Community

Jan 2, 2013 -- 4:05AM, Matyr wrote:

Zathris what are you saying doesn't happen?

People coming here, asking valid questions (ie. being forthcoming with enough information for us to answer it, and not asking a question that could be resolved with a very simple search of forums/compendium/core rulebook), and being summarily dismissed. Qualifier: I don't read every thread, some thread topics don't interest time, and some threads reach 20 posts during the time I'm at work so unless it particularly interests me I typically assume that the question is well on the way to being resolved properly or it's already a troll-fest.

And you are exactly right.  We (and I include myself in that we with no feeling of shame) come here to learn.  You are not required, or forced, or whatever you give your knowledge.  You are not required to help anyone.  If you want you can just post a bunch of snide remarks and be really unhelpful.  That is totally within your rights.

What I am doing is asking for you to help.  I would like to learn.  I've read almost all the handbooks (cept for the classes I really don't care about running myself and have never seen in a game I've run), and I still get a lot of the information wrong.

I think it's a bit too late for you to try playing a 'but I'm humble' card at this point. Your last few posts came off as more-intelligent versions of Bajat's "Please post on MY thread using the format I have instructed, and if you aren't going to contribute in a manner I approve of then you shouldn't post." Knowing you, that's not what you intended, but that's how it reads.

As far as the comments on not wanting specific classes to be represented.  There are build handbooks for some of the not-great classes.  I just got finished looking through the Bladesinger handbook and I think it would be a hard-sell to say that class is worth mentioning among the other controllers.  The goal of this thread is to be pragmatic.  To be useful to people who don't have the time to build their starter character themselves and don't want to play a completely gimped version of themselves.  Not a perfect version (if they want a more fine-tuned version they should make it themselves), but one that will work in the short run.  I have found that when teaching players about the game telling them "these classes exist but suck" even with a lot of good backup arguments and discussion still leads a lot of players to want to play those classes.  I think that it is more effective to list a build that is a good example of what the class can do, an explanation of why that class isn't great, and a link to stuff that a player interested in that class can do instead if they want to be more effective.

Lastly, here's the thing about these sort of shout-outs.  If you (and for this paragraph you is the general you) are being helpful, giving advice, answering things on the "simple questions simple answer" threads and in general are adding to the greater body of information, then I'm not talking to you.  If you can look at the last 20 posts you have made and see that the vast majority of them are you not being helpful, not even an offhand remark telling the person where to go or what they might do, then I'm talking to you.  I don't care what your level of system mastery is, if you do nothing to show it you aren't being helpful.  You aren't obligated to be helpful, but it would be nice...

Yes, there are definitely some people whose contributions to this forum have waned, or really never existed, but since they've been here so long they get treated by many as a valid 'voice of the forums' equal to LoW or RF. It's the Holiday season, so I'm being particularly rough on people I feel are guilty of this (and am putting up more effort so that I'm not). Tenure doesn't exist here, and Publish or Perish only applies to generating non-crap.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 12:58PM, Zathris wrote:

[Yes, there are definitely some people whose contributions to this forum have waned, or really never existed, but since they've been here so long they get treated by many as a valid 'voice of the forums' equal to LoW or RF. It's the Holiday season, so I'm being particularly rough on people I feel are guilty of this (and am putting up more effort so that I'm not). Tenure doesn't exist here, and Publish or Perish only applies to generating non-crap.

If there's no tenure, exactly how do LoW or RF qualify as 'voices of the forum'? And not to knock either of them, but pointing out those two before LDB or Nausicaa borders on the absurd.

Specifically because there's no tenure. When LDB came back briefly this summer, IRC was full of him asking questions and trying to encourage other people to jump into the role he previously filled because he knew that, regardless of his available time, he wasn't qualified to run them without spending several weeks examining all the content and build developments since he left. Nausi wasn't even as up to date as LDB in the months before she left, a lot of her builds and opinions on optimizing clerics, wizards, etc. were as antiquated as langwilie, auspex, or a couple of yours are currently. She's a great person, with good insight, but being a historical presence is different from being a current expert.

People coming here, asking valid questions (ie. being forthcoming with enough information for us to answer it, and not asking a question that could be resolved with a very simple search of forums/compendium/core rulebook), and being summarily dismissed. Qualifier: I don't read every thread, some thread topics don't interest time, and some threads reach 20 posts during the time I'm at work so unless it particularly interests me I typically assume that the question is well on the way to being resolved properly or it's already a troll-fest.

Part of this is a bit unfair (which is my fault) because it is baggage carried over from another thread where i tried to help someone  (a thread which still looks like it has very few posts).
The thing is that most people who think highly enough of the char-op fu don't phrase their stuff as questions because they don't know the right questions to ask.  I know whenever I goof something up it isn't "Hey, does a fullblade work with Surprising Charge?" but rather me slipping up and as soon as someone points it out I can either change it, or start asking better questions.

 I think it's a bit too late for you to try playing a 'but I'm humble' card at this point. Your last few posts came off as more-intelligent versions of Bajat's "Please post on MY thread using the format I have instructed, and if you aren't going to contribute in a manner I approve of then you shouldn't post." Knowing you, that's not what you intended, but that's how it reads.

Sorry if that is how it reads, it is not the intention.  And I'm not talking about my thread at all.  I'm talking about in general in Char-Op what I would like to see.  Not "do this or I'll whine to the mods" just "I would like to see a higher ratio of help to hate".  Thats basically it.

Matyr, skipping entirely over the difference in personal style, preference, whatever, what would be good for this idea, this thread, is I think the following:

- Start a new thread, and actually called it Heroic for Dummies - Pregens, or some such thing. Your original opening statement in this thread is too long, wants to be too all-encompassing, and as such is open for interpretation and does not work.
This thread would be for finished builds only.

- Before allowing any build to be linked to or posted in above thread, have people create a PEACH : HfD (Class) thread for that build.
  
Then, in a month or so, we would have something worthy of being stickied.

p.s.: Oh, and insist the builds be LFR legal. You cannot perceive or involve every possibly home brew house rule anyway, so you might as well set these innocent new players up for something that can be used under the most common circumstances they would need a new and pre-generated character for.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 6:34PM, baldhermit wrote:

Matyr, skipping entirely over the difference in personal style, preference, whatever, what would be good for this idea, this thread, is I think the following:

- Start a new thread, and actually called it Heroic for Dummies - Pregens, or some such thing. Your original opening statement in this thread is too long, wants to be too all-encompassing, and as such is open for interpretation and does not work.
This thread would be for finished builds only.

- Before allowing any build to be linked to or posted in above thread, have people create a PEACH : HfD (Class) thread for that build.
  
Then, in a month or so, we would have something worthy of being stickied.

p.s.: Oh, and insist the builds be LFR legal. You cannot perceive or involve every possibly home brew house rule anyway, so you might as well set these innocent new players up for something that can be used under the most common circumstances they would need a new and pre-generated character for.

Well calling it "heroic for dummies" is a pretty bad way to market it for newer players.  Some players might be fine with it, others might just not click on it for title alone.  I tried to go with a title that was pretty neutral for that purpose.

I like the idea of having other PEACH threads but I thought that would be a bit on the ungainly side.  This thread might look a little bloated, but I expect most people who come here will just use the index and be done with it.  Most of the bloat from conversation and changes to build won't even get noticed.

Lastly, I thought about forcing things to be LFR legal, but I've never seen an LFR game not at a con.  All the games I've seen in my area are home games so it seemed a little pointless to limit it to LFR.  Granted LFR isn't really limiting it much, but still.

Edit: Thanks for the commentary.  Even though I don't agree I like the discussion  

Jan 2, 2013 -- 5:05PM, Zathris wrote:

Specifically because there's no tenure. When LDB came back briefly this summer, IRC was full of him asking questions and trying to encourage other people to jump into the role he previously filled because he knew that, regardless of his available time, he wasn't qualified to run them without spending several weeks examining all the content and build developments since he left. Nausi wasn't even as up to date as LDB in the months before she left, a lot of her builds and opinions on optimizing clerics, wizards, etc. were as antiquated as langwilie, auspex, or a couple of yours are currently. She's a great person, with good insight, but being a historical presence is different from being a current expert.

By that definition, LoW and RF aren't voices of CharOp either. Honestly, I'm not sure who would qualify as a voice of CharOp, simply because there isn't a current LDB or Nausicaa and a big part of that is that WotC isn't releasing any significant new content for 4e.

And strangely enough, Nausi and LDBs handbooks are still quite usable compared to some of the modern ones. They're not perfect and missing chunks sometimes, but I find handbooks with build and item references to be a lot easier to use.

Jan 2, 2013 -- 6:49PM, Matyr wrote:

Well calling it "heroic for dummies" is a pretty bad way to market it for newer players.  Some players might be fine with it, others might just not click on it for title alone.  I tried to go with a title that was pretty neutral for that purpose.

...

Lastly, I thought about forcing things to be LFR legal, but I've never seen an LFR game not at a con.  All the games I've seen in my area are home games so it seemed a little pointless to limit it to LFR.  Granted LFR isn't really limiting it much, but still.
 

So, your prospective visitor of this thread is someone who would be turned off by a title like "Heroic for Dummies", yet went out of his way to find this board, this forum?


Regarding LFR: even if you in your personal gaming experience rarely see one, and as I understand it, you play local, so odds are a physical area that is effected by a few peoples personal preferences, that does not mean that the LFR rule set would not make a good base for this thread. It's wide spread, relatively easy to understand, and again, what are your expectations of the people who use the builds in this thread?

Mostly it is a resource for things like this:

"Hey I wanted to try Xclass out for a one-shot.  If I like it, I'll read more into it." - bring a build from here and you are good to go.

"Hey, I'm a DM and I want to have some pregens for my players where should I go?" - I can post a link to here instead of them being sent to the truly horrible resource that is pregens from DnD Encounters.

"Hey, I'm new and reading the handbook for each class is a bit overwhelming for trying to figure out what I want to play, is there a chance I could get some low level examples of different guys?"  

Thats all it is meant for.

Someone else said something along the lines of this is good for gateway drug for new Char-Op potentials.  I think that might be a bit much, but that might also be true.

As far as I know, those "for dummies" books sell pretty well so I don't think the phrase would actually put people off if what they want is advice for beginners.

