Villainous Competition, Round 2, Or, Give me something evil!

[Jormengand]

Isn't that sort of the point of this competition? To set the finest optimization minds the board has to offer (or at least the finest optimization minds who can be bothered to put something together) to the task of turning the rough guideline of a BBEG that some DM wants for his super awesome story into something that won't fold like a broken card table when exposed to the PCs. To show what can be done when the DM is willing to put in the necessary sourcebook diving and op-fu to really challenge an optimized party.

If a DM needs to open more than two sourcebooks then they should probably be reconsidering their life choices.

I mean, look at them. ToM and a tiny bit of RoD. Tiny bits of DotU and UA, a couple of things from CD, and a build that mainly comes from sandstorm. Ebberon and MoI. Not a great deal of stuff from anywhere. Then we have one with a metric boopton of sourcebooks. Then Draco and BoED. Another two booptons of sources. Three of those limited themselves to two books, one had four with two used a tiny bit, one had six but all used sparingly, and three had tons. All of these should be viable levels of sourcebook use, not just "Rarghleblarghle books books books."

[AvatarVecna]

If a DM needs to open more than two sourcebooks then they should probably be reconsidering their life choices.

I mean, look at them. ToM and a tiny bit of RoD. Tiny bits of DotU and UA, a couple of things from CD, and a build that mainly comes from sandstorm. Ebberon and MoI. Not a great deal of stuff from anywhere. Then we have one with a metric boopton of sourcebooks. Then Draco and BoED. Another two booptons of sources. Three of those limited themselves to two books, one had four with two used a tiny bit, one had six but all used sparingly, and three had tons. All of these should be viable levels of sourcebook use, not just "Rarghleblarghle books books books."

That's it. Now I'm gonna need to find excuses to use the phrase "metric boopton" in day-to-day life.

[Jormengand]

That's it. Now I'm gonna need to find excuses to use the phrase "metric boopton" in day-to-day life.

Just don't mix up your metric booptons and Imperial booptonnes.

[Troacctid]

Regarding banned components: I don't think you should be banning things that are "too obvious" or what have you. This isn't Junkyard Wars (I should know). I honestly don't know if there should be banned components at all, but if there are, they should at least be related to abilities you specifically don't want your BBEG to have, like the first two have been.

I think the contest can do without banned components. That aspect doesn't seem to have contributed much to this round or the last. It has the potential to make for interesting contests, as we've seen with Junkyard Wars, but it doesn't seem to be needed here.

If a DM needs to open more than two sourcebooks then they should probably be reconsidering their life choices.

I mean, look at them. ToM and a tiny bit of RoD. Tiny bits of DotU and UA, a couple of things from CD, and a build that mainly comes from sandstorm. Ebberon and MoI. Not a great deal of stuff from anywhere. Then we have one with a metric boopton of sourcebooks. Then Draco and BoED. Another two booptons of sources. Three of those limited themselves to two books, one had four with two used a tiny bit, one had six but all used sparingly, and three had tons. All of these should be viable levels of sourcebook use, not just "Rarghleblarghle books books books."

I've never given an elegance penalty for dipping into lots of sourcebooks, and I don't see any reason to (aside from incompatible cross-setting material or insufficient citations). Maybe it's because I learned to play with 4th edition, but I think all books should be fair game within the allowed source list, and you should be free to take as much or as little as you want from them. 3.5 has an incredible breadth of available material; we should be utilizing it to the fullest.

[Jormengand]

I've never given an elegance penalty for dipping into lots of sourcebooks, and I don't see any reason to (aside from incompatible cross-setting material or insufficient citations). Maybe it's because I learned to play with 4th edition, but I think all books should be fair game within the allowed source list, and you should be free to take as much or as little as you want from them. 3.5 has an incredible breadth of available material; we should be utilizing it to the fullest.

And my point is that the competition shouldn't be so dreadfully specific that if you don't happen to have the right sourcebook, you're screwed.

[AvatarVecna]

And my point is that the competition shouldn't be so dreadfully specific that if you don't happen to have the right sourcebook, you're screwed.

The only books that are really vital to a contest like this is the core rulebooks, which are almost entirely available online for free, completely legally (see: d20srd). What's more, they're the three books most likely to be owned by anybody doing anything 3.5 related, so there's not much excuse for not having access to them. Beyond that, while I'm sure that some books are more helpful than others in regards to certain contests ("We're making an aquatic villain? Let's read through Stormwrack for ideas!"), no "Optimize My BBEG" contest should be so specific that not having book X completely screws you over. Sure, Iron Chef is like that, since each contest is based around fully using one specific PrC, but this contest is about concepts; ideas that have a wide enough variety of interpretations that you could really use just about any splatbook to make something that could fit.

[Jormengand]

no "Optimize My BBEG" contest should be so specific that not having book X completely screws you over.

Emphasis mine; yes that is exactly my point.

[Doctor Awkward]

At the same time, I don't think it would be very fair to penalize someone for using or not using "that one book", since the relative obscurity of any one book is entirely subjective.

Working within restrictions can inspire greater creativity, but it can hamper it as well. I'm often disappointed that most contests forbid Dragon Magazine material. I like to think this is for practical reasons, since the likelihood that all contestants would have access to every Dragon Mag is legally dubious. But it tends to give off the impression that Dragon Mag material is all cheesy, broken, garbage. Now a lot of it is, I admit, but there are a number of gems that I have used that I and had great fun with (shameless Charlatan plug). With a little sense, it's not too difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

[Red Fel]

I don't believe in penalizing someone for using "that one book," particularly if they can build the entire character with it. To me, that's elegant. By the same token, I recognize that there is low-hanging fruit in any given challenge (often either a primary caster or a Warblade) that tends to trivialize matters. Rather than penalizing someone for taking the singular class or book perfectly suited to the challenge, I tend to reward those who think outside of the box, and produce something similarly functional and elegant, based upon a less obvious choice.

