User talk:Dark Dragon

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to D&D Wiki![edit]


Hello Dark Dragon and welcome to D&D Wiki. I hope you have been enjoying D&D Wiki and I hope you have been finding the information here useful. Before you start contributing it is recommended that 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 please ask it on DnD Discussions. Everything relating to D&D Wiki's administration can be found here. If your question does not fit into one of the above possibilities or 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 pages also provide help in areas that have been decided as requiring additional explanation.


A strong and welcoming community exists on D&D Wiki, and I am sure you will find it rather nice. To enable the community to function policies are in effect. Most importantly follow Wikipedia's guidelines on civility and etiquette when discussing anything and do not delete content. Also, to ensure people know who posted what, please sign your name after a post 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 and welcome again, you are now a D&D Wikian. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2015 (MST)


Concerning your recent edits to the Template:3.5e Deity, please be aware that this template serves as the main deity template for almost all 3.5e deities on the site; making edits to it for material that isn't comparable to the SRD has an effect of breaking a large number of other pages, and some of its functions (such as a deity's domains) were broken by your edits. While I don't hold you responsible, as it was not a protected page and you were not attempting to vandalize, just make additions. That said, in the future, please discuss additions to templates like this one on the talk page to avoid any problems. Please take care and have a good day! =) --Jwguy (talk) 01:27, 27 December 2015 (MST)

I do apologize for any problems caused by my edits, but the only function that was not working was the worshipers section I was trying to add. I had several test deities, like Stolzal, Prince of Flame, that were working fine, Domains included. That said I am still extremely sorry for any inconvenience or problems that occured because of my edits. However, I would request that they be re-added to the template by one of the admins or someone who can get them to function properly, because I would like a worshipers segment and the Demon Prince/Archdevil tags for my deities, and it would be really appreciated if the could be put back. Thank you for your time. --Dark Dragon (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2015 (MST)
You are more than welcome to bring it up on the Template's Talk Page so that more admins and users can get in on that discussion and we can hash things out. If that doesn't work, you're also welcome to create a new template (copying the existing one to it and editing it as you need, or even copying your previous edit to it) and using it specifically for your pages. --Jwguy (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2015 (MST)

Hello, what are you trying to do with Template:3.5e Magic Item? Please can you discuss changes on the talk page first. Marasmusine (talk) 02:43, 18 February 2016 (MST)


Hello, the domains you are posting are not in the SRD, please do not use the SRD namespace. In addition, looking at Demonic Domain, it appears to be the same as the Demonic Domain from the Fiendish Codex / Book of Vile Darkness. I'll be removing IP material as I find it. Marasmusine (talk) 08:01, 14 April 2016 (MDT)

"The System Reference Document (SRD) is a set of reference role playing game mechanics licensed under the Open Game License by Wizards of the Coast (or WotC) and based upon their Dungeons and Dragons role-playing game."
The domains and spells posted are part of the SRD. Even if they are not, they are all still under OGL and I am therefore allowed to post them where I see fit. Or did you think that I did not have the mental capacity to research that before I posting them? The terms of my being allowed to use this site clearly state that I cannot publish any copyrighted material with out permission. Correct me if I am wrong, but does not something under OGL give me permission to "MODIFY, COPY, and REDISTRIBUTE" said material? It amazes me that when it comes to this you delete things almost immediately while giving me a half notice in my talk section, yet when I have done as you asked and discussed things before altering them, I never get a response from any of the admins save Jwguy who only responds occasionally. What you did was both unnecessary and rude. Posting those domains was well within my right, so I am requesting that you un-delete them.
Here's a link to the SRD straight from the WoTC site. Please help me find where the spells and domains you posted are in that document.
I have checked the copyright information for Fiendish Codex, and it does not contain any OGL material.
Removing material under copyright immediately is neccessary. If you can show me evidence that this is incorrect, I will of course restore the pages. Marasmusine (talk)
If they're not OGL, are the PDFs pirated/copyrighted? Ihis whole time I've been assuming that if it had a PDF, it was under the OGL.--Dark Dragon (talk) 11:21, 14 April 2016 (MDT)
WoTC did not release PDFs of those books. I Know there are PDFs circulating, yes they are illegal scans. If you do happen to see them, the Credits page will give you the copyright information. Marasmusine (talk) 13:06, 14 April 2016 (MDT)


