Talk:Creature class

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.--Filby 02:40, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Looks really good - great job :) --GeoMike 02:54, 21 April 2008 (BST)

Huh. I was just like, WTF has happened... but maybe it's better that way... I have mixed feelings about it. It was mostly a storyline article about types of wizards. Now it's more like classes in general. --^MOR_T ^(T) 21:14, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Me too, but it seems to be well organized. I'd suggest that we maintain this site as it is, but let classes have their own page if there is much to talk about them. Basically the same as with the Draconic races. Oracle of Truth 22:13, 22 April 2008 (BST)

Everyone had opportunity to comment on Filby's entry here on 4/3/08 - but noone did. I really like what Filby did. --GeoMike 00:34, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Like if we had limited time to discuss it here... Anyway, I missed it before somehow. I'm still a bit shocked by the change. Maybe both articles would be good separately (we could put here a link like "see also spellcasters") --^MOR_T ^(T) 18:39, 23 April 2008 (BST)

Well, you can do as you choose, though I will say I incorporated pretty much everything that had been in the spellcasters page into the new classes page. I don't see why we would need separate pages for storyline and game-rule information on wizards, et al.--Filby 20:45, 23 April 2008 (BST)