Forum:Classes by edition

{{Forum post| Multiclass and Hybrid: No! That way lies madness! :o

Yes, prestige class will have quite variable plurals. Like Hammer of Moradin to Hammers of Moradin. But as I've said, there's too few of most to do anything but handle them case by case.

Hmm. A reference for each each edition might be best best handled by the old "source" line: "source1e", "source2e", "source3e", "source4e". Sound okay? Ah, you've solved it. Looks good.

Seeking out " {{Person " and changing " {{split table " to " {{class table " would be pretty easy.

A default value for edition? It would be difficult for us to swiftly render old pages into the new format. Perhaps a default value to express "edition not specified" could catch the pages, then we could go through the categories later.

What would the final {{tl|class table}} template look like with the edition parameter? I could probably stick in a default edition parameter with the bot. It would be difficult to choose a specific edition though, but I might be able to seek out a rules = 2nd line and then have it include edition=2e. That depends on if I can get the bot to skip any number of spaces between "rules" and "=". I'm not sure about that yet.

Yes, "Fighters" containing Fighters of all editions. Hexblades: stuff 'em, they're not a core class, and their won't be many of them.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 13:46, July 25, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| Hehe, the Multiclass/Hybrid idea was mainly for DW's benefit. Psych! :D

I agree we should not attempt automatic prestige/paragon/epic categorization, but that means putting only the base class link in the new class table (but something like  would be acceptable). I would have to put more logic into the template if you want "Hammer of Moradin" to be a link as well.

I chose to call the new parameters refs1e etc. because they will be full &lt;ref&gt; tags whereas "source" was traditionally used as just a link to a sourcebook. If no one has any objections, I will add this functionality to the {{tl|Person}} template and maybe the {{tl|Spell}} template too.

As shown in a previous paragraph, the edition parameter is best specified just after the template name, but technically can go anywhere in the argument list. Setting it to XX would place all bot-edited pages into the Fighters of Nth level (XX) and Fighters (XX) categories, using "Fighter" for example.
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:31, July 25, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| With regards to Prestige Classes and the class table I think we should keep the format the same as whatever the edition uses. Further abstractions like the   example will make things very confusing, I think. Categories wise we could link to a broad Category:Hammers of Moradin instead if people don't fancy using the same level/edition system for them as we do with base classes. Especially as someone with cleric 12/harper scout 4 could not translate as easily.

Automating the editions sounds quite precarious and may dilute the level of accuracy it sounds like but I'm not too savvy with the behind the scenes stuff really so I'm not sure what is possible. I think the further we stray from the recognisable formats that the editions use the less helpful the automating process will become. As long as we have a means of listing the classes and levels accurately with citations in the infobox will categorisation be managable by users still? }}
 * --85.210.143.5 00:51, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

{{forum post| I'm not sure I understood you completely, so let me know if I get this wrong. "Whatever the edition uses" means that a user would type  and the class table would generate Category:Hammers of Moradin of 12th level (3e) and Category:Hammers of Moradin (3e) for the page. Your second example would be typed  and it would automatically generate four categories: Category:Clerics of 12th level (3e), Category:Clerics (3e), Category:Harper scouts of 4th level (3e), and Category:Harper scouts (3e). Any other categories would have to be added by hand, unless they can be logically and consistently generated from the info given to the class table template. Is that good? Any preferences on what we call it? Is "class table" too popular to usurp and re-purpose? Do we want take the plunge and run the bot, or should we scrap this idea?
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:55, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| I'm a bit confused... I thought the "Unknown User" was Movie... and then I read Movie's post... and was like what?!? Personally, I have no idea what the last two posts were about (sorry Movie)... but I love the new person infobox... I love the new class/edition cats... I am okay with... wait, I think I see what the "Unknown User" (maybe BadCat) was talking about: random Unknown Users messing up the infobox format... for the class categories, and while it is easy to find category errors, such as Humanss" or Inhabbitants of Waterdeep'', I am not so sure these auto-cats will be... hmmm... Plus, I am a little worried... no extremely worried about using the bot to fix all these pages... especially since many of these characters need to be looked up to find their editions...