This thread is useful. The only thing missing from this thread adding to its true purpose instead of pontificating about who is really awesome.

Jan 3, 2013 -- 12:01AM, Raegoul wrote:

This thread is useful. The only thing missing from this thread adding to its true purpose instead of pontificating about who is really awesome.

+1.

Matyr, how about posting an update for the builds that still need to get done? A lot of progress has been made since last week.

By the way, you know I'm only contributing to this so you will finish your Rebreather handbook right?

Jan 3, 2013 -- 2:26AM, svendj wrote:

Jan 3, 2013 -- 12:01AM, Raegoul wrote:

This thread is useful. The only thing missing from this thread adding to its true purpose instead of pontificating about who is really awesome.

+1.

Matyr, how about posting an update for the builds that still need to get done? A lot of progress has been made since last week.

By the way, you know I'm only contributing to this so you will finish your Rebreather handbook right?

I keep hoping everyone will forget I did that half-assedly >.>

I'll do an update when I have time tonight.  Right now I need to be cleaning the house and getting ready to run errands. 

Jan 3, 2013 -- 12:01AM, Raegoul wrote:

This thread is useful. The only thing missing from this thread adding to its true purpose instead of pontificating about who is really awesome.

+2.

To many players, there is value to a good build that is relatively easy to play. People who want an optimized build can always use the various class guides, but novices that want something to try out now benefit more from a thread like this.

Still shouldn't be selling people snake oil.

As far as arguments go, "well, there's a Bladesinger Handbook" and "if someone wants to play a Cavalier, being able to find it here is a good thing" really have no merit. It would be better for people to have to wonder "why are there no Vampire builds in the 'Good and Simple' thread?" and if they ask, we can honestly tell them "because Vampires aren't 'Good' and making them just 'Decent' isn't 'Simple'" Having such builds here is contrary to the purpose of both the Forums and the Thread itself.

Jan 3, 2013 -- 4:04PM, Zathris wrote:

Still shouldn't be selling people snake oil.

As far as arguments go, "well, there's a Bladesinger Handbook" and "if someone wants to play a Cavalier, being able to find it here is a good thing" really have no merit. It would be better for people to have to wonder "why are there no Vampire builds in the 'Good and Simple' thread?" and if they ask, we can honestly tell them "because Vampires aren't 'Good' and making them just 'Decent' isn't 'Simple'" Having such builds here is contrary to the purpose of both the Forums and the Thread itself.

According to you. But if a player says 'hmmm, I wonder what a Vampire build might look like' wouldn't it be great for them to have a resource to go to? One that says 'Here is a Vampire build. Note that they are quite weak and in the long run will probably not satisfy you, but here you go anyway. Good luck, and enjoy.'

Rather than saying 'We didn't bother, sucks to be you.'

No, it wouldn't be great. They'd copy the build into the builder, and tell their party that they're playing "an optimized striker from the forums" without ever reading the notes on tactics/playstyle. This is 'Heroic Characters for Dummies", remember?

Jan 3, 2013 -- 4:32PM, Zathris wrote:

No, it wouldn't be great. They'd copy the build into the builder, and tell their party that they're playing "an optimized striker from the forums" without ever reading the notes on tactics/playstyle. This is 'Heroic Characters for Dummies", remember?

No. The only thing I get from your post is that you are determining how 'random forum reader' is going to utilize the information herein.

We are the encyclopaedia. We provide the information. It is not our job, nor should it be, to determine how that information is used. If THAT is your goal, I would encourage you to start a separate guide with those goals clearly stated.

Why not just add a statement or section or rating that says this class is always sub-optimal but if you are desperate to play this kind of character this is an optimised build. In the end with enough constructive discussion things will work themselves out. The constant need of some to narrowly define character optimisation is just as stupid as the people who ask for help but do not listen.

So you're saying that needing 1 of 3 Themes, Expertise, SupImp, ID, Charge Kit, a specific MC and a Power Swap on a Vampire/Cavalier qualifies as something other than "highly optimized, complicated, and still not very good"?

And no, I've already covered why a statement on "this is hard to pull off and still won't be very good" isn't going to work for a thread designed to be for "Hey, I'm new ... is there a chance I could get some low level examples of different guys?"

Jan 3, 2013 -- 5:29PM, Zathris wrote:

So you're saying that needing 1 of 3 Themes, Expertise, SupImp, ID, Charge Kit, a specific MC and a Power Swap on a Vampire/Cavalier qualifies as something other than "highly optimized, complicated, and still not very good"?

And no, I've already covered why a statement on "this is hard to pull off and still won't be very good" isn't going to work for a thread designed to be for "Hey, I'm new ... is there a chance I could get some low level examples of different guys?"

I understand your point is to protect the integrity of character optimisation but there comes a point when people have to make their own decisions if properly informed.

The fact that Zathris is abrasive, doesn't really make him any less correct.  People are always interested in weak classes, if you start going crazy trying to reach baselines with poor classes, people are going to try and use them, likely fail, and wonder why they're not having fun.

What I'd expect in this thread (heroic for dummies) are builds that are pretty much straight forward, and are HARD to screw up.  A vampire with were theme, claw gloves and charge kit isn't what I would consider straight forward, regardless of the fact that every teenager who can talk his GF into playing with him is going to want to make her a veggie vamp so she can RP a twilight character.

That said, not all classes are created with the same level of simplicity.  E classes, mostly yeah, they pretty much play themselves.  Rangers...not hard to figure out twin strike.  For "gateway drug" opping, it stands to reason that the simple characters are an easy place to learn so people can pick up /why/ some selections are better then others.  Once they learn the simple concepts, they will be ready to move on to more complex opping.

Just the thoughts of a LSM baddie who enjoys reading and learning.

My ideal would be to have a couple ratings next to each build, a Simplicity rating and an Effectiveness rating. That should help a lot, without changing the basic function of the guide, which is "I want to play a _____, how can I do it?"

Jan 3, 2013 -- 5:09PM, Zathris wrote:

Now you're just being ignorant, we aren't the 4e Wiki, that isn't the stated intent of the forum or this thread. If you think that should be what this thread is about, I encourage you to start a separate guide on the General or Rules Q&A forums where a General Use thread belongs, and you can fill it with whatever crap your heart desires, no matter how terrible it is.

This is Character Optimization, if you don't understand what those words mean, leave.

I'm going to +1 most of this. I do not agree with the level of snobbery that Zath has been displaying through most of his posts but  i do feel that this thread would probably be better in the general forum.

While this thread is utilizing some of the Char-Op regulars it really isn't optimization. It is well built and useful characters for someone looking for a pick-up and go PC to use in oneshots or starting templates for further opping. That being said most folks looking for these types of builds will most likely stop off in General before coming here. Having the handbooks linked to the builds will drive those players here if they wish nto learn to get to the next level of game play.

Jan 3, 2013 -- 5:53PM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

My ideal would be to have a couple ratings next to each build, a Simplicity rating and an Effectiveness rating. That should help a lot, without changing the basic function of the guide, which is "I want to play a _____, how can I do it?"

Just do away with the rating system altogether. A brief explanation of the build and typical tactics that go along with it should suffice.  A short write up for the reasons why items/feats/powers are chosen and how they all interact should suffice for the goal of the thread. If any questions or comments arise from the build they could be addressed by PM to the build creator.

Boy i really miss the specific class forums. 

Jan 3, 2013 -- 5:29PM, Zathris wrote:

So you're saying that needing 1 of 3 Themes, Expertise, SupImp, ID, Charge Kit, a specific MC and a Power Swap on a Vampire/Cavalier qualifies as something other than "highly optimized, complicated, and still not very good"?

And no, I've already covered why a statement on "this is hard to pull off and still won't be very good" isn't going to work for a thread designed to be for "Hey, I'm new ... is there a chance I could get some low level examples of different guys?"

I see your points, but where do you draw the line? I mean, DPR-wise a heroic Vampire doesn't differ much from a Warlock or Hexblade, nor a Bladesinger from an Avenger or Executioner. And that's with bare-bones optimization (expertise, focus, IAoP and a combat advantage feat).

Same goes for Cavaliers vs Paladins, Berserkers vs Wardens, Hunters vs Druids, and Skalds vs Clerics. None of those classes are the best at what they do, but they perform adequately in their respective roles in heroic without having to jump through all sorts of weird hoops. 

Sure, there will always be a gulf between those classes and stuff like Rangers, Fighters, Wizards and Warlords. But the advice for someone looking to play another class can't be "skip it, and play one of these few truly optimal classes instead". So at what point do you say a class is too unplayable to be listed here? 

(know that I'm not against deleting a couple of classes from this thread, or at least changing their role. Sentinels and Binders just shouldn't be here, and Bladesingers should be listed under strikers)

Jan 4, 2013 -- 1:01AM, svendj wrote:

So at what point do you say a class is too unplayable to be listed here?

Basically, it sounds to me if there is a better option, it's not optimized, and Z&Z don't want it here. To take the Executioner or Cleric, they're classes that just get better if you hybrid, so why bother with single class Executioner?

For the more zealous charop vocals, at level 8, if a striker doesn't have the potential to generate 8-9 instances of damage rolls in 3 rounds, it's not optimized. It's a fairly loose metric, but the first 3 rounds are where most of the damage is going to happen in most encounters. So, a Twin Striking ranger with 2 immediate attacks and a minor action attack, easily qualifies. A Barbarian with Swift Charge, Thundering Howl, Curtain of Steel, Sohei Flurry, Battle Awareness qualifies. A Hexblade with, I don't even know what, probably doesn't qualify. Not sure how I would quantify the other roles, it's harder.

The main argument is, if it's not a "good" class, then how can you call the build "good" on charop boards?

Builds could be separated into categories, the good, the mediocre, and the chaff. I personally don't mind all classes being represented, because you're saying look, this is the best vampire charop could come up with and see how it sucks (pun intended). In some cases like the executioner, you could show a gimmicky executioner that's a one shot one kill build (possible to do in heroic), and then say, but here is something better, and provide a hybrid executioner.

This is probably outside the scope of what Matyr is trying to do, but it might be preferable on these boards.

I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/Baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.

You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct

Please remember to keep your posts polite and on topic and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree and criticize one another as long as it's done respectfully and constructively.

