Well I'm not going to change it. I can't. The wording of the core mechanic has to be the same, otherwise it introduces ambiguity, confusion and incongruity with established system language.
I find it a bit disheartening that the autocheck system now becomes the default assumption of validity rather than a moderator's judgement. It's quite obvious that the spell is not a replicate of booming blade.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
Well I'm not going to change it. I can't. The wording of the core mechanic has to be the same, otherwise it introduces ambiguity, confusion and incongruity with established system language.
I find it a bit disheartening that the autocheck system now becomes the default assumption of validity rather than a moderator's judgement. It's quite obvious that the spell is not a replicate of booming blade.
The auto-check systems is now the default assumption of validity rather than a moderator's judgement because we receive far more submissions in day than our (rather large) team of moderators could feasibly review. As discussed a great deal elsewhere, we had to make these changes to avoid having a terrible user experience where folks were having to wait for publish approval over six weeks.
The auto-check system isn't going to be able to account for subtle nuances like a different way to trigger the spell's secondary effect, but I agree this should be allowed to be published.
Someone will follow up with you via PM to get this published.
The auto-check systems is now the default assumption of validity rather than a moderator's judgement because we receive far more submissions in day than our (rather large) team of moderators could feasibly review. As discussed a great deal elsewhere, we had to make these changes to avoid having a terrible user experience where folks were having to wait for publish approval over six weeks.
Ah, I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. That a moderator looked at it and told me I had to change it because it was 82% similar, according to the auto-check system, is what I was referring to when saying it was the default assumption of validity, i.e. overriding moderator judgement after the fact. I have close to zero issues with the auto-check system, aside from a few things that I know shouldn't get past it but would (that I don't intend to publish, like Salida), and a few things that it doesn't flag and I'm unsure of whether it would be allowed or not (like my Puzzle Cubes).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I just tried to update one of my publically shared spells with the new spell changes to the backend and now it won't let me publish it.
Public spell: Mark of Hubris
Updated spell: Mark of Hubris
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
The new version is too similar to Booming Blade (similarity index 82%).
You need to change it a bit.
Well I'm not going to change it. I can't. The wording of the core mechanic has to be the same, otherwise it introduces ambiguity, confusion and incongruity with established system language.
I find it a bit disheartening that the autocheck system now becomes the default assumption of validity rather than a moderator's judgement. It's quite obvious that the spell is not a replicate of booming blade.
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.
The auto-check systems is now the default assumption of validity rather than a moderator's judgement because we receive far more submissions in day than our (rather large) team of moderators could feasibly review. As discussed a great deal elsewhere, we had to make these changes to avoid having a terrible user experience where folks were having to wait for publish approval over six weeks.
The auto-check system isn't going to be able to account for subtle nuances like a different way to trigger the spell's secondary effect, but I agree this should be allowed to be published.
Someone will follow up with you via PM to get this published.
The updated version is live.
PM will be incoming in a few minutes.
Pun-loving nerd | She/Her/Hers | Profile art by Becca Golins
If you need help with homebrew, please post on the homebrew forums, where multiple staff and moderators can read your post and help you!
"We got this, no problem! I'll take the twenty on the left - you guys handle the one on the right!"🔊
Ah, I think you misinterpreted what I was trying to say. That a moderator looked at it and told me I had to change it because it was 82% similar, according to the auto-check system, is what I was referring to when saying it was the default assumption of validity, i.e. overriding moderator judgement after the fact. I have close to zero issues with the auto-check system, aside from a few things that I know shouldn't get past it but would (that I don't intend to publish, like Salida), and a few things that it doesn't flag and I'm unsure of whether it would be allowed or not (like my Puzzle Cubes).
"Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation."
― Oscar Wilde.