Forum:Classes by edition

{{forum post| Movie, I love the ref tag on the edition line... looks great :)

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)
 * Druids (2e)
 * Fighters (2e)
 * Paladins (2e)
 * Rangers (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)

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

 * Artillery (4e)
 * Brutes (4e)
 * Controllers (4e)
 * Lurks (4e)
 * Minions (4e)
 * Skirmishers (4e)
 * Soldiers (4e)

Personally, if we have classes listed and the edition... we do not need a multiclass tag, most gamers know a 2e fighter plus a wizard is a fighter/mage...

Aaaaaah, BadCat wants the broad parent back... cool... hmmm, but what about weird classes such as hexblades or swashbucklers... are they fighters... rogues??? Oh, wait... I think I read this wrong... you mean, have a fighters cat for actual fighters... so Hexblades (3e) would be in a Hexblades category... I think it works for classes which have crossed editions, but Hexblades are only from 3e, unless they are in 4e... on the other hand, I have no problem with having extra categories :)

Quick idea names: Class-ed table, Ed-class table, Edition table, Class-cat table (Oh, that's Movie's idea, hehe), or Edition-cat table
 * &mdash;Darkwynters (talk) 17:52, July 24, 2013 (UTC)}}

{{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)}}