Talk:List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and find out how to help!
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Lists  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Robinloft vandalism?[edit]

not sure how much of this user's (Robinloft) recent edits are vandilism, but with the few edits amde by this user it seems that there may be some good in with the bad. with this article someone needs to do some major cleanup due to the classes vs kits this user is going through and changing everywhere to suit his/her own personal definitions. shadzar|Talk|contribs 17:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Dragonlance[edit]

Could someone provide the sourcebooks for the Dragonlance classes in 1st and 2nd editions? Also, are there any non-core 1st or 2nd edition Dragonlance classes besides the three Solamnic Knight classes, the three Wizard of High Sorcery classes and the three Knight of Takhisis classes? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tinkers is a class only open to gnomes. This is from DRAGONLANCE Adventures from 1987. REL 29 July 2008

Roles and power sources[edit]

Please do not include unsourced claims about a class' role or power source. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Variant classes from Complete Warrior[edit]

Resolved: Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted recent edits to the variant classes list, since it was uncited and contradicts the class list on wizards.com, however it is possible that the list is incorrect and Complete Warrior refers to them primarily or exclusively as "variant ranger" and "variant paladin" rather than "ranger variant" and "paladin variant". Could someone with a copy of Complete Warrior on hand confirm the terminology used in the book itself? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I was the one who changed the names - Complete Warrior does refer to the non-spellcasting versions of the paladin and ranger as "variant paladin" and "variant ranger" - which is something quite hard to provide a citation for without breaking copyright law. --Muna (talk) 07:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
This may have a copy of page 13 (the page with the variants on), but it prompts me to sign in when I try to access it. --Muna (talk) 07:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
You seem to be confused about what I was asking for. By "confirm the terminology" I meant "check the terminology and provide a firsthand account of it", in other words, I was checking that you were getting the names from the book itself rather than a less reliable source such as a review or forum post. Anyway, if you have access to the book, I don't see why providing citations would present legal problems, even if UK copyright law is extremely strict about quotations, it wouldn't be an issue because Wikipedia's citation guidelines do not require them. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
By difficult I was referring more to the fact that due to the Wizards site being wrong, it's hard to present a source to prove what I say which is not the source itself, which itself is difficult to demonstrate because you can't exactly scan in a page without a licence and say, "it's right there, see?" ;). This is in fact tangential to what I originally meant, as I was referring to your comment about reverting the change due to being uncited. As a summary, yes, I was getting the information straight from the source. --Muna (talk) 08:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I wouldn't object if you reverted my edit (preferably with citations to prevent similar misunderstandings by others based on the wizards.com list in the future). I won't revert it myself since you're the one with the source. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 08:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

How's it look now? Better? --Muna (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Forgotten Realms Player's Guide[edit]

Could someone with the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide provide descriptions for the Swordmage and Spellscarred classes and fill out the Spellscarred's role and power source? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 04:08, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Citations for pre-3rd edition classes[edit]

This article currently has no citations for the pre-3rd edition sections. Could someone who has access to some of the books (or reliable secondary sources, such as a published reviews, TSR product catalogues or articles on the history of D&D or specific classes) check that the class / kit lists are accurate and add citations? -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll go through the few supplements that I have tomorrow and cite what I can. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Table formats[edit]

There are two different formats for the tables in this article. Should the tables be changed so that there's only one kind? -Drilnoth (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've converted the 4e class tables to the wikitable style. I'd be okay with using the 3rd, 3.5 and 4th edition formatting for earlier editions' alternate classes and subclasses. However if we are going to use descriptions for kits, I think we should move them to a separate article due to their large number. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The Immortals[edit]

I was curious as to why there were no mention of the most powerful character class, the Immortals? Is some going to create that group in the article, or must I? MPA 13:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPA (talkcontribs)

Is that really a character class? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)