That said, many times these competitions come down to little details. Particularly when the submissions are of high quality, it's the small, precise things that make the difference in score. If a person dips into many books where they could have used fewer ones, I am likely to look askance at their choices; likewise, if they suggest the use of multiple sources without it adding anything substantial to the build, I am likely to find it an inelegant choice.

One of the ways in which I approach these competitions isn't just the theoretical. Yes, having these builds in a vacuum is a good way to score them and examine them in minute detail. But part of my approach is also "Would I use this in a campaign," followed closely by, "And could I?" If I have to rely on many books, it could bog down my DMing. Fewer sources, or more readily apparent rules, will help me run a character, which means greater enjoyment for everyone involved. Or at least for me.

As an aside, I've got my scores, and am letting them percolate for another day or two while I consider the final numbers.

As an additional aside, my suggestion for the next round is "The Puppeteer" - basically, the true BBEG behind a fake BBEG. Concept should include his methods of influence, the type of BBEG he manipulates, and his long-term goals in using this particular BBEG. It's a very open concept, since really just about anyone can be an expert manipulator with the right design. Further down the road, I would also love to see "The Second-in-Command" as a theme; sometimes, a compelling lieutenant (trusted or otherwise) can be an even more fascinating character than the BBEG himself, particularly when Number Two is likely to have more screen time than his boss.

[AvatarVecna]

With a little sense, it's not too difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The reason these contests ban Dragon Magazine material on general principle is because it contains some of the most unbalanced material ever published (on both ends of the spectrum); sure, it may contain a good deal of stuff that's fairly balanced, but it's mixed in with absolutely broken crap. The problem is not that people don't recognize the broken crap: it's getting people to agree on whether a thing is too broken to allow. There are people who argue that monks are overpowered and wizards are roughly as good as fighters; opinions are too diverse on these kinds of things to find an agreeable consensus. The problem with what you're suggesting is that cherry-picking from Dragon Magazine requires someone to decide what is and isn't allowed on an individual basis. This is a lot of work, because it requires the person running to contest to look at each individual thing in the DM stuff as well as everything in 3.5 books and decide what is and isn't broken.

As it currently stands, the ban list boils down to "No Dragon Magazine", "No Unearthed Arcana", "No Leadership or similar abilities"; simple. The ban list is that simple because the other way of banning things is having an ongoing list of every base class, PrC, skill, feat, and item that's too weak/powerful to allow, and that's just too much work for any one person to want to do; I mean, would you rather evaluate every single last bit of 3.5 for balance purposes, or toss out the biggest problem sources and call it a day? I know which choice I'd make.

[WhamBamSam]

Eh, you guys are entitled to your opinions, but for me personally? I will never, ever, ever refrain from using something that I think helps my concept just because it requires another sourcebook that I wasn't previously using. If it hurts my score, it hurts my score, but I'll use what I think does what I'm going for most effectively (in terms of style and, yes, the way I see it, elegance, as well as power), whether that uses one sourcebook, or two, or five, or ten, or twenty. This is simply not a concern that I can be persuaded to care about.

As for Dragon Magazine, there's certainly material in it that I like, and I wouldn't be particularly adverse to its inclusion, but I understand why it's not allowed. Apart from the issues about what is or is not first party which tend to crop up around this question, I do sympathize somewhat with the balance concerns. While there are plenty of things that are significantly more broken than just about anything in Dragon Magazine in Core alone, the regular sourcebooks are at least devils that we can sort of be expected to know. Also, the more powerful/broken material tends to float to the surface more than the balanced stuff. Dragon Magazine represents a huge amount of material. The underpowered portion of that material would probably never see the light of day, and a given overpowered thing will generally see more use than a given balanced thing. So the practical impact would likely be a large influx of the broken crap that gives Dragon Magazine a bad name moreso than anything else.

[Sian]

furthermore there's the obivous question of accessability.

all 3.5e books are available at various digital (and legal) outlets in pdf format, while the same can't be said with any degree of certainty for Dungeon/Dragon Magazine

[Gwachitallemall]

Just to be clear, Dungeon and Dragon Mag will never be allowed as sources while I'm the Supreme Chancellor. The only one that could be allowed is dragon compendium, and that's iffy.

As far as limitations, It's never really been banned material. This last one skirted more into banned material than the first, but the first one still allowed you to go into classes that got 9ths, but not so much push them all the way, because it wasn't really the feel of the character.

More of what the limitations are, are hints of what Judges would probably penalize for if you did it, because it's not necessarily a good theme for the specific type of character. Nature's Revenger was a lot tougher to choose on, then the previous one.

I currently have up until May's contest planned out, as far as limitations and concept builds go.

I've been asking on limitations, because I'm wanting to see how everyone else feels about them. If we should get rid of them, I can do that. But I mostly feel they are there as hints for the optimizers.

[Troacctid]

The Technomancer: A villain who uses machines and gadgets to carry out his evil schemes.
The Nightmare Lord: A villain who specializes in psychological warfare, using your own worst fears against you.
The Identity Thief: A villain who wears your face while he's committing his evil deeds.
The Necromancer: A villain who commands legions of undead servants.
The Pyromaniac: A villain who just wants to watch the world burn. Literally.
The Shadow Master: A villain themed around darkness and shadows.
The Hivelord: A villain with an insect or swarm theme.
The Elemental Master: Earth. Fire. Air. Water. Only this villain can master all four elements and bring balance...uh, I mean, destroy the world.

[WhamBamSam]

Just to be clear, Dungeon and Dragon Mag will never be allowed as sources while I'm the Supreme Chancellor. The only one that could be allowed is dragon compendium, and that's iffy.

I've been asking on limitations, because I'm wanting to see how everyone else feels about them. If we should get rid of them, I can do that. But I mostly feel they are there as hints for the optimizers.

Wait, is Dragon Compendium banned in this competition? I'd sort of just assumed that the same source rules from Iron Chef were in effect.

