Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7553309" data-attributes="member: 6777737">The only problem with the Index is that the author had no clue how a cross index is supposed to work.&nbsp; Your entry should never be &quot;AC see Armor&quot;, especially when your index also says &quot;Armor p150&quot;.&nbsp; You neither added value nor saved ink here.&nbsp; It should be &quot;AC p150 see also Armor&quot; (but only if Armor has multiple entries or subentries).Yup.&nbsp; I understand kind of why (archetypes can gain access to spells... should we put Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, and Warlock next to Misty Step?), but nothing at all is just wrong.&nbsp; It makes the spell description extremely difficult to browse.&nbsp; Also, the Wizard spell list should include spell school.&nbsp; And if the spell list should either include a brief description of the spell (without specifics if they're worried about 3e-style misuse) or the page number of the spell description.&nbsp; It's a table of contents for the spells, dammit.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 7553309, member: 6777737"] The only problem with the Index is that the author had no clue how a cross index is supposed to work. Your entry should never be "AC [I]see Armor[/I]", [I]especially[/I] when your index also says "Armor p150". You neither added value nor saved ink here. It should be "AC p150 [I]see also Armor[/I]" (but only if Armor has multiple entries or subentries). Yup. I understand kind of why (archetypes can gain access to spells... should we put Fighter, Rogue, Paladin, and Warlock next to Misty Step?), but nothing at all is just wrong. It makes the spell description extremely difficult to browse. Also, the Wizard spell list should include spell school. And if the spell list should either include a brief description of the spell (without specifics if they're worried about 3e-style misuse) or the page number of the spell description. It's a table of contents for the spells, dammit. [/QUOTE]

Verification