User talk:Sepsis

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Satyr choices[edit]

I like what you did with the satyr, but I feel like there could be something more. The nature bonus isn't like anything else we've seen in 4th, and keeping Feint a satyr exclusive feat seems to be a little off given that it is 3rd's improved feint. Getting it as a bonus feat seems like a more fitting choice for the satyr, and then they get Harrying Attack as their encounter power. Remove the wild knowledge from the equation, and I think the Satyr will be as good as its going to get. I'll if I can come up wiht something else to add some flavor to the Satyr race.

So annoying when Wizards leaves these perfectly acceptable playable races out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Manawolf (talkcontribs) . Please sign your posts.

The Nature skill bonus represents the high skill in Nature Satyrs have, even though they do not "favor" any class that grants the Nature skill. Feint and Harrying Attack are powers the MM version of the Satyr have so I felt it only appropriate that they be made into Racial feats for them. For balance they can only choose one at creation. Giving them both Feint and HArrying Attack would unbalznce them against other races. So far I like them as is, and I don't know that any change is really needed, still any input is apprieciated. -- Sepsis 06:52, 9 December 2008 (MST)

Cambion, specificly, my cambion[edit]

I don't mind you making a cambion race that fits 4e more or making a lineage feat for it, but why exactly is my version gone? And why did you then think that you should just remake the lineage feat I made for two races?

Orginally Green Dragon decided to remove your version of the Cambion, and make mine the sole version. After about a month I assumed (wrongly I guess) that you had abandoned both the race and feat, so I updated the Feat to fit my race. Sorry for any confusion. -- Sepsis 10:03, 26 December 2008 (MST)

Derro/Duergar Monsters[edit]

I'll start writing up a few this weekend. The derro should be fun. Dracomortis 22:31, 11 February 2009

I did notice that most related creatures are put on one page, but I though it would be easier to categorize if they were on separate pages (otherwise the same page would be tagged with multiple levels/roles). Is it preferred that they be on the same page? If so, I can certainly move the vocalist and the future entries to one page. Dracomortis 11:31, 15 February 2009
The vocalist has been moved to the Derro (4e Creature) page, and the derro madguard has been added. -- Dracomortis 13:46, 15 February 2009
I likewise don't have my 3.5 Monster Manual in front of me at the moment, but the online SRD does mention the greenblood oil, and I also seem to remember savants being arcane spellcasters (specifically, I think they were wizards). Thus, I'll begin work on the derro savant - level 11? elite controller (leader) - and the derro venomblade - level 9 skirmisher? - tomorrow. I'll also write up stats for greenblood oil as a poison, and I have one or two more ideas for different derro enemies floating around. After that, I'll start on the duergar. -- Dracomortis 23:56, 18 February 2009
The derro savant, mindscar (the apprentices of the savants), and venomblade have been added, as well as stats for greenblood oil. I also added the Diirinka's Hideous Laughter feat for clerics of Diirinka. -- Dracomortis 15:18, 19 February 2009
Added Toil of Laduguer for clerics of the duergar deity. I think I'll write up a derro lunatic priest - level 14 artillery (leader?) - to cover clerics of Diirinka, and then I think that will about do it for the derro. -- Dracomortis 23:37, 19 February 2009
General derro description has been added, and links have been provided to everything I thought was relevant (keywords, conditions, equipment, skills, alignment, and areas of effect). -- Dracomortis 14:54, 23 February 2009 (MST)
Thank you a thousand times for the featured article nomination and for all your help in bringing the derro together! If there's anything else you happen to think of that might be added (even if it's just for kicks), let me know. -- Dracomortis 18:01, 23 February 2009 (MST)
I've started writing up the duergar as creatures here. -- Dracomortis 21:23, 5 March 2009 (MST)

Campaign Setting[edit]

Some of the pages related to your campaign setting have incorrectly formatted titles. For pages related to your main page, like Lerune Cities (4e Campaign Supplement), the tag should not be " (4e Campaign Supplement)", but rather " (Lerune Supplement)" to identify it as a supplement to your main page, not a supplement to campaign setting sin general. You can fix this yourself by using the move function located at the top of each page to change the title to have the appropriate tag, or I can do it, if you'd like. In the example with Lerune Cities (4e Campaign Supplement) above, the correct title would instead be "Lerune Cities (Lerune Supplement)" or simply "Cities (Lerune Supplement)". -Valentine the Rogue 13:24, 12 April 2009 (MDT)

Lock Please[edit]

Could you please "Lock" my following creations. I've had some ubalanced editd made recently and I would like to protect them from potential vandalism. Thank you.