I think that's usually sort of clear from the concept. The build that got too castery in the first round got penalized for it. Had anyone tried to pull something too "modern" or "manufactured" seeming this round, they'd lose points whether or not the prohibition on heavy armor was there. All the ban did was toss out non-Cloistered nature Clerics, Ardents (which have several potentially fitting mantles, as well as a Tribal Ardent ACF), and people who happened to want various martial classes for reasons completely unrelated to armor proficiency. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have limitations, as they can help spur creativity, but the reasoning behind the limitations here seems a bit off.

I don't really have a good name for it, but a bad guy who does mad science experiments on his minions to make them scarier for the PCs to fight might be kinda cool.

I like Troacctid's ideas. I'd be a little worried about overlap for the Identity Thief (it seems like there's one particular Race+PrC combo that's too on the nose to pass up), but it's certainly a fun concept.

The power behind the throne and evil lieutenant ideas Red_Fel's post touched on seem fun.

[Gwachitallemall]

Wait, is Dragon Compendium banned in this competition? I'd sort of just assumed that the same source rules from Iron Chef were in effect.

I think that's usually sort of clear from the concept. The build that got too castery in the first round got penalized for it. Had anyone tried to pull something too "modern" or "manufactured" seeming this round, they'd lose points whether or not the prohibition on heavy armor was there. All the ban did was toss out non-Cloistered nature Clerics, Ardents (which have several potentially fitting mantles, as well as a Tribal Ardent ACF), and people who happened to want various martial classes for reasons completely unrelated to armor proficiency. It's not necessarily a bad thing to have limitations, as they can help spur creativity, but the reasoning behind the limitations here seems a bit off.

I don't really have a good name for it, but a bad guy who does mad science experiments on his minions to make them scarier for the PCs to fight might be kinda cool.

I like Troacctid's ideas. I'd be a little worried about overlap for the Identity Thief (it seems like there's one particular Race+PrC combo that's too on the nose to pass up), but it's certainly a fun concept.

The power behind the throne and evil lieutenant ideas Red_Fel's post touched on seem fun.

If it's not banned in iron chef, it's not banned here. From the notes, I can't tell if it is banned or not there.

[sakuuya]

If it's not banned in iron chef, it's not banned here. From the notes, I can't tell if it is banned or not there.

It's not banned in IC. The FAQ post says so.

Is Dragon Compendium Allowed? Yes (as well as its Errata), but individual issues of Dragon Magazine are not.

[WeaselGuy]

If it's not banned in iron chef, it's not banned here. From the notes, I can't tell if it is banned or not there.

From this competition:

Secret Laboratory: Competitors will be free to use any official 3.5 rulebook in constructing their builds. Dragon magazine is disallowed, and Unearthed Arcana is allowed; but see Elegance below. Web-exclusive 3.0 or 3.5 materials by WotC are expressly allowed, but take care to verify that an updated version did not appear in print elsewhere, as this may cause an Elegance deduction at the judges' discretion. Alternate rule systems from UA such as gestalt or Generic Classes are not allowed, as they create a different playing field. Item Familiars and Taint are also banned from the competition. We don’t want to make this too easy, do we?

From Junkyard Wars:

Workshop: Competitors will be free to use any official 3.5 rulebook in constructing their builds. Dragon Magazine is disallowed, and Unearthed Arcana is allowed; but see below. Web-exclusive 3.0 or 3.5 materials by WotC are expressly allowed, but take care to verify that an updated version did not appear in print elsewhere as this may cause an Elegance deduction at the judges' discretion. If you use web material, link it. Dragon Magazine Compendium is allowed, as are Oriental Adventures and the Dragonlance Campaign Setting. Alternate rule systems from UA such as gestalt and fractional saves are not allowed, as they create a different playing field.

And lastly, from Iron Chef:

Kitchen: Competitors will be free to use any official 3.5 rulebook in constructing their builds. Dragon magazine is disallowed, and Unearthed Arcana is allowed; but see Elegance below. Web-exclusive 3.0 or 3.5 materials by WotC are expressly allowed, but take care to verify that an updated version did not appear in print elsewhere, as this may cause an Elegance deduction at the judges' discretion. Alternate rule systems from UA such as gestalt or Generic Classes are not allowed, as they create a different playing field. Also, item familiars are forbidden because I hate 'em. Please refrain from using Taint unless it's necessary for the Secret Ingredient.

From what I can see, the only one that explicitly allows Dragon Magazine Compendium is Junkyard Wars.

Edit: Swordsaged(ish) by sakuuya...

It's not banned in IC. The FAQ post says so.

FAQ:
Is Dragon Compendium Allowed? Yes (as well as its Errata), but individual issues of Dragon Magazine are not.

[illyahr]

I don't believe in penalizing someone for using "that one book," particularly if they can build the entire character with it. To me, that's elegant. By the same token, I recognize that there is low-hanging fruit in any given challenge (often either a primary caster or a Warblade) that tends to trivialize matters. Rather than penalizing someone for taking the singular class or book perfectly suited to the challenge, I tend to reward those who think outside of the box, and produce something similarly functional and elegant, based upon a less obvious choice.

I do this too. Sure, you might pull off something amazing. However, you might not get full marks if the combination is fairly easy or obvious. It's like gymnastics in the Olympics. A simple routine performed flawlessly isn't as impressive as a difficult routine performed nearly flawlessly.

[Sam K]

My opinion on the restrictions:

I think the restriction in the last round (no full casters) was really good (if only because it kept away the "T1 casters win at everything" problems), but I think the restriction this round added nothing. Because the VC is more open ended than most contests (we build around a concept/stereotype, not a mechanical component) the restrictions can help avoid everyone picking the same low-hanging fruits for their build. However, the restrictions should be used only if they add something. The HA ban didn't really do much, as cleric could still be used (cloistered), and people were still allowed to make builds based around manufactured weapons.

I do want to raise a question regarding how we measure "power"; because we're making antagonists, power is a bit tricky. The optimal power is the "right" level of power; it should be enough to make a credible TPK risk for a party, but not so much that the party is overwhelmed without feeling that they have a fighting chance. Depending on what kind of games you usually play, the right level of power can be tricky to define. A cleverly played T1 caster would be horrible death for a party at the "3.5 playtest" level of optimization (blaster wizards (elven wizards, even!) and druids meleeing with scimitars), but might be a great challenge for a party who plays at the "high but not uber cheesy" optimization level most Playground theoretical builds end up at.

