger or paladin things. After that, I think it really depends on which one you have in mind? - Guy (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2018 (MDT)
I do not think my player has an idea. Maybe it helps my player is only familiar with the last 5 years of Zelda? Or that my player had the idea of playing a paladin to be like Link. I have no idea why Link is a paladin, but it is interesting you mentioned paladin too! I am the DM for this character and they'll only be around for one evening, homebrew isn't too much an issue. Perhaps I can give feedback on a Hyrulean Fighter build you like to know about. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 07:55, 1 July 2018 (MDT)
Paladin does seem really strange. The only Link which could do any magical healing was the in one Zelda II: Adventure of Link, which is the second oldest game and one of the most obscure. Outside of that one, very few can cast spells, and the few who do do so entirely through magic items. He might be wanting to incorporate those magic items as aspects of his character, but even then an Eldritch Knight (PHB fighter) or Spellsword (Hyrule fighter) would mimic those capabilities more closely. Almost every modern Link uses Dexterity (Acrobatics) with flips and such in combat, which a heavily-armored paladin would be pretty bad at...
The biggest Zelda from the past five years is Breath of the Wild. That Link is easily a Dexterity fighter using magic items. It could multiclass into rogue or opportunist to emulate the Sneakstrike option Link has in that game. Under the Hyrule setting, that Link would be a hylian with the "fringe-dweller" traits; and its fighter subclass would be Tunic. - Guy (talk) 08:14, 1 July 2018 (MDT)
Great stuff, I’ll talk with my player in an hour or so to see they say! Again, awesome stuff :) BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:36, 1 July 2018 (MDT)

5e Criticisms[edit]

I probably should have asked first but would you allow me to keep your criticisms alive in the digital world? I created a page for them on a user space so I wouldn't forget, not out of disrespect to you. I can remove the material if you'd prefer. Thanks Guy! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2018 (MDT)

Sure. - Guy (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2018 (MDT)
whew thank you. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:45, 18 July 2018 (MDT)


How do users do this? BigShotFancyMan (talk) 10:37, 9 August 2018 (MDT)

See Special:Block and MediaWiki's Help:Blocking users. - Guy 10:54, 9 August 2018 (MDT)
Oh do I feel like a bloke for asking. I thought you saying on your userpage was something else. Like, users could block you;not the wiki blocking entirely. Quit being silly dude! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:02, 9 August 2018 (MDT)

Barnstar for ye smart 'un[edit]

Barnstar.png Barnstar                            
Thank you for making great creative content, curating articles reasonably, good technical contributions, and generally being a real level-headed Guy, a very welcome presence. It seems nary a week goes by that I do not appreciate your work in some way. Thankee. --SgtLion (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2018 (MDT)

Hey Guy, I initially just wanted to say thanks for your helpful input at Template talk:5e - I was but a philistine with things like magic words, and came to that page to say "'tis impossible", as I would never have thought to use those extensions, 'til I saw your words. It did then occur to me that I repeatedly notice you are, like, constantly doing good work; I trust your edits implicitly, and far more than most other active users, and you have no idea how much nicer that makes my life. --SgtLion (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2018 (MDT)

Oh, thanks! That means a lot, especially coming from you. - Guy 10:58, 22 August 2018 (MDT)
Gratz on your Barnstar Guy. Sound words to describe your efforts here. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2018 (MDT)

Private message[edit]

Hi Guy, there's something I'd like to discuss with you privately. Could you either email me or let me email you? — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 11:42, 1 September 2018 (MDT)

Duel Terminal :Order of the Warlords[edit]

hey guy while i aprichite the input on Duel Terminal :Order of the Warlords (5e Campaign Setting) this is a 100% custom homebrew if you feel something is amiss plz message me there will be added lore as its being 100% handwritten ect and rebalancing once threw the other races this campaign is designed for 4-8 players and all the bonuses and sats are custom hince the custom monster manually for it is also homebrew so bare that in mind also adding custom rules to interactions so for instance a ac of 40 would only require a roll of 10 or higher by 4 people at once in or to hit. doing 100+ uniques stats for this. thanks (talk),(talk) 20:34 9/5/18 (EST)

btw so you know master diamond is the leader of the gem knight clan he is the boss monster and I have and own the Dungeon Master's Guide not only that the stats I used are based on already existing creatures Aegis_(5e_Creature) on the wiki page why dont u take a moment and do your own research clearly guy you lack the understanding of homebrew this monsters are not meant for a normal campaign hince the campaign settings (talk),(talk) 00:00 9/6/18 (EST)

