SRD Talk:System Reference Document

SRD ToDo List

These are SRD tasks for the Wiki administrators and requested improvements/corrections to the SRD.

  • Wikify rules terms within the SRD
  • Normalize spell descriptions, so that spells like dispel good, law, and chaos have their own spell descriptions instead of referring to a similar spell (dispel evil). —Sledged (talk) 16:22, 4 September 2007 (MDT)
  • Change "Nonaligned" to "Always Neutral"
  • Add alignment tag for "Always" vs "Usually" alignment.
  • Powers: link "XP Cost" and "XP" notations.
  • Spells: link "Focus" notations.
  • Add categories for creature movement modes: land, fly, swim, burrow, climb, etc.
  • Class spells and powers lists: DPL 'em and their abbreviated descriptions. —Sledged (talk) 14:01, 29 January 2008 (MST)
    • Not yet possible with the current DPL version. —Sledged (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2008 (MST)

Completed Tasks
  • Change all environment categories to "Category Environment" (Dmilewski working on this.)
  • Change all Type and Subtype categories to "Category Type" and "Category Subtype"--Dmilewski 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)
  • Change alignment categories to "Example Alignment" --Dmilewski 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)
  • Compiled table of all synergy skill bonuses (requested here(Talk:Skill Descriptions#Synergy table)). (done, but probably needs to be moved --Cúthalion 13:30, 13 February 2007 (MST); moved. —Sledged (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2007 (MST))
  • Create redirects for common vocabulary. For Example [[Dex]] -> [[Dexterity (SRD Term)]] Being handled by Cúthalion
  • Review Alignment categories. Verify that things point to the right place.--Dmilewski 12:11, 18 February 2007 (MST)
  • Rename dragons to bring them in line with standards. Rename dragons from "Color Dragon" to "Dragon, Color".--Dmilewski 13:24, 18 February 2007 (MST)
  • Change all affect categories to say "Category Effect" (such as Cold spell, Evil spells, etc.)--Dmilewski 16:50, 19 February 2007 (MST)
  • Recategorize cleric domain spells and their spells.--Dmilewski 18:31, 19 February 2007 (MST)
  • I'd like to combine the game rule information in the races page and the creatures as races page into one single page. —Sledged (talk) 18:07, 18 February 2007 (MST)
  • Add inflict category of spells. Done. --Dmilewski 20:30, 28 March 2007 (MDT)
  • Shifted all basic spells over to Spell template.
  • Shift Epic Spells to template.--Dmilewski 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)
  • Shift Epic Spell Seeds to template.--Dmilewski 12:04, 2 April 2007 (MDT)
  • Replace Back To footer on all Spells, Spell Seeds, Epic Spells, and Powers.--Dmilewski 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)
  • Shift Powers to Powers template.--Dmilewski 18:49, 4 April 2007 (MDT)
  • Review Creature Type and Subtype, and Planes for links.--Dmilewski 14:35, 12 April 2007 (MDT)
  • Removed the entries from the special abilities section that aren't special abilities; specifically manufactured weapons, movement modes, natural weapons, nonabilities, and treasure. —Sledged (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2007 (MDT):
  • Type magic items by their body slots.--Dmilewski 13:08, 23 May 2007 (MDT)
  • Increase linking inside of spells, especially stat areas. Reformatted all the spells using the Spell template.--Dmilewski 13:15, 23 May 2007 (MDT)
  • Split out Epic Artifacts. Merged Epic and Non-Epic artifacts together.--Dmilewski 10:59, 25 May 2007 (MDT)
  • Added footer template to all feats.--Dmilewski 09:31, 27 September 2007 (MDT)
  • Review SRD Races category. Some pages have multiple races on environments. Some races have creature entries and race entries, while others only have creature entries. It's a bit of a knot.—Sledged
  • Add Assassin (Level) Category to all Assassin spells. Same with Blackguard.--Dmilewski 10:49, 27 September 2007 (MDT)
  • Add the domains that did not appear in the PHB, such as Community or Repose, to the respective spell entries (done for Artifice). Revised footers on the Domains. Revised numbers on the domains.--Dmilewski 09:42, 28 September 2007 (MDT)
  • Change all Teleportation(Category:Teleportation) to Teleportation Effect or Teleporation Subschool
  • Go through all spells changing <Tag> to <Tag School> or <Tag Subschool>--Dmilewski 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)
  • Go through all powers changing <Tag> to <Tag Discipline> or <Tag Subdiscipline>--Dmilewski 18:54, 8 October 2007 (MDT)
  • Review creature type descriptions for links.--Dmilewski 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)
  • As reported by Sledged, fixed spelling errors for Constitution, Fortitude, and Monstrous.--Dmilewski 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)
  • Update footers for all creatures. Insert template for backto footer. Adjust line spacing. --Dmilewski 19:35, 15 October 2007 (MDT)
  • Mass renamed all links to their proper, non-redirected links. 99% of all links work correctly. Many links need cleanup.--Dmilewski 06:48, 17 October 2007 (MDT)
  • Split up epic magic items into their own pages.--Dmilewski 11:54, 17 October 2007 (MDT)
  • Correct red links inside the SRD. --Dmilewski 14:57, 18 October 2007 (MDT)
  • Collected all combat pages onto the SRD:Combat page. --Dmilewski 07:39, 22 October 2007 (MDT)
  • I recommend changing all the "back to" System Reference Document links to just SRD. —Sledged (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2007 (MDT)
    All footers should be templates, so any page title changes can be implemented with one click. A spell footer (implemented) and a feat footer (partly implemented, A-B) exist, others are needed.
    All feats now have the footer template.--Dmilewski 09:29, 27 September 2007 (MDT)
  • Created footers for all pages. All footers are templates based off SRD Footer Template. Flattened the footers so that they are only three links deep in most instances. Footers now only cover major categories. --Dmilewski 18:39, 4 November 2007 (MST)
  • Removed (SRD) and from general SRD pages. Some pages still have tags to distinguish them from similarly named pages.--Dmilewski 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)
  • Link class names in Spells. There are automation issues with over-matching.--Dmilewski 19:01, 21 November 2007 (MST)
  • Remove page name tags from Spells.--Dmilewski 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)
  • Remove page name tags from Powers.--Dmilewski 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)
  • Remove page name tags from Creatures.--Dmilewski 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)
  • Remove page name tags from magic items.--Dmilewski 07:03, 22 November 2007 (MST)
  • Remove page name tags from Feats. --Dmilewski 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)
  • Change category links to formal pages where possible: spells schools, creature types, etc.--Dmilewski 13:43, 23 November 2007 (MST)
  • Removed all double-redirects for creatures.--Dmilewski 20:29, 6 December 2007 (MST)
  • Removed all double-redirects from Powers.--Dmilewski 13:25, 9 December 2007 (MST)
  • Removed all double-redirects from spells. Thanks everyone for all the help. --Dmilewski 19:49, 16 December 2007 (MST)
  • Figure out how to make DPL category mode list by TITLE, not by NAMESPACE,TITLE. Update SRD Infrastructure pages. ---- Mediawiki problem - Blue Dragon will hack it and fix it.
    The newest DPL version has a function for it, you just need to update. No need to hack --Mkill 08:04, 2 August 2007 (MDT)
    Blue tried an update. There were issues. —Sledged (talk) 16:26, 4 September 2007 (MDT)
    Accomplished by Sledged.
  • Removed all double-redirects and un-used redirects from Feats. Thanks for all the help. --Dmilewski 13:31, 18 December 2007 (MST)
  • Link class names in Powers. There are automation issues with over-matching.--Dmilewski 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)
  • Automated linking of common terms. --Dmilewski 12:25, 11 January 2008 (MST)
  • Add templates to SRD:Buckler and SRD:Tower Shield. —Sledged (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2008 (MST)

