Template talk:EnhancementsTOC

Radiant Servant
I was the one that originally changed the ToC to use "Healing Domain". I did this because that's what was in the game when I was updating the Radiant Servant enhancements page. If the name at the bottom of the tree had been "Radiant Servant", I would not have made the change. I do see that it is back to "Radiant Servant" in the game. I'm scratching my head as to when that happened though. Finally, it is Servant, not Savant. Thearcher 16:58, August 23, 2013 (EST)

Racial Enhancements
I'd like to see the racial enhancements squeezed down into 3 lines total, with the category headers moved from their own lines to the left most column in each row. See a proof of concept in my Dashboard to see if you like it and the code I used. EllisDee37 15:36, April 24, 2017
 * I agree wholeheartedly. -- Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:44, April 24, 2017 (EDT)
 * ✅ and history merged in. ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email ) 23:04, April 24, 2017 (EDT)

Can we just merge Free/Premium classes into a category?
I often find myself that It's confusing me to notice where a class is. and to be fair, Artificer should be in Premium class as Favored Soul is there. -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:49, February 11, 2020 (EST) (This signature has been changed to notice people who the non-login user was.)
 * This has been a topic as of late as to what is and what isn't f2p/premium. I've locked all of the templates and created sandboxes so everyone can set up their own version of what it should look like and then we can have a discussion here and pick the best for the wiki.  I'll create my own sandbox as well (and link to it through one of the testcases pages).  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 08:45, February 9, 2020 (EST)


 * Good call. There are 2 things going on, and both are important to consider. One is the simple question "What is 'free'?" Traditionally on this Wiki, if you can earn the Class (or Race/Tree/etc.) via Favor, then it's "Free" (e.g. Drow). Agreed, if you have to grind points to buy 4 specific quest packs and then run those to earn Falconry, and can't do that until Epic levels... that starts to feel less "Free" - but whatever. However, the other consideration, and at least as important, is presentation - and a [2x5] layout is MUCH cleaner than a [1x4 + 1x6], which gets cluttered and is visually confusing. So - do we risk confusion on the definition, or guarantee confusion on the layout? Myself, I vote the former - a clean presentation is preferable imo.
 * However, with the upcoming introduction of Alchemist, we have to accept that every other class added will create an odd numbered layout. So, perhaps the best solution is to go with something similar to {T:Class}, and just keep them alphabetical and color code them, which solves the problem going forward as well. Perhaps in 3 colors, for (truly) Free, Favor-based, and Purchased-only. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:29, February 9, 2020 (EST)
 * Followup: Okay, this (User:C-Hound/SandBox) is my first effort, based on my suggestion above - and, frankly, I do not love it. It desperately needs a dark horizontal line above the "Class" row to break the info up visually, and even then it's still ugly and then some. And that raises the question... do we even need to break these down into Free/Favor/Pay? Does it achieve anything? Isn't a simple "alphabetical" a reasonable approach here? If a reader is interested in class enhancements, that's all they need to know - info about the Class itself is a separate topic from "Enhancements", neh? All this needs (besides a single light/dark color scheme) is strong borders between the (double) rows of Class/Enhancement, and I think it'd be fine. Keep the racial enhancement organized as-is (I think that helps), and ignore the rest for classes. Anyway, that was all "1 edit" - I'll give this suggestion a swing after I grab a bite. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 01:33, February 10, 2020 (EST)

