I think the dictionary would disagree with you.
The question here is…viable in what context exactly?
Since the discussion of optimization/build performance pertains mostly to the ultra late game, I think its reasonable for one to assume that “viable” here refers to said ultra late game.
People are always going to interpret/misinterpret things however they want to. And short of censorship, nothing is going to change that.
I would actually point them to a warborn battlemage (it’s a build I’ve been meaning to try as the sheet damage looks absolutely ridiculous).
As for saboteurs…I’d point them towards the classic nex/ortus saboteurs. They still do well.
It was me who gave that advice, and I stand by it.
The question being asked by @Artemix wasn’t HOW to build a good templar - because there ARE several good templar builds around.
The question he asked was, “As a new player with little to no items, what’s the quickest way for me to farm for the vanquisher set?”
In other words, you are conflating 2 very different things:
- Theorycrafting a good templar
- How to farm efficiently as a new player
It is undeniable that some masteries are more beginner friendly than others, hence my suggestion for him to start fresh before returning to his templar
Of course this can be done. But it was probably achieved with a degree of game knowledge that exceeds that of a new player.
In fact, this was the advice I gave:
And why is that so wrong? If you post a build here, I think it’s natural to assume that its been optimized to the best of the crafter’s ability.
Naturally, this will inspire curiosity, and people will ask questions about why X was taken over Y, etc.
HOWEVER, if the author simply mentions - “Oh. I did it this way because I thought it’s cool/thematic/whatever. It wasn’t meant to be optimal” - then I don’t think they’d be told to change the build.
In fact, thematic builds are VERY welcomed here. I personally love them.