User talk:Ghostwheel

Archive

For Personal Reference

 * favor=X
 * raters=Ghostwheel



Ideas for Classes

 * Pyrokineticist variant PrC --Ghostwheel 18:29, September 26, 2009 (UTC)
 * The Thief of Time PrC --Ghostwheel 20:08, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * 4e Mobile Striker, a la Subaru from Nanoha StrikerS --Ghostwheel 20:08, September 28, 2009 (UTC)
 * Warrior of the Mind - Gains points by expending psionic focus --Ghostwheel 10:00, October 25, 2009 (UTC)
 * Diamond Saint PrC - Like the Jade Pheonix Mage, but combines psionics and martial adeptness --Ghostwheel 07:31, October 27, 2009 (UTC)
 * Drunken Master PrC - one that actually works --Ghostwheel 03:58, October 29, 2009 (UTC)
 * Planar Architect - Class that changes the very fabric of the plane to be a good rogue-level controller --Ghostwheel 23:03, November 7, 2009 (UTC)
 * Elemental warrior - uses short-term buffs (swift action to activate, lasts 3 rounds?) to power up his abilities which opens up chains of options. --Ghostwheel 05:29, March 15, 2010 (UTC)
 * Martial Discipline - Ice-based one, kinda similar to what Rukia/Toshiro have. --Ghostwheel 11:43, April 16, 2010 (UTC)

Grimoire Category + My Stuff
Here is a list of stuff that I wrote at the rogue level and would probably be Grimoire-friendly. When you get the chance, can you review them and add the Grimoire category if they fit nicely (and if they don't, let me know why).


 * Bloodletting Blade
 * Dodge Variant
 * Explosive Eldrich Blast
 * Get Over Here!
 * Hulking Rage (barbarians mess with the RNG -- are they even Grimoire-friendly?)
 * Hulk Smash!
 * Ki Feint
 * Perceptive
 * Practiced Combatant
 * Stealthy
 * Sublime Barbarian
 * Ninja of the Ebon Shadow
 * Sublime Paladin
 * Whipsinger
 * Bone Spear
 * Bone Spirit
 * Extra Curse
 * Nimble Necromancy
 * Poison Explosion

Cheers! --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 19:27, September 9, 2010 (UTC)

Skill Tricks
Do we have a place for skill tricks on the wiki? I'd like to create one that lets you use str instead of dex when throwing a weapon 1/encounter. --Ghostwheel 12:05, September 28, 2010 (UTC)

Kudos
Just wanting to give props to the fact that when ever i'm reading through a class and someone says "this class is op, i wouldn't let anyone use" you just seem to give them the stock "...read balance points..." and it always makes my day cause it's the last thing they say in the discussion :D Balthuras 05:52, September 29, 2010 (UTC)


 * Heh, thanks. On one hand, if the person wants to learn then I've given them something to chew on and digest until they understand what we're trying to do here for the most part. On the other hand, if they don't want to learn, then it gives me a way to shut them up, since they generally go, "tl;dr" and go away, while giving us an excuse to tell them to go back and read again if they obviously haven't already. --Ghostwheel 08:51, September 29, 2010 (UTC)