DW's overview:

Thoughts?
 * 1) Use new Person infobox (great work Movie, BTW)
 * 2) Use new class and edition categories, even for prestige if necessary (they rule)
 * 3) Maybe use the automated category templates (might cause problems)
 * 4) Do not use bot to fix the class categories (might cause big problems)
 * &mdash;Darkwynters (talk) 04:47, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| I assumed the unknown user was BadCat since it sounded like him ("recognisable", "categorisation"). :)
 * 1) Yes. And thanks!
 * 2) That works for me. You sorta invented them with our input, so go forth and conquer.
 * 3) See my last post for examples of what the proposed "cat-class table" template will do. If you like that it saves you from adding two categories for each entry in the table, then feel free to use it (once we decide on a name and I make it an official template). Otherwise, continue to use {{tl|split table}} (or its redirect, {{tl|class table}} if I don't replace it with the proposed cat-class table).
 * 4) The bot would essentially put all {{tl|Person}}s in the class category they are already in, but with "XX" for the edition. So a   would be put in Category:Bards (XX) and Category:Bards of 3rd level (XX). Then a human would have to go through all those marked XX and replace the   parameter with 2e or whatever. Yes, this is a lot of work, and I'm fine with not using the bot. New Persons can use the cat-class table if they wish, it can be optional. If this is not very useful, then I'm fine with scrapping the whole thing. I had fun writing the code and I learned stuff, so not a total loss.

Does that help?
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 07:07, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|Nope, sorry, wasn't me. Someone else using UK/Australian English spelling!

I think the prestige etc. classes in the class table should have lines, levels, and be linked to as-normal. A class might not be mentioned in the main text article, so the infobox is the only place to do it. But that adds a whole extra layer of complication to the templates, I imagine.

I'm afraid I'm a bit lost on the technical aspects of this now. The more it's built, the more only Moviesign understands it. :) Obviously, the more effective and complete we try to make the automated templates, the more complex they became and the riskier they are to implement. Manually may be slow, but it's easy and reliable. Ultimately, the pages would need to be checked by a person and fixed manually anyway, so going too far into the automation may not be worthwhile. Many NPCs won't need much work. But I trust you two to develop a decent system anyway.

The random number of spaces between "rules" and "=", as well as the variety of ways people have noted the edition (2nd, 2e, AD&D, 3rd, 3e, 3.5, etc.) makes it difficult to find pages per edition. I'd have to run the bot dozens of times for every permutation. It would be easier to do it manually.

Fortunately, the bot program, AutoWikiBrowser, doesn't have to be used for an automatic bot. It can also automatically load editing windows in sequence, so the workload becomes: check, edit, save, repeat, and it's much quicker. But there's still about ~2500 pages to check. D:

One question: can the "edition=2e" line be changed to simply "2e" ? The other entries can be inserted whole, without being specified, so I figure the edition code could be too. That could make it a bit briefer.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 09:08, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| As long as we put the appropriate plural in {{tl|class plural}}, the categories will be generated as described above for Hammers of Moradin&mdash;nothing more is required. I will document the code so anyone should be able to modify it. (It's fairly straightforward, it just looks confusing.)

Is the bot able to use regular expressions? That is how you match an arbitrary number of whitespace characters, so if the bot can use them it would make it even more robust. I need to learn about this AutoWikiBrowser: it would speed up going through lists of spells.

If you don't specify a parameter by name, then it is given a number, in sequence, starting with 1. Look at the source for {{tl|split table}} and you will see the parameters  through   and how they become the rows of the table. If you throw another unnamed parameter in there, it would become #1 and throw the rest of the table off. I can shorten the name to ed if you want to save a few characters, but with abbreviation comes obfuscation (maybe not in this case, however) :) I have a better idea which I am chagrined not to have thought of sooner. I can use the edition parameter as a switch to turn on/off generating the categories. If you don't specify an edition, no categories will be generated and the output will be identical to {{tl|split table}}. That way, all of the {{tl|class table}}s that exist will still function normally and we can add the edition parameter to pages at our leisure. How's that sound?
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:43, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| Man, I'm glad we elected Movie as an admin, because he is the only "Professor" we can "plug into the hyperdrive" to speak Wiki to the computer :) As for the above... and who was that Unknown User then... I loved your detective skills, Movie... hahaha... anyway, if Movie can create the template... I'll use it... right now I have edited two prestige classes: Category:Harper agents and Category:Assassins... I did not add the edition tag (?3)... would you guys like these categories to have that tag... or do they look okay?

