D&D 3e/3.5e/d20The forum for conversations specifically related to the rules and procedures of Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition, 3.5 Edition, or any fantasy game using the d20 system or a variant thereof (commercially published or not).
I don't see why the Feral Dreadlord and Takahashi no Onisan are in the Theoretical builds, the first is just a really effective TWFighter and the other is an intimidate-based lockdown build, if you are immune to fear or mind affecting you are immune to him and at level 13 is quite easy to get that immunity.
__________________
Avatar by Ceika
Past Avatars/Iron Chef Trophy:
I don't see why the Feral Dreadlord and Takahashi no Onisan are in the Theoretical builds, the first is just a really effective TWFighter and the other is an intimidate-based lockdown build, if you are immune to fear or mind affecting you are immune to him and at level 13 is quite easy to get that immunity.
I quite agree with this concerning Takahashi. While surprisingly strong for a CW Samurai... he is by no means TO, since it is relatively easy to become immune to him. Heck, I used him in Test of Spite, definitely within the realm of Practical Optimization, not Theoretical.
The line between "theoretical" and "practical" may be difficult to establish.
That being said... possibly "practical" builds:
Chicken Infested Commoner (so long as you consider infinite flaming chickens "playable")
The Mailman (overkilling something by +600 HP doesn't make it *more* dead.)
Gatling Chain Gun Tripper (secondary poster child for the Fighter 20 diehards)
Jack B. Quick (primary poster child for the Fighter 20 diehards)
The Killer Gnome (well, except for 100% real imaginary miracles)
Fistbeard Beardfist
Ted the heiney-kicking enabler (was originally designed for actual play as an NPC)
Bardic Badass (even better when you add flaming chickens)
Trixie, the Pixie Party Booster (she is designed to buff the party... or completely daze the bajeezus out of everything that moves)
The totally overpowered basketweaver (assuming the player is also immortal)
Speaking of which, I think the totally overpowered basketweaver was by Zemyla, not zombiegleemax. I assume zombiegleemax is some sort "default userid" assigned to anyone from the gleemax forum that didn't have the same userid on the wizards boards when they were trying to do thread necromancy on the old gleemax material.
The line between "theoretical" and "practical" may be difficult to establish.
Definitely highly subjective.
Quote:
Chicken Infested Commoner (so long as you consider infinite flaming chickens "playable")
... I'm pretty sure no DM would ever allow this build unless they allow Theoretical Optimization or they're going for a cartoon-humor campaign.
Quote:
The Mailman (overkilling something by +600 HP doesn't make it *more* dead.)
No, but he's still an extremely competent Sorcerer/Incantatrix anyway. And personally, if I'm the DM, anything that abuses Incantatrix goes in the Theoretical category, including Cindy. Granted, this is definitely an example of a build that might be PO in some groups while being TO in other groups.
Quote:
Gatling Chain Gun Tripper (secondary poster child for the Fighter 20 diehards)
Jack B. Quick (primary poster child for the Fighter 20 diehards)
I'm not super-familiar with the first, but if it's a similar power level to Jack B Quick, I agree with moving it into the "Practical" category. For that matter, Saph's Horizon Tripper (a core-only, multiclassed version of the GCGT) should probably be added to the list of well-known builds too.
Quote:
The Killer Gnome (well, except for 100% real imaginary miracles)
Theoretical in my book; similar power level to Incantatrixes.
Quote:
Fistbeard Beardfist
Yeah, this can probably qualify as Practical. It's probably slightly weaker than Flaming Homer, which I'd still (probably, grudgingly) allow as Practical.
Quote:
Ted the heiney-kicking enabler (was originally designed for actual play as an NPC)
Bardic Badass (even better when you add flaming chickens)
Trixie, the Pixie Party Booster (she is designed to buff the party... or completely daze the bajeezus out of everything that moves)
The totally overpowered basketweaver (assuming the player is also immortal)
I'm not familiar enough with these to have an opinion.
