NWNWiki
NWNWiki
NWNWiki
3,719
pages

Talk: Classes/Archive 1

Back to Category |
< Category talk:Classes
Sign in to edit
Archive
This is an archive of past discussions.

Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Relocate PRC?

My personal feeling is that add-on details should live in the article belonging to that add-on, rather than being sprinkled all over the wiki. Thus, I'd recommed the PRC portion of this article for relocation. Just another 2 gp from Klingon Mage 14:01, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Articles vs. categories

Based on the fact that there is already a Category:Class which lists all the classes in alphabetical order beneath it, I submit that this page is needlessly redundant and have recommended it for deletion on that basis. Any thoughts? Klingon Mage 14:08, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Recanted my recommendation. There's just too many other things linking to it. However, it still seems more logical to me that the ARTICLE and the CATEGORY would be the same page. Article text followed by Category TOC. Maybe I am missing something. Oh well, way more than 2 gp worth this time from Klingon Mage 14:13, 3 Oct 2005 (PDT)

  • I disagree, Klingon Mage. Categories should simply be groups of articles -- an organizational tool. The articles themselves should include information. By default, a search won't turn up any categories, just articles. If someone brand new to the game wants to know what a class is, it's important they can just enter "class" into the searchbox and find information. -- Austicke 15:08, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Aus... in that light then, would you "list" the same things that are going to appear on the categories as a list of articles? Seems kind of redundant to have 1 hand coded list and then a second generated by those articles which fall into the category. I do agree it isn't an easy one though, perhaps we need to come up with some methodology we can all use to ensure consistency (ie when/how to use articles and categories for terms which have sub-content) Enigmatic 15:24, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Sorry I am a proponent of DRY - Don't Repeat Yourself. If the Category:Widget lists a whole lot of subsidiary widget articles, and then one of the articles is Widget, then when I search I am only going to get Widget, the article. So as a searching newbie I can notice the "Categories: Widget" link and follow it to learn about all the different kinds of widgets OR I can follow the tree down from Main Page until I finally find the Category: Widget page and thereby learn about all different kinds of widgets. Logic demands that Search: Widget yields the category page, which gives a general definition of what a widget is and then links me to all sorts of examples of widgets. Maybe that isn't how the wiki SW works. Ok, fine. No problem. But if it CAN do it, why not be as logical as possible? Looks like about 250 gp worth from Klingon Mage 19:15, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT) sorry so long winded! ;P
  • KM, I agree with you. Only problem I see with that (as I have mentioned either here or elsewhere) is that you end up having to wonder (as a contributor) whether you need to add the article or the category. If it could be known that ALL links to definitions were done to Articles (ie even if as in your example you are talking about defining widget at the top of a widget category) so that its easy to link up. Whether this means the page you link to gives the definition and then gives you a category link to the listing, or whether its a redirect set up to go straight from the article to the category and the definition is there (this is currently a bug #710 where doing an article->category doesn't work right). Which is better? I am setting up some examples in the sandbox to see how it functions. Enigmatic 19:55, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • I see your point, KM. An article doesn't need to be a list of something that appears in the linked category, but with something like Class -- where there's a limited list -- I don't see much harm. I wouldn't want the feat article to list hundreds of feats though. Once again, there needs to be an article for everything, even if there's a category, because categories aren't found in searches by default. There should be an article that's included in the category. That's my understanding of how wikis typically operate. -- Austicke 20:39, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Aus... take a look in the [[:Category:Sandbox]], I have an example in there which might help Enigmatic 20:45, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT) (Dead link removed. --The Krit 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Thanks, Enigmatic. As for the two examples in [[Myclass overview]], I think Option 1 is the only way to go. Search doesn't only find the article titles, but also text in articles. With Option 2, if they search for "blah blah blah," the text won't be found by default (since it's the category). With Option 1, they'll find "blah blah blah" and they can see the link to the category. That's my vote: Option 1! -- Austicke 21:04, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT) (Dead link removed. --The Krit 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Is that a bug? (that categories are not searched) It would mean we should try to put as "little" information in categories as possible so that the least amount of information is unsearchable. Unless its a bug of course in which case we wait for the fix and it is back to which is the best solution to use. Enigmatic 21:06, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • No, it's not a bug. You can search on everything, it's just not done by default. To see what I mean, do a search and look at the check boxes at the bottom of the page. You can click on the Category namespace (and others), but a newbie isn't going to hit those. (You can also change your own default via Special:Preferences.) Actually, you don't want them to find all the junk on these talk pages and meta pages unless they specifically want to, so it's operating correctly. You're right that we should put very little information in categories and the meat should be in articles. Categories should really only be containers of articles. I'm no wiki expert, but that seems to be how most wikis do it, and I trust their experience. -- Austicke 21:16, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Ok I looked at the sandbox examples as well. Option 2 would do what I was trying to describe...except that it doesn't. The subcats don't show up. Given this limitation/undocumented feature of the wiki, it looks like Option 1 is in fact the only way to go. Oh well, Logic isn't everything...just don't tell my wife I said that Klingon Mage 09:01, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • UPDATED: I have now updated the class and prestige class articles. Only problem now is that the category is inappropriately named [[:Category: Class]] where it should be named [[:Category:Classes]] to more accurately reflect that it is a category (meets wiki conventions I think). Of course that would mean moving everything over from Class to Classes as there is no option to "move" Enigmatic 22:10, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT) (Dead link removed. --The Krit 22:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
  • Yeah, I agree that the category name should be changed. Oy! -- Austicke 22:24, 4 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Good idea. I will get onto it. -- Pstarky 06:15, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Custom content classes