(Housekeeping... updated sections below)

P.S. Basically, look at Arilyn Moonblade and Artemis Entreri... and tell me how you would improve their categories... if they are fine... cool... when Movie has his template, I will take it for a test drive... I see myself as our Han Solo... just point me toward my target :) BLAM... I shot first (I'm so glad R.A. never went back and edited Streams of Silver to make Artemis a sweet and kind... assassin)
 * &mdash;Darkwynters (talk) 17:36, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| The only problem I see is that you have Artemis marked as a  and that is not going to work with the cat-class template. You have to call them what they are in that edition. Thief already redirects to Rogue, so you should just use. The template would generate the following categories for Artemis: Arilyn would get the same as she has now except: The template is all ready to go, you can test drive it at User:Moviesign/Template:Cat-class (see it in action on User:Moviesign/Sandbox/Person example). We should definitely stay consistent in the way we name things, so if any of them have an edition, they all should have an edition. If you want "Thieves (2e)" to appear after "Thieves of 11th level (2e)" that is an easy change, but overall the categories will show up in the order they are specified on the page (i.e., 2e comes before 3e, etc.). If you want to reverse the edition order, it is a simple change to the {{tl|Person}} template. {{quote|Don't blame me. I'm an interpreter. I'm not supposed to know a power socket from a computer terminal.|C3PO }}
 * Thieves (2e)
 * Thieves of 11th level (2e)
 * Fighters (2e)
 * Fighters of 15th level (2e)
 * Rogues (3e)
 * Rogues of 4th level (3e)
 * Fighters (3e)
 * Fighters of 12th level (3e)
 * Rangers (3e)
 * Rangers of 1st level (3e)
 * Assassins (3e)
 * Assassins of 1st level (3e)
 * Harper agents (3e)
 * Harper agents of 5th level (3e)
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:14, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| Cool... let's see what Master Luke thinks about the class-cat template (no offense, but I do not want "User:Moviesign" stamped on all the infoboxes, like an advertisement label) and having the edition tags on prestige classes, such as Assassins (3e)... I just want something concrete and I have no problem fixing the old class categories (aka deleting)... first, I will begin with the assassins category :)
 * &mdash;Darkwynters (talk) 22:10, July 26, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| Regular expressions: The bot can. I can't. :) Thanks, I'll try to learn what I need to do.

I've linked to the Wikia pages about it at User:UnseenServantBot if you want to give it a whirl.

Class tables: Moviesign, that sounds pretty good. If old pages can be made to still work in the new system, then that would save a lot of effort.

More responses later.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 04:47, July 27, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| Darkwynters, regarding what you did to Category:Assassins, we already have Category:Assassins (3e) for the 3e prestige class. I think it would be best to have the edition in the title for disambiguation purposes, as normal. I picture the structure as:
 * Category:Classes | Category:Inhabitants by class
 * Category:Assassins (all editions)
 * Category:Assassins (1e)
 * Category:Assassins (3e)
 * Category:Assassins (4e)

Arilyn and Artemis's categories: looking very complete.

Did we still want to do total level?

I can easily have the bot change {{User:Moviesign/Template:Cat-class to the final name when we're happy with it, so feel free to start using it as you like.

I'll give it a test drive when I have the time and wits for it.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 12:41, July 27, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| There's been so much activity recently that you may have missed the item where I copied my new template over the top of the {{tl|class table}} redirect. It acts just like the old one unless you specify edition whereupon it generates categories for the classes in the table. DW has been using it on a few pages and seems to like it.
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 12:54, July 27, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| Quick question Movie... what do we do if the level is not given for a character, but the evidence points to a specific edition, for example, Quarrel is called an assassin in Pool of Radiance and the novel was written during 1st edition... but when I placed the "edition=1e" I received an additional category with "NaN"??? So is there a way to just have the class and edition, such as assassin (1e) without the level cat?
 * &mdash;Darkwynters (talk) 21:38, July 29, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| Hmm... NaN stands for "not a number", but I could make it return "unknown" whenever it can't recognize the input as a number. Then you would get a category Category:Assassins of unknown level (1e) and you could put whatever you wanted in the table, like "??", "unknown", "not specified", etc. or leave it blank. If you don't want that, then it's probably best to leave off the edition and add the Assassins (1e) cat by hand. Putting logic in the template to only generate one of the two categories could be done, but it would make the template much more complex for what is (hopefully) a very small number of special cases.
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 22:01, July 29, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| I tried the new templates on Thallastam and Albhaera Haerldoun (before my net died for a day). Let me know if you see any problems with my implementation.