Hey there, I have seen a number of submissions by you with a large attribution template containing a do not edit disclaimer, and applying a user attribution category to the page. That kind of thing is not supported by this community, and hasn't been since about 2012. A page's authorship is automatically recorded in its page history, so there is no need to go to the trouble of disrupting a page for an announcement of that, and doing so can directly impair a user's capacity to adhere to GNU Free Documentation License 1.3, section 4B, if they fail to check the history section for total authorship. This community focuses on collaborative works. If you truly would like to prevent others from editing your work, you may move them to subuser pages, where you're free to do pretty much whatever you want as long as it's legal and civil. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you'd simply remove those templates from pages in the main namespace, and replace them with a request that other users ask before editing on the content's individual talk pages. If you see examples of other users participating in this sort of activity in the future, please contact myself or another administrator. If you have any other questions, you can bring them up here, on my talk page, or check the Help:Portal for generic FAQ and information. --Kydo (talk) 04:02, 22 September 2016 (MDT)

The template has been altered and no longer claims attribution--Dark Dragon (talk) 10:09, 5 October 2016 (MDT)
Thank you. Your changes makes me think the community would benefit from a standardized "Ask First" disclaimer template that anyone could use. Would you agree to such a thing? --Kydo (talk) 11:11, 5 October 2016 (MDT)
I would agree whole heartedly.--Dark Dragon (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2016 (MDT)

Excuse me, but Category:Similar Content looks like a user category by a different name. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2016 (MDT)

If you want a workaround, and all these pages are connected in some way (thematically perhaps), you could make a sourcebook. Marasmusine (talk) 11:08, 18 October 2016 (MDT)

What's wrong with having it as a category? All it is is a quicker way to find similar content that I made. I don't have the time to make a sourcebook at the moment and I often forget to add each thing I post to my user page, so this is just an easier way to do things. It's not attribution, I'm not claiming ownership, so what is the problem? From what I can tell, I'm following the site rules.--Dark Dragon (talk) 17:03, 18 October 2016 (MDT)
He does appear to be right. The only problem is that User categories start to become a mess if too many people use them, and this one is rather generic. What about switching it over to a semantic property attached to the template and using an in line query to display all such pages in a table? --Kydo (talk) 18:01, 18 October 2016 (MDT)
Ok, just show me how to do it and I'll change the template. --Dark Dragon (talk) 18:05, 18 October 2016 (MDT)
I'll write an introductory primer to using SMW extension markup when I have a good chunk of free time. But first, let's wait for a response from the other admin as to whether that would actually resolve the issue or just create a different one. I can't see why it would be a problem. --Kydo (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2016 (MDT)
Alright. Thank you Kydo.-Dark Dragon (talk) 20:28, 18 October 2016 (MDT)


Your version of Gigaemon (5e Race)'s crunch is overpowered. It doesn't seem to take into account the ramifications of being Large-sized (see Large Races (DnD Guideline)). +4 ASI is above the curve but isn't problematic in and of itself, Fearsome Might is unneeded because that's already something you can do RAW, Ungainly Weight is weird, Gargantuan Proportions and Tailored fit are givens for Large creatures, and Naturally Strong ought to just give Athletics proficiency. They also don't speak Common. Please address these issues within the next couple of days or I will fix them myself. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 12:47, 16 July 2017 (MDT)

