Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground XXIII

[Kefkafreak]

I'm really glad I got a third place in my first challenge, especially seeing how high quality this round was. I certainly didn't expect the truenamer to win

[OMG PONIES]

I didn't expect it either! Great builds, everyone. See you in the next. Speaking of, is there a thread for Round XXIV yet?

[Amphetryon]

I didn't expect it either! Great builds, everyone. See you in the next. Speaking of, is there a thread for Round XXIV yet?

Prinny says Sunday. I'll have to be strong until then.

[Hecuba]

Wow, really wasn't expecting to tie for Honorable Mention there. I just decided to put something fun together when I couldn't come up with any actual use for more than one level of DC.

I was particularly impressed by the people who did find something innovative to to do mechanically with the accelerated casting. The Arcane Archer combination, in particular, is something I might use with accelerated casting in the future.

[flabort]

I'm definitely going to use it, too. It's an awesome idea. Who would think "Arcane" Archer would work with an awesome Divine class?

[DeAnno]

Oh boy, Mighty Casey. Originally, the plan was to weave Warblade 7/DC 10/Warblade 3, pick up Diamond Nightmare Blade, and use that + True Strike + Full Power Attack. But it only worked at level 20 (Ruby is pretty meh damage wise), and for the concentration checks not to be dangerously low it really needed an item too. I think the lesson I learned here is to not compromise the principles of your build, even if they seem rather unfeasible to hold at the time.

I got myself into the charger mentality originally for something to do on off turns, and it sort of grew and grew and took things over, gobbling feats and class levels and all sorts of stuff. I got a little too married to the flavor of Goliath Knockback as well, even though it was far from original or even particularly effective with the build. Let this be a cautionary tale: stick to your guns when building!

And as a side note to Shneeky, the intent was never to True Strike multiple times per turn (as you can see in the level summary), it was only to get in the TS before the last swing, because the last swing is the one where it will probably turn a miss into a hit, and the last swing is when you get your Knockback Crasher. I realize it didn't end up being the most elegant plan, but it was a legal one (I just couldn't sleep at night if gitp thought that I of all people didn't understand the ins and outs of the swift action rules.)

Congrats to everyone who competed, especially my personal favorite, Vald Lokkur. I hope the next Iron Chef is as exciting as this one was!

(And those of you who like building monsters, don't forget to check out the monster challenge in my sig.)

[Piggy Knowles]

Congrats, Ponies! And thanks everyone. I'm glad I actually got myself together and decided to compete.

I was pretty happy with Vald Lokkur, but as people mentioned in the reviews, I really should have just stuck it out with Hexblade instead of jumping into Abjurant Champion.

Honestly, though, the build came together better than I had expected. I knew I wanted to do something with Arcane Archer, because Imbue Arrow was a fun thing to combine with high level spells. (Actually, my original idea was to go with one of the chaotic elven deities and use CL-bumping tricks to imbue super boosted Words of Chaos from afar.)

But when I started looking into it, I noticed the casting time bit, which I've never seen anyone try to (ab)use before. That made me think of Control Weather and similar spells, and it all sort of fell into place from there.

Can't wait until the next one! Thanks Prinny & judges!

[Private-Prinny]

And the trophies are in. Thanks goes out to Strategos for the timely work as always.

[gbprime]

Thus ends my experiment with Nar Demonbinder. I'd never seen it used, and the stacking caster levels made it worth trying. I didn't think it'd do badly, but neither did I expect to win with it, and the judges opinions bore that out. Bravo.

I was amused though when one judge deemed Nar Demonbinder to be exactly as original as, and worth just as many points as the use of half elf.

...

I do have a comment on disputes, though. The skill point one got kinda heated, but resulted in a correction to the entry's score. My dispute about getting docked multiple times for a misinterpretation of caster level did not get heated, and while correct, the dispute did not result in a score correction.

We don't want heated disputes. But my concern is that the non-heated ones don't seem to produce any resolution. Now I didn't push the issue because a couple more points from one judge wasn't going to move me up in the ranks. But in the future it might make a difference for someone, and I don't want to see a precedent of "I have to raise a stink to get more points."

See y'all in 24!

[OMG PONIES]

I'll send the names off to Strategos, and start a new round on Sunday.

