Forgotten Realms Wiki
Forgotten Realms Wiki
Forums: Helping Hand > Classes by edition

Use the following template for a nicely presented post:

{{Forum post|Write your message here!|~~~~}}

I'm starting this thread to accumulate the classes and their sub-classes that we want to recognize by giving them an category. Can someone add the 4th edition classes? Did I miss any in supplements that we actually want to include? Players Handbook 1st edition:

  • Cleric
    • Druid
  • Fighter
    • Paladin
    • Ranger
  • Magic-User
    • Illusionist
  • Thief
    • Assassin
  • Monk

Unearthed Arcana 1st edition

  • Cavalier
    • Paladin
  • Cleric
    • Druid
  • Fighter
    • Barbarian
    • Ranger
  • Magic-User
    • Illusionist
  • Thief
    • Acrobat
    • Assassin
  • Monk
  • Bard

Player's Handbook 2nd edition

  • Warrior
    • Fighter
    • Paladin
    • Ranger
  • Wizard
    • Mage
    • Specialist Wizards
      • Abjurer
      • Conjurer
      • Diviner
      • Enchanter
      • Illusionist
      • Invoker
      • Necromancer
      • Transmuter
  • Priest
    • Cleric
    • Specialty Priests of Specific Mythoi
    • Druid
  • Rogue
    • Thief
    • Bard

Player's Handbook 3.5 edition

  • Barbarian
  • Bard
  • Cleric
  • Druid
  • Fighter
  • Monk
  • Paladin
  • Ranger
  • Rogue
  • Sorcerer
  • Wizard
Moviesign (talk) 02:24, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

So how should we classify these? I just want to make sure the system works for all of the above.

Moviesign (talk) 02:24, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother with organizing by specialist wizard or specialty priest, as these just seem to be variants of the standard classes. I also don't think Druid (1e) needs to be placed under Cleric (1e), as the flavour (if not the class) is going to be very different in each edition.

3.5 Edition base classes: (ignoring those from other settings and variants)

  • DMG: Adept, Aristocrat, Commoner, Expert, Warrior
  • Dungeonscape: Factotum
  • Complete series: Favoured Soul, Hexblade, Ninja, Samurai, Scout, Spirit Shaman, Shugenja, Spellthief, Swashbuckler, Warlock, Warmage, Wu-jen
  • Miniatures Handbook: Marshall, Healer, Warmage
  • Psionics: Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder, Ardent, Divine Mind, Lurk
  • Heroes of Horror: Archivist, Dread Necromancer
  • Incarnum: Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist
  • Player's Handbook 2: Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight
  • Tome of Magic: Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer
  • Tome of Battle: Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade
  • Dragon Magic: Dragonfire Adept

But most of these new classes might only have one example NPC, if that, so categories can be created when needed, or not at all.

4th Edition base classes: Player's Handbook 4th edition

  • Cleric
  • Fighter
  • Paladin
  • Ranger
  • Rogue
  • Warlock
  • Warlord
  • Wizard
  • Forgotten Realms Player's Guide: Swordmage
  • Players Handbook 2: Avenger, Barbarian, Bard, Druid, Invoker, Shaman, Sorcerer, Warden
  • Players Handbook 2: Ardent, Battlemind, Monk, Psion, Runepriest, Seeker

And numerous Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies

However! In 4th edition, it seems classes, paragon paths, and epic destinies are only meant for PCs. NPCs for battle are all custom creatures, defined by combat role. Jarlaxle Baenre, for example, is a Level 21 Elite Skirmisher. The rest that I've seen and recall are completely unstatted, just names and descriptions. Since as a Wiki we cover NPCs, the 4th edition list should actually be:

  • Artillery
  • Brute
  • Controller
  • Lurker
  • Minion
  • Skirmisher
  • Soldier

I'm leaving out Elite, Solo, and Leader, since they're more like properties than class-like things.