Also, they appear to have both the Giant and Fiend types, and not the Humanoid type. This A) should be defined in a racial trait rather than just be put in those categories, and B) gives them immunity to a lot of spells, such as Hold Person, which specifically target humanoids. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 12:51, 16 July 2017 (MDT)
Thank you for your input. I will review and reconsider some of the traits of my page. However, I must ask that you do not edit my page without first bringing it up in the talk page. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dark Dragon (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.
What was wrong with WeirdoWhoever's version of the race? That one was still strong, but it wasn't wildly out of balance with the SRD races. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 13:45, 16 July 2017 (MDT)
Hello, Dark Dragon. I did some "patchings" on the Gigaemon (5e Race) page, because I saw it on the RecentChanges and it was marked as "proposes deletion". I thought it was too cool to be just gone like that, so I did a quick fix, not realizing that it was, well, your creation. I apologize for somewhat hasty decisions, I thought it was abandoned. I'll leave my comments on the race's talk page, you might want to check it for future revisions. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience, I know how that feels. --WeirdoWhoever (talk) 14:23, 16 July 2017 (MDT)
I prefer to balance my races myself. I welcome advise and suggestions, but I find it infuriating when someone else edits my pages without permission. When someone makes a page, they have a certain vision in mind. Unless you know that vision, you won't edit the page in a way that is helpful. I know it's a wiki and everyone has the right to edit any page, but that does not mean you should exercise that right when ever you feel like it, even if you think you're helping, because it might not coincide with what the original author wanted. If I just kept WeirdoWhoever's version of the race, then it would only be my idea in name, because it would be his version that people are using. I post because I want to share my ideas with the D&D community, but if I just accept everyone's edits, they're no longer my ideas and that defeats the purpose of me sharing in the first place. I want to thank WeirdoWhoever for understanding why I changed his edits back. I Did plan to use some of his changes, but I just wanted the core of the page to be as I originally made it. --Dark Dragon (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2017 (MDT)
Your version, as it was when I proposed it for deletion, was broken. Not necessarily "broken" as in overpowered, but "broken" as in, it didn't work. WeirdoWhoever's version conforms to 5e balance and standards (roughly), whereas your version did not.
This is a wiki. You need to be prepared for other people editing the pages you create. At the bottom of every edit box, including the one I am currently typing this message into, there is a message that says "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." If you truly do not want anyone else to edit "your" page, you can move it into your userspace, where other users are not allowed to edit, except for administrators to remove content that breaks sitewide rules. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 14:49, 16 July 2017 (MDT)
You seem to have missed the point. I don't care about someone editing it. I care when the charges are made without talking first. It defeats the purpose of have a talk tab. If the race was not balanced, it's likely because it was incomplete. If you're trying to become an admin then I would think that you would understand that. My only problem was that the changes were not talked about. As I said before, I know everyone on the wiki can edit whatever page they feel like, but that does not mean they should. It's inconsiderate. --Dark Dragon (talk) 15:10, 16 July 2017 (MDT)
You are correct; just because you can doesn't mean you should. In this case, however, I consider WeirdoWhoever to be justified in his actions; the page needed improvement and he tried to improve it. You mentioned you had a vision in mind for the page; and I'm curious how WW's version deviated from that. From my point of view, he reworked the page's crunch to conform to 5e standards while maintaining the feel of the page, but I understand you feel differently. If you could please explain your reasoning it would be much appreciated. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs)‎ . . 15:19, 16 July 2017 (MDT)

Locked Page template[edit]

As was earlier discussed, the Locked Page template now supports linking to user pages. If you have any finished and balanced pages that you wish to be locked and the template applied, please list and link them here and I will do my best to protect them :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2017 (MDT)

Assassin Axe (5e Equipment)[edit]

Hi, I removed the light property on the Assassin Axe (5e Equipment) because with that property, the weapon is a direct upgrade to the scimitar. I am undoing your undo; please do not revert again without explaining why you think this direct upgrade is okay. — Geodude671 (talk | contribs | email)‎ . . 23:21, 1 December 2017 (MST)

Talk Page Discussions[edit]

Hey Dark Dragon! I recently undid this edit [[1]] and wanted to let you know removing discussions from talk pages doesn’t fit with the wiki’s goal. I or another user can gladly help with any questions you might have about this. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2018 (MDT)

Sorry, I deleted it cause I didn't know why it was there. I has gone to the spell list to make a new spell, so the discussions shouldn't have been created yet. --Dark Dragon (talk) 21:38, 27 June 2018 (MDT)
cool beans. I believe the discussion was there to address issues with the spell prior to you reworking it. BigShotFancyMan (talk) 04:56, 28 June 2018 (MDT)
Hellfire (5e Spell) was a completely different spell. It was replaced by something entirely different when Dark Dragon used the spell list to make a new spell. If you enter a name that already exists, the system takes you to that spell to edit it. Several times that I've seen, a contributor will ignore the previously created content and write over it—without noticing it was actually content in its own right, and not just a placeholder.
The talk page was about the spell which was replaced. - Guy (talk) 05:48, 28 June 2018 (MDT)
That's exactly what happened. I didn't even notice that it wasn't the usual empty template and just started working. My fault for not paying attention. I'll be sure to change the page back and my my version a variant. --Dark Dragon (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2018 (MDT)
yup! I hadn’t the time earlier to explain in depth so thanks Guy! @Dark Dragon, the spell still seems to have issues if it is something you’d like to help fix :) BigShotFancyMan (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2018 (MDT)
I'll take a look at it and see if I can come up with anything. --Dark Dragon (talk) 15:24, 28 June 2018 (MDT)


For working against the spirit and intent of this page you are being officially warned. Keep in mind that authorial intent has its limits and ignoring the "ideas, values, beliefs, and opinions of your fellow editors at a whim" as you have done is not in line with our behavioral policy. Please endeavor to work together with your fellow editors to avoid such incidents in the future. Happy wiki'ing. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 09:08, 29 September 2018 (MDT)