-- Sepsis 20:23, 11 May 2009 (MDT)

Do you want the IP lock (that prevents IP edits), or the full lock (that prevents everyone but SysOps/Admins from editing it)? --Ganteka 20:29, 11 May 2009 (MDT)
Full Lock please. -- Sepsis 07:07, 12 May 2009 (MDT)

Thank You Sir...May I Have Another?[edit]

I was wondering if you could put a Full Lock on these monsters of mine. They are finished, and while none have edited them without request, I would like to perserve them as is. Again I thank you.

-- Sepsis 07:39, 12 May 2009 (MDT)

Of course I guess I can take care of it. --Lord Dhazriel 23:59, 11 June 2009 (MDT)
Oh it seem someone already did... --Lord Dhazriel 00:02, 12 June 2009 (MDT)

4e Artifacts[edit]

I was just wondering if anyone was planning on putting together a series of Templates so we can post 4e Artifacts. I have one I would love to post, but it would look horrible trying to use the "magic item" templates. Artifacts just have such specific needs that a devoted Template would be great. Anyways I was just wondering. -- Sepsis 07:35, 17 May 2009 (MDT)

Request for race conversion[edit]

This is from Eiji's talk page.

Hey Eiji, I was wondering if you were planning on making plushies 4e. there would need to be some serious reworking of it but i love the idea of them. I would really like just at least the race, and the Go boom as an encounter power. Master K 16:51, 8 April 2009 (MDT)

As is, I am not a 4e player. However, if someone with the know how wishes to, I give you permission to translate them into 4e mechanics. Hee hee hee. -- Eiji 19:54, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
I am not too good at it and i will give it a try, is this an invatation to anyone or just me? Master K 19:58, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
Anyone. Know any 4e gurus? -- Eiji 21:37, 8 April 2009 (MDT)
Sepsis or Sam Kay, both made 4e featured article. Maybe they want to help. --Lord Dhazriel 22:18, 8 April 2009 (MDT)

So I was going to ask you if you could look at converting Plushies to 4e? They would have to be a lot more simple than they are for 3.5. Preferably with +2 to Dex and Int, and a "Go Boom" racial encounter power. Look at Plushies(Race) please and tell me if you would be kind enough to do this for me. I would like to ask both of you to try to make it, and then then whoever takes the offer can make it.Master K 21:23, 5 July 2009 (MDT)

I'd be willing to do the conversion (unless Sam wants to do it...just let me know). Once you know which of us will be working on it, drop me a MOI. I'll start (or not) as soon as I know. -- Sepsis 13:39, 6 July 2009 (MDT)


Perhaps it should be if you have concealment from the target, rather than only during surprise round?

Sorry it took so long to respond (I don't visit here as much as I used to), but I will give it a look as soon as I have time. Thanks for the input. -- Sepsis 10:01, 30 July 2009 (MDT)

Keeping You Informed[edit]

I stole this long but succinctly in-depth summary of the situation from a post by Jota. It should hopefully give you the lowdown on what's been happening if you don't already (if you do, forgive me for wasting so much space on your talk page):

April 16, 2009

Surgo, who maintains Tome content on the wiki (an oft source of conflict due to its innovative, and perhaps radical, ideas on 3.5e), becomes frustrated with the current rating system (due to the reasons outlined below) and how it degrades aspects of the Tome classes, and voices a complaint:

Classes need to stop being rated down in formatting, flavor, whatever because they strip out the bottom parts of the preload ("X in the world" etc.). That crap was added in to books by Wizards halfway through the 3.5 life cycle to increase page count without increasing effort. That means if you look through the first half of the Complete series, they won't even have that crap! It really should be up to the author whether they include those bullshit redundant sections or not, and pages should not be rated down if they do not. It's possible to have good flavor without putting it in those retarded sections!
—Surgo, Talk:DnD Base Classes#Some Rating Nonsense Needs to Stop

Questions are raised as to what specific aspects of the rating preload mean, which Green Dragon clarifies, although lingering questions and concerns persist, as shown below.

June 24-July 8, 2009:

In the tavern, we were discussing the class rating system. It seems to be the general consensus that, as is, it simply doesn't work. A numerical system with categories doesn't do much in the way of giving a general appraisal of a class -- flavor, a 100% subjective measure, is considered equally with such absolutes as wording and formatting. In addition, a very large number of the ratings are given no explanation, miscategorized, or just make no sense. This could all be fixed if it was changed to a three-level non-numerical rating system (as proposed by Dragon Child): Needs Work, Usable, and Excellent. The crap ratings could be filtered out by requiring admin approval of all ratings -- an MoI to User:Admin could alert us and it wouldn't be very time-consuming to give a yea or nay. In the case of multiple ratings, we take the mathematical mode, erring towards Usable in case of a tie. This simplification has the added benefits of being smaller on the page and being usable on more than just classes -- finally, feats and equipment and other things could be rated.
—Daniel Draco, User_talk:Green_Dragon#Rating_System

This idea is kicked about and modified, with the following notable thoughts from Green Dragon, where he makes his perspective somewhat clear. I say somewhat, because while he doesn't endorse this proposal, he never explicitly says no either.

