User talk:GAMERGIRL151 - Revision history

GAMERGIRL151: Archiving year+ old messages

2020-07-11T21:32:49Z

Archiving year+ old messages

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:32, 11 July 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
			This is talk page.
	Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)
	:Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)

	== Why Change? ==

	Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	:::I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

	== Inventory (concept) ==

	Rather than carry this out over our talk pages, I added my comments and recommendations to [[Talk:Inventory %28concept%29]]. - [[User:RY4NPW\|padhg]] ([[User talk:RY4NPW\|talk]]) 20:19, 13 May 2016 (CDT)

RY4NPW: /* Inventory (concept) */ new section

2016-05-14T01:19:02Z

Inventory (concept): new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:19, 13 May 2016
Line 8:		Line 8:
	::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	:::I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		:::I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

			== Inventory (concept) ==

			Rather than carry this out over our talk pages, I added my comments and recommendations to [[Talk:Inventory %28concept%29]]. - [[User:RY4NPW\|padhg]] ([[User talk:RY4NPW\|talk]]) 20:19, 13 May 2016 (CDT)

GAMERGIRL151: /* Why Change? */

2015-05-26T21:09:52Z

Why Change?

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 26 May 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
			:::I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

CALLEK: /* Why Change? */

2015-05-26T14:37:33Z

Why Change?

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:37, 26 May 2015
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
			::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

GAMERGIRL151: /* Why Change? */

2015-05-26T07:21:37Z

Why Change?

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:21, 26 May 2015
Line 5:		Line 5:

	Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
			:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

CALLEK: /* Why Change? */ new section

2015-05-26T07:02:07Z

Why Change?: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:02, 26 May 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)		Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)
	:Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)		:Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)

			== Why Change? ==

			Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

GAMERGIRL151 at 03:13, 25 April 2015

2015-04-25T03:13:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 24 April 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)		Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)
	::Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)		:Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)

GAMERGIRL151 at 03:13, 25 April 2015

2015-04-25T03:13:37Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 24 April 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
	:Ah okay, that should simplify things. I thought I broke everything. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (CDT)

	Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)		Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)
			::Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)

JBEETLE at 00:40, 25 April 2015

2015-04-25T00:40:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 24 April 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)		I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
	:Ah okay, that should simplify things. I thought I broke everything. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (CDT)		:Ah okay, that should simplify things. I thought I broke everything. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (CDT)

			Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)

GAMERGIRL151 at 02:17, 23 June 2014

2014-06-23T02:17:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:17, 22 June 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)		I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
			:Ah okay, that should simplify things. I thought I broke everything. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 26 May 2015
Line 7:		Line 7:
	:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
			:::I was asked to remove it. Again, you may add your own testing to the page, the problem was the quote. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 16:09, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:37, 26 May 2015
Line 6:		Line 6:
	Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		Why this reversion? [https://elanthipedia.play.net/mediawiki/index.php?title=Talk:S%27lai_Scout&diff=prev&oldid=410119] --[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 02:02, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
	:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)		:You were explicitly asked not to post what he said, but that you could post your own testing. Removing his name is not sufficient. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 02:21, 26 May 2015 (CDT)
			::My interpretation/memory is different than yours it seems. Or it may just be my understanding of law where I am from as a basis for how I act, I'm unsure. Admittedly I was tired and don't store logs, but I nearly did revert your blanking when I saw it. Saying "someone, I can't say who but heres where they are affiliated with" is a perfectly legit reason of saying something in a Talk page, until harder proof is gained to put it on a non-talk page. Its even enough to use in news stories "An unnamed source from 'company'..." is very common. Anyway, I'm seeking alternate confirmation now.--[[User:CALLEK\|CALLEK]] ([[User talk:CALLEK\|talk]]) 09:37, 26 May 2015 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:13, 24 April 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
	:Ah okay, that should simplify things. I thought I broke everything. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (CDT)

	Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)		Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)
			::Empaths can perceive creatures to see if they are undead or living. Everyone can perceive if they are cursed or not (appraising them). I am using both on creatures. If you don't have access to an Empath, you will only have one set of data. As far as I know, this is currently the only way to make the determination. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 22:13, 24 April 2015 (CDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:40, 24 April 2015
Line 1:		Line 1:
	I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)		I'm making massive revisions to the way we display spells. Go ahead and edit the individual spell pages and ignore the category pages. -[[User:CARAAMON\|CARAAMON]] ([[User talk:CARAAMON\|talk]]) 21:15, 22 June 2014 (CDT)
	:Ah okay, that should simplify things. I thought I broke everything. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (CDT)		:Ah okay, that should simplify things. I thought I broke everything. --[[User:GAMERGIRL151\|GAMERGIRL151]] ([[User talk:GAMERGIRL151\|talk]]) 21:17, 22 June 2014 (CDT)

			Hiya! I see you're identifying some critters as Undead vs. more generically evil. I am curious the criteria your are using ... because I am trying to do some of that too and I'm find it difficult to do with confidence. I figure that an Undead should: a) occasionally provide a small wash of devotion to clerics and b) not shock an Empath using Absolution. I do not play an empath to test them with. I have been using my cleric and I concluded that Faenrae Reavers, for example, were Cursed rather than Undead. I suppose my method could be flawed if there were any Undead that never provided a devotion boost to clerics. How would I know? I appreciate your thoughts as I wouldn't want to accidentally shock any empaths. Best Regards --[[User:JBEETLE\|Jbeetle]] ([[User talk:JBEETLE\|talk]]) 19:36, 24 April 2015 (CDT)