Talk:Reflexman (3.5e Optimized Character Build)

From D&D Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Optimized?[edit]

Note: This section is long and arduous. Read at your own risk. Hehe. --Jay Freedman 16:49, 3 September 2009 (MDT)(I love everyone who posts here though.)


What's the point of just having a high ref save? Ghostwheel 11:53, 9 July 2009 (MDT)

You see, down in the second table, it shows how with Dexterous Fortitude and Dexterous Will one can have an ubermassive save. I would also throw in the feat Dive For Cover, just in case you roll a 1 on your saving throw. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.82.65.10 (talkcontribs) 21:41, 24 August 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
This is just silly. lv20= +4,+26,+4? So... how do the classes taken make this good? --129.123.242.128 00:10, 25 August 2009 (MDT)
Well, one can probably tinker with those a bit (the order and choice, since I probably wouldn't take Shadowdancer all the way like that), but I see the logic in it; the point is to get to the place where an outrageously high Reflex Save, supplemented by Dexterous Fortitude and Dexterous Will, can protect you from any save that you have to make. Besides, it's an interesting subterfuge-style character. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.82.65.10 (talkcontribs) 12:21, 25 August 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Past level 20 your BAB doesn't increase, so no extra attacks after that. And having good saves does nothing for you if enemies can just ignore you. --Ghostwheel 13:48, 25 August 2009 (MDT)
It does against ANYTHING that uses spells once you have both Dexterous Fortitude and Dexterous Will. Until then, you just use the talents of the various classes being taken (i.e. sneak attacks). Come on now. You don't have to be a fighter to hold your own in combat (especially if you take the right levels after a certain point). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.82.65.10 (talkcontribs) 19:24, 1 September 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Did you seriously just say what I think you said? -- Jota 21:52, 1 September 2009 (MDT)
Potential. I see potential. It just looks like it would take a long time to reap the benefits. Interesting, though. Ninjay 12:09, 2 September 2009 (EST)
You said, and I quote
You don't have to be a fighter to hold your own in combat...
Now granted, there's a little wiggle room there, but usually fighters are the ones struggling to hold their own in combat. -- Jota 23:22, 1 September 2009 (MDT)
Meh, unless he talk about Tome Fighter. Anyway this build is very so-so, you can make a way better character with similar reflex by being say a beguiler (with Insightful Reflexes). --The Zanni 00:48, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Or simply use my int-based build which just through class features adds int to ref saves twice, and has room to add Insightful Reflexes if you want it. So at level 20 you could have a Reflex save of 8 (base) + Int mod x3 (can get 22 Int easy, that's +26 ref saves right there), and still actually be useful in combat without the massive BAB loss in this build. --Ghostwheel 00:57, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I would rather use a beguiler myself, some say enchantment and illusion are useless school (it a lie!) but some say the sky is purple too. The build lose many many many goodies, it not a bad build, merely average. --The Zanni 01:04, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Some say that tier 1-2 classes aren't very powerful either ;-) --Ghostwheel 01:06, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
I've never had trouble getting a non-Tome fighter through anything. It all depends on the player, not the character.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   06:29, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Hero of Time is a homebrew class, and the components of this optimization are from Print D&D sources. BTW, +13 BAB isn't really a "massive loss." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninjay (talkcontribs) 14:52, 2 September 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Did you even click on the link? It's not a homebrew class. It's an optimized build. Everything on there was printed in a source produced by WotC. And BAB is measured at the most at level 20. After that you gain an epic bonus to BAB, not an increase in actual BAB itself (and thus no extra iterative attacks). You've got there 13 BAB by level 20, and only +4d6 SA (+1d6 if they're denied dex to AC). At another checkpoint, level 10, you've got +6 BAB, barely more than an equal-level wizard or sorcerer.
Also, it doesn't matter if it uses things just from WotC. For the most part, this build can't do anything against equivalent-level enemies apart from hope that they don't use two will/fort-targeting abilities in one round. It can't deal damage, it doesn't have massive HP, its AC might be alright, but enemies can for the most part simply ignore it. That's why it's flavorful, not because it uses sources outside of WotC. --Ghostwheel 15:56, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
To be honest, I did click it, browsed it, saw little that I recognized, saw the Homebrew Equipment, and assumed, judging by my initial perception, that it was, indeed, a homebrew class. My apologies.