Are we happy with the why Custom Content Character are done. Just with a note in each Article saying they are in which Custom Content file? -- Pstarky 07:16, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT)

  • I'm not. I think they should be segregated to a subcategory. -- Austicke 07:23, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • I thought the same and noted it over the weekend. I didnt really get a good reply. Wait for anymore comments? -- Pstarky 07:36, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • Well there's two ways to look at this one and they both might be right. One hand, the CC stuff is being put in along with the regular stuff articles under it's own subheading (such as with Classes). For searchers, thats probably going to work just fine. For tree-climbers like me though, it may be purely by accident that we ever learn the information even exists. So I think both approaches work. Let the subheads in articles have little or no meat and just note the existence of the CC, then subcat the CC articles themselves under their particular CC package (i.e. PRC, HcR, et al). ...way more than you wanted to know from Klingon Mage 09:06, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT)
  • PRC Classes sub-category has been set up. Im guessing we need to do it for CC Feats and Spells aswell. Right? -- Pstarky 10:13, 5 Oct 2005 (PDT)

Selectable class feats

Can someone please help me explain the reason behind adding "Selectable Class Feats" to Zenobia on the NWN forums please. Click Here (Its the last three posts on thread page 6). -- Pstarky 12:20, 10 April 2006 (PDT)

  • I'm not sure if I understand that classification, but maybe someone can tell me if I'm on the right track? It seems that some of the general feats cannot be selected by every class. (For example, Druids cannot gain new weapon proficiencies.) In terms of gameplay, I think of this along the lines of my Druid example -- some feats are prohibited for certain classes. However, NWN does not implement prohibiting feats for certain classes. Instead, it enables those feats for the other classes. The list of feats enabled for the classes are the "Selectable Class Feats". Is that right? If so, it might be clearer for the readers if NWNWiki listed the prohibited feats, rather than the enabled ones. I could suggest more changes, but maybe I should find out if I'm on the right track first. --The Krit 09:59, 18 May 2006 (PDT)
  • Yes, I think you are getting closer to the right track. Changing it around to prohibiting feats will be easier to understand or even just removing them all together (sorry to the author how added them). It just confusion to most I think. -- Pstarky 11:01, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

Hey, Zenobia here moving my questions from the forum to here. I'll try to shorten my long-winded post from there:

1) On the druid page here, these are all the listed selectable class feats: Ambidexterity, Brew Potion, Craft Wand, Deflect Arrows, Quicken Spell, Skill Focus (animal empathy), Scribe Scroll, Spell Focus, Two-Weapon Fighting. What confuses me why it does not list: alertness, armor proficiency (heavy), combat casting, dodge, extend spell, great fortitude, improved unarmed strike, iron will, knockdown, lightning reflexes, point blank shot, silent spell, spell penetration, still spell, toughness... They are available to me if I create a druid, and many more if prerequisites are met, and expansion packs installed. I'm using druid just as an example - the same is true for most classes.