SRD Requests

These are requested things to do.

  • Anchor subsections of the SRD (see druid for example; requested here(Talk:Druid (SRD Class)# Anchors)).
This project is so big that I'm putting it aside for now. Every single SRD page needs to be checked. --Dmilewski 07:23, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Agreed. That's the main reason I prefer to use wiki headers, since it creates the anchors for you. However, I don't think this is worth a major retrofit effort, as you can always link to the broader section. Thanks, anyway. (I'm the one who made the request.) --Cúthalion 08:18, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Okay. --Green Dragon 00:12, 13 February 2007 (MST)
I've started on this with the rules, and I'm working my way through the lists (feats, skills, spells, equipment, etc.). I've done the skills, feats, conditions, and (sub)types. I was getting ready to start on the classes, but I wasn't sure whether to keep them in their existing format, or go with something closer to the new format WotC is using in their more recent source books. I'm of the mind that the SRD classes should use the same format as the user classes, and given this discussion (Talk:Liberator (DnD Class)#Wikify?), I think now is the time to iron out format. I've given a sample layout here(Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)) using the druid as a guinea pig with notes on the talk page(Talk:Druid (Evaluational Base Class Layout)).
Where would we put them?--Dmilewski 04:58, 8 March 2007 (MST)
I suggest putting movement modes, in the special movement rules section of movement, position, and distance.
The intro text before the "Strength" header of nonabilities can go under the "The Abilities" header in the ability score rules. The rest of nonabilities can go under their relevant ability description.
Treasure could go either in the treasure rules or the treasure section in reading creature entries.
I'd give natural weapons it's own subsection in the special attacks section of the combat rules. However, I'd trim out any text that explicitly refers to creature entries and move that to the reading creature entries under either attack or full attack.
I suggest moving the first paragraph of manufactured weapons to the full attack section of reading creature entries (trimming out any overly redundant text). The second paragraph can be given it's own subsection in the special attacks section of the combat rules, and be given the title "Manufactured and Natural Weapon Fighting." —Sledged (talk) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (MST)
I took a while to look this over. (New babies make for short attention spans.) It all looks good and your reasoning is sound. Move stuff about!--Dmilewski 07:52, 24 March 2007 (MDT)
  • Reorganize the character class information: Demo Page 1: Multiclass Characters and Page 2:Character Classes. —Sledged (talk) 09:31, 31 May 2007 (MDT)
    Sweet. I'm 99% sold. I'd like to see the WotC links on the class page. (I feel that they are appropriate to the character class page.) --Dmilewski 09:43, 31 May 2007 (MDT)
    Done. —Sledged (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2007 (MDT)

Ability Modifiers

Removed Ability Modifiers from the list as it is contained in Ability Scores --Calidore Chase 04:01, 14 December 2006 (MST)

New SRD Landing Page

I've move in the new landing page. I hope that folks like the landing page better and can find things easier. If you have usability issues or other comments, please leave comments here.

