Template talk:Specific armor

Template Usage
|pic= IF you have uploaded a picture of the armor, its file name comes here (remember right capitalisation).  |proficiency= IF the armour needs different profiency than its type: Light, Medium or Heavy  |RT= IF the item has a Required Trait: Good, Neutral, Evil, Lawful, Chaotic, True neutral  |BoA= IF the item Binds on Acquire, use this field.  |quest= IF there is a Quest where you get the armour, write its name in this field with same capitals as ingame.  |chest= IF the item is found in a chest, use this field to tell in what chest.  |RTDC= IF the there was a RT, use this field ot tell whats the UMB check.  |RR= IF the item has a Required Race: Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human, Warforged.  |RRDC= IF the there was a RR, use this field ot tell whats the UMB check.  |ML= IF the item has a Minimum Level requirement, use this field.  |tips= IF you any tips, use this field to tell em.  |DoDD= IF this armor is originally foudn in D&D you can comment the differences using this field.. 
 * This template is used on the :Category:Specific armor|Specific armor pages.
 * The following fields are optional. If they are not used, remove the field altogether.

Reformating the (armor) template/categorys/fields
I have added couple new fields and renamed few also. I wrote the meanings to the 'Template Usage' part but in here i wrote what are the main differences over the 'Unique 'template. I also made all the fields that are optional ingame also optional in the template. By adding more categorys i hope to be able to search for all weapons that require you being chaotic and that have minimum level of 8 in future (needs a pluging to the server side).

'Unique' means one of a kind, a meaning that does not reflect the items volume found inside the game. Neither does the 'named' really fit the spot as there are items that have same/weaker abilitys and almost indentical description, yet not having a name. 'Named' is also used when there is a hostile NPC that has a name instead of being a general, random member of its race. 'Specific' is term used in the D&D (where the DDO is based on) and its meaning reflects best in to DDO also. It might not be most widely known in DDO, but every D&D player knows its meaning and i dare to say that great deal of DDO players are old D&D players as well. Therefore i have used the 'Specific' instead of 'Unique'.

I renamed all the fields made of two, or more, words to use the first letters from every word in capitals. Single worded fields are in lowercase to prevent mixing different fields together. Same/similiar rules are used in other wikis/databases. I also renamed AC to AB as AC means the total AC of the character, not what the armour gives. 'Bind' was changed to BoA (shortened from the Binds on Aquire) and no matter what you write in that attribute, it has identical output as it is treated as a boolean value (Empty/false if it does not bind, something/true if it does).

The 'type' field is added as a armor can be light/medium but need medium/heavy profiency in D&D. This is not the case in DDO at the moment, but it does have a impact on armour roles thus i wait it to be changed and my aim is that the wiki would be ready for it (i.o. the bug has been reported).

Item can have race requirement also thus i added RR (Race Required) field. I can't come up any specific item ingame, but in D&D there are lots of em. As it is a optional field, its only waiting for the developers to add some of the specific RR items into the game.

DoDD is a new (optional) field where you can comment the differences or write down the D&D version.

If all goes well, it would do similiar changes into other templates/articles as well. BlackSmith 10:41, January 15, 2008 (EST)


 * here.) I'd like to say, about Dragon deleting before writting anything on the page, that this will not happen again. I had a discussion with him after he deleted the page. :)

Here are my comments:


 * 1) Difference in type and proficency is maybe a good idea, did it ever happen in DnD? If not, totally un-needed at the moment.
 * 2) Image section has no default.
 * 3) I see no reason to divide both race and alignements...
 * 4) I agree on the idea used on BoA. If it beinds on Acquire, we could write "Yes" or "BoA" and it'd write that it does. And, by default, it would set "Does not bind on Acquire." However, it'd take a lot of page editing, but something to consider.
 * 5) There is no speratation for the description, nothing to "announce it". Same for abilities (in which you made a grammar error). Making it un-understable and very hard to read.
 * 6) Agreed on MDB, I've told that to Dragon before seeing you did it on your template, hehe. But I'd name the field "Maximum dexterity bonus". I'll try to find if there is already a page about it though.
 * 7) I don't like you category naming for quests...
 * 8) DoDD: Totally useless! I don't see the point of having it there... for nothing. What would be different from PnP in something that has no is not in PnP...?
 * 9) Lastly, while you make good points about the naming of certain field sometimes, a huge change would have to be done to all the item pages.. huge effort.. not really worth it for something not showing on the user's side. Our time coudl be better used.
 * 10) Binds on Acquire could use a link, I agree. New players sometimes get confused about what a Bound item is.
 * 11) You had made a mistake for RRDC.
 * 12) Spelling error in "Binds on Acquire".
 * 13) You wrote BC in the example verus BV.
 * 14) Made another typo for Hardness.

