Iron Chef XIII: Vigilante

[Ozymandias9]

And a couple more rules based disputes:

RE: Dymphna
@Cieyrin, true_shinken:

Spoiler

Show

Cannot take Siberys Mark of Shadow as a human

I don't see anything restricting which mark you can take, as long as you qualify for the class. The requirements specify that a character must have the Heroic Spirit feat, 15 ranks in two skills, and be a member of a dragonmarked race. Humans are a dragonmarked race, so Dymphna qualifies for the class itself. There are no RAW stipulations that say you must be of a certain race to manifest a certain mark. Compare this to the requirements for Dragonmark Heir, found in the same source: you must be a member of the appropriate dragonmarked race and house for that class. There is no such limitation on the Heir of Siberys.

@true_shinken:

Spoiler

Show

Vow of Nonviolence causing problems for party members

Keep in mind that allies can still kill an aggressive foe--just not helpless ones. Furthermore, while Vow of Peace is stricter, it just forbids ME from incapacitating a foe so my allies can kill it--it says nothing about buffing my allies so they can kill foes. When it comes down to it, the only restriction on my allies is "don't kill a helpless foe."

[The Vorpal Tribble]

I have a query for our judges after reading a number of critiques here and in the past.

I've noted some categories are voted low because of what a theoretical DM may or may not allow. Now, some instances are questionable, but others are fully within the rules, are not a matter of interpretation but the rules specifically say 'you can do this and this by doing this'. Straightforward, clear and concise.

It is thus not a matter of rules, but simply DM opinion. As we know a simple opinion can vary wildly. The judge doesn't say 'he' wouldn't allow it, just a possible DM.

I know in last competition I scored an entrant low in a category because I wouldn't allow a thing, and found it questionable. Not being a hypocrite, because it could be argued. It was a rules thing.

For something fully explained by rules, without possible interpretive error, is it really fair to entrants to dock them?

[Kesnit]

For something fully explained by rules, without possible interpretive error, is it really fair to entrants to dock them?

I would say so, most likely under Elegance. Though the exact details would have to be on a case-by-case basis. IMO, it would come down to what the rule was and what it does to the game and group overall.

For example, one of the things that makes a WIZ tier I is the ability to use Divination to always know what is coming when. If D&D was the real world, that would be great, since it allows a WIZ (and their party) to be prepared for anything. It is also perfectly valid RAW.

OTOH, it puts a lot more effort on the DM to find ways to work around a player who can never be surprised and always has exactly the right spells prepared. So it can ruin the fun of the DM and maybe the rest of the group. (What if they WANT a horror/suspense campaign?)

In that respect, a DM is within his/her rights to ask the WIZ to tone it down. The WIZ did nothing in-game wrong, but if the others aren't having fun, Rule 0 takes precedent.

However, if the interpretation is not likely to affect the group, it probably wouldn't be a big deal and probably shouldn't get a deduction.


As an aside, almost done judging. 2 more to go.

[Amphetryon]

As an aside, almost done judging. 2 more to go.

And there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth rejoicing!

[OMG PONIES]

As an aside, almost done judging. 2 more to go.

Scores that I can read at work this afternoon would be a great way to end the day.

[Kesnit]

Here you go. Enjoy reading...

Dymphna
Originality: 2.5. Monk was expected. (-.5). I am not deducting for the fact both Rhys and Dymphna use Paladin since one is the PHB and the other is the Variant. The differences are significant enough to give a different feel.
Power: 3.5 I was really unsure what to do with Vow of Peace / Non-violence. As you stated, they are normally not party friendly. However, they fit well with the character. In the end, I decided not to add or deduct for them, but just acknowledge they are there. That said, in a campaign where the other players are OK with them, they are a nice addition. (+.5)
Elegance: 2.5. Monk splash (-.5).
Use of Secret Ingredient: 3. This build is based around the Exalted Feats, rather than the SI. However, I can see why you chose them to blend with the SI. Again, no deduction or addition, just acknowledgment.
Total: 11.5 / 2.875

