User talk:GamerAim

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search


Why did you delete your talk page? --Redrum 14:29, 29 December 2018 (MST)

I also don't expect myself to spend the time to correct your mistake "just you like it", if that's what you mean with your edit summary. --Green Dragon (talk) 09:49, 30 December 2018 (MST)
I don't understand this comment, GD. I took GA's comment of "thanks for nothing" to be indicative of his frustration toward the wiki in general, and not referring specifically to your undeleting of this talk page. And I do think you should have blanked this page after restoring it; it takes literally two seconds to press Ctrl+A → Backspace. Though I'm not sure why GA deleted his talk page instead of blanking it. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 10:31, 30 December 2018 (MST)
I deleted it because I thought I could, as it's my own talk page. There was no malice behind it; it quite literally has my name on it, so I assumed it was fine. I don't remember why I wanted to delete it, TBH. I also don't really care if it's deleted, which is why I acknowledged that maybe it'll be restored and that's fine; I just wanted it to be blanked if anyone wanted to go through the trouble of going against my wish to have my talk page deleted. Like Geodude said, it'd have been quick to do since you already spent the time to correct my "mistake."
Again, no malice. Sorry if I offended, GD. Like Geodude said, I'm overall deflated these days and that edit summary could have been directed towards anyone, even myself.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:04, 30 December 2018 (MST)
I'm still confused as to why you suddenly got very cynical... did something happen between you and GD? --Cosmos (talk) 16:31, 17 January 2019 (MST)
It was a whole THING. There are a few different pages you should read if you want to catch up on the wikidrama; off the top of my head some important ones are GamerAim's RfA, the discussion surrounding GamerAim's Discord server, Jwguy's resignation as admin, the discussion around GamerAim's warning, and SgtLion's RfA. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 17:56, 17 January 2019 (MST)
Okey dokey... so is GamerAim still an admin or what? --Cosmos (talk) 18:50, 17 January 2019 (MST)
GamerAim is still an admin, yes. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 19:26, 17 January 2019 (MST)
I must ask that you don't answer questions for me on my talk page, Geodude671. It was directed exclusively at me and my relationship with GD.
But yes, there was drama over me disagreeing with how Green Dragon chose to run D&D Wiki and how he chose to let others run it as well. Jwguy's resignation isn't relevant, and there was also some stuff involving ConcealedLight's warnings, multiple discussions about Discord (they should be on that same page as the one linked) and probably more. However, I won't link them because at this point I don't care; GD made his decisions, and as much as it may hurt me, I accept that he and I have differing opinions on what D&D Wiki should be.
I intend to be the last remaining D&D Wiki admin when Geodude671, ConcealedLight, BigShotFancyMan and Quincy are gone. Though honestly, I doubt I'll outlive Geodude; whatever our relationship, I have to admit he's a persistent little bugger ;) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 07:17, 18 January 2019 (MST)
"Challenge Accepted! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2019 (MST)
@Cosmos, if you do read those pages, take them with a grain of salt. They are nothing but a blip of the things that occurred in the last 2 years and don't even begin to reveal the tip of an iceberg. GamerAim's reply is most appropriate for the matter and I hope you can focus on that versus anything else. ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2019 (MST)
I hope this doesn't turn into Manga-style fights! -- 17:01, 23 January 2019 (MST)

Tsunami Bomb[edit]

How much "Force" will it take to start a tsunami by a man-made Device? -- 16:47, 9 January 2019 (MST)

Sorry, I'm not a meteorologist. The "butterfly effect" posits that even a small amount of force could create a hurricane. A tsunami could probably be created with a couple megaton bomb.--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 12:29, 12 January 2019 (MST)
Why would anyone (outside of a villain) want to create a GIANT tidalwave? --Redrum 18:02, 16 January 2019 (MST)
Megatons is bigger than what I had in mind. I was hoping to create something that would take out a couple of coastal goblin "villages"!!!-- 17:24, 23 January 2019 (MST)

5e Wedding Crasher[edit]

My main 5e character has been hired to disrupt a wedding. I have access to a trick box that causes 1d4 fire damage when opened and some itching powder. I may want suggestions for other items (and/or spells). -- 13:05, 9 February 2019 (MST)

experiment 78[edit]

Has anyone thought of a mind switching carpet?--Redrum 13:56, 9 February 2019 (MST)