Hmm... perhaps instead of (or in addition to) restrictions, we should have an expected power level? Have power graded based on how good of a challenge the BBEG would be for a party at the expected power level? That would be a great motivation to make something other than the standard "warblade or T1 caster" builds, because those may be overwhelming for the party this challenge is intended for?

[WeaselGuy]

My opinion on the restrictions:

-snip-

Hmm... perhaps instead of (or in addition to) restrictions, we should have an expected power level? Have power graded based on how good of a challenge the BBEG would be for a party at the expected power level? That would be a great motivation to make something other than the standard "warblade or T1 caster" builds, because those may be overwhelming for the party this challenge is intended for?

I really like this. Maybe for the next challenge, we're actually presented with a sample party to design a bad guy for. Even if it's something as simple as "Human Trip-Fighter, Elf Blaster Wizard, Gnome non-DFI Bard, Halfling TWF Rogue". This way, we know that the bard will be buffing, the wizard will be frail but still a heavy hitter, the fighter will be doing some BFC, and the rogue will be doing hit-hit-miss-miss-miss with his shortswords.

[Telonius]

I generally like the idea, but here's my concern. We're designing enemies at CR 5, 10, 15, and 20. Are we assuming those groups are also going to be at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20? That would work out to "Challenging," which is the target for 50% of the encounters the players should have. This is supposed to be the Big Bad Evil Guy - a really tough fight. Anything that's fighting a party at equal CR is going to get curbstomped, especially if they only have a single foe versus a standard party of four. If I'm ever designing a boss fight for my players, I try to give the boss a bunch of minions. If it's a single foe, I make his CR be the party level plus at least four or five.

[Doctor Awkward]

Hmm... perhaps instead of (or in addition to) restrictions, we should have an expected power level? Have power graded based on how good of a challenge the BBEG would be for a party at the expected power level? That would be a great motivation to make something other than the standard "warblade or T1 caster" builds, because those may be overwhelming for the party this challenge is intended for?

The problem I have with this, as others have hinted, is that expected power is entirely subjective.
I frequently play wizards and clerics, and greatly enjoy participating in higher level games, and thus have little trouble building around them.
It's not that I think I'd have a problem making a "lesser" challenge for a lower optimized party, it would just feel like tossing a hand grenade into a barrel of fish. It wouldn't be nearly as challenging and fun.

[Red Fel]

The problem I have with this, as others have hinted, is that expected power is entirely subjective.

I agree. Look, we're coming up with villain concepts, that's the purpose of this competition. Come up with an idea (the prompt), then bring it to life in an awesome and creative manner (the submissions). Not every submission will be perfectly, or even adequately, suited to every campaign. There will be different party compositions, different campaign themes, different levels of optimization, different tones, different environments.

The great thing about this competition is that, aside from the prompt, these submissions are generated somewhat in a vacuum. This makes them, to a certain extent, independent of party composition or campaign theme. If a DM finds one he likes, and steals it (and the one who submitted it should absolutely take that as a compliment, I know I would), he might still need to tweak it to fit the party at his table. And that's fine.

The important thing is that we're able to examine and grade these builds in a vacuum. Start throwing in actual gameplay, actual players and PCs and optimization, and things can go to all kinds of heck. (Your BBEG is facing a party of four Wizards. Commence rocket tag.) But by keeping it in a vacuum, by looking at the villains independent of PC composition or campaign theme, we're able to look at them solely based on the merits presented, without outside distractions or challenges. It's as close to a pure form of analysis as we can get, which makes it a bit more "fair," much as I hate that word.

I generally like the idea, but here's my concern. We're designing enemies at CR 5, 10, 15, and 20. Are we assuming those groups are also going to be at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20? That would work out to "Challenging," which is the target for 50% of the encounters the players should have. This is supposed to be the Big Bad Evil Guy - a really tough fight. Anything that's fighting a party at equal CR is going to get curbstomped, especially if they only have a single foe versus a standard party of four. If I'm ever designing a boss fight for my players, I try to give the boss a bunch of minions. If it's a single foe, I make his CR be the party level plus at least four or five.

Now, here is a tricky concept, because it's hard to quantify universally. For example, with the last competition (Warlord, Leader of Armies), he would most definitely be confronting the PCs directly, but would almost certainly have at least some of his soldiers at his side. It's virtually unthinkable to face the Warlord while outnumbering him. Compare that with the present competition, in which underlings may or may not be relevant to the character concept (Nature's Avenger); he would certainly face the PCs at some point, but might or might not have minions at his disposal. And contrast that with the classic mastermind archetype, who would certainly have minions, but would virtually never engage the PCs directly. (In all likelihood, if confronted with force, he would probably surrender, having already developed seven contingencies specifically designed around his capture.) As such, I do think that the CR should be tied to the concept, and not just universal across the competition. The other problem, of course, is that CR isn't always (or even often) a good indicator of actual challenge, but once we start down that dark path, forever will it dominate our discourse. Consume the thread, it will.

[WhamBamSam]

I generally like the idea, but here's my concern. We're designing enemies at CR 5, 10, 15, and 20. Are we assuming those groups are also going to be at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20? That would work out to "Challenging," which is the target for 50% of the encounters the players should have. This is supposed to be the Big Bad Evil Guy - a really tough fight. Anything that's fighting a party at equal CR is going to get curbstomped, especially if they only have a single foe versus a standard party of four. If I'm ever designing a boss fight for my players, I try to give the boss a bunch of minions. If it's a single foe, I make his CR be the party level plus at least four or five.

Well, the BBEG for the first challenge was expected to have minions, so that helps. Also, CR-based optimization tends to be a bit more powerful than ECL-based optimization. Still, that is a concern. A "fair" equal-CR fight is one that the party has the resources to take down 4 times a day, so for bad guys without minions, it's something of a concern.