Thanks to everyone who helped out on that sticky problem. Thank you especially User:Green Dragon for coming up with the winning design, and User:Sledged for coming with with many different designs, and for helping me shift things about. This page was a group effort in every sense of the word. --Dmilewski 07:45, 20 December 2006 (MST)

Yes, it was a wonderful meeting of the minds, especially if you take into account that among the initial styles, there were four votes for four different styles. My hat's off to every contributer. —Sledged 10:24, 20 December 2006 (MST)
Agreed, this is much much better. Everyone, thanks for making this work. --Green Dragon 16:01, 20 December 2006 (MST)
It looks much better. Well done, all-- EldritchNumen 01:21, 24 December 2006 (MST)

SRD Question

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but before too long I plan on Posting my Campaign setting to the Wiki. But it makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules from "Heroes of Horror". Am I allowed to create a reference document for these rules, and if so how close to verbatim can the article be? -- Sepsis 16:21, 10 February 2007 (MST)

This should be answered in Heroes of Horror. Look for the license (in the front or the back) and find "Designation of Open Game Content" and "Designation of Product Identity" (or similar words). These will state what is and is not Open Game Content. Pay close attention to both statements. The wording can be dense and confusing, but if you take the time to wade through the detail, you will have an idea of what is available. If there is no designation of "Open Game Conent," then there is no open game content. --Dmilewski 19:23, 10 February 2007 (MST)
Thank you for the answer...I checked and it does specifically state, that none of the content of HoH is "Open Game Content". Oh well..such is life. -- Sepsis 19:37, 10 February 2007 (MST)
So, you cannot post it here however you can reference it. What were you planning on doing with the HoH content anyway? --Green Dragon 23:10, 11 February 2007 (MST)
My Campaign setting makes heavy use of the "Taint of Evil" rules, and fearing there would be those without access to the rules I was thinking of transcribing that section into the Wiki. But I'll just reference the appropriate sections instead. Those intrested in a Fantasy-Horror game most likely own the title already (I hope). -- Sepsis 09:30, 12 February 2007 (MST)
I think most people that like horror do (I own very little books and that is one of the ones I do). I think referencing should work. --Green Dragon 23:37, 12 February 2007 (MST)
I can't help but appreciate the irony of this question, in that it has nothing to do with the SRD. —Sledged (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2007 (MST)
:) —EldritchNumen 15:18, 6 March 2007 (MST)
Why not just make a variant version of the rule? thats what I did with the Spider Domain. --Sam Kay 09:05, 15 August 2007 (MDT)

Redirects for common pages

I'm thinking about adding in a bunch of redirects for commonly linked SRD pages, so you could, for instance, type [[Dex]] and have it go to the right place. This would save a whole lot of effort in creating new pages, not to mention maintaining them, and would be 100% backward compatible. Any objections? --Cúthalion 08:26, 12 February 2007 (MST)

That's a good idea. I've added this to the todo list. Hold off starting for a bit, as we'll be porting the SRD and MSRD into their own namespaces. (No need doing this project twice.) After that, go for it. Keep the ideas coming. Your fresh eyes are helping!!!--Dmilewski 10:58, 12 February 2007 (MST)
I've actually started doing that here and there, and I agree it's very helpful. There needs to be a bit of care in how it's done. I would recommend having [[Magic Missile]] redirect to the spell, but some terms could potentially redirect to more than one place (e.g. [[Shield]]), and how would one decide to which page they go. —Sledged (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2007 (MST)
I was about to gush about this, then I thought of the MSRD. As we go forward with this, we will be excluding the Modern side from doing the same thing. I still think that we should do it, but I wanted to acknowledge that downside.
Here's what I see that's safe: (SRD Term), and (SRD Special Ability). --Dmilewski 11:27, 12 February 2007 (MST)
Most are safe, however I would not want to favor the SRD over Homebrew items. Odviously some will work however less direct links I would not do as I think Homebrew deserve as much credit as published material. --Green Dragon 23:40, 12 February 2007 (MST)
My initial thought was to expect redirects only for commonly referenced SRD items, including attributes, skills, base classes, and certain feats (e.g. Dodge). Anything beyond that is an added luxury as far as I'm concerned. The more the merrier. --Cúthalion 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)
I've done a lot of these. Now I'm just planning to add more incrementally as needed. --Cúthalion 13:49, 14 February 2007 (MST)
So far they all look okay. Just make sure not to give the SRD to much credit over Homebrew. --Green Dragon 16:45, 15 February 2007 (MST)
Ooh, this is nice! (Ironically, it was the page for Magic Missile that I was searching for!) --80.175.250.218 11:03, 31 May 2007 (MDT)
What's the ETA on the namespace changes? I've been saving (lots of) time by anticipating redirects, but I've been told my red links are an eyesore. --Cúthalion 09:45, 14 February 2007 (MST)
Its happened. There must be an issue somewhere. --Dmilewski 10:55, 14 February 2007 (MST)
No issue, this just means I can start adding the redirects. Thanks. --Cúthalion 11:58, 14 February 2007 (MST)

Moved Epic Level Basics

After looking over the epic level basics rules, there didn't seem to be a good reason to leave it dangling by itself in its own section. All the rules there pertain to epic character progression and nothing else, so I moved it to sit with the rest of the character rules. —Sledged (talk) 10:06, 13 February 2007 (MST)

Looks good. --Green Dragon 22:46, 13 February 2007 (MST)

Help me find...