I agree with alphabetical order, color coding for free/unlockable/purchased, and popups for details. Therefore, I like C-Hound's draft. But I am also a fan of flexible design. Imho it's nice when the content adapts to the size of the screen. What if we used something like this quick mockup? Colors are just randomly selected, but what do you think about the general idea?-- &rArr; Cru121 (Contribs • Message • Email ) 03:54, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * What I care is 1) Ease of use 2) Accuracy 3) Consistency. C-Hound mentions above "What is free"? The simplest answer to that is: "Whatever is not premium". This means that if someone can spend DDO Points to get an adventure pack, a class, a race, a hot chocolate, an airship amenity then those things are premium and should be noted as such. The only exception to that simple rule are items that are also readily available for purchase with platinum such as wands and potions. Of course, classifying something as premium does not mean "Free players can't get it". Free players can get everything from the DDO Store given enough grind. Right now the wiki is filled with inconsistencies on that point. About ease of use: My proposal was this: https://ddowiki.com/index.php?title=Template:EnhancementsTOC/class&oldid=433684 9 free classes, 6 premium classes divided by 3 columns. When a new premium class comes in, it'll be 7 classes which means can't divide them equally. We'll have to do a 4 and 3 split; get over it. Cru's idea would solve this but I do not like it because it doesn't feel like a TOC (TABLE of contents), it makes it even harder to find the class you're looking for (because your eyes can't take a quick glance over fixed intervals) and if we organized them based on free/premium they would look even worse. I see what people are saying about readability from small screens like phones, but this wiki is not equiped to handle small screens. Furthermore, the presentation of organized numbers and information is inherent in a game such as DDO so we can't pretend that you can easily use the wiki from your phone. Seeing tables with info is what a large portion of players come to ddowiki for and those tables contain too much to fit in a small screen. Personally, when I use the wiki from my phone, I see the same size screen I see from my desktop. I zoom in and drag the page around (up/down/left/right) to read. That's the best course of action from my point of view: Make the wiki have a minimum resolution enough to view complex tables and adjust everything to work with that. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 08:04, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * The simplest answer to "what is free?" is whatever doesn't cost money. If you can earn it through favor, then it's free.  If you have to spend money/DDO Points to get the thing, then it's not free.  I think the best option is to add a row for Favor Earned and Artificer, Favored Soul, and any further earnable classes can go there. As far as Cru's mock-up goes, it's not symmetrical and hard to find at a quick glance what I'm looking for.  I'll create a mock-up of my own in the next week or two (February vacation for one of my kids this week and the other next week will make my free time short).  C-hound's mockup doesn't look too bad, a few color adjustments possibly.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 09:38, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * DDO Points can be earned by favor and everything in the DDO Store can be earned with DDO Points. Therefore, your definition would mean that everything is free and the only premium things are exclusive stuff from DDO Market bundles. However, that is not a helpful distinction. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 17:37, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * What about the case where you can technically unlock it with favor but there isn't enough free favor in the game to unlock it? As far as I know, there isn't enough Cannith favor to unlock Artificer without first spending DDO Points or buying VIP to unlock the packs. I'm of the opinion that Artificer should be listed under Premium for this reason. But maybe we shouldn't be separating based of free and premium but instead simply by unlock method: Starter classes (green), VIP unlocked (yellow), and favor or store unlocked only (orange). &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:34, February 10, 2020 (EST)
 * Technically, You can try 21 challanges to get 6 favor each(total 126) with free Cannith challange token everyday and a free quest of 27 favor(Brothers of the forge) then you can hit 153 favor, Even though It doesn't look super realistic in my thought... -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:49, February 11, 2020 (EST)
 * Should we really need to separate Free and Non-free? I know there will be a few people who might want to know which class is totally free in Enhancement page, but the current method of categorising even loses the primary consistency of Alphabetical order. To find Artificer, You should identify if It is Free or Premium at first, then You should follow alphabetical order in Premium category. Personally, My flow goes only Alphabetical order, that's it, rather than goes Free/Non-free - Alphabetical order in 2 steps. How about Monk? It's definitely Premium, but You should think It's Premium first then alphabetical order later. Therefore, C-Hound's draft seems simply fine to notice where a class is. (and I personally like Eldritch Knight is set below Sorcerer's Elemental Savants in his draft. It was a bit annoying. lol)-- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 20:49, February 11, 2020 (EST)
 * @ All: Upon reflection, it appears clear that whether a Class is "free" or "(not) technically free" or "Premium" or whatever has nothing to do with "Enhancements" - they are unrelated terms that were conveniently borrowed to provide a purely coincidental way of organizing this TOC that made some sense once upon a time. Let's just lose that distraction, because, for this topic, and as others have pointed out, it achieves nothing here in the current game format. "Alphabetical" works fine - always has, always will going forward. @ Shoe' - "symmetrical" is a target goal, but not a dealbreaker. The 5 trees under Sorcerer will fight symmetry no matter what, and every other class added in the future will break a current solution. It is what it is - if we can, great, but it's only one of many considerations. @ all - No necessity to have any color(s) (except for aesthetics), just need each {Class + Enhancements} to be clearly boxed together for ease of scanning (which my earlier did not achieve). For that, I do like Cru's Mock-up - this is my new spin off that format. (& see notes there.) &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 17:31, February 12, 2020 (EST)
 * @ all: Draft # 4 is up, and I believe it's a keeper, or close (enough) to. Strictly alphabetical, and dispensing with labels, which imo are adequately implied. This discussion has slowed significantly, so I'll give it a week, and if no objections/suggestions/alternatives, I'll implement it. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:08, February 19, 2020 (EST)
 * oooh that actually looks great! &rArr; Kkoliver (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:59, February 19, 2020 (EST)
 * For overall, I like it except for the colour. Especially, Green makes my eyes easily tired - It's too closer to the primary colour. Though the table itself is fine. -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 07:29, February 20, 2020 (EST)
 * The darker green was to create contrast for the diff cells, for visual separation, but I toggled a darker border color (grey) and went w/ a lighter green. I could now lighten all the colors for better contrast w/ the default blue(ish) text. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 04:29, February 22, 2020 (EST)


