Talk:3.5e Optimized Character Builds
From D&D Wiki
I believe it would be a good idea to create a seperate branch of this page: Half-Optimizations. This would be any cool tricks that are no doubt useful, but too small to warrant their own Builds. --Sir Milo Teabag 17:08, 16 January 2008 (MST)
- Added. --Green Dragon 14:19, 18 January 2008 (MST)
- it would be nice if this was added to the omptimized character build template. i didnt know how to make one until i mimicked one of them. --Hijax 07:10, 21 February 2009 (MST)
 Class Guides
Wouldn't it also be a good idea to add a section for class guides (like the Artificer's Player's Guide?)? This would open a whole new field for those who know how to play a particular class very well and would like to teach others to do the same. -- OptimizationFanatic 20:36, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- Added. --Green Dragon 23:01, 23 January 2008 (MST)
- Indeed, some of the Half-Optimizations might do better under here... --Sir Milo Teabag 06:33, 24 January 2008 (MST)
- Perhaps. -- OptimizationFanatic 21:55, 24 January 2008 (MST)
Just a question. I have made a gestalt build on another site and wanted to post it here. I just wanted to make sure that gestalt builds were allowed. FYI, the build was for the Magnificint Monsters challenge on Giant In the Playground.--Ghostie1337 22:41, 4 April 2008 (MDT)
- It certainly should be. Please preface your build with Gestalt or something, though :) -- OptimizationFanatic 20:09, 15 April 2008 (MDT)
A small optimisation that isn't enough to give it its own page. Uses "Ultimate Prestige Classes 1", "Complete Warrior", "The Book of Exalted Deeds", the eberron book and the srd. It is gasalt and it has classes as follows... 12 monk/5 fighter/5 war shaper/2 student of the dragon.
- Removed. --Sabre070 22:10, 2 December 2008 (MST)
A ton of the monk builds on here take levels of Ranger to get Two-Weapon Fighting when it it doesn't work that way. Is there a tag that should be attached to these and similar builds that don't conform to the rules? --Ghostwheel 07:55, 21 July 2009 (MDT)
 Where's the optimization?
I've been looking through a number of these builds, and most of them seem bereft of any optimization, built either for flavor or a mishmash of things that don't work towards a specific goal rather than optimizing a character. Perhaps some pruning might be a wise choice? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.127.116.11 (talk • contribs) . Please sign your posts!
- We are looking at implementing a new (easy to use) rating system that would apply to all articles on the wiki. That will probably solve the problem here. --Aarnott 07:44, 25 June 2009 (MDT)
- Any idea when this goes into effect? Ghostwheel 02:07, 6 July 2009 (MDT)
- Not sure yet. We first need to set up a vote, wait for the results (which will almost certainly go through), and then implement it. Give it another week or so at the very least. --Aarnott 08:10, 6 July 2009 (MDT)
- I believe we should avoid using a rating system, however, I do have a suggestion. How about a template that a person can put at the top of a page that they thin is suboptimal, something that says "the optimization of this build is currently being questioned. for more information see the talk page." or such. Then, that person can list their issues with the build in the talk page. If the author agrees and alters, then remove the template. If not, and for valid reasons (i.e. "this optimization was built with only certain books" etc.) then the person who had the initial complain can make a variant page building it the way they saw fit. Then, finally, the pages could share a link to each other at the top (and any other similar pages). This avoids the issues that anything called "rating" typically gets, and will also provide positive feedback for authors of builds. 15:17, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
 New category or subtype
Many of these contain things that aren't allowed in many games (Savage Species (3.0) material, Leadership, Hulking Hurlers, Divine Metamagic, and so on). Could we make a category for things that might be considered "cheesy"? Or would that be too pretentious? --Ghostwheel 02:51, 14 July 2009 (MDT)
 Similar Builds
A few of the builds presented here are quite similar to one-another, differing by only a class level or three. How would one go about merging them, or presenting one as the variant of another? --Ghostwheel 03:17, 14 July 2009 (MDT)
- I'm not usre if I would go that far, but we could certainly link similar builds, that would be neat. --Ganre 22:30, 16 July 2009 (MDT)
 Mysterious "d"
Anyone else notice all the optimizations have a "d" after them now? --Ganre 05:26, 26 December 2009 (MST)
- Yeah. When I made this page use SMW (the un-commented out information on the page) an extra d (Optimized Character Build) showed up. Who knows. --Green Dragon 21:52, 27 December 2009 (MST)
 Page works strange
Tried IE, Mozilla and Opera, from my, and from some other computer, nad page keep looking like this in this section This wasn't case at the begining, it worked just fine few weaks ago. --Leviathan616 08:56, 17 July 2010 (UTC)Leviathan616
- This is another side effect of when GD moved the wiki. As far as I know this, and a few other errors, are still plaguing the wiki, but he's working on a fix. It's not you, it's the wiki. It should be working again "soon", he said. --Badger 17:57, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 Tough Love
I think this section needs some. We need to categorize it better, maybe make it so all the builds don't show up on one page, or start removing some of this stuff. It looks really bad, and the d at the end of all the titles still makes me sad. --Ganre 14:50, 13 February 2012 (MST)
- It's also smattered with 4e builds now which have no place in the 3.5e sections... - Sleaker (talk) 23:14, 19 October 2012 (MDT)
 Role Playing vs. Roll Playing
I've been looking at quite a number of these builds, and I'm realizing that a lot of them are just number play with class, abilities, and magic items. A lot of these classes are strung together in a mix and match kind of way and don't make sense. Also these builds are very specialized in usually one area, like "high AC", or "awesome crit range". Honestly, as a D.M., I would never allow a character to get that overpowered. I'll admit it would be fun to use some of these builds on a "fudge" around hack and slash, but beyond that I feel most of these builds break the game. It looks like roll playing took presidence over role playing. I would like to see a back story on how they became a Barbarian/Dervish/Spellblade/Duelist(<-just a random example, not saying this wouldn't work). So, what happens when your character is in a situation where he loses his magic items and/or abilities, being now rendered ineffective, do you just die.
I would like to see more well rounded character builds designed to handle more situations than just combat. If these are builds your actually playing maybe add a back round story of your character, I love back round stories. In all my years of playing the best characters at my table have always been the ineffectual ones. The Wizard who made a vow to never use hurtful magic, or the Barbarian who hardly had the strength to pick up a greatsword. I guess what I'm trying to say is, to me an "optimized character build" is not just how you play your numbers, but how you play your character as well.
- You are in the wrong section. This area is for people who like to play with the system. If you don't that's cool, but I'd prefer not to be critizied for how I play the game. Also, just because I have optimized my character doesn't mean I do not role play them, as the terms are not mutually exclusive. --Ganre (talk) 13:02, 15 November 2012 (MST)