You know, that's what I get for not reading...

I was particularly impressed by the people who did find something innovative to to do mechanically with the accelerated casting. The Arcane Archer combination, in particular, is something I might use with accelerated casting in the future.

Yeah, Piggy, a darn fine bit of op work--turning two subpar classes into something fearsome and unique! I really liked Vald.

I do have a comment on disputes, though. The skill point one got kinda heated, but resulted in a correction to the entry's score. My dispute about getting docked multiple times for a misinterpretation of caster level did not get heated, and while correct, the dispute did not result in a score correction.

We don't want heated disputes. But my concern is that the non-heated ones don't seem to produce any resolution. Now I didn't push the issue because a couple more points from one judge wasn't going to move me up in the ranks. But in the future it might make a difference for someone, and I don't want to see a precedent of "I have to raise a stink to get more points."

A valid point there. I feel it necessary to point out that the skill point issue did not result in a score change--the adjustment came from the "non-cleric domain user access to domain feats" correction. I appreciate the detailed and speedy judging of this round, but I don't want people to feel like we need to get into multiple in-thread debates. Perhaps if a judge disagrees with a "correction," they can either start a new thread for the rules discussion and post a link as their response? If not, maybe they can send a PM to the chairman and person raising the question for discussion, simply adding a response like "PM sent" to the thread? This way, we don't have long in-thread discussions that make it easy to lose things in the shuffle, but just corrections, acknowledgements, and final resolutions.

[Piggy Knowles]

Yeah, Piggy, a darn fine bit of op work--turning two subpar classes into something fearsome and unique! I really liked Vald.

Same to you - you turned two fairly inflexible classes, and turned them into the build with the most options and flexibility in the contest! I was very happy with Vald, but when I saw Sortes, I suspected that I might lose out in the end...

I appreciate the detailed and speedy judging of this round, but I don't want people to feel like we need to get into multiple in-thread debates. Perhaps if a judge disagrees with a "correction," they can either start a new thread for the rules discussion and post a link as their response? If not, maybe they can send a PM to the chairman and person raising the question for discussion, simply adding a response like "PM sent" to the thread? This way, we don't have long in-thread discussions that make it easy to lose things in the shuffle, but just corrections, acknowledgements, and final resolutions.

I agree. I think there needs to be a way of bringing up rules issues with judging, but I also think that the debates bogged down the thread and, after a point, almost seemed like an attack on some of the judges. Having it done primarily via PM, or on a separate thread, seems ideal to me.

[Amphetryon]

I'm personally leery of the "separate thread" idea for disputes, as the IC contests could easily devour enough board-space to overwhelm much of the other 3.X/d20 talk.

Unfortunately, all of the suggestions for handling valid disputes appear to have an unintended side-effect: they discourage judges from posting quickly. Shneekey got his judging in first, this round, and so was the subject of the most sustained debate on his scoring. Judges uninterested in or unwilling to engage in such debate can avoid it by simply declining to post their scores until the deadline looms. Is that something we really want?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm personally leery of the "separate thread" idea for disputes, as the IC contests could easily devour enough board-space to overwhelm much of the other 3.X/d20 talk.

Unfortunately, all of the suggestions for handling valid disputes appear to have an unintended side-effect: they discourage judges from posting quickly. Shneekey got his judging in first, this round, and so was the subject of the most sustained debate on his scoring. Judges uninterested in or unwilling to engage in such debate can avoid it by simply declining to post their scores until the deadline looms. Is that something we really want?

Furthermore, I did have legitimate errors in my judging scores. Would posting at the last moment to prevent debate be any better in such situations? It would mean incorrect scores would be finalized, which may affect the outcome overall.

I don't mind being proven wrong. I do mind arguing pointlessly. Perhaps if I had simply declined to engage in debate at all, it might have been less... hectic.

Also, at least one individual blew the hell out of the anonymity due to their vehement argument about a particular build. This can cause all kinds of problems the method of anonymity we set up were designed to prevent in the first place.

There needs to be a method of impartial third-party arbitration which preserves such anonymity. But I don't know how to go about doing that without dumping an *ENORMOUS* burden on Private-Prinny, which he shouldn't need to shoulder.