See, this is why I said this would be too complicated. :)

— BadCatMan (talk) 08:41, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Yikes!!! Hehe, man 4e is really complicated... hmmm, the NPC classes are like the 3e Dragon or Undead classes... techically, since we have started down the road of speicifcs, we probably should keep going on this path, but I agree with BadCat: specially wizards and clerics should just be under the basic classes and druid is it's own class... which means, I need to make a Scouts 3e category for Jezz the Lame.

-Darkwynters (talk) 17:55, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I agree that Specialty Priests should not be given their own individual classes. But we already have categories for the specialist wizards, like Category:Diviners. If we are going to make classes for Scout and Lurker, for example, then why not keep the eight wizard specialists? They should also be put in Category:Wizards of course. Are any of the 3.5, or 4e classes going to be subclasses of anything?

Moviesign (talk) 19:22, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I made my first NPC 3e class, Warriors, which is only a 3e class... but is also the 2e parent cat of rangers, paladins, and fighters... I thought maybe of making Warriors the parent class of all these "soldier" types, but the fighter category is huge... thoughts on organization... or do you like my Category:Warriors fix and Category:Warriors of 9th level category?

Darkwynters (talk) 20:20, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

How about call it Warriors (3e) and make a Warriors (2e) to be the parent of rangers, paladins, and fighters. Warriors then becomes the parent of Warriors (2e) and Warriors (3e)?

Moviesign (talk) 21:34, July 19, 2013 (UTC)

I spruced up Category:Warriors a little bit. I think we need to leave some guidance for those that will come after us. Should we give an example? Do you want me to attempt the cat-class table that I mentioned before? Or, should we just instruct users the proper way to classify a character/person/NPC? Or both?

Moviesign (talk) 01:05, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Specialty Priest seems like a subclass or variant of Cleric (2e), so just include them in Clerics (2e).

Similarly, Specialist Wizards are just a subclass or variant of the Wizard, so these should also all just be categorised as Wizards.

However, Illusionist, Diviner, Transmuter, Necromancer and so on all have flavour, history and roles attached in the setting, so we should keep categories for them, but independent of edition and class for ease. That is, a 3e Wizard (Transmuter) can be categorised in "Wizards (3e)" and "Transmuters", while a 1e Magic-User (Illusionist) can go under "Magic-Users (1e)" or what-have-you and "Illusionists". That's my feeling, anyway. It keeps the usefulness of the specialist categories and reduces the complexity a tad.

I think that Category:Warriors is a bit confusing as it contains three 2e classes and one 3e NPC class. If you want to use it as an umbrella category, then perhaps it should contain all fighting classes from all editions?

I'm a bit lost in all these categories right and not sure where you are up to in them. If you tell me something that needs doing, then I'll get to work on it or have my bot do it.

— BadCatMan (talk) 05:08, July 20, 2013 (UTC)

Agreed... Illusionists links to the edition of wizard... okay, I kind of agree about the warriors... because it is an all encompassing category... 4e is very tricky... see Classes... I guess we could used the Martial, Arcane, Divine, Primal, and Psionic cats from 4e... maybe...

(Housekeeping... updated sections below)


Darkwynters (talk) 20:24, July 20, 2013 (UTC)
Nicely sorted.

I think we can do without the "Martial classes", "Divine classes", etc. over-categories. Using that terminology, things like the Duskblade and the Hexblade are arcane warrior classes, the Ranger is a primal warrior class, and so on. There's too much overlap, and it descends more from some 4th edition terminology (those are all the 4e power sources, I think). And it lacks the "Skill-Monkey classes". :)

It's an unnecessary, extra level in the category tree. All the classes of an edition will fit happily on one edition page — we get up to 200 entries per category page after all.

It looks like you want to keep the 1e and 2e specialist wizards separate? But not for 3e?

— BadCatMan (talk) 01:17, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Cool... I was just trying the 4e organization :) So we do not need a over-category... Category:Fighters of 8th level (2e) is placed in Category:Fighters (2e) which is placed in Category:Classes and Category:Inhabitants by class... so Category:Warriors and Category:Fighters will become obsolete... is that your thoughts, BadCat?

Darkwynters (talk) 20:47, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

I just created a helper template to pluralize class names: {{Class plural}}. Please take a look at it and make sure we agree that it picks the correct plural for the classes listed above. This is (hopefully) going to be used in my cat-class template to generate the categories. I just noticed that DW used "ninjas" whereas I chose "ninja" as the plural of ninja. Shugenja is another one (wikipedia uses it as a plural). I can easily change it, so please discuss it here or make the change yourself.

Moviesign (talk) 15:47, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I removed the 4e organization... now I have the classes as base and NPC...

(Housekeeping... updated sections below)

Feels like a pretty complete listing :)

P.S. I have tested BadCat's idea on Thoyana Jorgadaul... it does remove one category... Category:Fighters (2e) is now a class... which I guess it was always a class... thoughts?

Darkwynters (talk) 17:36, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Great list :) I made "Lurkers" the plural of Lurk. Should I change it to "Lurks"?

Moviesign (talk) 21:47, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) Actually it seems like it is lurks based on a few 4e forums... I wonder if we should add 3e to all the prestige classes... hmmm... maybe not, because they are definitely not 1e or 2e...

Darkwynters (talk) 21:52, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at User:Moviesign/Sandbox/Person_example and notice the 3 categories that were generated automatically. The template only does one entry (that is, one class/level pair) for now, but if it works for one it should work for all. Things to note: I put "Skirmisher" as a link and did not include "Elite". The template will look for a [[Link]] and use that in the category. If it doesn't find the square brackets around a name, it uses the whole name (which unfortunately would include "Elite" and the <ref> tag), so links are highly recommended. I haven't tested it with a link on the level yet, but I'm betting it won't work. That will be my next improvement, if possible. Feeback please!

Edit: I have fixed the problem with following a level with a <ref> tag, but it looks better on the class name, IMHO.
Edit again: I just added the parent categories, so the example page now shows 6 automatically generated categories.
Moviesign (talk) 23:35, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

Movie... very cool... of course it will be hard to manually organize the categories... at least I think it would be since they do not show up in the cat box... Oh, remember as BadCat stated, "I'm leaving out Elite, Solo, and Leader, since they're more like properties than class-like things." He is right... these tags are basically to tell the DM if the monster is powerful or a boss... so Jarlaxle could just be a "Skirmisher".

Darkwynters (talk) 04:19, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Jarlaxle is a member of "Skirmishers (4e)" if that's okay.

In what order would you like them to appear? I can change the order of generated categories within a call to Cat-class, but since there are three calls to the template, one for each edition, the categories will always be grouped by edition.

Is this useful to you? Will you use it? What would you like it to be called? It is currently called Cat-class but how about Catclass table, Class-cat table, Classcat table or something else?

Moviesign (talk) 05:23, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back on this sooner.

We could still use Category:Warriors and Category:Fighters and the like, just lump in all the characters of a class from every edition. Say if I want to know all the bards in the Realms, no matter their edition or level, I can look in Category:Bards. These is different from how Category:Inhabitants by occupation operates, as bards can be of many occupations, and minstrels can be of many classes.

Darkwynters: Very comprehensive. This is really coming together. But in 3e it's Evoker, not Invoker. If you want to include them, the Psion subclasses (like those of specialist Wizards) are: Seer, Shaper, Kineticist, Egoist, Nomad, and Telepath.

Yes, Lurks, not Lurkers.

Some 3e prestige classes are updates of 2e kits or specialty priests. Equally, some 4e paragon paths are updates of prestige classes. But these can wait and be handled more individually, since they are so variable in edition, type and name.

Looking great, Movie.

We've been varying on where to place the reference tag on character stats: after the class list (easier but hanging below), on the last line of the class list (in-line, but melded into class table template), and maybe other editors have other ideas on placement. Would it be easier or better (especially for Movie's templates) to place the ref tag elsewhere, perhaps at "X Edition Statistics"?

