Talk:Limiting Points (3.5e Other)
Ratings
Blocked Rating |
Ghostwheel opposes this article and rated it 0 of 4. |
|---|---|
| |
Objection. This isn't a terrible class or option whose inclusion is actively bad for the game at the stated balance or whatever, this is an article about a bunch of point based mechanics that serves as a resource for people interested in specifically point based mechanics. There's a clear point to this in serving as a summary and indexer of various point based resource management systems. Whether that has value for you or not does not mean that there is no value for anyone else interested in using a different point based resource management system. And even then, a lack of value is a pretty poor reason to get something removed. There's lots of things on here have have no value to me or anyone that I can imagine but opposing them on that basis alone is failing to rate on their actual merit.
If you want to see it removed, which you are asking by rating oppose, I think you need to do a better job of justifying your position based on the merits of the article. Until then it's blocked. - Tarkisflux Talk 20:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
- Second Tarkisflux, and bring note to there being a few other guides that should be integrated. With the massive quantity of data here, the more organized things are the better. Might even suggest that this become the next project of this site: guides.--Franken Kesey (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Comments
I don't get the point to this at all. --Ghostwheel (talk) 08:46, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I actually agree With GW on this one. Why is this a thing? --Undead_Knave (talk) 17:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- I figured I'd put all the limiting point types mentioned across the wiki in one place. I already kind of did that with the enhance seed I made back on the D&D Wikia, but that's meant to be a functional article, and I wanted to have someplace to talk about limiting points without having to bury them in spell description. Plus, I want to be able to link to each of the limiting points so people can read more about them, give an in-depth summary, and offer my own two cents on them. (For instance, I unabashedly gush over Eiji-kun's combat points.) --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Wouldn't this be better as a sandbox thing then? I don't see this of being much use to the average wiki visitor. --Ghostwheel (talk) 17:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe not right now; I'm still working on the writeup. But it can at least be useful for explaining essentia, I suppose. --Luigifan18 (talk) 19:17, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- Or... one could read Magic of Incarnum. Still not anywhere near convinced... --Ghostwheel (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- This seems like it would be better as a series of Canon articles summarizing assorted resource management systems. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:49, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- [Edit] Except for the part where it points at homebrew and includes homebrew systems. So except for all of it. But I do see value in having a summary and reference for these sorts of things (particularly when they don't have one of their own as a variant rule somewhere), even if the name is really weird. - Tarkisflux Talk 23:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
- The name makes perfect sense. It refers to point-based systems that limit the use of special abilities. --Luigifan18 (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Scientific
Will strongly suggest that this guide be more formulaic, and less dependent on bias (however correct). Instead of stating "best, good" or the author (history); mention potential benefits to using the point system, flaws, and alphabetize so as to allow the reader to judge what system(s) are best for them. Side notes, and questions to the author, should be asked on their page, or this article's talk page (not within the article). Also, will reapply the statement that this is a much needed guide!!! Deserving of being in a better namespace than "other". --Franken Kesey (talk) 17:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
- What bias are you speaking of? If it's the point cost, that relates to average pool sizes of users of that point type, as well as (to a lesser extent) costs of abilities using that point type. The larger the pool tends to be, the cheaper the point cost. Ease of regaining spent points through secondary means is also a factor, but not as important as the former two. So it's not a question of bias but of mathematics. As for the order of point types, I have generally tried to arrange from cheap to expensive. --Luigifan18 (talk) 17:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