That was all I had to say.. for now. :)

EDIT: Well, not really an edit, but it came to my mind just beofre pressing "save" so... :P About the use of the term "specific", I've looked at what specific is, not the right word. Neither is unique or Artifact. I'm going to discuss this with a few DnD geek I know, and try to see what would be the most proper term, but I'm not done yet. Borror0 05:58, January 16, 2008 (EST)


 * *Grrr* I tought i had looked over the template enough many times to iron out all the typos and bugs. Anyway, now it should be fixed.

Most of the stuff we get as a rewards or find are randomly generated, just like in D&D. Some items have always the same set of abilitys and they carry a name, these items are called specific armours/weapons. Quote from DMG page 219 "The following specific suits of armor usually are preconstructed with exactly the qualities described here." Specific Armors BlackSmith 10:54, January 16, 2008 (EST)
 * 1) In D&D a Bbn is wearing a mith full plate he applies its armor check penalty to attack rolls and to all skill checks that involve moving, including Ride. The armour is treated as medium armor for movement restrictions but he still needs the heavy armour feat to use it wihtout penalty.
 * 2) It does have default but if you use the pic field, it assumes you ahve a pic. If you don't ahve a pic, dont use the field at all. Empty field is not same as no field at all (its a databasethingy).
 * 3) They can use different DC's. If you play a lawful dwarf you might fill the aligment restriction but you need roll UMD to be abel to pass as a human.
 * 4) There is nifty program called AutoWikiBrowser that i use when doing edits like these. The volume is not a issue. In the other hand i don't think telling that the item does not bind in the article has any value for the reader. I could undestand puting articles that do not have a BoA field to a category of its own (does not bind or soemthing) but saying that specialy on the article has little point. Neither does the items ingame say that they don't bind.
 * 5) Problem is that the abilitys use a listing and so does the templates layout also. I added extra line's for both sides for the field to make it stand out more, to make it more 'airy'. I'd rather do the templates without lists and use lists only with abilitys instead. Tables would be even better but wiki's code does not bend easilly for it.
 * 6) Maximum Dex Bonus is used in the tables in books when listing armours but Maximum Dexterity Bonus is what is talked on the actaul meaning of the MDB. They all shorten nicely to MDB so it has not that big deal as it can easilly be altered later.
 * 7) Idea for making the items members of a quest category is that you would easilly see what you get from the quest or what (quest) gives the item. So when i surf to a item, i see it is member of quest, then go look to the quest and i see that this quest has other rewards also and that the this quest is part of a quest chain. If i now surf to the quest chain link, i would see the quests that make up the quest chain. This is a lot easier (and faster on page load too) than using the over and over again.
 * 8) Like said, its optional and aimend/used by D&D layers that want to point out some critical differences or to show others what is the orginal one alike. E.g. Luck Blade in DDO is a ghost from its orginal version. Optional is the key word here, all the required fields spit it out in this template if they are missing.
 * 9) True, but i am not planing to do it manually.
 * 10) Or a that nice rollout template thingys of yours that i like so much. Or link to category where are BoA items would be. Anyway, that is easy to change later on but for something it would be good to be used.
 * 11) Fixed RRDC
 * 12) Fixed Acquire
 * 13) Fixed BV
 * 14) Fixed Hardness


 * Ok, my replies.


