Per prior discussion, classes will be tagged only in the 3.5e category, the classes category, and then whatever subcategory they belong to based on class type (base, prestige, paragon, NPC).
We have the following property tags already:
- Property:Summary (text about the class)
- Property:Racial Restrictions (text with special racial restrictions)
- Property:Allowed Alignments (multi-string property with allowed alignments)
- Property:Fort Save Progression (Good, Poor, Other)
- Property:Ref Save Progression (Good, Poor, Other)
- Property:Will Save Progression (Good, Poor, Other)
- Property:Base Attack Bonus Progression (Good, Moderate, Poor, Other)
- Property:Class Ability (Preparation Arcane Spell User, Spontaneous Arcane Spell User, Psionic Power User, etc.)
- Property:Class Ability Progression (Full, Partial, Minor, Separate, Other) This should be set to Other for classes with two or more relevant class abilities, as there isn't a way to specify which progression applies to which.
- Property:Skill Points (number of points per level)
- Property:Skill (multi-string property listing all class skills)
- Property:Length (number of levels)
- Property:Minimum Level (number for entry purposes)
Any subcategories based on these properties, like Arcane Spellcasting and Moderate Spellcasting, will be removed from pages and deleted.
Missing anything people would like to be able to search classes for? - TarkisFlux 06:36, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
- You could do primary ability. It might be a little iffy in some cases (monk), but it could help with ideas for multiclassing. Probably not worth the effort, though. Oh, and alignment or race restrictions could be another thing, perhaps. -- Jota 06:49, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
- Not sure how we could easily implement alignment or race restrictions, but those are good suggestions. Primary ability I think is a tough one as well...
- Here's some other categories that we sort of use right now that might make useful properties: Category:Alternative_Magic and Category:Spontaneous_Spellcasting. Are those useful distinctions for search purposes? - TarkisFlux 16:02, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
- Category:Spontaneous casting is useful for distinction purposes. I personally don't like spell memorization, and which I was still playing 3.5, I would only have played spontaneous spellcasters, so I would need a category or something to help me find spontaneous casters. -- 20:19, September 25, 2009 (UTC)
- Updated the properties, as a bit has been done with them.
- Sam, would that work for your search needs if you were still playing 3.5e? Also, how well would these translate over to 4e class materials, and is there anything we should be adding to them for it (tiers aside, that's probably it's own property or sub-categories).
- Jota, been thinking about your suggestions, and here's what I've got. We could do a property for alignment and race restrictions like the Summary property, and just let people type text into it. That text is searchable, but I'm not sure how useful it will be without a specific format we make people stick with. Alignment restrictions, for example, could include "must be chaotic" and "may not be chaotic" and both of those would show up in searches for "chaotic" and neither would show up in searches for "chaotic good". I'm not sure that's especially helpful. We could ask people to only use specifically allowed alignments and races, and then spell them all out on the pre-load and ask them to delete barred ones (like they do now with non-class skills). That would return search results we care about, but is asking people to not screw it up or for others to keep an eye on things. I haven't been with the wiki long enough to know what the chances are of that working out, so I hope you've got some insight.
- Yay making progress on nav pages! Surgo's going to move on these shortly, and bot edit the pages so they're searchable. If anyone else would like to chime in, please do so soon. - TarkisFlux 06:48, September 27, 2009 (UTC)
- Added allowed alignments and racial restrictions properties. I think these are ready for Surgo, but I'll hold off for a day in case someone sees something I don't. - TarkisFlux 18:03, September 29, 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, I started doing that. Soon all classes will have that property. Surgo 23:11, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I think you can probably bot these already Surgo, comment period seems to be passing without much more interest. Do you want to do the allowed alignments in the same multi-value string format? - TarkisFlux 23:30, September 30, 2009 (UTC)
- These are good to go Surgo. Bot away and update the preload when you can. - TarkisFlux 17:28, October 12, 2009 (UTC)
Point-Based Mechanic[edit source]
I think there enough point-based classes (such as venom point and so on) to have a property on it own. Discuss. --Leziad 05:27, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Eh, dunno about that--just because it's a class ability doesn't mean that they're connected to one-another... :-3 --Ghostwheel 05:34, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- Same goes for spell and they have their own property, IMO there enough point-based class to have it own category (it also a different play-style than standard classes). --Leziad 07:58, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
- The idea behind the class ability property was to make class ability a searchable field so you could find other classes that would stack with it / advance it. So it's mostly a prestige class search thing that helps you find the prestige classes on the wiki that have full divine spellcasting or whatever. Unless we start seeing a lot of prestige classes that advance points in general (which I actually think would be a terrible idea, but whatever) we'd want to do an entry for specific style points, like venom points. And that doesn't really get us anything, because there aren't any classes that do that right now, so the ability to search for them doesn't do us any good.
- If you just wanted to be able for find all of the point-based classes on the wiki, we should probably just put that in the summary (which will be text searchable itself) so it will be obvious at first glance. - TarkisFlux 17:40, October 22, 2009 (UTC)
Author Template[edit source]
Not sure how to go about this or I'd do it myself, but could someone who understands the wiki code make it so that when the text, "This article has been rated, but has not received sufficient favor for any distinction" appears, "rated" links to the "Favor" title on the page's talk page? Perhaps the same thing can be done for all rating categories to make it obvious to new users why the article was rated what it was? --Ghostwheel 09:15, March 20, 2010 (UTC)