Talk:Bestiary - Revision history

Scglass at 11:41, 27 September 2005

2005-09-27T11:41:09Z

2005-09-27T11:39:50Z

2005-09-27T11:12:23Z

Individual Monster Pages

2005-09-11T13:38:45Z

2005-09-11T12:18:24Z

2005-09-11T12:18:00Z

2005-09-11T12:17:24Z

2005-09-11T09:42:10Z

2005-09-11T09:41:56Z

2005-09-11T09:41:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:41, 27 September 2005
Line 43:		Line 43:
	I agree		I agree
	--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 21:39, 27 September 2005 (EST)		--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 21:39, 27 September 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	Agreed, if there's no objections, I'll strip the monster links.
		+
		+	However it might be good to have a few redirects for Zorn and Mimic (and any other monsters) to the Bestiary page, as they are referred to a few times here and there and it would be a bit of work to strip them all out.
		+
		+	--[[User:Scglass\|Scglass]] 21:41, 27 September 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:39, 27 September 2005
Line 40:		Line 40:

	--[[User:Kybare\|Kybare]] 21:12, 27 September 2005 (EST)		--[[User:Kybare\|Kybare]] 21:12, 27 September 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	I agree
		+	--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 21:39, 27 September 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:12, 27 September 2005
Line 30:		Line 30:

	--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 23:38, 11 September 2005 (EST)		--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 23:38, 11 September 2005 (EST)
		+
		+
		+	==Individual Monster Pages==
		+	I'm not certain it's worth having a page for each monster. Currently, there are links that are all dead. I think the player can see the name of the monster and it's avatar and go from there. Is there really a need to have a page for ettins just to write something like:
		+	*Ettins are two headed monsters that throw bolders.
		+	?
		+
		+	I personally think that this page is enough as is - just as each NPC on the townes pages doesn't have a page of their own. Let the player figure out how each monster acts on their own.
		+
		+	--[[User:Kybare\|Kybare]] 21:12, 27 September 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:38, 11 September 2005
Line 26:		Line 26:

	--[[User:Scglass\|Scglass]] 22:17, 11 September 2005 (EST)		--[[User:Scglass\|Scglass]] 22:17, 11 September 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	... or maybe just leave this discussion page as the 'disclaimer' and leave the perfectly good bestiary page as it is.
		+
		+	--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 23:38, 11 September 2005 (EST)

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 A note could be added to the bestiary which either covers the inaccuracies narratively, i.e.
- Certain melee attacks are noted to work more effectively against certain classes of monsters, such as blunt weapons vs undead.  Don't be surprised if there are exceptions to these rules and your attack is less than effective.
+*Certain melee attacks are noted to work more effectively against certain classes of monsters, such as blunt weapons vs undead.  Don't be surprised if there are exceptions to these rules and your attack is less than effective.
 Or a note could be added to the damage vs class types to state that there are some unexpected exceptions, or that it is a general rule. i.e.
- These bonuses apply in most cases,  however there might be some exceptions to which monster belongs to which class.
+*These bonuses apply in most cases,  however there might be some exceptions to which monster belongs to which class.
 --[[User:Scglass|Scglass]] 22:17, 11 September 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 11 September 2005
Line 14:		Line 14:

	As far as what family each monster should be in, this Bestiary page is correct: basilisks & firelizards should be wyrms. I'm not keen to change the monster table tho, because that will break some family spanwers. We could probably get away with it, but is it worth the trouble?		As far as what family each monster should be in, this Bestiary page is correct: basilisks & firelizards should be wyrms. I'm not keen to change the monster table tho, because that will break some family spanwers. We could probably get away with it, but is it worth the trouble?
		+
		+	===Comment on inaccuracies===

	A note could be added to the bestiary which either covers the inaccuracies narratively, i.e.		A note could be added to the bestiary which either covers the inaccuracies narratively, i.e.

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:17, 11 September 2005
Line 14:		Line 14:

	As far as what family each monster should be in, this Bestiary page is correct: basilisks & firelizards should be wyrms. I'm not keen to change the monster table tho, because that will break some family spanwers. We could probably get away with it, but is it worth the trouble?		As far as what family each monster should be in, this Bestiary page is correct: basilisks & firelizards should be wyrms. I'm not keen to change the monster table tho, because that will break some family spanwers. We could probably get away with it, but is it worth the trouble?
		+
		+	A note could be added to the bestiary which either covers the inaccuracies narratively, i.e.
		+
		+	Certain melee attacks are noted to work more effectively against certain classes of monsters, such as blunt weapons vs undead. Don't be surprised if there are exceptions to these rules and your attack is less than effective.
		+
		+	Or a note could be added to the damage vs class types to state that there are some unexpected exceptions, or that it is a general rule. i.e.
		+
		+	These bonuses apply in most cases, however there might be some exceptions to which monster belongs to which class.
		+
		+	--[[User:Scglass\|Scglass]] 22:17, 11 September 2005 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:42, 11 September 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	==~~Class~~ Discrepancies==	+	==Family Discrepancies==

	As a matter of interest there are a few errors in this page I DON'T want fixed to do with the classification of certain monsters ...		As a matter of interest there are a few errors in this page I DON'T want fixed to do with the classification of certain monsters ...

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-awesome
+==Class Discrepancies==
---[[User:Eggmceye|Eggmceye]] 13:30, 6 September 2005 (EST)
 As a matter of interest there are a few errors in this page I DON'T want fixed to do with the classification of certain monsters ...

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:41, 11 September 2005
Line 1:		Line 1:
	awesome		awesome
	--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 13:30, 6 September 2005 (EST)		--[[User:Eggmceye\|Eggmceye]] 13:30, 6 September 2005 (EST)
		+
		+	As a matter of interest there are a few errors in this page I DON'T want fixed to do with the classification of certain monsters ...
		+
		+	* basilisk, fire lizard : both actually hellspawn
		+	* headless is a humanoid
		+	* hydra is unclassed (actually classed as 'other', same class as shadowlord)
		+
		+	This maped page ([[Spawners]]) has the actual class info in it. There is only one aspect of gameplay that is affected by this misinformation, and that's the weapon damage types vs classes.
		+
		+	*Slashing does extra vs hellspwan
		+	*Piercing does extra vs dragons
		+	*Bludgeoning does extra vs undead (both major and minor)
		+
		+	As far as what family each monster should be in, this Bestiary page is correct: basilisks & firelizards should be wyrms. I'm not keen to change the monster table tho, because that will break some family spanwers. We could probably get away with it, but is it worth the trouble?