RNG Dickery
I recently read a post that led me to think about things RNG-wise. Basically, the premise is to keep things on the RNG 1-20 by reducing the increases to absolute RNG-based things. Just for this example, let's assume that classes are split into 4 levels; each of these is known as a path. One may either change paths every 4 levels (gaining versatility and ways to do things) or continue on the same path, gaining more powerful options. However, the paths aren't so strong that one must continue the whole way in order to be effective. (Examples include the grimoire rogue, the grimoire tenken, or the grimoire soulknife. Each of these has set ways of dealing damage, and can find more ways to deal damage by multiclassing each other, but the higher-level abilities aren't so game-changing that one has to have them, unlike classes like the tome fighter for example--who's going to give up on Foil Action?) The second part is that every four levels, a class with low BAB does not get a bonus to attack, a class with medium BAB gets +1 to attack, and a class with high BAB gets +1 BAB. At +2 BAB a character gains a second attack as per the iterative attack variant, with improvements at +3 and +4 BAB. (Perhaps add in a feat that can be taken at most twice which replaces a +1 to attack with +1 BAB.) Rather than having a BAB requirement, feats would require "tiers", kinda like 4e; 1-4 is tier 1, 5-8 is tier 2, 9-12 is tier 3, 13-16 is tier 4, and 17-20 is tier 5. So someone might take two paths of rogue followed by a path of tenken, and then back to continue along the rogue path, which would fill 4 paths in total, or basically their progression up to level 16. In this way, characters who use attacks go from +0 at level one to +5 at tier five, allowing the use of low-level creatures throughout a character's progression, with power not coming from RNG-dickery, but instead from the amount of damage dealt. I'm not sure if there's any actual use in this, especially for something like the grimoire system which models RNG-based stuff around what a character would have at level X, keeping everyone on the RNG by having numbers scale accordingly. Does anyone see a use to this? Does it have any redeeming features? Or is it just a waste of time? --Ghostwheel 10:14, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * The parallels to E6 and like variants is observable and I definitely think something like this has merit in theory, though the primary issue I see is that it's a significant enough of a departure from the established material that you can't really market it as D&D d20 (and since that's the audience you're catering to, that's an issue). From a new product perspective the market is favorable in that it's easy to enter with minimal entry cost, but acquiring a large enough user base to make the time invested in the project seem worthwhile might be difficult, unless you really don't care whether people like it or use it (but then, why would you create it?). In short, how much free time to do you have, and are you willing to invest it in something which may or may not have any significant return on investment, material or otherwise? I'd be interested in playing it, however, if you ever got it all together. -- Jota 20:19, September 30, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thoughts:
 * It has potential power scale issues and looks likely to break down differences between levels at the high end, but probably be fine on the low end. More linear growth than exponential growth basically, with all of the inherent later advancement issues. Potentially resolvable based on force multiplier breakpoints (multiple attacks, spell level growth, etc.).
 * The path thing looks like a less granular multiclassing setup, which is fine. It would probably work even better if you got the actual high level additions for the classes instead of starting over for the new class (not the full damage values though), but that might just be my preference for level appropriate actions talking.
 * It might not stop RNG dickery at all, since this just makes your expected values smaller but does nothing to cap unexpected bonuses. It appears to keep base values close together, however,
 * The feats tier thing is something I like and have been toying with in various forms for a while now, mostly as a way to make low requirement weak feats cost less as the game goes on to avoid punishing people for having to go back and get them.
 * - TarkisFlux 00:19, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

How Charm Person Works, Perhaps?
First: Charm person doesn't give a second save. The +5 is to the initial save, if the target is being threatened by the caster or her allies at the time of casting. Attacking or threatening the target after the time of casting results in the charm being immediately broken.

Second: Casting charm on someone is considered an attack, but it cannot provide the +5 bonus to itself. It requires a separate attack or threat in order to provide the bonus. Casting charm a second time after a first attempt has failed does provide the bonus. Since casting charm is an attack, casting charm on an already charmed person instantly breaks the previous charm, thus if they succeed in the new charm's saving throw, they can act freely. This makes permanently charming someone more difficult.

Third: Charm adjusts the target's attitude to 'friendly'. The definition of being 'friendly' toward someone will be naturally affected by the subject's normal attitude and mode of thinking. For example, to a drow, a 'friendly' attitude probably means 'be civil, polite, and only moderately suspicious of the person, and do not consider them an immediate enemy.' It doesn't mean quite the same thing as friendly would to a less suspicious or hostile person of another race.

