Community

Sep 7, 2012 -- 7:39AM, mellored wrote:

Actually, i feel we need another MC-DrowBane to do a hall of hero's list.  I feel he did a good job there.

Too bad he stopped posting.


Edit: Also, S&D "fails" in an ambush the same way genasi blaster wizards "fail" when against a solo, or a striker "fails" against mass minions.  Are you putting all the builds with any sort of weaknesses in "theroetical" as well?

I agree about Hall of Heroes...but unless someone volunteers to be caretaker, a Collective post seems best.

I didn't give S&D a super thorough examination, so maybe I'm wrong. My initial impression was that it pretty much finished the encounter before your party could show up...meaning it'd be fun for like 2 encounters, and then not fun anymore, forcing the DM to intervene to shut you down. If that's not the case (I see you list it as "moderate" in your sig), then I might be mistaken.

Sep 7, 2012 -- 9:39AM, ezrider23 wrote:

Instead of seperate postings for the TheoryOP and PracticalOP builds i would think better notations in each would be ideal. Just point out some of the weaknesses and perhaps the line drawn between each where one goes from theoretical to practical.

One big purpose of the build collections is for beginners to learn to build/play a class. A build like Oppenheimer (when it was working) would not be helpful to someone looking to see how to build a paladin. But, I do think it deserves acknowledgement in the build collection - just not as an example of a paladin.

There are some builds that straddle the line a little though, those are the tricky ones.

I agree about Hall of Heroes...but unless someone volunteers to be caretaker, a Collective post seems best.

Probably.  Any takers?

Sep 7, 2012 -- 10:44AM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

I didn't give S&D a super thorough examination, so maybe I'm wrong. My initial impression was that it pretty much finished the encounter before your party could show up...meaning it'd be fun for like 2 encounters, and then not fun anymore, forcing the DM to intervene to shut you down. If that's not the case (I see you list it as "moderate" in your sig), then I might be mistaken.

It's only broken if the DM let's you use all your encounters, sneak away, and then take a short rest, and come back to attack again.

But in "practice", It can "nova"  (over 3 turns) a standard without being notice (though i'm sure they'd react someway).  After that, they'll get a bead and you might bloody a second while they close in on you.

If ambushed, you do moderate DPR (3 turn striker), or can grant attacks, and have a few leader recovery options.  Nothing spectacular but still funtional.

Sep 7, 2012 -- 9:39AM, ezrider23 wrote:

There are some builds that straddle the line a little though, those are the tricky ones.

The other issue, is that many "theroy op" builds can easily be tweaked to be practical.

I mean, take indestuctable change the PP to tactical warpriest, grab a feyslaughter staff and Ruthless Killer and your suddenly "practical".

What would the new hall of heros entail?  I wouldn't mind working on something.

Go for it.

First, get some guidelines down.  MC drowbane's is a good starting place.  Though i would add a cheeze (DM fiat) rating.

Also, i have no objection to using this thread.  It's more central.

The link to Valekosh's glossary is broken, just a heads up peeps!
-zel 

There are TWO Vampire handbooks. The appropriate post on page 1 doesn't even list Vampire as a class.

Here are the links:

I just don't want to suck community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Stay thirsty, my friends community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

Sep 14, 2012 -- 6:50PM, warrl wrote:

There are TWO Vampire handbooks. The appropriate post on page 1 doesn't even list Vampire as a class.

That's because it isn't.  When your entire existence is to make the O-assassin look like a respectable Striker, you really don't deserve anything of the sort.

May 27, 2012 -- 9:14AM, Nirafelos wrote:

Note that excessively posting in the wrong place is against the rules, but that there are no rules governing what goes where.  Which is why I've tried my very best to explain the common-sense of what belongs in what place. 

It's true that it's entirely subjective what has CharOp value and what does not.  In my first post in this thread, I mentioned the "other" category, which is precisely what the Polearm Momentum guide is.  That sort of guide is extremely hard to write well, as it has to take into account every possible build that could try to append the trick to itself, and discuss interesting options that opens up for each class. 