2) There are 14 feats classified as "wizard bonus feats" which misled me (and I assume others) to believe only a wizard may select them. They include combat casting, spell penetration, brew potion and all the metamagic feats. These are all available to other spellcasters, but looking at the druid page (or bard, etc.) I would not know I could select those feats.

3) The same goes for "fighter bonus feats." Perhaps if they (with the exception of weapon specialization) were called "combat feats", and the so-called wizard feats classified as "spellcaster feats", it would be a bit clearer. Listing only some feats available to a class confuses me, but listing all of them seems a bit cumbersome. Perhaps "select from general, combat, and spellcasting feats" (obviously only on spellcaster class), or something along those lines... I'm not trying to be critical here, I just want to contribute to making it more clear for the clueless such as myself.

Thanks for listening, Zenobia 11:43, 18 May 2006 (PDT)

  • Some answers:
1) If I'm right, the feats that are not listed are the ones that are available to all classes. I think this is near the core of the confusion — no one really thinks of which feats are not prohibited to any classes. (Even trying to parse that causes some heads to spin.)
2 & 3) The wizard/fighter bonus feats are the feats that those classes can select as bonus feats in the pre-epic levels. Wizards choose one at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20, while Fighters choose one at each of the even class levels. Maybe the wizard's list should be moved to the "Special abilities & feats" section (like the fighter's)?
--The Krit 14:34, 18 May 2006 (PDT)
  • Thanks for the answers! But I'm here to annoy with further questions: 1) It looked to me as though some of feats not listed are in fact only available to spellcasters, (e.g. combat casting and extend spell). If only general feats were missing from the list, I would get it.
2/3) It makes sense to me on the one hand that wizard and fighter bonus feats are classified as such, because those classes must choose from that list on their bonus feat levels. But on the other hand, when I, as a relative noob, used the wiki to try to plan a bard build, I had no idea that those spellcasting feats were available to a bard because they are called wizard bonus feats. If others are confused by this as well, my idea is to call them spellcasting feats... and instruct on the wizard bonus page that they must choose only from the spellcasting feats list every bonus level. Similarly the fighter and combat feats.
But again, if I'm the only one confused by these things, then obviously no need to change anything. Thanks, Zenobia 00:20, 21 May 2006 (PDT)

I made a category for the general feats that are not automatically available to all classes. The next step is to go through the classes and see if all the "selectable class feats" are listed in that category. I'll get to it later if no one does it first.

BTW, is the category name ok? I figure it's basically a reference for someone making a custom class.

Zenobia, if I ever get through a few changes I have in mind, your questions should get addressed.

I hope I caught all my typos.--The Krit 18:54, 27 May 2006 (PDT)

  • Nicely done, Krit. Thanks! -- Alec Usticke 19:27, 27 May 2006 (PDT)
  • After thinking about it a little, I sloughed off the epic feats from this new category into their own category. I don't know if this should be permanent, but it should make updating the classes easier. (I believe the goal is to replace "selectable class feats" with something like "prohibited general feats".)--The Krit 10:01, 28 May 2006 (PDT)
  • Looking great - you rock! -- Zenobia 14:38, 28 May 2006 (PDT)

Hit point columns

I have a disagreement which affects a few pages (hence why I make it here rather than on the other pages). Some of the new tables on the character classes include HP range. I just don't like the look of it, I find it to be clutter. Stating that a class has 1Dx hitpoints is good enough, I don't think we need to demonstrate the HP range for 2dx or 3dx as they level up. I vote we cut those out of the tables. Bromium 14:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC) (Moved from NWNWiki talk:Community Portal --The Krit 00:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC))