Fourth: The target recognizes that something attempted to affect them, but they have no idea what, and are likely (though not certain) to believe it failed to affect them since there is no obvious effect. --Ghostwheel 04:11, October 4, 2010 (UTC)

In need of a rating
To say that we each find the other abhorrent, a babble mouth, stupid, or a jackass would be a gross anomaly. We admittedly have some detest with the the other. Yet, I still find your comments to be helpful, and non-condensing at times. And even with your problems (I definitely have some to), I have great respect for your ideas. Who could forget your work on the Viveka Spectre! So out of respect, I request your advice and rating of the following: Sith/ Jedi (3.5e Class), Viveka Spectre (3.5e Prestige Class), and Uongo-mijusi (3.5e Race). I, in part, would dislike if this conflict should wane - but thanks. Your bain --Franken Kesey 02:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (the madman)


 * Anomaly isn't the correct word in this case. I'm guessing you are trying to use the connotative meaning under the third definition found here, but if so "erroneous" would be a word that actually works. Anomaly doesn't whatsoever.
 * You can't have "some detest" with another person. To detest is a verb. To have something with someone, that something needs to be a noun.
 * That said, if you want a rating... *goes to look* --Ghostwheel 09:54, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * A large strangeness makes sense, and can be found on websters. Yet again, if you are going to challenge my word choice use more reliable dictionary's - like Stanford or Oxford (don't depend on Webster).
 * Thank you for picking that up.
 * Thank you for your rating the aforementioned articles. I had hoped you would less superficially with the sith/ jedi - but still appreciate the effort. I found your other remarks, while condescending, useful - so thank you. May you grok in fullness --Franken Kesey 21:50, 28 October 2010 (UTC) (definition for grok can be found in | Oxford, or for the wiki enthusiasts, | here. Do groks make more sense now?)


 * Ghostwheel's comments are "non-condensing" at times? Does this mean that they're really long, or that they don't make the thing they refer to seem any simpler? You need an "it" after "dislike", or your sentence will be grammatically incorrect. Bain is a Scottish psychologist; Are you Ghostwheel's personal Scottish psychologist, or are you a 19th century Scot in comparison to Ghostwheel, or do you just happen to be named Bain? --Foxwarrior 23:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And no, regardless of which dictionary you resort to, "anomaly" doesn't fit there. It doesn't make sense. Stop trying to justify it. It just looks stupid.
 * Also, grok doesn't fit in the class or your most recent use of it. If to grok is to understand something, then "grokking in fullness" barely makes sense. And groks don't work either, since it's a verb. You don't get groks just like you don't get detests. Verbs and nouns aren't the same thing. You should learn the difference between the two. --Ghostwheel 23:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * What I meant by "non-condescending", is the explanation of why something is stupid or incomplete. Not "I thought about laying out why this is a dumb idea. I thought about explaining it out bit by bit, tearing it apart, and laying out the entrails of this retardedness for all to see. But I decided it wasn't worth my time, since you wouldn't understand regardless of how logical someone else was. So this is dumb. That is all." Sorry misspelled, meant | bane. --Franken Kesey 23:55, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You may have meant that by "non-condescending", but you never said "non-condescending". If you're going to use words you don't fully comprehend, you should at least spell them correctly. --149.169.221.210 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very good with linguistics. My fortes are persuasive medical, psychology papers, and a poem here or there. So unless you want a paper on the origins of the lipid hypothesis, Weston Price, the Paleolithic Diet, or the like; I'm not very helpful. But don't misconstrue this as me being stupid on the subject. Word's have a way deceiving readers. I can post some of my articles in my blog, if that is the only proof you can understand. --Franken Kesey 00:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (as you can see, I cannot spell to save my life.)


 * You may be very good with linguistics in your native language, but you're pretty bad at English. --149.169.131.161 00:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Then call me on it (DC 5 sense motive check). --Franken Kesey 00:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Erm... Isn't that what I just did? --149.169.131.161 00:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care if somebody made a god damn typo, and neither should anyone else reading this. Jesus Christ on a stick, grow up people. Surgo 04:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I love how this went from a simple request, into a ridiculous pinnata game. This isn't even the users talk page!

