User talk:Green Dragon/Archive 15

← Archive 14 |

Archive 15 |

Archive 16 →

How Does One Suggest Article Changes?

I've never "edited" a Wiki page before. I thought everything was being sent to you as a suggestion, and after I submitted my suggestions, I noticed the actual page changed. I want to apologize personally. I may have the original chirurgeon saved to my computer when my players first found and downloaded it, and I can fix everything as soon as I locate it. Again, I apologize profusely, and I suppose I've learned my lesson. I won't be clicking "edit" any more, since it actually changes the page instead of makes suggestions.

That said, is there a way to send suggestions to users about an entry in Wiki? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.187.167.233 (talk • contribs) 14:49, 5 May 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

That's what the talk page is for -- click on the tab that says "Discussion" instead of the one that says edit. Surgo 14:50, 5 May 2009 (MDT)

Also, we can revert any changes to a page because wikis store the entire history of the page (each edit). --Aarnott 15:22, 5 May 2009 (MDT)

New User and Policies

Hi there, many thanks for your welcome and good wishes. whilst I may not be a total dead loss between the ears I am still learning slowly how to set out my formats and pages and wanted to ask you about a few things please.

1. How can I delete a page once it is made? There is a page referencing "Tekman", the forerunner of my deity Teknos, which I need to have removed please.
2. Can you please send me, if you have time, any constructive criticism about the pages I have completed thus far - are they complete? Do I need to do much more to them or are they functional for the time being? How could they be improved? And so on
3. Am I out of order for adding materials in this way? Have I broken some form of etiquette of which I am otherwise unaware? Please let me know - for example, is it okay top be asking you so many questions?

Thanks for your time. Rorschach Moondark 09:29, 8 May 2009 (MDT)

Learning wiki-syntax should not be too difficult, and once one gets proficient things start looking better and things start fitting better to our preload standards. But anyways...

1. To delete a page please refer to Category:Candidates for Deletion.
2. Sorry... I really do not have the time to take a look at the content you have submitted right now. If you want some critique you may want to ask on the talk page for people's opinions.
3. And I am not sure how you have been adding material, but if you are following the preload and the naming conventions rules it should be alright.

Hope this helps a bit. --Green Dragon 12:32, 9 May 2009 (MDT)

Racial Champion

Where is this feat? Which books, site, I can't find it anywhere. What does it do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Masterkycoo (talk • contribs) 01:48, 9 May 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts.

I'm not sure off the top of my head and I do not want to spend the time to look, sorry. --Green Dragon 12:27, 9 May 2009 (MDT)

Campaign Setting Chat

Hi I'm not completely new but I've really been enjoying D&D Wiki. I thought of an idea for your site, maybe you could set up a chat other then the tavern specifically for D&D campaigns and maybe you could have a few people start some campaigns for 3.5e or 4e or both its just an idea so I wont be offended if nothing happens but please think about it as I think it would be very interesting. --Apfa10 23:55, 9 May 2009 (MDT)

You would have to ask Blue Dragon to be certain however if one can create a sub-group chat then it should work. Comparable to how one creates a personal non-logged chat with another member. --Green Dragon 10:19, 10 May 2009 (MDT)

Membership

Can you remove myself and all my contributions off this wiki ASAP? I've had it with the regulars. --Mythos Specialist 19:48, 10 May 2009 (MDT)

Please sign your posts! --TK-Squared 17:29, 10 May 2009 (MDT)

Never mind. I'll stay, but I'll just have to keep my temper in check. I've been having a bad couple weeks, and I apologize. --Mythos Specialist 20:12, 10 May 2009 (MDT)

Sorry if you feel like you're picked on, or you can't handle some of the stuff being said in IRC. If you feel like you are being attacked the best course of action is non-action! Hope you feel better and continue to post on the wiki! --Sleaker 21:06, 10 May 2009 (MDT)

I would recommend that you just don't log into the tavern. It can have negative effects sometimes. --Green Dragon 08:25, 11 May 2009 (MDT)

Grininthar

Hey Green Dragon! Its been a while since I last visited; I had some computer issues. Anyway, I was wondering, what happened to my homebrew deity with the name of Grininthar or something like that. BTW, the site is great. Storm Elf5 16:56, 10 May 2009 (MDT)

You have to remember the name correctly. Gririnthar (DnD Deity). --Green Dragon 08:21, 11 May 2009 (MDT)

Or now that you moved the page; Grininthar (3.5e Deity). --Green Dragon 16:27, 12 May 2009 (MDT)

3.5e Magical Armors

Hey, not really familiar with the whole wiki/HTML things, but I tried to fix it up a little bit to match the armors. I apologize if it's not correct. If it is fine just a quick 'you're good' would be great and I'll finish editing all the ones that I can. --Jota 01:01, 12 May 2009 (MDT)

Yes 3.5e Magical Armors is formatted correctly, if that is what you are wondering. --Green Dragon 16:25, 12 May 2009 (MDT)

Oop, I actually meant to say the magical weapons, which was incorrect as per your statement, and the one which I was trying to fix; my apologies for the miscommunication. --Jota 17:20, 12 May 2009 (MDT)

Well a lot of those pages need to be looked at by an admin. Of course, if you have removed some of the problems presented on those templates, please change the template to reflect. --Green Dragon 23:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Needsbalance Removal on Storm Elves

Hey Green Dragon! I have done some work balancing my 4e race, Storm Elves and I was wondering you or another admin could remove the Needs Balance template if you think it doesn't need any more balancing. There is also another template at the top of the page (Stub I think) and I wanted to know how to begin to remove it. Thanks, --Storm Elf5 05:59, 13 May 2009 (MDT)

This question has been answered on Talk:Volta (4e Race)#Needsbalance. --Green Dragon 14:02, 11 December 2009 (MST)

Adding a Class

Hello Green Dragon, I'm new to D&D Wiki and I have a small question that needs a little explaining. I wanted to submit a new Base Class to get feedback on it, so I followed the procedure your site had set up to make classes. I was about halfway done with fully creating the class when I saved the page and went to sleep. Unfortunately, when I wanted to continue from where I left off, I couldn't find the saved page. Where would I be able to find the page so that I can continue from where I left off? The Base Class was supposed to be made for 3.5e Homebrew and was entitled "The Ethereal Hunter". Really appreciate the help because I spent a good deal of time trying to learn and understand how to make a class here. --Omen 06:49, 15 May 2009 (MDT)

Not Green Dragon, but are you sure you saved the class? No "Ethereal Hunter" comes up via search function and your edit history shows nothing by that name either. If you did it while you weren't logged in that could explain why it doesn't appear on your user contributions, but other than that I think perhaps something malfunctioned when you went to save the page. Hope that helps a little, even if it isn't what you wanted to hear. --Jota 09:22, 15 May 2009 (MDT)

Within the last 30 days there hasn't been an 'Ethereal Hunter' saved by anyone. --Sabre070 09:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)

Thanks for the response anyway. Luckily, I learned that if you are going to fill something out that can span over several page, it is good to make a copy, so I did. Almost done with the Ethereal Hunter now. --Omen 09:28, 15 May 2009 (MDT)

Ok, I've got everything done with my new class and everything is up for it. The only problems I'm having now are actually understanding what I'm doing wrong for my class to adhere to the rules. Some assistance would be helpful, here is the class Ethereal Hunter (DnD Class). Thanks in advance. --Omen 19:20, 15 May 2009 (MDT)

Refer to the class' talk page for this discussion. --Sabre070 19:24, 15 May 2009 (MDT)

Will do, and thanks. --Omen 03:26, 16 May 2009 (MDT)

I am assuming the class you are referring to is Ethereal Hunter (3.5e Class). 17:07, 15 May 2009 Narrssuras Stalking Leopard started the page so you must not have saved it before. --Green Dragon 14:02, 11 December 2009 (MST)

Axefighter

I created a class in the beginning of August of 2008. I recently checked on it and it has disappeared. Its disappeared off of the classes page and off my contributions page. I would just like to know what happened and if it is possible to bring it back to the class list. Because I never wrote the class down anywhere else I don't know how to make an Axefighter. --Mightycolin 05:40, 16 May 2009 (MDT)

It got deleted I believe. Not trying to be rude, however poorly made classes get deleted. If you would like it reverted you can ask on Talk:Axefighter (DnD Class). . If you type the name in exactly a brief deleted portion should appear. --Green Dragon 12:41, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