If you continue to belittle a user on their own talk page and work against the spirit of collaboration that the site is founded on you will receive a strike.
On a more personal note, Guy has one of the most comprehensive and high-quality campaign settings on the wiki. So I'm sure whatever advice he has given in regards to your own is worth noting. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2018 (MDT)
"for instance a ac of 40 would only require a roll of 10 or higher by 4 people at once in or to hit"?
If the campaign setting is using homebrew rules this far outside of the norm, I would highly encourage you to add {{Design Disclaimer}} or some other notice to these pages.
You'll notice with creatures made for other homebrew campaigns, like Doom or Hyrule, they generally follow the norm for 5e creatures. If anything is amiss, there's a notice on the page regarding it. That is the expected standard for all pages on this wiki, and violation of that standard is frowned upon.
I'm not an administrator, so I can't enforce policy, but removing warranted maintenance templates is similarly in bad form. I hope what I've said will be considered, and I'm glad you seem to have brought AC down to reasonable levels on a least a few of these creatures. If you want to work on improving only one aspect at a time, I would suggest next using page 274 of your Dungeon Master's Guide to estimate more accurate challenge ratings. - Guy 04:21, 6 September 2018 (MDT)
We have a work in progress disclaimer in place now, saying something is stupidly absurd was not aprichited all the stats I created was based around monsters that were already established i hope you took a moment to check out the monster I mentioned but we made adjustments to the ac so not to create confusion please allow time its is by far not in the finished stages until the custom rule sets are in place and disclaimers are in place the Challenge ratings are place holders to make it easier to convert to proper format all this info was on google docs and atm it myself and one other editor converting 265 pages of google doc to html5 also if need be can refer "standard monsters" with similar amount info Android_(5e_Creature) -Dmoice 08:50 9/6/18 (EST)
"Barely resembles anything usable in any edition of Dungeons & Dragons" is far from "stupidly absurd," and I'd ask you to not again imply I or anyone else has said something we have not.
A disclaimer is good. That said, I would advise you to use the {{Design Disclaimer}} I mentioned previously. It serves a purpose that a campaign setting notice alone does not.
In regards to the AC, yes, I noticed as I said in my previous reply, and remain glad you seem to be taking positive steps on that front.
The gold standard for creature description is the Monster Manual, not other pages on this wiki. Even compared to the creature you linked, it has more description of how it appears and behaves than the creatures we're discussing. Something like that isn't ideal but it's relatively acceptable.
It's good to be ambitious, but just because one has quantity doesn't mean any bit of it is somehow immune to standards of quality and usability. I understand it takes time, and realize you are trying to meet this wiki's standards, so I appreciate that. - Guy 09:38, 6 September 2018 (MDT)
my second editor was the one that brought this issue to me he felt attacked and belittled and tbh i can act irrationally when it comes to my friends he felt as thou you were claiming he/were stupid i have let him know that if he feels that way he should leave it to the admins and i will do the same for now on im a bit hot headed and best i leave it to them to determine and asked that he not delete anything as well-Dmoice 12:30 9/6/18 (EST)

the idea was to do a custom armor set like many online rpgs to have where there wasn't a per say ac but to have armor to get threw before damage could be dealt i know that i placed it wrong and can see and understand the confusion hice why for now just have the ac at a reasonable place till the custom ruleset is added novel idea but thought might be a fun mechanic to add -Dmoice 22:32 9/7/18 (EST)

To me it sounds like you're trying to mostly if not completely replace Armor Class with Damage Reduction (DR). If you don't already know, DR was more common in previous editions of D&D, like 4e or 3e, but it virtually never had numbers as high as 40, 70, or the like. I've seen a few different variant rules which try to put DR into 5e, like Damage Reduction (5e Variant Rule), which might serve as inspiration for you. Completely replacing AC with DR, and/or having DR on such an immense scale seems particularly difficult to balance within the confines of the D&D ruleset. If that remains your goal, well, good luck with that. - Guy 06:48, 8 September 2018 (MDT)


WMBarnstar.png The Working Man's Barnstar
I award you this barnstar for your extensive work with copyright disclaimers and franchise categories. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:52, 9 September 2018 (MDT)

Oh my. Thank you very much. It's nice to have one's efforts recognized. - Guy 17:42, 9 September 2018 (MDT)


Hi Guy, regarding the copyright disclaimer on the Rebelstar campaign, the owner Julian Gollop has stated that he considers this franchise to be public domain. Marasmusine (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2018 (MDT)

Thanks for bringing this up. - Guy 12:17, 12 September 2018 (MDT)