[Piggy Knowles]

Yeah, that was my first thought as well, but I didn't bother posting it because it seems like an arduous task, and one that is not particularly rewarding to boot.

I think that the ideal format for a rules dispute is...

1. Issue is brought up, and presented in as clear and non-biased a format as possible.
2. Issue is then sent to an impartial third party (or parties), with the agreement that everyone will respect their ruling.
3. Third party's response is posted somewhere where the judges can see it. Judge can choose to keep their score or adjust it accordingly.

So, say someone docks me because they say I can't take a feat due to a missing pre-req. I have a dedicated place to email/PM that this is not actually true, because of various shenanigans. In a separate thread or post for rules disputes, someone puts up my issue. They also put the question to Agreed Upon Third Party (AUTP). AUTP responds, and the dispute post is updated with the response.

This way it stays anonymous, it eliminates debate, and it puts all rules issues in one place, so that some concerns don't get lost in the midst of endless debates.

But again, that's a LOT of work...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Yeah, that was my first thought as well, but I didn't bother posting it because it seems like an arduous task, and one that is not particularly rewarding to boot.

I think that the ideal format for a rules dispute is...

1. Issue is brought up, and presented in as clear and non-biased a format as possible.
2. Issue is then sent to an impartial third party (or parties), with the agreement that everyone will respect their ruling.
3. Third party's response is posted somewhere where the judges can see it. Judge can choose to keep their score or adjust it accordingly.

So, say someone docks me because they say I can't take a feat due to a missing pre-req. I have a dedicated place to email/PM that this is not actually true, because of various shenanigans. In a separate thread or post for rules disputes, someone puts up my issue. They also put the question to Agreed Upon Third Party (AUTP). AUTP responds, and the dispute post is updated with the response.

This way it stays anonymous, it eliminates debate, and it puts all rules issues in one place, so that some concerns don't get lost in the midst of endless debates.

But again, that's a LOT of work...

Keep in mind that even if you are in the right, it may not affect scoring in the slightest.

Case in point: The Shifting Devotion Feats for the winning contestant.

A point was brought up that he did not receive an increase in Power score when this was proven to be valid. Reason: it doesn't actually enhance his power any. Most of the devotion feats he has access to are minor bonuses which, while nice, are not things he can properly leverage into meaningful applications. In exchange, he's losing access to the given domain.

Considering he's got access to the Luck domain, with Miracle as the star spell, but with other similarly powerful spells on the list, having even a scaling bonus to AC or to attack/damage is... very much a step-down in power, not an increase.

Now, he DID get an increase in Elegance, because he was not relying on a trick that does not work. So the half-point ding for that went away. But, while nice, the trick didn't really net him a lot of actual power, so his Power score did not increase.

[Piggy Knowles]

Keep in mind that even if you are in the right, it may not affect scoring in the slightest.

Sure. That's why I said in step three that the judge still makes the decision as to whether they adjust their score or not, regardless of the ruling. After all, something can be 100% legal but still be considered inappropriate for a game. (I had no problem, for instance, when one judge docked Vald on elegance because they thought many DMs might not allow casting spells like Control Weather as a standard action through Imbue Arrow. It's RAW, sure, but that's a valid concern.)

[Cieyrin]

Instead of multiple discussion threads, we could just have one Iron Chef Dispute thread so the competition threads don't get overran and keeps things fairly tidy. Think the RAW thread but aimed specifically at the current IC contest. and just change the topic to the current competition as the previous one wraps up.

[flabort]

If you do make a "discussion" thread, would it be too much to let the side competitions (Side Dish, Dessert, Monster, ect.) also share the same discussion thread?
You could call the disputes "After dinner mints"...

Edit: Dessert round up, feel free to enter while waiting for the next main course!
It can be found Here.

Private Prinny, I hope you don't mind I titled myself "Chairman of the Desserts Section".

[gbprime]

You could call the disputes "After dinner mints"...

More like "Alka Seltzer"

...

Another idea for dispute wrangling... the chairman can choose either to receive all disputes by PM and post them to the thread (like Shinken tried to do) or APPOINT someone near the beginning of the competition to handle and post dispute PM's to the thread. This appointee could be a contestant or interested non-contestant, but must not be a judge.

Call him the Sue Chef.