Had a similar problem before as well... To all those that read this here's some valuable advice for you... Back up your files or edits, even if it is temporary, just copy and paste the entire edit into a Word or Notepad document before saving the page. It will prevent any frustration with regards to loosing material (Trust me, I would have had to completely rewrite a class I made on this site if I hadn't backed it up in a word document.) Fellow Aspiring Creator. Omen 08:58, 4 June 2009 (MDT)

Race Not Working

I posted a race and it is not showing up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ewokdruid (talk • contribs) 08:57, 16 May 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

The problem was with the footer. I have since fixed it and it should show up now in the LA Variable listings. Also, perhaps you should check out the DnD Race Editing Instructions (it explains why your race didn't show up). --Ganteka 10:53, 16 May 2009 (MDT)

Sourcebook Abbreviations

List of Book Abbreviations (3.5e Other). Back on May 19th you made some revisions to my List of Abbreviations. You also left a comment, 'why only WOTC?'. I don't know where to find the proper abbreviations for non-WOTC, but if you know of places, I will add to the list. Thank you. --Sabreheim 22:42, 26 May 2009 (MDT)

If they do not really exist then nevermind. Also, you want to consider adding the abbreviation to the book entry within the Publication List. --Green Dragon 12:35, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

Power Points/Day

Hello I was wondering how do power points/day work? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alf (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 May 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

I cannot find that class however for the SRD:Psychic Warrior#Power Points/Day it's like that link. --Green Dragon 14:19, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

Map Builder

Hey thanks for the welcome. I don't think I need help on wiki formatting (I'm quite regularly doing some background cleanup on wikipedia, not to mention a software engineer), but thanks for the link anyway.

I did have a question, though. Do you know a good way to make a world map using only free tools (small budget ><)? InaVegt 02:11, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

You can use GIMP, it has a random map generator and with some basic editing you can end up with things like [this ]. --Sabre070 05:36, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

I want more control than Random, sorry. --InaVegt 05:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

A good link to a map builder should be found here. --Green Dragon 12:37, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

Deletion on Nature Bound Class

Why did you set my class for deletion? It has only been on site for 2 days, whereas I've seen pages with only a template and no info typed in sit on site for months without a delete template. Don't get me wrong, I love the wiki, but that is just wrong. --Sabreheim 15:32, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

I did not see those classes. If you have some spare time it would be quite appreciated if you add the appropriate templates to them. Classes should be added at least mostly finished (finished on a word processing program with the preload cut and pasted into it for example). Sorry if this sounds frank, but this issue has been brought up before and I just want to clear up why it is okay to add templates to newly added material. --Green Dragon 15:49, 28 May 2009 (MDT)

Vatireans

I have a question. Why are you going to delete my race? Please write back. Don't erase the race! Their is nothing wrong with it! Why are you going to erase my race? What did I ever do to you? --True warrior 09:25, 29 May 2009 (MST)

Refer to the races talk page. Ask there what you can do to fix it. And please sign your posts using --~~~~. --Sabre070 20:25, 29 May 2009 (MDT)

Class Features

How do you make class features? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adamadam182 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 30 May 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Follow the preload's instructions for a class; they are included. --Green Dragon 14:02, 11 December 2009 (MST)

Harassment

After trying to have a level headed discussion with Dragon Child, about balance in 4e, he became rude and rather aggressive. His attitude and use of foul language has really put me off. I understand he may be overwhelmed by the sheer volume of material written concerning 4e design, but even after pointing him to the source he refuses to at least agree to disagree. Again given the volume of information, if you haven't been reading since day one it may be overwhelming. But if he doesn't have time to read it, doesn't mean he needs to vile. I will return to the wiki next week, but I must say if he remains I will not. I refuse to be spoken to like that. Thank you for your time. --Sepsis 07:44, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

There is a /ignore command in the Tavern if for some reason you can't get along or see eye-to-eye with another user. Surgo 10:40, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

Sepsis, if Dragon Child is being like that, don't bother with him. Some people just don't have good manners. I generally stay out of the Tavern as it is... But you can talk to me about it anytime. --Mythos Specialist 12:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

This is totally unfair. Look at what I actually said. The crux of what I said was "If you want something to be called unbalanced because it can't be used in YOUR personal games, that's bullshit". Do you honestly think you can go around slapping an "unbalanced" tag on everything in the wiki that you don't like and have it be OK? The problem wasn't you "not pointing out the source". Indeed, you claimed Mike Mearls or whoever said something... and then provided no link, no cite. I was supposed to go find it myself. I don't even know if it actually exists. That's as good as not pointing anything out. And at no point did I actually disagree with you. I actually stated, large size in 4e may very well be overpowered. I didn't say otherwise, and even said as much. There's no agreeing to disagree when I don't actually disagree. All I was saying is, you really needed a stronger argument then "A designer, somewhere, said you shouldn't do that". That may be wrong, you may be mistaken, the designer himself may have had faulty logic. In short, it's not that I "didn't have the time" to read it, it's that I was never shown where it was, or given any reason to believe it actually exists. You didn't have the time to back up your arguments. --Dragon Child 17:08, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

No this has nothing to do with our discussion. This is all about your language and attitude. You are not on an "adult-only" site, and have no right to start swearing and arguing because the mood strikes you. I don't need that garbage on my screen with my kids around you are rude and immature and that is that, any arguments you could have made to support yourself is done, once I reached the "F-word" in your comment I stopped reading (in fact this will be the last time I even look at anything you say). Nothing you say will ever carry any weight with me. If you have to resort to that, then you are too stupid to listen to. -- Sepsis 09:16, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

I would like to make a counter-point. Sepsis has constantly been closed-minded and disruptive towards Dragon Child at all points. His so-called "swearing" (an idea that I, myself, find absolutely preposterous. They're words, not knives) does nothing to hinder the fact he was simple stating some quite well thought out arguments against Sepsis' so-called "everything is broken that doesn't go with the design" philosophy (so called by me). Throughout the discussion on Talk:Giant (4e Race), Sepsis was uncooperative and he threw the insults; not Dragon Child. Dragon just said a word or two that are commonly overreacted against; so he suddenly became "ignorant", "rude" and a "moron". Frankly, I think Sepsis is harassing Dragon child; as to say he has broken the Wikipedia Civility Policy (Personal attacks and aggressive behaviour). --TK-Squared 10:30, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

I agree with TK. I'm not a fan of avoiding words arbitrarily assigned to be "vulgar" in public, and I certainly don't want to in a conversation between adults. If a child or guardian thereof doesn't want to see curse words, it is that person's responsibility to avoid them. The only time when it makes sense for the one swearing to avoid the one offended is when the offended cannot avoid the swearer; since Sepsis can easily keep his kids away from those conversations, it is (and no insensitivity meant here) not at all anyone else's problem. Two minutes of searching found me this firefox add-on, which allows one to censor browsing when one's children use the computer. I'm sure there are many other such free utilities. I'm sure you can even find something that censors specific words rather than whole pages, if you want to go that mild. Point is, "fucking" was used for emphasis; that's not an insult or attack that could be taken as belligerent. "Bullshit" was used to mean "something that makes no sense"; it's more concise and means the exact same thing. There's no need for Dragon_Child to be punished or even given a warning. He did nothing wrong. --Daniel Draco 15:35, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

Just want to make a point on my way out. It is a complete shame that someone can begin by using "Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor" but not be considered in violation but my non-profane and justifiably angry response is considered harassment. Read the conversation, he started the yelling, and when I wouldn't do as he asked he begins swearing. Obviously this is not the place for me, consider the case closed, as I will depart to more civil pastures. Good day. Oh and in case you didn't notice, I did apologize for my comments as I realized they were inappropriate and misplaced. But now I see all that matters is who you actually suck up to. Then the rules of conduct mean nothing...go and get a program to filter non-adult sites (sheesh), how about we stick to the rules and take quick action against such sick behavior. But hey its your world, do as you will. A bid all a fine farewell. --Sepsis 06:23, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

I wasn't even a part of all of this and I can't help but think you're being completely ridiculous. Swearing is suddenly adult now? I suppose you haven't been on an elementary school playground for decades. Nevermind that elementary school children shouldn't even be accessing this site, as it's hosted in the United States and is subject to COPPA. I'm sorry (actually I'm not), but I refuse to censor myself just because someone under the age of 13 might see my words. I don't care, and I don't think anyone else does either. And if that person does care, they can use a Firefox add-on to filter it out. Surgo 10:27, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

I sorry, but, I must simply add my own two cents to this discussion. Sepsis, you claim that you are leaving the website to protect your children, while you are the one that is acting like a child. A person upset you, so you're going to run away? Honestly, this may seem a little cruel, but I can say that I hope you do leave, since, if you can't be mature and look past the pieces you don't like, you don't deserve to even be an admin. → Rith ^(talk) 10:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Wow I'm surprised how ridiculous everyone else is being, I mean come on just cause kids are swearing does not make it appropriate, if you swear even if it is not meant as an insult or direct attack, people can still take offense, the people refusing to clean up their language are the childish ones here, not everyone likes or can stand reading swearing, and as a general courtesy you should keep your language as clean as possible, or is that not how it works nowadays? Just because yobbish kids and those with a lesser ability to communicate other then through constant swearing do it, does not mean that it is acceptable for a community based site. ShadowyFigure 11:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Hey, guess what. I'm not "refusing to clean up my language". Rith asked me, personally, to be nicer and swear less. I agreed. That's not "refusing", by any sense of the word. Nor do I have a "lesser ability to communicate", indeed, I was able to make clear all of my points in the discussion, while other people refused to back up even the smallest claims, and got angry and abusive because, god forbid, someone asked them for a cite. Dragon Child 11:17, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Ok, I don't want to drag balance and what not into this conversation thats for the talk apge of the article. When did I target the refusal at you Dragon Child? If you can communicate so well then why swear? Could have avoided this entire stupid situation. What other people refused to back up these claims? Do you mean Sepsis? Didn't he mention the Design & Devlopment articles? The point is Dragon Child, that being rude is unhelpful to a discussion as is swearing and yelling ShadowyFigure 11:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

I apologize. I wrongly assumed the refusal was aimed at me. As for why... let me apologize ahead of time for this post, as I'll need to swear to be even slightly comprehensible here. Is there any word in the English language that conveys the same meaning and emotion as "bullshit" ? The fuck, sure, I should have left that out. But "Bullshit" - that word doesn't really have any true synonyms. Sepsis refused to back up his claims, yes. You can't make a cite of "It's somewhere there". If you can't provide a link, it may as well not exist. To call me an overwhelmed moron to go finding HIS cite for HIM was being rude and unhelpful. I, at the very least, expect people to have the same sort of intellectual integrity and honesty as you'd use to write a highschool paper or in a highschool debate team. Dragon Child 11:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I believe the place where it was cited about the large size would be particualrly hard to find seeing as it was either in one of Mike Mearls Blog Posts or on the forum where mike mearl posted. Though I have read it I know I have. And yes to ask you to go find his cite is rude and unhelpful but that just falls into the region of pot meet kettle, two wrongs dont make a write blah blah. Hes left now. It's over. Let's go back to balancing that giant race :D ShadowyFigure 11:35, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

None of this discussion even matters at this point, considering that, once people have set their mind into a way of thinking, it'll take a massive effort to sway them (that happens to be a basic fact of psychology). Both sides of this arguement have already set their mind 'in stone', if you will, and the other side will not change them. The only part of this discussion that even matters now, is that Sepsis is leaving the wiki over something as simply as what words were used. → Rith ^(talk) 11:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Sepsis leaving is a tad silly. But what can we do? Nothing thats what.ShadowyFigure 11:53, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

What we can do is clear up this policy. I've made clear that I, personally, feel that it's the responsibility of the offended to avoid those more relaxed about it, not the other way around. After all, what if someone suddenly took offense to the inclusion of demons in the wiki? Since it's something which is part of our little subculture and not meant to offend, we'd tell them very kindly to freak off (and notice how ridiculous substitute words are).

I say we put it to a vote. There's really no other fair way to decide policy. --Daniel Draco 13:36, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

The difference of course being swearing is not part of our subculture. ShadowyFigure 14:01, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

True. Swearing is part of our culture, not our subculture. Most people swear in informal contexts. In any case, a vote would decide this. --Daniel Draco 14:29, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

How would a vote solve anything? Just based on what has been presented we obviously won't reach a consensus, and how can anything but a consensus be considered fair? -- Jota 17:45, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

If the admins say it's ok, then it's OK. If the admins say it's not, then it's not, and other people shouldn't try to force others into not doing so. How is forcing someone to not do something, even though it isn't against the rules, just because someone else is offended fair? Dragon Child 17:49, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Meta Pages#Policies; swearing is a violation of our policies. For swearing above, however, no one is issued a warning since it was just a discussion about the swearing on Talk:Giant (4e Race). --Green Dragon 20:25, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

You have to follow two links to even see that, and what the second link is isn't even at all obvious (indeed, I didn't even see the second link until it was pointed out to me), and then only works if you consider the word fuck "Gross-profanity". It also seems you might consider the word "bullshit" "gross profanity", as your claim that I don't need to be warned from this page. That seems... extremely harsh. You can hear "gross profanity" in R rated movies? There's no way that that rule can be reasonably interpreted to forbidding the word "bullshit", and I'd even argue that "fuck" is still not "gross profanity" when used as an emphasizer. The rule needs to be made clear. And, for what its worth, I much more easily found rules against not providing citations and personal attacks, which you didn't so quickly react to as you apparently did to what I said on this page... Dragon Child 20:41, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

And now, indeed. You've proven that you consider the word "fuck" to be a "gross profanity" (which took searching to even find it was against the rules), yet you don't consider these to be harassment (which is clearly against the rules), and I QUOTE: "you are being ignorant and rude", "I don't deal with morons", "If you don't have time to read (like I don't have time to teach you 4e design) use logic and listen to those who have read the material.", "your a complete and utter moron", "you have proven you aren't even close enough to being worthy of my (or anyones really) time.", "Wow that answers a lot, an ignorant rant boy", "your opinions really are completly worthless.". So... right. That doesn't seem fair. At all. Dragon Child 20:44, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility. However you are right, you both deserve a warning. --Green Dragon 20:46, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Yes, I pointed that page out, and noted that it's two clicks from the rule-thread, AND the fact that what it means isn't even clear, and there's no real reason to believe that sweearing is agaisnt the rules there according to the summary. What does "gross civility" even mean to you. I expressed confusion, and then... told I'm not allowed to do "gross incivility". Is this just going to be circular, where I'm told I'm just going to be warned whenever someone feels like, with no real rules to it? Dragon Child 20:50, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling

Should fall under those options. --Green Dragon 20:55, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

That doesn't answer my question. I hoenstly don't believe I was "rude", at all. Indeed, according to what you just said here, you just warned me for something that isn't even against the rules, because you warned me for swearing, and according to you, "gross profanity" is defined as "rudeness, insults, and name-calling". Dragon Child 20:58, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

"Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available." - Wikipedia policies page. Hence, you could have used alternate words to make your point. It doesn't say you can't, but if you can use other words to make the same description then you should. --Sabre070 01:23, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Except, Sabre, that's on neither of the two pages I was linked to. I asked for where in the rules it said that, and a clarification on what it means. I was not provided with it, and indeed, I was then immediately told that the rule I was warned under never existed. Dragon Child 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Dragonchild, it doesn't matter what you believe, policy is policy, just sit down be quiet and go and contribute to the wiki, seriosuly your acting like your being fined by the police sheesh. The fact of that matter is you swore, you broke the policy. ShadowyFigure 06:37, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Fine, swearing is against the rules. Am I no longer allowed to say the word "Damn" ? Should we now censor 71 different wiki pages? Hmm, no, that seems silly. Prehaps, just prehaps, as this rule doesn't actually appear anywhere, and indeed, Green Dragon just gave a similiar interpretation to me - that this rule doesn't exist, despite the fact that he claimed earlier it did - the rule should be clarified. Sure, I'll take the warning, whatever, but I want the rule clarified. Unclear rules only exist to allow the mods to warn and ban whoever they like, for whatever damn (whoops! is that warning #2?) reason they please, with no sense of justification. Dragon Child 09:02, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Wow, so instead of being queit you act like a saracastic and slightly arragont jerk. If your nto happy with hwo things are meant to work here, then dont come ehre simple as. ShadowyFigure 09:10, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

I am assuming Green Dragon will be reasonable and clarify the rule, which I will then follow. It is not being "sarcastic and arrogant" to point out what I did (indeed, if you see above, it is true). I don't see how I'm being a "jerk" - I'm asking for a rule clarification. Like I said, I fully expect Green Dragon will give one, seeing as he seems reasonable enough. If I were to take your suggestion, I'd throw a fit and leave in a huff every time a website has an unclear rule. That seems overly childish. Dragon Child 09:14, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

No ionstead what you did was throw a fit and target moderators in general sayign that unclear rules jsut allow them to ban whoever they like. I'm actually a moderator of my own private forum, I assure you thats not how it works. And im sorry I was overeacting the jerk wbit was unescessarry. ShadowyFigure 09:57, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