__________________
You can call me Draz. Trophies:
Work on my homebrew system, CRE8, is still marching slowly onwards. I think I can see the light at the end of the tunnel -- an Alpha release -- in the distance now. Read my Design Goals here.
It's true that TO vs PO can be subjective. Even the CharOp boards on wizards.com have trouble defining the difference (and they're more inclusive anyway with the board rearrangement). Obviously it's easy to distinguish in practice: if someone's asking for help with a build in/for a game, it's practical, whereas if they're presenting a thought experiment, it's theoretical. But given a build, it can be difficult to say one way or the other.
I could probably make a list of the differences, but perhaps it would simply be a better use of everyone's time to try and categorize the builds by tiers, rather than PO vs TO. In that respect we're already helped by the existing tier system for classes.
I can't find it ATM, but IIRC Pun-Pun is "tier -1." I assume most of the other TO builds (Omniscifier, Wish & Word, Terminator, Twice Betrayer of Shar) are tier 0. The rest are tier 1. Does that sound about right?
It's true that TO vs PO can be subjective. Even the CharOp boards on wizards.com have trouble defining the difference (and they're more inclusive anyway with the board rearrangement). Obviously it's easy to distinguish in practice: if someone's asking for help with a build in/for a game, it's practical, whereas if they're presenting a thought experiment, it's theoretical. But given a build, it can be difficult to say one way or the other.
I could probably make a list of the differences, but perhaps it would simply be a better use of everyone's time to try and categorize the builds by tiers, rather than PO vs TO. In that respect we're already helped by the existing tier system for classes.
I can't find it ATM, but IIRC Pun-Pun is "tier -1." I assume most of the other TO builds (Omniscifier, Wish & Word, Terminator, Twice Betrayer of Shar) are tier 0. The rest are tier 1. Does that sound about right?
Practical Optimization is optimization that does not at any one point yield a character who is exceptionally behind where they want to be
Theoretical Optimization is optimization looking to reach a level of power at a certain level, without significant regard to how far it is behind the curve before that point. my Mystic Darkfire Knight is solidly TO, as the build, without DM Fiat to use a Bottle of Air/decanter of endless air as a scubatank, does not function before lvl 15
Practical Optimization is optimization that does not at any one point yield a character who is exceptionally behind where they want to be
Theoretical Optimization is optimization looking to reach a level of power at a certain level, without significant regard to how far it is behind the curve before that point. my Mystic Darkfire Knight is solidly TO, as the build, without DM Fiat to use a Bottle of Air/decanter of endless air as a scubatank, does not function before lvl 15
I thought of that, but then I remembered that some campaigns start at higher levels.
Also lol about your builld And thanks for giving me another chance to post, because I wanted to put in this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowbluff
Do we have the Cheatiest build yet. I don't remember who made it, but it came up when I was fiddling in ToM. Archivist3/AnimaMage(Divine adaption)10/TenebrousApostate5. Free DMM, 15th level Binding, Fullcasting from a large list...
Practical Optimization is optimization that does not at any one point yield a character who is exceptionally behind where they want to be
Theoretical Optimization is optimization looking to reach a level of power at a certain level, without significant regard to how far it is behind the curve before that point. my Mystic Darkfire Knight is solidly TO, as the build, without DM Fiat to use a Bottle of Air/decanter of endless air as a scubatank, does not function before lvl 15
By that definition, Pun-Pun - who reaches overdeity status at level 1 - is PO, since at no time is he behind where he wants to be in the curve. Is that what you meant?
__________________
Star Metallurgist of the Roy Fanclub
Who made my awesome Dwarf Hexblade avatar, you ask? BRC did!
I thought of that, but then I remembered that some campaigns start at higher levels.Also lol about your builld And thanks for giving me another chance to post, because I wanted to put in this:
The reason is, the build is based off of using Earthglide to essentially hide from casters.
you dont get earthglide before lvl 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amphetryon
By that definition, Pun-Pun - who reaches overdeity status at level 1 - is PO, since at no time is he behind where he wants to be in the curve. Is that what you meant?
