Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground LVIII

[OMG PONIES]

I'll nab this for you now -

1. Yes, you should assume that it advances it as normal, no matter how oddly it's worded.
2. Any feat that a Fighter can pick off of it's bonus list is kosher (so long as you meet the prerequisites, that is).
3. Tim nabbed this one for me above.

[ABED]

1. Cool.
2. Cool.
3. Cool.[/ABED]

To confirm, if I only know, say, Glitterdust... A glitterdust on Monday followed by another glitterdust on Tuesday is sufficient to meet the prerequisite, correct?

[Tim Proctor]

If you look back to the Cenobite one that I judged you'll get an idea on all of these.

When you say you're judging compared to other entrants, are you just using that as a guide or will you be awarding a 1 to the least original build, a 5 for the most original build, and stops in between for the rest? I ask out of judgely curiosity since I was thinking of experimenting with that idea myself.

It is not a bell curve, but a rewards/penalty ratio for how an entrant is using race, template, classes, feats, and skills (not required by the SI) compared to other entrants, the most I've had is a 4.95. A bell curve does seem interesting but overly harsh.

When you say "high expectations," can you provide a baseline of what you're looking for? Again, asking more out of curiosity than trying to garner ALL THE POINTZ! People are talking about the power of this ingredient, but I fear I'm missing something. It feels kinda...lackluster (which makes it a perfect Secret Ingredient...like kale).

I've identified two ways to get 4 attacks, and level 8 spells with 10 levels of this SI. Meaning that unlike the last few, the power level of this SI is significantly higher (also less utility based), and would suffer a decent versatility bonus. Now you don't need to overkill it and be an ubercharger 9/9/9 to get a 5, I have a pre-determined amount of damage needed in a round, a pre-determined HP/AC/Saves ratio, and a pre-determined versatility segment that if met will afford a 5. I have had 5's in power before.

When you say "tenure in a class," am I correct in reading that a Base Class 10/Spellsword 10 will automatically score higher in Elegance than a Base Class 6/Other PrC 4/Spellsword 10 (assuming no other Elegance issues in either)? Just asking for clarification.

Correct, basically if you qualified for everything didn't squint when you read the rules and went 10/10 or 5/10/5 you'll end up with a 5 elegance.

Are you planning on sharing the 7 factors you'll be evaluating when you present your scores? Again, a question of curiosity.

No, I share these only after the builds are revealed. I have had 5s in UotSI before.

I'll bite. Consider these general questions for judges, not specifically aimed at you:

Folks have weighed in on Partial Casting Classes like Spellsword as an SI before, often indicating that using the SI to progress a base Class's casting would warrant a deduction while also indicating that using the SI to progress a Prestige Class's independent casting (as a random example of independent casting, round XVIII's Dark Hunter) would warrant a deduction. Is it likely to be the case that folks will have to choose which of these deductions they wish to receive, or are full marks possible?

I think full marks are possible, I'd have to crunch some numbers but where the spells come from (so long as they are legal) aren't much of a concern of mine. In the BFZ we had people with level 8 spells and 20+ d6 of sneak attack damage, I think the person that won power in that was a Skarn floating thing that did 150d6 or some crazy amount. Whether someone can cast Miracle vs. 150d6 vs. charge for 1,500 damage vs. etc. is IMO mostly overkill I'm more interested if you can beat a Balor or like in a 1v1.

[Rama]

I'll likely be available to judge as well.

I'll bite. Consider these general questions for judges, not specifically aimed at you:

Folks have weighed in on Partial Casting Classes like Spellsword as an SI before, often indicating that using the SI to progress a base Class's casting would warrant a deduction while also indicating that using the SI to progress a Prestige Class's independent casting (as a random example of independent casting, round XVIII's Dark Hunter) would warrant a deduction. Is it likely to be the case that folks will have to choose which of these deductions they wish to receive, or are full marks possible?

Full marks would be possible under either of those scenarios imo. Depends how it all comes together.

[OMG PONIES]

A bell curve does seem interesting but overly harsh.