What I'd expect in this thread (heroic for dummies) are builds that are pretty much straight forward, and are HARD to screw up.  A vampire with were theme, claw gloves and charge kit isn't what I would consider straight forward, regardless of the fact that every teenager who can talk his GF into playing with him is going to want to make her a veggie vamp so she can RP a twilight character.

Damn calumny! No one here has a girlfriend! 

Jan 4, 2013 -- 1:01AM, svendj wrote:

Same goes for Cavaliers vs Paladins, Berserkers vs Wardens, Hunters vs Druids, and Skalds vs Clerics. None of those classes are the best at what they do, but they perform adequately in their respective roles in heroic without having to jump through all sorts of weird hoops.

I think the basic issue is that we're talking about newer players here. They get attached to characters. They assume flaws in play are due to them not understanding the tactics, not their character. Even if given warning labels saying otherwise, some of them will want to keep playing that character.

I don't think the builds should be expected to function strongly all the way throughout Epic.

But if the thread is handing out 8th level characters, there should be an obvious route into Paragon which doesn't suck. If it is recommending characters who can get easily crushed(aka melee strikers who win initiative, attract a lot of attention with a nova, and then get focus fired), show or build to not have that happen.

I'm of the mind that we could/should make a comprehensive list of classes/builds and rank them from most to least playable. Use the color coding system from the handbooks and work from there.

Every class should get representation and should have a very clear disclaimer denoting its functionality at the table.

I know many people like to think that because the title is 'optimization' that it must mean the absolute epitome of death raining down, but there is a scale of op and I think we're being negligent if we don't aknowledge that fact.

It's really an issue of whether we optimize according to what's best overall or what's best given some specific conditions. There may be an optimal vampire build, but no vampire build is optimal in the context of all possible builds.

In my view, this forum is meant more for optimizing within constraints, otherwise we're done as soon as someone finds an infinite damage loop (okay, everyone just play PunPun!). Which means when someone says "I want to play a vampire," it's more in the purpose of the forum to say "okay, here is the best vampire you can be," rather than pointing them to the ranger handbook.

Jan 4, 2013 -- 1:45PM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

It's really an issue of whether we optimize according to what's best overall or what's best given some specific conditions. There may be an optimal vampire build, but no vampire build is optimal in the context of all possible builds.

In my view, this forum is meant more for optimizing within constraints, otherwise we're done as soon as someone finds an infinite damage loop (okay, everyone just play PunPun!). Which means when someone says "I want to play a vampire," it's more in the purpose of the forum to say "okay, here is the best vampire you can be," rather than pointing them to the ranger handbook.

I think your post sums up where I am coming from quite nicely.

Jan 4, 2013 -- 1:45PM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

It's really an issue of whether we optimize according to what's best overall or what's best given some specific conditions. There may be an optimal vampire build, but no vampire build is optimal in the context of all possible builds.

In my view, this forum is meant more for optimizing within constraints, otherwise we're done as soon as someone finds an infinite damage loop (okay, everyone just play PunPun!). Which means when someone says "I want to play a vampire," it's more in the purpose of the forum to say "okay, here is the best vampire you can be," rather than pointing them to the ranger handbook.

+1

Jan 4, 2013 -- 1:49PM, ezrider23 wrote:

Jan 4, 2013 -- 1:45PM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

It's really an issue of whether we optimize according to what's best overall or what's best given some specific conditions. There may be an optimal vampire build, but no vampire build is optimal in the context of all possible builds.

In my view, this forum is meant more for optimizing within constraints, otherwise we're done as soon as someone finds an infinite damage loop (okay, everyone just play PunPun!). Which means when someone says "I want to play a vampire," it's more in the purpose of the forum to say "okay, here is the best vampire you can be," rather than pointing them to the ranger handbook.

+1

+2 

Lah Dee Dah


Happy you agree with what someone else suggested for the thread you started and have stopped maintaining.

However, for that to work there needs to be a direction, sctructure, etc, all of which are lacking here.


If you really want to do this, think it through, and start over.    

Jan 4, 2013 -- 4:51PM, baldhermit wrote:

Lah Dee Dah


Happy you agree with what someone else suggested for the thread you started and have stopped maintaining.

However, for that to work there needs to be a direction, sctructure, etc, all of which are lacking here.


If you really want to do this, think it through, and start over.    

stopped maintaining?

I update it whenever I'm home for more than a couple of hours and don't have to sleep.  Yes thats only like 1/week but saying I don't update is just incorrect.

Editted the OP:

Added all the builds that were completed since last update.  I also moved the Bladesinger to striker and made a note that directs people wanting to play a Bladesinger to the striker section.

As it stands we still need the following:

Leaders (2)

• Bard (Skald)
• Druid (Sentinel)

Defenders
None!  Excellent work people.

Controllers (5)

• Druid
• Hunter
• Seeker
• Sha'ir
• Witch

Strikers (3)

• Assassin
• Blackguard
• Warlock

Lastly I understand this flaunts my ignorance, but I don't know how to turn a hyperlink into a name.  For example I would like for Baldhermit's rogue entry to say "Crossbow Rogue" so that we can start having useful ways to add extra builds to the index.

Pregen_Characters_-_Good_and_Simple

The simplest method is to type out the text you want, highlight it, then use the forum editor's link function (The chain button) to add the link. It will automatically generate the link as part of the highlighted text.

Jan 4, 2013 -- 5:56PM, RuinsFate wrote:

Pregen_Characters_-_Good_and_Simple

The simplest method is to type out the text you want, highlight it, then use the forum editor's link function (The chain button) to add the link. It will automatically generate the link as part of the highlighted text.

Gotcha, I'll start doing that for the builds.

Edit: I updated the Defender's section (since it is complete) with a slightly new format that should allow for more than one entry per class.  Thoughts? 

Jan 4, 2013 -- 1:45PM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

It's really an issue of whether we optimize according to what's best overall or what's best given some specific conditions. There may be an optimal vampire build, but no vampire build is optimal in the context of all possible builds.

In my view, this forum is meant more for optimizing within constraints, otherwise we're done as soon as someone finds an infinite damage loop (okay, everyone just play PunPun!). Which means when someone says "I want to play a vampire," it's more in the purpose of the forum to say "okay, here is the best vampire you can be," rather than pointing them to the ranger handbook.

-1

Vampire isn't a class, it's a concept, and a very vague concept at that because of the massive amount of literature on vampires. What kind of Vampire someone wants to be, D? Alucard? Ventrue? Malkavian? Dracula? Blade? Spike/Angel? Nosferatu? (movie not V:TM). Now, Vampire wasn't a very good example for your point, which I do understand, but "Cavalier" also means something beyond the narrow depiction mearls-n-co gave it in the essentials book (among other things, that was my High School Mascot); in fact the historical cavalier barely resembles the wotc version (certainly not the first historical inaccuracy in D&D)

Since we're talking the scope of this guide ... when I was first learning 4E I had a hard time figuring out the reletive (de)merits of the classes in their roles. The individual class guides have that color coded sometimes, and the "Art of Striking" (and leading, defending) were useful despite being ~3 years old, but a succinct summary, perhaps incorparated here, would be useful.

 

Jan 4, 2013 -- 8:29PM, Zathris wrote:

Vampire isn't a class, it's a concept, and a very vague concept at that because of the massive amount of literature on vampires. What kind of Vampire someone wants to be, D? Alucard? Ventrue? Malkavian? Dracula? Blade? Spike/Angel? Nosferatu? (movie not V:TM). Now, Vampire wasn't a very good example for your point, which I do understand, but "Cavalier" also means something beyond the narrow depiction mearls-n-co gave it in the essentials book (among other things, that was my High School Mascot); in fact the historical cavalier barely resembles the wotc version (certainly not the first historical inaccuracy in D&D)

Well, vampire is a class, I do see it in my book right here... But more to your point, I don't think anyone objects to the idea that you might start by giving someone some warning. Here's an exchange I see a lot:

"Hi! I'm new to D&D and I want to play a vampire, can anyone help me?" (innocent request)

"Well, maybe you should rethink that. The actual vampire class is horribly underpowered, after the first 5 levels or so you will be lagging behind your party, and by the middle of the game you'll be so bad that it actually makes the game harder for everyone else. But there are lots of ways to get that same idea, you could try being a Vryloka, which then leaves you open to any class you want. Or you could just find a way to take a lot of invigorating powers and be another class, like a fighter. But no one recommends vampires because they stop being fun too quickly." (so far so good!)

"But I read the vampire class and it sounds really cool and that's the only one I want to play." (unfortunate, but hey, you'll have that)

"Then you're an idiot and you shouldn't be on this forum, it's called CharOp for a reason." (and now we've lost it)

New players, and a number of casual players, tend not to care about mechanics because they don't understand the mechanics anyway. They prioritize other factors that may well seem random to you or me, but yelling at them isn't going to help anything. And typically, with a little experience, that all goes away.

There are also groups that never do long campaigns, only short adventures. So they may only go 3-5 levels with a given character, and just want to try out lots of things. I was in such a group for a while; it's a totally enjoyable way to play.

By what argument is it actively *bad* to help such people? If you don't personally care to do so, that's totally understandable. But what's the benefit in berating others for trying to be helpful?

Jan 4, 2013 -- 10:57PM, entropiccanuck wrote:

Since we're talking the scope of this guide ... when I was first learning 4E I had a hard time figuring out the reletive (de)merits of the classes in their roles. The individual class guides have that color coded sometimes, and the "Art of Striking" (and leading, defending) were useful despite being ~3 years old, but a succinct summary, perhaps incorparated here, would be useful.

 

I'd like to see more basic information, like the relative strengths of the classes and which are "good enough" even if not the best and which are basically worthless.

For example, my understanding is the best class in each role is Warlord, Fighter, Wizard and Ranger. For leaders, Bards are pretty good too and some Cleric builds are decent. Paladins aren't as good as fighters but they have their merits. No striker does as much damage as a Ranger but Rogues and Barbarians get the job done and Avengers are acceptable too (although they're part off-tank rather than pure striker). Warlocks do less damage than pure strikers but add single-target control so they're good as a 5th character but not adequate as a "primary striker." Wizards are the best controllers because they're dailies are OP but invokers have better at-wills and can do a lot of damage in radiant mafia parties. Druids are fun but not as good as Wizards or Invokers. Cavaliers, Vampires and Binders are a joke and shouldn't be played.