User ConcealedLight is correct. While your race was not in itself broken or unbalanced, the consensus - which I agree with after Mara's logical observations were made - is that it would play better the way the damage bonus was modified to work. In my opinion, the spirit and intent of the race was kept intact and the rest of your race was regarded as well-thought-out. Again: there was nothing wrong with the way you originally wrote it, but the consensus is that it would play better for most players as modified. If you would like a copy of your edits preserved on a user page so you can continue to expand upon your original version without contribution from the community, we can help you do that :) Alternatively, if all you need is a copy of the original states for reference in a campaign, you can find them here.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 09:28, 29 September 2018 (MDT)

Would it be possible to get the race removed or deleted? At this point, I'm just tired of dealing with it and don't want to give it to someone else. It frankly doesn't seem fair I put work into this race and it can be changed on the whim of an admin, who will change it even if I don't agree with the change. That's not how a community should work. And then I receive a warning for changing it back and editing it to be more balanced, which was the original problem, because it wasn't what someone else thought it should be. And Mara's observation was not, in my opinion, logical. D&D is a game of choices. More choices or extra decision doesn't automatically mean clunky or bad gameplay. Especially since the race as I made it had a choice that wasn't disastrous if you chose to use it or not. In practice, the choice to use Storm Conduit is not much different from say, choosing to use Reckless Attack or Smite. Neither are single use and RA doesn't even have a resource cost. Storm Conduit gave the choice to add 1d4 of a commonly resisted damage type. That's it. It couldn't get you killed like taking the Dodge action when you should've Dashed or Attacked could, or using Reckless Attack could since it gives your attackers advantage to hit you back. ConcealedLight's problem was that the ability that started this broke bounded accuracy. Despite not agreeing with him, I changed it a way that addressed his concern and kept my original intent. This was not satisfactory to him, so he changed the race to his version anyway. I changed it back, and was given a strike for it. I'm sorry, but that's simply not fair. Especially since you yourself said that the ability was fine. That there where no problems as I originally wrote it.
Then there is the matter that of the entire debate being based of theoretical assessments. No one actually played the race to see how well it worked at if the ability actually caused a problem. ConcealedLight put forth ideal situations in which the ability broke bounded accuracy. It was a lot of "could"s. Even after I repeatedly asserted that, after having played the race, both I, my players, and the third party's that played it found the race to be fine. In fact, each version I made in an attempt to please ConcealedLight was received better than the last with each group that used it. Yet, that topic seemed to be ignored each time I brought it up. One play was actually disappointed when the ability changed from a static 1d4 to 1d4/round, said that it didn't make sense to limit it further when the damage was already as low as it could go dice-wise.
So this is my challenge. I invite you, and any other admin that wishes to participate with the exception of ConcealedLight (Were I an admin, I would recuse myself as well since I feel both ConcealedLight and I would have a bias and would not be able to assess fairly), to play this race as written before ConcealedLight latest change. Play as you would normally, from level 5 to level 10. Use no other homebrew save for the race. Use it for PCs, or NPCs if you're the DM or your group. Then, tell be about your gameplay experience. Tell me if the race truly bogs down gameplay more than deciding whether or not to reckless attack or if it breaks the bounded accuracy. If it does, I will admit defeat and will request that Vihar be deleted so I can move it elsewhere. However, if it is found to be suitable, then I would like the race to remain as I wrote it and I would like my strike removed. Until then I will temporarily unto ConcealedLight's edit so that the race can be referenced for this experiment. If you do not wish participate in this experiment I understand, but in that case I would request that the page be deleted sooner rather than later. Respond at your earliest convenience --Dark Dragon (talk) 13:16, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
Might I request, if it should come to the deletion of the page, that you move it to your user page instead? It's just that, when a page is deleted, there's barely any trace of it or discussion on it left, and who knows how often this exact same sequence of events has occurred in the past where a bunch of admins and users essentially bully a creator until they give up on a page? The more documentation of these events, the more proof that this is an actual problem on the wiki as opposed to a one-time event. —ZarHakkar (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
I will decline such an invite DD as I've got a queue of more complex content(classes) that I working to improve. As GA said above we can move this to your user page where you can have the page be whatever you want it to be(within reason). I'll move the page in a bit. However, before I go ZarHakkar, avoid making such statements about other users just because you aren't getting your way as its quite rude so avoid doing so in the future. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 17:20, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