Your template for the stuff you make
I see that you used fancy wiki scripting to make a template that shows all the stuff you make. Would you be willing to let me use said fancy wiki scripting for the exact same thing for my homebrew?The Dire Reverend 10:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not all that fancy (it is quite ugly), but if you explain what you want, there are a few of us around here who can do things like that. --Havvy 06:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeking the Masters Advice
I have noticed that you have links to the Pathfinder SRD, which I use. Inspired by your work with E6, I have but one question: if you were to have a perfect balance level at which to cut off Pathfinder characters, what level would that be? I ask partly because I am making a D&D/PF hybrid system, using PF classes, races, and feats but keeping D&D magic, monsters and equipment.--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 22:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by "balance level" in this case? What do you mean by "cut off"? In relationship to what? I'm not really clear on what you're asking... :-/ --Ghostwheel 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The basis of E6 is that level 6 is the point where the D&D classes are equally powerful and well balanced, right? I'm asking what that level would be for PF characters. --Change=Chaos. Period. SC 18:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The first thing then is to question and confirm whether this is true; are all classes in D&D equally powerful and well-balanced at level 6? Just look at the abilities, one can see that the answer is no; thus this probably wouldn't hold true either for PF characters, where meleers are nerfed even more while casters are buffed compared to 3.5, only widening the rift. --Ghostwheel 00:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Would you accept 0 as the answer Ghost? - Tarkisflux 02:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Probably. Might go with -1 to be sure ;-). --Ghostwheel 02:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Great Link!
The Flame warriors link you left on Archtypers talk page? Thanks for posting that. Seriously, it made my day!--Change=Chaos. Period. SC 20:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * have to sign that petition Born to Be Wild 22:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The Lady of Pain
Hi! I have started a discussion here, maybe you want to have a look? We agree that the Lady of Pain is no (regular) deity, but I was thinking about handling the category somewhat broader. Thanks for your input! Daranios 08:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Iaijutsu master
I would like to Rate your Iaijutsu master with a like but it's talk page Redirect me to a NPc of yours :(


 * That is almost certainly a bug / error, and has been resolved. - Tarkisflux Talk 17:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No idea why the redirect was there--but I think I had some stuff on there beforehand. Tark, could you restore the page and revert to an earlier version? (Or just restore and I'll revert.) Thanks. --Ghostwheel 18:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Only stuff I can find for it here or on wikia is the stuff in the Din NPC talk page. So I don't know what may have been there before, and I have no place to get it from. - Tarkisflux Talk 19:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Whoops!
I broke things with this power. It's making the power list funny. Do you have a clue how to fix? Armond 08:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, I fixed. Never mind! Armond 15:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Question on Balance Points from Jay
Q: Can I add more than one Balance Point to an article? ...Cause sometimes I notice this:  Thanks. --Jay Freedman 08:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * With the current way they're set up, no. --Ghostwheel 15:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Just use the strongest of the balance points, except for the last one, which is unquantifiable. --Havvy 06:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Ratings Update
Following the recent wiki vote on ratings granularity and display, all old ratings can be updated to make use of "love / like / neutral / dislike / hate" instead of the old values. If you would like to update your ratings, you can find a list of them at Category:Legacy Rating Ghostwheel. When you update a rating, be sure to delete the "|OldRating=True" part. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Bump.


 * Another bump.


 * Sign in and sign your posts and I'll think about it. --Ghostwheel 00:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And another bump.


 * No, u. --Ghostwheel 01:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Anonymity bump.


 * Yes, no clue who you are, Franken Kesey... Now stop being a moron. --Ghostwheel 23:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I actually would like it if those were updated. That's why I spent the time to post the notices on user pages. So rock on anon. - Tarkisflux Talk 00:55, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Will get to them when I'm damn well good and ready. --Ghostwheel 03:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I know, and that's fine. Just seemed like a good opportunity to mess with you :-p - Tarkisflux Talk 04:26, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I have tagged your rating on Talk:Chimera (3.5e Bloodline) as referring to an old version, since your primary complaint is no longer even present. Please remove the "|block=NewVersion" parameter line after you have updated your rating, whenever you get around to it. - Tarkisflux Talk 18:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Summaries
Hey Ghost, a lot of your variant rules are missing the "Summary" property -- which means they don't give any information in the big list of variant rules as to what they actually do! I added a property to one of your pages, but if you could go through and add this information that would be great. Surgo 21:58, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Craftsman Update
Hello, you may or may not care, but a piece of homebrew you rated has been hit with some rather big changes. The item is Craftsman (3.5e Prestige Class) --Qwertyu63 04:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rating changed accordingly. --Ghostwheel 11:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Been edited heavily once again. --Qwertyu63 (talk) 16:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Let's Trade GNS Theories
Since you seem to want to use words like Gamist to describe things you think I don't like, and the main problems with GNS theory are that: the terms are too broad for any two people to share definitions of, and the creator seems to think it's possible to have a game without attributes of all of them, it would probably be fruitful to share definitions. Here are mine:


 * Gamist: When a game is designed to increase the time spent making nontrivial decisions. Having objectives is generally considered gamist because without some sort of goal, all choices are equivalent.
 * Examples: When you have to decide whether to search the room for clues, potentially discovering hints that Grathkur the Mighty is a Psion and not a Barbarian, or rush on to the next battle in order to make the most of your buffs, that's a good situation, from a gamist perspective. When you waste your time on bookkeeping for durations that haven't been standardized or handwaved away, that's a bad situation, from a gamist perspective.


 * Narrativist: "Story now" is probably the most meaningful definition I've heard for this one. It's when things happen because player(s) (of which the DM is one) think they should, not because they're the most natural consequence of prior in-game developments.
 * Examples: When the DM puts anything into the world in the first place. When someone uses Rule Of Cool to justify something.


 * Simulationist: I think the original definition was something like "resembling reality", but that's not an interesting definition if you're talking about fantasy games. Or science fiction for that matter. I'd say that a more interesting definition would be "when you let the rules determine what happens, without intervention", and a more simulationist game would be one where player(s) have to step in and adjudicate less often. All computer games are simulationist except for player input.
 * Examples: When falling deals a predictable amount of damage. When a duration is free from vague interpretations of when exactly you've overcome a challenge.

There. --Foxwarrior (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * For me:
 * Gamist - when a game focuses on being fun (engaging?) from a mechanical point of view, especially when it's willing to do away with realism or abstract it to encourage people to be engaged from the game itself, or when a game rewards the players when they overcome challenges. Example - chess.
 * Narrativist - when the game focuses on the narrative, rewarding the players for moving the story along and collaboratively telling a story together. It doesn't matter if they overcome anything, if they never talk to anyone meaningful, or even if they never leave a single room, as long as people are creating a story together they are generally rewarded.
 * Simulationist - when a game focuses on rewarding the players for exploring the world/environment, be it talking to NPCs or seeing the planes. It tries to model how they would respond in the universe consistently with as little abstraction as possible, as this can remove one from the immersion of the game or shatter their willingness to disbelieve.
 * I think that whether a game is primarily G, N, or S comes from what it rewards. For example, something like Riddle of Steel that rewards character destinies or FATE that rewards character aspects would be more N while a game that rewards overcoming obstacles (such as D&D) would be more G, and should play to its strengths. S would probably be either the Syndicate or Traveler systems, as they both try to model a reality, especially Traveler as (from my one time experience playing it) it rarely rewards overcoming obstacles. --Ghostwheel (talk) 09:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think D&D 3.5 is really any of those things, but it might be Simulationist the most. By comparison to the other RPGs I've played (Scion, M&M, GURPS, Dark Heresy, 4e, Kobolds Ate My Baby), 3.5 abstracts away the least, what with environmental hazards, object destruction, and skills with defined uses. Roleplaying XP might be the closest 3.5 gets to rewarding the players for collaboratively telling a story together, and it's certainly not good at it. 3.5 does reward players for exploring the world, though, with loot. --Foxwarrior (talk) 18:52, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, D&D 3.5 is one of the most gamist games. Let me give some examples of where it's gamist to the extreme:
 * Rewards - D&D rewards you for overcoming challenges, usually beating the crap out of monsters. While the DM *can* give you XP for non-combat encounters, that is more of a guideline than a hard-and-fast rule, and many campaigns get 90%+ of their experience from beating the crap out of enemies.
 * Wounds in combat - HP is a very gamist concept. Not only does it not detail how much specific parts of you get hurt, getting hurt doesn't slow you down at all in D&D 3.5. Contrast with, say, Dark Heresy, where getting hit screws you over very quickly, especially if it's to a vital area. There, combat tries to model what it would be like to get hurt in real life, including a death spiral, which is as far from where D&D is. Add in things like "normal/mundane" with no protective gear or ability whatsoever wading through water, running better than the greatest athlete, jumping farther, or climbing faster than anyone in the realm of possibility.