...That table in the DMG that tells me how much players are supposed to have at each level? Is it in here anywhere? Armond 12:41, 6 March 2007 (MST)

Unfortunately, that's not OGC, so you're not going to find it in the SRD; only in the DMG. —Sledged (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2007 (MST)
I understood most of the words in that sentence. Ok, if we were to put handy stuff like that on the wiki, where would we put it? And what's OGC? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.1.60.60 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 7 March 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.
"Open Game Content" as defined in the Open Game License v1.0a. Putting anything on the wiki from the DMG that's not also part of the SRD is not allowed. (See WotC's d20 section of their site for more information.) —Sledged (talk) 12:00, 7 March 2007 (MST)
Or, in other words, some "handy stuff" like that can't be added because it's a legal violation of the license. Sorry, it simply can't be on the wiki. —EldritchNumen 15:13, 7 March 2007 (MST)
Ok. Well, that's not great. So how do I tell if something's OGC, SRD, or ILV (In legal violation) without wading through a thousand legal papers? Will it say in the front of the book or is there a general way to tell? Armond 12:51, 9 March 2007 (MST)
To quote Green Dragon (since he has said well enough already):
Check the inside front of the books (on the page with the copyright information). If it reads, "None of the content in this book is Open Game Content" then you can't add anything.
—Sledged (talk) 13:03, 9 March 2007 (MST)
Judging by the fact that my Dragon Magic says that, I'm guessing that almost none of the accessories are OGC. And I'm betting Wizards won't give us permission to document anything here because then people would just come and read it here instead of buying the books. So, next question: How do I carry all my D&D books in my backpack to school so I can reference them when I do most of my posting? :P Armond 18:00, 9 March 2007 (MST)
Do what I do: only have afew books (choose the ones you need), get a big backpack, and then get called wierd for having a monstrously heavy bag... Eventually you get used to it and dont notice it. If you have a locker, just put your books in there durin the day! :)--Sam Kay 09:08, 15 August 2007 (MDT)
Or you can find a site that abuses the copyright... Just google "Character Wealth by Level" -- not that I suggest or endorse posting ILV material. --Aarnott 09:56, 15 August 2007 (MDT)

To do: Special Abilities

Clearly they aren't special abilities, but what would be a better tag? Armond 12:15, 12 April 2007 (MDT)

Movement modes

So I've moved movement modes under SRD:Movement, Position, and Distance. Right now it's under "Special Movement Rules" (A), but I'm debating whether it's best there, if it'd be best as it's own section under "Tactical Movement" (B), or for it to be it's own section under "Movement, Position, and Distance" (C).

A B C
1 Movement, Position, and Distance
1.1 Tactical Movement
1.1.5 Special Movement Rules
1.1.5.4 Movement Modes
1.1.5.4.1 Burrow
1.1.5.4.2 Climb
1.1.5.4.3 Fly
1.1.5.4.4 Swim
 1 Movement, Position, and Distance
1.1 Tactical Movement
1.1.5 Special Movement Rules
1.1.6 Movement Modes
1.1.6.1 Burrow
1.1.6.2 Climb
1.1.6.3 Fly
1.1.6.4 Swim
 1 Movement, Position, and Distance
1.1 Tactical Movement
1.1.5 Special Movement Rules
1.2 Movement Modes
1.2.1 Burrow
1.2.2 Climb
1.2.3 Fly
1.2.4 Swim

—Sledged (talk) 11:45, 16 April 2007 (MDT)

I vote for B. Armond 15:49, 16 April 2007 (MDT)
I agree. –EldritchNumen 19:23, 16 April 2007 (MDT)
I am for B or C. --Green Dragon 22:40, 16 April 2007 (MDT)
B it is. —Sledged (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2007 (MDT)

Landing Page

SURPRISE. Looks like we have a new landing page. Please weigh in with your opinions. Keep or Regress? --Dmilewski 12:05, 20 July 2007 (MDT)

I like it. The only thing I don't like is that I'm not used to it; I would expect some complaints because of that. I know that I will get used to it however. I think it is more intuitive and the category locations make more sense. Good work! --Aarnott 12:13, 20 July 2007 (MDT)
Just to note, there is a lot of repeated content inside the SRD:Combat that is on the landing page. --Aarnott 12:21, 20 July 2007 (MDT)
After months of trying to like the new landing page, I reverted it. Yes, this was a command decision. I looked at an old page in the history and instantly liked the old page much better. We argued over that page for months. The work that we put into it showed. --Dmilewski 08:40, 18 October 2007 (MDT)

(Rule) or

I figured it would be a good project to try to separate every term we can. I noticed a lot of pages in the SRD are either a (Rule) page or a page, but it is hard to tell what defines them as which type of page. Can anyone clarify this for me? Right now I'm compiling a list of what I consider to be missing terms or rules. At some point we could have a glossary page. --Aarnott 12:54, 20 July 2007 (MDT)