I'm not sure I understand what kind of item you are talking about... I see it is a carpet, but what is the "mind-switching" part? Not sure what that is supposed to do. --Cosmos (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2019 (MST)
I think he means when 2 people stand on it (and maybe move around the right way) their minds (and/or souls) switch bodies. -- 16:49, 13 February 2019 (MST)

Crystal Seer[edit]

There is nothing that says a crystal ball can't be in the shape of a crystal skull, right?-- 16:47, 13 February 2019 (MST)

Right...? Also, I keep seeing you comment on this Talk page, you do know that 1. You can make an account (which I suggest, seeing how often you get on here) and 2. GamerAim isn't exactly quite as active anymore (from what I've seen anyways) and so you might get admin responses faster on the Talk pages of other admins such as Green Dragon, Geodude, BigShotFancyMan, Quincy, or Masmurine. --Cosmos (talk) 06:25, 14 February 2019 (MST), There is nothing that says crystal balls can't be in the shape of crystal skulls. My question to you is why do you ask? --Redrum 14:51, 16 February 2019 (MST)


Hey dude/dudette! You'd shown your "face" a bit and now you been MIA awhile. I hope your kicking some school but and things are good. Cheers GA! ~ BigShotFancyMan (talk) 12:55, 19 February 2019 (MST)

Thanks. I'm not happy to see that the background (and indeed, the whole theme) has changed to something...well...not as aesthetically-pleasing. But I'm fine, otherwise.
Seriously, the site looks amateurish now. What's up with that? I guess it's a good visual representation of everything I did to improve our reputation going down the drain...--GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:58, 30 May 2019 (MDT)
the conversation died. I think summer time has made lives busy (?) ~ BigShotFancyMan 19:25, 30 May 2019 (MDT)

Quick Note[edit]

Turns out, I can in fact be reasonable and polite when I'm treated with the same respect! As Green Dragon says, I'm not experienced with the atmosphere here on the wiki, or with how things are done here. I'm just far too invested, as usual, and I'm trying to do what I think is right, regardless of what I'm being told to say or do. It's created some... Grating circumstances for a lot of parties, and I only wish things weren't that way... But it's as you've said: people seem to feel positively attacked that there are deletion requests. I'm aware that humans treat assaults on their world-view as physical attacks, based on psychology, but I wasn't prepared for it in this context! I could have handled things better sooner if I'd only realized that... --Max7238 (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2019 (MDT)

