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)
|
Franken Kesey likes this article and rated it 3 of 4. |
|---|---|
| This is a good way to group the different point systems. If you turn it into a guide and add more systems, I will favor the article. |
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)
Here are the lines and details as to why they are bothersome:
Section One: Power Points
- First sentence: “Power points are the best-known type of limiting point, due to appearing in the SRD and numerous other official materials.”
- ”Best-known” is a judgment. System Reference Document is not a publication, instead a collection of free references. The explanation is a logical fallacy, and unnecessary.
- Second sentence: “They're also one of the least "expensive", as power point pools tend to be fairly large, get larger with level at a decently high rate (the psion, for example, starts with six power points and gets about 2 more per level), and can be expanded through racial features and high ability scores.”
- Would like to see an explanation on wording, and definitions before they are used (i.e., “This page orders point articles based on effectiveness of repeated use. With the following definitions: Capacity: size of the pool (in other words how many points you have), Recharge Rate: the natural rate the pool recharges, Cost: artificial rate to recharge the pool.
- List what races give bonuses to each point type.
- Third and fourth sentences: “It's even possible to store power points in magic items and draw upon those stored points later, for when your allotment of daily power points just isn't enough! ...Note the "daily" in the previous sentence.”
- Neither is necessary.
- Sixth sentence: “Power points are among the slower types of limiting point to recharge, being refreshable once per day with 8 hours of rest just like a spellcaster's spell slots!”
- Exactly what is being looked for! What an intended user wants and needs, a clean breakdown of pros and cons. Explanation point not necessary (as a rule: less is more with explanation points).
- Seventh sentence: “However, also like a spellcaster's spell slots, there are quite a few ways to refresh expended power points other than getting a good night's sleep.”
- ”However” with and “also” can be done, but it is not fluid. Understand intent, and think there may be a better way to word it.
- ”Quite a few” is a weak statement, better to simply remove.
- List 3-4 ways to do so, with an "etc." Or list all ways you know (personally can only think of temporary ways to gain power points).
- If fixed, another clean and highly usable sentence.
- Eighth and ninth sentences: “There are also numerous ways to obtain temporary power points, and numerous ways to have power points stripped away from you. Overall, power points are the most richly-supported of the limiting point types.”
- Eighth is repetitive. If you must, add “temporary power points” to seventh sentence (only thing new eighth gives). Do not need to mention that there are ways to remove.
- Ninth is pretty, and a judgment. If someone is GMing, being richly supported is not a priority. Instead it is having a set of rules that is self-sustaining and clean (easy to use). Both the power point system can boast to possessing. Express this instead.
Other Power Point stuff: list feats, spells, and other abilities that can recharge or improve the pool.
Will get to a detailed analysis of the others in a few days. But have to go now.--Franken Kesey (talk) 19:33, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Intelligent Item
The Intelligent Item class has a morphic pool.--Franken Kesey (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