Actually, he is. Pun-pun would prefer to hit puberty after he attains godhood.
Practical Optimization is optimization that does not at any one point yield a character who is exceptionally behind where they want to be
Theoretical Optimization is optimization looking to reach a level of power at a certain level, without significant regard to how far it is behind the curve before that point. my Mystic Darkfire Knight is solidly TO, as the build, without DM Fiat to use a Bottle of Air/decanter of endless air as a scubatank, does not function before lvl 15
I really have to disagree with this. It's entirely possible to have a PO build that only matures at a certain point (and before that is rather unpleasant to play); it is likewise possible to have a TO build that increases in power rather linearly, or better, with no significant gaps. (I don't understand your remark about Pun-Pun wishing to hit puberty after ascension at all; build-wise, he's kinda lame, but playable, until he starts to ascend, and then rapidly becomes more and more capable.)
Instead, the difference is in whether they are intended for actual play (and have corresponding limitations on their powers, and relatively fleshed-out defenses and utilities), or are merely an interesting exercise in rules-stretching. Pun-Pun, despite being entirely playable from character creation straight through to ascension, is not designed for actual table use at all.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Water_Bear
That's RAW for you; 100% Rules-Legal, 110% silly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hamishspence
"Common sense" and "RAW" are not exactly on speaking terms
Anyone knows blue is for sarcas'ing in · Use of gray may indicate nitpicking · Green is sincerity · "Take 10 SAN damage from Dark Orchid"
I often hop into threads for just one thing
I dunno how famous it is, but it's one of my favorite "named builds".
He's not really 'TO' either. In fact, he's not really a Character Build at all, so much as a treatise on how the GM can legitimately counter such tactics as Scry n Die that a PO Batman Wizard is likely to employ.
Granted, he's a nice concept, but there's nothing particularly optimized in Rogue1 (changling racial variant)/Bard19. Or, with the alternate, Rogue1/Bard9/Spymaster10.
Now mind you, he CAN be set up to Diplomance, and has some exceedingly obnoxious tricks which lets him pull it off very well. But his greatest assets lie in being unable to be predicted or tracked. Which makes him rather less effective as a PC.
He's not really 'TO' either. In fact, he's not really a Character Build at all, so much as a treatise on how the GM can legitimately counter such tactics as Scry n Die that a PO Batman Wizard is likely to employ.
Oh, I never meant to imply otherwise. This list has PO as well as TO. I see this as a very good example of PO: optimization to achieve a specific, limited goal.
Tier 0: Capable of doing things that should not be possible (eg. infinite anything, killing gods). Cannot be challenged except by a build dedicated specifically to that task.
Pun-Pun, by Khan the Destroyer
The Omniscificer, by LordofProcrastination
The Wish & The Word, by Frank&K(?)
Monty, by psly4mne
Tier 1: Capable of doing absolutely everything, often better than builds that specialize in that thing. Often capable of solving encounters with a single mechanical ability and little thought from the player. Has world changing powers. These guys, if played well, can break a campaign and can be very hard to challenge without extreme DM fiat, especially if Tier 3s and below are in the party.
Cindy, by Emperor Tippy
Team Solars, by douglas
The Twice-Betrayer of Shar, by LordofProcrastination
Cheater of Mystra by Neonsamurai and Funny Slaughter
Tier 2: Has as much raw power as the Tier 1 builds, but can't pull off nearly as many tricks. Still potencially campaign smashers by using the right abilities, but at the same time are more predictable and can't always have the right tool for the job. If the Tier 1 builds are countries with 10,000 nuclear weapons in their arsenal, these guys are countries with 10 nukes. Still dangerous and world shattering, but not in quite so many ways. Note that the Tier 2 builds are often less flexible than Tier 3 classes... it's just that their incredible potential power overwhelms their lack in flexibility. Usually includes builds dedicated specifically to beating a certain Tier 0 or Tier 1 build.