Grouping the class categories by edition, and the editions in order, is a logical arrangement.

The shortest name for the template would be neatest in our often-crowded infoboxes.

— BadCatMan (talk) 08:57, July 24, 2013 (UTC)
  • The lumping would have to be done by hand, of course. The template can only put a swordmage in Swordmages (4e) and Swordmages of Xth level (4e).
  • Which reminds me, would a Multiclass category be useful? Or a generic Hybrid category? Random thought.
  • If you don't want prestige classes and paragon paths to be automatically categorized, then use the original {{Split table}}. If you want categories for them, then {{Class plural}} will need to be updated for any names with non-standard plural forms.
  • The "X Edition Statistics" is conditionally generated by the template, so there is nothing to hang a <ref> tag on. However, it could be made a parameter of {{Person}}. I'd have to play with it and see what works. As for now, the Cat-class table can handle <ref> tags in any of the usual spots. It saves infobox real estate if you put it after the last entry in the table, but there are no perfect solutions.
  • About the name, I've been thinking that since {{Class table}} is just a redirect to {{Split table}} that we could use the bot to change all occurrences of class table to split table and then call my new template class table. The bot could then be used to find all occurrences of split table that are inside a {{Person}} template and change only those to class table. Is that possible? Easy?
Edit: User:Moviesign/Sandbox/Person_example now shows an alternative place for the reference(s). If approved, this would add refs1e, refs2e, etc. parameters to the {{Person}} template. I checked it in the monobook skin and noticed the subsubtitle css class doesn't even render :( but the citation is still on the subheading.
Edit again: The example is now generating a table up to ten rows with the corresponding categories. I can't imagine even a deity's avatar having more than ten classes, but it should be straightforward to expand the template if it ever happens. The source code is almost an impenetrable wall of gibberish once you take out the newline characters that mess up the table. I will try to document the code to alleviate this condition. This is getting down to the final stages before deployment, so speak up if you have suggestions or druthers.
Edit the third: Changing split tables to class tables will not be easy due to the new edition parameter. I'll have to think about this. Should I give it a default value (which would classify all of them to the same edition until we go back and fix them :-/ )?
Moviesign (talk) 13:11, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

Movie, I love the ref tag on the edition line... looks great :)

(Housekeeping... updated sections below)

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

Darkwynters (talk) 17:52, July 24, 2013 (UTC)

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 {{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)

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 {{class table|edition=3e|[[Cleric]] (Hammer of Moradin)|12}} 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 <ref> 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 {{Person}} template and maybe the {{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.

Moviesign (talk) 14:31, July 25, 2013 (UTC)

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 {{class table|edition=3e|[[Cleric]] (Hammer of Moradin)|12}} 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?

-- 00:51, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

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 {{class table|edition=3e|[[Hammer of Moradin]]|12}} 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 {{class table|edition=3e|[[Cleric]]|12|[[Harper scout]]|4}} 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?

Moviesign (talk) 03:55, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

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:

  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)


Darkwynters (talk) 04:47, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

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 {{split table}} (or its redirect, {{class table}} if I don't replace it with the proposed cat-class table).
  4. The bot would essentially put all {{Person}}s in the class category they are already in, but with "XX" for the edition. So a [[Bard]]|3 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 edition=XX 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?

Moviesign (talk) 07:07, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
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)

As long as we put the appropriate plural in {{class plural}}, the categories will be generated as described above for Hammers of Moradin—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 {{split table}} and you will see the parameters {{{1}}} through {{{40}}} 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 {{split table}}. That way, all of the {{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?

Moviesign (talk) 14:43, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

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)

Darkwynters (talk) 17:36, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

The only problem I see is that you have Artemis marked as a [[Rogue|Thief]] 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 [[Thief]]. The template would generate the following categories for Artemis:

  • 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)

Arilyn would get the same as she has now except:

  • Harper agents (3e)
  • Harper agents of 5th level (3e)

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 {{Person}} template.

