Talk:Animate Dead (Duergar)

Template correction

The text on this page reads as:
Animate Dead is a level 4 necromancy spell. Gekh Coal uses this spell to animate a pile of corpses at the Underdark Beach. It cannot be learned by players and is only used by NPCs.

It should read as:
Animate Dead is a level 4 necromancy spell. Gekh Coal uses this spell to animate a pile of corpses at the Underdark Beach. It cannot be learned by other creatures and is only used by certain NPCs.
This probably requires a template change, and should be made to apply to any page it is used on. Raelin (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2026 (CET)

To not conflict with NPC-only spells that can be used by more than one npc I added a new field to the template. If you add |single npc only = yes to a feature page, it'll change the verbiage to be exclusive to that character. I didn't go through to see if anything relies on the cargo data from |npc only = yes, so at least for now they should be used in tandem. Capranaut (talk) 06:38, 29 January 2026 (CET)

I tweaked my suggested wording to make it (hopefully) applicable in most (if not all) cases. Raelin (talk) 06:40, 29 January 2026 (CET)

That reads well for this particular spell, but I don't think it works well as a general rule. This change relies on the description mentioning a character, or at least a type of creature, which they don't all do. For example the current text for Spindleweb Sanctuary reads:

Spindleweb Sanctuary is a level 5 abjuration spell. This spell allows spellcasters to ward themselves or an ally against enemy attacks and then damage enemies when it ends. It cannot be learned by players and is only used by NPCs.

With this change that would be:

Spindleweb Sanctuary is a level 5 abjuration spell. This spell allows spellcasters to ward themselves or an ally against enemy attacks and then damage enemies when it ends. It cannot be learned by other creatures and is only used by certain NPCs.

Now this description can be changed, but I'm not neccisarily eagre to check all 1655 uses of the feature page template to make sure there aren't any leftover cases like this. Capranaut (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2026 (CET)

The minor wording change is better than adding even more unnecessary complexity to an already overstuffed template. I see nothing wrong with the example given with the suggested wording (or the original wording TBH). NtCarlson (talk) 06:56, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Thoughts on universal wording Raelin? The best I could come up with was cutting it to "It cannot be learned by players." Capranaut (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Short and sweet. I like it. NtCarlson (talk) 07:10, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Maybe I'm being too picky, but "players" can't learn or use anything in the game; the "player character" or simply "characters" are the ones who can or cannot learn or use things in the game.

I always think of the player character as the lead character or party leader.

I do agree minimal changes is best and definitely do not expect people to hunt down and make any such changes themselves, though I will when I see them. Raelin (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Thoughts on the following:

• It cannot be learned by players characters.
• It cannot be learned by party members.

Capranaut (talk) 23:10, 29 January 2026 (CET)

That would work, but how about something simpler:

• It cannot be learned by the player's characters.
  or
• It cannot be learned by player characters.
  
  For reasons alluded to above, I prefer the first one, but simply should take precedence. Raelin (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Since it's between one and four characters controlled by between one and four players, which of these strikes the best balance between comprehensibility and pedantry?

• by the player's characters
• by player characters
• by any player characters
• by the players' characters
• by the characters of the player(s)
• by the character(s) of the player(s)

This is unnecessarily nit-picky (but that could be said about a lot of this conversation lol)

P.S. I hadn't seen your edit when I posted this. I probably lean towards It cannot be learned by player characters.Capranaut (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2026 (CET)

By any player character or other party member (?) Raelin (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2026 (CET)

That just has me circling back to It cannot be learned by party members. unless you think it's not sufficiently clear that party members includes all player characters Capranaut (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2026 (CET)

That's fine. Raelin (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2026 (CET)

It's in Capranaut (talk) 23:48, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Thank you for helping to work this out. Raelin (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Of course. "How to talk about player/player character/party member" might be a good addition to the style guide section on "the party is" vs "the party are" Capranaut (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2026 (CET)

Agreed, though I'm not sure how I want to approach that one yet.... Raelin (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2026 (CET)

Actually, I wrote a missive about that on the bottom of the front of my personal page. I'm inclined to leave it alone. Raelin (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2026 (CET)

We're editors. Of course we're picky 8P Raelin (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2026 (CET)

🤓 Capranaut (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2026 (CET)