All the 100^10 builds.
d2 Crusader, by BassetKing
Chuck E. Cheese, by skydragonknight
The Terminator, by Tleilaxu_Ghola
Tier 3: Capable of doing one thing quite well, while still being useful when that one thing is inappropriate, or capable of doing all things, but not as well as builds that specialize in that area. Occasionally has a mechanical ability that can solve an encounter, but this is relatively rare and easy to deal with. Challenging such a character takes some thought from the DM, but isn't too difficult.
Bardic Badass, by Janus Jones
Trixie, the Pixie Party Booster, by Carnivore
Supermount 2.0, by Dyllan
Tier 4: Capable of doing one thing quite well, but often useless when encounters require other areas of expertise, or capable of doing many things to a reasonable degree of competance without truly shining. Rarely has any abilities that can outright handle an encounter unless that encounter plays directly to the class's main strength. DMs may sometimes need to work to make sure Tier 4s can contribue to an encounter, as their abilities may sometimes leave them useless. Cannot compete effectively with Tier 1s that are played well.
Gatling Chain Gun Tripper, by Snow_Savant
Jack B. Quick, by Caelic
Takahashi no Onisan, by ShneekeyTheLost
Supermount, by Caelic
Tier 5: Builds that probably should not be in this thread, or joke builds.
The totally overpowered Basketweaver, by Zemyla(?)
I'm pretty sure that we established that earthglide does not work the way you think it does, regarding your scuba tank analogy.
no, you didnt, you just claimed without evidence that you automatically goto step 4 of drowning, despite the fact that it does not say which of the 5 steps of the drowning rules you begin at.
no, you didnt, you just claimed without evidence that you automatically goto step 4 of drowning, despite the fact that it does not say which of the 5 steps of the drowning rules you begin at.
Edit: Redacted.
If toapat would like to present his build for peer review in another thread, I would be happy to make my comments their.
This is so many kinds of off-topic. Toapat's link never belonged in this thread to begin with, since this thread is about "famous" builds and a build from last week is not that. Arguments about the validity of any build, and particularly a build that didn't belong here to begin with, really don't belong here.
Please don't drag this thread into that and get it locked.
This is so many kinds of off-topic. Toapat's link never belonged in this thread to begin with, since this thread is about "famous" builds and a build from last week is not that. Arguments about the validity of any build, and particularly a build that didn't belong here to begin with, really don't belong here.
Please don't drag this thread into that and get it locked.
When I first started playing D&D, I had decided that Bards were my favorite class, and so I looked online for some fun/good bard builds. One that caught my eye was the "Joker" build (mentioned above), but more importantly, it was made as an NPC to counter a wizard build called the "Batman" build. Does anybody have a link to that? Would it be appropriate for this thread?
When I first started playing D&D, I had decided that Bards were my favorite class, and so I looked online for some fun/good bard builds. One that caught my eye was the "Joker" build (mentioned above), but more importantly, it was made as an NPC to counter a wizard build called the "Batman" build. Does anybody have a link to that? Would it be appropriate for this thread?
Batman isn't a build so much as a philosophy to playing Wizards. A frequently misunderstood philosophy.
As much as I liked the idea of a tier system for builds (and may do that later), I think I will keep the TO/PO lists, because I thought of a simple way to differentiate them.
PO builds were made to be played.
TO builds were not.
With that in mind, I looked at the original author's intent when making the build, and readjusted some of the builds accordingly. The Javocian bomb and both supermount builds were clearly not meant to be played, and so I put them in the TO category, whereas the Killer Gnome was (I think), so I put it in the PO category. The Nasty Gentleman was iffy, but I ended up putting it in the PO category because I think Snow Savant meant for the build (except perhaps the Unnatural Gentleman) to be used. The Trouserfang dwarf is another iffy one, which I have left in the PO section.