Sorry I was away on vacation for a bit. Personally I am of the opinion to remove the entire rating system from the classes and just treat them like all other homebrew material. Use the Meta Pages#Improving, Reviewing, and Removing Articles system and call it good. Why do we need to add a numerical or word based rating system for the classes when instead we can use a combination of a reviewing, explaining, and page based system? --Green Dragon 14:13, 7 July 2009 (MDT)
—Green Dragon, User_talk:Green_Dragon#Rating_System
I am of the opinion a numerical (or word) based rating system (as explained above) detriments articles more then it helps compared to a system where the unuseable articles are reviewed and helped in a article-based manner. --Green Dragon 15:06, 8 July 2009 (MDT)
—Green Dragon, User_talk:Green_Dragon#Rating_System

This is where I think the conflict comes in, as expressed best, I think, in this quote from Aarnott:

So effectively, Green Dragon, you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad?
—Aarnott, User_talk:Green_Dragon#Rating_System

From my personal perspective, Green Dragon is not necessarily correct here because D&D Wiki is not a wiki in the same sense as Wikipedia is. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, a collection of facts. Facts, by their very nature, are not good or bad; they just are. On D&D Wiki however, we do not have "facts", we have original content contributed by our members (therefore making us very much NOT like Wikipedia -- see Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought).

To surmise, this is where we have conflict: Green Dragon seems to want to emulate a normal wiki, such as Wikipedia, which has articles that are either up to snuff or not, whereas the others want to distinguish articles which are deemed superior, so that they stick out from the rest.

This conflict is not immediate, but it is important to note that this is where the seeds of it are.

July 20, 2009

This is where I think the user base went wrong. This post from Dragon Child opens with "Here's an Official Proposal", and yet I (and perhaps others) expected something much more formal (like a Request for Adminship). I think this is another big source of conflict, because several users show up to endorse this proposal (and none oppose it) and Green Dragon comments on this same page section three times without either rejecting or supporting the proposal, which I can only assume implied tacit approval for those interested in the proposal:

Here's an Official Proposal.

A committe is formed known as the Ratings Committee, or RC for short. The RC is composed of 9 members, each of varied preferences and opinions, to form it. The RC members must each contribute to the RC once every month, or be replaced. The RC members gain the powers as follows
▪ An RC member is able to select an article he feels is particularly good and exemplifies what the wiki should be. He may Favor the article.
▪ An article with one Favor gains a Bronze Star.
▪ An article with at least 3 Favors is upgraded to a Silver Star.
▪ An article with at least 6 Favors gains a Gold Star.
▪ If eight RC members all Favor an article, it becomes a Featured Article (in addition to the Gold Star), and is given (unit of time - 1 week? 2 weeks?) on the front page. This may lead to a Featured Article queue. That's fine - it's better than a lack of one. All Featured Articles will get their fair share.
▪ If an article as two or less Favors, and at least six other Ratings Committee members believe that the article does not deserve a Bronze Star, they may do so. This, hopefully, will be EXTREMELY rare - I can't see it really happening ever if the committee is chosen wisely.
For the initial Ratings Committee, I proposal the following members -- Surgo, Lord Dhazriel, Rithaniel, TK-Squared, Jota, Ganteka, Daniel Draco, and Genowhirl. That is eight members. I would not normally nominate myself, however, at Aarnott's insistance, I will do so, on the basis that you shouldn't push a job on others you're not willing to do yourself.

—Dragon Child, User_talk:Green_Dragon#Rating_System

Around the same time, (July 26, 2009), Green Dragon adds the NeedsBalance and Wording templates to Rith's Gravity Warrior (the 267th most popular article (by view count) on this site of over 16,000 articles (which include navigation pages, so in reality it's a lot higher), the 25th most popular base class by view count, and probably the most popular base class by rating count and overall approval, rivaled only perhaps by the deviant). This is notable not for it's specific significance, but because it adds to the growing rift between Green Dragon and members of the user base.