Moviesign (talk) 20:14, July 26, 2013 (UTC)
Don't blame me. I'm an interpreter. I'm not supposed to know a power socket from a computer terminal.
— C3PO

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 :)

Darkwynters (talk) 22:10, July 26, 2013 (UTC)

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)

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:

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)

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 {{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.

Moviesign (talk) 12:54, July 27, 2013 (UTC)

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?

Darkwynters (talk) 21:38, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

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.

Moviesign (talk) 22:01, July 29, 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)
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)
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)

No, sorry. The class2e parameter triggers the "2nd Edition Statistics" section of the {{Person}} template, but it has no idea what classes are specified. Likewise, edition triggers the generation of categories, but {{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 {{Spell}} template lists edition info newest first, whereas the {{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.

Moviesign (talk) 14:04, July 30, 2013 (UTC)
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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.
Moviesign (talk) 03:25, August 19, 2013 (UTC)

(Housekeeping... updated sections below)

Darkwynters (talk) 17:36, July 23, 2013 (UTC)

| - Darkwynters (talk) 04:59, August 19, 2013 (UTC)}}

Monks could cast spells? Yeah, we might as well list all the classes for completeness and compatibility.
— BadCatMan (talk) 09:48, August 20, 2013 (UTC)

I saw a comment by User:Eli the Tanner about sorting the class categories by hand. Do I need to modify the {{class table}} template to add the sorting parameters? Is there consensus on how sorting should be done? I don't think it would be too hard to add sorting fields to the automatically generated categories. Just tell me how it should look.

Moviesign (talk) 12:58, August 26, 2013 (UTC)
No, your template is just fine... and the classes are sorted, I think Eli did not add the "edition=3e" line on the Zedarr T'sarran page... if I am wrong please check, but I have been adding sorts on every class cat, such as Category:Blackguards of 5th level (3e) under Category:Blackguards (3e) and Category:Inhabitants by level :)
- Darkwynters (talk) 23:47, August 26, 2013 (UTC)

Multiple stats per edition[]

Bringing this back up, what is the rule for handling characters who have multiple stats within a single edition? For example, Zandess Danthiir is a 5th-level paladin in the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting 2nd edition (revised) and a 10th-level paladin in Cloak & Dagger, both in 2nd edition. I just included her earliest stats in the infobox, and manually added a category for the higher level.
— BadCatMan (talk) 08:53, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
I would go ahead and put both in the class table and just remove "The first of these is shown." from your note. Let the template generate the categories as usual. Interested readers coming to this page via the categories can follow the reference to whichever set of stats they would like. Another option would be to footnote the "5" and the "10" so it's clear they come from two different sources. My $0.02.
Moviesign (talk) 13:35, April 12, 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I tried that. She doesn't looked a dual-classed paladin/paladin, does she? :)

PS: Turns out I did something similar with Rendeth of the Royal Blood back when we started this.

— BadCatMan (talk) 13:42, April 12, 2014 (UTC)


Looking at the list above, I think we decided to drop Category:Priests and priestesses 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? —Moviesign (talk) 18:09, June 15, 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I am fine with making the Category:Priests and priestesses just an occupational category like Merchants or Shopkeepers. - Darkwynters (talk) 21:04, June 15, 2014 (UTC)
Have I been the one doing it? 2nd edition confuses me. So, yes, that sounds good. And I like a Priests occupation category, distinct from a Clerics class category. — BadCatMan (talk) 03:51, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
Are there any Priests (occupation) that are not Clerics/Druids/Specialty classes? If not, then I don't see the point of a redundant category. If they exist, then ok. —Moviesign (talk) 04:37, June 16, 2014 (UTC)
For one, Kadar al Ilmater is arguably a priest (high priest of his temple and order), but is a Monk by class. Orlenstar Thirlthorn could be thought of as a priest as well, but is a Druid by class. You can have adventuring and fighting Clerics who do not priestly duties, or non-casting Experts who do priestly duties. There'll be a huge overlap of course, but there's enough of a distinction to distinguish them.
Similarly, there are minstrels who are not Bards and Bards like Ilvarthaele Everstone who do not play music for a living, but rather are spies, scribes, or sages. And all those NPCs who have no class but do have an occupation. — BadCatMan (talk) 04:54, June 16, 2014 (UTC)