Viyana, the Unseen
Originality: 4. A pixie? Forgive me, but I kept seeing Tinker Belle buzzing around Peter Pan. (+1)
Power: 2.5. To do what she does, she is very good. However, part of this category is how well the entry works as a group. While several of her abilities are buffs, a combat-heavy campaign could easily leave her drifting after buffing her allies. (-.5)
Elegance: 2.5 Alignment shifting (-.5)
Use of Secret Ingredient: 5. The SI is the main focus of this build and this build really would not work without the SI. (+2)
Total: 14 / 3.5

Oduk
Originality: 3.5 The class mixture is different. (+.5)
Power: 3.5 Would work well as a party buffer. (+.5)
Elegance: 2. Rogue dip (-.5). Does not really seem to have a focus. (-.5)
Use of Secret Ingredient: 1.5. Only 3 levels of the SI. (-1.5)
Total: 10.5 / 2.675

Rhys
Originality: 3.5. Human Paragon (+.5) I am not deducting for the fact both Rhys and Dymphna use Paladin since one is the PHB and the other is the Variant. The differences are significant enough to give a different feel.
Power: 2.5. In an undead heavy campaign, this character is going to do well. In any other, a lot of his tricks go away. (-.5)
Elegance: 3. Shadowstriker sort-of came out of nowhere, but after reading the LVL 20 write-up, I see why it did.
Use of Secret Ingredient: 4. The build is based around the SI. Not as well as Viyana so I am not scoring it as high, but it does flow well. (+1)
Total: 13 / 3.25
Note: I debated with myself for a while about taking off the .5 in Power. If the final score comes down to the .5 I took off for Power, I
will give the chef a chance to convince me that Rhys does not lose a lot in a non-undead campaign. Not saying I will automatically give the .5 back, but I am willing to listen.

The Judge
Originality: 5. I may not be crazy about how everything is put together, but as a concept, wow... (+2).
Power: 4. What it does, it does very well (+1)
Elegance: 1.5. Cleric dip. (-.5). Fighter dip (-.5). I don't take off points for dipping PrC's, especially if the PrC's work together, which these do. However, this build feels like you built for power and not because you had a concept in mind. Yes, it does all work together, but that doesn't make it pretty. Baby food is healthy, but it looks and tastes disgusting. (-.5)
Use of Secret Ingredient: 2. Used only 7 levels of the SI (-.5). This build is more of a Cleric or Fighter than a Vigilante (-.5).
Total: 12.5 / 3.125

Nightwatch
Originality: 2. Bard / Urban Ranger is an expected entry (-.5). Batman? Really? (-.5)
Power: 4. 9th level spells. (+1)
Elegance: 2.5. Urban Ranger dip (-.5)
Use of Secret Ingredient: 2. Only used 5 levels of the SI (-1).
Total: 10.5 / 2.675

Allistair
Originality: 3.5. Though Ranger was expected, Cleric and Marshall were not (+.5)
Power: 2.5. Melee focus without a lot of tricks if he cannot reach melee range (-.5).
Elegance: 2. Marshall and Cleric dips (-.5. Only taking that much since you did use 3 levels of each.) Marshall and Cleric do not seem to add a lot since this build is largely solo-based (-.5).
Use of Secret Ingredient: 2.5. Did not use all levels (-.5).
Total: 10.5 / 2.675

Sally
Originality: 5. Yeah, I expected all of that. Of course I did... (+2)
Power: 4. Starts off a little slow, but moves quickly (+1).
Elegance: 2.5. Really only works in a steampunk setting (-.5).
Use of Secret Ingredient: 2.5 Your backstory explains why a metalsmith became a Vigilante, but other than that, they don't really go together. The build works, but Sally is more of an Artificer than a Vigilante. (-.5)
Total: 14 / 3.5

[true_shinken]

I don't see anything restricting which mark you can take, as long as you qualify for the class. The requirements specify that a character must have the Heroic Spirit feat, 15 ranks in two skills, and be a member of a dragonmarked race. Humans are a dragonmarked race, so Dymphna qualifies for the class itself. There are no RAW stipulations that say you must be of a certain race to manifest a certain mark. Compare this to the requirements for Dragonmark Heir, found in the same source: you must be a member of the appropriate dragonmarked race and house for that class. There is no such limitation on the Heir of Siberys.