Yeah, that's been my general impression without running the numbers. I thought it might simplify my scoring to rank the builds in each category from best to worst. One 5 would be given to the best, one 1 would be assigned to the worst, and then I'd do an even distribution in between. However, I think the harshness of the 1s would outweight the glory of the 5s; that, and the idea of directly comparing the builds to one another instead of a concrete rubric seems like a recipe for disaster with a dispute garnish.

Correct, basically if you qualified for everything didn't squint when you read the rules and went 10/10 or 5/10/5 you'll end up with a 5 elegance.

Would a 5/10/5 build receive the same Elegance score as a 6/10/4 or a 7/10/3? Awarding 10/10 for simplicity makes sense, but I'm confused by the inclusion of 5/10/5 as a perfect specimen since it has half the tenure in two classes that a 10/10 has in one.

No, I share these only after the builds are revealed.

Right, that's what I was asking. I just didn't know if your 7 areas of focus would be presented alongside your scores to make the rationale clear to the entrants and avoid possible debates caused by lack of detail.

[Tim Proctor]

Would a 5/10/5 build receive the same Elegance score as a 6/10/4 or a 7/10/3? Awarding 10/10 for simplicity makes sense, but I'm confused by the inclusion of 5/10/5 as a perfect specimen since it has half the tenure in two classes that a 10/10 has in one.

The mechanical tenure is -.5 for a 1 level dip, -.25 for a 2 level dip, +.1 per level if 5 or more taken. I have it built this way to accommodate harder to get into SIs, where you'll need more than 1 class ability to enter, while 10/10 is more elegant, 5/10/5 is good enough for me.

[Secret Bard]

Iron Chef always confuses me; do you mean "better" in the traditional sense or "better" in the "it's pretty darn awful" sense?

Also, unrelated: if you tell people you're a secret bard, it's not a secret anymore. Then you're just a regular bard.

Oh no you figured out my ruse

I mean that there is a lot of potential in this class and a lot of ways to go about using it. I'm really interested to see what everyone else makes.

[Vaz]

[ABED]

1. Cool.
2. Cool.
3. Cool.[/ABED]

To confirm, if I only know, say, Glitterdust... A glitterdust on Monday followed by another glitterdust on Tuesday is sufficient to meet the prerequisite, correct?

That is how I read it.

(And if you were making love to Glitterdust by Wednesday, do you do it on Thursday, Friday, Saturday, but chill on Sunday?)

Essentially, if you have access to 1 or more 2nd level spell which you can renew by your own abilities (in Kuulv's example, not reliant on the party cleric providing the additional spell) then you qualify.

[Irk]

Does a channeled spell become part of the spell-like ability or is the spell-like ability the actual capability to channel?
Could I qualify by getting spells from supernatural abilities?

[Tim Proctor]

Does a channeled spell become part of the spell-like ability or is the spell-like ability the actual capability to channel?
Could I qualify by getting spells from supernatural abilities?

You're getting way too close to speculation on builds, anymore detailed and you'd probably want to PM the Chairman.

[weckar]

*nevermind*

[Vaz]

This is what the Simple Q+A at the top of the forum is for. Please stop asking questions regarding builds which is essentially speculation in this thread, something which as long as I have been doing, has been considered verboten.

[Sian]

the hardest part about building a Spellsword is IMHO to avoid walking into Vizinni territory, yet avoid stopping from going into what looks like such without being it

[sideswipe]

i have never taken part and i have a very funny idea, i don't expect to do well but i love the class so i'm joining in this one

[WhamBamSam]

More like, why does double channel take up 2 uses?

Also yes. Novel uses of Multiple Channel Spell are liable to make the build overly reliant on nova powers. It's a conundrum.

I think I've got the rumblings of a good idea though.

[Amechra]

I have 4 distinct build stubs.

I know which one I'm going to build first, though. Because it will be hilarious.

[Silva Stormrage]

Okay I think I will actually try to make a build for this once. Two questions though.

One: Is there someone I could forward my finished draft to to make sure I have the formatting right? I would hate to get marked down for something like that.

Secondly: If I happened to start at a build that starts at ECL 6+ would I still need to do the 5th level character description? Or would I just do a write up for whatever level he started at?