I'm sure some of this is off and some of it is close but debatable, but I wish there some general guides on the stuff that everyone knows and is taken for granted.

I remember when I first started taking MVC2 seriously and learning about it (this was a long time ago) and there was a really useful guide on gamefaqs that basically broke it down and explained which 10 characters were better than all the rest and why.

The class guides have been really useful but it seems like a lot of broader information is taken for granted and it can take a while for someone new to pick it all up. While I'm not demanding that other people do a lot of work for me, as a new player to these boards, what I would find useful would be some guides or FAQs covering general, big-picture knowledge.

Also, it seems like most of the builds in the "complete collection of character build links" are gimmicky or weird rather than representative of the class. So when I came across this thread it seemed more like what I was looking for. I'd rather see a collection of solid and functional builds that do what they need to do. I can't speak for anyone else but personally I don't see the point in dumbing them down unnecessarily, but at the same time I don't think every build needs to be 100% tweaked out and optimized.

Jan 4, 2013 -- 11:06PM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />By what argument is it actively *bad* to help such people? If you don't personally care to do so, that's totally understandable. But what's the benefit in berating others for trying to be helpful?

The argument that doing so isn't the purview of this forum? Unless it's for a 1-shot, and as previously mentioned is as harmful to the integrity of this forum as 'find city nukes' and hypothetical replies of "**** off then" to noob questions (please don't mistake that I consider it perfectly acceptable to tell the likes of trolls and the stubbornly ignorant to **** off)

@Hydralisk: Well, yes, some of your understanding is quite off, for example I wouldn't even mention Paladins or Clerics in list of top anythings except MCs and Hybrids for the Cleric.

I actually had started on a CharOp 101 guide over the summer with some help from ldb, but then I got a promotion, then sick, then holidays ... so it's still not at a point where it's been worth me posting anything on it.

Let me start out by saying that I despise "What's the Best Class At ____ " threads, they invariably get infested with trolls and class fanboi's. Some people don't know when to draw the line between "better" and "anecdotally situationally better"

The problem with a full class ranking is that it's rather level dependant, Campaign dependant, Party dependant, DM dependant, and highly Optimization dependant. Typically, at least in my mind, the difference between A and S rank anything (using those goofy rankings from japanese games) is which one has the highest top-end with relevant optimization (29/30 is not relevant to me) and that often means "which one breaks the game". When trying to rank based on practical optimization, first you have to define what that means ... and that's massively meta, I know a lot of people are far more willing to run the RAW of Reaper's Axe than Flurry of Talons even though the former breaks the game while the later fixes a weak class. Leaders are a little bit easier to rank because practical op ends where party op begins, while Controllers are a bit more difficult since I have no idea where the practical line of increasing save penalties, stacking conditions, or dealing striker damage while dazing is.

I do think the S-A-B-C-D-E-F tiered system is the better one to use though, "Which is better Ardents vs Shaman" is an argument that can end friendships unless we're just willing to put them both in B and move on.

Well then i guess at this point you should be told to (Content Removed) because you have become nothing but a troll on this thread. All you keep spouting off about is the integrity of char-op, well, it's really hard to have any integrity when (Content Removed) . Move on and leave it alone. If it's not your thing just stop posting.

Go strat your own thread and call it "(Content Removed) playing this zathris approved build WotC should take away your rights to play D&D. Oh, by the way i'm smarter and better than you so you suck and should just move on."

Seriously man. Just stop. You're contributing nothing.

(ORC_Cerberus: Edited - Masked Vulgarity is against the Code of Conduct)   

Jan 4, 2013 -- 5:11PM, Matyr wrote:

Controllers (5)

• Druid
• Hunter
• Seeker
• Sha'ir
• Witch

What about blaster wizard? I posted a build for that two pages back. I suppose I could turn it into a sha'ir or witch if you really want, but I don't really see the point (mage/evoker/pyromancer is the natural choice here). 

Jan 5, 2013 -- 2:57AM, Zathris wrote:

The argument that doing so isn't the purview of this forum? Unless it's for a 1-shot, and as previously mentioned is as harmful to the integrity of this forum as 'find city nukes' and hypothetical replies of "**** off then" to noob questions (please don't mistake that I consider it perfectly acceptable to tell the likes of trolls and the stubbornly ignorant to **** off)

But what if it is for a 1-shot?

And again, like I said, if we're going for optimality in an absolute sense then we would always recommend TheoryOp things like infinite damage loops and unkillable revenants and other stuff that isn't fun but is optimal. So how do you define what's in the purview of the forum? It sounds like it's "optimize according to what Zathris would approve of most." Which neglects the upper end (the truly optimal TheoryOp builds) and the lower end (people who play in a low-op game where a fully-opped ranger would spoil everyone else's fun). If the forum's goal is to help people (and I'm quite sure that WotC would say it is), then we have to acknowledge that different groups exist at different points on the optimization spectrum.

This whole Zathris circular argument thing should be in its own thread because it is taking up too much space here. Honestly, until Zathris makes a useful contribution that is actually constructive it is not worth arguing with him. In the end all that is being achieved in these recent pages is blocking the usefulness of this thread. If that is Zathris' goal then congrats to him, well played.

I have built a blackguard that I can post when I get off of work. If that goes over well I can also start work on the Hunter.

Dragonborn Blackguard (Paladin)
Difficulty Level ** for managing multiple situational buffs as well as lots of minor actions.
Playstyle: Melee Striker

The blackguard is a heavily armored melee striker. He gets in the enemies face and doesn’t leave until it is dead. Be aware that the Blackguard only holds his own in heroic and is outclassed in the higher levels to other strikers. The Vice of Fury blackguard focuses on meeting two criteria to do damage in battle. First off is having combat advantage (CA) which can be gotten most easily by flanking the enemy. The next criteria is upon being bloodied yourself, or being next to a bloodied creature. All your striker benefits can be used out of turn as well so you have a pretty damaging MBA and enablers will love you.

Class Features
Spoiler: Show

Racial Features
Spoiler: Show

Theme Features
Spoiler: Show

Level 1 CB
Spoiler: Show

Level 1 Commentary
Figure out how to work with your party so you can get CA as often as possible some controllers are great for this. Start off with dragonfear to get CA on your first and second turn. Use  inevitable strike when you use dread smite so the ongoing damage portion procs. Shroud of Shadow should be used early on as it grants some good mitigation.

MBA at level 1 while bloodied and have CA would be +11 vs AC [W] +13 damage

Level 5 CB
Spoiler: Show

Level 5 Commentary
At level 5 you will have an easy way to access most of your bloodied bonuses right off the bat. You also gain another use of dread smite and a rather lackluster daily utility power. In the first round immediately use shroud of shadow. Then use dragonfear if within range of enemies. Then charge into combat. At the start of your second round use the encounter power on your magical weapon. Now you are bloodied. If you are fighting the BBEG now is the time to use your daily Frenzying Smite upon him boosted with Inevitable Strike and Dread Smite. Continue your turn with Action pointing and smacking him with an at-will. Then using your last minor action to vice’s reward since you just pissed that guy off and he is going to want to repay the hurt you just layed down on him. For round 3 use your last Dread Smite with an at-will. Further round should be clean up and you will also be out of anything but at-will attacks.

An MBA at level 5 when bloodied and having CA would be +14 vs AC [W] + 14 damage

Level 8 CB
Spoiler: Show

Level 8 Commentary
At level 8 you become more powerful as you get a boost to accuracy, and damage since strength and charisma mods both increased. The rounds of combat remain the same as with level 5 except you might consider using new daily utility power Aspect of Feocity over Vice’s Reward. You also increase your damage when bloodied by 2 and gain Superior Will, which allows you to shake off any daze or stun at the start of your turn. Which is great because those conditions are nasty.

At level 8 when you are bloodied and have CA against an enemy your get a +3 to attack and +11 to damage. So an MBA would be +18 vs. AC [W] + 21 damage.

Jan 5, 2013 -- 2:57AM, Zathris wrote:

@Hydralisk: Well, yes, some of your understanding is quite off, for example I wouldn't even mention Paladins or Clerics in list of top anythings except MCs and Hybrids for the Cleric.

If the only thing you can fault me on is something I neither said nor implied, I'll just assume I'm doing ok.

Jan 5, 2013 -- 1:28PM, Raegoul wrote:

This whole Zathris circular argument thing should be in its own thread because it is taking up too much space here. Honestly, until Zathris makes a useful contribution that is actually constructive it is not worth arguing with him. In the end all that is being achieved in these recent pages is blocking the usefulness of this thread. If that is Zathris' goal then congrats to him, well played.

I don't think "circular argument" means what you think it means ...

Regardless, I've been replying to questions directed at me, and comments regarding me (such as yours), and if you've been paying attention, while I'm being argumentative and confrontational (because I feel this sort of thing is worth arguing about) I'm not being vulgar, rude, or trolling. I'm certainly not going to apologise for caring about the content of this thread more than someone ego-tripping because they finally have a thread where their terrible builds can be showcased and criticism is frowned upon because people feeling good about themselves is far more important than doing a good job or being honest (there, is that the sort of rude trolling you wanted from me? I guess that makes you the one doing the baiting then).

If content were the only method of contributing to a thread, the Wizard thread would still be on page 4.

Jan 5, 2013 -- 9:20PM, Zathris wrote:

I don't think "circular argument" means what you think it means ...

I thought about this for a second and then agreed I was right all along.

All in all I am happy everyone gets to stroke their own ego, telling themselves they were right in whatever their conviction was to begin with, since it seems a lot of words are exchanged, but few are listening or willing to concede someone else might have a point.

Result is, we have a thread on our hands that is still a hot mess, with no exact goal, quite possibly no place in this sub-forum, with a lot of builds that could do with some critique.

The critiqueing (if that is even a word) of these builds has to wait however until we are clear what we want to do with this thread. And by we I mean all who would like this thread to do well, and by this (to some peoples possible surprise) I do include Zathris, Zelink and myself. Matyr, you may have started this thread, and maintain it, but by its very nature it is a community effort, and as such the community should have a say in what it's goals should be.


Some points to consider when Matyr rewrites the original goals, or when this thread dies and he or someone else starts a new thread with the same basic idea are the following:
 
- Should these builds be as simple as possible, to be understood by a novice, or should they be as enhanced as allowed at this low of a level? Automatically following this, and that is something we should strive to avoid fighting about, comes a whole range of personal preferences. I myself think either superior implement or weapon expertise should be taken before level 5 no matter what the class or role; quite sure not everyone agrees with me.