FWIW, I was sincere. I do appreciate how you've conducted yourself and I am proud to have met/argued with you. Reminds me of the good old days, which I assure you were not as...grating as things can be today. I totally feel you on this, even if I disagree with your stances, and respect that you've taken to heart the things I said, even if you also don't entirely agree with it on a personal or technical level. Keep it up, my friend <3 --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2019 (MDT)
Actually, following my last response, if you wouldn't mind some conversation here, I have a few things I'd like to hear from you regarding one of the topics you brought up. I'm that guy at the table always wanting to play weird races. I've got 53 character sheets on Myth-Weavers that are structured to be ready to play at a moment's notice, and none of them are the same race or subclass. Do you think it's possible for a race to be balanced even if it doesn't follow the conventions and standards set by WotC, so long as the numbers are accounted for and the DM is allowed to have the final say on balance - since the game world is ultimately their creation, and the race must fit with that world? Having played Varkarrus' dullahan on three separate occasions, like I said, it is truly a favorite of mine - to the point that I have a book character based on the idea now! --Max7238 (talk) 16:22, 4 June 2019 (MDT)
I think that balance is objective, up to a point. A lot of it really depends, like you say, on the individual campaign. If you only run first-party modules, those might be designed with specific assumptions in mind that the dullahan breaks. But that isn't necessarily a fault of the race itself being unbalanced. ConcealedLight has tried to make the argument before that fire resistance is more powerful than cold resistance because more monsters in WotC's Monster Manual publication for D&D 5e has more monsters with fire attacks. He forgets that those monsters are optional and exist in a vacuum without context for if they'll be used by a DM. And if the DM runs an adventure in the arctic, which is probably more useful for a PC to have? I'd bet the arctic has monsters with cold attacks.
It's good to design content with the assumption of it fitting in with Wizards of the Coast Approved Campaigns™, but D&D Wiki isn't WotC, and that's a good thing! WotC benefits more if all their stuff follows conventions, and so do players, frankly. But homebrew doesn't have to follow all those same conventions. It's enough to put a design disclaimer saying, "hey, this was designed outside of the assumptions first-party content makes but if you notice how it's different, you can still make fun adventures!" At the end of the day, the core rules are limited guidelines. They do not try to encompass all possible options or campaigns that may be run with them. They're used to run campaigns, and towards that end they're balanced against certain assumptions because you can't balance a game in a vacuum.
And who is to tell a group they can't change those assumptions, huh? :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 17:38, 4 June 2019 (MDT)
That's the most concise description of the situation I've ever seen. I love it! And you're absolutely right! That also helps put into context why a DM of mine I only had a short while had banned homebrew; she was going to run Dragon Heist, and adored the canon! I have a feeling I'll be revisiting this page several times in the near future. Especially about how balance is affected by context in tabletops, and how the first party stuff should be guidelines to help tables eventually tell original stories of their own. I started at a table like that, so I was confused when running content from a first-party book why things were so stuffy. It's both an argument for and against homebrew, and I love it to death, I gotta say. --Max7238 (talk) 17:49, 4 June 2019 (MDT)
I agree with the sentiment about the core rules being guidelines. D&D exists as a base to launch different adventures. But the fun doesn't stem from sticking to tradition. What makes D&D fun is how you can introduce outside factors and stir up the typical. Yeah, anyone can run up to an Orc and stab it in the face. But how many people can say they got their Succubus to charm a local guard into offing a judge while you get off scott-free with no one the wiser?
I'm mostly around because I find there's still fun in making characters. There are a few interesting concepts about the site, but when a majority of things just feel like "Fighter derivative #3998", you tend to lose energy about these things.
Iunno. I feel like I'm just justifying my lurkerness at this point. :/ Nightmares are dreams too... (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2019 (MDT)
That's an excellent point, old friend! You can only make so many interesting things out of the same parts before you need to diversify. Look at D&D's own first-party backlog for examples: the 1e Unearthed Arcana book, the 2e Player's Option series, the 3.5e Book of Weeaboo Fightan Magic, and other supplements designed to extend the boundaries of the rules outside of the assumptions of the core rules. Variety is the spice of life; don't sanitize other peoples' food just because you prefer tofu :) --GamerAim Chatmod.png (talk) 07:52, 5 June 2019 (MDT)


Hi, GA, I am concerned about this edit that you made to your userpage. Per our behavioral policy, ranting in all forms is not permitted. Also, on a personal level, I don't appreciate you using your userpage to spread vicious rumors about other users, including members of the administration. That kind of stuff isn't cool. Please don't post things like that on your userpage, OK? Based Quincy (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2019 (MDT)

Upon further review of your actions, please consider this a formally administered warning. Based Quincy (talk) 12:51, 9 June 2019 (MDT)
Since it's been asked that more detail be provided, please consider the following quotes. In the interest of fairness, I'll refrain from commenting on the sections of the message that pertain to myself.
The truth is, [ConcealedWife] and Guy seem to have taken something I said the wrong way at first and decided to take everything I did then on as being hostile.
[Varkarrus] and [ConcealedLight] dislike me because I chose to tell them they were wrong.
I feel both of these quotes display an assumption of bad faith on the part of the mentioned users. While I agree with you that in the past or recently they've taken actions that are less than ideal, I'd hesitate to conclude that this means they are part of some shadowy cabal plotting your downfall. I find the following quote particularly problematic:
[ConcealedLight] is...a liar and a manipulator who tries to play the victim to avoid any responsibility for his actions.
I consider this quote a personal attack, which is prohibited by our policy for obvious reasons. This quote alone, in my eyes, is reason enough to warn, per our behavioral policy: "Incivility consists of personal attacks, rudeness, and aggressive behaviors that disrupt the project and lead to unproductive stress and conflict. Incivility is disruptive and unacceptable, and as such D&Dwiki follows a zero-tolerance policy towards rude and uncivil behavior." Additionally, I feel the entire passage displays a level of defensiveness and combativeness that is not befitting of a staff member such as yourself. Per our behavioral policy: "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment." I do not feel you have done so in the past, nor are you doing so now. I'm not saying you're acting in bad faith, but I am saying that I believe you are exercising poor judgment.
I will remove the passage, yet again. If you choose to restore it yet again, you risk incurring another warning. Please use this warning as a learning experience to improve the way you interact with other users. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 13:56, 9 June 2019 (MDT)