Blackguard

Blackguard is missing in the list -- 217.83.71.132 December 2007

  • More accurately, the blackguard article wasn't categorized. Fixed now. --The Krit 21:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Annakolia

Do we really need a category listing the two classes for ONE persistent world? There's dozens maybe even hundreds of Persistent Worlds out there, why are we allowing this one to stay? 72.141.245.158 03:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

  • There are 23 classes for Annakolia, but only two that have pages so far. If the person adding the pages for those classes ever gets around to finishing (rather than contributing mostly "red links"), then yes, that does warrant a category listing for them.
    As for being allowed to stay, which "this one" are you referring to? We allow information about Annakolia to stay because we decided to allow articles about persistent worlds. Why would Annakolia pages not be allowed? --The Krit 19:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it is one persistent world among a whole series of persistent world, what makes this one so special to merit its addition into the category which houses 22 out of 23 of the most viewed pages on this entire Wiki? 72.141.245.158 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Because it it the only one with someone who decided to write pages for its custom classes. It's not like someone decided NWNWiki was dreadfully incomplete because it did not have articles about Annakolia's classes — there is someone from Annakolia who wanted to document their custom classes in NWNWiki. People from other persistent worlds may choose to do the same if they want.
    BTW, if more worlds decide to document their classes here, I do intend to move them all into a "custom classes" subcategory of "classes", but at the moment that hardly seems to be justified. --The Krit 16:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mystery proposal about classes and feats

