Talk:System Monsters: Difference between revisions
m Announcement of table reformatting. |
YoungHickory (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I went ahead and removed the links, plus that I split the Attack column in Name and Element, and added a border to the table. Good? Bad? --[[User:3d0xp0xy|3d0xp0xy]] 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | I went ahead and removed the links, plus that I split the Attack column in Name and Element, and added a border to the table. Good? Bad? --[[User:3d0xp0xy|3d0xp0xy]] 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
If a monster has multiple attacks (Do they have spirit attacks the way they used to have legendaries? Or multiple spells? Will they?) the table will need rejiggered, but I guess this works for now. --[[User:YoungHickory|YoungHickory]] 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 08:44, 20 April 2009
I think separate pages for each special attack shouldn't be necessary, so I suggest we remove those links to make things look a little better. 3d0xp0xy 07:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with 3d0xp0xy, unless there is any actual reason to have a new page such as for an explanation to a reference, but this is mostly unnecessary. The easiest solution would be to have a trivia section at the bottom of the page or something (something I was going to try and do for the original bestiary, but never did). --Spectre 07:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed the links, plus that I split the Attack column in Name and Element, and added a border to the table. Good? Bad? --3d0xp0xy 08:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
If a monster has multiple attacks (Do they have spirit attacks the way they used to have legendaries? Or multiple spells? Will they?) the table will need rejiggered, but I guess this works for now. --YoungHickory 08:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