If you ask me, the and brackets are completely superfluous and just make linking unnecessarily complicated. I mean, the SRD is basicly rules, there is no need to point that out in any explicit way. The easiest would be just to have SRD:Attack of Opportunity etc.
And yest, I totally support reorganizing the SRD by keyword. --Mkill 00:51, 21 July 2007 (MDT)
By that logic, everything is a rule. Since I did the initial typing, I'll explain my logic. Terms are most like dictionary entries. They stand as themselves and strongly so. Stunned is an example of a term. It's a specific dictionary-like explanation of vocabulary inside the game. Likewise, Alchemical Siver refers to something very specific. generally refer to situations or infrastructure. One doesn't generally link to Exploration inside the Wiki. For example, How Combat Works. In general, mechanics are [Rules], and specific vocabulary are [Terms].
If you can provide a better razor to sort things by, by all means, define it and pitch it. I categorized well over 3,500 entries at this point, most by gut, and most very quickly. I did much of the typing before we started using the Category tags. I make no pretenses that I did this perfectly. We could just de-type both terms and rules. Since they are all in the SRD namespace, we can just leave off endings. Rather than SRD:Term and SRD:Rule (Rule), we could just make them SRD:Entry. --Dmilewski 06:59, 21 July 2007 (MDT)

Subrace Naming Conventions

So I'm looking to impose a bit of consistency with the page names for subraces. However what each subrace is called is giving a bit of a challenge to this task. There is (A) the most common elf subrace, high elves (which are the standard elves), (B) the nonstandard gnome subrace, forest gnomes, (C) the nonstandard dwarf subrace, duergar which are also referred to as "gray dwarves," and (D) the nonstandard halfling subrace, tallfellows (note that they're not referred to has "tallfellow halflings") which has no other name reference. The following are some ideas I've put together (Feel free to add your own naming conventions):

(A) Standard Subraces

I

  • Dwarf
  • Elf
  • Gnome
  • Halfling

II

  • Dwarf, Hill
  • Elf, High
  • Gnome, Rock
  • Halfling, Lightfoot

III

  • Hill Dwarf
  • High Elf
  • Rock Gnome
  • Lightfoot Halfling

IV

  • (Hill) Dwarf
  • (High) Elf
  • (Rock) Gnome
  • (Lightfoot) Halfling

(B) Descriptive Name (Nonstandard) Subraces

I

  • Dwarf, Deep
  • Elf, Aquatic
  • Gnome, Forest
  • Halfling, Deep

II

  • Deep Dwarf
  • Aquatic Elf
  • Forest Gnome
  • Deep Halfling

III

  • (Deep) Dwarf
  • (Aquatic) Elf
  • (Forest) Gnome
  • (Deep) Halfling

(C) Alternative Name (Nonstandard) Subraces

I

  • Dwarf, Gray (Duergar)
  • Elf, Dark (Drow)
  • Gnome, Deep (Svirfneblin)

II

  • Duergar
  • Drow
  • Svirfneblin

III

  • Dwarf, Duergar
  • Elf, Drow
  • Gnome, Svirfneblin

IV

  • Dwarf, Gray
  • Elf, Dark
  • Gnome, Deep

V

  • Duergar (Gray Dwarf)
  • Drow (Dark Elf)
  • Svirfneblin (Deep Gnome)

(D) Single Name (Nonstandard) Subraces

I

  • Goblin (Blue)
  • Halfling (Tallfellow)
  • Troll (Scrag)

II

  • Blue
  • Tallfellow
  • Scrag

III

  • Goblin, Blue
  • Halfling, Tallfellow
  • Troll, Scrag

IV

  • Blue (Goblin)
  • Tallfellow (Halfling)
  • Scrag (Troll)

The first column of each list is my own preference.

Note: Though all the names are listed in the singular form, that form will only be used for the creature pages. The race pages will continue to use the plural form [e.g. SRD:Dwarves (Race)]. —Sledged (talk) 13:48, 27 August 2007 (MDT)

You've put a whole lot more thought into this than I have. Pick the solution that you like best. It will be an improvement. --Dmilewski 07:49, 28 August 2007 (MDT)
I know I am too late, however something that kind of annoys me is when two sets or parenthesis are present, like an identifier and somethin that explains something. For example I will always dislike something named Drow (Dark Elf) (Race)... I would not worry much about it though, I will live :). --Green Dragon 16:33, 29 August 2007 (MDT)
Could just as easily use some kind of delimiter other than parenthesis and commas: SRD:Elf, Dark—Drow (Race). —Sledged (talk) 19:23, 29 August 2007 (MDT)
To me that looks like a better option. --Green Dragon 22:04, 29 August 2007 (MDT)

Unearth Arcana

I would propose adding the unearthed arcana rules to this page under a 'Variant' heading. perhaps go even further and divide all the sections into core SRD, psionic SRD, epic SRD, divine SRD and variant SRD - Mayhew18

A UA transcript is here. It hasn't been completely transcribed yet, so if you'd like to add more just follow the guidelines. It won't be added to the SRD because... well... it's not part of the SRD.
The SRD was originally divided into core, psionic, epic, and divine sections, but it didn't make sense to have feats, skills, monsters, etc separated into four and five (feats had two locations within the core rules) different sections. —Sledged (talk) 16:32, 17 October 2007 (MDT)

Level Dependent Abilitites

I find it disturbing that I am unable to find the chart which presents the levels, experience points, feats, and ability score changes. It shows at which levels do you get a new feat or ability score increase. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by T G Geko (talk • contribs) 10:50, 21 December 2007 (MST). Please sign your posts.