All aboard the S.S. Adminship!
Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge about pages, etc. Make sure to familiarize yourself with Meta Pages to help address this burden. I recommend you take a look at Special:ListGroupRights if you have not already. Some of the new feature's uses follow: You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.
  • Deleting pages is normally done through Category:Candidates for Deletion. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. Other times pages should be deleted is in the case of vandalism, spam, or even when someone makes a page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". If this page consisted of close to just the preload it is fine to just delete it.
  • Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with Template:Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with Template:Temp Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of OGC published materials (with Template:OGL Top added to the top of the page in question and Template:OGL Bottom added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. Also, if it deals with D&D Wiki's organization the page needs to be protected. For Example 3.5e Homebrew is protected from all non-sysop edits. No template needs to be added to pages if they are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like Template:Admin Locked Page)
  • Blocking a user or IP should be used with respect to policy. To block someone just click "block" (found on Recent Changes, the diff in question, the userpage, etc) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths so use your best judgment.
  • Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the 5e SRD, 3.5e SRD and the MSRD. Feel free to edit them if inaccuracies are found. If interested further please look at their To-Do lists; I am sure your help will be appreciated.

Now that you are an admin I would say more burden is placed on you, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship. Again, you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2018 (MDT)

Congrats. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
Way to go dude! BigShotFancyMan (talk) 06:55, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
Thank you. I am honored that my peers believe me to be worthy of this privilege. - Guy 10:59, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
I knew you had it in you, Guy, but I'm still so proud of you nonetheless. Congratulations! You are now officially /ourguy/. Quincy (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2018 (MDT)
Oh by the way, since you're a super famous administrator dude now, can I please have your autograph?
Quincy (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2018 (MDT)

Speedy Deletion G7[edit]

As per here and here, users do not have the right to request deletion just because they don't want an article uploaded here anymore. I understand that some users may have disregarded our long-standing (if unwritten) policy on the matter, but I hope I am making it clear now that deleting articles either explicitly or implicitly in accordance with Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria G7 is disallowed on D&D Wiki. I hope that you will keep this in mind when [not] deleting articles in the future :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:17, 1 October 2018 (MDT)

If it is expected that a page cannot be speedily deleted by author request—even with no other significant contributors, with potential copyright infringement, and with apparent consensus—you may want to (again) edit the portion of the proposed deletion policy which addresses this. Or, preferably, bring it up on the talk page.
Assuming we aren't following that policy yet, all we have to go on for this specific issue is precedent. Precedent for fulling deletion on this basis exists with dozens of different examples from several different administrators.
I still believe I took the right course of action in deleting the content you have restored. That said, one user (you) clearly disagrees with the deletion of that speedily deleted page (although I don't understand the rationale), so for only that reason I will refrain from taking any further action at this time. - Guy 11:30, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
It is worth noting that in the over six years which passed since the two cited precedents, there are dozens (maybe hundreds?) of more recent precedent examples of content being deleted by author request. In the absence of policy, we use precedent. Clearly precedent differs on this matter, which is part of the reason I wanted the input of yourself and others on the deletion policy I proposed: so conflicts like this would not arise. - Guy 15:24, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
I agree. Let's make that precedent for deleting from user requests a policy? Varkarrus (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
Content should not be deleted by atuhor request without supporting good reason, this has been long-standing policy. And the reason behind the massive D&D Wiki schism some years ago. People agree to post their content as per GFDL, and any deletion of their work is something we should only do as a major courtesy in exceptional situations. --SgtLion (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2018 (MDT)
Not exactly. D&D Wiki allows users to request their pages to be deleted, but not with G7. We use our own deletion policy, since our license states "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Please add {{delete}} to the pages that are made by this sole contributor, but do not use G7. Also, no, that is not at all a reason for a number of users leaving D&D Wiki. It also seems to happen more often than not, so I don't give it any historical significance. --Green Dragon (talk) 23:59, 7 October 2018 (MDT)
Aye, duly noted. It seems my understanding of past events was pretty poor, leading to some faulty memory on this matter; Apologies~ --SgtLion (talk) 10:00, 9 October 2018 (MDT)
Okay, so based off this situation you want to resign from the administration? I will be sorry to see you leave! If you don't reply at all, I will take your answer for a "yes" and demote you. Sorry that you could not handle your role. --Green Dragon (talk) 08:58, 10 October 2018 (MDT)
Okay, you asked me to respond: GD said we can't speedy delete G7. I based my judgement on precedent. Now he confirmed it. It is policy. Your reason for deleting, as you reiterated on my RfA, was speedy deleting. There was no cause for speedy deleting it. That is why it was speedy undeleted. For more information, see above.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 06:35, 13 October 2018 (MDT)

Sorry I'm Late[edit]