It's subjective what belongs.
Vampire is technically a class.
It should not have been IMO.
Vampires should each have a class in the same way that other races should IMO.
If Vampire should be a class, then Deva should from what I can tell.
Since Deva released first and is not a class, Vampire should not be a class.  

Great, wrong thread and forum.

Whether Vampire should be a class or not, it is a class.

They really do fine in heroic, and even low paragon.

You just can't think of them as a pure striker.  They are a 5th man.

That's crap and you know it, mellored. An effective 5th man almost fills two roles, the Vampire doesn't even fill one.

Effective 5th men examples include a Warlock, blaster Invoker, a Sorcerer, and most hybrid leaders.

Sep 28, 2012 -- 6:49AM, erachima wrote:

That's crap and you know it, mellored. An effective 5th man almost fills two roles, the Vampire doesn't even fill one.

Effective 5th men examples include a Warlock, blaster Invoker, a Sorcerer, and most hybrid leaders.

They can off-tank with their regen/surge generation, control a bit with their at-wills, and do decent damage.  And unlike avengers, they come with a MBA.

So yes, they are quite a good 5th man right out of the box.


The problem is the regen/damage doesn't scale enough, and they don't enough extra control tricks.  So they are only a good 5th man up till level 7 or so.

Setting aside for the moment that off-tank isn't a role, the Vampire is terrible at it for the same reason it's a poor striker: it does not deal enough damage to effectively "draw aggro". Any better melee striker is also a better off-tank.

Sep 28, 2012 -- 10:19AM, erachima wrote:

Setting aside for the moment that off-tank isn't a role, the Vampire is terrible at it for the same reason it's a poor striker: it does not deal enough damage to effectively "draw aggro". Any better melee striker is also a better off-tank.

You missed the fact they control.  A simple dark beckoning + shift will "draw aggro" easily just by you standing between the enemy and your allies.  Then they can hit with taste of life the till it's dead, and you probably will have gained a few HP.

Plus.  They really arn't that far behind in damage at first level.

Vampire: 1d10+4+4 = 13.5
vs
Ranger: 1d10+1d10+1d6 = 14.5
vs
Rogue: 1d4+5+2d6 = 14.5


Again, i'm talking up to ~lvl 7 (when they fail to get a good encounter power).  After that, yes, the regen won't keep up, the THP won't keep up, the damage won't keep up, and the control won't keep up.

First Post of this thread mentions that you should notify anyone of changes made to the thread before doing so. I would like to add mine to the Hybrid Leader-Defender section. The problem is I dont see anything listed as pre-requisite requirments for inclusion. As such I want to find out from the community, if it is good enough to go in there. Ill wait a few days to put it in (and mention it) assuming there are no serious objections.

   I am having some trouble comparing to the white raven Knight (the only other entry in that section) due to it not having much descriptive details of how it works mechanically

Warlord-Swordmage">community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...>Warlord-Swordmage a>

Edit: and i need to figure out how to format the link correctly.... 

Nov 9, 2012 -- 4:31PM, windgate wrote:

Warlord-Swordmage">community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...>Warlord-Swordmage a>

Edit: and i need to figure out how to format the link correctly.... 

Normal link tags use angle-brackets like you apparently tried to use above. Because I don't know how badly those work here on the forums, I'll use parentheses instead:

(a href="urlGoesHere") description (/a)

Note the quote marks around urlGoesHere. Don't forget them.

However, in this and several other forums a variant is used. This is to allow some carefully-restricted formatting options while preventing "html insertion", an interesting technique whereby I the evildoer could use your website to hack into Fred's computer when he happens to visit your forum page and read the message I posted.

That variant uses square brackets [ ] and there are two forms that work (I'll use parentheses again):

(url) urlGoesHere (/url)

(url=urlGoesHere) description (/url)

Do NOT put quote marks around ulrGoesHere.

Or you can just type the description, highlight it, click the chain-links icon above the message-entry box, and paste the url into the resulting dialog.

I'm thinking that the Weapons of Legacy guide should be listed under the item handbooks.

This Is Windgate:


Its been two weeks with no objections, so I went ahead and added the build into the hybrid section. Thank you for the formatting directions Warrl.

Nov 18, 2012 -- 4:04AM, BlinkBlink wrote:

I'm thinking that the Weapons of Legacy guide should be listed under the item handbooks.

This seems to be an update to the handbook for magic items already in the collective. Would be best to get permission from Armisael (its creator) first then just do a replacement?


I would also nominate the Elyssian Fields Thread as well, if it could become more specific in its defined purpose.     

Hello, I am knew to D&D Community so if I mess up please tell me. Is there a AC Handbook?

No, not really.  The methods of getting AC vary wildly depending on class.  You'd be best to look at the class handbook for the class you're interested in playing.

Ok, thanks.

added Ordered background list to the post

It's generally bad form to add your own work, especially before the regulars have a chance to discuss it.

And before any has commented on or ****ing seen it. Well done, your self-aggrandizement and lack of humility are astounding.

Dec 6, 2012 -- 9:14PM, zelink551 wrote:

And before any has commented on or ****ing seen it. Well done, your self-aggrandizement and lack of humility are astounding.

first all I did was add one line to one post, at worse a 1min fix. secondly I would have posed it for review if it had been mentioned anywhere that I should have done that, it was not. if your not going to write your rules down dont be surprised when they are not followed.

even with that said I would probably have posted it for review if I though it was needed, my guide offeres no opions, so it is not nessary for those to be judged. and it offers the background info in a much better way then the old guide. there is no disadvantage that I could see to puting it on the list (not like I deleted the old guide or something)

Dec 6, 2012 -- 7:41PM, Fardiz wrote:

It's generally bad form to add your own work, especially before the regulars have a chance to discuss it.

Why should it be bad form to add your own work, in general ? It would be bad form to instantly add an unfinished class guide or an undiscussed uber-build (that actually doesn't work), but an ordered background list isn't really controversial imo...

Dec 6, 2012 -- 9:14PM, zelink551 wrote:

And before any has commented on or ****ing seen it. Well done, your self-aggrandizement and lack of humility are astounding.

Also, a little less hostility wouldn't hurt :-)

Relative to CharOP standards, I was the very soul of courtesy.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:04AM, Fardiz wrote:

Relative to CharOP standards, I was the very soul of courtesy.

Yes, sorry i shouldn't have quoted you for that, the hostility part should have been directed at zelink551s "your self-aggrandizement and lack of humility are astounding", which seemed kinda harsh to me. Fixed it.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:12AM, SongNSilence wrote:

Dec 7, 2012 -- 8:04AM, Fardiz wrote:

Relative to CharOP standards, I was the very soul of courtesy.

Yes, sorry i shouldn't have quoted you for that, the hostility part should have been directed at zelink551s "your self-aggrandizement and lack of humility are astounding", which seemed kinda harsh to me. Fixed it.

then it should say that somewhere

Its generally assumed that something you do in 30 mins just to get on the big list that no one else has seen doesn't really belong there.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 11:54AM, zelink551 wrote:

Its generally assumed that something you do in 30 mins just to get on the big list that no one else has seen doesn't really belong there.

The only prerec I though of was that it be usefull, and not redundant. my guide includes backgrounds the other guide does not (in fact every usefull background I could find), and list them in a way that is far more usefull then the other background guide.

if you want people to do as you say you need to make sure they know that, there is no text anywhere that says people should first provide a link to let it be reviewed.

to be honest it is starting to sound elitest when I post something usefull, and people start complaining not about how usefull it is, but that I did not follow rules I had no way of knowing, and you consider important enough to insult someone for but not important enough to write down.

It was actually brought up multiple times in the last few pages of the thread itself, including a back and forth with bajat.

The OP does say "Please use this thread responsibly" "This thread is dedicated to easily referencing the best builds" the kind of comments that ought to make you think "what does that mean?" "who decides what's best?" and your internal monologue might conclude "hey, maybe self-promotion as a 'best resource' of an un-viewed topic isn't want this thread is about, and I could post asking for people to check out my new thread (which builds discussion, which is good) and ask if they think it's worth adding here, since really all it takes is a large minority of people here to vett something as 'good'." But that would have required giving it some thought.