1st edition:

Base classes

2nd edition:

Base classes

3rd edition:

Base classes

NPC classes

Prestige classes

4th Edition

Base classes

  • Ardents (4e)
  • Avengers (4e)
  • Barbarians (4e)
  • Bards (4e)
  • Battleminds (4e)
  • Clerics (4e)
  • Druids (4e)
  • Category: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) 17:20, June 16, 2014 (UTC)

Hey Darkwynters, does this category tree mean we should include both Category:Abjurers (3e) and Category:Wizards (3e) in a characters article or simply Category:Abjurers (3e)? Have a look at my latest addition, Shevaril Starcloak, and tell me what you think.

--Eli the Tanner (talk) 12:23, July 4, 2014 (UTC)

Based on the way Movie has crafted his Template:Person, I think just having the Wizards category link to the Abjurer (3e), because Wizards (3e) is sort of like the Universal wizards of third edition. Unless someone else has a better thought :)

- Darkwynters (talk) 17:00, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Since we have Abjurers (3e) as a subcategory of Wizards (3e), I suppose we should add the Wizards category for completeness. We do this for Locations and Inhabitants, don't we?
Moviesign (talk) 17:34, July 4, 2014 (UTC)
Sounds good... check out Shevaril Starcloak page... worked perfectly :)
- Darkwynters (talk) 18:26, July 5, 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm... This might just be but this seems overly complicated. I don't see why we need separate categories for different editions, particularly since crunch is de facto illegal to post for basically every edition except 3rd. I prefer to keep the class articles as edition neutral as possible, with the presumption that newer material (the newest being 5th) is the most widely applicable but that prior editions are not really incorrect either (see the Barbarian article for instance, which I recently worked on and uses 5th edition as the baseline, with earlier edition versions of the class supplementing).

Given WotC's renewed support of earlier editions (and the re-release of 2nd edition computer games like the Baldur's Gate series) this seems to be a pretty good way of going about it, especially since a lot of people might be confused by the overly complex explanations of what class a particular character is. I think it would probably just be fine to each all of the classes a character belongs to, regardless of edition, as their character class (especially since this is all a bit abstract anyway, when translating to the novels). The only exception I'd say is when one class splits up into several different classes, like magic-users in 1st edition; if a character is a magic-user/wizard in 1st/2nd edition but a sorcerer in 3rd/4th/5th editions (with no ranks in wizard), I think it's fair to say they were always a sorcerer, but the name just didn't exist back then. On the other hand, if a character was a ranger in 2nd edition and a barbarian in 3rd, I think we should probably list them as both, since neither's directly translatable to the other, even if they only have barbarian levels in later editions.

But I don't think we should overly concerned as to whether a character is a "2e" warrior or a "3e" warrior, especially since the articles themselves make no such distinction. That's just by 2 cents anyway.
Niirfa-sa (talk) 20:08, September 2, 2014 (UTC)
We definitely need to keep the edition-specific categories because we support all editions of D&D and it makes filtering out what you want and don't want so much easier. Take the monk class for example. Second edition monks could cast divine spells, 3rd edition monks could not, 4th edition didn't have monks, and now they are back again in 5th ed. There is no comparison between 2e and 3e monks, so they really should be separable by category when someone wants spellcasting monks for example (just as they should also be aggregated by a category, if someone wants to look at all monks). So, we opted for more categories rather than less. We have relegated the crunchy bits like level and alignment to the infobox and made edition-specific categories easy to generate with the augmented {{Class table}} template. I agree the class description pages should be edition neutral as much as possible, but I don't mind a little discussion about how a class has evolved over time either. Characters, however, should not be retroactively reclassified, IMHO, and the edition-specific sections of the infobox give an idea how the character has grown over the years without peppering the text on the page with crunch.