Moving some discussion here from talk:bard since it applies to all classes. --The Krit 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Pre-epic listing updated. (I'll get to the epics later.) Is this better? --The Krit 23:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes! Although the pre-epic class only selectable feats are now missing (like lingering song) Thrasher91604
  • What makes lingering song class-only? The feat's description does not say that it can only be selected when gaining a bard level, so why should it be treated differently? (It is currently listed under all the classes that cannot choose it.) --The Krit 22:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Well that description is misleading. Lingering Song cannot be taken by non-bards. --Thrasher91604 24 March 2009
  • So you're saying you preferred the listing of feats that can be selected, rather than the ones that cannot be? Or did you have something different in mind? (What is it about lingering song that makes it different than, say, ambidexterity?) This can still be changed to be better, but I don't yet see what you are after. --The Krit 18:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, exactly. It would be so much more useful to be able to see which feats are available to a class on the class page. Now, one has to go through all the general feats individually and check each for its prerequisites or whether it is automatically gained by a particular class. Thrasher91604 20:42, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Wouldn't you have to go through each feat individually checking prerequisites anyway? The vast majority of prerequisites do not involve what class a PC is. As for the feats automatically gained by a class, those are already listed for each class, so that much is taken care of. --The Krit 16:03, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you purposely trying to misunderstand me? All I want to see is a digested list of the feats available to each class on its class page. One shouldn't have to read through all the individual feat page descriptions (genera/ class . Having to do so, just obscures the concept of a class. How do you know which feats to look at? All the feats aren't even listed on the feats page. Maybe you're too experienced with DnD to understand the needs of a new player unfamiliar with the concepts. Thrasher91604 18:53, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No, I am not trying to misunderstand you; I simply am. There's no need to get upset and hostile. So you're saying that instead of getting rid of the list of selectable class feats, you'd like to see it augmented with the... Drat! The general feats category is incomplete. That should be a high-priority fix. I'm surprised no one mentioned it. OK, I'll count them manually... As I was saying, you'd like to see the list of selectable feats augmented with the 66 general feats that any class can select, provided the feats' stated prerequisites are met? (I don't see how mentioning lingering song or checking prerequisites fits into this specifically, by the way, so that would explain why I was not understanding before.) --The Krit 14:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Sorry about that. OK the issue with Lingering Song is that it is not shown on the bard page (Bard Song is not either, BTW). So you have to look at in two different places for these, Class feats and then Bard, and Feats Restricted by Class, and then Bard. Naive intuition based on the english would imply that "Feats Restricted by Class" are contained within "Class Feats". But there is a missing definition of what is actually meant by Class Feat, so it's subject to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. I assume that what is meant by "Class feat" is a feat that is ONLY available automatically (i.e. it is nowhere selectable) by taking one or more levels in a class. This is all quite confusing when you're trying to find the feats that really make a class special. It would help a lot if available class feats and class feats restricted by class were shown on each class page, rather than just the general feats a class does not get. Thrasher91604 18:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the feats are more messed up than I realized. I've started fixing them up. Maybe when I'm done, it'll turn out that your complaint was not with the class articles, but with the feats. --The Krit 02:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
  • The feat reorganization is now done, and new articles exist to explain what the different types of feats are. Could you go back, and see if they make more sense now? Then return and report what is still confusing? Also, where in the bard article were you expecting to find bard song listed? (It is there.) --The Krit 21:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think the feat info is unclear. When I open the bard page, I want to see all the feats available to a bard. I click on general feats and all I get is a description of the term with no list of feats... Thrasher91604 22:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Click on the See Also link in the article General feat to get to category:General feats. Lists are done by category. WhiZard 00:18, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, but that's not very intuitive. So that's 3 clicks to see the class unique feats and 2 clicks to see the general feats. And then you have to click on each one to see if a bard can take it. That's about 100 feats total, maybe? No wonder beginners find this impenetrable. .. I would still prefer to see a pre-filtered list of all of the feats available at bard level ups on the bard page. I know it requires a little collating, but I think it would be worth it... Thrasher91604 00:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • All the (pre-epic) general feats not available on bard level-up are on the bard page. To find the ones available remember those four he can't take then click General feat then category:General feat to see the entire list of (pre-epic) general feats and just subtract those four. Any other feats the bard gets (pre-epic), he receives automatically as listed on the bard leveling table. WhiZard 01:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • That's still a lot of clicks and not as easy as I think it should be. Thrasher91604 02:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Are you suggesting a direct link to category:General feat so that you do one click instead of two? The Wikia will never make a good leveling device as it is primarily devoted to displaying and updating information. Try the vault for a character build sheet. WhiZard 14:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No, the problem is that the wiki doesn't display information in an easy to use fashion. It requires too much navigation and clicking. It doesn't summarize very well the feats that help define the classes. Thrasher91604 15:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • What is the page that contains the "class unique feats" and takes 3 clicks to get to? I have a few guesses, but none of them have relevant information not contained in either bard or category:general feats. --The Krit 19:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • bard page click -> general feats click -> Category:General feats click -> list of general feats, and they're aren't even organized into those feats that make the bard distinct. Buried in that list is lingering sog. Yeah really hard for you to figure out on own. Admit it, you're not really interested in improving this, or are extremely under-qualified. --137.79.36.195 15 April 2009