WotC did not place this information into the SRD, so this information is not licensed for us to use.--Dmilewski 12:39, 21 December 2007 (MST)

I have been auto-creating links. Expect to find bad edits in there. If I am 99% successful in my scripting, 1% error x 3,500 pages = 35 errors. I strive to make this scripting perfect, but math is against me.

I usually find and solve more corner-cases with each iteration, making each mass-edit better. However, all some conditions are very difficult to solve. I have some primary enemies.

  • Terms which contain multiple link-worthy terms. For example, "grapple" and "improved grapple" are both link-worthy for the term "grapple", even though "improved grapple" should not be linked this way.
  • Terms used in a different context than expected. "Wish" (the spell) and "it is the wish of the lord that..." which is not a spell.
  • Linking terms inside their own term page. This results in many black highlights.
  • Terms appearing between formatting marks. For example, [[SRD:Fred|I am Fred the deceiver]]. In this example, I have not solved how to avoid words deep inside brackets, and would wind up with a link inside the link.
  • Capitalized terms in headers. (This is OK, but it can look bad.)

If you see obviously bad links, please fix them. --Dmilewski 07:24, 11 January 2008 (MST)

Psion Skill Problem

For the kineticist, it says the disable device is a dexterity skill. it is an int skill. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 09:36, 28 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.

That is the way that the SRD lists this skill. Is there errata or a publication which corrects this? --Dmilewski 10:13, 28 January 2008 (MST)
well, i have checked the expanded psionics handbook and it does state the disable device as a dex skill BUT on the psion listing only. this is clearly a mistake. later in XPH, in the elocator details, it states the disable device skill as an int skill. the XPH has several such booboos. anyway, for your considereation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.
sorry. i do not know how to reply to a reply.
i have the player's handbook v3.5 and it lists disable device as an int skill as does dndwiki (SRD:Skills)
i have never seen it listed as a dex skill except on the psion page but i may be mistaken. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.
Sometimes skills use a different stat than the standard. This is the case with a number of creatures with a climb speed. Many use Dex instead of Str for the Climb skill. In this case, I'd put money on it being a mistake, I'll contact WotC CustServ. —Sledged (talk) 11:32, 28 January 2008 (MST)
well, if i'm on a bitching spree, the 'astral construct' power's link is fudged here SRD:Psion Discipline Powers.
the 'mass owl's wisdom' spell's link is fudged as well in SRD:Sorcerer/Wizard Spell List.
the 'detect animals or plants' spell's link is fudged in SRD:Ranger Spell List.
in this link SRD:Magic Armor the 'specific epic armors' part, 'armor of the celestials' is fudged.
in SRD:Rings it is the "ring of animal friendship' and 'ring of elemental command' all types.
in SRD:Scrolls the 'detect animals or plants'. i would guess it is the same prbolem as in the ranger spell.
also, in here SRD:Random Psionic Items
sorry for the nitpicking. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 28 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.
By all means, point out any errors you see. —Sledged (talk) 15:29, 28 January 2008 (MST)
CustServ response (080128-000211):
Disable device is a Intelligence based skill ignore the incorrect stat under the Kineticist.
—Sledged (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2008 (MST)

more small things: the 'float', 'true seeing, psionic' powers are marked as augmentable while they are not. the 'dimension door, psionic' is augmentable and is not marked as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Fixed. —Sledged (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)

more corrections: the 'second chance' power has a superscript of '*' which is not defined. the 'psionic repair damage' and 'Ectoplasmic Cocoon, Mass' and 'Suggestion, Psionic' powers are augmentable and are not marked as such. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Fixed. That's not an asterisk next to second chance, it's an 'X' with a strike-through, which is how official errata is marked. —Sledged (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)

revisit of previous correction: in rings SRD:Rings the remaining three elemental command rings; links are still fudged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Sloppiness on my part. Fixed. —Sledged (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)

and on SRD:Psionic Feats the psionic fist feat link is fudged. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.

on SRD:Skills and SRD:Table of Skill Synergies on the synergy table, it says that 5 ranks in knowledge history gives +2 on bardic knowledge checks. the link for bardic knowledge is fudged.

on SRD:Epic Feats there is a variety of fudged links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Fixed, fixed, and fixed. Thanks for the bug-squashing session. —Sledged (talk) 10:05, 30 January 2008 (MST)
Thanks for all the fixes. If you see more, go to the Talk tab of the page that you are on. I used an automated linker to create many links. The linker wasn't perfect. --Dmilewski 15:34, 30 January 2008 (MST)

Question Regarding Epic Levels

as far as epic spells/powers go, it seems to me that developing a "mixed" epic spell/power is usually not as beneficial as a "concentrated" epic spell/power. by concentrated i mean using a single aspect of a single seed to its maximum power as the character's spellcraft limits it. it seems that for some seeds, a "concentrated" use of, say, the armor seed for an epic power (not spell!) is rather useless since a fully augmented inertial armor does it as well and without wasting an epic power slot. the same goes for many particular usages of other seeds such as temporary hit point for a psion with the vigor power in his arsenal, damage reduction aspect of fortify is dedundant for a psion who has biofeedback (although the duration of the seed is much longer than the power). it seems to me that the epic seeds were planned for spellcasters for whom the augmentation is not possible. is this really the case? or am i missing something? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 2008-02-06 11:05. Please sign your posts.