Warning, 2nd[edit]

This is a second warning issued for ignoring the above complaints and re-instating the offending rant without any attempt at communication with the involved parties. As you are willfully ignoring the previous warning and refusing to engage this issue in a respectful and civil manner, I must administer a further warning. Please check yourself. Further conduct of this sort will result in a third warning and a subsequent ban. Based Quincy (talk) 15:17, 9 June 2019 (MDT)

I haven't been active on the site for a long while, but judging by the fact someone's willing to risk this to get their side of things out there, it certainty doesn't paint the present community as "inviting" anymore. Policies and all that I get it, but sometimes you need to look at the situation and think "If someone's making a risky play like this, things must not be looking so hot right." More-so considering it's GA doing it. And they've been about since way before Geodude was an admin, so I think their word carries more.
It really goes to show how things have fallen since 2016. Nightmares are dreams too... (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2019 (MDT)

GamerAim, I am asking you as a friend to take down the inflammatory material on your user page per Behavioral Policy. I understand your need to vent, but you ought to take this over to a personal blog or something. We are in a bad place if we've got admins warning and threatening to block each other. Marasmusine (talk) 08:00, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

GamerAim we have already explained to you how rants do not have a place on D&D Wiki, but now it seems that you have choosen not to use a usersubpage but your userpage. It's the same thing, and not okay, and perfectly right to remove it and issue GamerAim a warning (and now a second). With a third warning your adminship will be revaluated with a RfA. --Green Dragon (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2019 (MDT)

Upsetting Article[edit]

Hello GamerAim,

I am writing you concerning the following article:

It was brought to my attention after one of my fellow players was looking for information regarding her race in DnD, she had stumbled onto this article believing it to be the official class. We’ve all made this mistake at least once, we’re not concerned with her not recognizing this wiki’s purpose. Instead we (her entire DnD group) were appalled with the content of this page. This race is written with an inherent sexist bias that is unrealistic and harmful. It isn’t super clear on your Warning Policy page if this sort of speech is accepted.

Here are a few of the upsetting ideals written into this race:

“Hence, the lizardfolk have inferior endurance, especially the females, who have even more serious problems metabolizing lactic acid. In a long fight, a lizardfolk will tire faster than a human and will probably retreat if the fight isn't won in a couple of minutes.”

“An average male requires an average of 8 hours of sleep, while a female requires an average of 10 hours of sleep, although many females prefer to sleep for 12 hours.”

"Without exception, within the same species, male lizardfolk are larger, heavier, stronger, faster, more durable, more resistant to pain, fatigue and sickness, and less easily tired than female lizardfolk. Additionally, male lizardfolk have higher average intelligence and are wiser than female lizardfolk. This is due to the need for the males to do the hunting and fighting for the tribe. Additionally, male lizardfolk naturally live longer than females, but the habits of war and violence tend to equalize their lifespans with the females. In no case does a female lizardfolk ever control a tribe, clan, or village; the purpose of the female lizardfolk consorts is to make heirs, not to rule. If a chief were to die and a daughter or wife was his only relative, then the strongest males would fight to see which one of them was the strongest, and the winner would become the new chief.

It should be obvious that male lizardfolk are excellent front line soldiers. With more strength and constitution than an average human, they ought to make great fighters. At home, they are excellent hunters and fishers, and can apply their hunting skills to aid whatever party of adventurers they may join. The males can also make skilled rangers.

Female lizardfolk are often unable to take care of themselves, as they aren't very good at competing with males for hunting or fishing grounds; the very few that have ever tried have been outclassed in every way. As a result, they have to find a mate or else depend on male relatives. In isolation, a female lizardfolk actually would be able to do some hunting or fishing, but even the least competition from a male will be enough to see her outdone. Female lizardfolk are more flexible than their male counterparts, but not nearly so much so that they would get any bonus to dexterity because of it.

