Template talk:Spell table

I updated this template to use CSS styles. The background color is a little darker than the background for the Spell template so the spell table is easy to distinguish from other elements. It follows the same general style as percentage table now, with a right-aligned right column. For a good example, take a look at Cure Light Wounds. Let me know if there are any concerns with the design or problems on specific pages. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 20:10, November 8, 2014 (UTC)

2nd edition spheres?
Not sure if this is the right place, but I wanted to ask if it really makes sense to put the 2nd edition spheres in the spell table at priest spells. In contrast to 3rd edition divine domains, a 2nd edition cleric (or druid) spell will always be part of a sphere, which should already be stated in the line just above in the spell template, and it will always be the same level. To me it seems there is no additional information, just the same stated twice. Opinions? Daranios (talk) 17:40, April 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * Spheres and domains each automatically generate a category when you put them in the Spell table. It's a little redundant, but handy. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 18:15, April 2, 2016 (UTC)


 * Ah, I didn't realize that. Sounds handy enough. Daranios (talk) 18:23, April 2, 2016 (UTC)

Categories for 5th edition rituals
In 5th edition, spells that can be cast as rituals in general also can be cast as regular spells by using spell slots as normal. However, using the tag  prevents generation of level-specific categories. For example, comprehend languages is a 1st-level bard spell that can be cast as a ritual, so using the tag puts it in Category:Bard rituals (5e), but it is not listed in Category:1st-level bard spells (5e) nor Category:Bard spells (5e). Is this by design? Personally, I would prefer 5th edition rituals to be listed in both spells and rituals categories, since they can be cast as either. &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 14:40, June 10, 2017 (UTC)


 * I will look into this and get back to you. BTW, in case you didn't know, you don't have to use  tags to display categories. You can link to them without placing the page in the category like so: Category:Bard spells (5e). &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 16:22, June 10, 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I didn't know how to properly format the question, so I just used  everywhere. I edited it to reflect the original intent. &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 17:31, June 10, 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, it looks like this template is not compatible with rituals in 5th edition yet. In 4th edition, rituals were not associated with a class, so the template didn't have to worry about it. In 5th edition, ritual is a tag that goes on a spell that can be cast by certain classes, but not all classes can cast the spell as a ritual. Therefore, we should never be generating Category:Ranger rituals (5e) for example (which it does right now). (Note that anyone can cast rituals if they take the Ritual Caster feat, but this is an option and not something the template needs to be aware of.)


 * Because of this, I think we should not be generating class-specific ritual categories (like Category:Bard rituals (5e)) but rather using the Category intersection to generate a list of all spells that are in both Category:Bard spells (5e) AND Category:Rituals (5e). Removing  from the template will generate all the "spell" categories again, but then the level-specific ritual categories will not be generated (e.g., Category:2nd-level rituals (5e)). If, where, and how this category should be generated, I will have to think about. Thoughts? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 16:51, June 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * Considering how one would research 5e rituals, I'd say that mostly two bits of information are relevant to sort rituals: class and level, which matter both for the feat and for ritual casting-capable classes. So the only ones that are relevant are bard, cleric, druid, sorcerer, warlock and wizard, which are basically the only ones that would benefit from a cross-category sorting.


 * How about something along the lines of the Category jump template to sort spells by class and level, as well as filtering those that have the ritual tag? Let me see if I can cook up an example:


 * It wouldn't solve sorting rituals by level, but maybe it's a start? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 21:18, June 11, 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I have it all worked out now, just have to test it on a few more pages. The newly revised Spell table will now generate the nth-level ritual (5e) categories, the regular spell categories, and not generate Ranger rituals (5e) and the like. The categories sort spells in so many ways that I think a category jump would be awkward and incomplete. All those links you put in the category jump box are already on Category:Bard spells (5e), including a link to a list of bard rituals (because I just put it there, hehehe) which will be dynamically updated once I deploy the new spell table template. I might have to run the bot over the 5e spells to get this fully populated, but I'm hoping it will be working properly very shortly. Things are in flux right now, but keep an eye out for any weirdness you see in the categories and let me know. &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 01:28, June 12, 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice! It looks pretty good. I'll follow your example to put the links for the intersections in the corresponding categories for the other classes' rituals. Thanks! &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 03:29, June 12, 2017 (UTC)

