Talk:Secondary professions for a Ritualist

Need to add Rt Ranger Spikers. Readem (talk *contribs ) 16:47, 13 April 2007 (CDT)

How on earth does a Ritualist/Dervish not a good combination? This combo makes a GREAT spirit warrior.


 * In the same way a W/E makes a great battle mage. &mdash; Skuld 02:55, 11 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Not this again....--Deathwing 11:14, 11 May 2007 (CDT)


 * You have no idea Skuld, just how great a W/E Nuker is. Armor of a tank, AoE of a Ele. SImple as that, absolutely flawless. Readem (talk *contribs ) 13:33, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
 * No mending though, how could you survive? --DEATHWING 14:11, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

energy... Dstroyer 666 14:05, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

delete
see Category talk:Profession combinations --Honorable Sarah 22:36, 11 May 2007 (CDT)


 * This should not be happening to any of the profession combination related sites, because:

-it can give new insight to old players.

-it can give a lot of valuable information to newcomers. *n

-it has a nice overview of all types of combos. ok not all but quite a few.

-agreeably: these sections are extremely useful, and whether or not they are 100% valid, like much of this site they are here to provide information and help, not stand up in a court of dork law

this should NOT be happening. Mister Muscolo  13:25, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The problem is...some people believe that they should only list the best combinations possible. Some people believe they should list every possibility. This causes a disagreement and total chaos with reverts and such. The problem is, these articles rely on opinion. Opinions vary from person to person. Maybe person A thinks that Troll Unguent owns on a ritualist, while person B thinks that Troll Unguent is a worthless skill on a ritualist. Person A adds the note because they think its good, Person B removes the note because it is "retarded shit". Person A adds the note again, person B removes the "retarded shit" again. Person A is offended because person B removed his note repeated times, Person A asks Person B about it, Person B calls Person A retarded, and an argument starts. Now repeat this for every combination of every skill in the game with every profession. Not pretty. --DEATHWING 13:36, 13 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Easy way to solve that, a simple question: "why is it good/bad?" &mdash; Skuld 13:37, 13 May 2007 (CDT)

Deletion controversy
While I realize that these pages are prone to bias and dispute, I feel like even the disputes, properly handled (i.e., hashed out on the discussion page and publicly viewable), provide insight here. With the builds section terminated, these pages are a last bastion for ideas for those who, like me, are genuinely indecisive and curious. I know better than to base any character on something I read here, and I think it's fair to expect that from everyone else. To that end, I think a policy of caveat emptor is the proper approach to these pages.

I want to see opinions from people; while I realize a wiki is not the same thing as a forum, its accessibility and the prominence of this resource in particular suggest to me that a conflux of opinions here is inevitable and desirable. I say that to say it's worth the trouble to have information on such things as "Secondary professions for a ____", even if no consensus is available. I'm not looking for an authoritative consensus on what's good and what's not. There's no such thing. What I want is a collection of opinions on the subject in a brief outline format--and that's what's here.

I don't care if Troll Unguent is good or bad for a Rt, but someone brought it up, and I'm intelligent enough to weigh the pros and cons whenever I should decide to make a Rt/Rng or Rng/Rt.

If these pages need to be heavily monitored--fine; I'm happy to assist with that. But whether they do or not, they need to stay. No information resource can hope to maintain itself if it's not willing to allow itself to promulgate the arguably biased opinions of the community it supports.
 * You would be better off making your arguments at Category_talk:Profession_combinations, as that's where the primary discussion and the attempt to reach concensus is taking place. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:06, 14 May 2007 (CDT)