No, you've guessed it correctly. Epic spells were designed for spellcasters, but they probably didn't want to leave psions and the like out, so they did minimal modifications to epic spellcasting to make it work for powers. The biggest problem I see with powers (epic and non-epic) is the lack of creativity that went into designing them. —Sledged (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)
really? lack of creativity for nonepic? i actually like powers better than spells. this isnt to say that a wizard with a wide variety of spells isnt strong and the list of spells is far far longer than the list of powers, still, a psion withe at most 36 powers has no use for a list as long as the list of spells. but maybe these issues will be addressed in 4e. still, i hope they wont change it too much. i really like the psion idea.
Admittedly, I'm a bit jaded on the issue because I've played with the previous editions of psionics. But the core mechanics of 3.x psionics is little more than point-based spellcasting, with the terminology changed; "psionic" instead of "magic," "powers" instead of "spells," "disciplines" instead of "schools," "psi-like" instead of "spell-like." When you look at other complex special ability systems that WotC has developed, such as infusions (Eberron Campaign Setting), invocations (Complete Arcane), soulmelds (Magic of Incarnum), vestiges (Tome of Magic (3.5e)), utterances (Tome of Magic (3.5e)), and stances and maneuvers (Tome of Battle), you get an even better perspective how little creativity went into psionics. Then there's Green Ronin's Psychic's Handbook which is a similar concept as psionics, but is more than just a variant spellcasting system packaged as something else. It think my biggest beef is not psionics similarity to magic, but the fact that they tried to sell it as something completely different than magic. —Sledged (talk) 11:00, 7 February 2008 (MST)
also, another question: say a 21st level wizard develops an epic spell using the armor seed for an effect of +14 to armor class which gives a spellcraft of 34. this spell costs 34x9000 gp to develop and 1/25 that in xp. assume said character gains a few levels and would like to develop an epic spell doing the exact same thing but with armor class bonus greater than +14. does he/she/it have to develop an entire new epic spell and pay all the associated costs, or can he/she/it just, umm, pay the difference so to speak? the difference between what would be paid for the new armor class bonus minus what he/she/it already paid for the +14 bonus? essentially, i am asking whether enhancing an epic spell/power is possible or is it every epic spell/power on its own? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 2008-02-06 11:05. Please sign your posts.
By the rules you're developing a completely separate spell, so you pay a separate cost. However, I could see DMs house-ruling it otherwise. —Sledged (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2008 (MST)
more questions, which, i suppose, are really part of my earlier first comment:
  1. creating magic items. SRD:Creating Magic Items does it apply to powers as well? and augmentable powers? cause if it applies to augmentable powers as well, it might be a little broken. one can easily create psionic bracers of armor (or a similar object) with the 'inertial armor' power augmented to maximum in continuous use according to the 'Use-activated or continuous' of creating magic items, and make bracers which give a very high AC bonus very fast. at manifester level 9 it gives +8 AC bonus and at manifester level 19 it gives an armor bonus of +13 which is far far better than the +8 a magical bracers of defense gives and it even costs less (38000 versus 64000 for the +8 bracers of armor). is this broken or some compensation for the lack of variety or something with powers? and this doesnt even include the possibility of adding a similar psionic item making an augmented version of force screen which, at level 17, gives another +8 to AC (and in fact, stacks with ring of protection...).
  2. epic magic items. are they affected normally by anti magic fields and mage's disjunction? i would expect some caster level check 1d20+20 but i cannot find any reference to it.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 6 February 2008 (MST). Please sign your posts.
Estimated pricing is based on formulas. True pricing is based on "comparison". If you create something worth a calculated 20,000 gp, and the closest equivalent is 100,000 gp, then the actual price is 100,000 gp. As a general rule, the BIG FIVE are your main pricing guides: armor bonus, weapon bonus, save bonus, natural armor bonus, and attribute bonus. These are the best known and best adjusted prices. Some pricing is known to be off, such as Wondrous Items. These are often too expensive for their value. For example, some figurines of wondrous power are so expensive that by the time that you can afford them, they are useless.
I find that the best way to price an object is to ask, "At what level is this an appropriate object?" You then open the MIC and find the price range for that level.
As for epic items: that question is an example of why I hate the Epic rules. Those rules are rife with such issues. --Dmilewski 06:41, 7 February 2008 (MST)
another q: does a suppressed magic item, say by a targetted dispel magic, subjected to mage's disjunction become totally nonmagical? mage's disjunction is a magic item killer. i hate that spell. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 February 2008. Please sign your posts.
just saw magic items get a saving throw against mage's disjunction so it less of a killer. what is a magic item's saving throw (even though it can use the holder's saving throw if it is better)? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.108.164.233 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 9 February 2008. Please sign your posts.

tome of battle
Moved to Discussion:Tome of Battle Questions

Warlock Class

Please add more information on warlocks, it's just too vague, and so is the PHB2. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 99.151.159.146 (talk • contribs) 2008-04-03 19:23. Please sign your posts.