I see the logic in making it "flavorful," but at the same time, I don't. True, the focus is on the Reflex Save covering everything, but that isn't the only thing it's good for, of course. Bear in mind, of course, that this build excludes the kinds of things that I use when actually playing this class (ie magic items, other skill tricks, other party members, setting, etc). From what I've experienced with it, it amazes me that so many people have criticized it so harshly. My first assumption must be that your campaigns are not quite like the one we use. Irregardless, this is a matter of opinion anyway. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ninjay (talkcontribs) 15:52, 2 September 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
So let's make it not be a matter of opinion. Apart from Ref saves, in combat the only other purpose this build could have is its damage, since it doesn't do tank/defender well. Show me the damage at level 20 after being weighted against an AC of 40? If it's 100-120 DPR or higher (unsure what the benchmark should be, but I'm pretty sure it's around there), I'll concede the point and agree that the build is optimized. If not, then it's not just "a matter of opinion" anymore, apart from at what point we place the benchmark for what's optimized for a damage-centered build. --Ghostwheel 16:56, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
DPR? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.82.65.10 (talkcontribs) 18:06, 2 September 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Damage Per Round --Ghostwheel 19:07, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Not all builds need be optimized for combat, as strange as that may sound.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:08, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
So if this build doesn't perform well on all counts (even with the Ref-to-other saves, that can only be used 1/round, and many spells don't allow saves, especially at that level), why should this build be kept? Just having a high reflex save doesn't do much for you, and it doesn't show off anything "cool" as far as the build goes. In theory, you could just take 20 levels in classes that have a good ref save, and get an even higher reflex save. So what does this build do? --Ghostwheel 19:13, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Someone put it here, and others out there have no doubt also thought of "good save" builds. It isn't hurting anyone for it to be here, it is an optimized build (even if you disagree with it - make your own variant). It should remain.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   19:20, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Again, says you. If the goal were really to create something with top Reflex saves, you could go:
  1. Monk
  2. Rogue
  3. Soulknife
  4. Ranger
  5. Bard
  6. Favored Soul
  7. Factotum
  8. Red Avenger
  9. Assassin
  10. Visionary Seeker
  11. Ardent Dilettante
  12. Chaotician
  13. Avenging Executioner
  14. Cloaked Dancer
  15. Combat Trapsmith
  16. Master of Masks
  17. Eldeen Ranger
  18. Bloodhound
  19. Watch Detective
  20. Foe Hunter
Now maybe I had to reach really far up my ass to get that, but that's +40 to Reflex saves, which shits all over this current build, albeit its almost complete uselessness in combat. So, you choose: if this is the more optimized one, then the other one becomes flavorful, since optimization is about numbers. Or, this one supersedes the other, and its complete lack of combat capability gets it deleted or put wherever. The point is, you don't optimize halfway, because that's not optimization. If it's not going to be upgraded to the maximum extent (optimization by textbook definition) then it should be flavorful or deleted. -- Jota 21:37, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Swearing is a violation of our policies. This is a warning. (1:1) --Green Dragon 21:33, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Exactly. And so far, most of the builds I've put the delete template on have had a complete lack of combat capability, which should get them deleted (or put wherever). --Ghostwheel 21:41, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Jota, you were a strong proponet of people changing TK's stuff, even when it was found to be overpowered by some. This is found to be underpowered by some. You have a "better" way to do it - then make a variant. That does not in any way make this need deletion, even if it is a optimized build. Period.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:43, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Bullshit. I was against the alteration of TK's work, regardless of its power, because it was his work, and he was active on the wiki in maintaining it until events beyond his control mandated a change (for him). Now, with optimization, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION, we should only keep the best of each thing. That is what optimization is. You're just being stubborn. If this was actually optimized, hell, I could care less about it. It's showing something different, perhaps optimized in a way, if in a non-combat, incredibly situational way. But it's not. It is an outright lie to present this as optimized when something superior to it exists. -- Jota 21:55, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Swearing is a violation of our policies. This is a warning. (1:2) --Green Dragon 21:15, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Then stat yours out and prove it is superior. Or request playtesting. All you are saying is further proving that playtesting, not deletion, is in order. Also, please watch your language on the wiki. We have several underage users.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   21:58, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
