Ongoing Tips for New(er) Users

2010-07-06T16:07:14Z

1. Sandboxes are your best friend: This site's adherence to quality control means that we don't let incomplete pages hang around for long. As such, any page with multiple incomplete sections will likely be labelled with the "Incomplete" template. But since no one prefers deletion, it will likely be much more common for your article to be moved to a Sandbox (which is a subpage of your userpage accessible by creating a page called "User:YourUserName/PageTitle") than it is for it to be deleted. This is very handy because whatever work you have already completed remains and you may edit your Sandboxes in just about whatever way you please, allowing you to tinker with Wiki-coding and formatting until you get the desired effect. This site also does not delete subpages unless by the author's request, so your work is about as safe as it can possibly be while on the site.

Some other things to remember:

Sandboxes are supposed to essentially be orphaned pages, so if you move an incomplete article to a sandbox be sure to remove the tags at the bottom that are part of the article preload. If someone else moves the page, they may do it for you, but it is crucial that this be done to maintain the pages that link to all of the completed articles. If you want a convenient way to get to your Sandboxes, you can make links on your userpage (this may also draw the attention of other users who browse around pretty frequently.

If you want advice on your article, you can use the Template:"Helpwanted" template (without quotations so that it actually works) to link it to the. It doesn't seem to get a lot of viewer traffic, but it couldn't hurt. It might also help to voice any specific concerns you may have on the talk page of the article/Sandbox, which may make it easier for others to reply and help you.

2. Use the Mibbet Chat Room: Even before we migrated to this website, many of the more active users frequented a Chat Room called the Tavern. We have since moved on to the aforementioned and linked IRC chat, but quite a few people (myself included) are there almost daily. Much of what is discussed there may seem rather eccentric, but that's probably because we are bored and don't have any D&D to talk about. Just about everyone there is knowledgeable and helpful, and if all else fails you can just spam the link to your article and the odds that at least one of us will look at it are pretty good. The times we are on obviously vary from person to person, but the room tends to be most active towards the evening if you are on Eastern time like me.

3. People to Ask: All of the people listed are pretty reliable as far as this site goes, and are listed here because of their proven knowledge, frequency with which they are on the site or chat, or (in most cases) a mixture of both:

Surgo: Even though he probably wouldn't particularly appreciate being called the head honcho, he is the public face of the site and also on the IRC pretty frequently. his talk page is also linked to the Main Page. Sometimes it helps to just go straight to the top.
Ganteka: Probably the most welcoming person most frequently on the chat and also one of the most easily recognizable since he signs in using his actual username instead of a "Mib####" like some of the rest of us do. Also does his own artwork, which I obviously think is worth noting.
Ghostwheel: Extremely knowledgeable of book material and gameplay (as evidenced by his builds and other contributions). Also constantly present on the chat room, even when sleeping.
Eiji: One of the most frequent chat room people (not always by a recognizable name, but the red text usually gives him away). Knowledgeable and active, if a little odd at times.
Jota: My occasional partner-in-crime is usually on Mibbet, analytical, well-spoken, and probably goes more out of his way that most to ensure an honest and thorough critique.
Anyone else who is on the Ratings Committee or an admin.
Anyone who has a few articles the aforementioned raters deemed worth of distinction (including Foxwarrior and Quantumboost.

If anyone has any more advice that they feel is useful (or any corrections of protocol), feel free to comment.

On Balance Points

2009-12-10T20:50:16Z

A lot of words have been exchanged as of late concerning the perceived value of each particular Balance Point. Having heard from both sides of the issue (through observation if not direct conversation), my conclusion amounts to the following, which I have already related to some in several chat discussions. This just has a little more permanency. The crux of the argument as I’ve seen it is whether or not the Rogue Balance Point should be held up to the standard of being the ideal BP (for which Ghostwheel is the primary advocate). Many of the other respected users on the site (led by Surgo) have argued against this stance in favor of the idea that no BP be put onto a pedestal above the rest and that they all have their own merits. While I would like to agree with the latter, it is not difficult for me to imagine why some would be in favor of GW’s view.

In order for my point to be made, it seems prudent that I include a short breakdown of each particular Balance Point:

Monk: There is no point of contention here; no one is advocating for the inclusion of Monk-level content. I think we all agree that if you’re a Monk-level character, you’re little more than a liability plain and simple.

Fighter: While the Fighter BP has spawned some usable classes, I feel that the general consensus is that its power level isn’t up to snuff when playing alongside Rogue- and Wizard-level characters. I think that’s true; while they may be decent enough to manage by themselves on occasion they are largely too weak to actually contribute to a group effort without extensive optimization that most casual players cannot achieve. Yes, I know that there are other things to D&D in combat, but combat is the single greatest portion of the timeframe of most campaigns. That being said, if you can’t do something to help a party in combat then you basically aren’t worth having around.

Rogue: Here we are, the focus of the debate. Is Rogue-level ideal, as Ghostwheel claims? To a point, I think it is. A Rogue-level class has been proven by the SGT to be capable of holding its own in various situations, proving that it doesn’t totally suck (like a Monk) or at least have some glaring deficiencies (like a Fighter). Simply put, a party of Rogue-level characters can get the job done, even if they don’t go around blasting everything in sight with a vast array of magical effects and save-or-dies (traditionally more reminiscent of the Wizard-level spectrum). It’s only when the Wizard-level characters are involved that things may get a little dicey.

Wizard: Wizard-level characters are basically the workhorses of the part; if you want something done, you turn to the ace (in this case, the wizard). A party of Wizard-level classes (when used to their full potential) is a color spraying, glitterdusting, flying, and all-in-all shit-wrecking group. Don’t get me wrong; I’m not condemning the Wizard-level classes in any regard—they are certainly fun to play and everyone loves beating up on helpless monsters—but when paired with classes of a lower Balance Point the wizard and similarly powerful classes take away from the feeling of team accomplishment because, well, the wizard did everything. It would be like if the Cavaliers had actually won an NBA championship while LeBron was their only good player (zing!).

Human nature being what it is, someone in a party is going to want to play a wizard, and why not? Wizards are badass. But human nature will also compel his not-so-powerful team members (the fighter or barbarian in an SRD party) to question their importance, and that’s probably a fair assessment. At low levels, the wizard needs the meleers to be his/her meat shields, but once the spells start coming and the wizard gets more and more self-sufficient, their team starts to become an entourage that relies on them to kill everything. And that’s not right. Everyone wants to be included; what the hell’s the point in having a party if the inverse were true?

As a result, GW’s setting of Rogue as the ideal BP is a way to allow everyone in a party who uses a class of that BP to contribute (or to let them know that they had options when they decided to pick something lower) while at the same time preventing one person from stealing all the glory with their awesome Wizard-ness.

OK, my nonsensical rambling is done.

ThunderGod Cid's blog

Ongoing Tips for New(er) Users

On Balance Points