User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 24

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.


Archive 24 |

Hi[edit]

I need help with footers and links.

Could you be a little more specific? I've been working on a new user guide for some time now. It's not nearly complete, but it may be able to help you with some of your questions. You can find that here.If you show me what you are trying to do, I can probably help. Drop a message on my talk page, and I'll see if I can help you work through your problems. --Badger 14:54, 25 May 2011 (MDT)

hello[edit]

I have almost finnished 3/8 planned racial caste races. Please have a look at the Human noble and human peasant and Ork noble races. Links are found at Teoryran info about Races.

The race pages are to big, any suggestions of how to cut them up and sort them in different sections?

hi[edit]

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement. I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world and their lands somewhere else.

hi[edit]

Mmm, well I needed the pages sorted after supplement. I needed to put lots of class and race descriptions of personality, the world and their lands somewhere else.

What do you mean? Races of Teoryran (Teoryran World Supplement) is understandable. It is missing its footer though. Is that what you mean? --Green Dragon 19:52, 26 May 2011 (MDT)

Yes; sorry for being unclear. I Lack footers and I am unsure where to put my classes if they are not exactly base classes either? Variant rules? Should I greate a new page for racial classes? Or are they paragon classes? I am worried that some of the pages about info for the setting lack addresses and take up extra memory.


Hello. We need a racial class category like that from Savage Species. Savage Species offers levels all the way up and they don’t just raise abilities at level 3. Can I make a suppliment page where I have my own classess, I might do it, you can delete if its improper. I would like some criticism for my classes.

I imagine what you are talking about should work as a racial paragon class with a specific race made for it. Though you may want to mention that you are using the monster class rules from Savage Species. If they are not racial paragon classes then yes, you should make a rule about them and link them from there. Don't worry about taking up space. It's of no concern. Does this help? --Green Dragon 12:29, 13 June 2011 (MDT)
It does help alot, I think I prefere the combo Savage Species+ Paragon. and have started to work on it.Now my problem lies with what features to distribute.But aren't there any category where you can submit Savage Species Monster classes? Paragon classes, mostly allows you to reduce the weaknesses of a race, as I see it anyway, while monster classes sort of build the race from zero and up.The attempt to create different "races" for aristocrats and commoners,end up making them very similar except that commoners gets penalties the nobles don't.I have a dozen ideas, and edit back and forth.Still, if you took a look at these I made,you can se specific balancing is a problem.

--User:Klas 10:46,08 Juli 2011 (?)