Now, while I still wonder about the answer to my original question, this presents a new, and possibly more interesting one: if all the PO builds were put in a room together, which one would come out on top? Would anyone be interested in a tournament or Battle Royale to put it to the test? Preferably a few people who know these builds' abilities better than I do.
PO builds were made to be played.
TO builds were not.
I'm... not sure I agree. My criteria would be, "Does it break the game?", but nailing that down isn't exactly easy. I thought "Does it get an infinite number of something?" would also be a clear indicator of TO, but... well, take the chicken-infested builds. They get infinite chickens, so TO? But if you look at the relative power level, those two chicken-infested builds are actually quite playable. Master of Cluck-Fu does 1d6+1d8+5+Str damage with his chickens. That's pretty underpowered for a 20-level build. Or take the Chicken Chucker, which adds 6d6 fire damage on top of every thrown chicken... that's roughly on par with the Bardic Badass (marked as PO). Replace the chickens with shurikens or Gloves of Endless Javelins and those would be fairly normal builds.
Bubs and the Supermount I don't really think of as TO. They don't get infinite combos. The worst they do is they get a very big, powerful animal... although getting a Battletitan under your command at level 4 would probably break the game. Supermount seems more reasonable to me, but I'm curious... has anyone seen a Supermount in actual play?
Triple Cheeseburger I'd probably consider "playable", because well... if 9th level spells broke the game, then wouldn't all Tier 1 casters be TO?
The Cube should probably be TO, but that one was *actually played* (Test of Spite). However, since no one could figure out how to defeat it, that's probably a good indication it belongs in TO.
Trouserfang is playable... not really an infinite combo. That might belong in the same category as the Chicken-Infested stuff. Do we need a separate category for "This doesn't break the game, but if you want to play this, you are clearly trying to play a very *different* game from everyone else." Maybe a "Silly Optimization" category?
For me it isn't about the power of the build, I consider the difference between TO and PO being intent. If they are intended for actual play? PO, otherwise TO (yes this include silly optimization builds like the chicken infested commoner).
Normally the creators of such builds try to explain if they were just messing with the rules to see what happens or if they want to play such build in a game, while I acknowledge there are people who play at vastly different optimization levels and as such what is allowed varies a lot, knowing their intentions does help.
Obviously this doesn't work all the time, for example the Hood "archetype" started as a cohort for a game (thus a PO exercise); but as it evolved (adding more charge multipliers, other utility stuff)it became a TO exercise.
__________________
Avatar by Ceika
Past Avatars/Iron Chef Trophy:
The Cube should probably be TO, but that one was *actually played* (Test of Spite). However, since no one could figure out how to defeat it, that's probably a good indication it belongs in TO.
Trouserfang is playable... not really an infinite combo. That might belong in the same category as the Chicken-Infested stuff. Do we need a separate category for "This doesn't break the game, but if you want to play this, you are clearly trying to play a very *different* game from everyone else." Maybe a "Silly Optimization" category?
Lol, maybe so. As for the Cube, I think you're probably right.
Given the vagueness of the Cube, I'd leave that out of the test, unless someone wants to build another Cube.
On a side note: I found a post for a Level 1 Warforged Commoner with Chicken Infested and another flaw, Martial Study, Martial Stance, and Blood in the Water that was able to deal infinite damage. Then I replaced that link with Tom Cluck Awesome, and I can't find it again. Can anyone help?
On a side note: I found a post for a Level 1 Warforged Commoner with Chicken Infested and another flaw, Martial Study, Martial Stance, and Blood in the Water that was able to deal infinite damage. Then I replaced that link with Tom Cluck Awesome, and I can't find it again. Can anyone help?
RSS Feeds: 
Re: Famous optimized character builds?
And thanks for giving me another chance to post, because I wanted to put in this:
