Talk:Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)

message: What about the five NPC classes? — Daniel 00:06, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added --Laxrulz777 18:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPC classes

message: How do you edit the sidebar so that the Tome of Battle classes can be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laxrulz777 (talk • contribs) 
:Figured it out... For anyone interested it's a template to be edited. The {{}} give it away and you edit it by putting template: in front of it in the URL. --Laxrulz777 18:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Side Bar

message: It'd be great if we could get some blurbs about the remaining core classes as well as somebody archiving the prestige classes.
Also, I'm trying to seek clarification on the naming convention. For right now I'm tacking (Dungeons & Dragons) onto the end of these pages. I understand that that may not be acceptable but it's easier in the short term. If anyone has any thoughts, feel free to goto the Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions and chime in.
--Laxrulz777 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Further Additions

message: There was a minor incorrect claim about paragon paths being class-specific. This is true in the PHB, but not true in general. In a Dragon article called "Playing Warforged" (issue #364) a paragon path was introduced for Warforged. It is not class-specific (although it is race-specific).
The section in the wiki article originally stated, "Paragon paths are class-specific. . ." and I simply changed it to "Paragon paths are often (though not always) class-specific. . . ." 75.15.167.122 (talk) 10:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Paragon Paths

message: I've rephrased the role summaries, Rangers are not able to excel at both ranged and melee combat simultaneously due to MAD, and, as of March 2009, every published Defender class including Swordmage is focused on melee combat. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 4e role descriptions

message: Could someone should rewrite the 4th edition section to avoid the term "core class"? The term is problematic, because, within the context of D&D, "core" could either mean "not campaign-specific", or could refer specifically to the core rulebooks. Wizards of the Coast doesn't even use the term consistantly, the PHB2 says "roleplaying game core rules" on its' cover, however in the online D&D product catalog, it's grouped with accessories instead of core products, and is listed as part of the "D&D Rules Supplement" series. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  4th edition and "core classes" 

message: I think we should only include tables for the classes in the main rulebooks. The rest are already listed in list of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 00:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - this page should be about the core classes. 24.148.0.83 (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class tables 

message: No noticed that the most powerful character class, the Immortals, have not been mentioned in the article?  Is someone going to add the entry in the article, or should I? MPA 12:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that really a character class? 108.69.80.43 (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Immortals 

message: Those 2 classes are exactly as "core" as each other - each is in a single core book as a class, and as something playable in more than 1 edition. If anything, the pedigree of the assassin is greater. So, are both "principal" or neither?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.37.163.198 (talk) 05:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Y'know, you're right. After all, there was a standalone Assassin in Dragon for 4th edition. For now I've removed both and listed them as being the classes that have appeared in the core books of multiple editions, which seems to be a simple enough criteria to ensure these are classes that have had significant long-term impact. I don't think it would take much to convince me to add any class that has been in a PHB (not the PHB2s or so on, though, as those are accessories, not core, despite what WotC marketing said during 4th edition.) oknazevad (talk) 13:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassin, warlord 

message: Per WP:COMMONALITY, we should use "alternative" over "alternate" where appropriate. I made that change, but the edit was promptly reverted with the explanation that "alternate class" is a technical term used in the game. Is there a source to verify that? List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes would seem to disagree. McLerristarr | Mclay1 03:53, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no idea myself, but that may not be the best example; that article originally was at List of alternate Dungeons & Dragons classes until someone moved it on "commonality" grounds.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_alternative_Dungeons_%26_Dragons_classes&diff=399326866&oldid=397407608 )  "Alternate" sounds better to me but I don't really care too much either way.  SnowFire (talk) 04:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

text: Looking more closely, it appears that "someone" was you, so that really doesn't apply much of a precedent!  I mean, they're basically synonyms so I prefer inertia which is keeping it at "alternate", but it seems we only have one editor on record as preferring alternative, not two, then.  Is this form of "alternate" really so unclear in a British English context?  If so, fine, let's change it, but if it's merely non-standard, it's probably better kept as is.  SnowFire (talk) 04:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I thought it might have been me who moved it. But since it hasn't been contested, it would still seem to support my point. The commonality guideline exists for a reason: outside of the US, the adjective alternate only refers to things that are alternating; it's not a synonym of alternative. So there needs to be a good reason if we're not going to follow the guideline. I can't find any sources to suggest that "alternate class" is a technical term. I can also find sources that use "alternative class". If the phrase is ever used in official D&D material, it sounds like it would be plain English rather than jargon, meaning there's no need to use exactly the same wording. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

