Rules of Optimisation

[TheJake]

Howdy

On other boards, there seems to be several posts (stickied) discussing the rules of RAW. Here it seems a lot of people debate what is RAW-worthy (i.e. CustServ rulings). Now CustServ rulings, while in many classes functionally retarded, it is accepted as holy writ on the Wizards forum. If it is not accepted here, can someone please post or link to what are the accepted rules of optimisation? It might just be my perception but it seems some people are moving to the beat of their own drum.

Cheers

- J.

[Greenish]

You can follow what rules you wish, but aside from a few common sense assumptions (monks are proficient with unarmed strikes etc.), people tend to go with RAW when doing TO. That is, the only thing that can overwrite what the books say is official errata.

PO is more back-and-forth with the DM.

[Geigan]

What is and isn't acceptable is highly subjective. We tend to optimize to the beat of whoever is asking for help, depending on what books they have, what they consider too cheesy, what they're willing to change, what sort of houserules they use, etc.

As for RAW, we take what's written in the book+errata only at least for purposes of the RAW thread. Other sources such as custserv, sage rulings, etc are merely considered interpretations. At best a respected opinion, at worst as you put it, "functionally retarded."

[LordBlades]

IMHO RAW matters only as far as TO and academic discussion is concerned, in order to have some common ground. For all other intents and purposes, people use a mixture of RAW, RAI and common sense, usually defined by the guy that asks the question (because in the end the rules that apply to his game matter).

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

CustServ is just people taking a stab at answers. They conflict with themselves and RAW. Atleast the FAQ is cohere

[Urpriest]

Howdy

On other boards, there seems to be several posts (stickied) discussing the rules of RAW. Here it seems a lot of people debate what is RAW-worthy (i.e. CustServ rulings). Now CustServ rulings, while in many classes functionally retarded, it is accepted as holy writ on the Wizards forum. If it is not accepted here, can someone please post or link to what are the accepted rules of optimisation? It might just be my perception but it seems some people are moving to the beat of their own drum.

Cheers

- J.

CustServ hasn't been accepted as anything other than suggestions on the Wizards forums for quite some time. As far as I've seen during 4e people have made a policy of asking CustServ for an answer multiple times and posting the contradictory results.

[Safety Sword]

CustServ hasn't been accepted as anything other than suggestions on the Wizards forums for quite some time. As far as I've seen during 4e people have made a sport of asking CustServ for an answer multiple times and posting the contradictory results.

Fix'd :smallbiggrin:

[Midnight_v]

Ten Commandments of Optimization
.
I. Thou shalt not give up caster levels.

II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.

III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty.

IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.

V. Thou shalt not give up caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.

VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization.

VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.

VIII. When beseeching the Bretheren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance.

IX. Invoke not "common sense," for it is not common.

X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build topped by the Bretheren within five minutes of posting.

Yea, verily.

-Caelic

Well those are the basic rules, anyway.

There's also "The Tao of Optimization".
In short you're not going to get "EVERYBODY" to acknowledge one source as definitive, maybe the author, but I've seen people say "It doens't matter what the author says now, its not printed so its not official" and that definition varies too "Official" I mean. So, that being said choose the rules and rulings that work best for you, and your group. I have no doubt you can come to common ground at least amongst a small group.

[Lord_Gareth]

CustServ hasn't been accepted as anything other than suggestions on the Wizards forums for quite some time. As far as I've seen during 4e people have made a policy of asking CustServ for an answer multiple times and posting the contradictory results.

I demand links.

[PlzBreakMyCmpAn]

I love the tone of the above like ur priest makes stuff up. Most of the 3.5 ones got {scrubbed} in the gleemax 'upgrad

[Wings of Peace]

I demand links.

All the ones I saw where people posted them for fun were back on 339 before it got wiped. But yeah. Plz and Ur have it spot on. CustServ has never been an official RAW source largely because there have been plenty of instances where it has given contradictory information but also because it's not errata it's just the suggestion essentially of the customer support line.