 * Attacks in combat - "What do you mean, I can't target their eyes with my arrows to blind them or instantly kill them?" "I can't shoot his arm to make it so his attacks take a penalty or something?" "Why is it that I can't attack the string on his bow to make it useless or the straps on his armor to make it fall off?" <-All these options are non-existent in the name of balance.
 * Falling - No person we can conceive of would take falling even three flights of stairs in a single jump vertically very lightly.
 * These are just a few examples, and D&D 3.5 has many, many more. Probably the most important one though is #1, as it encourages players to go forth and beat the crap out of people. If this weren't the case, people would have little incentive to do so, and wouldn't care about getting any better at being the crap out of enemies, which would change the game completely.
 * The only place where D&D 3.5 really attempts to be simulationist is for the grapple rules, as it tries to model the real world fairly precisely. A system that features levels where you are expected to start from scratch and go on to defeat mighty foes that you would have trembled from in fear is usually a gamist one, since it focuses on overcoming bigger and bigger challenges. --Ghostwheel (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * How about: outside of combat, D&D is a more Simulationist RPG than most, because it doesn't abstract away every possible action to "the DM pulls a DC at random out of his head, then you roll for it". --Foxwarrior (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There might be a case for that, but much of the "outside combat" stuff can be split into talky-talk and exploration stuff. On the talky-talk front, 3.5 is rather sparse in its rules concerning RP, just having Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate and Sense Motive, and the way that they work at that is very unrealistic, which is why the diplomancer is so problematic in actual games--it doesn't model reality in the least.
 * As far as exploration is concerned, there's no real unifying set of rules, so I'd have to pick it apart one by one, but between bumping up Constitution and the like and how long characters can hold their breath or survive being burned... yeah, I don't really see it as very simulationist either. Plus the fact that players aren't rewarded explicitly by the system for finding a hidden cavern through a water tunnel, only for killing the phase spiders lurking inside it, makes exploration a very small part of what the game actual expects of the DM and entails. --Ghostwheel (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Your incomplete article, Thaumaturge (3.5e Class), is about to expire
Ghostwheel, the article Thaumaturge (3.5e Class) is incomplete and will be deleted in 2 days as outlined in the wiki's Incomplete Homebrew Article policy. If you would like to keep the article, but cannot finish it in time, please sandbox it. If you need any assistance, ask one of the wiki administrators.

References vs. Cite
You've been doing a lot of tags lately, and I wanted to make sure you knew we had an alternative you could be using instead. The Cite template links a superscript of the book abbreviation to the publication page inline, instead of referring to the bottom of the page. And it's fewer characters to write. For example, Spell Compendium references could be replaced with (which shows as "") if you wanted. It's a lot of things to swap at this point, but if you prefer the cite format I can bot them for you. And if not, at least you know about it going forward. - Tarkisflux Talk 22:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ah, was not aware. I don't mind either way, though I've generally copy-pasted the reference line, so it doesn't affect me either way. Whichever you think is better. --Ghostwheel (talk) 05:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * It's purely a preference thing I think. I don't mind setting a bot on the changes if you prefer the other way, but if you're happy how they are I won't worry about it. - Tarkisflux Talk 05:52, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Your incomplete article, Thaumaturge (3.5e Class), is about to expire
Ghostwheel, the article Thaumaturge (3.5e Class) is incomplete and will be deleted in 2 days as outlined in the wiki's Incomplete Homebrew Article policy. If you would like to keep the article, but cannot finish it in time, please sandbox it. If you need any assistance, ask one of the wiki administrators.