Edit Revert?[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on Talk:DnD Links? I didn't break any of your rules and, furthermore, I contributed to the discussion. You shouldn't just censor things because you don't agree with them... --Aarnott 13:44, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion. It's not pertinent, see also the reason. --Green Dragon 13:49, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
"Because it's not adding anything new to the discussion."
False. I gave an illustration of how GNU (and similarly GPL) actually works in practice and showed that the emphasis on the licenses was initially for code libraries/projects. That emphasis is a very important distinction because it provides more basis for the argument I'm making. This also provides some historical context for my argument.
I brought up how MySQL's licensing can be seen as a parallel example (actually I could have brought up Wikipedia too -- how do you think they transitioned from GPL 1.2 to GPL 1.3? Relicensing.).
"It's not pertinent, see also the reason."
Your reason is a complete strawman argument. ie. You are attacking an argument I didn't even make. Let's examine the exact "reason" you gave:
"wrong - there is no section 11 clause to the GNU FDL v1.2 (that's the whole -i think- MSQL legal dilema)"
Now go back to what I wrote. Did I write anything about section 11? No. In fact, earlier I already explained that section 11 does not apply in this case because this wiki is under GNU FDL 1.2 (the exact thing I said was "Anon, you are actually incorrect, unfortunately. This wiki uses GNU FDL 1.2 and no licenses can just suddenly retroactively patch a previous license.", see the context).
Also, you "think" that is the whole "MSQL legal dilema", but I never even said that this has anything to do at all with MySQL's legal dilemma. I was strictly comparing the fact that MySQL was able to transition to a dual license to authorship as a concept.
And, just to be a bit cheeky: you censored a well-written post meant to explain in detail my stance in a discussion. The whole point of that post was because you clearly were not responding intelligibly to what I had written earlier, so it seemed necessary to go into more detail. That's a pretty standard thing in a discussion. Elaborating on a point when the other party doesn't seem to understand.
What I'd like to hear is how you think authorship and licensing actually works. All you've done is say that others are wrong, but you have yet to provide any evidence to back up your claims. --Aarnott 14:10, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
It may not even be MySQL I am referring to. There is a conglomerate of companies which has a problem with previous GNU FDL licensing and now it is uncertain who owns their things. Since they used section 11 and did some version changing and things, they now have this problem. Last I saw one had to give over some billion worth in rights to the other or something along those lines.
It just doesn't matter how people use the GNU FDL v1.2. Who cares? We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly). What the GNU FDL has been used for is not.
I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is. Of course things like licenses are interchangeable. What's not to read? --Green Dragon 14:28, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
"There is a conglomerate of companies..."
How does this point have anything to do with your website? Your website is not a company and you and it have no ownership over the material others put on it. You have ownership of the database and the webserver (or at least the rental agreement if you rent).
"We go by the license and law, and that is the discussion (mostly)"
What law? The one I showed was clearly false? Again, I ask very simply: explain how you actually think authorship and licensing works (with regard to this wiki). It seems you are either unwilling or unable to back up your claims, which isn't surprising considering that they hold no weight whatsoever.
"I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, law is."
Since the following sentences probably hinge on that one, I'm just going to have to ask you to rephrase it. From the way I read it: "I have said repeatedly that, similar to Wikipedia's terms of use, law is an entity that exists". Which is true... But it doesn't really say anything worthwhile. I could say something similar and it would have just as much meaning to me: I have said repeatedly that like Wikipedia's terms of use, bacon is. --Aarnott 14:57, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
PS. If you really do follow wikipedia's rules, then you broke them by reverting my edit. See w:Wikipedia:TPO.
I know. It's just an interesting story. That, though, is the only way whatever you are talking about is possible. D&D Wiki licenses content, like Wikipedia (see their Terms of Use). What's not to understand? --Green Dragon 15:04, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
"D&D Wiki licenses content"
From whom? Licenses need to be granted by some entity by definition... Yes. You just argued my point for me. You still haven't explained how you think it actually works though (yes, this is my third time asking on this page alone). --Aarnott 15:12, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
No, your not thinking about this. How does Wikipedia do it? They are only reserved. --Green Dragon 15:14, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
I will entertain your questions even though you won't answer mine. I'm not sure which terms of use you want to to explain (the old one that uses GNU FDL 1.2 or the new one that uses GNU FDL 1.3. I'll explain the one that matters
GNU FDL 1.2 (last revision found at w:Wikipedia:Terms_of_use&oldid=30325726):