  • I still do not see the last click. I see the click from bard to general feat, then the click to category:general feats, but I do not see where to make the third click to "list of general feats". What is the web address you end up at? --The Krit 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Yes, I freely admit that I am extremely under-qualified to improve this. That is one reason I keep asking you to explain how you would improve it. All I did was make a guess as to what CID-78 meant by "selectable class feats". My guess was found plausible by others, and no one has yet presented an alternative, so my guess is the current working theory. My only qualification here is that I was willing to try where no one else would (or could). That's fairly typical in a community project, by the way — people doing things they are not good at because no one else will. --The Krit 22:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
  • It seems that the only feats you are interested in are those pertaining to Bard song as opposed to Bard spell-casting. If that is the case go look at the bard song article and under the discussion tab suggest adding what you consider to be pertinent feats. WhiZard 20:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You say "all the feats available to a bard" as if there is a significant difference in the general feats available to the different classes. There is not. (There is a significant difference in the class feats, but those are listed in each class' article.) General feats are general, not class-specific, for the most part. If you want to see what makes each class special, you should not be looking at the general feats. Where did you get the idea that you should be looking there? If it was from NWNWiki, that's something that should be changed. (I thought I had changed enough, but it's always possible to miss something.) --The Krit 07:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Again you're missing the point. How many times do I have to repeat myself? A lot of general feats aren't that important for understanding a class. The important feats are usually the ones that are unique to that class or it's ilk. For example extra bard song - you have to dig into the general feats - it should be listed on the bard page not just as an epic feat but a feat that is uniquely available for characters with bard levels, and not just at epic levels. --Thrasher91604 15 April 2009
  • Go up a category from General feat (to category:Feat) and select the category Class feats. Under that select there are two categories pertaining to bard: Category:Bard feats and Category:Bard bonus feats. The category:Bard bonus feats is displayed on the bard page under epic bonus feats, the category bard feats is displayed on the bard page in the leveling guide. The reason why the bard page lists the former under epic bonus feats is that they are available to take on an epic bonus feat giving bard level, however all feats pertinent to any class are either on the leveling guide or in the epic bonus feat section unless you are trying to make a specific build. WhiZard 16:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • This is unintuitive and clumsy at best. Why should anyone have to do all this navigating and clicking? Why aren't the feats listed or directly linked to on the Bard page? Thrasher91604 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • They are linked to and listed on the bard page. WhiZard 19:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • No that's not true. They are not listed and linked directly. Thrasher91604 19:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you understand the difference between direct and indirect? Apparently not. 137.79.36.195 20:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Do you wish to define direct and indirect for each and every class? WhiZard 20:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You will probably have to keep repeating yourself until you answer some of the questions I've asked. For example: are you putting lingering music and ambidexterity in the same classification as needing to be listed for the classes that can choose them? If not, what distinguishes them? How could I look at a feat and be able to tell if it deserves special mention on a class page without asking Thrasher91604 about each one? (It seems as though you are proposing a new classification, but never explained what that classification is, and are now upset that no one else knows what that classification is.) --The Krit 19:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Well this has now gone beyond idiocy and is just arguing for the sake of arguing or purposely trying to misunderstand me. This kind of attitude and behavior explains why this wiki is so poorly organized. Sadly rather pathetic. 137.79.36.195 20:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • You're the only one arguing. I am trying to understand what you are talking about. You (assuming you are Thrasher91604 and just forgot to log in) are using words in ways that do not make sense to me. Maybe it's because I know D&D or NWN better than you. Maybe it's because you know D&D or NWN better than me. Maybe it's something else. Does it matter? The end result is the same — we need a back-and-forth to come to an understanding, and that would be easier if you were to engage in the process and try different ways of explaining yourself instead of getting upset because no one is understanding you.
    However, if you have no interest in explaining yourself and making the wiki better, then you are not obligated to. Just refrain from gratuitous insults, please. --The Krit 22:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think we've lost Thrasher91604. Bit of a shame, since he had an idea for improving things, but for some reason would not (or could not) tell us what that idea was. That's how it goes sometimes. :( In any event, I'm pretty sure this discussion branched off into this new idea (rather than discussing the "selectable class feats" listed by CID-78), so I'm going to break it off into a new section to keep things neat / easier to follow. --The Krit 13:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Feats revisited

the current method of listing feats that are unavailable doesn't really work for me. i understand that y'all spent a lot of time figuring out that this was the correct way of doing things. but, really, i think that listing every feat that's available for a class on level up would work better. Mysticjester 10:45, April 22, 2010 (UTC)

  • Given that the consensus from before was fairly solid, I don't think discussion of this should be re-opened unless there are others of the same mind. (But if there are others of the same mind, they should speak up -- you could call this "asking for a second", to put it in terms of parliamentary procedure.) Nothing wrong with bringing this up, but if you're a lone voice, then I hope you'll agree there's insufficient cause to change things. --The Krit 15:56, April 22, 2010 (UTC)
  • no, that makes a lot of sense.  :-) so, um, is there a second? *lol* Mysticjester 02:27, April 23, 2010 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.
More Fandoms