SRD now includes dnd wiki

[Fizban]

Sorry if I missed a thread on it already, but did anyone else notice that d20srd.org now has a link to dnd-wiki.org?

Considering how using/telling people to stop using/never use dnd wiki of any sort/go use srd.org is still a thing that happens all the time, I find it amusing that the "clean" srd now has a link to. . . dnd wiki.

[ATHATH]

Does the link come with a warning?

[Thurbane]

I prefer https://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/resources/systems/pennpaper/dnd35/soveliorsage/home.html

Especially since Hypertext d20 SRD started having ads.

Sadly, though, Sovelior & Sage site has been down for a couple of weeks now. :smallfrown:

I like D&D Wiki in theory, but they really need to mark their homebrew stuff more clearly.

[Venger]

Sorry if I missed a thread on it already, but did anyone else notice that d20srd.org now has a link to dnd-wiki.org?

Considering how using/telling people to stop using/never use dnd wiki of any sort/go use srd.org is still a thing that happens all the time, I find it amusing that the "clean" srd now has a link to. . . dnd wiki.

it has a link to dnd-wiki.

the site we warn people about (and someone even wrote like a ballad about) the terribleness of is dandwiki.

different site.

[Inevitability]

it has a link to dnd-wiki.

the site we warn people about (and someone even wrote like a ballad about) the terribleness of is dandwiki.

different site.

Could I have a link to the ballad, please?

[Venger]

Could I have a link to the ballad, please?

if I'd had it handy I definitely would've posted it. I'll see if I can find it using the search.

EDIT: Here it is


Oh!
The Dandi Wiki,
It Will make you feel icky,
And your hands kind if sticky,
Ooh, They think they're so tricky,
Every Tom, ****, and Ricky,
On the Dandi Wiki!

On the Dandi Wiki the pages are soiled,
Many good ideas have been spoiled,
With ludicrous crunch they are embroiled,
All common sense has been foiled,
But don't tell them or they'll get roiled,
On the Dandi Wiki!

Oh the Dandi Wiki ain't got no sense,
And not a shred of re-pen-tance,
There really is just no defence,
For all the crud that they dispense,
I hope this song don't cause offence,
On the Dandi Wiki!

[Pleh]

I've actually had a lot more confidence in D&Dwiki recently.

I don't know if they've changed their format, but when I do quick Google[RAW] searches, I can usually rely on D&Dwiki to provide an "SRD" tag to the start of the heading when they are referencing straight SRD material.

If I feel suspicious, I double check it on a couple more sources. They've been pretty reliable on their pages that are SRD labeled.

[Zanos]

D&D wiki has some pretty bad homebrew, but SRD articles are actually marked with SRD:(Page title) and Open Game Content at the bottom, as well as being stored under Main Page -> 3.5e Open Game Content -> System Reference Document.

I mean I still prefer other websites because there's 0 chance of wandering into the worst homebrew I've ever seen, but D&Dwiki isn't that bad about labeling their articles.

[Inevitability]

if I'd had it handy I definitely would've posted it. I'll see if I can find it using the search.

EDIT: Here it is

Than you, good sir.

[Venger]

Than you, good sir.

my pleasure. it's always fun to reread the old dandwiki threads.

[martixy]

Is that a new dnd wiki site?

I remember dandwiki and the one that had dnd in the url, but it looked different than the one linked.
Also, while I get the deluge of homebrew content, I really don't understand the freak-out. They have never intentionally mislabelled official content(that I've seen) so one need only say "only SRD" and it solves every problem.
Games with DMs who can't get that straight have other problems, so they shouldn't even factor in the discussion.

[Thurbane]

Is that a new dnd wiki site?

Yeah, looks like they've recently changed the layout/format.

I'm not really sure I understand the distinction between the "3.5e Homebrew" and "3.5e Open Game Content" sections? Is it literally just that the latter got published somewhere, including online distribution only?

At least it looks like the homebrew stuff is more clearly labelled as such now, which is a plus.

[Gusmo]

The label is clear, but ultimately I still don't really see the purpose of the site. We've had good 3.5 SRD sites for over 10 years. Who's using these wiki sites, and for what purpose?

[martixy]

Yeah, looks like they've recently changed the layout/format.

I'm not really sure I understand the distinction between the "3.5e Homebrew" and "3.5e Open Game Content" sections? Is it literally just that the latter got published somewhere, including online distribution only?

At least it looks like the homebrew stuff is more clearly labelled as such now, which is a plus.

Open Game Content is the licensing arrangement under which that material was published by the game company.

Homebrew is... well, random internet people's fancies.

@Gusmo, TBH, running a wiki isn't that hard. It might as well be a dude's project so he can put stuff for his own campaign up, that he made public for other people to use as well.

[Telok]

At least it looks like the homebrew stuff is more clearly labelled as such now, which is a plus.

I recently had reason to google the elan race, the wiki showed up and I remembered this thread. They have not significantly improved in accuracy. Their 'SRD' entry lists elan as racially proficient in warhammers, longbows, and light armor.

Such basic mistakes on things that should be a simple copy/paste job. I will continue warning people away from that site.

[Morcleon]

I recently had reason to google the elan race, the wiki showed up and I remembered this thread. They have not significantly improved in accuracy. Their 'SRD' entry lists elan as racially proficient in warhammers, longbows, and light armor.

Such basic mistakes on things that should be a simple copy/paste job. I will continue warning people away from that site.

Actually, those racial proficiencies are correct. Aberrations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#aberrationType) are, "if generally humanoid in form, proficient with all simple weapons and any weapon it is described as using". They are also "proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types".

Elans (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/elan.htm) are aberrations that are humanoid in shape, and are listed as using warhammers, longbows, studded leather, and shields. Therefore, they are proficient in these.

[Telok]

Actually, those racial proficiencies are correct. Aberrations (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/typesSubtypes.htm#aberrationType) are, "if generally humanoid in form, proficient with all simple weapons and any weapon it is described as using". They are also "proficient with whatever type of armor (light, medium, or heavy) it is described as wearing, as well as all lighter types".

Elans (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/monsters/elan.htm) are aberrations that are humanoid in shape, and are listed as using warhammers, longbows, studded leather, and shields. Therefore, they are proficient in these.

The elan NPC warrior used as a monster has armor and weapon proficiencies from class levels not from abberation hit die (of which it has none).

[Inevitability]

The elan NPC warrior used as a monster has armor and weapon proficiencies from class levels not from abberation hit die (of which it has none).

Aberration traits are derived from type, not RHD, though.

[RedWarlock]

Aberration traits are derived from type, not RHD, though.

Right, but when you have a type description that says "proficient with what they're described with", a racial entry that mentions no specific proficiencies, contrasted with a monster description that explicitly mentions NPC class levels (thus introducing ambiguity), I'd say the specific racial description outweighs the ambiguous monster entry.