 * I personally like User:C-Hound/SandBox the best of the four, let's throw some darker borders in and go with that. User:C-Hound/SandBox lacks distinction between free/favor/purchase only that's needed to prevent "wall of text" appearance.  User:C-Hound/SandBox lacks distinction between free/favor/purchase only that's needed to prevent "wall of text" appearance and is asymmetrical, which is a deal breaker.  User:C-Hound/SandBox is very "1990s" blocky and basic, lacks distinction between free/favor/purchase only that's needed to prevent "wall of text" appearance.  &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:58, February 26, 2020 (EST)
 * As is, those colors are ugly imo - but that's easily solvable. And the issue of Free/Earnable/Premium is likewise solvable. The real problem is that, while I agree with "...let's throw some darker borders in and go with that", with that table format, the borders surround each cell, each Class and each Enhancement cell, not each dark+light pair of cells that together make one related entry. So that becomes really ugly and unreadable, as the eye confuses the classes both above and below. So it would take someone's code-fu that's better than mine. :/ At a miminum, vertical lines are not needed so much (to distinguish columns) as horizontal ones between rows of those Class+Enhancement pairs. :/ &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 14:21, February 26, 2020 (EST)
 * Darker border added for each pair - feel free to change the colors for each type -- I'm thinking that once it's sorted out what we want, I'll move the inline css to Common.css as classes to clean up the code before moving it to the live template. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 15:26, February 26, 2020 (EST)