40 > 26. What else do you need to know? -- Jota 22:02, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Well, you seem to have a clear idea of how you would do it - I'd be interested in seeing your optimized build, wikid up and all. Perhaps even the original author of this one would.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:03, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
What's there to say? I've already conceded it would suck in combat. It's just a matter of taking as many classes and prestige classes as you can qualify for. The optimization then becomes getting the right number of skill points and feats so you can potentially take different classes, since all this can really offer is BAB. -- Jota 22:05, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Though, I will ask and point out that, Jota that 40>26 thing that you are talking about? How many supplements does it use? This build uses Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane, and Complete Scoundrel. I am not intimately familiar with the details, but I wouldn hazard a guess that this build is the best that can be made with those supplements. If your way uses more supplements, well then, -duh-, of course you make make something "better" with more material to work with. And if any of those aforementioned suggested things of yourse use a supplement that is not WotC, then that unquestionably throws what you suggested right out--this build uses only WotC rules, which automatically invalidates anything else for reference. And if you can do it better with more supplements, then by all means, make your own page that actually says it uses more supplements. TheWarforgedArtificer 22:07, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
TWA brings up a good point I briefly mentioned earlier that applys to all of tonight's discussions. When thinking of optimized builds, we also have to bring into account the material used to make it. This is why I keep saying "make a variant." Unless you can make this build better at what it is intended to do using only the same sources it does, that is.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:11, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
There's a lot of supplements, yeah. There were probably a few non-WotC, but those could be substituted for another class or prestige class (that is WotC) with the addition of the right feat or skill selection. I just took the easiest path. The point still stands. -- Jota 22:12, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Not unless you can prove how to make a better reflexman with the -exact- same sources as this build. --TheWarforgedArtificer 22:13, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
That's not the point at all. The point is that no matter what its ref save is, in the end it's basically useless in combat. Having a high ref save does nothing for you. The point of this build was to be invincible, not to have a high ref save. --Ghostwheel 22:15, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Unfortunately, taking that many base classes carries a huge XP penalty with it, so effectively that isn't as "optimized." To my knowledge, there isn't a way to negate the multiclass penalty. Either way, it's not like we're writing the Ten Commandments or anything.
At any rate, if it was PERFECT, people would be telling me that it's overpowered. Otherwise, somebody would point out the flaw(s), pick it apart, make a mountain out of a molehill, and/or pick the same scab again and again. Constructive criticism, right? I'd like to see a variant of some sort (somebody, out of whatever motive, has to try to pwn the n00b, right?). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.82.65.10 (talkcontribs) 21:16, 2 September 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
Those aren't the only two options. Take a look at my builds. For the most part, no one's really said anything too bad about 'em, apart from maybe the Ninja one where I thought that Palm Throw adds SA to damage on both attacks. --Ghostwheel 22:18, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
"Take a look at my builds. For the most part, no one's really said anything too bad about 'em"
Mainly because no one else is as zealous as you to even attempt to pick such things apart the way you do. Which is why we are here in the first place. --TheWarforgedArtificer 22:20, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
To touch on something mentioned above, the author states that the point of this build is to "This build allows for a ridiculously high Reflex save that eventually covers Fortitude and Will too. ". Not, as you state, to "be invincible." An optimized build does not necessarily have to be better at everything (i.e. the classic term Min/Maxing). This build chose to be good with Reflex Saves using the material resources given. It has yet to be proven that it did not meet that goal. I would also note that this discussion has long since passed the point of negating the need for this deletion template, and it should be removed.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:20, 2 September 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

@TheWarforgedArtificer: Zealous? In what way? *is trying to understand if that's supposed to be an insult or a compliment* :-P
@Hooper: So... what's the point of that? Just to get ref to cover fort and will? That's... it? I'm still not seeing the point.
Oh, and you want a build that has a higher ref save in the end? here ya go. 10 (base) + 4 (dex) + 4 (Elan Resilience) + 5 (Cloak of Resistance) + 12 (Serenity) = +35 by level 20. And the other two saves are even higher, so you don't "need" to cover them up. And, the build is combat-worthy while doing this. --Ghostwheel 22:30, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
The point? It's a classic min-max. One single stat has been inflated as high as possible as the referenced rules will allow. That -is- the point. Doesn't matter what stat it is. (And "min-max" is in many ways synonomous with "optimize") --TheWarforgedArtificer 22:28, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Except... it's not even doing that, is it? That's not even the point of the build is it? I see no attempts at adding dex to anything apart from ref saves. --Ghostwheel 22:30, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Why would you? The point of this build is REF, not DEX. Possibly he did miss some things, and yes those two are close, but they are still different as well.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   22:31, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Wizards of the Coast Only:
  1. Monk (PHB, WotC)
  2. Rogue (PHB, WotC)
  3. Soulknife (Expanded Psionics Handbook, WotC)
  4. Ranger (PHB, WotC)
  5. Bard (PHB, WotC)
  6. Favored Soul (Complete Divine, WotC)
  7. Factotum (Dungeonscape, WotC)
  8. Red Avenger (Sword and Fist; 3.0)
  9. Assassin (DMG, WotC)
  10. Visionary Seeker (Planar Handbook, (WotC)
  11. Ardent Dilettante (Planar Handbook, WotC)
  12. Chaotician (Planar Handbook, WotC)
  13. Avenging Executioner (Complete Scoundrel, WotC)
  14. Cloaked Dancer (Complete Scoundrel, WotC)
  15. Combat Trapsmith (Complete Scoundrel, WotC)
  16. Master of Masks (Complete Scoundrel, WotC)
  17. Eldeen Ranger (Eberron Campaign Setting, (WotC)
  18. Bloodhound (Masters of the Wild, WotC)
  19. Watch Detective (Masters of the Wild, WotC)
  20. Foe Hunter (Masters of the Wild, WotC)
  21. Swordsage (Tome of Battle, WotC)
One class short, and it can't be that hard to find a replacement. -- Jota 22:33, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Ninja/Spellthief/Swashbuckler/Lurk come to mind.
So is the point to get ref high, or to get ref to cover other saves? Either way, both concepts wouldn't be very usable in an actual game if you're building just for them. --Ghostwheel 22:38, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Assume that a character using the build has 4 Dex and the Cloak of Resistance; now he's a +41 (+whatever he/she gets on the roll). Thank you, Ghostwheel, that proves an earlier point about the equipment being a factor that is not included in the build. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.82.65.10 (talkcontribs) 21:42, 2 September 2009 (MDT). Please sign your posts!
The point still stands--the build couldn't be used in an actual game and still be called optimized as far as the majority of combat goes, and thus shouldn't be under the general optimization category. And Jota's demonstration above far outclasses this one. --Ghostwheel 22:44, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Exactly. The same could be applied to the previous build along with a level of blackguard, stat-increasing tomes, gloves of dexterity +6, and a cloak of charisma +6 for a Reflex save reaching at least +50. It still can't do a whole lot that's actually useful. -- Jota 22:49, 2 September 2009 (MDT)
Every argument you put forth furthers the point that deletion is by far the wrong approach.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   06:18, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
No, you're just being obtuse.
  1. Meriam-Webster - Optimal: most desirable or satisfactory
  2. Key word being most, in case you missed the bold.
  3. As stated by the build's title, this build is looking for "a ridiculously high Reflex save that eventually covers Fortitude and Will too."
  4. As shown in the discussion here, its Reflex save fails to be optimized.
  5. It fails to cover the other two areas until level 21, where you can finally cover one of those two once per round. Pretty useless in the pre-epic levels, which make up two-thirds of the game about 95% of what most players ever touch.
  6. It's DM Counter is "Physical combat creatures that don't use/need to use spells," which is damn near most of them. Except for specific creatures like beholders, maybe, most everything else is quite adept at ripping your face off, even if it also has magic (demons, devils, dragons, etc). There are also spells that don't require saves, so that counter is too vague and the build actually has a lot more weaknesses.
So tell me, where is the optimization here? Ghostwheel and I have proven that +26 is not optimized. All the feats are sunk into things like Dodge, Mobility, and Weapon Focus: Dagger, so where's the combat capability? I know combat is not the be-all, end-all of D&D, but it is a hugely integral part of the game. Without it the MM wouldn't exist, the PHB would be a lot skinnier, half the feats in the game would be non-applicable, etc... As stated before, I would be fine with a Needs Balance template for two weeks, followed by deletion, but it's already sat around from July 9th to September 2nd with the delete template until Ghostwheel himself removed the delete template to stick it in the flavorful optimizations category. It's obvious no one cares about it (I doubt you seriously care for the article itself, merely the procedure), so why should its continued existence (as an optimized build, that is crucial) be permitted given its history and failure to be optimized? It should be flavorful or deleted, because it sure as hell isn't optimized, and I'm pretty sure you're the one who said: "Flavorful category should be for flavorful things" when you removed this build from the category in question. -- Jota 07:10, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
You just admitted that it does meet its goals - at level 21, which is the level this build is made to! Imagine that! It doesn't have a set goal of when to meet it, and you admit it does. Once again, you're proving yourself wrong. Flavorful doesn't mean "suboptimal". It means built with flavor in mind. This was built with a game mechanic goal in mind.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   07:34, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
On the similar track as Hooper; "Optimal: most desirable or satisfactory" , "So tell me, where is the optimization here?" Simple, this build is the most satisfactory way of attaining the highest possible Reflex save with the sourcebooks cited. Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me. --TheWarforgedArtificer 07:49, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

Bwah haha! I'm never gonna delete this article because its talk page is just too Awesome! Haha! I should nominate this talk page as a featured article. You guys are classic. Live long and prosper ladies. --Jay Freedman 09:20, 3 September 2009 (MDT)(is still laughing)
@Hooper: the point is, 20 levels of suck to get to marginally okay is not optimized. And I agree with you on what flavorful means, but this build IS suboptimal. If it is neither optimal nor flavorful (and "built with a game mechanic goal in mind" doesn't sound like flavorful to me), it should be deleted. And I did not admit anything, because it does not meets it goals: its Reflex save is not ridiculously high. It makes an attempt, albeit a failed one.
@WFA: There is no "Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, Complete Adventurer, Complete Arcane, and Complete Scoundrel" subsection of the 3.5e Optimized Builds. If you go outside the core sourcebooks with something like the Complete Scoundrel, the build is automatically extended to all WotC sourcebooks, so this is not optimized in that respect. Even if we were to limit the build to the books the author stated, multi-classing into the some of the classes mentioned above (Cloaked Dancer, Master of Masks, etc.) that ARE in the Complete Scoundrel would improve the build's intended function, and their lack of inclusion means this build is suboptimal even if those were the limits. -- Jota 12:12, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
"Even if we were to limit the build to the books the author stated, multi-classing into the some of the classes mentioned above (Cloaked Dancer, Master of Masks, etc.) that ARE in the Complete Scoundrel would improve the build's intended function" If that is true, then you are completely right. So go change it yourself. This -is- a wiki, after all ;). --TheWarforgedArtificer 12:34, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
If the idea, not the build, but the very concept behind this is suboptimal, why would I bother? -- Jota 12:38, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Because you are wrong to think that the idea is suboptimal. Your reasoning is faulty behind that logic. May it possibly be made better with the same material? Possibly. Until someone adds a better one using the same material to the wiki - this is the wiki's optimal version of this build. This discussion is over.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:25, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Your reasoning is faulty behind that logic.
—Hooper
Let me state I said this conversation is over, not to be rude, but because it isn't getting anywhere. The template was proven to be invalid, and it has the proper template. Anyone thinking they can do better - feel free to add to the wiki your version. In the meantime, this conversation is useless and this build is being playtested.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:29, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Careful who you choose to emulate. I'm more than willing to continue this discourse because I feel that you are wrong. Playtesting won't prove anything, and you have yet to show that is is optimized, whereas I have shown it is not. The wiki's optimal version? Don't make me laugh. Quit hiding behind rules and procedures and show me something, anything, that indicates this is optimized. -- Jota 13:37, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
The only way to do that in a proven and not just opinionated way is to playtest it. That will be done. It will take time. The article is properly templated to showcase that in the meantime. There really isn't any other way to finish this discussion. You have yet to prove to me it is suboptimal as all youve done is throw out opinons or to state that you could do it better. I am going to playtest it and give you a good review. Are you going to actually back up your claims?   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:41, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
whoa - These are you options: prove your statements by either playtesting or making your own build. Do not change this template - as even your own statements above have proven it is the proper template. Prove you points - don't just shout with nothing to back it up.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:47, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
40 > 26. This is suboptimal. Don't omit content to misrepresent an argument. Playtesting will not work unless you post a round-by-round account of what happens. I've already backed up my claims with examples and citations. Where are your numbers. Hooper? You have two weeks. -- Jota 13:48, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
'for the last time: you will get what you want when the playtesting is done. In the meantime, the template is appropriate. And I will give you honest answers. However, you have not provided any proof - just what ifs and stuff that doesn't apply to this build, such as DPR.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   13:51, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

If anyone is still on this website, I hope that none of you mind my adopting the build (adding more sourcebooks, correcting numbers, etc). Post here or message me if you happen to object to that.--Merthuvial 03:45, 28 April 2012 (MDT)

Playtesting Notes[edit]

Have been lying on my game pad for a while. Sorry for the delay. Anyways, here are some notes:

  • I altered the author's "other stuff" parts for a series of increased sneak and ref things. Also on a pad. Incoming (when I get to it)
  • Stopped playtesting after 15, as I would basically have to adopt the article in order to give my take on the provided name for the benefits (can do if no one wants to adopt)
  • Overall, fine in core games. Powergamers will tear it apart, but can easily replace a rogue in a normal party (or in a rp-heavy campaign, a ranger - though not so much for cruch)
  • Ref save, even though this build is optimized for it, is too much. If it stays that high other stuff needs to go. May sound crazy, given that the idea is based around the dexterity of the character, but I personally am unaware of core material that even comes close to it.

I'll get the notes on the Other Stuff and how I worked the (mostly easy-to-understand) abilities provided. If no objections come after that, will add them into the article. Eventually. Busy these days.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   04:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit Wars[edit]

Jota, Ghostwheel, and myself have just edit warred. I acknowledge that this was wrong. I request admin assistance from GD. I also refuse to play test something that is up for deletion and at risk of being lost before I can complete the play test.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:02, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

