Talk:Leomund

"removal of non-Realmsian linked spells"
What spells should that exactly be? The main 6 (tiny hut, trap, secure shelter, secret chest, lamentable belabourment) are all in Forgotten Realms Adventures (as well as the 2E PHB), Hidden Lodge is in Player's Option Spells & Magic, which should be setting agnostic, which would make them available in the Realms - as all Spells in the PHB would (until another source tells otherwise). It also falls under "Leomund's assorted shelter spells", which The Magister and Pages from the Mages tell us, are known in the Realm. Cityscape, Frostburn, and Heros of Battle are also setting agnostic, which would make these spells usable in any setting (until another source tells otherwise). So, what "non-Realmsian linked spells" should be removed--Modgamers (talk) 09:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * We should only have red links for spells that actually make named appearance in Forgotten Realms products. Setting agnostic resources do not count as related appearance. I recommend you add setting agnostic lore to the Dungeons and Dragons Wiki. The Magister does not specify which shelter spells are recoded in the spellbook it simply says "Leomund's assorted shelter spells". Presuming what spells they are would be a speculation. Please do not make pages or add red links for subjects that did not make explicit appearance in FR products. -Artyom.pavlov (talk) 14:34, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you prove to me, that Hidden Lodge is not included in the phrase "Leomund's assorted shelter spells"? I mean, yes, it's not there (or in Forgotten Realms Adventures), because it was made up for Player's Option Spells & Magic, which was released six years later. Yet, with your argument you could remove any links to new spells released since Forgotten Realms Adventures the 3E, 4E and 5E PHB, because neither neither of them is in that "FGR-Spell" list. Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide does not have a list, nor does any of the Waterdeep adventures. Yet, the 5E PHB spells not just are used to linked to them, but also to update information on older spells. So does the setting agnostic PHB count as an Forgotten Realms source, or not? And when it does, why the others aren't - especially now, that WoTC is going full multiverse. --Modgamers (talk) 15:42, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Edit: I would agree with you, if we e.g. would talk about the spells invented by Bigby from the Greyhawk Adventures book (or vice versa Magic of Ferûn for a Greyhawk-Wiki), until they where published in a setting agnostic sourcebook. But when they originate in an setting agnostic sourcebook, I can't follow your argumentation. --Modgamers (talk) 15:52, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * These are the wiki's standards. Appearance in generic sources only does no constitute wiki additions. We also do not allow speculative inclusions. This is a Forgotten Realms wiki, its scope does not cover the multiverse, only things that are relevant to the Forgotten Realms. The spells I unlinked have not made any FR appearances or mentions. If you see a spell you think is beyond scope from 5e era, please bring ip up on the spell's talk page.-Artyom.pavlov (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)


 * "If you see a spell you think is beyond scope from 5e era, please bring ip up on the spell's talk page" - As far as I know, Forgotten Realms Adventures was the last book to publish a list of spells known within the Realm, any spell that was released since, that does not show up in a Reals specific publication (e.g. Magic of Ferûn), is a "non-Realmsian spell". This include any spell in every PHB since 2nd edition. So, is there a community guideline proposal page, to maybe change this rule? --Modgamers (talk) 10:52, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The idea is that a spell must have specifically appeared in a Realms product for it to count as valid. So any spells that appear in Realms video games, for example, would be valid. Some of these Leomundi spells simply fail that criteria. If they should show up in a Realms product in the future we would be happy to include them on the wiki. Hope that makes sense. :) Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 12:57, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * It's not that I don't understand your point - I worked in various wikis and I'm also very strict on sources. Yet, what I can't get my head around is, that you have this strict rule, but you don't apply it - for obvious reasons of course - on the Players Handbook. Because if you would, you probably have to throw out nearly every spell since 2nd edition. Take Enlarge/reduce for example: before 5th edition these where two different (or even four different?) spells. In 5th edition these where simplified be being made into one spell. Prove to me without the 5E PHB - because agnostic setting books apparently don't count - that in the Realms they use this new spell and not the other old ones? It does not show up in the clearly Realmsian spell book from Rime of the Frostmaiden (p.317 f.), so that don't work. Mages from the MM also don't count, because that's also setting agnostic, so what else? When it does not show up in one of the Waterdeep adventures it may not be a "Realmsian" spell. But on the other hand: do you want to make this hassle out of it? The article itself referrers to the 5E PHB for this change, because of course it does, because everyone will reasonably come to the conclusion that the setting agnostic PHB is meant to be a framework that works in every setting - until another source would tell otherwise (as Crawford would phrase it). And when we apply this logic to the PHB, it should be applied to Player's Option - Spells & Magic (which in another edition they probably would have called Players Handbook 2). And if we apply it to these kind of books, we may should apply it to books like Cityscape etc., because we also apply it 5E setting agnostic books like Xanathar's or Tasha's. As long as it's not a specific and intended non-Realmsian reference (e.g. a god from a different setting as part of a cleric subclass description), it is clearly intended to be found in every setting.--Modgamers (talk) 18:17, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of interpretation and we as a community have clearly gone in a different direction. I don't necessarily disagree with your view, but it is not compatible with our current set of policies and the community consensuses behind these. P.S. there are several instances where the 5e version of enlarge appear in Realms sources, including Rime of the Frostmaiden itself (p. 176). Ir&#39;revrykal (talk) 18:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Per the concern that we don’t actually apply the rule, I would reiterate the point of raising the issue on Talk for any spell (or other page) on the wiki that doesn’t meet this standard. As Ir’s point about enlarge/reduce drives home, we’d like to say that there is no spell on the wiki that has not had a Realms appearance in some form, be that in a sourcebook, adventure, a previous edition, a piece of licensed media, etc. Once that app is out of the way, then generic lore is fair game. As with any wiki policy, if we identify a counterexample, our move would be either to find an appearance or to delete that page, not to loosen/abandon the policy. Arodp88 (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2023 (UTC)