New Wiki Working Group

[stonegod]

Oh, and on the note of possible CS/Wiki changes, I'll put in another 2 cents: Someone will likely mention MythWeaver's sheets as a possible storage mechanism. Don't care for them for two reasons:
- Its off-site (yes, its the same reason as above)
- I don't like the format. Don't care for the WotC sheet either. I prefer the MM 'style' blocks of the L4W and (especially) the LEB format (I should, I designed it ). When gaming, I want something succinct that I can compare to. Most sheets don't facilitate that; they're spreadsheets.

Anyway, still waiting for more input (especially from judges).

Edit: Woot! 9000+ posts!

 

[TwoHeadsBarking]

I wouldn't mind entirely junking the math section and just asking for a CB file if the person can make one. It just means that the skill section of the summary will probably need to list out all the skills, not just the ones the character is trained in. And a number of people already do that.

I use the CB when checking characters, especially when the character is higher than level 1.

 

[weldon]

I wonder if there's another way to implement the math section. I was thinking that maybe a Google Doc spreadsheet template might work for some parts. That way a player could fill out the template, create a new spreadsheet, and then provide a link on their character's page in the wiki.

The benefit would be that we have a "math" section that is open to everyone, doesn't require any paid software, and works with the existing wiki. The downside is that it is outside of enworld.

I'll play around with this tonight and report back on what I find.

 

[EvolutionKB]

I still don't have access to the CB. Still working on getting the .net 3.5 framework. I'm thinking about taking it to a guy and pay them for it, so I get my money's worth for my DDI subsciption. It's seriously making me mad.

 

[stonegod]

I still don't have access to the CB. Still working on getting the .net 3.5 framework. I'm thinking about taking it to a guy and pay them for it, so I get my money's worth for my DDI subsciption. It's seriously making me mad.

Bummer, Evo. No issue on my end, and I have a Mac.

I think either a Google docs link or a CB summary would be good (in addition to the normal sheet). Allows some flexibility in choice (especially if someone develops a good Google Doc template).

 

[Rapida]

It isn't anywhere near the completion phase but I've been tinkering with the .XML files the CB uses. I had it working with an older version of them as far as stripping it out into what we use in the wiki sheets. However, between the time I made my test sheet and now they changed the XML format so I've started over more or less. Anyway I only mention it as another vote for the CB. Once I get it working we should be able to just plug in a CB file and get a wiki formatted .txt file which we could just paste into the sheet. (Theoretically, and I make no promises , just doing this when not at work/college) If/when I get it working I could probably make that yank all the crunchy bits out of character sheets.

So I sort of like the idea of sticking to using the CB with the some kind of wiki format (doesn't really matter if that syntax changes).

 

[stonegod]

It isn't anywhere near the completion phase but I've been tinkering with the .XML files the CB uses. I had it working with an older version of them as far as stripping it out into what we use in the wiki sheets. However, between the time I made my test sheet and now they changed the XML format so I've started over more or less. Anyway I only mention it as another vote for the CB. Once I get it working we should be able to just plug in a CB file and get a wiki formatted .txt file which we could just paste into the sheet. (Theoretically, and I make no promises , just doing this when not at work/college) If/when I get it working I could probably make that yank all the crunchy bits out of character sheets.

So I sort of like the idea of sticking to using the CB with the some kind of wiki format (doesn't really matter if that syntax changes).

Yeah, I pondered an XML parser->wiki formatter, but:
- Time is an issue (not enough for that)
- Still only works with folks that use the CB (which is a bunch, but not all)

L4W folks (not LEB folks): Any preference on the format of the Statblock section (the top?) between the L4W and LEB styles? As I mentioned a while a go, I think the LEB style is going to be more scalable in the long run as WotC keeps on adding riders to powers (such as tertiary attacks or summoned attacks) that the L4W hasn't added yet. I also like the style.

 

[elecgraystone]

I'd be against any manditory CB use as I can't use CB.

 

[stonegod]

I'd be against any manditory CB use as I can't use CB.

I never implied it would have to be mandatory ("request" was the term I used) for just that reason: Some can't or won't. It is useful for those that can.

 

[covaithe]

I don't use the CB for character checking; I find I can do it faster by hand in the vast majority of cases.

I don't have a strong preference between L4W and LEB formats. If the LEB format makes it easier to scale and (especially) easier to transition to the new wiki, then I'm all for it.

I think we need a math section of some kind. Having the templates crunch the numbers for us is nice, but not essential. I just want to see a place, somewhere, where it says that your 19 AC comes from 10 + 1 (level) + 2 (heavy shield) + 6 (chainmail). If people type that in by hand, that's okay with me, though a standard format would be vastly helpful.

If other reviewers prefer, I'd be willing to take a CB summary in lieu of a math section, though it would slow me down.