[kestrel404]

I've got an alternate solution to the 'rules argument' issue: specifically, any given poster is only allowed to make one single post per judging disputing that judging.

If they make a second - thus creating an 'argument' rather than bringing up a point for considderation - then they are ignored.

In this way, you could have several people pointing out how a judge is misinterpreting the rules (something I think would make the judge take a much harder look at their own rulings), but you cannot have a single beligerant or insistent individual spoil the entire thread with their arguments.

This would also very strongly encourage someone who is posting a rules dispute to make both a valid and easily understood point the first time - because they don't get a second chance.

Hope that helps.

PS: Awesome trophies! Many thanks! And I'm glad Sortes was the winning entry - seriously, it was a reasonable and well considdered use of Truenamer!

[gbprime]

I've got an alternate solution to the 'rules argument' issue: specifically, any given poster is only allowed to make one single post per judging disputing that judging.

If they make a second - thus creating an 'argument' rather than bringing up a point for considderation - then they are ignored.

In this way, you could have several people pointing out how a judge is misinterpreting the rules (something I think would make the judge take a much harder look at their own rulings), but you cannot have a single beligerant or insistent individual spoil the entire thread with their arguments.

This would also very strongly encourage someone who is posting a rules dispute to make both a valid and easily understood point the first time - because they don't get a second chance.

I like this. +1

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I've got an alternate solution to the 'rules argument' issue: specifically, any given poster is only allowed to make one single post per judging disputing that judging.

If they make a second - thus creating an 'argument' rather than bringing up a point for considderation - then they are ignored.

In this way, you could have several people pointing out how a judge is misinterpreting the rules (something I think would make the judge take a much harder look at their own rulings), but you cannot have a single beligerant or insistent individual spoil the entire thread with their arguments.

I am ShneekeyTheLost, and I endorse this message.

This would also very strongly encourage someone who is posting a rules dispute to make both a valid and easily understood point the first time - because they don't get a second chance.

For that matter, it behooves a contestant to clearly delineate any and all rules wrangling they may have in their build IN THE ENTRY to avoid such discussions in the first place. Point out where loopholes are exploited. Point out where you take shenanigans, and what your interpretation of the rules are that allows this to happen.

And for the love of Boccob, tell the judges what you are doing with it!

A lot of the arguments around Mother Theressa was 'what the hell, this build is... bragging about using Cure Light Wounds? Okay... Power... none.' If the submission had included such pithy phrases as "Healing Rhythm (cite source), (cite what was traded for ACF), gives additional healing to any Conjuration (Healing) spell equal to the ranks in Perform.", then it probably wouldn't have been such a drama point. There might still have been a discussion that, even with this taken into consideration, it was STILL less powerful than a straight Healer, which is a pretty low bar to slide under, however at least there would not have been a mechanical question.

[OMG PONIES]

Call him the Sue Chef.

I see what you did there.

I've got an alternate solution to the 'rules argument' issue: specifically, any given poster is only allowed to make one single post per judging disputing that judging...This would also very strongly encourage someone who is posting a rules dispute to make both a valid and easily understood point the first time - because they don't get a second chance.

Hmm, it sounds good, but what happens if the first post gets lost in the shuffle (as almost happened to Sortes' disputes)? Would reposting count as a second post?

And I'm glad Sortes was the winning entry - seriously, it was a reasonable and well considdered use of Truenamer!

Many props go to Zaq's guide/journal from his experiences playing a Truenamer. The idea to use it stemmed from a simple question: how can the Divine Crusader deal with his spells being constantly dispelled? And my memory drifted back to Zaq's fond recollections of the Spell Rebirth utterance. From there, it just kind of ballooned. Sortes was going to have only the Knowledge Domain, but then I found Substitute Domain by accident when I was flipping through Complete Champion for something else--the Paragnostic Assembly, maybe?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

More like "Alka Seltzer"

...

Another idea for dispute wrangling... the chairman can choose either to receive all disputes by PM and post them to the thread (like Shinken tried to do) or APPOINT someone near the beginning of the competition to handle and post dispute PM's to the thread. This appointee could be a contestant or interested non-contestant, but must not be a judge.

Call him the Sue Chef.

I would have to say that, should we install a Sue Chef, he needs to a a neutral third party, and as such, neither a contestant nor a judge.