Your contributions are fantastic. Thank you so much for all the work you put into this place while you were here. --Kydo (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2018 (MST)

I'm late too. Thank you for that. I've thought about this comment of yours a surprising amount. - Guy 13:09, 15 June 2020 (MDT)

Character Creation[edit]

Hey Guy, I know I've seen an alternate way to create characters but can't find it at the moment. I thought it was you working on something like this but I'unno no mo! If others reading this can help that'd be helpful too. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2019 (MST)

User:Guy/Create New Player-CharacterGeodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 14:43, 11 January 2019 (MST)
I’m looking for a character generation variant. It’s on someone’s user pages, though I’ve forgotten who obviously. There are guidelines for buying proficiencies, class features, etc. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2019 (MST)
Hours of searching I finally found what I was looking for an understand why I thought it was a user page. Quincy's Point System (5e Variant Rule) ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2019 (MST)


Is there stats for an entrenching tool(as a weapon)? The campaign I'm in has just jumped worlds and the 1 we're on is in Zombie Apocalypse mode. -- 16:45, 15 May 2019 (MDT)

An entrenching tool would be an improvised weapon. Use whatever statistics your DM thinks would be appropriate. If you're the DM, improvise statistics you think are appropriate. - Guy 18:51, 15 May 2019 (MDT)


I just saw what you wrote about me having a grudge over the campaign (un)deletion debate, and now I think I understand the hostility towards me, if I had let off that I held a grudge...

To be clear, I never held a grudge over that. I remember thinking, once GD ruled, that it was settled. I also vaguely remember getting the impression you held a grudge, so I might've distanced myself if I felt you were mad at me. I don't wanna gloat about being right in that case (you had your share of "wins" too), but I definitely didn't hold a grudge over an argument I "won." I have disagreed with you many times of interpretation of wording and definitions of things, but same with BSFM and Geodude, both of whom, despite having a troubled relationship with, I never held anything too personally in either case. We all have opinions, we share them, and GD makes a decision.

Yeah, I get this looks kinda like me trying to gloat and/or just be contrary, but I really did feel bad seeing that you thought I held a grudge. Not because "oh no people think bad of me" but because "oh no he thinks I think bad of him." I promise, that really ain't the case! Not before, and certainly not now. I'm sorry I made you feel that way; 'twas a tense time and I clearly didn't make the effort to clarify my appreciation. I hope that knowing this gives you some peace of mind and helps bridge the gap between us <3 --GamerAim (2:0) Chatmod.png (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2019 (MDT)

I wouldn't use the term grudge.
I do not believe there is mutual understanding here. Do you honestly believe this "grudge" is just because we disagreed on something? Do you actually think anything started when you undeleted that campaign setting? That is not the case.
There are wikians I disagree with on far more topics far more deeply than I've ever disagreed with you, both on this wiki and others, but none of them treat me the way you repeatedly have. None have even come close to behaving so viciously towards me. No one on D&D Wiki has ever treated me anywhere near as badly as you have—not even users who have been warned or banned for their bad behavior. This is before even considering the many times you've repeatedly engaged in other behavior I find heinous: insulting multiple users without provocation, demonizing multiple users solely because they disagreed with you, instigating, ignoring near-universal consensus in favor of your own opinion, abusing privileges, obvious deception, transparent sycophancy, and more.
When you "lashed out" on Discord the other week, it was clear to me that you still act in a way that I find vile. (I have "lashed out" in quotes as that's the phrase you yourself used for that outburst of unanswered insults shortly after it occurred.) It is very difficult for me to read your words without assuming the worst imaginable intentions. You are a major reason I don't want to be an admin here. You are the only reason I am not in the Discord server. I often enjoy contributing to D&D Wiki, but far from it when it requires tolerating someone who acts the way you have.
Forgive me if this sounds overly dramatic, but I'm past the point where I would try to rebuild a bridge you've burnt. I trust no one on this wiki less than you. I would much prefer to not interact with you at all, indefinitely. I am trying to avoid you but am clearly failing. Please do not post on my talk page in anything but an official capacity. Please leave me alone. - Guy 20:54, 8 June 2019 (MDT)

Sleep (5e Variant Rule)[edit]

Joter (the person who had concerns about the variant rule) and I had talked together on Discord about how to better improve the rule, and both of us agreed on what it ended up as. Just letting you know, the comment that Joter had placed on the page was resolved. --Cosmos (talk) 05:04, 14 June 2019 (MDT)

ok_hand: - Guy 10:37, 29 June 2019 (MDT)

User Page[edit]