I don't think we can or should give classes and levels to characters who haven't been properly statted. A description in a novel could cover a lot of things, and the writer may have other intents (or didn't even consider game rules and classes). I'm reminded of Salvatore's explanation/excuse for why Artemis Entreri didn't die along with all the other Assassins (1e) in the Time of Troubles, that he's not an assassin, he's a rogue who kills people for money. :) Assigning a class would be too speculative, and should only be discussed in the Notes section.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 02:30, July 30, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| Okay, so no edition or class for non-statted characters... so Quarrel is called an assassin in Pool of Radiance, which was written during 1e, but we should not give her a level or edition... or fill out the "rules" line in the Person infobox... is this correct?
 * -Darkwynters (talk) 05:55, July 30, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|To me, she'd have " Occupation = Assassin " and go in Category:Assassins (occupation), but that would be it, if they were never officially statted. You might add a note saying that a character appeared to have all the abilities of an Assassin of Xth level in such-and-such edition, making the speculation clear, but I think that should be it.

It would be different of course if a novel character was then given stats and so on in a sourcebook, Dragon magazine or website article, or the author has said so via forums. Then there would be canon stats for the character.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 06:23, July 30, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post|I've updated some more characters.

Filling in, say, "class2e = " and including "edition=2e" to the class table seems a little redundant, as the edition is specified twice. Is it possible to have the template produce a 2e class category if class2e is filled?
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 12:46, July 30, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| No, sorry. The class2e parameter triggers the "2nd Edition Statistics" section of the {{tl|Person}} template, but it has no idea what classes are specified. Likewise, edition triggers the generation of categories, but {{tl|class table}} has no clue if you put it in the correct subsection or not. Any sort of communication between the two templates would essentially make them one inextricably complex template.

On a related topic: the {{tl|Spell}} template lists edition info newest first, whereas the {{tl|Person}} template is showing the newest info last. Is this appropriate for each of these page types? Do you like to see the progression of a character as you scan down the infobox, or do you want to see the latest stats up top? I think Spells are fine with newest first, but I was just curious if anyone had a good argument either way.
 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:04, July 30, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| Okey-dokey.

I'm fine with the current ordering. Character levels rise and classes change over time, which advances with edition, so you can see how they evolve in a rough way. That works for Drizzt, Elminster if his 1e and 2e stats were included, and for lesser NPCs like Albhaera Haerldoun and Rendeth of the Royal Blood (who I need to clean up later).| — BadCatMan (talk) 01:35, July 31, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| Technically, it seems like 4e is calling multiple artillery... artillery as per page 57 in Dungeon Master's Guide 4th edition... the Webster Online dictionary has artilleries as plural... but it does sound funny :)

P.S. BadCat, would you also like characters from video games to not have classes, such as Balthazar, unless mentioned (aka statted) such as Vahn from Baldur's Gate: Dark Alliance?

(Housekeeping... updated sections below) -Darkwynters (talk) 04:13, August 3, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| Sorry DW, I forgot to respond earlier. Video game character stats are tricky. Unless they play a fixed character, the stats are usually hidden from the player, but it's possible to find them with a game editor. But often they will evolve through the game, so they're always a challenge. In Baldur's Gate (game) and Neverwinter Nights, the player can tell a henchman how to multiclass. So I think we should keep stats for video game characters, but apply a little sense on which stats are used (say starting stats for henchman, final stats for NPCs).

What do we do if a character has a level but no class? Aklar Delkash is described as a "0-level human male (merchant)". I'm not familiar with 2nd edition's 0th-level classes.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 05:34, August 8, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| NP, BCM :)

Okay, NPC starting classes sounds good and alignment or course will work... of course, a few NPCs gain levels based on the PC in Baldur's Gate (game), but I suggest using the actual basic starting levels listed in Walkthroughs, such as the lowest starting level for a character, such as Kivan.

In 2nd edition (my introduction to DnD), there was 0th level fighters which were like the 3e warrior... then there was "0-level" (zero-level) characters which were not given classes, such professions like blacksmith or baker and they could not gain levels. So maybe make a "Inhabitants of 0th level (2e)" and link it to Category:Inhabitants and Category:Inhabitants by level... Thoughts?
 * -Darkwynters (talk) 18:07, August 8, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{Forum post| And a non-playable character like Aribeth de Tylmarande who has fixed stats can have their final levels included, I suppose.