[OMG PONIES]

I would have to say that, should we install a Sue Chef, he needs to a a neutral third party, and as such, neither a contestant nor a judge.

I agree. How much would it cost to keep Curmudgeon on retainer?

[term1nally s1ck]

Sous chef.

And Shneeky, there is no competition in the world that requires its contestants to explain their entry. You enter a poem in a literary contest, you don't have to explain the hidden meanings and subtleties. You enter a car in a motor show, you don't have to explain how it works. If you want to go against that and require contestants to explain every single trick they use, then TELL them BEFORE they submit entries, so they can actually fulfil that, rather than going 'Oh, but you didn't do this other thing we never asked you to do, so it's your fault'.

I'm amassing a list of things that must be kept in mind to have any chance of doing well in this, and none are in the OP, and none have ever been stated before the entry deadline. Every time this runs, I'm going to post them as soon as is possible, because it is frankly unfair on new contestants to have them go in with no idea about what is required of them.

[OMG PONIES]

Sous chef.

And Shneeky, there is no competition in the world that requires its contestants to explain their entry. You enter a poem in a literary contest, you don't have to explain the hidden meanings and subtleties. You enter a car in a motor show, you don't have to explain how it works. If you want to go against that and require contestants to explain every single trick they use, then TELL them BEFORE they submit entries, so they can actually fulfil that, rather than going 'Oh, but you didn't do this other thing we never asked you to do, so it's your fault'.

I'm amassing a list of things that must be kept in mind to have any chance of doing well in this, and none are in the OP, and none have ever been stated before the entry deadline. Every time this runs, I'm going to post them as soon as is possible, because it is frankly unfair on new contestants to have them go in with no idea about what is required of them.

I thought "sue" was a delightful play on words, given the litigious nature of our competition in rounds both past and present.

I think you've made a rather blanket statement--out of every competition in the world, there's not a single one that requires exposition as thorough as Iron Chef Optimization? I find that a little hard to believe. If you want to make a helpful post for Iron Chef neophytes, that sounds like it could be helpful. However, simply pointing fingers and accusing people of phantom guidelines isn't the best way to make something better. I'd suggest we cease that sort of thing before it gets too ugly. After all, if someone wants to truly gain the upper hand in ICO, they can do what I did after my abysmal first showing--reread every round (links provided in the OP).

What, that's not normal?

[Hecuba]

And Shneeky, there is no competition in the world that requires its contestants to explain their entry.

Actually, there are a great deal of technical competitions where that is expected. In fact, I would expect most competitions in Math, Science, Engineering, etc. to presume such explanations.

And when it comes down to it, while D&D is a hobby/game, this is a competition about optimization, which is probably the most technical branch of the game. There is no reason that you shouldn't be expected to show your work.

[term1nally s1ck]

Actually, when you submit a professional mathematical paper, part of the process for checking if it is valid is that it is submitted to a panel to be judged. You do not talk to the panel. They have to understand it themselves.

I have entered one science fair ever, and the judging was done overnight. No explanation from the contestants except a written note of 'how to make it work' which could be as simple as 'pull this lever'.

I also study mathematics at university. The perfect answers to most of the questions that are asked are as minimal as possible. The *less* working we show, in probably the most technical subject, the better, because a good solution, just like a good build, should be self-explanatory.

Either way, it's still something that is not mentioned anything about being required, and *none* of the builds explain every trick they use. They explain highly complicated tricks, and none more. If you enter a fairly simple build, then there is nothing to read beforehand that lets you know you still need to explain exactly what parts of your build apply to what you do. And there *really* should be. There's a reason a lot of the same applicants compete time after time, while very few others compete more than once or twice. Because you need insider knowledge to stand a chance, or to happen to fulfil unspoken rules by fluke.

[Piggy Knowles]

This was my first round competing, and with the exception of the most recent round on Dervishes, I did not do what OMG PONIES suggested and read through the back-entries. (I've started to now, though, just because there are some pretty interesting reads!) That said, it only made sense to me that I needed to "show my work," so to speak.

That being said, I do think that part of this contest is about presentation, as well as crunch. So maybe there is something to term1nally s1ck's idea of there being hidden requirements... a good build is the most important, but in the end, fluff and presentation seem to make a difference, too.