After all the boring text telling us that every page is protected under US copyright laws, you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2, and that page histories meet the terms of the GNU FDL, there is a wonderful gem of bolded text (which I'm going to bold the important part in my quote below).
"you are hereby being given notice under Title 17 USC that it is your responsibility to comply with the copyright laws in regards to this archival material and your copying it may be considered infringement (specifically if any of the materials being stored in those prior versions are copyrighted materials that were submitted to Wikipedia without the author/authors or copyright holder's/holders' permission(s))."
Huh? The author has to give permission to have it put on Wikipedia? It's almost as if the author has rights to their own work! You know, like the right to license their work as they see fit. Note also that the terms of use do not have any such mention of forgoing the author's right to relicense their own work. It just talks about the fact that you can't take materials that have a copyright and add the GNU FDL license without having the author's consent.
Now for the GNU FDL 1.3, there is little point in explaining because we have already determined that this wiki does not use that license anyways, but if it did, a CC-by-SA license can be added to other author's work. Yeah, if this site was GNU FDL 1.3 that would just mean that moving content and relicensing would not require the author's consent.
Attempt #4: Care to explain how you think it works (and maybe throw in some specific quotes to support your argument this time)? --Aarnott 15:37, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! — what's not to understand? The adherence to the license? "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them, that pages are licensed under GNU FDL 1.2" --Green Dragon 15:41, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
You aren't getting it. Whose permission is required for copyrighted work? All you are pointing out is exactly what I just said: you can't submit the copyrighted work of others'. You can totally submit your own copyrighted work because you obviously have your own permission. --Aarnott 15:47, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Your not getting it. "you are bound to the terms even if you don't read them", meaning that you are bound to the terms. With regard to copyrighting through the USA Copyright Office, a different scenario, was it done? And I think Wikipedia's Terms of Use cover that to some extend now. --Green Dragon 16:19, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Can I link to an external site (the US Copyright Office site)? On their FAQ, you will clearly see the following text:
"Do I have to register with your office to be protected? No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work."
So, I don't see what the copyright office has to do with anything.
I totally agree that Terms of Use function in a way that makes them binding even if they are not read. But the fact of the matter is, anything I write is copyrighted (by me), and I can license that work as I see fit. You agree that the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, right (this is a VERY important distinction)? --Aarnott 16:46, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
I mean previously copyrighted work. And, no, submitting it here licenses it. For example: "Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the". --Green Dragon 16:50, 30 May 2011 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Previously copyrighted work is not a big deal either because none of the content that was moved was copyrighted by someone who didn't hold the copyright.
Just to be perfectly clear: you agree the GNU FDL is a license, not a contract, yes or no? --Aarnott 17:02, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
I think the problem is GD thinks licensing content here grants DandWiki exclusive license to the content. It doesn't. --Badger 17:06, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Indeed. Exclusive licenses require a contract, which this website does not have. That's what I was getting to ;). --Aarnott 17:12, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
It doesn't. See also the Coin Golem (3.5e Creature). All I am saying is there is a licensing problem (as it is the GNU FDL v1.2) which undermines D&D Wiki in various ways if it is not that license. --Green Dragon 17:45, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
Right. But the point of the GNU FDL is not for authors, it is for collaborators. The author is licensing a copy of their work (whatever it may be) under the GNU FDL. It is not an exclusive license. That copy must follow all the rules and regulations of the GNU FDL. If the same user decides they want to license their work under a different license, they don't have to pay any attention to the GNU FDL because they are licensing a completely separate copy -- even if the content is exactly the same. --Aarnott 17:56, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
No. For example "Therefore, for any text you hold the copyright to, by submitting it, you agree to license it under the" --Green Dragon 19:42, 30 May 2011 (MDT)
You are correct. When you submit content you are agreeing to license it under the GNU FDL v1.2. However, you are not agreeing to exclusively license it under the GNU FDL v1.2, nor are you giving up your copyright. You are free to release it under other licenses (which may have other conditions), to other people, whenever you want. --Badger 12:56, 31 May 2011 (MDT)
Not if what it is licensed under forbids it. For example "no other conditions whatsoever" means just that. --Green Dragon 12:54, 1 June 2011 (MDT)

Campaign Setting[edit]

My campaign setting is no longer showing up on the 3.5e Homebrew for campaign settings. I don't really know much about moving pages and such so I actually need help with this. --Grim914 00:02, 31 May 2011 (MDT)

I fixed it.--Milo High-Hill 01:30, 31 May 2011 (MDT)

I need help with balancing my classes.

I also have a question.

Can I write off, feats from books and put under the class? I found some cannon feats I wanted to use?


Thanks, I don't know who that is. --Grim914 22:39, 31 May 2011 (MDT)

If you supply me with a link I can help you balance the classes. Yes, you can use feats. Reference books with <sup>'s. --Green Dragon 12:19, 13 June 2011 (MDT)

Race Posts[edit]

I recently posted a race, but cannot find it when I go through the Homebrew races for 3.5e. Did I not post it correctly? The name of the race is Kyree (plural).

Race Posts[edit]

I recently posted a race, but cannot find it when I go through the Homebrew races for 3.5e. Did I not post it correctly? The name of the race is Kyree (plural). Grimli93 10:31, 1 June 2011 (MDT)

I'm pretty sure I fixed it. You left the <!- and -!> on in the category sections. I also fixed a few other problems on the page without changing any of your work.--Milo High-Hill 02:21, 2 June 2011 (MDT)

Keran (3.5e Races)[edit]

Why have you recently edited the names of many of my races from "Race Name (Keran Race)" to "Race Name, Keran (3.5e Race)"? In my opinion it was unnecessary and I am confused to why you did it?--Milo High-Hill 01:06, 4 June 2011 (MDT)

Races should be labeled as "Race". I added "Keran" to some to distinguish them as part of Blades Of Keran where their was already something of the same name. How they used to be named made a problem on the dynamic race pages. --Green Dragon 01:09, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
Didn't notice the problems. And if thats so then why not rename all of them? Also some of what you renamed doesn't have Keran in the title. --Milo High-Hill 01:18, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
I guess I can. Some don't have "Keran" because I was not certain if you want it there or not. It doesn't need to be (the reason for the some was that it makes sense to not have variant attached to the page), but they all can have "Keran" present. I am uncertain. I'm actually working on the disambiguation page Elf and didn't do the others as such. --Green Dragon 01:21, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
So why did they need to say 3.5e? I didn't think they required it to be 3.5e.--Milo High-Hill 01:36, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
I put that there because they use 3.5e rules. I think I am confused. --Green Dragon 01:39, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
You didn't do that for other Disambiguations. For example Fighter.--Milo High-Hill 01:43, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
I'm not understanding what your saying. I have not yet saved Elf, if that helps at all. I was actually talking about the Keran races I moved above. --Green Dragon 01:45, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
I was more asking why do they need to be (3.5e Race) for disambiguation. Also if it is just because of it is 3.5 material then shouldn't Cora races also be changed?.--Milo High-Hill 01:55, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
Yes, it is because it is 3.5e material. I am doing it because disambiguation pages require alphabetization and moving them now makes it much smoother. --Green Dragon 01:57, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
Okay. But how come the elves now don't have Keran as part of the page title? Not that thats a problem just wondering. Because you changed the name for the Lizardfolk as well (I'm guessing for the same reasons as the Elves) but they still have the Keran as part of there title.--Milo High-Hill 02:13, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
I did that because the lizardfolk had other lizardfolk races with the same name present. I can do that for the elves, which were the only elves with that name, if you want. It's your call. --Green Dragon 18:36, 4 June 2011 (MDT)
It's fine now I was just confused before.--Milo High-Hill 22:23, 4 June 2011 (MDT)

Prestige Base Classes[edit]

In Blades Of Keran I was going to create new prestige classes. The only problem is that I want my prestige classes to like a Base Class with slight requirements. And as I wanted to make them full base classes, I was hoping to give them a full 1-20 level progression without having to use Epic Level Rules. So would they be still classed as Prestige Classes?--Milo High-Hill 23:10, 24 June 2011 (MDT)

No. They would not work with SRD:Multiclass Characters. Making a rule about them and linking them from that page would be appropriate. --Green Dragon 17:19, 25 June 2011 (MDT)

Creating an Infrastructure Category for SRD Pages[edit]

I was working on a sortable DPL for 3.5e SRD Creatures (as an example for what we could do for 3e Monsters), and I came across a problem. It seems that we have pages like "Evil Creatures" marked as "Creatures", which naturally creates a problem when making a DPL of all creatures. My solution to this would be one of two options: Remove "Creatures" category from pages like "Evil Creatures", or create a new category like "SRD Infrastructure", which we could add to all pages like "Evil Creatures" that are labeled "Creature" but aren't actually creatures. We already have a category by that name, so we'd need to name it something else, but the idea stands. What are your thoughts? --Badger 22:51, 26 June 2011 (MDT)