 * 1) Adds clarity. Might not be needed at the moment, but adds clarity (read information) to the page and necessits a very small effort. IN!
 * 2) Err... ok. :)
 * 3) Currently no need for that. I don't see them aking an item only for Lawful Good Elves anytime soon. If, it's ever needed, we'll make the change. I currently don,t liek what you did with it. OUT!
 * Ok, let's divide that in two:
 * 1) Never heard of that AutoWikiBrowser. Might inform us a little more about it?
 * 2) I think that adding if it or doesn't is neat. Simply becuase it is not that obvious. Yes, in-game you know here to look, it's always written at the same place. however, not the same here, lots of new users. Makes it easier to know if it does or not, besiudes, doesn't polute the page.. at least.. IMHO.
 * 3) Sorry, I prefer the current layout for this. Yours is simply utterly confusing, hard to read and not aestical at all.
 * 4) Yeah, but Maximum dexterity bonus already exists and it's the full name. I agree that Max Dex Bonus is proper, just not th nbame I'd use for the page itself.. and I don't like using a template to direct at a redirect, hehe. :P Clearer name never hurts... it's not really that much longer. :)
 * 5) Sorry, you lost me there.
 * 6) Luck Blade?
 * 7) Nice rollout?? Huh? Yo no comprendo... Borror0 19:57, January 16, 2008 (EST)


 * Seems there is some server sided problems. AWB is out of the picture until E can take a look on it.

Its a program that allows you to edit webpage with conditions and triggers using regexp. In plain english, with it you could change the whole use 'Specific' instead of 'Unique' with one click. BlackSmith 17:42, January 19, 2008 (EST)
 * 1) Well they both hare optional fields. You can ignore the extra field until they put out the first RR and RT item out. Still they have uses even now as RR is above the ML field while RT is below the ML field.
 * 2) "The  is a semi-automated Wikipedia editor for Microsoft Windows 2000/XP (or newer) designed to make tedious repetitive tasks quicker and easier. It is essentially a browser that automatically opens up a new page when the last is saved. When set to do so, it suggests some changes (typically formatting) that are generally meant to be incidental to the main change."
 * 1) Yeah, thats what i was aiming when doing so that what ever you write to the field, it gives the same output thus a newcomer don't need to worry about correct spelling (or typoing in case of me).
 * 2) Now i see what you meant. The old one uses headline on description and on abilitys, thus making em stand out more. I made some changes over the layout. Now the abilitys are more inward indexed so i at least find em faster compared to both old ones.
 * 3) Well where the template redirects is more or less trivial. All articles can be corrected to redirect to right page by simply editing the template. More important is to use (agree) to sue the same shortenings so you don't have to go manually trough the articles. Altough you can do magic with AWB, its lot less pain to edit a template than run trough 1500 articles with a complex regexp rulings. Field names are every wikipedis most important cornerstones. next msot importan is category names and their usage. Thats why i am more worried about the field names and category names as on a long run, those need to be made well as othervise its simply chaos. Thats why i am fussing so much about that unique and RRDC/RTDC namings, it will save us lot work later on.
 * 4) I whip up a excample. Adding link bit later.
 * 5) I whip up a excample here too. Adding link bit later.
 * 6) Those long popup's. Great tools. I use acronymes in my own webpages but these work better as you only need to keep one text updated.

Specific.. or not?
Now, I see your point, Blacksmith, and I'm all for using the most proper term. I do agree that "unique" might not be perfect, but I think that specific isn't either. From what I understood, "specific" mean magical items with names (and not +1 Flaming Longsword of Bunny-hugging) that may be created and found many times.

Now, where it gets hairy is here. I do agree that these items can be found under many copies, even by the same adventurer... but if we'd bring DDO the way a PnP campain works, it'd not be the same... in my opinion. From my perspective, these are item are all only one of a kind. There is only one Litany of the Dead, only one Grudgebearer's Plate, only one Hruvayah's Medallion. It is the Chaosgarde, not a pair of Chaosgardes. So, under that thread of thoughts, calling these "specific" would wrong, right?

Now, would could always call them artifacts. Minor ones are common and not unique to a world, but majors are only one of a kind...

I find the word "specific" really unclear on the user end. I'd personnally see that word and go "HUH?!??!" and it is something that makes it harder for me to accept. Also, I find both "Artifacts" and "Specific" uninteresting and ugly to say. Artifact is very unflexible when it comes to categorising the items whereas "Specific" sounds weird and unclear to me.

