Talk:Spellcaster

I find it rather odd that multiple pages reference "spellcasters," even if they don't have a link, but there's no "spellcaster" page. If this topic has been discussed before and the spellcaster page moved or deleted, I apologize. --Kenthar 14:43, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Well, there is an article for spell and an article for cast. Do we really need to make an article for spellcast? I think you should review the former two, add any tidbit that is here but missing there into them and then remove this one. --Karlos 17:39, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * I think it does make sense to have a separate article for Spellcasters. The word spellcaster has more meaning than just the words spell and caster combined. And the term spellcaster is really used a lot in this wiki (not linked the this article yet though). --Tetris L 22:27, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Again, there is nothing said in this article that is not already in Spell, check it out for yourself. --Karlos 23:52, 6 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Semi-valid point, in that I looked at Spell when thinking about what to put for spellcaster, and of course, "Monk, Mesmer, Necromancer, and Elementalist" happen to be in the same order. Is there anything to be added that will make it more unique? --Kenthar 10:32, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * As long as we keep articles like this I'd consider it unfair to delete an article about something as important as spellcasters. ;) Even if all the info is already somewhere else, the term still deserves its own article, just because it's such a common term in GW. --Tetris L 10:41, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Kenthar, I am sorry, I didn't mean that you got the content from there. If you did it's fine if you didn't it's fine. I am saying that we have two articles essentially saying the same thing. You may not have been around here long enough to know that this is like a cardinal sin in my view. :) Basically, if all we can say about a spell caster is that he casts sepll then in spells say that a person who casts spells is called a spell caster. My concern is redundancy, not originality. --Karlos 16:14, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)


 * Forget that came up then - it's not important, and this is a friendly debate on how to better the Wiki, yes? The only reason I'm insistent on this term is because there are numerous references to the word throughout the Wiki, and it's more or less commonly said in-game; I myself enjoy running an "anti-spellcaster" build in PvP. As far as anti-redundancy, what can we do? Make a bigger list of spells that specifically work against all spellcasters? --Kenthar 20:03, 7 Oct 2005 (EST)

After thinking about it for a day, how about a more minimalistic approach? "Spellcaster" can mean any of the four professions, they have some similarities, and some spells are equally effective against all of them, and useless against a W/R. No need to be redundant and explain what a spell is again, as you said. --Kenthar 08:17, 8 Oct 2005 (EST)