- Are these builds only intended for a few sessions as an introduction to the game, and if so, why on earth would you pick any features, or base any criticism on how well the class, race, features, whatever will do beyond level 8 ? On the other hand, if the builds posted here are supposed to lay the groundwork for a character that can or is supposed to be played by a person newly interested in 4e till level 30, the mindset of the people providing these builds should be entirely different.

- Personally I am of the opinion that the LFR ruleset should be leading here in what is and is not legal, since in my experience that is the most common setting new players encounter this game in. Also, homebrew rules (again, my personal experience) often distinguish themselves by stating how they differ from LFR.  

It is likely I forgot some key feature. What I mostly want to express is that if we stop treating this like we actually have a personal stake in any of the silly arguments above, and try to work together, we could set up a decent collection.  


EDIT: To be perfectly clear, I think we need to start over with this idea. Let's have a discussion in this thread about what it should look like, and start over when there is a more or less clear idea and some semblance of concensus about what it is we want to achieve.

I would also propose we use PEACH threads for the seperate builds, and not add them to the collection until they have been sorted. Adding several builds a day to this thread itself like we have been just means there is not sufficient attention and critique to each seperate proposed build as to do the thread justice.    

Maybe then we can have a thread that works well enough to add to the collective. 
    

Jan 6, 2013 -- 4:39AM, baldhermit wrote:

All in all I am happy everyone gets to stroke their own ego, telling themselves they were right in whatever their conviction was to begin with, since it seems a lot of words are exchanged, but few are listening or willing to concede someone else might have a point.

Result is, we have a thread on our hands that is still a hot mess, with no exact goal, quite possibly no place in this sub-forum, with a lot of builds that could do with some critique.

The critiqueing (if that is even a word) of these builds has to wait however until we are clear what we want to do with this thread. And by we I mean all who would like this thread to do well, and by this (to some peoples possible surprise) I do include Zathris, Zelink and myself. Matyr, you may have started this thread, and maintain it, but by its very nature it is a community effort, and as such the community should have a say in what it's goals should be.

Regardless of what has been, or will be said, let's not use the guise of community effort as an excuse for people to be rude and purposefully contrary. It seems to be the general purpose of some people on the forum to post specifically to argue with other posters. This is neither communitive nor helpful. Lively discussion is fine, but let's keep it civil and intelligent. Anyone who comes in with the 'I am absolutely right, and you are absolutely wrong' should be shown the door.

Some points to consider when Matyr rewrites the original goals, or when this thread dies and he or someone else starts a new thread with the same basic idea are the following:
 
- Should these builds be as simple as possible, to be understood by a novice, or should they be as enhanced as allowed at this low of a level? Automatically following this, and that is something we should strive to avoid fighting about, comes a whole range of personal preferences. I myself think either superior implement or weapon expertise should be taken before level 5 no matter what the class or role; quite sure not everyone agrees with me.

- Are these builds only intended for a few sessions as an introduction to the game, and if so, why on earth would you pick any features, or base any criticism on how well the class, race, features, whatever will do beyond level 8 ? On the other hand, if the builds posted here are supposed to lay the groundwork for a character that can or is supposed to be played by a person newly interested in 4e till level 30, the mindset of the people providing these builds should be entirely different.

This is certainly a sticky spot. I'm of the mind that we should keep it relatively simple and item independant. I would say all builds should be specced out to 11 with the paragon path indicated. At that point, players should have a good handle on what they have in front of them, and how to continue the pc's growth.

- Personally I am of the opinion that the LFR ruleset should be leading here in what is and is not legal, since in my experience that is the most common setting new players encounter this game in. Also, homebrew rules (again, my personal experience) often distinguish themselves by stating how they differ from LFR.  

It is likely I forgot some key feature. What I mostly want to express is that if we stop treating this like we actually have a personal stake in any of the silly arguments above, and try to work together, we could set up a decent collection.

I am in complete agreement here. It's impossible to take into account all possible house rules, so we should build with the most standard ruleset we can.

A few more notes:

Criticism is all well and good, provided the goals are clear. Currently they aren't, so most of the criticism is pretty much worthless.

All classes should be represented. I know not everyone agrees on this point, but it does us little good to be absent information should a player come looking. Instead it would be better to offer a build as someone else had said 'this is the best Char Op could come up with' and note that it still isn't very good.

Remember, every table is different, so their level of char op is different. At my table I've got two of us that are high op, 3 that are moderate, and one who can barely put a name on his character sheet.  Our builds should keep that in mind.

Thanks for rehashing what i said ? Not sure what you added.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 6:15AM, baldhermit wrote:

Thanks for rehashing what i said ? Not sure what you added.

More civility apparently.

Hi, I'm trying to get some input on Genasi warlock im building.  A few constraints, 1 character in the party is already optimized to target will so the DM has adjusted all the monsters will up.  I like the idea of getting +5AC, +4 fort, +6 ref,+4 will from concelement, amulet of translocation and staff of aversion.  Also, Im not entralled with the paragon path and open to suggestions. 
Is there a page or thread which discussed optimizing hellish rebuke?  I've got the self damaging weapon but are there easier ways to damage yourself?
====== Created Using Wizards of the Coast Character Builder ======
level 17
Genasi, Warlock, Master of the Starry Night
Eldritch Strike Option: Eldritch Strike Constitution
Eldritch Pact Option: Star Pact
Twofold Pact Option: Infernal Pact
Elemental Manifestation Option: Voidsoul
Desperate Measures (Heal class skill)
Theme: Infernal Prince
 
FINAL ABILITY SCORES
`STR 11, CON 22, DEX 12, INT 22, WIS 9, CHA 14
 
STARTING ABILITY SCORES
STR 10, CON 16, DEX 11, INT 16, WIS 8, CHA 13
 
 
AC: 30 Fort: 29 Ref: 32 Will: 28
HP: 114 Surges: 12 Surge Value: 28
 
TRAINED SKILLS
Arcana +19, Bluff +17, Heal +12, Religion +19
 
UNTRAINED SKILLS
Acrobatics +9, Athletics +8, Diplomacy +12, Dungeoneering +7, Endurance +16, History +14, Insight +7, Intimidate +10, Nature +9, Perception +7, Stealth +9, Streetwise +10, Thievery +9
 
POWERS
Basic Attack: Melee Basic Attack
Basic Attack: Ranged Basic Attack
Infernal Prince Attack: Hellfire Heart
Genasi Racial Power: Void Assumption
Warlock's Curse  Power: Warlock's Curse
Warlock Attack 1: Eldritch Strike
Warlock Attack 1: Dire Radiance
Warlock Pact Boon 1: Fate of the Void
Warlock Attack 1: Hellish Rebuke
Warlock Pact Boon 1: Dark One's Blessing
Heal Utility 2: Iron Resurgence
Warlock Attack 3: Fortune Binding
Warlock Attack 5: Tyrannical Threat
Warlock Utility 6: Unspeakable Bond
Warlock Attack 9: Ooze Incarnate
Warlock Utility 10: Ethereal Sidestep
Master of the Starry Night Attack 11: Stellar Debris
Master of the Starry Night Utility 12: Minor Gift of Foresight
Warlock Attack 13: Killing Flames
Warlock Attack 15: Caution of Dispater
Warlock Utility 16: Hero's Defense
Warlock Attack 17: Life Force Reclaimed
 
FEATS
Level 2: White Lotus Riposte
Level 4: Improved Defenses
Level 6: Improved Fate of the Void
Level 8: Bloodied Boon
Level 11: Twofold Pact
Level 11: Arcane Prodigy
Level 12: Twofold Curse
Level 13: Superior Implement Training (Incendiary dagger)
Level 14: White Lotus Master Riposte
Level 16: Killing Curse
Level 17: Implement Expertise (Light blade)
Level 17: Weapon Expertise (Light blade)
 
ITEMS
Cloak of Translocation +3 x1
Khyber Shard of the Fiery Depth (paragon tier)
Shadowrift Blade Incendiary dagger +4 x1
Shadow Warlock Drowmesh +3 x1
Elven Chain Shirt (heroic tier)
Carcanet of Psychic Schism x1
Feystep Lacings x1
Belt of Blood x1
Gloves of Eldritch Admixture (heroic tier) x1
Razordark Bracers x1
Strongheart Tattoo (heroic tier) x1
Aversion Staff +3 x1
Ring of Eladrin Grace x1

Jan 6, 2013 -- 9:17AM, Hagaurd wrote:

Hi, I'm trying to get some input on Genasi warlock im building.

Please start a new thread for any feedback you wish for your character. This is not the thread for it, and it will likely get lost in all the discussion here.

Putting a vote in for:

LFR legal builds (with the assumption they are organically leveled up for equipment)
Individual discussion threads before a build is added here.
Good should be more important than Easy.
Builds should work fine for a one shot, but should be geared for longer term play.
There should be multiple builds for each class representing different aspects.
We should start a new collection thread when this discussion is hashed out.

Also, I would add that I'd like to see hybrids as improvement on a class. For instance say there is an executioner, underneath it, one could list a "better" executioner that has gone hybrid with Warlock or another class for greater benefits. Under Bladesinger and/or Hexblade, you could have, here is a better build that can work for the same concept, a hybrid Swordmage|Warlock.

Part of the problem will be that different people value different tools for optimized builds. Baldhermit says he'd take superior weapon or implement by level 5 for every build. I feel for instance expertise and accurate implement would be too costly of an investment as two of your 3 feats, to give up other aspects of what a build is supposed to do. I'd probably take a multi-class feat by level 6 for nearly every build, Power of Skill sometime during heroic depending on skill set, and Superior Will at level 8 or so. Someone else might have other priorities. It's going to be difficult to prioritize, and we need to make a concession that there isn't always going to be one right answer to a build. If you don't like someone else's build, take another approach, submit another build, and they can both be represented in the collection. A new player who wants to play a Paladin, will not be overwhelmed by having to click on 3-4 builds to see which one he likes better.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 9:58AM, Mengu74 wrote:

Jan 6, 2013 -- 9:17AM, Hagaurd wrote:

Hi, I'm trying to get some input on Genasi warlock im building.

Please start a new thread for any feedback you wish for your character. This is not the thread for it, and it will likely get lost in all the discussion here.

