Talk:Creature class: Difference between revisions
>LegacymtgsalvationUser23362 m (Talk:Spellcasters moved to Talk:Classes: New page for the "class" concept in general.) |
>LegacymtgsalvationUser23362 No edit summary |
||
| Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Class Article== | ==Class Article== | ||
I've put together a tentative article on "class" types in general in Word Pad that talks about classes from both a flavor/in-game perspective, similar to my [[Beasts]] article; I think it's appropriate post-[[8th Edition]], and especially post-[[Morningtide]]. Anyway, since I don't want to just plunge blindly forward, I was wondering how any of y'all would feel about me folding the spellcasting classes from this page into that one. I'd leave things like task mages and necromancers that have flavor significance but not in-game meaning on this page.--[[User:Filby|Filby]] 23:40, 3 April 2008 (BST) | I've put together a tentative article on "class" types in general in Word Pad that talks about classes from both a flavor/in-game perspective, similar to my [[Beasts]] article; I think it's appropriate post-[[8th Edition]], and especially post-[[Morningtide]]. Anyway, since I don't want to just plunge blindly forward, I was wondering how any of y'all would feel about me folding the spellcasting classes from this page into that one. I'd leave things like task mages and necromancers that have flavor significance but not in-game meaning on this page.--[[User:Filby|Filby]] 23:40, 3 April 2008 (BST) | ||
: Well, I've gone and done it. I've saved a copy of the previous "spellcasters" page in case any one has any objections. | |||
Revision as of 01:39, 21 April 2008
This is not an affiliation. If it were a specific group of wizards, that'd be different. I'd suggest a 'character class' page but that sounds too much like D&D. Either way, I don't think this belongs in affiliations. Randel 23:43, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
I agree. "Characters," maybe? It isn't about a specific character, but it is about a class of characters. VestDan 23:48, 25 May 2006 (CDT)
What about "profession"? Oracle of Truth 08:52, 26 May 2006 (CDT)
I've altered the page to make it more inclusive because I thought that if we have a page on wizards, we'd have to have one for every other type of spellcaster too and individual pages seemed weird. Randel 06:48, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
Shouldn't be here also planeswalkers now? MORT 11:26, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
Added Planeswalker and defined Task mage, but remove definition from Spellshaper, as the spellshaper mechanic and the rhystic mechanic were never in any way affiliated. VestDan 11:59, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
I suggest putting Lawmages and Chronarchs as subsections of Wizards, since they're realy just wizards focussing on a specific kind of spells. The Squirle master 12:05, 27 May 2006 (CDT)
Task Mage is NOT the same as Spellshaper! Jaya Ballard happens to have both types on her card, but Coiling Oracle is an Elf Snake Mutant, and nobody thinks THOSE are the same. A Spellshaper is someone who masters one spell, possibly more, but very narrow in focus; a Task Mage is a pyromancer for hire.VestDan 01:33, 9 September 2006 (CDT)
viromancers?
Are viromancers wizards? Notable ones: Zlovol, Nebun. MORT 17:07, 15 February 2007 (CST)
Class Article
I've put together a tentative article on "class" types in general in Word Pad that talks about classes from both a flavor/in-game perspective, similar to my Beasts article; I think it's appropriate post-8th Edition, and especially post-Morningtide. Anyway, since I don't want to just plunge blindly forward, I was wondering how any of y'all would feel about me folding the spellcasting classes from this page into that one. I'd leave things like task mages and necromancers that have flavor significance but not in-game meaning on this page.--Filby 23:40, 3 April 2008 (BST)
- Well, I've gone and done it. I've saved a copy of the previous "spellcasters" page in case any one has any objections.