So, When will happen to see a new change? -- &rArr; Targal (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:59, April 4, 2020 (EDT)
 * @ Targal - When it's ready, no sooner than that. @ All - we're talking about User:C-Hound/SandBox, and, yes, imo those borders give each class/enhancement pair the distinction needed. I like it. GJ, this has been on my mind. Gave Universal trees a little more elbow room. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 00:01, April 5, 2020 (EDT)
 * I can make the changes on DDOwiki Talk this week. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 22:06, April 6, 2020 (EDT)
 * classes to MediaWiki:Common.css. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 08:32, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
 * @C-Hound, I'm down with that version. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 06:32, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
 * Thanks - polished up several borders, and found a color combination that does not make me grind my teeth. 1 border is being uncooperative (see notes on that page), but imo it's ready to launch. Then I get my sandbox back.* ;) (* So If anyone wants a copy of the code for the other formats (#'s 2-4), for their reference or posterity, grab it now!)  &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:35, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
 * Why are they all the same color now? I find the free/earned via favor/purchase distinction very important.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 16:45, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
 * As stated on that page, I can't see what significance those distinctions have with respect to enhancements. More, the 3 colors create a confused table, and there is no explanation except an intuitive one - which is beyond the ken of any new player (and it's big enough already without a footnote). Those distinctions for this table were a legacy of copy/paste from Races - and they have zero bearing on "enhancements''. What is the importance/value you see in this context? &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 17:41, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
 * Green is free, everyone has access. I'm open minded about the colors chosen for earnable as a favor reward and those only accessible by purchase.  I remember when I was new, I didn't even worry about things not green.  Then I did per server favor grinds for those things.  Then I bought VIP for the last ones.  It helped me decide what races/trees I wanted to get next.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 19:40, April 7, 2020 (EDT)
 * You say "Green is free..." - but, again, you're talking about Classes, and this is the Enhancement ToC. Apples and orangutans. If a new player doesn't own the class, what are they doing looking under Artificer or Favored Soul? Even for a new player, it's a pretty basic concept of the game that you can only take trees under your class(es), so the rest just aren't a concern. Either you have the class, or you don't - that's a separate consideration, long before you get to Enhancements. It's a basic premise of (most) Wikis - don't repeat info where it doesn't need to be repeated, and when there's a better explanation in the main article. Leave the F2P/Earned/Premium discussion (and it ~is~ "a discussion", more than just colors on a table) to the Classes article, keep the Enhancement ToC focused on Enhancements, no distractions, no daggers with popups, no color-clutter, no confusion. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 05:15, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
 * I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I think it is more important to have consistency between the races and enhancement tree TOCs. I guess I've always picked my races based on the enhancements they provide instead of the race itself.  I don't personally think a little color hurts anything and it certainly breaks up the "Wall of Text" look of only one color.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 08:19, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
 * I've taken the liberty of adding User:C-Hound/SandBox for people to see with contrast the options... Actually... I think we can just free up your sandbox with a new Poll section below. :) &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:03, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
 * I agree that the premium enhancement trees need to be visible. Say you are a fighter and you want to get wand and scroll mastery (for any reason). You look through the enhancement trees and see that angel of vengeance of favored soul offers that as well as some other interesting goodies for melee. You go to the favored soul trainer to multiclass and see that it is a premium class. Stating that this enhancement tree belongs to a premium class (even if it is only in the TOC) is a good reminder to have. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:42, April 8, 2020 (EDT)
 * Good call, consensus is def the way to go here, I'm 100% w/ that, either outcome. I had originally chosen "Reaper = red" arbitrarily, so in the diff colors version below I changed "Reaper = green" to reflect/match F2P status (and included a <--Note--> w/ original code if we want to change it back). And no prob you editing sandbox w/ same - that's the understood context for this project. &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 19:18, April 8, 2020 (EDT)

Final Appearance Poll
Vote in Poll below: Template talk:EnhancementsTOC ...and/or on Twitter ...and/or on Facebook ...and/or on Reddit ...and/or ...and/or on the DDOVault ...and/or on the DDOwiki Discord