Okay, I'll create a category for it.
 * — BadCatMan (talk) 09:04, August 9, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| I just realized that I've been using classes from the Player's Option: Spells & Magic that are not actually on the list above, when entering class tables for spells. Can/should we add Crusader (2e), Monk (2e), and Shaman (2e) to the list, or should I go back and remove references to those classes?
 * Edit: Also, the Mystic (2e) class described in Faiths & Avatars.


 * &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:25, August 19, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{forum post| Updated!!!

Base classes

 * Barbarians (1e)
 * Cavaliers (1e)
 * Clerics (1e)
 * Druids (1e)
 * Fighters (1e)
 * Magic-users (1e)
 * Illusionists (1e)
 * Monks (1e)
 * Paladins (1e)
 * Rangers (1e)
 * Thieves (1e)
 * Assassins (1e)
 * Thief-acrobats (1e)

Base classes

 * Bards (2e)
 * Clerics (2e)
 * Crusader (2e)
 * Druids (2e)
 * Fighters (2e)
 * Monk (2e)
 * Mystic (2e)
 * Paladins (2e)
 * Rangers (2e)
 * Shaman (2e)
 * Thieves (2e)
 * Wizards (2e)
 * Abjurers (2e)
 * Conjurers (2e)
 * Diviners (2e)
 * Enchanters (2e)
 * Illusionists (2e)
 * Invokers (2e)
 * Necromancers (2e)
 * Transmuters (2e)

Base classes

 * Ardents (3e)
 * Barbarians (3e)
 * Bards (3e)
 * Beguilers (3e))
 * Clerics (3e)
 * Dragon shamans (3e
 * Druids (3e)
 * Duskblades (3e)
 * Favoured souls (3e)
 * Fighters (3e)
 * Hexblades (3e)
 * Knights (3e)
 * Ninja (3e)
 * Paladins (3e)
 * Rangers (3e)
 * Rogues (3e)
 * Samurai (3e)
 * Scouts (3e)
 * Shugenja (3e)
 * Sorcerers (3e)
 * Spellthieves (3e)
 * Spirit shamans (3e)
 * Swashbucklers (3e)
 * Wizards (3e)
 * Abjurers (3e)
 * Conjurers (3e)
 * Diviners (3e)
 * Enchanters (3e)
 * Illusionists (3e)
 * Evokers (3e)
 * Necromancers (3e)
 * Transmuters (3e)
 * Warlocks (3e)
 * Warmages (3e)
 * Wu-jen (3e)
 * Divine minds (3e)
 * Lurks (3e)
 * Monks (3e)
 * Psions (3e)
 * Egoists (3e)
 * Kineticists (3e)
 * Nomads (3e)
 * Seers (3e)
 * Shapers (3e)
 * Telepaths (3e)
 * Psychic warriors (3e)
 * Soulknives (3e)
 * Wilders (3e)

NPC classes

 * Adepts (3e)
 * Aristocrats (3e)
 * Commoners (3e)
 * Experts (3e)
 * Warriors (3e)

Prestige classes

 * Assassins (3e)
 * Harper agents (3e)

Base classes

 * Ardents (4e)
 * Avengers (4e)
 * Barbarians (4e)
 * Bards (4e)
 * Battleminds (4e)
 * Clerics (4e)
 * Druids (4e)
 * Fighters (4e)
 * Invokers (4e)
 * Monks (4e)
 * Paladins (4e)
 * Psions (4e)
 * Rangers (4e)
 * Rogues (4e)
 * Runepriests (4e)
 * Seekers (4e)
 * Shamans (4e)
 * Sorcerers (4e)
 * Swordmages (4e)
 * Wardens (4e)
 * Warlocks (4e)
 * Warlords (4e)
 * Wizards (4e)

NPC classes
- Darkwynters (talk) 04:59, August 19, 2013 (UTC)}}
 * Artillery (4e)
 * Brutes (4e)
 * Controllers (4e)
 * Lurks (4e)
 * Minions (4e)
 * Skirmishers (4e)
 * Soldiers (4e)

Priests
Looking at the list above, I think we decided to drop Category:Priests as a category and go with Category:Clerics, Category:Druids, and Category:Specialty priests. Is it ok if I start removing/replacing that category with the appropriate substitution? Anyone have any objections? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 18:09, June 15, 2014 (UTC)


 * Personally, I am fine with making the Category:Priests just an occupational category like Merchants or Shopkeepers. - Darkwynters (talk) 21:04, June 15, 2014 (UTC)