One could argue that given the backlash Green Dragon took for his actions, he was right in arguing that templates create interest in improving an article (perhaps moreso than ratings), given how many stepped forward to help Rith. That said, one could also argue this also was bad, because changes were made to the article that did not improve grammar, but instead changed Rith's wording entirely. These changes imply that what is on the page is Rith's work, whereas now, for better or for worse, not all of it is (not taking a shot at you Rith, I hope I've made that clear).

It can also be argued that, given how small these changes were in most cases, these templates were excessive, and such templates should be reserved for articles that a really in need of an overhaul.

late July-early August, 2009

Discussion on the proposed rating system dies down, with no direct opposition.

TK-Squared works on the requisite templates for this new rating system.

TK-Squared creates the now deleted RC:Nominations as the first step toward implementing the new system. Shortly afterward Green Dragon applies the delete template (with the reasoning: "No. We will use the reviewing template process. Were using logic and reasoning here." to this new article, prompting a backlash from Surgo.

Momentarily afterward, Green Dragon bans Surgo for one year, with "unacceptable username" as reasoning, as well as Sulacu and TK-Squared (the three to immediately protest his actions). Almost immediately afterward he unblocks these same users, only to re-ban them with the following justification: "Unacceptable username: Please email me if you are confused about this at all."

This is key for me. Surgo, Sulaco, and TK-Squared were all a bit abrasive in their responses, but did not necessarily do anything to merit an immediate ban, especially one that came without any prior justification (and to me, "unacceptable username" means nothing--from the outside looking in it looks bad--just saying, Green Dragon).

Aarnott then blocks Green Dragon for three days: (Intimidating behaviour/harassment: You are acting out of line right now. Perhaps you should clear your head and come back to this later... Otherwise, this site will lose a lot of its users.).

This is another key point. For the disenchanted members of the user base, this banning is simply a way of sending a message, since no one can truly ban Green Dragon from his own site. For Green Dragon it is obviously something much more serious, and he responds by blocking every admin other than himself.

Shortly afterward the site is taken down; the reasons for this are still unknown. I know that personally, I speculated that perhaps the site might never come back up given that all of the admins were removed (with seemingly dodgy reasons) and then the site came down. Given the new look (Google ads) the site sported when it came back up, I can now speculate that perhaps the down time was for the installation of these ads, although I cannot be sure.

Anyway, the site went down. We (as a user base) are still are not sure exactly why. While it was down, those blocked planned to create a new wiki, believing that they could no longer trust Green Dragon. They have gone ahead with these plans.

When the site came back on, Green Dragon offered his explanation for the banning: he needed to re-think the site hierarchy in light of the fact that he got banned from his own website, something which was unacceptable for him. This goes back to how you interpret Aarnott's action: was it just a message, or was it something more?

After that users are unblocked and attempts at explanation are made, but neither side appears satisfied with the other, and we are left where we are now.

That's basically it. I hope it will prove enlightening. -- TG Cid 21:27, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

In retrospect, I should have just linked you to the other page that this came from. I apologize. -- TG Cid 21:29, 21 August 2009 (MDT)

Thank You[edit]

Thanks for all the info. I knew it would be too convoluted for me to find everything, so again thanks, and I really hope this all gets sorted out. If not then I guess I made the right choice about finding a different home for my most recent creations. Although I really do hope this Wiki bounces back I do like most of the Users here. -- Sepsis 09:25, 24 August 2009 (MDT)

Admin Nomination[edit]

Hi Sepsis. Your actions as a contributor, and your continued support since the recent fork (while also stating your mind like above and remaining afar from the confrontations) and your general great attitude have always impressed me. As such, I recently nominated you for adminship. I think a future of users like you can be great for the site, and I'm sure the community would love to hear your feedback. However it ends up or you feel about it, thanks.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   18:54, 15 October 2009 (MDT)