I didn't "target" anyone. Well, ok, I targeted the mods on the WOTC boards and ENWorld boards, that purposely use unclear rules to keep the places "intellectually pure". I more meant it was a warning - I'm not being sarcastic, I'm not being passive agressive, I honestly think Green Dragon is a reasonable person, as are the rest of the admins and mods here, unlike the rest of almost every D&D board and chat ever. Unclear rules serve no purpose except power tripping. Rules are there to prevent bad behavior that you don't like. If the rule is clear, people will be much less likely to do that bad behavior (indeed, I would not have sworn had I know it was against the rules). If the rule is unclear, people will not know not to do that bad behavior, due to it being, well, unclear and open to interpretation. What benefit does an unclear rule have? The only benefit is that it may be used as a justification by a moderator to ban people over something that isn't explicitly against the rules. If someone ends up doing something you end up not liking later that's not against the rules yet, you add it, and then warn the person for LATER doing, or else you're being unfair. Clear rules are totally necessary and have no downside. Dragon Child 11:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Wanting clarification != throwing a fit. (Note: Calling him a jerk breaches the Civility Policy under "Insults and name-calling") (That was a joke by the way). The wikipedia policies are far too strict; they build on the idea that massive amounts of people are going to use the site and a large portion of massive amounts of people are much more easily offended; especially those that use the internet (because that somehow means people get offended easily; textual based insults are so scathing). This wiki is a far more specialized wiki and, in my opinion, will attract the attention of people who have heard swearing. They've read it. They've seen it. They've tasted it's rainbow. This site doesn't need supastrictpolicies because it's not like Wikipedia; our userbase isn't several million. A small amount of people can interact calmly, as long as they stop blowing things way out of preportion. Someone said shit, fuck, hell, damn, bollocks, tits, blah, blah, blah. I could go on Google right now, type in one word and find worse in a single click. I could go on DICTIONARY DOT COM and find worse in a few tappity taps. Facebook? Boom, I took a quiz yesterday about FETISHES. YouTube? Boom, I watched a video the other day that used amazing amounts of the word "Fuck" in a short time. Films that kids have seen are worse than the shit that occurs here. Before I was ten, I'd seen a guy rip out his own eyeball, tear off his arm, tell people to fuck off, stab people, beat people, etc, etc. I've seen a 12a film use the word bitch and more (Hell, I've seen PG films that have used the word Shit). This is just overly censoring things and now we're moving into 1984 country, where soon Big Brother will rain down upon you with it's Thought Police. DO YOU WANT THAT?! --TK-Squared 10:25, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

You have a good point calling some a jerk is name calling and I can recognise a joke btw. :). And no I dont want Big Brother thought police going on. I hate that sort of thing anything that surpresses my freedom I tend to be agaisnt. Your right the wiki rules are to strict. ANd of course people have heard swearing, tasted its rainbow and all that, it does not mean everyone WANTS to see it and taste it. This whole thing is getting rediculous now and I will take responsibility for any rediculousness (is that even a word?) I have added to it. Also, I thought Green Dragon had clarified it with the link to wiki thingy ma bob. ShadowyFigure 11:18, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

I'm going to make one final argument, for now. One of the admins/sysops/whatever he is, Daniel Draco, said up thread he didn't believe that swearing was against the rules. By this, I argue if he doesn't know, it's not reasonable for a normal user to know it's not against the rules. And finally, to what extent is swearing against the rules need to be clarified. I have yet to be provided with a good sub-in word for "Bullshit". Dragon Child 11:35, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Bovine poop. --TK-Squared 11:48, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Swearing is against policy since not only are our policies partly defined by Wikipedia's policies however people swearing also tends to end up sparking discussions like this one. I beleive this is the third time a discussion involving swearing has taken place, all with the same result. --Green Dragon 12:00, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Then why not make it explicitly so? The rules clearly aren't explicit, as proof enough by Draco not knowing. Obviously, it's unclear. If people keep breaking a rule because the rule is unclear, isn't it your responsibility to make the rule more clear? I'm not even arguing for changing it, I'm arguing for defining it. Otherwise, if you're the only one who knows what the rule actually means or if it even exists, how can you be surprised when people break it? Dragon Child 12:11, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Daniel Draco was most likely just confused as to the rules (he may not have read all of the policies on Wikipedia). But the policies could not be more clear (save the three warnings policy which is D&D Wiki specific); they are found in the Meta Pages (Contact the administration, learn more about D&D Wiki, and learn about some of the contributing guidelines.) under "Policies". --Green Dragon 13:46, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Yes, they could be. The rules specifically prohibit "gross profanity". That's what they say about swearing. And I asked outright- what is Gross Profanity? You gave me an explanation that did not include swearing. This has left me INCREDIBLY confused. Is ANY swearing, even "damn" and such gross profanity? Is it gross profanity only past a certain point of words? Etc. Please clarify. Dragon Child 13:50, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

w:Wikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility

• Rudeness
• Insults and name-calling

Once again any swearing should fall under one of these options. --Green Dragon 13:53, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Not... really? I don't think every single use of a swear word, ever, is rude. Are we still counting words such as damn, shit, etc, as swear-words that are always rude, even when not directed at other people? If so, fine, I'll go along with it but I think it's silly. It reminds me of the WOTC boards where you couldn't talk about circumstance bonuses, or cocking a crossbow. Dragon Child 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

I don't see how swearing falls under either of those categories unless it's saying "you fucker" in relation to someone, or something similar. And I think a great deal of people here, myself included, will be extremely unhappy if swearing in general is banned. Surgo 13:59, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

You are right. Swearing is tolerated if it does not break any policies. --Green Dragon 14:08, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

So, for example, "This is a piece of shit" would be unacceptable, but "This class is fucking amazing" would be acceptable? If so, perfect. Exactly how it should be, in my opinion. Thank you so much for clearing this up. --Daniel Draco 14:12, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Thank you for the clarification. Dragon Child 14:52, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

Nice Wiki

I wish to thank you all for creating and maintaining this Wiki. It's beautifully styled, diligently edited and organized and has proven its usefulness many times already for me. --Skypher 08:29, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

Glad to hear it. --Green Dragon 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Fist Contribution and Ramifications

So, okay... I think I am completely justified in saying that in my short time here, I have already made a bad impression. I would like to know... How can I interact here without doing so? 'Cause as you may or may not know, I made a flaw (which itself was extremely flawed), which, from what I can only tell was rightly judged as unbalanced, and I think I've already made a permanent scar on my reputation here, which generally reflects my experience everywhere on the Internet. So I'm wondering, how can I constructively and successfully contribute to D&D Wiki, perhaps enough that my noobishness will be compensated for? --Jadebrain11:27, 31 May 2009 (EST)

I think the fact that you've contributed is amazing. Nothing negative. Everyone has different opinions on things placed on the wiki, all one can do is add theirs to the collective. You're a valued part of the wiki and we appreciate your articles.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   10:21, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

I concur with Hooper, and would like to add that nobody is going to remember the bad flaw. Most first uploads are crap. Just the way it is. Surgo 10:38, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

Honestly, everybody was a noob once, but it's no big deal. It was hard for me when I first started out here. Surgo did point me toward the Frank and K stuff, which helped a lot (especially Tome of Necromancy, where I got the vampire-staking rules for my Vampire Hunter PrCs...). Also, at the risk of it being a shameless plug, Lord Dhazriel was a big source of inspiration, and there's a couple others who've posted some amazing entries. I for one would be more than happy to look at your work, if you'd look at mine. Quid pro quo, and all that. Stick around, and it'll get a lot better (I did)! --Mythos Specialist 12:24, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

If you want to contribute a class or a feat or whatever, think about what you've seen recently or what you want in your own game. Nothing gets motivation going for me like trying to bring something from another genre into D&D 3.5e. Or trying to figure out how to model an ability. Look at my user page for some of the stuff I've done. Most of it was seeing or playing something and deciding to try to model it in D&D. So far, I've done Neji from Naruto, Yusuke Urameshi from Yu Yu Hakusho, and the Dragoon from Final Fantasy, especially Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. I also wrote my own version of the Drunken Master. But when someone in one of my games wants to, say, run up walls and stand on the ceiling, or he wants a parkour-like ability... well, then I've got to write something to help him out, and pride demands that it be worthwhile. So if I write anything I'm really proud of, and I can get up the motivation, I put it on the Wiki for review and for whoever wants it. Or for whoever wants to write the ability himself but could use a rough idea of how you manage a, for example, Shoryuken uppercut. Anyway, try some experiments and don't take it personally when people say it sucks. You'll get better, and they should be giving a rationale for their reasoning or advice for improvement. --Genowhirl 21:14, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

