Talk:Spell Template: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Tlosk New page: Since we don't have an ID panel for creature spells and there's only a little info, I put it in a table format, though I could see it going either way. --~~~~ |
imported>Jedismj No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Since we don't have an ID panel for creature spells and there's only a little info, I put it in a table format, though I could see it going either way. --[[User:Tlosk|Tlosk]] 10:51, 8 August 2008 (CDT) | Since we don't have an ID panel for creature spells and there's only a little info, I put it in a table format, though I could see it going either way. --[[User:Tlosk|Tlosk]] 10:51, 8 August 2008 (CDT) | ||
---- | |||
Should we use only prismatic or should we should the old-school herbs etc? The comps can mostly be derived from their spell-words. Also, a spell-words area in the template would be great. --[[User:Jedismj|Jedismj]] 10:55, 8 August 2008 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 15:55, 8 August 2008
Since we don't have an ID panel for creature spells and there's only a little info, I put it in a table format, though I could see it going either way. --Tlosk 10:51, 8 August 2008 (CDT)
Should we use only prismatic or should we should the old-school herbs etc? The comps can mostly be derived from their spell-words. Also, a spell-words area in the template would be great. --Jedismj 10:55, 8 August 2008 (CDT)