"Old Version" Ratings
You need to leave a message on the user's talk page when you do this. - Tarkisflux Talk 16:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That's a pretty inconvenient rule, Tarkisflux, even if it does make sense. It's not that urgent, generally, so why not just put an UncountedRating query on each person's user page? --Foxwarrior (talk) 18:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The rater is responsible for the content of their ratings, but they're not responsible for following every page they've rated in case it gets updated and the author invalidates their original rating for cause. Setting up such a query would automate the following process (ignoring for now the technical problems with adding it to every current and future user and keeping it on their pages through user edits), but it doesn't notify the rater that their work has been changed in the same way that the recent edits or watch list do. The notification of change is what's important in these cases I think, not the availability of information.


 * That said, I don't actually see the large inconvenience in clicking through to a few talk pages so you can copy-paste the same message to each one. It doesn't seem like much of a burden for how often it happens and how many raters we have on an average article. I wouldn't mind templating up a default message with a drop in space for the article line to speed the notification up though. - Tarkisflux Talk 21:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)


 * And done. is a thing that could be dropped on user talk pages to notify people. Or I guess chat notification is fine too, though I don't think anyone was on when the changes happened (they weren't when I popped in a short bit after anyway). - Tarkisflux Talk  22:38, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Rating notice (Safir)
Halian (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed up the article, so I marked your rating as outdated again. Halian (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I value your opinion
I think I've read almost everything you've written on your philosophy of game design, and I agree with you on most of it. That said, I designed a feat that I would really like your input on. You came up in discussion on the talk page, and I see it as a good fix for a few situations that break the RNG. If you would rate and/or give input on Necessary Strike, I'd be most grateful. --Maninorange (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Posted; mind if I edit it to sound better? You can undo or change it if you don't like it afterwards. --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all. I already know the language is hopelessly clumsy, so all help is appreciated on that front.  --Maninorange (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Rewording
Would like to request if you could reword the Judge of Existence (3.5e Class). This remains to be a major issue with its execution, and still retains a great deal of confusing mechanics. Thank you. --Franken Kesey (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Pass; the concept doesn't really interest me, and the execution seems too complex for a class. I can't see myself playing one or recommending it to anyone else *shrug* --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * And you, the great ghostwheel, cannot make it more interesting or less complex? --Franken Kesey (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * In short, it would require rewriting the whole class from the bottom up. And since the concept doesn't interest me all that much, there doesn't seem much point to it.
 * Examples of a class before and after I rewrote it, while maintaining the relative concept (guy who puts on costumes to gain special powers). --Ghostwheel (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Much has been rewritten recently, only need help with the final transmutation feature.--Franken Kesey (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Another look, please
You looked at what turned out to be a rough draft of Spider-Monk and you gave it a rating. Since then, many changes have been made and I was hoping you'd give it another look. If you like what you see, feel free to give another rating. If not, it would be very helpful if you left some notes in the discussion. --Nolanf (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Let me know when you've finalized it and I'll be happy to take another look at it. --Ghostwheel (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, it's finished now. --Nolanf (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The rating in question has been blocked. Just letting you know. --Nolanf (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

/* Ratings */ blocked new version
Changed Secret Identity feat requires new rating Wildmage Talk 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

One last rating notice (Safir)
This should be the last time I invalidate ratings on the safir, so I'd like it very much if you updated yours. :) Halian (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Half-Lucerna Update
The Half-Lucerna (3.5e Template) has been changed since your rating in a way that makes your rating reason nonsensical. I thought you should be made aware. --Qwertyu63 (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

NewVersion: Morality Test
Morality Test has a save now, and I can't remember how I convinced myself it didn't need one originally. Your rating doesn't explicitly reference a save, but I'm reasonably confident that the arguments put forth rest on the old version's ridiculous power as a SoD without save. --Foxwarrior (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and head's up
I used your Defensive Strike feat as a bonus feat for one of my base classes, and just thought I would tell you. If that's not okay I can remove it. Otherwise, I really like your content. --Fungi FunGuy (talk) 05:50, 25 March 2014 (UTC)