Does that help?

Moviesign (talk) 01:04, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
It helps to explain your position, but I still disagree. I think it's safe to assume most characters who are monks in 2nd edition are still monks in 3rd edition... and it's likely that most monks who were in 3rd edition (assuming they're still alive a century later) would be monks in 4th edition (and then 5th edition). The rules are designed with the intent that you can convert a character from one edition to another, accepting the rule changes that ensue as either "variations," examples of what has always been but wasn't previously allowed (like dwarven spellcasters), or the result of some kind of alteration to the laws of physics (as was the case from 3rd edition to 4th edition, but has been sort of undone by 5th).

I think it's perfectly reasonable, in the monk class article, to explain that some monks can cast divine spells and some use psionic abilities instead, or that both are different interpretations of "ki." Likewise, it doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to say that some rangers are primal spellcasters (like 3rd and 5th edition rangers) while others don't cast any magic at all. The rules may not be that flexible on an edition to edition basis, but I don't see why we (from a lore perspective) should be even more rigid. It's way easier in my mind to be "fluid" with definitions than to try and be completely precise about them, especially when we're talking about a campaign setting that's gone through four different iterations over a course of some thirty years or so.

Niirfa-sa (talk) 01:21, September 3, 2014 (UTC)
Personally, if you are talking about the individual class pages... they should be multi-edition edited... I agree with Movie that our categories (personal biased since I created the list) should stay edition specific... remember, Drizzt Do'Urden has been a 10th ranger in 1e, 16th level ranger in 2e... then he dropped in power as a ranger and gained barbarian levels plus gained the fighter class... so if does feel important to record this edition specific information. Of course, in the end, I will follow the rules set down by the wiki as a community :)
- Darkwynters (talk) 22:42, September 4, 2014 (UTC)
To be edition-neutral means we give try to give the same value and credence to 1st edition as much as 3rd or 5th. For the most part, you're right, characters don't change in theme or flavour too much from edition to edition — except for those that do, like Albhaera Haerldoun, who switched from fighter to wizard between 2nd and 3rd edition. So it is helpful to categorise them according to class, level, and edition.

And, as we've seen, fans love comparing levels in any edition, so I'm sure more people will want the information than don't. It also fulfils our remit as a DM's aid to give a brief indicator of class and level and where stats can be found.

It is rather intensive, but it satisfies all the needs and concerns we've discussed above.

— BadCatMan (talk) 11:59, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
I guess one of the main reasons I feel a bit iffy about it is that I see class level as something of an abstraction created for the purpose of the game rules, rather than something that can be quantified within the Realms itself (as opposed to classes themselves, which are mentioned by name not too uncommonly). That being said, I will admit my POV is not the only valid one and there does seem to be a large level of consensus here about maintaining separate categories for a number of reasons. The point about being a DM's aid is a relatively good one. Additionally, I've done a little side research and while not all gaming wikis follow a similar policy a few (such as the World of Warcraft wiki) do list NPCs by level. So while I'm still not entirely comfortable with the concept, I'll let it go. If the community would largely prefer to keep the edition-specific categories, I'll let it be.
Niirfa-sa (talk) 18:22, September 6, 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I mostly agree. But that's the problem of being both a fictional setting wiki and an RPG setting wiki. Crunch informs character. It's the hand we've been dealt, so it's how we're dealing with it. 'Sides, we already got all this worked out last year. :p
— BadCatMan (talk) 03:52, September 7, 2014 (UTC)
Point taken :) .
Niirfa-sa (talk) 05:55, September 7, 2014 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding the Sha'ir into the 2nd Ed specialist wizards section?
Artemaz (talk) 22:24, September 27, 2020 (UTC)