We may not all be able to agree what this thred is, but I think we can all agree this is what it is not.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 10:26AM, Mengu74 wrote:

Putting a vote in for:

LFR legal builds (with the assumption they are organically leveled up for equipment)
Individual discussion threads before a build is added here.
Good should be more important than Easy.
Builds should work fine for a one shot, but should be geared for longer term play.
There should be multiple builds for each class representing different aspects.
We should start a new collection thread when this discussion is hashed out.

Also, I would add that I'd like to see hybrids as improvement on a class. For instance say there is an executioner, underneath it, one could list a "better" executioner that has gone hybrid with Warlock or another class for greater benefits. Under Bladesinger and/or Hexblade, you could have, here is a better build that can work for the same concept, a hybrid Swordmage|Warlock.

Part of the problem will be that different people value different tools for optimized builds. Baldhermit says he'd take superior weapon or implement by level 5 for every build. I feel for instance expertise and accurate implement would be too costly of an investment as two of your 3 feats, to give up other aspects of what a build is supposed to do. I'd probably take a multi-class feat by level 6 for nearly every build, Power of Skill sometime during heroic depending on skill set, and Superior Will at level 8 or so. Someone else might have other priorities. It's going to be difficult to prioritize, and we need to make a concession that there isn't always going to be one right answer to a build. If you don't like someone else's build, take another approach, submit another build, and they can both be represented in the collection. A new player who wants to play a Paladin, will not be overwhelmed by having to click on 3-4 builds to see which one he likes better.

I agree with all of this. The only thing would be an consensus agreement that all classes be represented.  They can all include a disclaimer stating that the class can be better built with such and such combo but should still be included. But i guess that was covered in the second portion of your statement.

Jan 5, 2013 -- 8:01AM, Kurald_Galain wrote:

What about blaster wizard? I posted a build for that two pages back. I suppose I could turn it into a sha'ir or witch if you really want, but I don't really see the point (mage/evoker/pyromancer is the natural choice here). 

Maybe I saw this, maybe not?  Not 100% sure.  I'll go back and look.

Jan 6, 2013 -- 4:39AM, baldhermit wrote:

All in all I am happy everyone gets to stroke their own ego, telling themselves they were right in whatever their conviction was to begin with, since it seems a lot of words are exchanged, but few are listening or willing to concede someone else might have a point.

I concede that you may have a point.  But most of your point is that the arguing from people like you has filled the thread with a bunch of stuff that buries the stuff that is actually contributing. I don't really get the stroking of ego comment.  What precisely does that mean?

Result is, we have a thread on our hands that is still a hot mess, with no exact goal, quite possibly no place in this sub-forum, with a lot of builds that could do with some critique.

First off the goal was, I thought, fairly straightforward.  Build characters that were strong, fairly easy to play and non-gimmicky.  No hybrids, straight classes, heroic builds only please.  Build at 1, 5, 8.  Also include descriptions and some relative things for each class.  Seems pretty straightfoward to me.

Secondly, if you feel it needs critiques then give critiques.  From what I've seen here most of the stuff that has actually been critiqued has changed, for the better, from that critique.  You can call out "this needs fixing" only so much until someone goes "ok, you think so, please by all means go ahead".

The critiqueing (if that is even a word) of these builds has to wait however until we are clear what we want to do with this thread. And by we I mean all who would like this thread to do well, and by this (to some peoples possible surprise) I do include Zathris, Zelink and myself. Matyr, you may have started this thread, and maintain it, but by its very nature it is a community effort, and as such the community should have a say in what it's goals should be.

Ok, this is actually progress.  Saying "hey we want to do something, here is what our goals should be" so we can discuss them is a lot more helpful than a lot of people's additions of "you all are all doing everything wrong and are only using this as an outlet for your terribleness".

Some points to consider when Matyr rewrites the original goals, or when this thread dies and he or someone else starts a new thread with the same basic idea are the following:

Yay bald is going to be helpful /cheer (seriously, I'm excited).

 
- Should these builds be as simple as possible, to be understood by a novice, or should they be as enhanced as allowed at this low of a level? Automatically following this, and that is something we should strive to avoid fighting about, comes a whole range of personal preferences. I myself think either superior implement or weapon expertise should be taken before level 5 no matter what the class or role; quite sure not everyone agrees with me.

They need to be fairly simple so as to be able to be understood at least on a basic level quickly, but complex enough to be strong.  Basically what I was originally looking for is this:
No Gimmicky builds.   By Gimmicky builds I mean things that rely on either really odd interactions in the rules, one really specific trick, or some stretching of a particular rule that is commonly contested.  So things like the Gatekeeper build rely on odd rules interaction to make themselves a bubble of "can't kill this" that might be a bit for a new player/dm/group.  Things like the breather build relies on breath weapon recycling and tricks with the breath to hit 2-3 times per turn in a burst which can raise eyebrows, you can accidentally get yourself killed, and also be a burden on the table if you take even a little time with each roll.  Things like MC cleric to get BCL is a good example of something that is rather rules-fuzzy.

- Are these builds only intended for a few sessions as an introduction to the game, and if so, why on earth would you pick any features, or base any criticism on how well the class, race, features, whatever will do beyond level 8 ? On the other hand, if the builds posted here are supposed to lay the groundwork for a character that can or is supposed to be played by a person newly interested in 4e till level 30, the mindset of the people providing these builds should be entirely different.

This is something that I did a poor job with, and something that will be integral to the next incarnation of this thread.  The idea that I had in mind, but did not properly state was to build things that would last you through heroic.  I think that if they are playing past level 10 and they want to be optimized, they need to actually read up on their class.  Heroic is easy enough that a plug-and-play method can work, but as many optimizers have been known to say "paragon is where optimization starts".

 I propose that the next incarnation of the thread say something along the lines of "These characters are meant exclusively for heroic tier play.  If you are taking one of these characters and building them to paragon or epic you should do more research in how to optimize that particular build.  First, take a look at the handbooks and do your research on relevant Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies.  Second, search the forums and see if something like your build has been done before (yes, in fact there is a build about about using your dragonborn's breath weapon).  Third, Make a new thread with your character built to the maximum level you think you are going to play at and see what sort of specific feedback you can get from the denizens of char op.  It is beyond the purview of this thread to build anything beyond heroic tier."  Thoughts on that line?

- Personally I am of the opinion that the LFR ruleset should be leading here in what is and is not legal, since in my experience that is the most common setting new players encounter this game in. Also, homebrew rules (again, my personal experience) often distinguish themselves by stating how they differ from LFR.  

Fair enough.  I'm personally not well equipped for saying "that isn't LFR legal", but I think that it is a common enough idea (and a good idea) to limit to LFR legal builds.

It is likely I forgot some key feature. What I mostly want to express is that if we stop treating this like we actually have a personal stake in any of the silly arguments above, and try to work together, we could set up a decent collection.  

Good to see.  Personally I am glad that the concensus is on this being a good idea as it seems like a lot of people are more along the idea of "This is a terrible plan and you should stop" rather than "This isn't well done, here is how I want it to be done differently".

EDIT: To be perfectly clear, I think we need to start over with this idea. Let's have a discussion in this thread about what it should look like, and start over when there is a more or less clear idea and some semblance of concensus about what it is we want to achieve.

I would also propose we use PEACH threads for the seperate builds, and not add them to the collection until they have been sorted. Adding several builds a day to this thread itself like we have been just means there is not sufficient attention and critique to each seperate proposed build as to do the thread justice.    

Maybe then we can have a thread that works well enough to add to the collective. 

Originally I had thought this might be a bad idea due to cluttering up the boards.  However, if people think it is preferable to have a detailed index and then a bunch of individual simple threads I am 100% on board with this plan.  The only addition I would make is someway to denote that those threads are for this.  Maybe the tag: [Pregen - PEACH] Build Name?   

LFR legal builds (with the assumption they are organically leveled up for equipment)
Individual discussion threads before a build is added here.
Good should be more important than Easy.
Builds should work fine for a one shot, but should be geared for longer term play.
There should be multiple builds for each class representing different aspects.
We should start a new collection thread when this discussion is hashed out.

I agree on all accounts except for 1 and that is "long term play".  I think these builds should be heroic builds.  They are designed for 1-shots, learning new classes and new players.  If people want to play out of heroic, they should learn how to build their own character, or not worry about being sub-optimal so much.

As far as the different aspects.  In a day or two when I have time I will try to give what I think is a comprehensive list of what the index should look like (If anyone else would like to they are also welcome to) and we can go from that as a starting point.  Not saying that list will be even very good, but you have to write something down first before you can edit it.

Also, I would add that I'd like to see hybrids as improvement on a class. For instance say there is an executioner, underneath it, one could list a "better" executioner that has gone hybrid with Warlock or another class for greater benefits. Under Bladesinger and/or Hexblade, you could have, here is a better build that can work for the same concept, a hybrid Swordmage|Warlock.

I agree with this.  The only reason I was hesitant to start with hybrids from the get-go is that is a huge additional list to add onto an already fairly large list of stuff for this one thread to do.  Having multiple strong hybrids listed seemed a little counter-purpose (to at least how I was viewing the thread) if there were a lot of other common builds not represented.

Part of the problem will be that different people value different tools for optimized builds. Baldhermit says he'd take superior weapon or implement by level 5 for every build. I feel for instance expertise and accurate implement would be too costly of an investment as two of your 3 feats, to give up other aspects of what a build is supposed to do. I'd probably take a multi-class feat by level 6 for nearly every build, Power of Skill sometime during heroic depending on skill set, and Superior Will at level 8 or so. Someone else might have other priorities. It's going to be difficult to prioritize, and we need to make a concession that there isn't always going to be one right answer to a build. If you don't like someone else's build, take another approach, submit another build, and they can both be represented in the collection. A new player who wants to play a Paladin, will not be overwhelmed by having to click on 3-4 builds to see which one he likes better.

This is something that I also agree with quite a bit.  My original vision for what I wanted this thread to do was too narrow, yet also unfocused.  There will indeed be some personal preference (which is where some of the looseness of "good and simple" comes from) that can be taken into account.  I would love to eventually see an index that includes 4-5 builds of the popular classes, 3 builds for the good classes and a token build for each of the bad ones (although all of that is subjective).

I need to go for now, but I'll be back on later to continue the discussion.