Dragonmarks are Eberronian fluff. If you use it, you have to stick to the fluff. If you won't stick to the fluff, then you shouldn't have used dragonmarks in the first place.

Kesnit, you DO notice Nightwatch has access to 9th level spells, right? Power 3 seems a tad too low.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Current Scores

Spoiler

Show

1st Rhys - 15/15.5/15/13 = 58.5
2nd Sally - 15.5/13.5/14/14 = 57
3rd Dymphna - 14/14.5/14.5/11.5 = 54.5
4th Nightwatch - 12/16/14.5/9.5 = 54
5th The Judge - 13/14.5/13.5/12.5 = 53.5
6th Allistair - 13/15.5/12/10.5 = 51
7th Viyana - 11/11/13.5/14 = 49.5
8th Oduk - 10/12/11/10.5 = 43.5

Edit: Razmath also doesn't appear to have even been around since volunteering so one of the substitute DM's could likely step in.

[Ozymandias9]

Edit: Razmath also doesn't appear to have even been around since volunteering so one of the substitute DM's could likely step in.

If anyone's around and availale, feel free. If no one says anything before tomorrow evening, I'll move forward to non-rules disputes: 4 judges is a sufficient minimum for me.

[Cieyrin]

And a couple more rules based disputes:

RE: Dymphna
@Cieyrin, true_shinken:

Spoiler

Show

Cannot take Siberys Mark of Shadow as a human

I don't see anything restricting which mark you can take, as long as you qualify for the class. The requirements specify that a character must have the Heroic Spirit feat, 15 ranks in two skills, and be a member of a dragonmarked race. Humans are a dragonmarked race, so Dymphna qualifies for the class itself. There are no RAW stipulations that say you must be of a certain race to manifest a certain mark. Compare this to the requirements for Dragonmark Heir, found in the same source: you must be a member of the appropriate dragonmarked race and house for that class. There is no such limitation on the Heir of Siberys.

Spoiler

Show

Furthering true_shinken's prior statement about dragonmark racial requirements, if you look at the table of Dragonmark houses in the feat chapter, it clearly shows what races can have which dragonmarks. That's my basis for not allowing a Human for taking a Dragonmark of Shadow, Siberys or otherwise.

Some rules based disputes:

@Cieyrn

Spoiler

Show

RE: The Judge

This one would seem self-explanatory.

Spoiler

Show

Here's the relevant text from the Fiend Folio:

Grafts (Ex): When maugs are created on the plane of Acheron, they are frequently equipped with special grafts. These grafts are described in the Maug Grafts section in Appendix 2. A maug without class levels can have up to 2,000 gp worth of maug grafts. A maug with class levels can purchase additional grafts with treasure it amasses.

The two relevant sentences are the last 2. I consider the 2 mutually exclusive, as a Maug with class levels has a higher CR/ECL, with commensurately more money from CR-appropriate treasure/WBL, meaning you have the monetary means to purchase your own grafts. It's a clause they put in there so that, for base Maugs, they can have a low-end graft that isn't digging into the treasure allotted to said encounter.

For something fully explained by rules, without possible interpretive error, is it really fair to entrants to dock them?

As Kesnit said, that falls strictly as a Elegance issue, as part of Elegance is not just how well the build works but also how out there the build is, which effects how likely the build would be accepted at a given gaming table. Some DMs, sad to say, wouldn't allow anything from Unearthed Arcana, as it is, essentially, a book of optional rules and variants that need DM approval. Some DMs don't want God wizard, CoDzilla or Minionmancers at their table, either, which are otherwise fine by RAW. It's just a touchy subject that does come up at tables and hence may drop Elegance scores. Subsequently, they tend to boost Power, as well, so it's a trade-off you have to carefully consider.

[Kesnit]

Kesnit, you DO notice Nightwatch has access to 9th level spells, right? Power 3 seems a tad too low.

I noticed that when I first read it, but didn't score it until much later. By that time, I'd forgotten the spells. I'll adjust the score.

Edit: Score changed.

[Grynning]

I have a query for our judges after reading a number of critiques here and in the past.