If I were to suggest a baseline party that the BBEG is supposed to challenge, it would be "a T3 party at around playground level optimization," which is probably a higher power level than the group that WeaselGuy described. And like several others, I'm a little skeptical of setting anything in stone.

[Gwachitallemall]

Growing pains. All new contests have them. I'll eventually get a set upon method for everything.

[Red Fel]

And here we are again. It’s always such a pleasure.

Yes, it's scoring time again. I got tired of waiting. So let's get right to it, shall we?

I remind you, these were the criteria listed in the original post. Next to each, I've shared how I grade them. Each is scored on a scale of 1-5, for a total of 20 possible points overall. I also remind you that, as is my tendency, I won’t be awarding partial points. I know we can, as judges, but I don’t, because reasons. Now, the criteria:

• Originality: This is my fluff metric. How fascinating is this BBEG? How clearly explained is it? How can I fit it into a campaign?
• Power: Simple enough. How bad is this dude (or dudette)? This isn't just combat ability, for me - it's also effective skill use.
• Elegance: How few classes? How few templates? How do they all mesh together?
• Concept: How closely did this build fit the concept? Remember, the goal was to make Nature’s Revenger (The world must be clean! We must have plants!), with no heavy armor.

And on to the scores!

Spoiler: Melissa, the Huntress

Show

• Originality: 3. It’s different, I don’t often see Truenamer mixed with any other class. (See Power, below.) That said, it’s not particularly special. She’s interesting, but I really just see her as an attacker in the trees. She’s got a bow and some pretty words.
• Power: 3. You took a Tier 3 class (Ranger), cut it off at the knees, and tacked on a Tier Nope class (Truenamer), a class which really only works if you take it all the way to the end. You’ve hurt your power badly, really badly. Despite the fact that you can technically use Truespeak each round, all day, the DCs scale, and painfully. The DC to use Temporal Twist on yourself, for instance, is 15 + 2x HD -4. That means that, when you first get it, it’s a DC of 11 + 18, or 29. Your skill ranks are 12, +3 from Skill Focus – you still need to roll a 14 or better on a d20 to use it, and each time you succeed, the DC increases by 2. That said, you do pull off some good numbers with it, and your Utterances give you some nice battlefield control.
• Elegance: 4. On the one hand, I like the simplicity. One race, no templates, two classes, few books. I appreciate that. I also appreciate your choice of Utterances; they complement the concept nicely. But you’ve taken something MAD and made it MADder. Truenamer and Ranger have extremely little synergy. I couldn’t give you a perfect score for that reason.
• Concept: 3. She has elements of nature, being a Ranger and firing from the trees, and using her Utterances in certain ways. But none of it is essentially natural. In fact, one could argue the opposite. Illumians are artificial humans. Truenamers exert dominance over nature, rather than letting nature exert dominance over the unnatural. If anything, she’s an unnatural creature forcing nature to act in an unnatural manner.
• Total: 13

Comments: I liked what you did here. Don’t get me wrong. Your fluff is excellent, and your table is humorous. (As an aside, while I appreciate the humor in the table, it’s a bit distracting.) Your character is, tactically, effective for what she does. That said, I don’t know that I’d see her as a BBEG; certainly, she’s a menace, and assuming she can cheese her Truespeak DCs, she’s a threat.

Spoiler: Marduk-bel-Iziri

Show

• Originality: 4. It’s nice, fluff-wise. A desert-dweller who wishes to return the entire world to a desert state. The build is well-designed around the concept – race, classes, deity, template.
• Power: 4. You’ve got Wizard casting and Cleric casting. You’ve got minionmancy. You’re a powerhouse.
• Elegance: 3. You’re starting with a CR 5 monster, adding class levels (and not in his favored class), and then dumping a template on at the end (courtesy of Walker). Wizard and Cloistered Cleric, together, make you a bit MAD; Wizard and Cleric casting lack synergy, even if they give you power and versatility. And I think you’ve slightly miscalculated your CR; don’t forget, at capstone, you add an additional +3 CR from Dry Lich, as well as the CR from Marrutact and your class levels. Also, don’t his minions add to the encounter CR?
• Concept: 5. Fact is, you’ve got the fluff down pat – he seeks for nature to reclaim the world, at least his definition of nature, and he has the power to make it happen. He has the power, the zeal, and the authority, to cleanse the world of everything that doesn’t meet his definition of nature.
• Total: 16

Comments: I really like this. It’s a classy spin on the “return to nature” beast. It uses Cleric instead of Druid or Ranger, which is a refreshing twist; it uses a monster base, which is uncommon; and the fluff is fantastic. As mentioned above, a desert-dwelling race who wants to turn the world into his idea of nature – a desert. This is a guy who can easily become a BBEG. He has a mission, he has followers, and his zeal is such that he could easily recruit more Marruspawn to his cause. It’s excellent. And on a more personal note, I love the Walker as a villain – thanks to Dry Lich, he’s basically Lord Voldemort. Oh, they cut off his head? That’s nice. That’s step one. What about steps two through ten?

Spoiler: Cullet

Show

• Originality: 4. A Warforged getting back to nature, without turning into a Dinobot? Color me surprised, and pleased. Totemist is a nice class for a savage naturalist, and Reforged is a great way to get a Warforged there. And let’s not forget, they are made partially out of wood.
• Power: 3. You’re no spellcaster, and even with your natural weapons your abilities are primarily DPR-based. Your soulmelds, aside from Enigma Helm, are primarily damage-dealing, which is more or less what you’d expect from Totemist.
• Elegance: 5. One race, two classes. Reforged doesn’t particularly “go” with anything, but it doesn’t have to; it’s a three-level “turn my Warforged into a more ordinary humanoid” class, which does the job it needs to.
• Concept: 4. I’m going to give you this. She’s a techno-organic monstrosity turned against her creators, determined to collapse society. She’s a savage, shamanistic warrior who harnesses bestial spirits to brutally maul her enemies. She doesn’t exactly have the means to cause natural reclamation, but she can take a big bite out of civilization. I dig it.
• Total: 16

Comments: Again, color me impressed. This was a direction I didn’t expect a Warforged to be taken. But they do make good Totemists, due to Warforged Con bonus. And you gave some good thought to which soulmelds would go well with a Reforged. Well done.

Spoiler: Triana, the Husk of Hate

Show

• Originality: 5. She’s the best kind of sympathetic villain – the kind that used to be a friend, until horrific tragedy warped her. I absolutely love it, a friendly, innocent Cleric turned into a rage-fueled monster by a tragic quirk of fate.
• Power: 5. She’s a Cleric with access to 9th-level spells. You’ve put together the means for her to have minionmancy. The PCs are in a boatload of trouble.
• Elegance: 4. Two templates, I start docking points. That said, one race, one class, so that’s simplicity I can appreciate. And Cleric obviously goes well with Illumian.
• Concept: 4. It’s not so much that she wants nature to overtake the world, as she hates the world and loves nature. It’s pretty close to target, but her goals are just a wee bit off.
• Total: 18

Comments: Another Illumian. Why do people thinking “force of nature” think “artificial human?” That said? Wow. I really like this one. Yes, a level 17 Cleric isn’t terribly complex. But using her Turning ability to manage a plant army is a very nice touch. The templates make her even more tragic, turning her from a party friend into a barely-recognizable hate-fueled plant monster. This, I have to say, is a character I would use. I would totally use this. I would make my players cry with this. It’s magnificent.

Spoiler: Lorna, the Mother’s Wrath

Show

• Originality: 3. Greenbound Nymph Druid. The Druid-est Druid who ever did Druid. She’s a tree-formed tree-worshipping tree spirit-thing. A good stacking of flavor. That said, aside from that, it’s basically a straight Druid-with-extras. Her background is simple, too – Nymph gets mad, then gets even. Good, but not great.
• Power: 5. Nymph Druid, full casting. Plus Greenbound bonuses. She’s a powerhouse. We’re done here.
• Elegance: 2. CE is not a valid alignment for a Druid. (She must have a Neutral component.) I don’t like it, but them’s the rules. Aside from that, it’s one race, one template, one class, which isn’t horrible, although Nymph is a potent race and Greenbound a somewhat broken template. My bigger concern is the number of books on which you rely, for a lot of little things.
• Concept: 4. You’ve definitely got a scary lady who murders with the power of nature. She’s got the means to do some damage, and the backstory that explains a hatred of civilization. That said, she seems more enraged on a personal level than on an “I must protect nature” level. Further, she seems less motivated by a cause, and more motivated by Audrey II.
• Total: 14

Comments: First, a technical point. A Nymph is CR 7, Greenbound adds CR +2. With 12 class levels, she’s technically a CR 21, not 20.

Overall, I don’t see her as a major villain. A major encounter, certainly, possibly a recurring one. But I don’t get a sense of someone who has a plan, a substantial goal, and the means to make it a reality; I see someone who’s just killing people, and at some point there’s going to be a tree, and then question marks. I don’t really see where she’s supposed to go with this. Dangerous, you bet, but I’m not getting the BBEG vibe. Frankly, I’d more suspect the evil plant of being the BBEG than her.

Spoiler: Brandeis “the Beneficent”

Show

• Originality: 2. Nymph Druid. You’ve given me a bit of fluff, but not enough. I don’t know who she is, what she does, or why she does it. All you’ve told me is that she has dominion over a forest, where she allows Evil but not property, and that at some point there was a guy named Eric. She’s spreading her forest, I guess. I need more than that.
• Power: 5. Nymph Druid, full casting. She’s a powerhouse. We’re done here.
• Elegance: 2. Nymph Druid. The build is simple, the synergy obvious. Few sources, very clean. My problem is one of rules legality – I’m not convinced that she’s Good. It’s one thing to want peace in your forest, but to knowingly offer haven to Evil creatures, to deliberately take property from others, at a certain point she loses her Goodness. And with it, she will lose her Exalted feats.
• Concept: 3. She’s less “nature’s avenger” and more “hey, here come more trees.” If her goal is simply to spread her forest, and with it her domain, there’s a chance she won’t come into conflict with the PCs at all. If she is, as you say, Good (and Exalted at that), then her views on property don’t matter; if the PCs come to her and point out that she’s hurting people, she has to stop.
• Total: 12

Comments: I’ve given you points because, with a few tweaks, this could be a potent enemy. A mad forest queen who expands her realm and gives succor to Evil within it? Nice. Problem is, you made her Goodness a focus of her design, and that’s just not cricket. She can’t be Good (let alone Exalted) and be an effective villain. That works fine in games with moral ambiguity; D&D is a game of absolute morality. The fact is, it’s almost impossible for an Exalted character to consistently oppose any Good party – by their nature, they’d prefer a nonviolent resolution, and would be hard-pressed to fight the good guys and retain her Exalted abilities. That hurts her, a lot.

Side note, original Maleficent, one of my favorite villainesses of all time. Great image.

Spoiler: Sanna Blackfish

Show

• Originality: 3. Mermaid with storms and whirlpools. It fits nicely together, and you do a good job of giving her a way to build to power innocuously.
• Power: 4. You use two of my favorite words: Control Winds. At the point that she gets that ability, her CL is equal to her ranks in Perform (Sing), 13. At CL 13, that ability is creating a windstorm that endangers ships; in two more levels, a hurricane that sinks them. She may not be that powerful on her own, but this ability alone can crush almost any opponent who attempts to engage her on her home turf. And it’s not the only tool at her disposal.
• Elegance: 3. First off, Squeaky doesn’t add a lot. I get that, as a Bard, she needs a force to multiply, but I just don’t feel him. Second, I think you overused Sea Witch. Curse of the Albatross isn’t going to do a lot for you, and Briny Deep Summoning, while nice, is niche. You’re giving up CL to get it, too. I feel it thematically, but I’m not convinced it adds to your build. Lastly, you’re bringing together an awful lot of sources, some of which, like those I mentioned, don’t give you as much for the inconvenience of throwing another book on the pile.
• Concept: 3. As I saw it, the challenge concept was about fighting back against civilization, aggressively. This character, at best, can be seen as fighting a defensive war – she has the motivation to sink ships that come into her area, but she doesn’t seem to have the motivation (or the ability) to take her war to the shore. Further, her abilities are less “wrath of nature,” and more “fury of the storm, plus some whirlpools” – a bit more generic than I’d like. Lastly, she’s really not much of a BBEG.
• Total: 13