Adult Content

Hey, GoldDragon here. I was browsing user pages, when I came upon Angel Black's page and found a nude picture. I'm not terribly concerned by it, but there was no advisory warning, and I wondered if there should be. I was foolish enough to bring this up in the Tavern, which sparked a... vigorous debate. Anyway, I know there's a template for an adult content warning, but I didn't think it appropriate for a lowly peon such as me to edit someone else's user page. I have very young players who enjoy this site, but their parents would be upset at me if their children discovered such a page and weren't at least warned to shove off. My point is, should there be a content advisory warning on said user page? what is the line in the sand concerning when one is needed and when not? Dragon 22:58, 31 May 2009 (MDT)

Template:Adult Theme if you are interested. And it's usefulness should be discussed on Template Talk:Adult Theme. --Green Dragon 19:47, 1 June 2009 (MDT)

And it was added to Angel Black. --Green Dragon 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Vatireans

Please help me recreate my race. To tell you guys the truth when my friend (absconder) told me that my race was over powered and would be erased. I did not believe him, foolishly. I'm new at this so please give me some tips on making the Vatireans fit the criteria. P.S. I am contacting you Green Dragon because I don't no how to talk to Sepsis. --true warrior 09:07, 1 June 2009 (MST)

Thank you so much for being so helpful and not deleting my race. I'm am obviously new at this. --true warrior 09:12, 1 June 2009 (MST)

Could you guys make the changes yuo want and I'll look at them tomorrow, (Vatireans).

P.S. actually edit the Vatireans please. --true warrior 09:28, 1 June 2009 (MST)

Please write back and help. --true warrior 05:47, 2 June 2009 (MST)

Pleases write back. --true warrior 09:14, 2 June 2009 (MST)

Please respond, great green dragon. --true warrior 19:13, 2 June 2009 (MST)

You can ask these same kind of questions and see the reasons as to why your race was nominated for deletion on it's talk page; Talk:Vatireans (4e Race). --Green Dragon 20:21, 2 June 2009 (MDT)

Arachonnomicon; the Book of Spiderkind Finished

Hi. I recently finished the Arachonomicon. Could you look over it to see if it ready to be a featured article, please? Thanks in advance.
--  Sam Kay   talk    contribs    email   10:16, 3 June 2009 (MDT)

That image as I was saying needs to be centered. Of course I can always use another image somewhere else. Other then that I will look at it sometime when I go though the FA Nominees sometime. --Green Dragon 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Templates

I had ask this question two times, but I hadn't got an answer. How do I make templates? Some pages really need templates. --chihuahua0 15:51, 4 June 2009 (MDT)

What do you mean by templates? Adding them to a page or making a new one? If a new one just add it in the template namespace. If adding one to the page just copy and paste it from the preload. --Green Dragon 12:22, 6 June 2009 (MDT)

Gratzi, Sir. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bard Jon (talk • contribs) 18:43, 12 June 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Warmage

Here (WarMage DnD Class)) is a user article under construction, which is a copy of the miniatures handbook's Warmage. I'm pretty sure he's breaking the rules here, so I'd be thankful if you'd check on it. P.S. I'm hoping "Buerocrat" is the right kind of person to come to with this, It's all greek to me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Connery55 (talk • contribs) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Given that the editing for that page says "only from the book", I'm guessing that he is right. I've added the delete template (if I'm wrong, please remove it) under the premise that posting SRD material is a copyright violation. Good catch on that, but please sign your post next time. - ThunderGod Cid 19:51, 15 June 2009 (MDT)

Thanks for setting up that page. I haven't been able to do much the since I set up some "Heroes" campaign stuff last week because I have been sick which restricts me from really doing anything that involves breathing, which is every thing but siting underwater. I'm working on setting up another Campaign setting but it has 4 four race types with a whole lot of different races. Hopefully I can get it up and running. P.S. Does (MDT) stand for mountain date time? Meep 12:24, 16 June 2009 (MDT)

7 seconds of google informs us that MDT is Mountain Daylight Time. During the change of seasons, I think it changes to MST as well (which is Mountain Standard Time). Make sure you take this into account when setting your water clock. --Ganteka 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

Recent Changes Text-change Numbers

I noticed in the recent changes area, that next to the links there are numbers in parenthacies, I was wondering what those numbers mean? (example: . m True Fiend (DnD Class)‎; 22:57 . . (+56) ). --Blackdragon8186 22:03, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

That's how many characters were either removed or added to the page. --Jota 22:13, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

Ah, thanks! it was bugging me. --Blackdragon8186 22:23, 18 June 2009 (MDT)

D&D Day

When is worldwide D&D day this year? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Moko The Zerabos (talk • contribs) 13:32, 20 June 2009 (MST). Please sign your posts.

Not sure, sorry about that. --Green Dragon 23:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Rating System

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 00:04, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Just noting my 100% agreement here. Surgo 00:07, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Part of the idea was that this would also be a progression that would encourage users to participate with more feedback. You wouldn't be allowed to give a "Needs Work" rating without saying what it needed work ON - certain abilities being too strong/weak, wording needing improved, or just it needed better wikification. Once the class was improved, the rating could then be changed from Needs Work to Usable, or Excellent. This is also a much clearer system, IMO. What's a 4 compared to a 5? Not entirely clear. What's an Excellent? Something you REALLY like, and want to play right now or include in your game. What's a Usable? Something you'd let someone else play, see no problems with, or just have minor disagreements about. What's Needs Work? Something that's not quite yet ready to play. Dragon Child 00:13, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Wow. Sometimes simplicity is just beautiful. Here are the only things that I see possibly being an issue with a system like this:

• Will people still know what aspects should be considered in a "good rating"?
• How much justification do they need to give in their rating post?
• What led you to the conclusion that 3 tiers are the right way to go?
• Are you sure a mode is better than converting to a median number?
• This is a problem with the current rating system as well, but when is a page considered changed enough to require ratings to be nullified?

On a more minor note, "Needs Work" should be named "Needs Improvement". I'm looking forward to hear more about this idea. --Aarnott 06:33, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

• We can easily make a page with guidelines on that. On that note, Dragon Child made a very good point in the Tavern that flavor, being totally subjective, should not be considered at all -- the F&K Fighter, for example, would be considered excellent by many, but is totally lacking in flavor (as is intended for the generic "fighter" class). In my opinion, all that should be considered are power, formatting, and clarity.
• It shouldn't need much. As long as they do justify it, and the rational parts make sense (even if we disagree with the opinion parts, such as "it's stronger than a monk and monks are overpowered"), it should be fine.
• More than that and it becomes difficult to distinguish the difference in value between them. The tiers boil down to "bad, good, great", which is really the categorization that ratings seek to define -- the whole point of a rating is to figure out which of those three something is.
• It could be median. I don't really know which would work better, I just figured mode would be simpler to figure out.
• If something that was mentioned in the justification is changed, the rating is nullified. For example, if someone said an ability called Smite Teletubby was too powerful, and then the mechanics of the ability are changed, the rating is negated until the rater verifies that they still feel that it's overpowered, or that their other points of justification still make them say it needs improvement.
• Probably a better phrase, yeah. --Daniel Draco 09:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

How do you compromise different rating? Say five users rate a page and it gets Excellent, Usable, Usable, Needs Improvement, and Needs Improvement. What does that measure out to? --Jota 10:57, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

Under both the Mode (which I'd prefer using) and the Median, it would get Usable. Surgo 10:58, 24 June 2009 (MDT)

We should set up a vote for this lasting 1 week. I'm pretty sure I already know what the community will respond with... Could someone more involved with this set up a more formal proposal? --Aarnott 07:52, 30 June 2009 (MDT)

Formal proposal? Meh, no need for that. All we need right now is a yea or nay from GD on setting up a vote. --Daniel Draco 15:02, 4 July 2009 (MDT)

Do we really need GD to set up the vote? --Aarnott 20:23, 4 July 2009 (MDT)

No. Just need someone who knows the templates and formatting system to change around the template for the new system, as well as the display pages. Surgo 22:38, 4 July 2009 (MDT)

I can do that. --Aarnott 08:08, 6 July 2009 (MDT)

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)

The idea was this new review system could be used for everything. I find the categories linked to be more than a bit unsatisfying because they are only for bad articles, not good articles. Surgo 14:57, 7 July 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

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)

So effectively, Green Dragon, you are suggesting articles should either be considered bad or not bad? --Aarnott 16:35, 8 July 2009 (MDT)

I'm not that much of a pessimist. To be honest you read what I said wrong. In my opinion articles should be considered unuseable when they are not useable and instead of just rating them to bring them to a useable statis templates should be added to them on a article by article basis to bring them up to a useable statis. --Green Dragon 16:51, 8 July 2009 (MDT)

So everything would be considered usable then, and there would be nothing that's considered exceptional? Because that's what it looks like you're suggesting. Surgo 17:01, 8 July 2009 (MDT)

Edit conflict, but I'm keeping what I wrote... I'm somewhat echoing Surgo.