You know it can be restored, right? For someone so adamant on policy, that you wouldn't know such... -- Jota 14:07, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
GD, I'll note that I refuse to comment further on this with the users noted above. I will admit that since I was half of the edit warring party against each, I may have earned a worse ban than them. Thats for you to consider. I am a firm beliver in following standard policy, which is why we should all be considered for short term bans and this page should have the playtesting/needsbalance template. Also, Jota even edit warred when i tried to reach an agreeable medium. I now consider Jota to be completely refusing to work toghether on this, even though he admitted above in his own words that this build did work - see a link I provided to one of his diffs earlier. Until proven otherwise, this is a public statement that I consider Jota's edits to be subtle actions with the goal to hurt this wiki and help the offshoot wiki group. This will be my last statement until GD decides either way.  Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:13, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
The offshoot group is really doing nothing, and I'm doing nothing over there with them, so you can lose the baseless accusations. I have tried to be agreeable, by showing what an optimized variant might look like, even though I am of the opinion that the basic premise is not something that can truly be optimized. Hooper has, for his part, chosen to ignore select wording of mine and re-interpret what I have said as things entirely to the contrary (such as saying that I said this builds works; I said it's basic premise never worked and the secondary premises were not touched on until epic levels). So Hooper paints me as a wiki-terrorist until I prove otherwise (obviously impossible to prove my intentions over the internet), which is ironic, since I am only looking out for its best interests, which does not include the hosting of false material. Therein lies the schism: is this build optimized? I have given numbers to the contrary, Hooper has complained with words. I am sure I have come across as a jackass at points, but I would only ask that you consider the numbers presented (since this is about optimization) when you make your decision, Green Dragon. -- Jota 14:33, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I have to agree with Jota. The basic decision on whether this build should be deleted or not is if it's optimized. There is no point in optimizing reflex saves to the exclusion of everything and anything else. Thus it doesn't belong in the "generally to be used for characters" category, and should either be deleted or moved to another category. Perhaps "theoretical optimizations" rather than "flavorful" ones? I'd also put Pun-Pun in the same category, since he wouldn't (shouldn't?) be used in an actual game. Though while Pun-Pun is impressive and has merit, since it shows various loopholes to ultimate power inherent in D&D 3.5, this build adds nothing and doesn't do anything special. In essence, it could be described completely in a "helpful hints" guide with a single sentence: "If you have a high reflex save or try to get a high reflex save so you can pick up these two feats so once per round you can switch a reflex save instead of Fort/Will saves." A single sentence does not merit a whole build, since that's all this build does. Thus, it should be deleted rather than kept IMO, though I'd also be satisfied if it was put in its own category with other builds that are completely ineffective in combat. --Ghostwheel 14:38, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Because Ghost said something I agree with, I'll break my own statement and reply. You stated "The basic decision on whether this build should be deleted or not is if it's optimized." To this end, I have agreed to playtest. I will not just spout off numbers or thoughts off the top of my head like some have above and then claim I've proven my point. I will take the time to do so.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:40, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Except unless you post a round-by-round explanation of your playtest, as well as what you rolled, it's worthless to us since we'd need to verify and comment. Numbers, especially averages, speak much louder on the Internet. Furthermore, one can look at the numbers (BAB, attack, damage, whatever) and see that it's completely useless when all you're doing is trying to optimize the above. --Ghostwheel 14:43, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Now you are using your own opinions and thoughts on what is more valuable and basing your actions on that. This is a collaborative wiki. You're trying to force "DPR numbers" out of something that doesn't have any reason to need a particular DPR number - and by the way - DPR is a concept that is not accepted as valid by all - so you should acknowledge that DPR does not represent a policy benchmark in any way. Playtesting is valid. You are free to playtest and post your results as well, and encouraged to do so. Has a last reply to Jota - your last edits have predomintaely been to aid material made by the users who left or to try to lure users over there - so yes, prove me wrong. Now, I do believe all has been stated that can be - and will wait for admin thoughts.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:47, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Ummm... what? He didn't do anything like that. And also, playtesting is subjective since it's based on what you roll--luck, and your own "feelings" of whether it playtests well or not. On the other hand, numbers don't lie, and anyone can check them by going through the same calculations. They're completely objective. Sure, the benchmark might not be official, but it's a start and a decent guide to whether a build can do the damage it needs to. --Ghostwheel 14:50, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
I can't believe we're doing the same circular arguments again. This build isn't made to meet any given damage benchmark' - and that is completey okay!!! Let that sink in. I don't know how to put it any more simply than that. Not every optimization is for damage.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   14:52, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Then how does it function in combat? And what, because I respect people's intellectual property that makes me a wiki-terrorist? -- Jota 14:55, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Look up. I just addressed that 3 (of my) posts ago, and why it should either be placed in its own category, or deleted. --Ghostwheel 14:56, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Jota, that doesn't answer the statments that you have, and I can provide the diffs if needed, routinely said things like "you know, USERNAMEHERE, another wiki exists where they appreciate ISSUEHERE, and aren't idiots." Yes, that isn't the exact statement, but the gist. How is that being misconstrued by me has not for the good of this wiki? Then, the only active things you do is try to delete content - like Surgo who keeps popping up to delete things that are already on the other wiki? I'm not just blindly accusing - I have honest reasons to be concerned about your motives. Now, if in time or through some unforseen method you prove me wrong - I'll admit my wrongness to fear this and apologize profousley - I'm always the first to admit when wrong if I believe I am.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   15:03, 3 September 2009 (MDT)