[dantiesilva]

You know now I realize why this was a hard one, it is easy per say to enter. The kicker is the special requirement as well as the armor, I am not seeing a large selection of things that can do this amazingly that wont be copying each other, good luck. *Shakes head* I still can't believe this one turned me on my head.

[DeAnno]

The kicker is the special requirement as well as the armor

I see the first (Must have defeated a foe through the force of arms alone, without recourse to spellcasting) as more of a flavor issue, myself. If the judges are going to interpret it as something you can't really do with flavor, that would probably be important to know about.

[Vaz]

As a heads up, fluff requirements were penalized if not included.

Out of interest, when it says "Must have defeated a foe through force of arms alone, without recourse to spellcasting." does this include buff spells?

[sideswipe]

As a heads up, fluff requirements were penalized if not included.

Out of interest, when it says "Must have defeated a foe through force of arms alone, without recourse to spellcasting." does this include buff spells?

i would personally say yes. buff spells means you were assisted by spells. not just arms.

[OMG PONIES]

As a heads up, fluff requirements were penalized if not included.

Out of interest, when it says "Must have defeated a foe through force of arms alone, without recourse to spellcasting." does this include buff spells?

i would personally say yes. buff spells means you were assisted by spells. not just arms.

I agree. Plus, going by RAW you can't even use your hands, feet, or other body parts...just your arms. As usual, I'll see myself out.

[Vaz]

By RAW, you can't even attack with your arms, even monks only have hands, elbows, knees, feet and head as explicitly allowed unarmed strike.

Let's not even joke, the special requirement is hard enough...

[sideswipe]

i am draxor! i had both may hands cut off but now i kill with my forearms!

[OMG PONIES]

Let's not even joke, the special requirement is hard enough...

Step 1: Stab.
Step 2: Repeat step 1 as needed.

[Vaz]

FFS, why is [X] not a [X],

Just completely undone my entire build.

[Deadline]

Secondly: If I happened to start at a build that starts at ECL 6+ would I still need to do the 5th level character description? Or would I just do a write up for whatever level he started at?

You can start the build at a later ECL, and the rules technically only state that you have to include a breakdown for one level, though most chefs include writeups for multiple interesting points in the build (and I've looked favorably on such a thing in the past as a judge - more information is generally always better).

I see the first (Must have defeated a foe through the force of arms alone, without recourse to spellcasting) as more of a flavor issue, myself. If the judges are going to interpret it as something you can't really do with flavor, that would probably be important to know about.

If it is a prerequisite, you need to account for it. Failure to account for it means you don't qualify for the Secret Ingredient. If you don't qualify for the Secret Ingredient, your score suffers ...

Seriously, how hard is it to say, "at the start of his/her/its adventuring career, he took out a kobold with a lucky swing of his quarterstaff"?

Also, I have no idea what to do with this ingredient. It's just too good.

[dantiesilva]

..Seriously, how hard is it to say, "at the start of his/her/its adventuring career, he took out a kobold with a lucky swing of his quarterstaff"?

Well lets just leave it at Redirceted may have a harder time doing this at any level then Redirected would. So it is something important to consider. Sure you can say you beat it without magic thanks to a lucky crit, however now your simply saying had it not been for luck you would have never made it into the SI. I like to over think things when it comes to our judges because while they are fair, sometimes it feels like nitpicking lol.

And to all the judges of the last round I hope you know that I only did a dispute to add amusement while we waited. No hard feelings I hope. By the way who ate the ettin

[Kazudo]

So that I don't wuss out on judging, I'll refrain from posting my criteria and will actually attempt to build something incredibly mediocre for this competition.

Gotta have a baseline entry, right?

[AvatarVecna]

I can't find any text indicating how tough an opponent I have to defeat for the special requirement. Can I stab a rat and qualify? Step on a cockroach?

[Deadline]

I can't find any text indicating how tough an opponent I have to defeat for the special requirement. Can I stab a rat and qualify? Step on a cockroach?

It would probably be safe to assume a CR appropriate encounter. That said, if you feel that fulfilling requirements only by the merest technicalities should warrant full marks, you might be disappointed with how a judge decides to score. Then again, depending on how it was done, the humor of the situation could be fantastic.