Comments: A villainous mermaid. It’s something I don’t see as often. And I appreciate your attempt to weaponize Sea Witch, a class that has never particularly impressed me. Ultimately, however, this character has a rather glaring flaw – she can be avoided. She isn’t a proactive villain at all; at best, she’s a natural hazard. You could just as easily say that an entire area of ocean has a perpetual hurricane over it, or random whirlpools, and it would have the same effect. She’s not a very effective avenger if she waits for people to come to her to be killed.

As an aside, I liked the flavor of your musically-themed captions. That was a nice touch.

Spoiler: Deadwood

Show

• Originality: 3. Undead Dryad Necromancer. Take a Dryad, an incarnated representation of living wood, kill her, bring her back as a particularly nasty Ghoul, and then expand on the Undead angle. It’s clever. My mind isn’t blown, but it’s nice.
• Power: 3. As you observe, she’s not the most powerful enemy. Her skills do let her use a healthy arsenal of ghouls, and she has good survivability, but she’s hardly the most lethal opponent a group of PCs will face.
• Elegance: 5. One class, one template, excellent synergy. Nothing more need be said.
• Concept: 3. She’s less “nature’s avenger” than she is a generally nature-related murderer. Apart from her backstory, she’s a generic Necromancer; she could be anybody or anything. While her backstory does give her the motivation described in the build challenge, nothing in the build itself – apart from the fact that she is a Dryad – has anything to do with nature. That said, the backstory does a good job for making up for that.
• Total: 14

Comments: First, a technical point, a Dryad is CR 3, a Gravetouched Ghoul adds CR +4, so your starting CR should be 7. With your class levels, that’s a total of CR 23, not 20. I’d also like to note that there were some formatting issues in your “Breakdown by CR” section.

The character herself doesn’t impress me as a BBEG. Certainly, she could be a menace, a sidequest boss or recurring plot element. But I don’t generally see flesh-craving Ghouls as terrible masterminds of over-arching concepts. Further, while she has some survivability, a group of prepared PCs, particularly one with a Cleric, could sweep up her and her minions handily.

A few side comments. First off, I’d like to give a particular tip of my hat to Marduk-bel-Iziri. Although this villain didn’t get my highest score, the concept is absolutely exceptional for a villain. He represents the raw, inevitable force of nature that is the desert, and like the sands, he’s wonderfully unstoppable. As a BBEG, he can provide a DM with exceptional use, because he’s mostly unkillable.

Also, to Triana. Wow. If there’s one thing I love, it’s a tragic villain, and this build delivers it in abundance. More than that, because of the unique circumstances involved, this build design actually creates an alternative means of “defeating” the villain (i.e. finding a cure), at the DM’s discretion. It’s rare that I find a villain who is simultaneously so menacing and so heartbreaking.

Second, I’d like to say how pleasantly surprised I was just how few people went with Druid. As with Warblade in the last competition, Druid was the low-hanging fruit of this competition. It offers easy power and flavor in abundance. I was very pleased with those entries that avoided the easy route, and instead found other, creative ways to be a representation of nature’s wrath. That’s not to disparage those who used Druid – they were all good builds. But I enjoy seeing unexpected ideas pop up in these threads. On a related point, some of the race choices – Marrutact and Merfolk in particular – struck me as uniquely clever, given the prompt. They fit, but you wouldn’t have expected it.

Lastly, I just want to emphasize the high quality of the submissions in this competition. These were some very excellent submissions, and not a disappointment among them. Well done, all of you.

[sakuuya]

Hooray, judging! And it's always nice when a judge actually likes the builds, regardless of scores. Thanks, Red Fel!

Build	Score	Place
Triana, the Husk of Hate	18	1st
Marduk-bel-Iziri	16	2nd
Cullet	16	2nd
Lorna, the Mother's Wrath	14	4th
Deadwood	14	4th
Melissa, the Huntress	13	6th
Sanna Blackfish	13	6th
Brandeis “the Beneficent”	12	8th

[Gwachitallemall]

Got our first dispute:

Spoiler: Deadwood

Show

Ok, this is gonna be long. You have been warned. First, some general stuff:

I'm using the gravetouched ghoul template from libris mortis (page 103-105) which is +1 CR. Sorry for not being clear about that, I just kind of assumed GG was a well known template in optimization. Probably a case of home blindness; I spent alot of time thinking about it so I assumed everyone else does too (maybe there are people who do not count undead sheep before going to not-sleep?)

Regarding flesh-craving ghouls not generally being seen as masterminds of over-arching concepts, that's probably true, but that doesn't mean they can't. It's something you don't see every day, but the tools are all there: being undead gives you all the time in the world, gravetouched ghoul gives you a bonus to int, wis and cha, and you have the ability to make infinite minions at almost no resource cost (except lvl 1 humanoids and a place to keep them while they stew). And she has charm and suggestion (as well as entangle and deep slumber) to capture those mortals if she needs to make some more. And because she's highly mobile (due to travel domain), she can go where she needs to be to set up her next strike force. AND she has the mechanics to set up one of the most famous thought experiments in TO: the wightocalypse! But you can do it with ghouls instead, which means that instead of waking up one day to find out civilization went away, the PCs get a chance to stop it! Or you can do it with wights, because, hey, necromancer (summon undead 5, even if the wight you summon disapears, the people it killed doesn't)!