I want to thank you for nominating me for Admin. I hope that regardless of the outcome you will consider me a friend and please do not hesitate to ask me for any assistance I could give. Again thank you for your support. -- Sepsis 21:19, 15 October 2009 (MDT)
Welcome to Adminship. You are now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. Honestly, as you will notice, not much has been changed now that you are an admin. If anything, I would say more burden is placed on you. But first, for the the new features and their uses. You can now delete pages, protect pages, rollback edits, block users and IP's, edit every page, patrol edits, and do a couple more minor things.
What it is
  • What deleting pages is, is self explanatory.
  • What protecting pages is, is also pretty self explanatory.
  • Rolling back edits is a method for removing spam. It is more powerful than the conventional method of undoing edits. Instead of showing a diff of the edit in question once clicked, it instantly rollsback all the edits by the user or IP in question on a certain page. For example if I edited my user page and you clicked "rollback" on that edit it would rollback all the edits up to the point where someone else has edited it. Be careful using this, it can be very helpful but also very harmful.
  • What blocking users and IP's is, is also self explanatory.
  • Editing every page is another self explanatory one.
  • Patrolling edits is a method for keeping RC in check, it can be seen once a diff is clicked. All it does is, once "Mark as Patrolled Edits" is clicked, it marks the edits as patrolled so the edit will no longer show up on RC when "Hide Patrolled" is marked.
When or how it should be used
  • Deleting pages is normally done through Category:Candidates for Deletion. Anything with a good reason to be deleted on that page should be deleted. The other time pages should be deleted is when someone makes a certain page and after a few edits they either blank the page or replace it with something like "Please delete this". They don't want to work on it, and unless it is really well made and fleshed out, just delete it.
  • Protecting pages has quite a few different times when it should be used. Pages should be protected according to the author's wishes (with Template:Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of conflict (with Template:Temp Locked Page added to the top of the page in question), in case of OGC published materials (with Template:OGL Top added to the top of the page in question and Template:OGL Bottom added to the bottom), or finally if the page is a vital part of D&D Wiki's organization. If it deals with D&D Wiki's organization it either needs to be be protected from IP edits or all non-sysop edits. As a rule of thumb pages up to two tiers deep (up for discussion/rethinking) from the Main Page are normally locked to anyone but sysops and all the others are just protected from IP edits. For Example 3.5e Homebrew is protected from all non-sysop edits whereas a deeper in page like LA 0 Races is only protected from IP edits. No template has to be added to pages if thay are part of D&D Wiki's organization (even though some do exist like Template:Admin Locked Page)
  • Blocking a user or IP should only be used after an IP or user vandalizes a certain page. To block someone just click "block" (found either on RC or the diff in question) and fill out the corresponding form. For a typical vandalism attack I normally block the user for two weeks. Certain things demand a longer block and others a shorter. No standards have been set for block lengths, use your best judgment.
  • Editing every page on D&D Wiki mostly means you can now edit the SRD and the MSRD. Feel free to edit them if you find inaccuracies. If interested further please look at the SRD ToDO List or the MSRD tasks. Of course that is only the base. There is never enough help to get everything done, so I am sure your help would be appreciated.
  • Patrolling edits should, in a nutshell, be used when you have looked over an edit and fixed everything that needs to be fixed (this includes reviewing the content with templates, answering questions, sending MoI's, etc).
I know this is really long-winded, so I'll keep the rest short. You have more burden on yourself now that you are an admin because users will be looking at you for editing help, knowledge of the standards, etc etc. It's a bit more work, but I really hope you enjoy being an admin and I hope you decide to stay around on D&D Wiki for a while more to come. Welcome to Adminship, again you're now part of "The Face" of D&D Wiki. --Green Dragon 20:54, 22 October 2009 (MDT)

4e Races[edit]

With the recent reorganization of 4e Races would you mind going through it and adding, mainly, Template:Needsbalance where appropriate (others to of course if you notice)? --Green Dragon 20:14, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article Nomination[edit]

I have nominated your article, Satyr (4e Race) for FA status. See the talk page for the discussion.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   00:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

D&D 4.0 Future Sourcebook[edit]

Hey Sepsis,

Would you mind helping me out with my D&D 4.0 Future (4e Sourcebook)? Alls I need done is getting Star Wars stuff on it and Metroid stuff on it (if you want to put Halo stuff on it, go ahead). --Axl 11:51, 26 March 2011 (MDT)

Racial Hybrid System[edit]

Hey Sepsis,

I saw on your user page that you had 4e stuff, so maybe I can ask you this. Do you think that you could look at my Racial Hybrid System and see if it's balanced? I posted this on Green Dragon's talk page, but haven't received a reply. Thanks.

--Axl 20:56, 10 November 2011 (MST)

Living Dead[edit]

Hi Sepsis, I had some concerns over some of the Living Dead mechanics and would like to know what you think. Could you take a look at Talk:Living Dead (4e Creature)#Dodgy mechanics at let me know what you think. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 05:39, 14 August 2012 (MDT)

Admin Nomination[edit]

You are being reevaluated for adminship: Requests for Adminship/Sepsis 2. Since I doubt that you will respond to this message by the time of your nomination, I would like to say that D&D Wiki is very grateful for your assistance and should you decide to return your work will always be appreciated. --Green Dragon (talk) 07:11, 7 September 2014 (MDT)

Your work as an administrator was appreciated, and we would like to see you fulfill that role if you feel it is something you want to pursue. The option is always available for your expertise. Thanks again. --Green Dragon (talk) 04:05, 20 September 2014 (MDT)
Home of user-generated,
homebrew pages!