Any one interested in putting together a build compendium?

[lylsyly]

Just what it says. Looking for gentlebeings good with the system that may be interested in putting together a GiantITP build compendium. I know there are some out there but the majority were put together by serious optimizers. I was thinking more along the lines of starting out with low-op core only builds and then graduating up to more sources, higher-op builds.

I figure I am probaby barking at the moon but what the heck, thought I'd at least ask.

[BowStreetRunner]

Just what it says. Looking for gentlebeings good with the system that may be interested in putting together a GiantITP build compendium. I know there are some out there but the majority were put together by serious optimizers. I was thinking more along the lines of starting out with low-op core only builds and then graduating up to more sources, higher-op builds.

I figure I am probaby barking at the moon but what the heck, thought I'd at least ask.I think the reason the build compendiums out there were put together by serious optimizers is twofold. First, the Giant in the Playground Forum tends to be a gathering place for optimizers, not casual players as much. Second, having such a build compendium generally requires a reason, a goal. With a compendium of optimized builds, it's a good place to store some of the best builds that keep coming up in discussion so that no one has to go searching for them every time. But what would be the goal of having a compendium of low-op builds? Who would your audience be that would want these builds, and why would they want them? If you can come up with an answer to that, you may be able to find the niche for this sort of thing.

The one suggestion I could make is something that we used back when I played Magic: The Gathering competitively. While preparing for tournaments we used a technique we referred to as 'Running the Gauntlet'. The Gauntlet consisted of a set of decks that were dominant in the current meta-game, and therefore likely to be encountered at a tournament. If you ran the Gauntlet, then you knew where your deck's strengths and weaknesses were before you got to the tournament. In the same light, you could come up with a 'gauntlet' of character builds used as a baseline to evaluate other builds. To be able to say "This is a baseline Spiked Chain Fighter build. Your Changeling Spiked Chain Fighter/Crusader/Warshaper build is superior to the baseline in these ways..." would likely be a useful evaluation tool.

[GilesTheCleric]

I have one in progress (well, super low on the priority list) for my cleric handbook. You can PM me about that if you're interested.

There's a few other places with builds; namely, WotC's web series on villians (http://archive.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/arch/eo), which should be plenty low-op. There may have been other such series on their site as well. On the other end, there's a few collections, such as rockdeworld's archive (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?329040-Famous-Optimized-Character-Builds-Archive), or any of the various competitions we've had (iron chef, the punchbag, test of spite, etc).

[jdizzlean]

the iron chef spreadsheet is here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oyjVU5JmeCnC8YTMqDArDqE5PszHl0Ysadz630kuTGk/edit?ts=59a4835f#gid=0), and can be used to quickly reference all of those, but it's clearly not low-op by any means.

[Darrin]

It might be useful to point casual or new players to a compendium of "standard" builds rather than bombarding them with a bunch of optimization terms and concepts that they don't necessarily want or need to understand.

However, every character building decision in the 3.5 canon is absolutely drowning in a crapton of trap choices. I'm not sure how you'd avoid a very long thread of everyone arguing, "Why did you choose X when Y was clearly the better choice?" (Cue Inevitable Stormwind Bafflegab.)

And that line between, "I want strong mechanics to support my character concept, but not so strong I'm causing badwrongfun for the other players," that line is going to be in an extremely different place for every person or group.

So I'd suggest harnessing the power of the board's optimizers by using some limitations to create at few categories for "stock" builds:

1) Core Only. And yes, there are some inherent problems, not the least of which is all the different things "Core" could mean. There's also "some of the most broken things are in Core", which is somewhat true, but I think assuming some version of Wheaton's Law is in place as a guiding principle might help steer things in a more cooperative/constructive direction. For optimizers, a lot of this is an exercise in weighing tragic dilemmas: yes, the options are all bad, but which options are the "least bad"?

2) Core + Completes. One of the more "popular" restrictions, usually invoked by harried and overworked DMs who for some bizarre reason don't want to devote 23 hours a day memorizing obscure subsystems. Some careful thought may need to be employed to steer away from "Hard Cheese": infinite loops, game-breakers, etc. Or rather, maybe highlight some of those as possible variations, but keep the focus of the build on playing well with others.

Ok, possibly a third category, but it might pull away a little too far from the first two:

3) Core + Completes + Races + Environment books. This encompasses a very sizeable chunk of the variety and breadth of options that 3.5 offers without getting too tangled up with setting-specific material. Again, some care to avoid the Hard Cheese stuff, but at the same time there's a lot of territory here that's going to overlap with Famous Optimized Character Builds and Iron Chef Shenanigans.

[lylsyly]

I would say that Darrin is closest to what I was thinking of ....

But then I quit after three full weeks without a response .... which I took to mean "NO, there is no interest."

[Troacctid]

So I'd suggest harnessing the power of the board's optimizers by using some limitations to create at few categories for "stock" builds:
You're forgetting an important fourth category: setting-specific builds, for games that are set in a particular campaign setting.

That said, coming up with full builds and explaining all the choices and all that takes a LOT of time. If you want to essentially mass-produce builds, you need a system like the sample builds in PHB2.

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by BowStreetRunner
Who would your audience be that would want these builds, and why would they want them?

Easy. DMs looking for interesting builds for games involving low- to mid-op players. It would be great to have a compendium of builds that a DM could browse and drop into a game without the issues of implementation that higher-op builds can bring.

I’d love something like this, for exactly that reason. Makes my life as DM that much easier.


Originally Posted by jdizzlean
the iron chef spreadsheet is here, and can be used to quickly reference all of those, but it's clearly not low-op by any means.

Agreed. There’s some great items in there, but definitely not low-op and quite time-intensive to look through.

I especially like the villain build thread that Thurbane runs, because there are some great ideas in there, but the same issues pertain. Not sure if anyone has indexed those yet, so it takes hella lot of browsing and clicking to find things.

[Darth Ultron]

I would say that Darrin is closest to what I was thinking of ....

But then I quit after three full weeks without a response .... which I took to mean "NO, there is no interest."

Sometimes threads get off the first page quick and get lost....

Having some normal builds could be nice. It can be hard for new players or casual players to find a build. Most of the handbooks are way to focused on demi god characters or worse have a ''anything that I don't like sucks!" attitude.

Like maybe how to make basic 'archetypes' of character builds?

[Skevvix]

I would love to see something like this, and could even submit a couple here or there, time permitting.
I'm just a player in my group right now, but we are starting to rotate soon to combat burnout in our main DM, and it's my turn in a couple sessions so I would love to have this as a resource.

Sometimes threads get off the first page quick and get lost....
Like maybe how to make basic 'archetypes' of character builds?

Also this.

[gogogome]

You don't need low op builds.

You look at high op builds, take what you want, cut what you don't want, and you have your low-op build.

D&D character building is about including/excluding the various tricks at your disposal, and low-op builds won't have the tricks you might want while the high op builds will.

So having a build compendium of low op builds is a useless idea. Follow the feat chains, or cut content from a high op build.