I didn't mean to suggest you were a pessimist. I was just asking for a bit of clarification. I agree that we need to template articles with areas they need to improve (stub, needs balance, etc.). The issue I have with this approach is that we don't have a marker to say "this has been looked at and is good". We have markers to say "This needs improvement" and we can find all of the ones without those markers, but inevitably I foresee many articles falling through the cracks. They won't have the stub template added even when they are stubs.

Maybe part of it is that our admins here need some D&D Wiki specific required reading about what they are supposed to do. I know there are a lot of folks here that regularly patrol recent comments. If we have a page describing what we should look out for, then patrolling RC will become much more productive I'm sure. --Aarnott 17:09, 8 July 2009 (MDT)

Arguably every reader of a homebrewed article should read it with an analytical mindset. Especially if one is going to implement it into their campaign they should. As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements. Specifically I do not see why we need to add another system for reviewing articles when we can instead just raise the unplayability bar. --Green Dragon 15:57, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

"As such arguably (since articles on D&D Wiki are read) templates should be added to an article when they do not meet someone's homebrew requirements" -- that's a horrible idea. Someone who thinks the monk is the pinnacle of balance should not ever be going around putting "this is unbalanced" templates on anything. Raising the unplayability bar still leaves a large gap between the minimum allowed and articles that should be considered exceptional. Surgo 18:46, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

Just dropping a question here, but, for singling out exceptional articles, don't you guys already have something for that? "Featured Articles"? --TheWarforgedArtificer 18:59, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

Which never seem to change and have strange requirements like "must have a picture". Surgo 19:33, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

So you are saying we need to make a playability bar. Correct with either another system implementation or with the current system applied to all cases and as the only reviewing system. It's related to Balance System, however it would have to be done differently in any case (and should). --Green Dragon 19:35, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing what is currently used for classes (rating system) applied across other categories, such as spells and races, but I understand that this discussion's inception was in part due to dissatisfaction with the current system as it stands, or at the very least concerns over how such a thing would translate. The four core categories (power, wording, formatting, flavor), however, seem to be fairly universal in my mind. -- Jota 20:42, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

You must have missed the many arguments over what those categories are even supposed to mean... I have no idea what Green Dragon's latest message is supposed to mean, so I just want to reaffirm my support for the original idea that started this thread. Surgo 21:06, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

I always go back to that table whenever I rate a class, and I think it does an okay job at defining each area, except for the formatting bit (too lenient, IMO, high rating must be earned, not proxy by following the preload). I can understand where debates might crop up, but I don't think it's as awful as some make it out to be. -- Jota 21:34, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I don't mean to be rude, however you guys are not reading what I am saying. The ultimate question is: Does a rating system make sense? My answer: No. Why? Since the ultimate goal with rating something is to bring up the issues present, rate it lower then perfect, and hope the author fixes it. So, as I explained posts and posts above why not just remove the rating aspect of it and add the reasons as to why it's not perfect onto templates added to the page which explain the article is not perfect? Rating something is adding in another area where the article needs something (a rating) and makes it so the author cares less to improve it (just numbers compared to an annoying template). Do you see what I mean now? People should add those templates as they would normally add ratings. Of course a "playability" bar would have to be made for each area on D&D Wiki, like the Rating System and the Character Class Design Guidelines combined. --Green Dragon 22:11, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

Wouldn't a playability bar be something akin to a rating system? And as far as templates vs. ratings is concerned, I think that is a bit of a 'your mileage may vary' thing. I mean, low numbers may motivate one person, and a big fat stub/wikify template may motivate others. Either way, that still has the same issues that a rating system does. That is, some people may considered something balanced, and others may not. Does such an article deserve to carry the {{needsbalance}} template? I guess what I'm saying is that numbers (a rating system) offer a much cleaner compromise than a debate over whether an article is balanced. --Jota 00:25, 10 July 2009 (MDT)

Something I think you aren't getting, Green_Dragon, is that another goal -- and the one I and the others who brought this up care about -- with ratings is to inform casual readers of the wiki what classes are good and usable and which are not. Surgo 17:55, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

The problem is, some people think classes are usable and others don't. --Sabre070 20:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

Which is why the proposed rating system would use the mode of the given rates. Surgo 20:44, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

I can see this argument going back and forth like this for easily another 2 weeks. People don't like the current rating system, the boss man doesn't think the system is needed, but the people think that a system is needed, and that one thought keeps poking it's head back into the discussion, "Some people think classes are usable and others don't." I will personally not read anything past this post since it has already given me a headache, but I'm adding my two cents all the same. Yes, flavor is a subjective part of an article, and that paticular part of the rating system feels a bit superflous when you think about it, though, it could serve a purpose. For example, if a classes fluff describes it as, say, "A mighty spellcaster who tears down the heavens with but a thought", and then, when you get to class features, it doesn't even get spells, then that may fall into a What?/5 on the flavor rating, but of course, who is going to be that stupid? I personally think that getting rid of the system all together though, that may be a troublesome idea, considering that the rating system is convenient for the fact that it can show up on the 'list of classes' page, and give a person a warning before they let their computer load the page, just to see a box that says 'Need Balance, come back later' pop up on their screen. People are rather impatient, and, loading 5 pages that are utter junk in a row may turn them away from the site. As for the 'Mol an admin to get a rating approved' idea, I think that is a touch of brilliance that Michealanjilo (don't know if I spelled that correctly) would be envious of, and that it ought to be impletemented immediately, regardless of the decision reached here. As for the Mode/Median Dichotomy, I personally like the way that numbered ratings look, and the feeling you get when you see a 20/20 on one of your favorite classes, and can't say that I would feel the same should I get 3 Excellents, but that is simply personal perference. Wrapping up this post, my advice would be to keep the rating system, knock of the flavor part, and add the 'Mol me' switch, but otherwise, keep things the same. Well, I hand the floor to the next person to post, enjoy the discussion everybody. → Rith ^(talk) 23:38, 11 July 2009 (MDT)

My problem with the rating system as it is is, that a class that's 5/5 power, but 2/5 formatting because someone wants there to be more flavor, an example character, an "in the world" section and epic rules (yes, despite the fact that they're useless, I've seen someone rate down someone else for not having EPIC RULES before) is completely and totally different than one that was rated 2/5 formatting and 5/5 power. One of them is likely MUCH more usable in a game, while another just needs some quick fixes. Yet they're rated exactly the same on the "Out of 20" scale, which is why I really don't like that scale. I'd rather just look at classes by power. In addition, if there are mods for rating allowances (which I agree with), IMO they should be seperate from the admins. Green likely has a lot on his plate, and if the rating allowance is just set to a small number of users/mods, that means there can be no inter-mod quarrels. I'd nominate someone like Jota, in addition to some of the current mods like Draco and Surgo, myself, as these should be checked often and may involve a bit of back and forth. Dragon Child 00:02, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

It seems the big problem with ratings is the fact that everyone's balance point is completely different. We all know, and no offense to anyone, That someone who agrees with Frank and K's teachings is going to have a radically different view to someone who doesn't. So no matter what the new rating system is, it will still be based on a balance point that at least 50% of the wiki disagrees with. And honestly, it is unlikely the class will get a second rating unless someone is passionate enough, all it takes is one bad rating to completely mess up a classes chance to be read by newcomers in the future, I know I don't even look at most classes with a rating under 12. I had an idea recently however about a new approach to rating, and inlight of what seems to be an impending overhaul, I will place it here. I notice on some of the other wiki's I peruse, (Bulbapedia, wikipedia etc.) that they have "Projects", like Project: Music and Lyrics, where they try to put in all the lyrics for all the songs on the wiki. I think we should get a group of about five people, regular wiki dwellers, with good and varied ideas on balance, into a sort of committee, A Project: Quality, if you will, to go over classes and give their unified opinion on them. One good rating and one bad rating that remain stagnant and unchangeing on a page don't do much. but a unified and collective and well thought out rating is much more likely to be appreciated instead of an IP saying, "WOW, this is really OP, lulz." The commitee could regulate when pages change and when ratings can be nullified, and if there all really devoted, start looking over new classes and old ones and discussing as a group an overall rating for them, whatever the new rating system may be. Perhaps this commitee could add a nice commentary and review to select classes. A article cleanup crew would also be nice, but I know that I cant have Christmas in july. Summerscythe 01:21, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

