8
\$\begingroup\$

We currently have 87 questions tagged of which 79 are cotagged with , the other 8 being .

In D&D 5e, the general category is spellcasting focus, with arcane focus being a specific type of spellcasting focus. But there are other types of spellcasting focuses that are not arcane: Druidic focuses, holy symbols, musical instruments, and artisan tools. All of these are spellcasting focuses for their respective classes, and are not arcane focuses. Arcane focus is the spellcasting focus specific to only 3 of the 9 spellcasting classes available.

So unless this change would upset something with the 8 pathfinder questions (it shouldn’t based on my understanding), I think we should change the name of the tag.

Should we change the name of the tag to ?

\$\endgroup\$
13
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ I feel that this is related: "Generic Tags should be Generic" \$\endgroup\$ Aug 1 at 21:46
  • \$\begingroup\$ Also of note, we would probably want to change the tag description as well \$\endgroup\$ Aug 1 at 21:48
  • \$\begingroup\$ We already use the tag this way, so except for little upside, there also seems little downside. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Aug 1 at 22:50
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu The upside is avoiding possible confusion of terminology, the downside is ??? \$\endgroup\$ Aug 1 at 22:51
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @ThomasMarkov changing tagging habits, search rankings, and spending time talking about the topic might be downsides. There seems no confusion presently. It just seems like one of those things that aren't operationally impactful, but we could do it. Honestly, I don't think anybody would bat an eye if you change it without consulting meta. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Aug 1 at 22:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ I mean, we can't prove that people don't tag their question with [arcane-focus] because they didn't find the tag or because they went "But I'm not talking about an arcane focus". But I could see people saying that avoiding even their possibility is a plus \$\endgroup\$ Aug 1 at 22:59
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ @Akixkisu the only reason I asked is because I’m not familiar with pf1e and wanted to make sure I wasn’t screwing those questions by making the change based on dnd5e. Otherwise I would have just done it without saying anything. \$\endgroup\$ Aug 1 at 23:01
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Anecdotally, I've definitely hesitated to tag/refrained from tagging questions about other sorts of spellcasting focuses with the [arcane-focus] tag, specifically because of the name. (Someone better versed with SEDE than me could probably use it to get a list of questions that mention "spellcasting focus" or "spell focus" that don't have the [arcane-focus] tag...) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Aug 2 at 2:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast You don't need SEDE for that: rpg.stackexchange.com/… \$\endgroup\$
    – Someone_Evil Mod
    Aug 4 at 23:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Someone_Evil: This is why we elected you as mod :P \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Aug 5 at 2:11
  • \$\begingroup\$ For people whose filter watches tags, is the watch list kept intact when the name changes? \$\endgroup\$
    – Kirt
    Aug 6 at 3:05
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Kirt Yes, they are remapped (that also counts for the RSS feed, if you use that) \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Aug 6 at 7:32
  • \$\begingroup\$ Looks like @Someone_Evil has gone ahead and renamed the tag to [spellcasting-focus], and made [arcane-focus] a synonym of it. :) (You may want to accept my answer as well, to further indicate that this has been done.) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Aug 9 at 19:18
10
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, the tag should be renamed to

The tag seems to be narrowly scoped to focus (heh) on one particular type of spellcasting focus that exists in at least some versions of D&D and Pathfinder. However, there doesn't seem to be a particular need for such a specific distinction between arcane focuses and other kinds of spellcasting focuses.

In fact, the tag is already being used on several questions about other kinds of spellcasting focuses, or about spellcasting focuses in general (that are not specific to arcane focuses). For example:

And many more. The tag name and tag wiki currently focus solely on arcane focuses, even though the tag doesn't seem to be used that way in practice.

In addition, as I mentioned in a comment on the question, I have definitely hesitated to tag/refrained from tagging questions about other sorts of spellcasting focuses with the tag in the past, specifically because of the name. And judging from this list of questions that mention spellcasting focuses that don't have the tag (many of which are primarily about a spellcasting focus), I'm not the only one; quite a few existing questions would benefit from having a tag about spellcasting focuses in general.

As such, the tag should be renamed to to reflect how it's being used anyway. We should probably also leave as a synonym of the tag, to make it easier to find and use.

\$\endgroup\$
1
  • \$\begingroup\$ The same should probably be done with the [holy-symbol] tag, but that should be given proper consideration and done with care; it probably warrants its own separate discussion on Meta. (I'm not sure whether holy symbols have been used primarily/solely as spellcasting focuses in previous editions of D&D or in Pathfinder; I know that even in 5e, at least, they do have some other uses for clerics/paladins - mainly Channel Divinity. I also haven't yet checked whether the questions that have the [holy-symbol] tag are all about spellcasting focuses.) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Aug 4 at 6:41
3
\$\begingroup\$

Yes, we should rename it.

We are already using it this way, and we should merge it with . Both will be useful synonyms. Using "arcane focus" and "holy symbol" as synonyms keeps current searchability and functionality and expands it.

\$\endgroup\$
3
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I'm less sure about [holy-symbol], since I'm not as familiar with how holy symbols have been used in previous editions of D&D and/or whether the questions that have the [holy-symbol] tag are all about spellcasting focuses. (That may warrant its own separate discussion on Meta.) \$\endgroup\$
    – V2Blast StaffMod
    Aug 2 at 18:59
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast The tag specifies that we are talking about the holy symbol as a spellcasting focus. Different spellcasting foci have different sets of rules to a degree, but there is no reason to leave them out in their context as spellcasting foci. If the tag would be about iconography, then that would be a different matter - however, that isn't how we use the tag. \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Aug 2 at 19:10
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @V2Blast we cover any other questions like that with lore, divine, and religions-and-deities \$\endgroup\$
    – Akixkisu
    Aug 2 at 19:15

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .