Template talk:Spellcaster

What do people think of this? I can see three possible advantages to it:

• It seems more bot-friendly, though it may have to be made to include HD if we want to derive spell damages for it (I'm not sure there).
• It better shows the relative frequency of spells, i.e. that ice fiends can be expected to spam their bolts of cold at you, or that hell sentinels have a reasonable probability to use their melee spell.
• It's a little neater.

Anyway, do people think it's worth putting this in articles? If not, I can gladly delete this page. -Ion frigate 18:48, 23 January 2013 (CET)

Y'know what, I like this. Nice work here Ion. Any arguments against adding this in? --MoogleDan 18:50, 23 January 2013 (CET)

Thanks. One problem I can see is monsters with multiple spell sets, the worst being wizards. You can make multiple templates appear side-by-side by leaving out any lines between them, but even then, it might look more cluttered than just a spell list. Still though, I think it's worth it, since it much better shows how spellcasting actually works. -Ion frigate 19:02, 23 January 2013 (CET)

I like it. The bot can easily obtain the hit dice. Currently, my modified version of monster-trunk can do everything except flags, spells, genus, and habitat. It can also get the exact value of a resistance or vulnerability, but I'm not sure how to display that info in a clear way. --CommanderC 19:26, 23 January 2013 (CET)