I like the idea of a committee to rate classes. Much neater, cleaner, and conflict-less than just anyone being able to rate things. We need to be very careful who is on that committee, though; the more varied the views on balance are, the more likely there is to be conflict. Every single member of the committee would need to be very flexible, and needs to recognize that they are, objectively, no more correct in their views as anyone else on the committee. One way to potentially help avoid disagreements is to come up with general categories of views on balance, and have each ratable page be in a category indicating how the author intended to balance it. For example, off the top of my head, there's Same Game Test balance, balance against similar classes from the core, balance against the strongest classes of the core, balance against similar classes from the entire game, etc. That way, instead of rating on balance from a scattered set of viewpoints, we rate based on the target that the author was trying to hit. --Daniel Draco 01:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

I don't like the idea of a committee, that narrows the views of the rankings. If the committee is primarily balancing to CR = ECL then they would rate down classes that are attempting for SRD power (and vice versa). A similar problem is when you are saying play testing, if a person uses a class effectively then it can be powerful but if they don't have an opportunity to or don't understand the benefits that the class has or just doesn't play a member of that class effectively then it may be considered much weaker. --Sabre070 04:59, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

Maybe ranking classes for flavor, formatting and wording, but have a different rating system for power. CR = ECL would be one of the options, having a power ranking for that. Or it can be SRD power ranking. I think that flavor should be focused on more though. Have flavor out of 10, formatting out of 5, wording out of 5 and CR = ECL or SRD power ranking percentages, with under 100 being lower powered, 100 being exact and over 100 being high powered. Alternatively it could be a bar with low power at the bottom, SRD standard near the middle, CR = ECL near the end and higher powered at the end. (using lower and higher, not under and over. This is due to the fact that it seems friendlier.) That alternate bar could be out of 100, with the titles at 0, 33, 66 and 100. --Sabre070 04:48, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

Part of what started this whole discussion is how none of us liked having separate ratings for flavor, formatting, and wording. Surgo 09:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

I am in favor of either a word-based rating system or a committee or both (somehow). I don't think anything more complex is needed, nor would it be helpful. --Aarnott 10:18, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

I agree strongly with the idea that classes should have a disclaimer with the power level they were going for. Otherwise, a class going for SRD power would be poorly rated by a user who basis his balance views of ECL=CR, and that isnt fair for someone whose view on balance is different. We could sort each of the balance points (SRD, ECL=CR, Overpowered, Strong SRD, what have you...) Into different categories, so people coming to this site with a specific idea of power can find there niche right away. Perhaps there could be a description on each of the category pages as well. I am still completely up for the idea of a committee, a committee that can be well versed in all these balance points (which i know there are a few of them in the tavern) and willing to review classes at their balance point. Summerscythe 10:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

I think that flavor is the most important part of the class, it should have its own rating. Formatting and wording can get stuck together, they are only for clarification anyway. I think that having a disclaimer for which power level is good and the word-based rating system can work with the committee, they just have to write a review on an article basically. --Sabre070 16:17, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

Rating systems, disclaimers for varying levels of power... It all sounds quite exciting, but what would measuring by multiple yardsticks do, besides confuse the hell out of everyone involved? People are liable to not even know what of these power categories their class is going to end up in. Not everybody is apt at discerning balance, which is exactly why some sort of rating system has been introduced in the first place, I think. While I don't have problems with it existing, the types of pages that actually get ratings is so limited and small (i.e., only classes and prestige classes) that it says little about the wiki's general quality standard. Everything else, from spells to equipment to creatures and other random miscellanea is pretty much ignored. There, but not so as you'd notice unless you're willing to wade through hundred miles of swampland with a pig on a leash to find the odd truffle or two.

What I'm proposing is that a sort of 'Editor's Choice' template be made in which any of the admins/sysops can tag the pages they like. Most admins of this wiki are veterans in D&D, and know what they're on about. It's a real simple concept really. If you navigate to a page and see a little frame at the top that states one of the admins like it, it's likely the people'll be willing to look further into it. It would be a simple matter to separate the Bayeux Tapestries from the sea of toilet paper that is the wiki if people were at least given an indication to which articles might be up to snuff. --Sulacu 21:19, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

As I asked before, isn't that what "featured articles" is for? Yes, I know it hardly changes, but I also know there was a discussion somewhere about fixing that. Swap the featured articles more often, add more to the candidates, and doesn't that fit your criteria of "editor's choice"? The only thing I'm asking is, why make something new when you can use what you've got? --TheWarforgedArtificer 22:44, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

Well, there's still this nonsense baggage like how a featured article "must have an image" (even if it's something like a transmutation spell that hardly needs one). Perhaps if those requirements were deleted. Surgo 22:47, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

"Why make somethign new when you can use what you've got?" What we "got" Doesn't seem to be working. Summerscythe 22:49, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

A page doesn't need to have all the bells and whistles of what constitutes a featured article in order to obtain approval. If the contents of the article are useful, usable, readable and well construed, there should be a way for people to tell. It doesn't have to be difficult or complicated. A simple little thumbnail of, I dunno, a silver chalice or something, with the caption 'this article is Good' next to it should suffice. On the whole, writing featured articles is like writing the legislation. You have to suffer through countless articles and subparagraphs that you'd never deal with were it ever used in a campaign. As a result, pages like this read as though you're drowning in wallpaper paste. --Sulacu 22:58, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

If theoretically the rating system was removed I agree that the main issue would be that one would not be able to quickly pull a judgement of a certain class from DnD Base Classes page. Personally I think one of the main reasons the classes area is such a mess is since a rating system was implemented. I am under the impression people do not challenge themselves when adding an article if the goal in mind is to make it adhere to a rating system. And, for that reason, I think the entire class section is such a mess. If (on the preload) we changed the reviewing templates to the D&D-Wiki wide ones and added them to the top (not the bottom) and removed the rating system I think people would submit better classes and this entire prolem would be fixed. Also, that is what FA are for, and I agree that Cassia is not FA quality. --Green Dragon 23:32, 12 July 2009 (MDT)

I like the idea of a editor's choice thing. It can show good and mostly complete articles, not only the best of the best (which the FA show). This would incorporate flavor and power, with the main formatting to be handled by other templates. --Sabre070 01:59, 13 July 2009 (MDT)

I think I was misunderstood. What I mean about using the featured articles for editor's choice was that we -change- the featured articles criteria to reflect what is being discussed here. That was my suggestion. Now, if no one thinks that idea is a good one, fine. I'm just clarifying. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TheWarforgedArtificer (talk • contribs) 17:11, 16 July 2009. Please sign your posts.

I think that Featured Articles should be the best of the best. We can also have recommended articles and use able articles, with the recommended being better in flavor, wording and layout while the use able ones are still usable but not as high quality. --Sabre070 06:46, 16 July 2009 (MDT)

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 12:03, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

I like this idea a lot, except for one thing - I don't think it should tie into the featured article system at all. "Editor's choice" articles by themselves are a fine system. Surgo 12:08, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

Just noting my agreement with this idea. Having 9 experienced members take a look at articles like this will allow them to improve with useful constructive criticism. Regular users can still use the wiki normally and articles can be judged on a case-by-case basis. I think this is an excellent compromise to all of the ideas presented so far. I think we should try it out for a month or two and see how it goes. --Aarnott 12:14, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

And best of all, we can remove that horrible rating system too! I know everyone wanted to do that. Surgo 12:15, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

I agree to this proposal and think it is a fine system to add to the wiki. Summerscythe 12:36, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

I support the proposal, and am happy to accept my role in it. I'd also like to suggest creation of a User:Ratings Committee, so that it can be MoI'd to bring an article or discussion to the entire committee's attention, similar to User:Admin. --Daniel Draco 12:47, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

I'm not opposed to the idea, although I'm not as opposed to the current rating as others seem to be. I guess it would be nice to be able to say good things about races, spells, and things other than classes. I'll wait for an official proposal page to spring up before evaluating the idea in further detail. --Jota 13:53, 20 July 2009 (MDT)

I support the proposal. As the wiki is a mutable project, a trial run to test it out would be pleasing. I would like to note that I would prefer to keep the old FA nomination system in addition to this new Ratings Committee system. The old FA nomination system will still allow any user or IP to voice their opinion. So, who wants to build the Templates for the Stars and other required materials and pages? --Ganteka 18:20, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