Channel divinity in 5e
Following up on this interesting discussion, there are abilities in 5th edition that are called "channel divinity effects", available for clerics and paladins, but not linked to any deity in particular; instead, they're either universal (like turn undead) or linked to certain domains and oaths, respectively. Could this be implemented as a variant for the spell table and infobox? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 23:32, December 4, 2017 (UTC)


 * For the Spell template, yes I can add "Channel Divinity" as an option for type5e and it would appear at the top of the infobox like Ritual and Cantrip do now. As for the Spell table, that requires some thought. What categories do we want to assign to Channel Divinity powers? What would you call it (compare to Category:Cleric channel divinity prayers (4e))? Are they unique to a class (i.e., would there ever be more than one row in the table)? Level doesn't really mean much since clerics (always?) get their CD at 2nd level and paladins (always?) get theirs at 3rd level. Right now, it doesn't look like the Spell table is very useful in this instance, but if you find a counter-example (like a CD power that both clerics and paladins get) then that's a good argument for doing it. Thoughts? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 02:46, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * There are counter-examples of Channel Divinity powers that become available at levels other than 2nd for clerics: cloak of shadows, from the Trickery domain, and war god's blessing from the War domain, only show up at 6th level. Also, destroy undead only becomes available at 5th level. As for paladins, I couldn't find any exception to the fact that all their CDs come at 3rd level, and no sourcebook published so far with class options (PHB, SCAG or XGE) that had any CD power that crossed over between classes. So it seems that in 5e they're all unique to their classes, so the Spell table would always only have one row. That said, I'd say categories like Category:Cleric channel divinity (5e) and Category:Paladin channel divinity (5e) with subcategories like Category:War domain channel divinity (5e) and so on would be probably enough, more or less like the monk tradition spells in 5e and prayers in 4e are sorted. Would that be too cumbersome? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 03:45, December 5, 2017 (UTC)


 * Ok, check out Emissary of peace as an example of what we just discussed. It is a bare-bones page for a very simple CD power. Does that meet your expectations? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 03:01, December 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * Nice! That looks awesome. One question, though: is it necessary to include paladin on the spell table for it to generate Category:Paladin channel divinities (5e) and Category:3rd-level paladin channel divinities (5e) correctly? I don't think "generic" paladin channel divinities exist, so they're all unique to their respective oaths, unlike clerics, who get turn undead regardless of domain. Similar question for clerics: when writing a cleric channel divinity, should one also put cleric as well as the respective domain in the template? &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 03:18, December 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, I look at it this way: if a person wants to play a paladin, but doesn't know what deity to follow or is still thinking up a backstory for their character, then the list of paladin channel divinities would give them a quick survey of the cool abilities available and that might inform their choice of deity/backstory etc.. The "3rd-level" category can be suppressed if you really think it is unnecessary or too specific, but since there are some abilities that kick in at 6th level, as you said, I left it in. Once the category pages are created, Category:3rd-level paladin channel divinities (5e) would be placed in Category:Paladin channel divinities (5e) and that would be placed in Category:Channel divinities (5e) which goes in Category:Channel divinities and ... hmm, looks like I need to add (4e) to some of these categories and adjust the hierarchy a bit. But I digress. Does that make sense? &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 14:48, December 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, it makes perfect sense to keep it this way. I was just curious as to the inner workings. :) As for the level category, I agree with leaving it as it is too, since there may be future paladin subclasses with new powers coming at different levels. &mdash; Sirwhiteout (talk) 16:02, December 6, 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh, then yes, it is required to have both a class and a level for the spell table to generate categories. If you really want to know about the inner workings, I wrote extensive documentation trying to explain it, but it's not for the average user. I just geek out over templates :D &mdash;Moviesign (talk) 18:01, December 6, 2017 (UTC)