Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground LVIII

[Piggy Knowles]

WhamBamSam: Might be a good question to PM the chair, since some builds may have aspects of them that rely on the answer...

[WhamBamSam]

WhamBamSam: Might be a good question to PM the chair, since some builds may have aspects of them that rely on the answer...

I PMed him at least part of the question last night, but haven't heard back from him yet, but I'll scrub it and send another PM to cut down on speculation.

[Piggy Knowles]

Blargh, this is my first time building since the forum change. Just when I had the old format down by heart, I get to learn a whole new kind. Ah, well, c'est la vie...

[The Viscount]

Am I the only one who says frell it and just builds to the first idea that come into their head?

I do often build with my gut reaction, but my gut reaction is usually another PrC idea, which makes Vizzini'ing less likely unless it is very well known or stacks very obviously. I then usually build from there so the base class fullfills both requirements. Then again, there are sometimes rounds when nothing jumps out and you have to force something to work (like in Cipher Adept).

[Kuulvheysoon]

WhamBamSam, going through my inbox now with my copy of Complete Warrior beside me.

And to those who've asked me in PMs - yes, the tables look funny. It was a forum update (that was apparently necessary), and they hope to have it fixed soon. The code is correct, so you don't need to worry about that.

EDIT: Look to the FAQs: I added a new question onto there, as there's been questions from multiple competitors concerning it.

[Biotroll]

Finaly having free time and checking on IC.
Already had few ideas and one that was very much "yes, yes, YES"! It turned to be "wait, this won't work" with a bit of "well, but if I do this then..." and ended up as "so, why am I picking levels in SI again?". Hopefuly I will get some other idea that actualy works before I ran out of time.

[Silva Stormrage]

Huh, question. If some of the build requires a particular item does that get the build knocked down? Even if the character can in fact craft the item? I just don't see any of the previous builds mentioning items anywhere.

[Amphetryon]

Huh, question. If some of the build requires a particular item does that get the build knocked down? Even if the character can in fact craft the item? I just don't see any of the previous builds mentioning items anywhere.

As I believe was mentioned earlier in this thread, reliance on items is generally, but not universally, frowned upon by Iron Chef judges.

[OMG PONIES]

Awful quiet around these parts...which obviously means everyone is building the same thing as me! Quick, panic!

EDIT: Did we ever determine whether or not the Kingdoms of Kalamar Campaign Setting is fair game for this competition? It's got the "Licensed Product" stamp, but I didn't know if that was enough.

[FireJustice]

from the FAQ
"Materials from Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, and Kingdoms of Kalamar are considered 3rd party for purposes of this contest, and are therefore not allowed."

Anyway, trying to whip a build and make my first submit, but this SI is a hard one

[Tim Proctor]

from the FAQ
"Materials from Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, and Kingdoms of Kalamar are considered 3rd party for purposes of this contest, and are therefore not allowed."

Anyway, trying to whip a build and make my first submit, but this SI is a hard one

Yeah, we know what the FAQs say, but we had a conversation a while back that yielded different results. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is certainly a prime example, because it bears thw Wizards logo and has Habro copyright info. The last conversation IIRC ended up that if it bore the logo and had Wizards/Hasbro copyright info it would be allowed.

[Vincent Dragon]

Yeah, we know what the FAQs say, but we had a conversation a while back that yielded different results. Expedition to Castle Ravenloft is certainly a prime example, because it bears thw Wizards logo and has Habro copyright info. The last conversation IIRC ended up that if it bore the logo and had Wizards/Hasbro copyright info it would be allowed.

What about Dragon Magazines?

I know they aren't current available, but would DMs fit into such rules of possible allowance in the future?

[Deadline]

What about Dragon Magazines?

I know they aren't current available, but would DMs fit into such rules of possible allowance in the future?

The ruling on those was pretty clear - no. However, the Dragon Magazine Compendium is fair game.

[OMG PONIES]

The ruling on those was pretty clear - no. However, the Dragon Magazine Compendium is fair game.

That's the part that stymies me, thought--KoK has just as much licensing clout as the DMC, but one's not allowed and the other is. If that's how we're decided, I'm happy to stick with it, though.

[Piggy Knowles]

Eh, I'd rather not see KoK. There is a lot of insanely broken content, even by 3.5 standards. A fourth level spell that is basically a short duration Ice Assassin with no XP or expensive components? Yeah, ok, great idea. A +4 metamagic feat that removes a spell's saving throw? Great idea, guys. How about a first level spell that produces an AMF? And that's just the tip of the iceberg, in just the main book alone. Isn't one of the Kalamar books responsible for the travesty that is the anti-feat?

Third party books just weren't given even the limited scrutiny that first party books received, even if they did get the official stamp from WotC.

Then again, I'm also curmudgeonly and would have preferred to not see the Dragon Compendium allowed, so please feel free to take this all with a grain of salt.

[Tim Proctor]

Eh, I'd rather not see KoK. There is a lot of insanely broken content, even by 3.5 standards. A fourth level spell that is basically a short duration Ice Assassin with no XP or expensive components? Yeah, ok, great idea. A +4 metamagic feat that removes a spell's saving throw? Great idea, guys. How about a first level spell that produces an AMF? And that's just the tip of the iceberg, in just the main book alone. Isn't one of the Kalamar books responsible for the travesty that is the anti-feat?

Third party books just weren't given even the limited scrutiny that first party books received, even if they did get the official stamp from WotC.

Then again, I'm also curmudgeonly and would have preferred to not see the Dragon Compendium allowed, so please feel free to take this all with a grain of salt.

Are you saying you don't love the KoK, cause I'm a serious KoK fiend.

[Piggy Knowles]

I own two KoK books and enjoy the fluff, but I think a lot of the crunch is really poorly written.

[WhamBamSam]

That's the part that stymies me, thought--KoK has just as much licensing clout as the DMC, but one's not allowed and the other is. If that's how we're decided, I'm happy to stick with it, though.

According to someone in the fey summoning thread, KoK's licencing came from a legal struggle with WotC, rather than being licensed willingly like DMC and Dragon Magazine. That's something, if it's in fact true. (EDIT: That someone was apparently dysprosium. I was reading the other thread on my phone earlier and didn't have the avatar to go by.)

Anyhow, both of my builds are more or less good to go. Now I've just got to get around to writing them up.

[Vaz]

As ever, I am in favour of more stuff to use (although I'd prefer Rokugan- or even both, then I can attempt to Rok out with my KoK out).

The presence of broken stuff tends to be self regulating. We don't see abuse of things like UrPriest or other CharOp tricks.

[Ikeren]

Yeah, even someone as staunchly pro-power optimization as me isn't going to give bonus points for a druid build that tags on "Oh yeah, since KoK is now allowed (if it was), Venomfire on a magebred fleshraker."

[Piggy Knowles]

As ever, I am in favour of more stuff to use (although I'd prefer Rokugan- or even both, then I can attempt to Rok out with my KoK out).

The presence of broken stuff tends to be self regulating. We don't see abuse of things like UrPriest or other CharOp tricks.

Eh, the cynical part of me expects that KoK would feel "new" enough that people will want to flex a bit by showing them off - despite the fact that they're not actually new, just largely ignored because of the dubiousness of the source material. And as for broken stuff self-regulating, there have been at least 8 Ur-Priests in Iron Chef, and we've seen everything from infinite stacking of Incarnate/Dustform templates to unfinished ghost savage progressions to Shadowcraft Mage shenanigans to simulacrum abuse, plus a lot more I'm forgetting. I'm not sure we're quite as immune to CharOp tricks as you think.

Not that I'm opposed to CharOp tricks, mind. But the sloppiness of much of KoK's crunch bothers me. For all that I dig on Wizards for sloppy editing or failing to think things through, their stuff is miles ahead of even the best third party options.

[Vaz]

I can count two of those that I have done XD.

Infinite strength from incarnate/dustform template stacking was from my second entry, I think, and a build that was rightly tanked for lack of uosi, elegance and, funnily enough, power (all i could so was throw force javelins hard), and originality by some (precisely because they did not expect such Shenanigans for that entry), and i believe one quote was that it 'was everything that IC wasn't', possibly paraphrased.

The Simulacrum abuse, if it was what i'm thinking of was gained from mirror mephit SLA. Being fair, i used Simulacrum to make spies of ordinary commoners rather than getting componentless efreeti under my control).

I like to think I'm a bit less open for cheese - as well as the majority of Ur Priest from what I recall being fairly early on in the Entropomancer, and current judging trends, wouldbsee heavy penalising.

At the end of the day, it is a charop comp, but it doesn't actively do so well with known charop tricks.