I've noted some categories are voted low because of what a theoretical DM may or may not allow. Now, some instances are questionable, but others are fully within the rules, are not a matter of interpretation but the rules specifically say 'you can do this and this by doing this'. Straightforward, clear and concise.

It is thus not a matter of rules, but simply DM opinion. As we know a simple opinion can vary wildly. The judge doesn't say 'he' wouldn't allow it, just a possible DM.

I know in last competition I scored an entrant low in a category because I wouldn't allow a thing, and found it questionable. Not being a hypocrite, because it could be argued. It was a rules thing.

For something fully explained by rules, without possible interpretive error, is it really fair to entrants to dock them?

Another thing to keep in mind is that many things people consider to be "RAW" are often things that are specifically noted as optional, so really, the "RAW" is "with DM approval" (for example, using Monster entries as a player race). While I won't be one of those people who say "the rules don't matter because of rule 0" I do know that there is a line on what's reasonable and what's not. Pun-Pun, Commoner railgun, and other silly TO things all exist by exploiting strict interpretations of RAW, for instance. While no-one's ever entered anything I would consider totally unreasonable in an Iron Chef competition, using stuff that's just plain weird that probably wouldn't fly with me as a DM is one way to get marked off on Elegance.

As I mentioned briefly at the end of the last IC, judging these is subjective and based on opinion. Basically, the judges are here to say what they like and what they don't. There is no real way to "score" D&D.

[Thurbane]

Hmm, seems quite a wide array of base classes were "expected entry" (Monk, really?) into Vigilante...to my mind, one of the most obvious, Rogue, seems to be absent...

[edit]Except for Oduk. Oops, failed my Spot...or is that Search?[/edit]

[Grynning]

Yeah, there wasn't much Rogue, or Spellthief, which I would have liked to have seen and likely what I would have done as a contestant. Master Spellthief feat with Vigilante would have been weaker than stacking with another caster class, sure, but it would have worked out pretty nicely overall and stopped any argument about the armor thing for spellcasting.

I think a lot of people avoided Rogue because the sample character in CAdv. was a Rogue/Fighter, so most probably thought it would sink their originality scores to use it.

[WinWin]

I have a query for our judges after reading a number of critiques here and in the past.

I've noted some categories are voted low because of what a theoretical DM may or may not allow. Now, some instances are questionable, but others are fully within the rules, are not a matter of interpretation but the rules specifically say 'you can do this and this by doing this'. Straightforward, clear and concise.

It is thus not a matter of rules, but simply DM opinion. As we know a simple opinion can vary wildly. The judge doesn't say 'he' wouldn't allow it, just a possible DM.

I know in last competition I scored an entrant low in a category because I wouldn't allow a thing, and found it questionable. Not being a hypocrite, because it could be argued. It was a rules thing.

For something fully explained by rules, without possible interpretive error, is it really fair to entrants to dock them?

It depends. If a character is totally unsuitable for a game then It may deserve a deduction. Knowing what make something unsuitable varies from table to table though. I've been involved in games that had a 4 book maximum. If you needed more than the PHB and 3 other books to explain your character, then the answer was "no, make something else." Other games have been far more permissive, allowing anything that the DM was familliar with.

Some things require a permissive DM. An example would be Flaws or mixing campaign specific material. That should not deter someone from using that material, but it might not satisfy a judge. Other build elements require more work for the DM, an example might be a PrC that is associated with an organisation. Great if that organisation was already included in a campaign, potentially frustrating for both player and DM if it was not.

I would be opposed to strict rules in this area. Scoring is a subjective issue, leave it to the individual judge. It is not that the issue of what works or is acceptable in a game is not worth talking about, I just think that if you were to ask 10 different gamers you would get 10 different responses. Ultimately, a consensus on what is a good build is formed by averaging scores. That goes a long way to balancing the opinion of one person. Just my opinion.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

While though I can see the reasoning of that

Spoiler

Show

, I also think as a judge it behooves one to get over their own dislikes.

I have a thing against tieflings because of the crap ways they've been played in every game I've known them. I also, for no good reason, find most dragon-based characters annoying. Dragon bloods, and dragon affected and dragon shards and dragon spirits. Gah, stoppit already.