Don't worry about cluttering the boards, there has been next to no traffic since they stopped releasing content.

Assassin - **
First off, a word of warning: the original assassin class has complicated mechanics, and even after they are mastered, it's *still a weak class.* Seriously consider playing an Executioner instead, which is both simpler and more powerful. There are ways to interpret the rules that will lead to a competitive assassin, but these interpretations are 1) controversial, and 2) complicated, so they are outside the scope of these pregens. If you are interested, check out erachima's handbook.

Assassins specialize in stealth, mobility, and dealing lots of damage in a single attack. Stealth requires a lot of resources, so we'll ignore that for the most part to focus more on direct damage, particularly through charging. Your striker damage mechanic is the Assassin's Shroud power, which lets you add on shrouds to an enemy every round until you decide to invoke them all in one big burst of damage. Unfortunately, this is foolish, because killing things faster is what's important. So you will almost always invoke your shroud as soon as you apply it.

A few general notes on your class mechanics:
Mechanics Show

The individual level breakdowns will explain how to use your acquired powers, particularly in the first two rounds, but here's your general strategy for rounds 3+:
Tactics Show

In terms of equipment, you want a Badge of the Berserker ASAP, then a Vanguard gouge, magic armor, a Horned Helm, and Iron Armbands of Power. When upgrading to higher level equipment, prioritize the weapon.
Level 1 Show
Level 5 Show
Level 8 Show
Later on... Show

Felt like I should contribute directly, after talking so much. Assassins are tough to make simple and not terrible!

I don't have a great sense of the asterisk rating system. My guess is that this is two-three stars, but I'm not sure.

Interesting build (or not really actually, just another charger ) . I'd rate it two stars, since you don't have off-turn actions and most of your turns play out the same.

One question: why Sly Dodge over Sneak of Shadows? Sneak Attack adds to a nova round, while +AC against OA's doesn't do much (especially when you carry a Badge of the Berserker). 

I'd also like to see at least a basic list of items at each snapshot. Should be easy: Vanguard Gouge, Bestial Armor, Badge of the Berserker, Horned Helm, Iron Armbands of Power.

Alright, I'll make it two stars, and maybe items later (right now it's bed time...).

Sneak Attack would only work with a rogue weapon, correct? So with a gouge, it was Sly Dodge or Twilight Adept. I didn't want to talk about stealth, plus the skill from Sly Dodge is more useful, so that's why I chose that way between those two.

If Sneak of Shadows works with a gouge then, well, yes please. 

Jan 7, 2013 -- 1:39AM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

Sneak Attack would only work with a rogue weapon, correct? So with a gouge, it was Sly Dodge or Twilight Adept. I didn't want to talk about stealth, plus the skill from Sly Dodge is more useful, so that's why I chose that way between those two.

If Sneak of Shadows works with a gouge then, well, yes please. 

You're right, of course. In that case, I agree with the build.

Jan 7, 2013 -- 12:49AM, ThatWasTotallyNinja wrote:

Assassin - **
First off, a word of warning: the original assassin class has complicated mechanics, and even after they are mastered, it's *still a weak class.* Seriously consider playing an Executioner instead..

Or a Warlock|Executioner, an Avenger with a new description of its powers, a dagger Rogue, a Thief....


Could you please report this in its own thread, so that we can PEACH it there, and have a discussion here that started befoe you posted this build about what we want to achieve with these pre-gens?    

I feel that someone insisting on playing an Assassin is probably not going to be satisfied with just a weaker version of a typical charger, but I understand why you did it.

It's worth noting under Black Flame Form that it also has significant defensive value with the resist and autodamage. Resist 5 is pretty huge in early heroic, and that alone probably tops Shade Form.

Jan 7, 2013 -- 8:34AM, baldhermit wrote:

Or a Warlock|Executioner, an Avenger with a new description of its powers, a dagger Rogue, a Thief....


Could you please report this in its own thread, so that we can PEACH it there, and have a discussion here that started befoe you posted this build about what we want to achieve with these pre-gens?

Good point, I'll clarify the initial section a little.

As for its own thread...alright, I guess I can lead the charge on that. Bear in mind that the idea of filling the main forum with pregens for this thread has not been accepted by the forum as a whole yet. I think it's a good idea, especially since there isn't much activity anymore with the lack of new material... but there's a good chance we'll have a few crotchety individuals objecting.

Jan 7, 2013 -- 8:36AM, Scatterbrained wrote:

I feel that someone insisting on playing an Assassin is probably not going to be satisfied with just a weaker version of a typical charger, but I understand why you did it.

It's worth noting under Black Flame Form that it also has significant defensive value with the resist and autodamage. Resist 5 is pretty huge in early heroic, and that alone probably tops Shade Form.

The only aspect of the class that's missing here as far as I can tell is the stealth part, which is waaay too complicated for this purpose. What other assassin feature do you think is unrepresented? The class isn't really all that interesting...

I'll add a bit more on Black Flame Form, good call.


Okay, I'm gonna go start a new thread for the build, please put any further responses there. 

Assassin really is a ****+DM*** Class (and concept, really), in order to be effective, half of what you do can't involve the rest of the party. I always picture them working like Jill in the Darken webcomic, a lot of behind the scenes work, randomly disappears for weeks at a time only to appear at the final confrontation with a BBEG, sitting right next to him ... having just poisoned him. Darken also Gort, who is proof that Blackguard is really just a X|Warlock. And my brother Zathras.

Aack you beat me to the assassin, and i had one almost finished! (Lol, i posted last week that i would get it up this week).
No sweat tho, thanks for getting it done in a more timely manner.
 

Please do feel free to post some ideas (or your level 8 build) in the pregen assassin discussion thread, and we'll see if there are ideas that can be borrowed to make the build better.

Did it!

Is the new procedure for separate threads just for new builds, or should previously posted ones go through the process too?

Also, if going with LFR rules, no Dragonmark feats right?  Also, the linked doc says you get one item per "found-item" slot per level ... does this mean a level 8 character can have up to 8 items? How much should we worry about the specifics of that here?

Jan 8, 2013 -- 4:38PM, entropiccanuck wrote:

Is the new procedure for separate threads just for new builds, or should previously posted ones go through the process too?

Also, if going with LFR rules, no Dragonmark feats right?  Also, the linked doc says you get one item per "found-item" slot per level ... does this mean a level 8 character can have up to 8 items? How much should we worry about the specifics of that here?

I was actually planning to make a couple tweaks to my submissions and start new threads for them, just haven't gotten around to it. So yes, they should go through the process of at least being critiqued. We don't need total concensus, but the author should be made aware of all problems and other options to make it better before it's finalized.

As for LFR rules, correct, no Dragonmarks. Level 8 character can have 8 items if they started at level 1, but I'd go with one less, you always want to leave a slot open in case a rare/artifact comes along, or there is some custom uncommon LFR item you get, and there is the possibility of boons/grandmaster training/battle scar and other alternative rewards that you might run into as well. for the items blurb, you might also make a note on what 3 items are most important to the build, in case it's a starting build.

Jan 8, 2013 -- 8:17PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Jan 8, 2013 -- 4:38PM, entropiccanuck wrote:

Is the new procedure for separate threads just for new builds, or should previously posted ones go through the process too?

Also, if going with LFR rules, no Dragonmark feats right?  Also, the linked doc says you get one item per "found-item" slot per level ... does this mean a level 8 character can have up to 8 items? How much should we worry about the specifics of that here?

I was actually planning to make a couple tweaks to my submissions and start new threads for them, just haven't gotten around to it. So yes, they should go through the process of at least being critiqued. We don't need total concensus, but the author should be made aware of all problems and other options to make it better before it's finalized.

As for LFR rules, correct, no Dragonmarks. Level 8 character can have 8 items if they started at level 1, but I'd go with one less, you always want to leave a slot open in case a rare/artifact comes along, or there is some custom uncommon LFR item you get, and there is the possibility of boons/grandmaster training/battle scar and other alternative rewards that you might run into as well. for the items blurb, you might also make a note on what 3 items are most important to the build, in case it's a starting build.

I feel strongly that all build should be item independant. If we are saying we want to use LFR rules to avoid house rules, I think it makes sense that we accept that DMs are not uniform in what items they will make available and how readily they can be attained.

If you want to include an item section in the build, that's fine. I just don't think we should pass anything that relies on certain items to function.

Just posting to say that, in general, I really don't feel so hot. So I might not be posting much here for a day or two.

When I come back I'll start PEACH threads for each of the builds I contributed.

I also think that all items for builds should be recommended and not required. 

Jan 8, 2013 -- 8:40PM, Bohrdumb wrote:

If you want to include an item section in the build, that's fine. I just don't think we should pass anything that relies on certain items to function.

Much as I hate it, the system assumes that items exist, and that we will have some control over what items we get, which makes item selection an integral part of character building. In designing the system, they didn't make a feat that turns all damage into cold, instead they made a weapon to do that. They didn't make a feat that turns all damage into fire, they made a ki focus to do that. They didn't make a feat that lets the rogue add charisma bonus to damage, they made a weapon to do that. Items are, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the character design space in 4e.

Jan 8, 2013 -- 9:03PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Jan 8, 2013 -- 8:40PM, Bohrdumb wrote:

If you want to include an item section in the build, that's fine. I just don't think we should pass anything that relies on certain items to function.

Much as I hate it, the system assumes that items exist, and that we will have some control over what items we get, which makes item selection an integral part of character building. In designing the system, they didn't make a feat that turns all damage into cold, instead they made a weapon to do that. They didn't make a feat that turns all damage into fire, they made a ki focus to do that. They didn't make a feat that lets the rogue add charisma bonus to damage, they made a weapon to do that. Items are, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the character design space in 4e.

They did allow divine /legendary boons and grandmaster training to emulate the same effects ... 

Could go back to one e where you dont get to chose your spells even ... so look I am playing my DMs idea of a wizard... how much does that rock.

Jan 8, 2013 -- 9:03PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Jan 8, 2013 -- 8:40PM, Bohrdumb wrote:

If you want to include an item section in the build, that's fine. I just don't think we should pass anything that relies on certain items to function.

