Timeline for Were warforged starting ages ever explained?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
30 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:23 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 30, 2017 at 4:07 | comment | added | Forrestfire | Well alright then. I admittedly did cite an article with italics in another question I think. Must be where the mix-up is from. Time to go fix that... | |
| Oct 29, 2017 at 18:19 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @Forrestfire It was mine actually! :) I added the title in case the 3e-era article goes down, there was concern some of them are disappearing (again). I figure having the title makes it easier to relocate if that does happen. | |
| Oct 29, 2017 at 17:39 | comment | added | Forrestfire | Edited it. Not a problem, that was my bad; I've been so used to citing books lately that the article tripped me up. | |
| Oct 29, 2017 at 17:39 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Oct 29, 2017 at 14:19 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @HeyICanChan If you feel it's something that needs to be corrected, go right ahead. Some credible style guides like the APA suggest quotes for article titles now that I do some cursory searching, I won't object to it being swapped over to those. (I don't personally consider Wikipedia to have independent credibility or authority on writing style sans citation of actual style guides.) | |
| Oct 29, 2017 at 12:54 | comment | added | doppelgreener | @HeyICanChan It's a thing I've seen in Australia and in some other sources (even USA ones). Maybe there's some style guides that differ on this point. | |
| Oct 29, 2017 at 12:30 | history | edited | doppelgreener | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 27 characters in body
|
| Oct 28, 2017 at 14:00 | vote | accept | Hey I Can Chan | ||
| Oct 27, 2017 at 19:02 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 18:57 | comment | added | Forrestfire | It's working on my end; what appears to be broken on yours? | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 18:44 | comment | added | oxide7 | That link doesn't work. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 18:11 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 47 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:54 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 312 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:43 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:30 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 13 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:28 | comment | added | Forrestfire | Good point. That was not quite my intent; it's more that they were built (commissioned) for specific purposes, and as such did not get trained for any other purpose. Newer ones were ordered for more varied purposes than just "basic infantry," which led to more class variety. I'll edit it to make this clearer. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:23 | comment | added | KRyan | Hmm, I don’t quite agree with your implication that newer warforged were built to be more individually-flexible, at least those created during the Last War rather than Merrix’s recent secret experiments. They were still purpose-built—there were just a wider variety of purposes that they were built for. I also think the answer could use some mention of the idea of the technology for warforged maturing, in that early on they didn’t know enough about them to produce warforged that could handle, say, magic, and that it took R&D some time before those became possible. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:21 | comment | added | Forrestfire | @HeyICanChan good idea! Done. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 17:21 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 25 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 11:58 | comment | added | doppelgreener | The comment-reaper's scythe can be stayed a bit longer. We've got some reports of criminal warforged manufacturing to get to the bottom of... | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 10:37 | comment | added | Hey I Can Chan | That's fantastic. Comments, however, are transitory, and a smoother transition between answer parts is probably necessary. Maybe mention how "the second part" was posed (offhandedly, Moderators! Offhandedly!) in comments so the answer remains clear even were these comments removed? Or just something like As to how warforged can learn so quickly, that's also explained…. | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 7:33 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 37 characters in body
|
| Oct 27, 2017 at 7:14 | comment | added | Forrestfire | @HeyICanChan added that answer as well | |
| Oct 27, 2017 at 7:14 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added requested information on warforged brains
|
| Oct 26, 2017 at 20:14 | comment | added | Hey I Can Chan | That's really cool. So I guess the real question becomes Has the rapid pace at which a warforged can master the intricacies of the 1st-level of a moderate or complex class ever been explained? Perhaps that's a question for another time. Anyway, thank you for bringing to my attention this bit of trivia. (I'll likely accept this in a day unless somebody comes up with even more.) | |
| Oct 26, 2017 at 19:17 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 193 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2017 at 19:00 | history | edited | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 9 characters in body
|
| Oct 26, 2017 at 18:59 | comment | added | KRyan | This has always been just about my favorite little detail in 3.5. Probably worth mentioning that any warforged created less than 2 years ago were created illicitly and in secret. | |
| Oct 26, 2017 at 18:58 | history | answered | Forrestfire | CC BY-SA 3.0 |