→Reverted indentation to one colon

So one sideways comment after obviously pointless back-and-forth arguing makes everything I do detrimental to this wiki? I gave no link, and I'm pretty sure I have only done so once, and that was rather indirect. I haven't said: go here it's better, or anything to that extent. For those new users who are unfamiliar with our "wiki-pocalypse" or whatever you want to call it, that (my comment) means nothing. To users who know or care, chances are they already know the link to the other wiki. The only active thing I do is delete content? I nominate poor content for deletion. You rate campaign settings and fix double redirects. I could argue I'm doing more for this wiki than you are. Obviously a generalization, but if you are going to do that then I will do the same to call attention to that fact, since I do a lot more than that. I have been substantially less motivated to rate classes (which I have done quite a bit of) as of late given that GD said he was considering moving away from the current rating system. Do I care for this wiki as much as I used to? No. This wiki is worse off for the departures of users like Eiji, WFA, Daniel Draco, Lord Dhazriel, Surgo, TK-Squared, Dragonchild, Rith, Sulacu, and whomever else I missed. That said, given that there are a lot of users who did not migrate, I still have an interest in this wiki, an interest which does not extend to the it's dismantling. -- Jota 15:28, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
The edit warring did not seem too serious and warnings will suffice for the vulgar language in the dialog above. --Green Dragon 21:42, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Fine; I'm done trying to clean up garbage builds. Not that it makes a difference marking them for deletion anyway *points to all the ones that still have the delete template*
Enjoy either having garbage builds on the wiki, or deleting them yourself. --Ghostwheel 21:59, 3 September 2009 (MDT)
Even at the risk of reopening old wounds, I feel compelled to express my opinion on this. I will concede that not every build should be focused on damage. I agree with that; not every party memeber needs to deal large amounts of damage (although I am of the opinion that a weak party member is a liability that could be avoided rather easily). However, I think every build should be focused on competency. The whole concept of optimization implies that the character would have some measure of survivability instead of being completely useless. This falls into the latter category. The build states that it will improve its Fortitude and Will saves, but no progress is made towards those until epic levels (in all fairness, no progress really can be made until the introduction of Dexterous Fortitude and Will). Since many campaigns do not even seem to reach epic levels, anyone attempting to use this build will pretty much be doomed to dismally low saves other than Reflex. This makes playtesting futile, since death effects and similar Fortitude/Will-based saving throws run rampant in the average campaign. High Reflex save or not, this build is essentially useless. And useless material has no place on any D&D site, including this Wiki. -- TG Cid 15:19, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
I appreciate your input. I have only done a very small amount of the playtesting I hope to do, using our standard testing scenarios. Once done I'll be able to answer more comprehensively. In the meantime, I would say that if we delve into what is and isn't optimizaiton over all we would be at risk of getting into the classic Roleplaying vs. Min/Maxing argument that has existed forever, and as such is just not worth really doing. I will say that from what I've been able to tell so far, I think the idea is actually valid - though in the end I may want to research a way to improve it using more than the source material available - which would be a variant of course. I'll explain more once I have more to go off of, but so far I'll say that the idea is definately doable, it is just yet to be fully revealed if this particular attempt at doing it has succeeded.   Hooper   talk    contribs    email   17:09, 5 September 2009 (MDT)
The clearest example of it working (after getting Dex Fortitude and Dex Will) would be a Prismatic spell; effectively, someone with Improved Evasion could just walk right through the colors. One the other hand, since this build doesn't have high HP, the Power Words would conceivably be the nail in the coffin for this build. Just getting over Power Word Kill poses a threat to this build, since the character is epic by that point anyway. It does a good job of what it's trying to do, even if what it's trying to do is less than ideal. 206.82.65.10 (talk • contribs) 21:24, 1 September 2009 (EST).
Personal tools
d20M
miscellaneous
admin area
Terms and Conditions for Non-Human Visitors