The mechanics are all there to make for a mastermind/BBEG, and there are few limitations to stop her. I think she compares pretty favorably to a vampire, actually. They can both create minions of their victims, they are both immortal, and they are both dependant on humanoids for physical sustenance. Deadwood doesn't have the power of a vampire, but on the other hand she's vulnerable to high level clerics and vampires are vulnerable to spicy food and nice weather. Ok, in your average campaign, it's a bit of a tossup which is is more rare, but my point is the possibility def exists for a ghoul mastermind. I hope your opinion that ghouls don't normally make BBEGs didn't cause you to rate her lower.

This brings me to what I actually want to dispute (sorry, I tend to ramble): I feel that, considering the power rankings for the other non-druid builds, Deadwood is rated too low. You rated Sanna a 4 for power, and rated deadwood a 3; the same as Melissa and Cullet. While Deadwood doesn't have the arcane might of the T1 casters, she has fairly respectable T3 casting, combined with some of the most useful spells in the game through travel domain, as well as some great ways to indirectly fight her enemies. She can blast (yeah, I know, but it's an option!), create minions and use a decent selection of save-or-lose spells. AND she has access to planar binding... yes, it's tricky to use, and she will have to pay a price, but it can add some unexpected abilities to her side when needed. More importantly, she can put out 2 spells per round for much of the fight, which means that even a prepared party is likely to fail some saves, and if it looks like that's not happening, she has good escapes (an extremely useful ability for something that should be able to become a returning villain).

While in a straight up fight she's probably about as powerful as Cullen or Melissa, I feel that her strategic abilities are superior, and at least on part with Sannas. Control winds is powerful, but starting infections of undead at multiple sites has greater potential to actually make an impact in the campaign world.

Finally, you made the comment that a party could wipe out "her and her ghouls", so I'm wondering if you assumed that the only minions she will have is some regular 4HD ghouls? She has undead mastery: at her sweet spot, without any charisma boosting items, she can controll 80HD of undead from animate dead (4+cha bonus of 6, per DN level). These can't infect mortals, so she can use them as bodyguards instead. Then there are summons. She's a minionmancer, after all. These minions are pretty much meat shields and brutes, but there are lots of them, and they can block the path of PCs and take down those who fail their saves against her crowd control.

[Gwachitallemall]

2 More Disputes:

Spoiler: Lorna

Show

Thanks for taking the time to judge this contest again.

Firstly, I had always assumed that the nymph stat block was simply a misprint. 6 hit dice, with a 6th level skill block and level 7 casting didn't make any sense. I always assumed that Nymphs were supposed to be a CR 6 with 6th level spells, and built it accordingly. WotC monster blocks are notorious for their unaddressed inaccuracies so I didn't think anything of it.

Secondly, you're right about the alignment, and I posted it in full knowledge of what the PHB says. However, I have also taken the time to construct a multi-faceted defense to explain the reasons for making her as I did, and it's this:

-The druid PHB fluff is stupid.

To elaborate: tearing down civilization so that nature can thrive is an exceedingly common trope amongst druids all over WotC's history with D&D. It's also exactly the opposite of preserving balance, and any creature who has that goal, for the purposes of this contest at least, abandons their claim to neutrality.

I stand by my decision, and accept the judgments that it earns.


And finally, you're right about the plant.

When I first started work on this concept (which was well before this round of the contest had been announced) I statted the Mother Seed as an advanced Demonthorn Mandrake using Elder Evils. Lorna would represent the facet of that threat the party was dealing with until it came time for the endgame, which would require destroying the tree at it's roots.

Unfortunately, since this contest required a recurring villain, the Mother Seed was not suitable for entry, thus I used Lorna instead.

Anyone wishing to use just her in a campaign can easily adapt out the entire Mother Seed aspect, by simply refluffing the voice as part of Lorna's own psychosis that adapted in order to help her cope with the trauma she endured.

In other words, she was tortured, and went insane.

You can still use a giant tree as part of the endgame by having Lorna research a homebrew spell (involving Plant Growth), or you can simply have the endgame be her on the march with her forces at her back, laying waste to everything they encounter. Time and a judicious application of Handle Animal can make for some wonderful minionmancy.

And the second one..

Spoiler: Melissa

Show

All right, here's my list of disputes:

Originality: How is a stereotypical Egyptian mummy more original than someone who wants to go around telling the universe to behave itself because people are screwing it up?

Power: I'm an illumian with the int sigil and an int bonus and I know what a magic item is. If I have a greater amulet of the silver tongue and a truespeak masterwork item, I don't need a 14 to utter, I need a minus three. If I have precisely zilch in the way of items, I need a nine. If I get a competence item, I might need as little as minus thirteen (or even less if I fork out a lot - I wasn't really using my money anyway), and that's way, way before the paragnostic assembly or any of the other little tricks I can use get involved, and still ends up as minus four at twentieth level with no more help but my INT boosts. If I - being as I be the one, the only, the Big Bad - have the same WBL as a PC, I can afford a Greater Amulet of the Silver Tongue and a competence item and a masterwork tool; if I have to stick with my NPC levels then I need a whopping minus three to use an utterance.

Ignoring a truenamer's GaotST is like ignoring a wizard's spellbook.

I also don't know why you think ranger is tier three. Ranger and a properly-handled truenamer are both tier 4. But if you're going to gimp everyone who doesn't play a full caster, well, I guess that's on you, but really now? You shouldn't measure based on picking a high tier, you should measure based on how well the build functions for the class's tier. It's not hard to make a wizard that's better than a commoner crafted by Tippy himself, but that commoner is probably a lot more impressive power-wise. Surely, getting a ranger/truenamer functional, let alone a dark reminder of what tucker's kobolds would be like with class levels, deserves more credit?

Concept: The concept was a character who was like "Oh hey, you guys went and screwed up nature. Hey, universe, change back to the way you should be." And illumians aren't exactly artificial humans; they're humans who have changed from the normal type of humans to the way they believe that humans ought to be. Melissa's entire character concept is someone who attempts to fix nature by undoing the damage done by humans, which was in fact implied pretty much everywhere.