The idea was that while anyone could voice their opinions, nominate articles, and pressure/goad the Committee, but only they had the final say. That way, yes, IPs get their say, but we're also not pretending like the "This is overpowered because I don't understand the rules" stuff matters. If it has to be someone's call if something is a FA or not, while not leave it up to the same people who are going to be rating things anyway? We can fix two birds with one stone, and get the FAs moving and rotating again, a discussion people seemed to have basically abadoned. Dragon Child 18:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

Yeah, after a bit more thought on it, drop the old FA nominating system. With the User:Ratings Committee, getting ahold of the RC will be easy and quick while allowing anyone to voice their opinion on an article. Would a Category work well for Ratings Requests, or would then anyone just plop in the category and clog it up? Doing it by starting a discussion on the User:Ratings Committee would probably work best, as it would require actual communication, hopefully minimizing problems. --Ganteka 18:36, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

Okay, so if this gets implemented how is an RC group which looks over recent contributions and gives them favors better then a RC group who adds templates to articles on a article-by-article basis to show that articles mistakes? Or how were you guys planning on implementing the current reviewing system and this RC group to look over recent contributions together? --Green Dragon 19:50, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

Because not everything that's "not good" has mistakes. Yes, the group - and everyone for that matter - should still apply the articles to bad template. However, we should still be able to reward and exemplify especially good articles. It also helps people who are looking for material to use to see the best articles set aside. I would basically suggest a talk page, where anyone can post stuff for the RC to see, and would be removed after they looked it over. It wouldn't need every RC member to look over every article, they only have to rate the ones they want to. Dragon Child 20:24, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

I support Dragon Child's stuff. --TK-Squared 20:27, 21 July 2009 (MDT)

After speaking with Surgo, who's opinion I greatly respect, I'd like to change the people whom I nominated for the RC role. I had originally nominated Genowhirl, who while is plenty fair and clever, doesn't post to other parts of the wiki nearly as much as I had anticipated. Instead, I'd like to replace his nomination with that of Sam Kay's, who is far more active, and in addition, knows 4e quite well. I feel that this better rounds out the knowledges and opinions of the RC, and makes it quite a diverse group. In addition, I feel a new rule needs to be added - an RC is not allowed to Favor his own articles. Instead, there will be one user (prehaps someone who's in-line to become RC, or just Green Dragon) who is allowed to Favor articles written by RCs, and only those articles, in the author's stead. Dragon Child 12:19, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

How does this solve the problem of classes at different power levels? Are we going to have a template for that? Or make it part of the author template? --Sabre070 16:09, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

←Reverted indentation to one colon

If the author feels that his class is being passed up due to its power level, then he needs to explain it in the talk page, and give reasons on why he think that power level is valid. There is no set categories we can fairly make, it should be up for each author to defend the power level on their own. Dragon Child 16:30, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

I think the idea for templates for power level was a good one, such as a template for things balanced to SRD, and things balanced to F&K etc. I think that i would be ok with the idea of the author justifying his balance if I know that the RC would be open to there balance description, my one worry would be people rating with preconceived notions of power that differ from a standard view of power. But you did pick a very versatile group, so I suppose that would rarely happen. I'm just voicing all my concerns, because I feel all concerns should be addressed before something like this is implemented. I still love the idea. Summerscythe 17:34, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

Balance to SRD doesn't work. What are you balancing against? The monsters? Rogue? Druid? Monk? Wizard? Fighter? Those are all different balance points. Thus, the category "balanced against SRD" isn't useful. F&K balance against SRD too, you know. They balance against the monsters, wizard, and druid. Dragon Child 17:52, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

If the author makes their target of balance clear enough, the RC should absolutely judge against that target, rather than their own preferred target. Of course, if no adequately described target is given, that leaves the RC free to judge as they please. Perhaps we should add something to the preloads or author template to describe target of balance. --Daniel Draco 18:08, 22 July 2009 (MDT)

I have done this for you. It is my proposal for the new Author box. It works easily, like this! --TK-Squared 18:10, 23 July 2009 (MDT)

GD, no offense, but I'm really really against what you did on the Gravity Warrior page. That stuff needs to go into the discussion. First, it makes it look like one of the better classes on the wiki has major problems, which it doesn't. Second, you put some stuff in the balance box that I and I bet Rith flat-out disagreed with, and it's not something that you can be proven right about. That's basically holding the page hostage - "Change this to my opinion, or you get an ugly tag telling everyone its unbalanced". If it had major problems or was obviously bad, sure, that's one thing. But this doesn't! You don't even explain why it's unbalanced, just pointing to the talk page, where the person who "reviewed" it and said it was unbalanced wasn't even using the class as written, but instead used sweeping changes that everyone said were the problem. Dragon Child 15:51, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I am debating if it is a better idea to add the things I wrote onto the talk page and (on those templates) just put "see talk" or somesuch. Your thoughts? --Green Dragon 15:53, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I'm all for throwing the balance template on badly written classes. But Gravity Warrior isn't badly written. It really, really needs to go onto the talk page, saying why you think it's unbalanced. The only major argument saying it was was not intellectually honest and thoroughly disproven, so it's a bit useless to just say "see talk page", too, and why it's unbalanced needs to be fleshed out on the talk page more (it isn't, IMO). Dragon Child 15:56, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

I don't think any one user should be able to just slap a bunch of huge, ugly templates on a page. I was under the impression that everyone agreed with the RC idea, in one form or another. And then you went and did that, which I don't think anyone supported as a form of page review. --Daniel Draco 15:58, 26 July 2009 (MDT)

Wow, a lot has happened since my last visit to this discussion. First of all, I think the idea of an RC is exactly what we need, it's clean, it's concise, and it weeds out most of the idiocy that plagues the better pages on this wiki, all in one fell swoop too. As for the template issues. I personally don't see their purpose, seeing as they should only be put on one of two types of pages. Ones that are flawed, but their creators will not be around often enough to fix them, in which case the delete template is the same thing, only with a goal, considering that the 'Needs Balance' category is meant to store pages that need balancing, and wait for someone to come along and actually do that job (which, I can gauruntee you, will only happen to one out a thousand classes that will get plopped into that category), whereas, the 'Candidates For Deletion' category is there to GET RID OF these articles and free up the namespaces so that better page can be made in there stead (The real difference is that the Delete template removes unsavory items from the wiki, whereas the Needs Balance template lets them stew). Or, one the other hand, the Needs Balance template could be applied to a page that is simply ridiculously bad, in which case, the Delete template is still better. From my point of view, these new templates are simply baby-proofed versions of the Delete template. Also, please note that the context you attempted to use the templates did not make sense, you could have very easily have posted your concerns on the classes talk page and gotten the same result. As for the actual balance of said class, I shall leave that to the other talk page. → Rith ^(talk) 11:52, 27 July 2009 (MDT)

Okay. But what about changing all the pages (once the dpl has been improved upon (so one can pipe categories in a |category= paramater using "What Links Here" or who knows what)) to something like 4e Races where one sees which races need to be improved upon, it's a bit of a ranking level (to get ones article into the top category), and from their it's a bit of another ranking another level (to get it to FA status). Although it would be nice if one could better define columns or better define |mode=category in the dpl2 as well. --Green Dragon 14:18, 31 July 2009 (MDT)

Complaint

ha dude dnt want to sound like im complaining your something but peoples homebrewing is kinda slack on this site i wanted to look at the complete classes and got excited but no one finishes any thing the races are exelent just a little change and we can fix them up but the classes deffently need some work because their exelent pertensail for dnd hope u can get the word out to fix things up because this site is exlent for ideas and its not all their sorry if its not my place to tell you

Well, what you've got to remember about creating an entire class is that it takes a LOT of time: you have to make sure everything works, that it is not totally broken, you have to find and link parts such as ranger or Knowledge, and you have to come up with background information to support some of the parts of the class. I know from experience that making a class takes a few hours at the least. Heck when I made The Ethereal Hunter, I was so exhausted at the end that I didn't even include a sample NPC (need to get around to that). If this came across as an angered defensive position on the matter, I didn't mean it to be. If you are a user, please sign your comments by putting four ~ marks at the end like so. Omen 09:29, 5 July 2009 (MDT)

Rating, please?

I recently made a prestige class and got some feedback on it, did some edits, and I'm still not sure if it will fly. Could you rate it and tell me what I should change? It would be awesome if you could..

Ascendant Knight (DnD Prestige Class)

Thank you!

Your wish is command (although just this once). --Jota 01:36, 12 July 2009 (MDT)