Talk:3.5e Feats

Navigation

Could you create pages for the feats instead of deleting them?

I'm not sure how to create navigation pages.

The navigation pages are made automatically -- all people have to do is add their content and the stuff automatically gets put on navigation pages. Surgo 16:51, September 9, 2009 (UTC)

Any new feats that are in the User, 3.5e, and Feat categories will be added to this list automagically, though it may take up to 48 hours to be appear. - TarkisFlux 19:28, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Updated Nav and Feat Properties

Updated the feat nav, and the columns there are the only properties I think we need to worry about adding for feats. Type covers a lot of ground and description and prereqs seem pretty standard. Prereqs will not be searchable until we get more of the semantic stuff going, but they will be in the future. I don't know if the feats are in any condition to have their properties botted, so if you feel like updating your creations please do so. I'll help with the technical bits if you need it. - TarkisFlux 19:28, October 9, 2009 (UTC)

Overflow

Apparently there's a hard limit of 500 feats on the table. Feats after Shapechanger's Resilience alphabetically (right now; I'm sure it will change) aren't loaded into the table no matter how you choose to sort it.

How are we going to deal with this? I recommend that, instead of having one main table, we have a list of different feat types (probably with pages for all of them, or collections of related types; Combat, Skill, and tome scaling magic feats might go on one page, General, Epic, and Fighter feats on another, and so on), each with a table for all feats of that type. That should eliminate this problem for everything except the largest categories, like general, which at the very least will have the problem pushed back a bit. --IGTN 22:30, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

We hit 500 already? Ugh, this will need more thought. The "table per type" was a big failure on paleowiki, so I don't want to repeat that. Surgo 22:49, May 30, 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... Yay built in query limits. Some easyish solutions aside from "recode the mess":

• We can drop the custom table formatting we're doing and use the semantic wiki built in table functions, color mismatch and all (unless we can get them to change the default colors on that for us). That still suffers from the same limit, but the "...further results" link on the bottom would be more visible and when you clicked on it your results wouldn't display in table formatting. So additional stuff is still hidden, but less so.
• We can keep main table intact, but exclude specific types from it and push those into subpages. Tome feats might be a good candidate for exclussion, as might currently class specific feats (like the hivemaster stuff).
• We can do a table per balance point, though I think it's a terrible idea and should not be taken seriously.
• We can drop ask querries and move to DPLs, maybe. I'm not sure if they do all of the property listing that we have with queries or not actually.

That's all I gots right now. - TarkisFlux 02:14, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

I thought of table per balance point, too. It is hugely problematic. Having a Tome table and a class-specific table makes sense to me, though. By the by, I'm in chat right now, and there was some brief discussion of this in the chat earlier today. --IGTN 02:26, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

First, I have a solution to this problem, which can at least be used for up to 500 feats per first letter easily, see Template Talk:Author. Secondly, it'd be really really really nice to push the class feature specific stuff like hivemaster, autoplate pilot, my new extrinsic metamagic which I haven't made into feats, etc. onto other pages, or provide another page where stuff is organized to separate out the stuff with required class features, such as the aforementioned and spellcasting. This would require a concerted, careful tagging effort. -Cedges 03:09, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

The "push class-based feats out of here" is probably the best idea I've heard so far for dealing with this limit. Basically, any work-around requires that it maintains itself -- ie, works with zero oversight by anyone. That immediately rules out any "page per feat type" deal, and pretty much every other suggestion I've been given. If we can put a "class-based" tag on a feat, and then strip out that tag from the SMW query, it'll give us breathing room for...a month, I guess. If that.

The only real solution here is to get the limit in our config file updated. I'll send the Wikia admins a request for that. Surgo 04:17, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Class ability components are pretty much self-maintaining even though each new type needs to be manually added. People expect that, and manually add them. Feats can work the same way if they absolutely must; add a new feat type, add a new nav page. The downside is, though, that spelling errors then make your feat get lost. The big flaw in this idea is that there are some groups of feat type that should be listed together, like Skill and Combat.