I mean look at Old lob. Fantastic as it is, despite the weresnow spider entomanothrope and its theme, its power and elegance would struggle in todays judging.

[Piggy Knowles]

You're not the only guilty party on any of those, Vaz - I wasn't trying to call you out in particular. There have been at least two Incarnate/Dustform abusers that I know of, and three or four Simulacrum abusers. Heck, I've got a few offenders in there myself, including Ur-Priest, Fiend of Possession and a nasty little artificer build in the Geomancer competition.

Like I said, I'm not necessarily opposed to cheese in a dish, but it has to be appropriate to the dish itself. To keep the cooking analogy, if I'm making an orecchiette con cime di rapa, some freshly grated romano can help bind the sauce and add an extra savory note to the dish, while throwing a bunch of cheddar on top with nothing to tie it to the dish in question will be kind of gross despite the fact that I happen to like cheddar.

[Darrin]

According to someone in the fey summoning thread, KoK's licencing came from a legal struggle with WotC, rather than being licensed willingly like DMC and Dragon Magazine. That's something, if it's in fact true. (EDIT: That someone was apparently dysprosium. I was reading the other thread on my phone earlier and didn't have the avatar to go by.)

It was part of a legal settlement, so WotC was willing to settle with Kenzer & Co. David Kenzer actually had them dead to rights and was doing them a favor by letting them off so easy. As far as I am aware, both parties were very amicable about the settlement, and Kenzer was able to turn Hackmaster from a running gag into an actual full-blown RPG.

The problem with Kalamar is that although they have the 1st party logo and the legal rights to it, the actual book was printed by Kenzer & Co. and WotC had very little (if any) editorial control over the content. If your IC criteria is 1) must have 1st party logo and 2) must be printed by WotC, then Dragon Compendium satisfies both, while Kalamar falls short on #2.

[Amphetryon]

I mean look at Old lob. Fantastic as it is, despite the weresnow spider entomanothrope and its theme, its power and elegance would struggle in todays judging.

The observation that previously celebrated builds would do poorly within current scoring rubrics was made (by me) a couple of years ago, as I recall.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm gonna have to drop out of this one. I've only found a few interesting mechanical exploits, Spellsword doesn't easily lend itself to a particular mindset (which is how I figure out what kind of character would take it), the stubs I've come up with are boring and predictable, and the Spellsword is a terrible gish class with one redeeming feature (Channel Spell) that's too limited in uses/day to be killer.

Gah! I don't like the Spellsword. I hope someone else found something enjoyable to do with it, at least.

[WhamBamSam]

Yeah, even someone as staunchly pro-power optimization as me isn't going to give bonus points for a druid build that tags on "Oh yeah, since KoK is now allowed (if it was), Venomfire on a magebred fleshraker."

Venomfire is in Serpent Kingdoms. It could totally appear in any given IC round. Or did you mean there's something in KoK that lets you use templated animal companions?

It was part of a legal settlement, so WotC was willing to settle with Kenzer & Co. David Kenzer actually had them dead to rights and was doing them a favor by letting them off so easy. As far as I am aware, both parties were very amicable about the settlement, and Kenzer was able to turn Hackmaster from a running gag into an actual full-blown RPG.

The problem with Kalamar is that although they have the 1st party logo and the legal rights to it, the actual book was printed by Kenzer & Co. and WotC had very little (if any) editorial control over the content. If your IC criteria is 1) must have 1st party logo and 2) must be printed by WotC, then Dragon Compendium satisfies both, while Kalamar falls short on #2.

Ah. That's an informative explanation, and a pretty reasonable one. Thank you.

[Wacky89]

I just pmed a character for this challenge.

Reliance of special sites to get feats. Is that frowned upon aswell? Because then I'm gonna change the character abit so it doesnt rely on it.

[Piggy Knowles]

I just pmed a character for this challenge.

Reliance of special sites to get feats. Is that frowned upon aswell? Because then I'm gonna change the character abit so it doesnt rely on it.

Depends on the judge. Some have penalized it, under the justification that they're not available in all campaigns. Others don't mind, as long as you're not doing something cheesy like jumping in an Otyugh Hole, chaos shuffling the feat away, and repeating the process indefinitely.

[Wacky89]

Depends on the judge. Some have penalized it, under the justification that they're not available in all campaigns. Others don't mind, as long as you're not doing something cheesy like jumping in an Otyugh Hole, chaos shuffling the feat away, and repeating the process indefinitely.

alright then I should be okay.