Or just remove Category:Creature from that page and replace it with Category:Creature List? If it's a widespread problem an infrastructure category may make more sense though. --Green Dragon 23:04, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
Ehh, I've just figured out a way to do what I wanted to do without having to change anything. I'm not sure if it is a better solution (efficiency-wise), but it's less work in the present, so I like it well enough. Do you know much about DPL tables? I'm trying to figure out how to insert text into a cell that with an empty parameter (similar to how we have NFR or NR for classes that aren't fully rated on the 3.5e Class Homebrew table). Do you know how to do that, or better yet, do you know of a website that would be able to teach me how? --Badger 23:39, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
I know some about dpl's. An empty parameter? You could just do something like |include={<!-template->}:noneparam:<!-include1->, etc. --Green Dragon 23:53, 26 June 2011 (MDT)
I don't think that's quite what I'm trying to do. If you check out my attempt, you'll notice that entries like "Air Elemental" have blank spaces in the table. That is because they have multiple copies of the template I am querying on the page, so it won't return anything. My plan was to make it so if the box for "CR" was empty, the table would put in some line of text like "Varies". That way there would be no empty cells in the table. I'm still trying to get the hang of DPLs, so I'm not sure what code does what. --Badger 00:03, 27 June 2011 (MDT)
Nevermind, I don't need to do that for this list anymore, but if you know of a useful resource I'd love to get it. My google searches aren't as helpful as I'd like them to be. --Badger 00:20, 27 June 2011 (MDT)
Mediawiki.org has things about extensions. Sorry, I do not know how to default dpl results. --Green Dragon 01:11, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

Vacation[edit]

I will be going away for the next few weeks. If everyone could keep up on vandalism and spam that would be very appreciated. --Green Dragon 21:07, 27 June 2011 (MDT)

goofed on a new class[edit]

I created a new class, Cantrip Master, but my logon expired so it went online but did not show as I started it. Is there some way to rectify that?

Thank you for your help

Dan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ubergeek63 (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts.

Hey Dan, GD is on vacation. I can try to help, but I don't think I truly understand what you're trying to say above. Can you give a link to the diff or diffs in question to help us see what problem you're having? Or explain in a little more detail? Also, remember to sign your posts by the use of four tildes (i.e. ~~~~).   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:16, 29 June 2011 (MDT)

Any Suggestions for a Discussion?[edit]

Mm any suggestions for what to put at my talk page? Is it possible to allow for others to expand or edit my setting? I would like to try to engage others to contribute.

That would more be something for the campaign settings discussion page. Your talk is where other users will talk to you. If you mean your userpage, you may want to look at other user's userpages to get some ideas. --Green Dragon 12:25, 29 July 2011 (MDT)

Just curious.[edit]

Why is there no Ambidexterity in the 3.0 edition feat list? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dorkmuncher (talkcontribs). Please sign your posts.

The feats in that list are SRD only - meaning they are the officially released feats that we are legally allowed to have. If something is not listed there, and it was an official feat, then it was not released in such a way to allow us to host it.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   06:03, 9 July 2011 (MDT)

Marroar and his torrent of unbalancing[edit]

You'll probably have already noticed and what not, but it's beginning to bug me. I noticed a guy named Marroar with edits all over the place, mostly tiny ones, but hundreds of them. It seems like everything he touches becomes unbalanced as anything, particularly with some changes he tried to make to a race of my original creation, and even seen more so at Dragon Rider, in which the nearly the entire history is tiny, horrible alterations to an already sketchy class, including some that go completely against the fundamental functions of the class page, like giving out ability adjustments just for taking the class. You'll see what I mean, if you look at it. Not sure if he's just a spammer or just really bad at this stuff, or just trying to con his DM or something. It's just bothersome to have some guy scurrying about waving broken-ness all over the place. Jwguy 05:07, 10 July 2011 (MDT)