I don't want to be "leetpedia", it always have been a pet-peeve of mine to use inproper terms on the wiki, however, I'm not sure of the best fitting word there. As, at the end of the day, we got to keep it clear for the reader. Yes, a very knowledgeable D&D player might know what we are talking about, but there is a lot of DDO players without any D&D background.

I, for one, played PnP for years (I'm of the 3.0 generation) and I had never heard this word before, or at least, didnot bring any memory back when BlackSmith proposed it. Borror0 19:43, January 16, 2008 (EST)


 * This is the reply of someone I know. I think it is worth listenning:

Personally, I agree with you on your interpretation of how items are "unique" in DDO. But at the same time, there are some cases where this is not true. There may only be one Litany of the Dead but there's definitely more then one Blue Dragonscale Plate or Sunblade.

"Specific" makes sense only when it sits next to the system for building items, as it does in the SRD.

And I definitely wouldn't use Artifacts as those are something very specific in D&D terms.

Other words to consider:

The heading under "Specific _____" in the SRD reads "The following specific weapons usually are preconstructed with exactly the qualities described here." So Preconstructed might be a possibility, but again that's confusing and overly technical, especially in a system without actual crafting.

Honestly, have you considered just using "Named Items." It is, perhaps, a little jargon-y, but I think it's good enough, and it definitely describes what makes these items unique from other items.

Alternatively, something as simple Non-random might do it. And while I'm trying to think of a word that means "not random" my vocabulary seems to be failing me.

Hopefully that helps a bit. Borror0 19:43, January 16, 2008 (EST)


 * Yes, now i see your worry and point. Alas, there is only Specific Weapons, Specific Shields and Specific Armors. Other items go under the name of Wondrous Item. Specific name issue touches only weapons, shields and armours as they only can have random abilitys while wondrous items (in D&D) do not.

I am of the AD&D generation and when we talk about a celestial armor, its a specific armor that has fixed set of abilitys, abilitys that are not found in any other armor. Some how i got the feeling your gaming group has never used the specific weapons or armors (or shields) e.g. the Holy Avenger. Random generated weapons and armors pale in the light of the specific ones. Holy burst +5 greataxe is quite ...weak comapred to a Life Drinker in the hands of a warforged as is +1 vorpal longsword compared to Nine Leaves Stealer.

Like i just mentioned, the specific naming is only used in weapons, shields and armors, not on other items. As for the number how many items character can posses, Category:Exclusive is for that. Litany of death is wondrous item, all wondrous items are specific ones as every each of em has always the same abilitys, looks and they all are called by specific name e.g. ring of evasion. As they all are special and have specific powers, double naming 'em to specific wondrous items had little point. Thats why they are called simply wondrous items.

"I would like to have a +2 bastard sword" 'Do you have anything specific in mind?' "Actually yes. Do you got any sun blades's?" Change Audi instead of the +2 bastard sword, R8 instead of sun blade and you see the meaning of specific. BlackSmith 21:08, January 19, 2008 (EST)


 * Thanks for telling me what I already knew. :)

We weren't using a lot of specific stuff. Mostly amor.. and even there, most of armors/shields/weapons were designed by the GM and were more of the artifact kind than specific. Then, we had our share of Wondrous items. :) Now, to your point about Lintany of the Dead being a wondrous items.. I'd disagree to an extend. In my opnion, it fits in the very powerful artifact section. I mean, a demi-god wanted it. To me, it's what we coudl call "an uber powerful item", hehe. It is not something to take lightly. Just look at the flavor text on it:


 * Litany of the dead: The Litany of the Dead is a powerful book the Abbot used to attempt to ascend to godhood. Its power has been mostly drained, but what remains is still potent.

To me, it sounds a little more powerful than a simple specific item, which is one of the issue I have with the name "specific". It is as unclear as any other term, it does not cover everything and has some flaws too. Since it is not flawless, like unique, it makes it very uninteresting in my eyes. The word unique is clearer in my eyes as it is used most and you have a clue when you look at it. Like I've told you before, if I'd read "Specific armors" for the first time, even as a long-time DDO player, my reaction should be somewhere around "WTF!??!!?!"