I also never allow races into my game with an LA over +2.

I utterly HATE the illithid heritage feats and the subsequent PrC around them from Complete Psionic, would never allow it in a game, but I rated highly a build that used them because it was still pretty cool.

When I've judged I say to myself, 'Besides your own opinion what is wrong with it?' so I often ignore it. I may not feel as positively inclined to award them, depending on the situation, but I certainly have never deducted because of it.

[Grynning]

While though I can see the reasoning of that

Spoiler

Show

, I also think as a judge it behooves one to get over their own dislikes.

I have a thing against tieflings because of the crap ways they've been played in every game I've known them. I also, for no good reason, find most dragon-based characters annoying. Dragon bloods, and dragon affected and dragon shards and dragon spirits. Gah, stoppit already.

I also never allow races into my game with an LA over +2.

I utterly HATE the illithid heritage feats and the subsequent PrC around them from Complete Psionic, would never allow it in a game, but I rated highly a build that used them because it was still pretty cool.

When I've judged I say to myself, 'Besides your own opinion what is wrong with it?' so I often ignore it. I may not feel as positively inclined to award them, depending on the situation, but I certainly have never deducted because of it.

I think one should try to remove personal "bias," yes - for example, I really dislike evil characters but I have given very high scores to evil characters in the past. However, when discussing elegance, I think there are some things that even the chef making the dish knows will be questionable at best. Take "The Judge" from this competition, for instance. It's a GREAT character, and I have the highest respect for the person who made it. However, the Maug race and the dip heavy build are things that I as a DM would certainly balk at, hence the low elegance score I issued. Now, would all DM's say no to it? Of course not. Some DM's would probably think it was super-cool and let it right in, especially in a high-op game. However, I think the average DM would probably be closer to my own view.

Also, the competition rules have always included Heliomance's (or whoever wrote the original rules) dislike of flaws, which are technically a "rule," and a dislike of using classes way outside of their intended role (the cloistered cleric example given in the text). Now, the last point is rarely enforced by other judges (myself included), but you can see how there is an inherent bias in the contest from the start. ALL MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION IS LIKE THIS. People are literally incapable of objectivity; especially when picking winners out of a group. So, for something that is just for fun and rather silly to begin with (c'mon, we're on a forum doing a D&D character contest based on a goofy cooking show from Japan), I don't see "Judge bias" as a huge issue.

[Cieyrin]

Hmm, seems quite a wide array of base classes were "expected entry" (Monk, really?) into Vigilante...to my mind, one of the most obvious, Rogue, seems to be absent...

[edit]Except for Oduk. Oops, failed my Spot...or is that Search?[/edit]

Well, in Oduk's case, he needed Rogue to get into Fochlucan Lyrist, as he needed a source for Evasion. It wasn't so much Rogue entry so much as necessary levels to get into PRC the character wanted.

What makes me curious is why he didn't go for Monk instead, as it would have freed up some of his feats, since he was going unarmed anyways...

[true_shinken]

What makes me curious is why he didn't go for Monk instead, as it would have freed up some of his feats, since he was going unarmed anyways...

He must have been impressed by the 'Monks suck!' movement here in the boards.

[Grynning]

He must have been impressed by the 'Monks suck!' movement here in the boards.

I've always thought of it more of a "monks are poorly designed and suck beyond the first few levels, much like every other melee class in the PHB" movement...
I guess your way is catchier

[Cieyrin]

He must have been impressed by the 'Monks suck!' movement here in the boards.

While I understand that, he'd only be using it for a dip like for Rogue, anyways. It's not liked he really used Sneak Attack.

Plus, consider the Tashalatora Monk 2/Psychic Warrior 18. Not weak, by any means.

[true_shinken]

While I understand that, he'd only be using it for a dip like for Rogue, anyways. It's not liked he really used Sneak Attack.

Plus, consider the Tashalatora Monk 2/Psychic Warrior 18. Not weak, by any means.

I don't agree with said movement by all means. I just know it exists.
Monk 2 is a very good dip.