When you see this happening the correct procedure is to undo the edit and explain why it was a non-constructive edit. I did this where it was appropriate. --Green Dragon 12:23, 29 July 2011 (MDT)
Noted. I'm going to continue disliking him, though, and this other IP who keeps breaking loadouts. Jwguy 19:43, 30 July 2011 (MDT)
If he's doing it to a number of articles, I recommend you give a more detailed explanation on his/her talk page. —Sledged (talk) 22:17, 30 July 2011 (MDT)
Well, it was about 20 days ago that I posted this, initially, and I've not seen him around. He seemed to target any page with the word "Dragon" in it, though, as he kept doing it to Dragon Rider, Dragonkin, and so on. That said, I'll get back to him if he shows up, again. The IP, however, does not have a talk page, I don't think, and has not registered, that I've seen. Jwguy 06:39, 31 July 2011 (MDT)
IP's do have talk pages, they just aren't all that useful unless the person has the same IP the next time they log in. JazzMan 15:01, 1 August 2011 (MDT)

Pathfinder Spells[edit]

Would I be allowed to add spells from PathFinders SRD to this site and put it in the Homebrew section. I will make sure each page says that is from the Pathfinder SRD so that the creator's get there credit. --Milo High-Hill 06:24, 19 July 2011 (MDT)

Which license are they released under? If it is OGC then by all means, yes. You would want to do it with the same format as something like Crime and Punishment - The Players Sourcebook of the Law. --Green Dragon 11:35, 29 July 2011 (MDT)
Its OGL. But that means its should be fine then doesn't it. --Milo High-Hill 17:39, 29 July 2011 (MDT)
Yup. If you need any help let me know. --Green Dragon 17:42, 29 July 2011 (MDT)

How else can I help?[edit]

I have been making a few pages and have a lot of free time on my hands so I was wonder how else I could be of service. I know wiki formatting enough to piece things together and I can end up doing a pretty good job. Dsnake1 21:44, 24 July 2011 (MDT)

There are many places where you could be of service. For example all base classes need to be gone through with the Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles templates. Is this something you may be interested in doing? --Green Dragon 11:33, 29 July 2011 (MDT)

Nomination[edit]

Hey Green Dragon,

Is this a good place to announce a nomination? --Axl 13:50, 26 July 2011 (MDT)
For an article to become a featured article? Just follow the Featured Article Nominee method. An RfA? You should mention it on their talk (if it is you then just make it and it will be posted). --Green Dragon 11:30, 29 July 2011 (MDT)

Geostase[edit]

It appears that you are using the name "geostase" as the name of one of your game creatures. Please be advised that geostase is a registered trademark (United States Patent and Trademark Office Registration No. 4,000,187) for our slope stability analysis engineering software. Thank you for your cooperation in not using this name. Best Regards, Dr. Garry H. Gregory, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE Principal Consultant GREGORY GEOTECHNICAL 2001 West 44th Avenue Stillwater, Oklahoma ggregory@gregeo.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 173.245.50.176 (talkcontribs)22:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC). Please sign your posts.

It can be changed, yes. And feel free to change it. I don't think it applies to us since "A legal presumption of your ownership of the mark and your exclusive right to use the mark nationwide on or in connection with the goods/services listed in the registration; " (source) and it is registered for "Computer programs for stability analysis of soil slopes in the field of engineering." Please correct me if I am wrong. --Green Dragon 16:31, 30 July 2011 (MDT)
Sounds fine, to me. I highly doubt that a small, homebrew'd creature with the same name will interfere with their company operations or deployment, nor does it really fit either of those two items, especially since the first states the trademark only extends as far as connection to those goods and services are concerned, and a D&D creature is certainly not connected to it. Jwguy 19:39, 30 July 2011 (MDT)


Question[edit]