[Lord.Sorasen]

Ten Commandments of Optimization
[I].
I. Thou shalt not give up caster levels.

...

V. Thou shalt not give up caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.

This is of course a great rule, but I just want to mention that summoner builds often lose a caster level or so due to malconvoker, and consider it worth the sacrifice.

[Eldariel]

This is of course a great rule, but I just want to mention that summoner builds often lose a caster level or so due to malconvoker, and consider it worth the sacrifice.

These rules predate any classes where it was even a reasonable consideration to lose caster levels. In the case of Malconvoker, if that's what you're doing you get effectively 5-6 spell levels worth of free metamagic applied to your Summons which does make up for one caster level tho.

[Lord.Sorasen]

These rules predate any classes where it was even a reasonable consideration to lose caster levels. In the case of Malconvoker, if that's what you're doing you get effectively 5-6 spell levels worth of free metamagic applied to your Summons which does make up for one caster level tho.

Ah, I didn't realize those rules were old. I just mean though that, yeah, at least now there are some examples that make it alright to lose caster levels.

Oh, another rule of thumb: If you're thinking of using sorcerer, consider for a long time why you're doing it. There are countless advantages to using wizard.

He may be plain, but don't underestimate human. Human is a powerful race.

Don't take fluff too seriously. It will tell you elves make good wizards.

[NNescio]

On a related note, Recaster.

(Which also grants gobs of free metamagic.)

[Urpriest]

I demand links.

CustServ has apparently been more consistent of late, and I was a bit over-flippant (if that's not a term it should be). Nevertheless, there's a clear view that CustServ is a resource than can be manipulated and channeled, as evidenced repeatedly in this thread (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19685882/Consolidated_Customer_Service_Answers?pg=1) (particularly later pages) when posters describe how they edited their phrasing in order to channel CustServ into more reasonable rulings and rub their noses in potential pitfalls. Specifically, many posters will ask multiple times after receiving an odd response in order to impress upon CustServ the rules they believe they are missing. That's not the kind of procedure on performs on a RAW source.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ten Commandments of Optimization
.
I. Thou shalt not give up caster levels.

II. Wieldest thou thy two-handed weapon with alacrity; but two weapons shalt thou not wield, excepting that thou hast a source of bonus damage such as Sneak Attack.

III. Doubt not the power of the Druid, for he is mighty. Especially with the MMIII.

IV. Avoid ye the temptation of Gauntlets of True Strike, for they shall lead thee astray down the Path of Non-Rule Cheese.

V. Thou shalt not give up caster levels. Verily, this Commandment is like unto the first; but of such magnitude that it bore mentioning twice.

VI. Makest thou no build with an odd number of fighter levels, for such things are not pleasing to the Spirits of Optimization. Unless it is one level of fighter or nine levels of Zhentarim Fighter.

VII. The Rules of 3.5 are paramount; invoke not the rules of 3.0 if a newer version be available.

VIII. When beseeching the Bretheren of Optimization, come thou not empty handed, lest they smite thee; rather, bringest thou thine own build, that they may offer suggestions and guidance. Especially if Tome of Battle isn't banned... yet.

IX. Invoke not "common sense," for it is not common.

X. Thou shalt call no build "The Ultimate X" unless his name be Pun-Pun, or thou shalt see thine "Ultimate" build topped by the Bretheren within five minutes of posting.

Yea, verily.

-Caelic

Well those are the basic rules, anyway.

There's also "The Tao of Optimization".
In short you're not going to get "EVERYBODY" to acknowledge one source as definitive, maybe the author, but I've seen people say "It doens't matter what the author says now, its not printed so its not official" and that definition varies too "Official" I mean. So, that being said choose the rules and rulings that work best for you, and your group. I have no doubt you can come to common ground at least amongst a small group.

Fixed that for you.