[Grynning]

I don't agree with said movement by all means. I just know it exists.
Monk 2 is a very good dip.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Monk 2 is a good dip. So is Fighter 2, Paladin 2, etc.

Oh god how did an IC contest turn into a monk thread?



ok back to the contest now. for serious. We still waiting on one more judge?

[true_shinken]

I don't think anyone disagrees that Monk 2 is a good dip. So is Fighter 2, Paladin 2, etc.

There is actually a famous quote from Doc Roc, a poster somewhat deified around here, claiming Monk 2 absolutely sucks.
I completely disagree.

[Cieyrin]

There is actually a famous quote from Doc Roc, a poster somewhat deified around here, claiming Monk 2 absolutely sucks.
I completely disagree.

I think the thought was if all you're going for in that dip is Evasion, you may as well just get a Ring of Evasion and call it good. You got better things to do with your levels.

[true_shinken]

I think the thought was if all you're going for in that dip is Evasion, you may as well just get a Ring of Evasion and call it good. You got better things to do with your levels.

It was regarding to prestige class qualification, and losing all your abilities because someone sundered a ring, because someone cast dispel magic/disjunction on you or because you entered an antimagic field is very risky.
In my games, that would be the same as using an Item Familiar. You're specifically forcing the DM to screw you over to make the 'cost' you took have any meaning.

[Amphetryon]

In my games, that would be the same as using an Item Familiar. You're specifically forcing the DM to screw you over to make the 'cost' you took have any meaning.

Out of curiosity, does that mean that taking a level in Rogue for Evasion 'forces the DM' to start piling on enemies immune to SA, or perhaps 'forcing the DM' to hit you with level-draining effects to 'screw you over'? If not, what meaning does the 'cost' of the level have, relatively?

[Cieyrin]

It was regarding to prestige class qualification, and losing all your abilities because someone sundered a ring, because someone cast dispel magic/disjunction on you or because you entered an antimagic field is very risky.
In my games, that would be the same as using an Item Familiar. You're specifically forcing the DM to screw you over to make the 'cost' you took have any meaning.

That's like saying the DM should stop using Ref Half spells because you have evasion. Also, that ring costs quite a pretty penny. 25k is nothing to sneeze at, making it not available till the mid-levels or maybe even farther, depending on the game. My games have a tendency towards low wealth, so that becomes even more of an investment. Punishing a player for spending their hard-earned coin makes no sense.

[true_shinken]

Out of curiosity, does that mean that taking a level in Rogue for Evasion 'forces the DM' to start piling on enemies immune to SA, or perhaps 'forcing the DM' to hit you with level-draining effects to 'screw you over'? If not, what meaning does the 'cost' of the level have, relatively?

If you take a level of Rogue, I believe a good DM should give you opportunies to use your evasion.
If you bought a ring of evasion for that ability alone, I'd expect a DM to do the same.
If you bought a ring of evasion to qualify for a prestige class that obviously used the requirement of evasion as a balance point, requiring you to take levels of Monk/Rogue/something for it, then you are messing with the rules plain and simple. Expect sometime something to hit you where it hurts, because you gave yourself a glaring weakness. It's like having the cold subtype and expecting not to be hit with fire ever.

In my game I have a Paladin/Swordsage with Str 9. He uses a Belt of Giant Strenght to increase his Str to 13 - he has the Power Attack feat. Every once in a while someone hits him with a ray of enfeeblement, forcing him to rely on his other tricks to win. Once an enemy tried to sunder his belt, but he killed said enemy with an attack of opportunity.

Using a magical item to fullfil requirements and expecting that to never be a problem is just silly, IMHO.

[Cieyrin]

Using a magical item to fullfil requirements and expecting that to never be a problem is just silly, IMHO.

I agree, though specifically calling characters out on it seems wrong to me. It's also breaks with Player vs. Character knowledge to specifically go after the ring to deny them their PRC abilities. How do your foes know that will happen, since PRC prereqs aren't exactly a seeable attribute that you can exploit. Enfeebling somebody so they can't Power Attack is similar, though not quite the same, as reducing Strength weakens many meleers that it's more common knowledge. Idk, it just rubs me the wrong way.