For game purposes, to get the stats of a female lizardfolk, first calculate the stats normally for the male, and then factor in the following:

-4 strength, -4 constitution, -2 intelligence, -2 wisdom. Female lizardfolk also only have +2 natural armor instead of the male +5 natural armor (in common lizardfolk, but in no case do females have more than, or as much natural armor as the males, no matter the species.) Females can only hold their breath for only three times its constitution score before drowning (instead of 4X for the male.) Females by necessity, are supposed to lay eggs and raise children, thus ensuring the continued survival of the race. Biologically, this necessitates certain physiological adjustments that may impede the females from combat, but in no way reduce their value to the race; in fact, their value actually increases in some ways because they can lay eggs. Lizardfolk females are acutely aware of this, and very few females will live their lives without reproducing.

In comparison to a human, a typical female lizardfolk has -2 strength, constitution, wisdom, and -4 intelligence (minimum of 3). In an adventuring party, this can prove to be quite a problem. Being neither good at combat nor skilled in magic, the female lizardfolk would at first glance appear to be a liability for any party. However, this weakness can be turned into a strength... of a sort. Having little combat proficiency frees the female lizardfolk PCs from having to develop such skills, enabling them to class as bards and rogues and develop other skills. With little need to give them fighting skills, one can develop a female character's non-combat skills, and use them to the party's advantage. Female Paludian lizardfolk bards receive a +2 charisma bonus upon entering that class and lose it when leaving it. This reflects the exotic, eye-catching nature of the females; this is only able to be exploited by a class which requires the female to be looked at and paid attention to. For a female fighter or paladin, appearance and grace matter less, and the rest of the world knows it, so only the bard would logically receive a bonus for being eye-catching in a performance. Skills for the female lizardfolk that are worth focusing on include Balance, Diplomacy, Disguise, Escape Artist, Gather information, Move Silently,Open Lock, Perform, and Sleight of hand. Chances are, one can easily fit an exotic, alluring female lizardfolk into a party, especially if one's party needs someone agile and charismatic (while there is no particular bonus for dexterity, it ought to be focused on in order to make the PC worthwhile.) These can be good PCs because they can excel in certain niche roles that a party might need from time to time, such as having to send someone to balance on a narrow plank in order to get an item, or having to sneak through a dark room.

During the prime mating season (spring, roughly 1/4 of the year), females receive a special +4 modifier to certain charisma checks to represent the release of pheromones and their greater desire to mate (though females always wish to mate more than the males do, but even more so during mating season), but it wears off after the season ends. In the wider world, female lizardfolk are considered to be rare, exotic and eye-catching, whereas the ferocious males simply intimidate and frighten others. Hence, the outside observer can see a dichotomy between the two roles of the lizardfolk sexes; male strength vs female exoticness.

There is one native Paludian class which allows female lizardfolk to circumvent some of their disadvantages, that of the Hierodule, a divine casting class with no offensive capability. The education required for this class enables the females to avoid the -2 intelligence and -2 wisdom penalty, and this will apply only for the female if her first class is that of Heirodule. For no other class does the training for being a Heirodule apply, so if the female should switch classes, the penalties to intelligence and wisdom apply."

“Like all other species of lizardfolk, the males are much heavier, larger, stronger, and more durable in every way than the females, who only weigh between 90-120 pounds (on average), are at least a foot shorter, are nowhere near as strong, and have softer skin, weaker bones, and less resistance to pain, fatigue, and injury. The females also have a lesser capacity for logic and reason, being creatures of hormones, feelings, and passions. The common lizardfolk are the most numerous type of in Paludia, forming a plurality of the entire lizardfolk population in Paludia.”

I understand the desire to create races that mimic animals and cultures but no animal puts this strong of a disadvantage on all females. This article appears to be written with a ridiculous amount of harmful language and ideals towards females. It explicitly states that women of this race are useless for all things other than mating, it frequently uses the problematic work “exotic” and only gives women any use if they are used as a sex object as a bard and any advantage they get from that goes away if they leave the party. I’m not sure if the class started this way or was added later. Regardless, it seems inappropriate to have an article like this for a game that should be about inclusion and acceptance.

I am posting this for all of the moderators so the article can be reviewed. I understand if this isn’t found to be against your community guidelines but please do consider the harm this type of article might impose on someone who might be quick to make parallels with human females or young females who might believe this about themselves.

Thank you —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ConcernedViewer (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.

I've handled this. — Geodude Chatmod.png (talk | contribs | email)‎‎ . . 21:35, 3 December 2020 (MST)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!