ConcealedLight, Read again. The invite was not for you . It was for GamerAim and any other admin that specifically wanted to participate. I specifically mentioned that you shouldn't participate, as I feel that both you and I would have a bias. And ZarHakkar is right, this feels like bullying. Unintentional bullying since there is no malice intended, but bullying nonetheless, as the definition of bullying is "use superior strength or influence to intimidate someone or to force him or her to do what one wants.". This is the current case. You, the admin with superior influence and power, wanted me, a user, to change something on a race in accordance with your view of how it should work. I declined your interpretation, but changed it such a way where it suited both of us. This did not please you, so you changed it to your version anyway. When I changed it back, my edit was undone and I was given a warning strike and told not to change it to the way I had it, even though by GamerAim's admission, there was nothing wrong with the way I originally wrote it. This is obviously a simplified version of events, but this fits the definition of bullying. Again, no malice was intended, but this is bullying, so ZarHakkar is technically right, and I don't think it's rude for him to point it out. If anything, it is helpful. Like I said, it is unintentional bullying, and having someone point it out is an opportunity for you to self reflect and correct so that when dealing with another user, the situation doesn't devolve like it has here. Thus, it wasn't rude for him to mention it at all. It is rude to claim he's only saying it because he didn't get his way.
On the topic of rudeness, your own reply was rather rude as well. Now, as with many things during this whole event, I don't it was your intention to be rude, since it can difficult for tone to be conveyed through text. However, to say, "I've got a queue of more complex content(classes) that I [am] working to improve", can be taken as a haughty, "I've got more important things to do than to prove myself right". And that is how I initially took it. I had take a moment to read it again and remind myself the context of the situation. Had I not done that, I would've replied with a majestic torrent of swears and curses as a final f-you to you, because I was well aware that if I did, I was likely going to be banned, which wouldn't have solved any of my issues with you and the site as a whole. Furthermore, your replay as written was unnecessary. you could have said something to the effect of, "Sorry, but I'll have to decline. I've just got too much on my plate right now." That would've been tone-neutral. Even then, you reply was still unnecessary since the invite wasn't even extended to you in the first place, as you and I would have a bias. The invite was to GamerAim, Guy, BigShotFancyMan, Marasmusine, etc. People who have a neutral perspective. People that haven't been going back and forth with me about this. People that likely aren't as frustrated as you and I are. You and I could be trusted at this point to make a valid assessment. They can.
I know being an admin comes with a lot of tasks, which is why I said I understood if GamerAim declined. However, declining my request to delete the page isn't helpful either, as it can be done just as easily as moving it. Moving it only served to hide it away, which doesn't help. --Dark Dragon (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2018 (MDT)
That's one interpretation I suppose but I won't chastise you for it. —ConcealedLightChatmod.png (talk) 04:53, 30 September 2018 (MDT)
You have nothing to chastise me about. --Dark Dragon (talk) 05:38, 30 September 2018 (MDT)
I feel this whole situation has gone a terrible direction. My 5e knowledge is limited, and comparing page revisions when two users engage in an edit war is hard, but my interpretation is that DarkDragon was ready to make a number of concessions in his edits that were slowly bringing the page to a better balance between community expectations and his own intent for the page. My further interpretation is that Dark Dragon has no desire for the page to be in their userspace, and the public page should exist in its own right anyways. Reminder that everyone should assume good faith:
It's my personal opinion that further discussion should've happened on the talk page before anybody started edit warring or enforcing wills. Constructive progress could've been (and was, to some degree, being) made. Certainly ZarHakkar and Dark Dragon had a lot of points they were willing to discuss that were essentially ignored; If people doesn't have time to address valid points, then they should not simply be enforcing their will in place of that discussion.
I've moved the page back. All parties should avoid edit warring, or engaging in passive-aggression (justified or otherwise), but instead edit constructively, and discuss further if there are still contentious issues. As Marasmusine has involved themselves, and they do have a lot of experience - it may be worth giving them a quick ask for ideas on a suitable middle ground. --SgtLion (talk) 06:05, 30 September 2018 (MDT)

Categories on Your Userpage[edit]

Hey there Dark Dragon, just wanted to let you know that there shouldn't be any categories on your userpage lest your userpage will show up in places it shouldn't. As such, could you please remove them from your userpage? Thanks for your understanding.--Blobby383b (talk) 08:38, 28 September 2019 (MDT)

Remember to remove the User Category as well as that category is used to denote homebrew pages on the wiki, not userpage/talkpages. Besides that though, gl with your future brews.--Blobby383b (talk) 17:10, 29 September 2019 (MDT)

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!