That said, I like the idea of splitting off class-specific and race-specific feats. Should they have their own list, or be listed on their class page or something?

Splitting off Tome feats is also doable, since we have Category:Tome just sitting there, if we need to shorten things. That gets Necromantic, Fiend, Elemental, Combat, Skill, and Spellcasting feats. Not nearly enough on its own to save the main list, but they'll have room on their list for a while.

Also, taking all of the General and Fighter feats off the main listing on its own might be enough to give us breathing room. Epic might need its own category. These categories would be broad enough to not need to be added onto. --IGTN 04:48, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

We can actually use properties as well as categories for telling the query what to include, or what to not include. So pulling specific things off the list is actually really easy, as is only including things of a specific type. Even a sub-page list for each type could maintain itself if we wanted to go that route. I'll split off the class / type specific ones for now, go from there. - TarkisFlux 06:23, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Or I will get super lazy and just split off general. Meh, it's working for a few days, at least until title property gets sorted. - TarkisFlux 06:35, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

This cuts it really close for "not General" (483/500 by my computer's count). I'm going to try to move Fighter feats to the General table to make more room (85 feats worth). Revert if it's counterproductive, edit over it if once we have a better solution. --IGTN 06:43, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

This is just a patch. Our better solution is coming, which is "boost a setting in the config file". I don't want to have this same discussion in a month's time when we overflow again. Surgo 15:08, May 31, 2010 (UTC)

Update - If there's any desire to merge the tables again, I can do that now. Not sure which format works better here. Alternately, I could (probably) code a super query that updated the feat by type setup discussed above, so all new feat types automagically got a table and header, and all new feats showed up under all of their feat types. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 20:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

(Reset) Is this an issue again? I see only one table, and some feats are missing. Specifically I can't find the Archetype feats anywhere. -- Eiji-kun 21:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Table got re-mreged, the scaling feats got their own category and a different nav page (link at the top of this page). - Tarkisflux ^Talk 21:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

New column

Can we have a balance level collum?--Parakee^Talk 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

For the record, this is me seconding that request, and also fixing Parakee's spelling.--YouLostMe 18:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Aarnott 18:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Separate Pages

It would be nice if feats where separated into different pages by type – in the same manner that classes are separated (base, prestige, racial, and NPC).--Franken Kesey (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. Control F would be sad. There are category pages for each feat type, though. --Foxwarrior (talk) 05:32, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The category pages only deal with homebrew types. One cannot look at only general, or the like. --Franken Kesey (talk) 05:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The SRD type pages have homebrew feats on them. Spoilered, but they are there. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 06:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh. Thankyou. --Franken Kesey (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Not Loading

For many users, including myself. This page is not loading. --Leziad (talk) 12:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Page is huge and possibly responsible for recent instability. I'll get it broken up a bit. Thanks for flagging it Leziad. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 18:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This page alone is almost certainly the culprit for our stability issues. Good catch, guys. Surgo (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

We had 1570 standard non-epic feats in the list on here. The new high balance subpage has 840 standard non-epic feats on it. We have a lot of feats, so the page not loading and crashing the wiki on update isn't so surprising. It should be working now, but Surgo and I are looking into alternate solutions. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 23:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps if we manually paginate them, alphabetically? It's a bit crude and ugly, but we could have 3.5e Feats (A), 3.5e Feats (B), etc. Shouldn't Semantic Media Wiki be caching the results of the table though? --Aarnott (talk) 01:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussed alphabetic breakups with Surgo, decided to go with this instead for now. It's only a short term solution though, we'll see the same thing whenever the table sizes get too large again because...

While SMW was caching the results, PHP was hanging on generating them in the first place. So when anyone went and refreshed the page to get a new feat to show up or the wiki tried to do it automatically, the page would lock up and then the wiki would 500. I reproduced it trying to do smaller tables on the same page :-/.

The longer term solution is to fix the table formatting ability of SMW on its own, so that we can use the tables directly and then allow overflow to go into the 'further results' link. Which is sort of where we are right now. - Tarkisflux ^Talk 04:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)