Poll

 * I'm not sure how significant/accurate/useful(!) the addition of "social media" voting is. One person on every site gets 7 votes? Reddit only open for voting for 1 day, but carries the same weight? And 2 people on DDOFOrums "changed their mind" - not sure where that leaves us. Plus, one person (somewhere, forget) voted "More boobs and donuts!", so... Anyway, a couple suggestions came out of that - we could "tone down" the green/yellow/red, so it's not so garish. And the suggestion to make Sorcerer wider, rather than taller - it was initially a coin toss either way. Thoughts? &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 04:26, April 15, 2020 (EDT)
 * It is what it is and gives our readers a chance to give their feedback. Reddit was open for the max on Reddit of 3 days.  Most other sites have a max of 7-30 days.  I set it to the max for every site.  Discord is an exception, it doesn't have a max, so I have it shutting down an hour before on wiki here during a DDOwiki talk that week.  The "More boobs and donuts" was on the DDO Vault, whatever that is worth... /shrug LOL  I actually made the colors a little darker to increase the differences because someone mentioned accessibility concerns and being unable to distinguish them.  I also DID make it all fit in one line for Sorc in the "Different Colors" section ...  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 07:46, April 15, 2020 (EDT)
 * As a reader of this site, I realize that the poll is skewed and that my vote wouldn't matter in the slightest. I don't like the different colors at all, but I am not going to create six accounts on social media to combat those who do the same. It's unfortunate that this poll will not be accurate. &rArr; Snootch (Contribs • Message • Email ) 19:28, April 18, 2020 (EDT)
 * throwing my support for solid. Multi colors looks *way* too busy &rArr; Christopher G Lewis (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:26, May 8, 2020 (EDT)
 * I recently edited a "wiki editquette" article regarding the "consensus" process, which got me thinking (always dangerous). I feel we, the active Wiki editors, may have a problem.  The stated deadline for this is looming, and,  arguably ,  there are 2 contradictory results, depending how one reads the numbers (and I emphasize "arguably" - hence the problem - but please, read on). On one hand, 60% of the masses is 3:2, a distinct "majority". On the other hand, of the actual editors, it's 2:1 (6:3) - and 3:1 if you count those who took the time to vote here, but have never edited. Strong arguments can be made for/against the weight of each - I see no need to make those, that's not the point. The point is that I don't want to go against the input of 40% of the masses, much less a clear 1/3 of the editors!
 * Reading back, those who voted "one color" had no problem with distinguishing Free/Earned/Paid, and those who voted "different colors" tended to simply prefer that that distinction be emphasized. I feel there is a middle ground... (And, "we", the editors, can now make any decision we want, having had "feedback" from the masses. This is not a pure democracy, and for a reason. We, the editors, only need to be responsible to those who voted, as we have always been - and I know we will be.)


 * Therefore, I suggest we find a compromise in the following (or something like), which is 1) not eye-blasting, and 2) clearly highlights the F/E/P distinctions.