If we were allowed to, we would have done so long ago. The warlock is Product Identity, so we're not allowed to post the details on the wiki. —Sledged (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2008 (MDT)

Variant Spells

Choking Shadows Evocation (Cold, Shadow) A blanket of shadows spills out from your hand, drenching the target area in frigid darkness. This effect obscures vision within the area exactly like solid fog, but creatures inside the cloud also suffer cold damage each round they remain inside.

Living creatures with 2 or fewer HD die outright from shock (no save), and creatures with 3 to 5 HD must make a Fortitude saving throw or die. Living creatures with more than 5 HD, and creatures with 3 to 5 HD who make their saving throw, take 1d10 points of subdual damage each round while in the cloud.

The choking shadows move away from the caster at 10 feet per round, rolling along the surface of the ground. The cloud is neutrally buoyant, and does not sink or rise in the air. It cannot penetrate liquids, nor can be cast underwater.

Category Ordering

By request, I modified the SRD to list its pages alphabetically within categories. --Dmilewski 05:35, 23 April 2009 (MDT)

d20 System Logo needs to be removed

You have the d20 System Logo on this page (and a couple of other pages). As the d20STL licence has now been cancelled by WotC, this logo needs to be removed from any pages containing Open Game Content.

I am pretty sure that you can keep the logo on pages that do not contain OGC (for example a fair use page that lets people know what the d20STL was and what the logo looked like), but you can't keep it here as this is a page about the SRD.

Personally, I think it is madness that WotC have decided to try to shoehorn the d20 System logo into a 4e brand, but that is what they have tried to do and the old log is now something they no longer authorise people to use. Big Mac 19:33, 23 June 2009 (MDT)

Removed d20 logo. I had forgotten that we even had a logo there. --Dmilewski 20:17, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
Thanks Dmilewski! Big Mac 14:33, 16 August 2009 (MDT)

4e Open Gaming Content?

Any word from Wizards on what is considered publicly-usable content like our previous 3.5 OGL Content? I have heard and seen nothing about it... -- xido 15:18, 7 September 2009 (MDT)

I think they have yet to release a license (not positive though). Although in 3.5e one also has things like in the MMII (with OGL) and non-Wizards publishers do things under the OGL as well. --Green Dragon 00:52, 8 September 2009 (MDT)
So there is no such thing as Open Gaming Content in 4e at all? I know that under licensing I can still produce 3.5 materials, but I am wondering if they have released any Open Gaming Content such as they did with the 3.5 SRD... Seems like such a bad marketing decision to me.  :( Oh well, it looks like you'll have my continuing patronage for a few more years while I get my publication material together. I will just have to write well and hope that someone recognizes as a marketable set of campaign media for current game versions until then.  :P -- xido 23:43, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
You may be looking for w:Game_System_License.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   23:45, 10 September 2009 (MDT)
I was indeed looking for that. :P How simple it was and yet I could not find it in my search... Thanks, Hooper. -- xido 02:00, 16 September 2009 (MDT)
Right, however for one to use the GSL one has to contact Wizards - aka it is not publicly useable. Remmember to read everyones post before posting now. --Green Dragon 23:18, 23 September 2009 (MDT)

Are you able to incorporate errata?

One of the things I really love about the Hypertext d20 SRD website is that they downloaded all the avaiable errata (for the gamebooks) and used that to correct their copy of the SRD.

Is this something you are able (and willing) to do here?

If this isn't possible (maybe because it is against your wiki's rules) then thanks anyway - for all your hard work making this SRD

But if it is possible for you to consider this, I believe you will find the documents you need at the Official D&D Updates page.

I think that the Hypertext d20 SRD guy also used to send emails to WotC asking them to clarify borderline cases. You might also want to check out his forum and reproduce his (nitpicking) work. Big Mac 18:59, 14 December 2009 (MST)

It's already added. --Green Dragon 23:19, 14 December 2009 (MST)

Playable

Is it possible to play 3.5 with these rules, or do you need to buy the books? Camulus 10:49, 26 October 2010 (MDT)

Not really. The purpose of the SRD is to be used as a reference. If you've read the books and know the important rules, but haven't yet memorized everything (two of my friends have cause they have no life beyond D&D it seems) then this is a tool you can use to find just how many HD a ogre has without having to wipe out your MM and trying to find the right page. SRD 3.5 is a watered down version of the D&D 3.5 rule set, so basically if you want more then just what WotC gave out for free, you need to buy the other books. Beriadan 8:03, 29 November 2010 (MDT)

Just noticed that both "Combat" and "conditions" link to SRD:Combat. --  Tug   talk    contribs    email   22:47, 15 January 2011 (MST)

This just in: im an idiot because the conditions list is on the same page. my bad. --  Tug   talk    contribs    email   22:49, 15 January 2011 (MST)

Fixing DPLs

I'm unsure how no one else ever noticed it, but all the DPLs used to list SRD pages (like spell, creatures, equipment) also list 5e SRD stuff. I think this is because while the 5e SRD pages were built with the 3.5e SRD in mind with sorting, 3.5e SRD pages aren't categorized as 3.5e and the DPLs only search for SRD, not SRD and 3.5e. I don't think I can fix it, but can someone else?--GamerAim (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2016 (MST)

gollark: That looks like a proposal for a new color map.
gollark: Also, this is a JPEG.
gollark: The Audacity codebase is annoyingly abstracted so I am not going to bother with working out what the actual mapping is.
gollark: Great!
gollark: I guess.
This article is issued from Dandwiki. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.