This was the message left on your user page, "The individual 'Guy' no longer exists, I have left this message in his memory -AlakazamExe ", with the edit summary "a memorial message".   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   07:30, 28 July 2019 (MDT)

D&Don't aka "ytho"[edit]

I am to understand correctly this system would not have initiative? Or if it did, it wouldn't be required?
Are you close to defining "big damage" for when it is time to roll damage? I found this rule interesting because players love rolling dice.
I also look forward to the crunch for dual wielding greatswords and other equipment rules favoring flavoring within function.
I feel like I've asked you before, but I didn't see it posted on the wiki: how did you decide on the system you wanted to use? Or is this something you are working with for now and could possibly change?   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   12:02, 4 December 2019 (MST)

I'm flattered that you seem interested.
Rolling for initiative is meant to be mostly optional, and ideally only used when the Teller can't logically decide who acts first. In my games at least, combat is more often than not initiated by sight or a sucker punch—and in these cases it seems silly to me for initiative to be rolled. It's much easier and much more fun, I think, to just have everyone take their turn pretty much immediately instead of spending a minute or so figuring out turn order. For dramatic moments like a formal "I challenge you to a duel," initiative or a similar check seems pretty appropriate, but in my experience these are the exception rather than the norm.
"Big attacks" would generally include anything that isn't a standard attack, a cantrip-equivalent, or something like that. Some feats I'm considering would let players add Bonus Dice to their standard attacks, but only under certain instances—such as landing an aced attack (critical hit) or hitting a ranger-esque Favored Enemy. Players do love rolling dice, but I think most players get a bit bored watching someone roll their 1d6 two or three separate times every round, especially when their +5 Strength, +2 magic weapon, etc, are really what do all the damage anyway. I feel like this is particularly important for this system compared to D&D, as every player will be able to make three standard attacks on each of their turns (plus a reaction attack) and four or more players could be rolling all of their damage rolls simultaneously.
Re: greatswords. If they wanted to use the statistics of a 5e-style longsword and just call it a 5e-style greatsword, that wouldn't have any drawback. If someone wants to make a gnome-barbarian-type wielding unrealistically large weapons, I'm fine running it. I'm still trying to create the weapon list in a way that makes it more suggestive and vague than 'this is a greatsword' and 'this is a longsword,' but still intuitive and easy to use. It's not like these weapons are mass-produced, all identical, and called the exact same thing in every culture and language—and I want to present that in a concise manner.
This is just something I'm working on. The main goal is just make an idealized system I would like to play more than existing systems, either as a GM or player. To that end it's combining a lot of what I like about other systems and media, while omitting what I dislike. - Guy 16:51, 4 December 2019 (MST)
I fully understand that goal as I have recently started jotting down my own thoughts for an ideal system for myself/group. I've been following what you have for months mostly due to what you've contributed to the wiki and your critcisms of WotC D20 system and thought that your own system would be intuitive and thoughtful. I think it has been, and your intents look promising too. Another thing I was happy to see is your approach to dice rolls; you recognize the randomness of d20 and the lack of with a d6 system and are trying to find a blend the two. In my approach, I am trying to the opposite (using d6 but trying to add some more random) because the d20 is soooo RNG. You've got at least one follower though, kudos! :-)   ~BigShotFancyMan   talk   08:01, 5 December 2019 (MST)
I hope that there may be another way in the future to follow the work of this creation. Few things I looked at on my watchlists the last few months; this being one. Red Leg Leo (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2020 (MST)
Thank you for your support and interest. I don't have much hope for it anymore but I do hope some of it could help inspire your ideas/games. 13:09, 15 June 2020 (MDT)


I noticed that you changed the brand of some of the articles that I wrote, and I have a question. What was the point? Not that I'm upset, but I don't get it. I mean, what's the difference between saying Ultimate Spiderman, a Marvel show, and the Marvel Universe? --Flamestarter (talk) 07:59, 11 January 2020 (MST)

The main purpose is categorization. {{Copyright Disclaimer}} automatically categorizes a page based on what is typed in for "franchise". Category:Marvel Universe franchise already exists. Category:Ultimate Spider-Man franchise does not, and at present it would have very few items even if it did properly exist.
In this specific case it's also because Spider-Man is part of the Marvel universe. Generally any smaller division of a larger canon is categorized as part of the larger canon. - Guy 14:46, 11 January 2020 (MST)
So this is just a logistics problem? Oh... Flamestarter (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2020 (MST)Flamestarter

New Persona TTRPG[edit]

Hello. I believe that I can make an entire system based on the persona user class. I'm currently working on it but was wondering if that was ok to do. Jmepic01 (talk) 16:08, 11 November 2020 (MST) Jmepic01
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!