text: All I know is the books themselves use "Alternate Classes", complete with the capitals, which are typically used to indicate a term that has a particular in-game meaning. Mind you, that was two editions ago, as the 4th edition didn't treat anything as an alternate ("everything is core" was the supposed mentality) and 5th thus far hasn't added any new cmasses beyond the Player's Handbook, just additional subclasses, which are pretty much just a set of options for the existing class, though ones with strong effects. Pathfinder, which is a continuation of the 3.x line, however, does use the caps as well. oknazevad (talk) 13:49, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering the change in terminology in the most recent editions, and the fact that what the article is referring to as "alternate classes" is not just the "Alternate Classes" mentioned in some editions, perhaps using "alternative classes" as a catch-all term for all such class (alternate classes, prestige classes, etc.) would be better. McLerristarr | Mclay1 10:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternative vs Alternate 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930061516/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Falumni%2F20060602a to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2Falumni%2F20060602a
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Character class (Dungeons & Dragons). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080518030309/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080423a to http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080423a
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd%2F4ex%2F20080512a
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:19, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Bards are an optional class in AD&D not a base class and appear only in the Appendix. Vassili73 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, like half the stuff in D&D is technically "optional."  Yes, but so what.  Secondly, 1st edition Bard's restrictions are covered later.  It's still a class in the 1st edition PHB, even if it was one that couldn't be accessed at 1st level.  SnowFire (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Asnwerin that "half the stuff in D&D is technically optional is a nonsens. In fact 100% of the rules are optional if you want to go on this ground. But saying that is obviously bad faith in this discussion.  Bard is not a base class or sub class of AD&D. It's an optional class that appear in Appendix. It is not a core class in the same way as the barbarian or the acrobat thief who are appeared in the Unearthed Arcana. So if Bard is presented as a Base class in this page why not the Cavalier ? the Barbarian ? the acrobat thief ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vassili73 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is "Character class", not "base Character Classes that can be accessed at level 1."  It does cover classes accessed in other styles.  It's just that in other editions, this list is long enough that it's spun-out, and these classes were generally not considered "notable" enough to be put in the PHB itself.  Bard was considered notable enough to be put in the 1st edition PHB.  SnowFire (talk) 11:44, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bard optional in AD&D 

message: Recently I changed a mistake on the classes part- you where missing artificer a new class- and you changed it back so I changed it back again. I have just come back on and artificer is gone !!!! I am trying to help this page be better and include all classes but you won’t let me !!!! I suggest you allow people to help you as you have made mistakes and people who love dnd will feel sad !!!!! 
Please change your mistakes or let me do it for you. 😀😀 Unkownandy (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You are ignoring what other editors are trying to tell you. Look at the line right before where you are trying to add the artificer, which says: "These classes have appeared as character classes in the core books of multiple published editions". Which core books did the artificer appear in?  Even one core book? 73.110.45.124 (talk) 13:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

text: It already is, being mentioned in the 3rd, 4th, and 5th edition sections. oknazevad (talk) 15:49, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stop changing my edits 

message: I'm requesting this across various D&D articles that could use it, this one specific to character classes. Currently the article has a nch of tables detailing what classes are present in each edition of the game. It would be useful to have a master table that shows that progression. All that info is currently in this article, and a unified table would make that information more accessible without being extraneous. Ideas?  Morganfitzp (talk) 15:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Something neater would definitely be an improvement. 2601:249:8B80:4050:FD17:F0EB:287:6EC3 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Master timeline table?

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Favored Soul(Dungeons & Dragons) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 6#Favored Soul(Dungeons & Dragons) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  Steel1943 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Favored Soul(Dungeons & Dragons)" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]