As its meaning isn't obvious to everyone, and as it isn't any "more perfect" than Unique or Named, I'm not in favor of its use. We are not leepedia, we must try to remain as clear as possible, but we must not try to "holier than the pope". Our mission is to infort, not to be "proper". If I have to use a more 'leet' term to be understood more, I'll use it. If I have to terms in frotn of me, neithr of them being any more accurate than the other.. I'll go with the more vastly used one.

Named items, in this game, aren't only speficics. There are a few of them, but there are also artififacts and items that are only one of a kind. Don't tell me that on a real D&D world, there would be more than one of:


 * Adoryn's Malice
 * Nuushmaar's Adamantine Tooth
 * Stormreaver's Napkin
 * Raktu's Trifle

The answer, in my opinion, is no. Yes, there migth be other items with the very same effect(s), but not with the same name. These items are only one of a kind, and this is where the meaning of the word "unique" takes all his senses. Borror0 09:31, January 20, 2008 (EST)


 * Sorry but i't sounded you (or the other guy) thinked all items having none-random abilitys are called 'Specific X'.

Artifacts only indicate the power level of the item. Holy avenger that has its abilitys tripled would be lesser artifact but still be a specific weapon. LotD might be lesser artifact, like Deck of Many Things, but neither do you wield, wear or use it for blocking thus it is a wonderous item. Determing items power level by slapping epic level/lesser artifact/greater artifact tags on them is stepping on a thin ice. In D&D sense there every third character seems to be packing somekind of a lesser artifact, half of em carrying epic level items.

I kinda find it strange you have never used those specific items. They carry (usually) lot more potent than other items in their same price class. Specially when you keep in mind that you can add abilitys to magic items later on.

Guiding users to right direction is one of the main purposes of wikipedia. Rather than using leet term, the user should be redirected to the correct term. You don't read about flying machines at wikipedia behind the word 'plane', instead you are redirected to read about Aeroplane's (and actually redirected to read about Fixed-wing aircraft to be more precise). About who would come looking for specific weapons/armors/shields? Anyone that would had a glance on the D&D weapon/shield/armor section, in books or at some online site about D&D, as the more special items that carry some specific powers are listend under the 'Specific Armors/Shields/Weapons'. Sure a person coming from DDO might not have a slightest clue what a 'specific armour' means but neither does he know why casting Good Hope, Recitation and Greater Heroism on him is pointless. Nor that having SR is lot better than having a +6 wis item or that a blind opponent is rogues wet dream or that you should use bursting light pick when hitting a paralyzed opponent or that those despised WF's don't need to worry about enervation or that doing 'Fight in the FW!' trick just aint good idea when facing a iron golem. Thats where the wiki hops in and guides the person to right tracks. The items ingame are specific pieces of magic items with a ability mix that make them stand out from the rest of the (randomly) generated items. To my ears, thats excatly the same charasterics as the items under the specific tag in the original game, thus it's meaning has not changed. You said the wiki should be there to inform people, yet to follow the common assumptions. Alas, that does not work as common assumptions are usually wrong. Because you can wield two weapons does not mean it does any good at it, a common mistake done by newcomers. The strictly the wiki follows the exact path, the better wiki it is. Redirects are the ones that do the magic making wiki a plesant jorney to a person. I doubt you would agree it would be better to have article named's SoS and have Sword fo Shadows to redirect to that than vice versa.

I would say those all could be found in D&D, easilly. Remember Boccos' Blessed Book? (Heward's) Handy Haversack? Sylvan Scimitar? Quiver of Ehlonna? Quaal's feather token? Carrying its creators name does not make it unique or any rarer, neither does item having abilitys that are not common for its slots make it an artifact.

I would even go for non-random but this 'Unique', in any item except truly a unique one, just strokes me to the wrong way. In other (earlier) MMORPG's unique really means unqiue. There just ain't a dublicate to be found, you need to bargain it out from the present owner if you really want it or be jealous about it like the rest of the lot. BlackSmith 13:07, January 20, 2008 (EST)