Greetings, is there a place I can ask questions on here for specific things? As in help on characer creation or ideas for part of a campaign world I am creating? The only place I can think of for stuff like this is the sandbox but.. I highly doubt anyone will actually comment on anything I say or ask. That aside, do you know of any place I can chat with people about these things in real time? I am joining a gestalt campaign here in a few days and have questions regarding item creation, but due to the time between now and actual play, I would like to get feedback instantly versus a few hours to days. Otherwise this wouldnt bother me. Thanks for your time in reading this and even more so if you reply. Lyrad8791 23:11, 3 August 2011 (MDT)

Greetings.[edit]

Greetings, Green Dragon. I really enjoy your site. You have the most fantastic pages. I just wish to Ask how you are holding up? Are the working Spirit Strong? Becourse i hope it is :) It would be sad to see this wonder go inactive. So, i have never tried to Edit anything, but i wish to add a class. Archpriest of Wee Jas. So i hope to contribute. Even if just a little. My most heartfelt thanks for all the great work on this site.

-Narf- [From twcenter.net]

Site nominated for an Award[edit]

New User Accounts and Spam[edit]

As I know you have noticed, we've gotten a recent wave of spammers making accounts, and then posting trash on their user pages that oughtn't be there. Is there a captcha involved with creating a new user account? If not, can there be? If there is, can we check to make sure it's working? Thanks. --Badger 21:33, 17 August 2011 (MDT)

According to ConfirmEdit's Test Plan number 4 both number one and two work for me. The ReCaptcha is there and a "Login error Incorrect or missing confirmation code." message shows up with an incorrect confirmation. Maybe automated networks are better then ReCaptcha's is or they are done by humans. --Green Dragon 22:52, 17 August 2011 (MDT)


Foreclosing a Class[edit]

This spring I created the Enlightened Soul prestige class for 3.5. I've been meant to finish it up over the summer, but life, and my limited knowledge of wiki magic, continually got in the way, and I'm sad to say I don't see that changing. I do however still like the idea of the class, and would love to see it finished. My request then, is that you, or someone more interested in it, simply apply the finishing touches. I am absolutely available for any questions you may have. Thanks for your time. --Lefthandroger 20:38, 21 August 2011 (MDT)

Ignore the above. Until my books get in, I have a lot of free time, and have actually more or less finished the Enlightened Soul. Check it out if you'd like.--Lefthandroger 07:08, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

Requests 5/5 points[edit]

I ask to get 5/5.

I have profoundly coverer,geography,monsters, races, societies, gods and background stories. I don't have any adventures thought.

A question about deletion[edit]

So, I was just wondering, what are our policies on deleting "completed" material? Is there a minimum rating a "finished" class must have, or face deletion? If the general consensus on the discussion page is "make it go away", and it's been at least two weeks, can I delete it without hesitation? --Badger 15:50, 23 August 2011 (MDT)

Not if there is enough content to be playable. Can one play with a few class features for the starting levels? Probably (and then they could improve the class from that stage).
Anyone can add {{delete}} so criteria is present for the deletion of that content. If you did delete content which was playable you should go back and restore it. --Green Dragon 19:03, 30 August 2011 (MDT)
I'm just looking at classes, like this one, that have been marked for deletion for months. It is marked as a base class, but should be moved to prestige class if we intend to keep it. Anyway, it has class features all spelled out, but it's a mess of formatting, there is virtually no fluff, and the vast majority of the ratings (at least, the ones I trust) have said horrible things about the class. I see no reason why we should bother to keep this class, especially since it has had no productive edits since 2009. However, if you feel this is the type of content you want to keep around, I can just move it to prestige class and swap out {{delete}} for {{wikify}}. In my opinion we should have some sort of "this isn't going to get better and it is terrible now, we might as well trash it" policy. --Badger 19:41, 30 August 2011 (MDT)
Yes, there is enough content there to keep it. Is it correct? No, it needs work. Things should (if you have enough time please help) work more correctly with the improving, reviewing, and removing articles templates. This means that those which do not work should be moved to a separate section (like DnD Base Classes) and those that do are to be more easily accessible. This removes problems such as Anti-Christ however leaves it enough room for it to be improved upon. If you have deleted others which are playable (I have found a few, however I have not looked well) please restore those pages. --Green Dragon 20:00, 30 August 2011 (MDT)
I think I've been pretty careful about deleting content that wasn't up to snuff. I know we disagree on that Taco article, but that may be because it was an April fool's class, and I figured that no one but the original creator would bother to write more fluff for it (it is my opinion that one joke doesn't make a joke page, and that page had very few). I can't think of any pages that I've deleted that were questionable. --Badger 20:09, 30 August 2011 (MDT)
I may look more, however you could be rather correct. That was one I found, as well as one with a history earlier then the deletion template was added then was removed to make for the delete template. That was probably just a oversight problem on your part though. --Green Dragon 21:34, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