Much as I hate it, the system assumes that items exist, and that we will have some control over what items we get, which makes item selection an integral part of character building. In designing the system, they didn't make a feat that turns all damage into cold, instead they made a weapon to do that. They didn't make a feat that turns all damage into fire, they made a ki focus to do that. They didn't make a feat that lets the rogue add charisma bonus to damage, they made a weapon to do that. Items are, whether we like it or not, an integral part of the character design space in 4e.

In the OP world I agree. But the point of the thread is to deliver simple, strong builds. Item dependency can take a build from powerhouse to irrelevant if your DM doesn't parse out the right item at the right time.

I don't mind taking items into account, I just think we need to avoid builds that center around specific item combos. 

Jan 8, 2013 -- 9:51PM, Bohrdumb wrote:

I don't mind taking items into account, I just think we need to avoid builds that center around specific item combos. 

So, no Firewind Blade desert wind monk, no Alfsair Spear proning dazing druid, no Hungry Spear deft hurler fighter, etc? Takes away too much of the fun, but I suppose if that's what people want...

Jan 8, 2013 -- 10:03PM, Mengu74 wrote:

Jan 8, 2013 -- 9:51PM, Bohrdumb wrote:

I don't mind taking items into account, I just think we need to avoid builds that center around specific item combos. 

So, no Firewind Blade desert wind monk, no Alfsair Spear proning dazing druid, no Hungry Spear deft hurler fighter, etc? Takes away too much of the fun, but I suppose if that's what people want...

Yes to all of those basically.  But then again we are in heroic so a lot of the truly interesting stuff doesn't happen til paragon anyways.  Unless you want to include a Desert Wind Monk that is an acceptable striker in its own way and then and say "This would be much better with this weapon".

Jan 8, 2013 -- 10:10PM, Matyr wrote:

Jan 8, 2013 -- 10:03PM, Mengu74 wrote:

So, no Firewind Blade desert wind monk?

Yes to all of those basically.  But then again we are in heroic so a lot of the truly interesting stuff doesn't happen til paragon anyways.  Unless you want to include a Desert Wind Monk that is an acceptable striker in its own way and then and say "This would be much better with this weapon".

I think that's basically what I did, right? 2-3 fire damage per hit (which doesn't trigger vulnerability or benefit from Blistering Flourish) doesn't break the game quite yet.

Dec 28, 2012 -- 1:03AM, TheMalteseFalchion wrote:

Darting Shadows combines beautifully with Shadow Walk for long term stealthing.  Waltz right through the enemy camp.  You did read the Rules of Hidden Club, right?

Does this really work? How you will get hidden with that Combination? You're only concealed and how you will utilize the Darting Shadow in this?

Maybe Exe with MC Rogue looks more atypical for these threats?

In the campaign I'm in and the one I co-DM, the utility and viability of a build is pretty dependent on the party makeup.  I expect this is normal?  Some examples, a warlord is much less effective if he doesn't have some good MBA allies, the druid 6 utility Eagle's Splendor or Serpent's Cunning may be awesome or useless depending on your party.  A skill power like Arcane Mutterings or the Druid equivelent, All-Encompasing Nature, could vary similarly depending on the role skills have in the campaign/DM.

My question- is it in the scope of these builds to point out how a build may fit in a party, and how party or campaign makeup might change a build?  

I'm currently thinking of having a sub-section that would point out some simple build options based on party/campaign, but don't want to impose that on others, or excessively complicate the intent of this guide.

 

Jan 9, 2013 -- 3:18PM, entropiccanuck wrote:

In the campaign I'm in and the one I co-DM, the utility and viability of a build is pretty dependent on the party makeup.  I expect this is normal?  Some examples, a warlord is much less effective if he doesn't have some good MBA allies, the druid 6 utility Eagle's Splendor or Serpent's Cunning may be awesome or useless depending on your party.  A skill power like Arcane Mutterings or the Druid equivelent, All-Encompasing Nature, could vary similarly depending on the role skills have in the campaign/DM.

My question- is it in the scope of these builds to point out how a build may fit in a party, and how party or campaign makeup might change a build?  

I'm currently thinking of having a sub-section that would point out some simple build options based on party/campaign, but don't want to impose that on others, or excessively complicate the intent of this guide.

 

Adding that sort of write up should be fine but once you start getting into those types of particulars then it may be safe to assume that these are going to be more long term builds and players would be better off going to the respective guides and building their own pc's. These builds should be as user friendly as possible and mostly party independant. IMHO

Because of the multitude of options, making notations about even the most general party-op issues isn't really feasible. Party-Op just requires a modest amount of common sense to not take something that's worthless (fwiw a Leader having a MBA target should never be an issue if you're playing characters from this forum)

The only real campaign changes that are relevant are Dragonmarks, which nearly every PC should take if allowed, but no DM should honestly allow, even in an Eberron campaign

Jan 8, 2013 -- 4:38PM, entropiccanuck wrote:

Also, if going with LFR rules, no Dragonmark feats right?  Also, the linked doc says you get one item per "found-item" slot per level ... does this mean a level 8 character can have up to 8 items? How much should we worry about the specifics of that here?

LFR doesn't allow Evil alignment or the worship of evil gods ... that rules out some themes and CD powers, maybe a couple feats (Betrayal of Body?  not that I'd expect to see that on a build here ... )

From the LFR Campaign guide, italicized my additions based on main page/blog rulings

Player’s Handbook series (includes Races series): All
Forgotten Realms Player’s Guide: All
Monster Manual: Orc race (p. 278)
Monster Manual 2: Kenku race (p. 220)
Adventurer’s Vault series: All
Power series (Martial Power, etc.): All
Open Grave: Rituals
Manual of the Planes: Bladeling race, feats, paragon paths, rituals
Player’s Handbook Heroes Miniatures: All
Eberron Player’s Guide: All except: dragonmarked rules, faiths, backgrounds
Dragon Annuals: All
Dragon online articles: All except the Unearthed Arcana column, anything related to the Book of Vile Darkness, and anything specific to a region that isn't in LFR such as Dark Sun Themes
D&D Insider Character Builder exclusive content: All
Dark Sun Campaign Setting: All except: themes, arcane defiling, wild talents, epic destinies (this includes Dark Sun themes published in Dragon such as Sentinel Marshall)
Dungeon Survival Handbook: Everything in Chapter 1, Haunted feat, Mundane gear, Common alchemical items, Aboleth Slime and Pacification Dust (none of the backgrounds are legal, nor is anything in Chapter 3, Appendix 1, or Appendix 2)
Heroes of the Elemental Chaos: All
Heroes of the Fallen Lands: All
Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms: All
Heroes of Shadow: All
Neverwinter Campaign Guide: Everything in Chapter 2
Neverwinter Campaign Setting: All
Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium: All except artifacts, cursed items, henchmen/hirelings, and buildings
Heroes of the Feywild: All

Any chance someone could post a good solid cunning bard build to this thread? All I see in CharOp are valourous bards (because of PP Warchanter), but I need a good cunning bard build to use as a baseline for a player of mine who isn't going to go valourous.

I will hopefully be rezzing this thread in a couple of weeks.  As of now I just got back from running 11 slots at Winter Fantasy (including 2 Battle Interactives) and I need to turn my brain off for a bit.

Jan 27, 2013 -- 6:17PM, weepingminotaur wrote:

Any chance someone could post a good solid cunning bard build to this thread? All I see in CharOp are valourous bards (because of PP Warchanter), but I need a good cunning bard build to use as a baseline for a player of mine who isn't going to go valourous.

What level are you looking at?

Edit: Here's what I've been playing in a friend's game.  He houseruled a free expertise feat for everyone in the game, and there are a couple of choices based on the game world (Driven into Hiding background, Becomer feat; very human-supremacist setting, and being a half-breed or something that can easily pass for human but isn't really is... frowned upon, to say the least) or materials available at the time (Noble theme) that are suboptimal.  Cunning Ferocity (E3) can be fun if you get it to work, but Impelling Force is probably going to be a better choice most of the time.  Anyway, here it is:

Spoiler: Show

Jan 27, 2013 -- 7:04PM, Celerian01 wrote:

Jan 27, 2013 -- 6:17PM, weepingminotaur wrote:

Any chance someone could post a good solid cunning bard build to this thread? All I see in CharOp are valourous bards (because of PP Warchanter), but I need a good cunning bard build to use as a baseline for a player of mine who isn't going to go valourous.

What level are you looking at?

Level 9, in a party where characters get Improved Defenses and one Expertise feat of their choice for free.

Here's something I threw together using your given homerules and the standard starting gear/wealth for a level 9:

Spoiler: Show

Not sure how close to optimal it is, but it's got some solid enabling and lots of potential for positioning fun.  Went with Pixie because it was more a proof of concept than anything, and the idea of a literal pocket leader amused me.

Thanks, both of you. Very helpful. My player is going to go gnome for the bard, because that's what she's been playing until now -- I'm basically doing a rebuild to ensure that her character is optimized enough to be on par with the rest of the party. I'm intrigued by the MC warlord -- I had thought of MCing swordmage and maybe warlock with the goal of going Resourceful Magician PP. I will probably eschew the familiar feat and beast tamer theme, mainly because I don't want my player to have more things to keep track of, but this is a great baseline for the build.

Jan 28, 2013 -- 7:24AM, weepingminotaur wrote:

Thanks, both of you. Very helpful. My player is going to go gnome for the bard, because that's what she's been playing until now -- I'm basically doing a rebuild to ensure that her character is optimized enough to be on par with the rest of the party. I'm intrigued by the MC warlord -- I had thought of MCing swordmage and maybe warlock with the goal of going Resourceful Magician PP. I will probably eschew the familiar feat and beast tamer theme, mainly because I don't want my player to have more things to keep track of, but this is a great baseline for the build.

Both of me?  The changeling is something I've been playing sporadically for a while now, the pixie is something I threw together at level 9.

Ha, that's what I get for not noticing that it was you replying twice!

Resourceful Magician is a powerhouse paragon path, quite possibly one of the best paragon paths out there. Twin Spell, the ability to swap in new powers, and the ability to get Borrowed Confidence at 16th make it top-tier for a Bard-controller wanna-be. They definitely want to MC Wizard and Swordmage. Warlock is helpful if Tiefling for Warlock's Wrath, MC Sorcerer is good for Sorcerous Vision(which can turn a high Arcana Int/Cha Bard into the best perception-based character in the party), but Wizard for the encounter powers and Swordmage for Borrowed Confidence is where it is at...