You didn't really give it any thought, you just kinda went ahead and did your own edit to a community run sticky post. Really doesn't matter what forum (and not just forums, it's kinda a 'community' thing in general) you're on, that's a taboo. It's cool, zelink's just all ragey because he listens to too much rap (with the hippin and the hoppin and the bippin and the boppin), we'll forgive you.

edit: Rap isn't music.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 7:50PM, Zathris wrote:

It's cool, zelink's just all ragey because he listens to too much rap music (with the hippin and the hoppin and the bippin and the boppin), we'll forgive you.

I WIN!

I recommend adding, as a replacement, LDB's Scout Guide to the list, it's more up to date...

Edit: ...and complete.

Dec 7, 2012 -- 12:30PM, captpike wrote:

to be honest it is starting to sound elitest when I post something usefull, and people start complaining not about how usefull it is, but that I did not follow rules I had no way of knowing, and you consider important enough to insult someone for but not important enough to write down.

Char Op is very subjective and clickish in their rules. It is better to just find the people who are accepting like Mello Red for example. Focus on the positive, and don't let people who get angry over gaming get you down. 

There was an old couple who was headed to see their friends children wed in a distant land. They brought a donkey as a gift. On the road to the distant land, they passed some travelers.

The first set of travelers they met said that they were fools not to ride their donkey. So the couple climbed onto their donkey.

The second set of travelers they met said that they were fools to burden their donkey so much. So the man got off the donkey.

The third set of travelers they met said that they were fools to make an old man walk while the women rode the donkey. So the woman got off the donkey, and the man got onto the donkey.

The fourth set of travelers they met said they were fools to make a woman walk while the man rode the donkey.  So the man got off the donkey. 

The fifth set of travelers they met said that they were fools not to ride their donkey. The couple said they would enjoy their journey how they saw fit.

The second set of travelers came upon the group dining on the donkey from it being overburdened.

That story works really well for things of preference, but not for things of solid math. 

That makes my night. Matyr misunderstood a story about people misunderstanding each other.


Someone should make a new list of guides though with a defined condition for guides to enter the list that is not subjectively biased. 

I have multiple threads to link to. One has a list of powers selected as the best in heroic tier by people excluding myself. Another outlines the rules for a thread being locked, and where threads belong. Both turn out to be very subjective. Majority opinion turns out to be a primary factor for both as the rules for optimization are not well defined particularly. For example if something is to be maximized like damage with another constraint such as limited to powers with the keyword acid.

I am also going to soon start work on a guide for an alternative method to achieve what Polearm Momentum does.   

 

Jan 8, 2013 -- 5:05AM, bajatmerc wrote:

Someone should make a new list of guides though with a defined condition for guides to enter the list that is not subjectively biased.

This one is extensive and has everything of import.

I have multiple threads to link to

. 

None of any use.

One has a list of powers selected as the best in heroic tier by people excluding myself.

Useless.

Another outlines the rules for a thread being locked, and where threads belong.

Congratulations for writing out the CoC.

Both turn out to be very subjective.

You don't say.

Majority opinion turns out to be a primary factor for both as the rules for optimization are not well defined particularly. 

That's why we have consensuses.

For example if something is to be maximized like damage with another constraint such as limited to powers with the keyword acid.

They would be foolish, acid has no optimisation potential except as a rarely resisted element 

I am also going to soon start work on a guide for an alternative method to achieve what Polearm Momentum does. 

I.e. be a subpar defender?

Use a flail. There already is a guide for that.

Fardiz, acid has a little more optimization potential than that.  For instance its an easy way to consistently cause enemies to grant CA to your party with oozemaster if you use an implement.  And it has a couple of decent feats.
 
But your other points are correct.

It's painfully easy to get CA without wasting your weapon enchant and theme.

Move this topic elsewhere, this isn't the place.

Jan 8, 2013 -- 5:45AM, Fardiz wrote:

 

I am also going to soon start work on a guide for an alternative method to achieve what Polearm Momentum does. 

I.e. be a subpar defender?

I haven't seen defenders use polearm momentum before. That guide is very cool in my opinion, though I would think it is more suited as a controller/striker.

I have a guide that talks about the math relating the odds of CA too. It agrees with your assumption Fardiz. CA is not hard to get. It happens half the time in the first round, and 75% of time in any other round. Spending more than a feat on CA could be considered excessive design if you only wanted CA 75% of the time. 

There are guides rejected from this list subjectively, and there could be a list that has an explicit criteria free of subjectiveness. So long as opinions in a guide are started as opinions, and the RAW is correct the guides should be allowed. That way elitists can have this guide, and everyone is still equally encouraged to participate in the Char Op community despite not being popular with the Char Op click.
 
Through the Fair Use of the 1976 copyright act any of the guides in the current list could be included. That should get around any childish claims that people only want their guide in one list. 
   
Maybe Matyr could make the list, he seems level headed. Fradiz seems to have a great grasp on 4E as well. He could make it.

Catpikes guide is good too. 

*boggle*

(Edit: When I typed this, the post above consisted only of the "I've not aware of polearm momentum fighters" comment, and nothing else)

Defenders are more or less melee controllers so...
Sorry Zelink i just needed to respond.

Did you want me to redact a portion of my statements?

I'd ask if you realize that your story isn't about misunderstanding... but I would be saddened at the response.

The issue still stands.  If it is actually mathematically provable that riding the donkey one at a time is the best option (or any other option) given a list of constraints, then it would be relevant to char op.  As that is clearly not the meaning of the story, **shrug**.

Also, if you have multiple threads to link to you are welcome to put it in your sig.  But it has no business in the collective unless the concensus shows it to be useful.  I'd ask you to leave the thread to take this somewhere else, but really I would prefer if you would just leave this forum in general.

Edit: Your explanation of gaining CA is also... quaint.  It doesn't actually work like that at all.

Jan 8, 2013 -- 9:52PM, bajatmerc wrote:

Did you want me to redact a portion of my statements?

All of them. Stop hijacking this thread, use a different one.

Jan 8, 2013 -- 6:27PM, bajatmerc wrote:

 I haven't seen defenders use polearm momentum before.

Then you should read the forums more.

That guide is very cool in my opinion, though I would think it is more suited as a controller/striker.

Defenders are a subset of controller.

I have a guide that talks about the math relating the odds of CA too. It agrees with your assumption Fardiz. CA is not hard to get. It happens half the time in the first round, and 75% of time in any other round. Spending more than a feat on CA could be considered excessive design if you only wanted CA 75% of the time.

Post the guide and if the majority of the forum-contributers feal it to be accurate, then it should get added to this list.

There are guides rejected from this list subjectively, and there could be a list that has an explicit criteria free of subjectiveness. So long as opinions in a guide are started as opinions, and the RAW is correct the guides should be allowed. That way elitists can have this guide, and everyone is still equally encouraged to participate in the Char Op community despite not being popular with the Char Op click.

There is no CharOP clique or if anything there are several. But they all come together to maintain this thread by consensus. 
 

Through the Fair Use of the 1976 copyright act any of the guides in the current list could be included. That should get around any childish claims that people only want their guide in one list.

I love how Americans always assume they can enforce their copyright laws globally...
   

Maybe Matyr could make the list, he seems level headed. Fradiz seems to have a great grasp on 4E as well. He could make it. 

Catpikes guide is good too.  

I'm glad I have a firm grasp on 4e. I also have a firm grasp on common sense - I'm not going to spend hours and hours (trust me my guide took many days of actual work) to recreate something that already exists. 

Jan 4, 2013 -- 7:48PM, durntaur wrote:

I recommend adding, as a replacement, LDB's Scout Guide to the list, it's more up to date...

Edit: ...and complete.

I have added the above to Strikers post on page 1.

Jan 9, 2013 -- 1:33PM, durntaur wrote:

Jan 4, 2013 -- 7:48PM, durntaur wrote:

I recommend adding, as a replacement, LDB's Scout Guide to the list, it's more up to date...

Edit: ...and complete.

I have added the above to Strikers post on page 1.

As you wish Zelink, I redact it. Matyr and Fardiz couldn't make a less subjective collection of guides.  
Fardiz, subsets and copyright will be set aside to be discussed elsewhere at Zelinks request.
 
I tried a long time ago to post a list to this collection and it was subjectively denied regardless the many community contributions it had received. 

There were wild claims upon the thread. The worst of which was the fallacy that somehow a person might build their character purely from a list of 75 powers from various classes without viewing a guide on a specific class. 

Some people would suggest things for the list, and were not available to defend the powers they picked when challenge was brought to them. The click blamed me as if I had picked those powers, and some others believed that I had picked them. 

I tried to remind people that there are over 3000 powers in heroic tier. The list was highlighing 25 of the best by opinion, and 50 more awesome powers by opinion. 

Then the thread was locked. Nobody who had contributed or spent time on the list could do anything about it. 
However, the lists were mostly completed so it was kind of a relief. I was getting sick of repeatedly saying the same things. I constantly had to remind people of the submission format, there were 3000 powers, there isn't linearity of powers, the list was opinion based, powers were submitted by other players etc. 

Debates had to just be documented in some cases. A concensus could not be reached on whether attacking one creature 1 extra time a turn was better than attacking with a lot of damage in an AOE. 

I think the last headache for me to want to pursue generating the list came when I was faced with explaining to someone that when a power makes auspicious birth a required background, it is not as good as a power that does the same function without the requirement. *facepalm*        
    
 
I have thought about trying it again in the way that my favorite thread was performed. He had a rule in there to determine the best for his list by a rule of 3 votes in or 3 votes out. He completely freed himself from trying to explain anything because he could put the onus entirely on the community. I believe that to the way to produce a list.
  
     

Zach, your thread, and your opinion on how threads should be run, and your knowledge of the rules, and your ability to follow Social Contract all suck. You contribute less than people who haven't been here in over 2 years, and clutter threads like this one with your nonsensical self-justification. Plain and simple, you're being a jerk by disrupting these forums repeatedly and by being so arrogant that you can't ever admit your actual mistakes, you just come up with excuses time and time again. You even gloat when the people who have snubbed you fail, and label anyone who points out any flaw of yours 'a mean jerk', but you're just a hypocrite, the biggest jerk of them all.

Zath and Alcestis.  I group you two up with Come and Get it and....


THICKET OF BLADES!!! 

That so didn't work out as expected.

Jan 9, 2013 -- 11:00PM, bajatmerc wrote:

Baja says.....
Spoiler: Show

As you wish Zelink, I redact it. Matyr and Fardiz couldn't make a less subjective collection of guides.  
Fardiz, subsets and copyright will be set aside to be discussed elsewhere at Zelinks request.
 
I tried a long time ago to post a list to this collection and it was subjectively denied regardless the many community contributions it had received. 

There were wild claims upon the thread. The worst of which was the fallacy that somehow a person might build their character purely from a list of 75 powers from various classes without viewing a guide on a specific class. 

Some people would suggest things for the list, and were not available to defend the powers they picked when challenge was brought to them. The click blamed me as if I had picked those powers, and some others believed that I had picked them. 

I tried to remind people that there are over 3000 powers in heroic tier. The list was highlighing 25 of the best by opinion, and 50 more awesome powers by opinion. 

Then the thread was locked. Nobody who had contributed or spent time on the list could do anything about it. 
However, the lists were mostly completed so it was kind of a relief. I was getting sick of repeatedly saying the same things. I constantly had to remind people of the submission format, there were 3000 powers, there isn't linearity of powers, the list was opinion based, powers were submitted by other players etc. 

Debates had to just be documented in some cases. A concensus could not be reached on whether attacking one creature 1 extra time a turn was better than attacking with a lot of damage in an AOE. 

I think the last headache for me to want to pursue generating the list came when I was faced with explaining to someone that when a power makes auspicious birth a required background, it is not as good as a power that does the same function without the requirement. *facepalm*        
    
 
I have thought about trying it again in the way that my favorite thread was performed. He had a rule in there to determine the best for his list by a rule of 3 votes in or 3 votes out. He completely freed himself from trying to explain anything because he could put the onus entirely on the community. I believe that to the way to produce a list.