Jedi base class, prestige class, d20, consolidation[edit]

I stumbled upon the Jedi class here, and although certain aspects of Star Wars should remain out of D&D, I still think the philosophy and characterization is a good thing for roleplaying in the D&D universe, even if the flashy too powerful lightsaber doesn't belong in the hands of a starting character.
I see this class as a fusion of a Paladin and a Monk and a Psion. I don't normally edit here, but I wanted to get started something that cleared up the problem of a start class Jedi. I think that is very wrong, it should take a longer time than than to get there, but I don't think a Padawan class makes sense either as it requires a Master Jedi. Then again, training characters is common, from level to level and for skills and skill improvement, so a Padawan Class might also work.
I started this and hopefully you know of people who are interested in developing it: Jedi (3.5e Prestige Class)
I would like to eventually see these base class Jedi removed in favor of Prestige classes.

Jedi Knight (3.5e Class)
Jedi Sentinel (3.5e Class)
Jedi Knight (DnD Class)
Jedi, Alternitive (3.5e Class)
Jedi Alternatives (3.5e Class)

From the following website: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Jedi#Specialization

JEDI RANKS

  1. Jedi Initiate
  2. Jedi Padawan
  3. Jedi Knight
  4. Jedi Master
  5. Jedi Councilor
  6. Master of the Order
  7. Grand Master

SPECIALIZATION
Jedi Guardian

  1. Jedi Ace
  2. Lightsaber Instructor
  3. Jedi Peacekeeper
  4. Jedi Weapon Master

Jedi Consular

  1. Jedi Ambassador
  2. Jedi Diplomat
  3. Jedi Healer
  4. Jedi Lore Keeper
  5. Jedi Researcher
  6. Jedi Seer

Jedi Sentinel

  1. Jedi investigator
  2. Jedi Shadow
  3. Jedi Watchman

Army of Light ranks

  1. Jedi Commander
  2. Jedi General
  3. Jedi Lord

None of this necessarily has to do with anything Sci-fi related, I remember reading a copy of the Priest's Handbook and it had a system for creating Religions that included Philosophies instead of Deities. I'll see if I can find another copy and maybe download it. 173.245.55.62 10:01, 30 August 2011 (MDT)

Omissions[edit]

The NoBF is missing the Practiced Spellcaster feat. This feat (and Practiced Turning, probably others) could benefit from a better description of the limitation (such as saying it is mostly to benefit multiclassed characters).

Searching for edits to the NoBF was totally screwed. I'm not sure about other things listed here, nothing else showed an option to search for edits (I'm busy with other stuff too, so I gave up quick though).

Show new changes starting from [Todays's Date] There was no way to change the start date. I don't know if changing the range to 30 days mattered or not, since it still started with "Today". I think I can safely assume that no changes have been made in the last 16 hours, so the fact that it didn't list any changes means nothing.

Keep up the good work. :)

P.S. Don't be seduced by the Dark Side. Stay with D&D and avoid v4.

EricFranklin@Mail.com

Warning policy rework[edit]

I'm working on an official warning policy that should more clearly illustrate the purposes of the system. The new policy can be found here. If you would contribute thoughts on the talk page, that would be most helpful. Thanks. --Badger 15:58, 4 September 2011 (MDT)

Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!


admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors