Talk:Masque of the Red Death (Ravenloft)

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 December 2023. The result of the discussion was merge.

This article is within the scope of the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Dungeons & Dragons-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, or join the discussion, where you can join the project and find out how to help!Dungeons & DragonsWikipedia:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsTemplate:WikiProject Dungeons & DragonsDungeons & Dragons articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

D&D to-do:

view

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Merge : Various articles
Stubs : Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, Swords & Spells, Variant Dungeons & Dragons games, More...
Update : Rewrite to be out-of-universe: Companions of the Hall, Dark Sun, Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)
Verify : add sources to novels planned for merge to List of Dragonlance novels
Other : Collaboration: Dave Arneson, Drow (Dungeons & Dragons)

Poe story[edit]

Maybe searching for Masque of the Red Death should lead to the short-story by Poe and refer to this, instead of the other way around? To my knowledge, the former is far more widely known and popular.

Done. And please sign your posts.--Robbstrd 02:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I think that the article should reference the poem as a name source. 71.127.122.7 02:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roaches[edit]

I added a link to cockroach for the word "roaches". I assume this is what the author meant, however there is also a fish called roach which it could refer to. Does anyone know?

Kesshaka 12:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed link[edit]

I removed the link to livingdeath.org. It seems to a cyber-squatter site. 66.111.120.246 (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Significance of the wraith roach swarm[edit]

OK, for the sake of argument, I decided to look up what the actual issue of Dungeon says, and this is all I found:

In the far comer of the room is a swarm of wraith roaches---eerily silent beetles with ghostly white carapaces and gossamer wings. The swarm attacks a single target within 10 feet, draining one energy level with each successful attack. A victim drained of all levels dies and transforms into another swarm of wraith roaches (and cannot be raised). A victim who is not slain by the swarm regains lost levels at a rate of 1/day.

Wraith roach swarm: AL NE; AC 7; MV 9, Fl 12 (A); HD 2; hp 14; THAC0 19; #AT 1 per swarm; Dmg nil; SA energy drain; SD impervious to edged/piercing weapons; hit only by magical blunt weapons and spells; SZ T; ML 15; XP 975.

There are some vague similarities to the swarm subtype concept introduced later in the 3.5 edition of D&D. But the wraith roach swarm was not the first ever creature called a "swarm" nor with this same sort of statistical layout introduced to D&D. Off the top of my head, I can tell you that the Monstrous Compendium Dragonlance Appendix (MC4) from 1990 introduced insect swarms for grasshoppers and locusts, and the stat blocks were reprinted in the Monstrous Manual in 1993. So it is a leap of faith to assume that the 3.5 designers took anything at all from the wraith roach swarm, or let alone were even aware of it.

Then there is the trouble with the citation included for the claim. It is a wikia page, and wikis of all sorts (including wikipedia itself) are disallowed as sources. It could be anyone who wrote that Wikia page, and they can make any claim they like without any means to substantiate it. I think if we see a reliable source from any 3.5 desginer or anyone who worked with them at the time or even talked to them, stating "Yep, if not for the wraith roach swarm by Randy Richards, the swarm subtype would never have existed!" then that is golden. What has been included so far is highly suspect.

Also, the mention of Dreadmire serves no purpose here other than to promote the author's unrelated work. 204.153.84.10 (talk) 15:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]