Chris Ward

Yeah... I guess so.

It feels the most shape consistent, but I'm honestly open to a better suggestion.

@txtsd I think your way probably makes the most sense. It might get refined further though. But it feels like the right direction.

@txtsd Sorry that we're talking in two places. I'm not sure if this will be the correct approach but it at least gets us to the right direction.

> Heya, Sorry for poping in since I'm fairly new here. Please don't apologize! All opinions are welcome.

I'm mostly on the same page as @ogregoire for this as well. I feel like trying to solve problems on an outlier which cause us to completely change our structure...

I actually like option 4 best even though it's changing the schema.

Heh. That's fair now that we've split forms out like that. We would either a separate field for the regular name without the form, or we don't include the form...

Spellcasting is now merged.

> All of this can be applied to Subclasses, also. I would leave subclasses as is. Mainly because you can have more than one subclass, and it would break things...