 * (&dagger; - not "Free to Play"; mousehover for information)
 * (The "Reaper" background color was changed to avoid similarities w/ the "Paid" category. Additional daggers (&dagger;) can be added to appropriate heroic and Iconic races, for consistency, which also opens the path for future additions.)
 * I know we've had only the two extremes up for input, but I feel that input has spoken - neither is satisfactory to all. They say, in a true compromise, neither side should feel completely comfortable with the middle. Thesis, antithesis,  synthesis . If(?!) no one has a strong objection, I suggest we go with this - or something similar. It certainly works for me. Thoughts? &rArr; C-Hound (Contribs • Message • Email ) 00:32, May 11, 2020 (EDT)
 * I stand by my reasoning for "There should be a distinction between free/premium/earned for ease of use". As long as there is a distinction, I am happy. Your proposal seems better. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 07:36, May 11, 2020 (EDT)
 * Attempting to change the outcome options in the last few days of a poll that's been running for over a month is very "slap in the face" of all the people who have voted in the poll.  What needs to happen is for the poll to be completed, the changes made per the result of the poll, and then in 3-6 months, we can choose to revisit the idea if people are still not satisfied and would like to see further change.  Then we can discuss possible compromises (I have a concept of my own that I'd throw into the mix for more visually impaired people who may struggle seeing the distinctions in what you've proposed) and vote on which ones we like the most.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 09:00, May 11, 2020 (EDT)
 * C-Hound version looks way better in my opinion. In the regard of "changing the outcome" of a poll, posting it in so many social platforms that allow a person to make multiple votes is flawed from the start. It is probably too late for that but the optimal thing would have been to post link in the social platforms that linked to the wiki, where readers would vote in a single poll. The deed has been done tough, we should go for the "most voted" option, even if the system was loaded. &rArr; Xahtep (Contribs • Message • Email ) 13:12, May 12, 2020 (EDT)
 * No-one was prevented from voting in one or all of the polls and a lot of people aren't able to vote on the wiki directly. Having a "Wiki Voting Only" poll to see what readers want instead of just editors would have been a loaded poll.  I can't read C-Hound's version, but I'm willing to revisit the idea once this poll is done and implemented to find a middle ground compromise.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 13:33, May 12, 2020 (EDT)
 * Refusing to accept a better version of the TOC in favor of an arbitrary poll is very "slap in the face" to all the people that are trying to make it better. Change is innevitable and I see no reason to wait 3-6 months to revisit an issue. We are not the government passing laws here... &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 16:51, May 12, 2020 (EDT)
 * It's not a better version. There was two months of discussion before we started this one month long poll.  It'd be very slap in the face to the people who've been waiting for consistency for the last three months to throw all their work away because you think a different version is better.  We'll close the poll out and implement the consensus tomorrow.  Then, you're welcome to start a new two month long discussion and month long poll to see if the consensus has changed.  If so, we'll change it again.  /shrug  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 21:21, May 12, 2020 (EDT)
 * Who says it's not a better version? C-Hound, me and Xahtep agree it's better while you say it's not. Everyone else that voted in the poll does not know about the version and thus cannot tell whether it's better or not. Which is why it's a bad idea to place a poll in social media in the first place. And I don't think any voter was expecting consistency from what I read in the social media answers so I don't see where you got that idea from. On the contrary, what I see is people asking for a better version and you replying "Those are the only versions you are allowed to vote on and the only thing subject to change is the color". Finally, as a side note, I find it weird that you mention consistency when you yourself are not consistent AT ALL when editing this wiki. &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 09:36, May 13, 2020 (EDT)
 * I hadnt seen the pool so i couldnt vote in most of the platforms.If possible, please count me as in favour of of solid option in all of them. And sorry if im derailing but where is the option to vote in discord? I follow the links and it just droop me in a general chat, not in a poll- User:Basilikos
 * That poll closed an hour ago. &rArr; DDOstream (Contribs • Message • Email ) 11:10, May 13, 2020 (EDT)

Bladeforged
Any reason Bladeforged links to Bladeforged and not Bladeforged_enhancements like every other item on the TOC?
 * Somehow was broken when I copy/pasted from the sandbox per the poll above. Fixed.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 11:40, June 16, 2020 (EDT)

Adding Shifter and Razorclaw Shifter
I've created a sandbox to add Shifter enhancements and Razorclaw Shifter enhancements to the TOC. Please have a look at Template:EnhancementsTOC/race/sandbox2. Would it be worth to separate Elf from Wood elf to have an even number of cells, and thus allowing the first two rows to be aligned as before? &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:13, October 16, 2020 (EDT)
 * Yeah. I'm for separating Elf/Wood Elf when it suits us and merging again when it doesn't. Ask me again when we need to make it 3 rows lol (then I'll probably suggest separating Elven AA as well heh) &rArr; Faltout (Contribs • Message • Email ) 15:45, October 16, 2020 (EDT)
 * Added an edit request to call admins attention to this sandbox, since the template is protected. &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 18:24, October 17, 2020 (EDT)
 * Races have been added. &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 08:13, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
 * Nice one Shoe. Thanks! Comment: Bladeforged is showing up as "Bladeforged enhancements", instead of just "Bladeforged". Also, W-Elf is missing its cost. Can I ask you one more edit? "Illusionist" should come after "Harper" per alphabetical order. I believe it was placed before "Harper" when it was in complete name form (i.e, Feydark Illusionist). &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:27, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
 * Wood Elf and Bladeforged fixed. Illusionist isn't part of the same template - I'll fix that one separate when I overhaul the classes.  &#x1f45f;&thinsp;ShoeMaker (Contribs&thinsp;•&thinsp;Message&thinsp;•&thinsp;Email )&thinsp;&#x1f45f; 12:38, October 18, 2020 (EDT)
 * Thanks for the lightning fast answer! &rArr; MrLizard (Contribs • Message • Email ) 12:43, October 18, 2020 (EDT)