Iron Chef Optimisation Challenge in the Playground LXIX

[dysprosium]

Well this round sure looks like it will be interesting . . .

I hope to be able to enter this one.

[Deadasadoor]

As I seem to be in a bit of an Iron Chef slump (my last few dishes have all been fairly mediocre) and I have little interest in this ingredient due to how restrictive it is, I think I'll be sitting this one out. Good luck to the chefs!

[KrimsonNekros]

Got my idea hacked out for this one, and most of the table done now.

[samduke]

well while I have what could be an entry by the preset conditions outlined I feel that they are to restrictive and makes it nigh impossible to get a score of 5 so I am not going to build this round, do not think I would judge either as this SI is ripe for disputes. so sitting it out to see if the next one is this crazy.

[Venger]

against my better judgement, I am going to cook.

[Zaq]

Just so we're all on the same page, "Expertise" means Combat Expertise, right?

Not convinced I'm going to cook this round (the harsh restrictions on classes kind of threaten to suck all the fun out of this, especially if it's any indication of what the judging is going to be like), but in the event that I get inspired, I want to make sure that I'm working with the same assumptions about the prereqs as everyone else is.

[Venger]

Just so we're all on the same page, "Expertise" means Combat Expertise, right?

Not convinced I'm going to cook this round (the harsh restrictions on classes kind of threaten to suck all the fun out of this, especially if it's any indication of what the judging is going to be like), but in the event that I get inspired, I want to make sure that I'm working with the same assumptions about the prereqs as everyone else is.

yah, expertise was updated to combat expertise in the 3.0>3.5 transition, which is in play with all OA material in iron chef, including the SI.

probably a good call, all things considered. this ingredient is killing me.

[Heliomance]

Just so we're all on the same page, "Expertise" means Combat Expertise, right?

Not convinced I'm going to cook this round (the harsh restrictions on classes kind of threaten to suck all the fun out of this, especially if it's any indication of what the judging is going to be like), but in the event that I get inspired, I want to make sure that I'm working with the same assumptions about the prereqs as everyone else is.

Yes, it does.

[dysprosium]

Looking back I don't think that I have ever been critiqued by Curmudgeon before. Assuming I can get my entry in on time, this would be the first time.

[Vaz]

if I can come up with a good enough story, then yes I will emter.

Are the Rokugan books for 3.0/3.5 available for use with this? And in regards to Samurai, does it matter which are used; OA or CW, or are they considered two seperate classes sharing the same name?

[Heliomance]

if I can come up with a good enough story, then yes I will emter.

Are the Rokugan books for 3.0/3.5 available for use with this? And in regards to Samurai, does it matter which are used; OA or CW, or are they considered two seperate classes sharing the same name?

No, the Rokugan books other than Oriental Adventures are third party and thus not allowed. As for the Samurai, I personally don't mind, but I suspect that the RAW is that the CW version, sharing its name with the OA version, is the offical update, and thus the OA version doesn't exist. Curmudgeon, is that correct?

[Darrin]

As for the Samurai, I personally don't mind, but I suspect that the RAW is that the CW version, sharing its name with the OA version, is the offical update, and thus the OA version doesn't exist. Curmudgeon, is that correct?

Before Curmudgeon weighs in... Complete Warrior was printed in December 2003. Dragon Magazine #318 was printed in April 2004. There is text in the Dragon article to update the Samurai class, which suggests a change to the Ancestral Daisho ability so that a 4th level Samurai wielding his katana/wakizashi can consider his attacks "honorable" to bypass the DR of certain creatures. Since this class ability only exists on the OA Samurai, then I would consider this a clear indication that the designers intended the OA Samurai to be used in the Rokugan setting rather than the Complete Warrior version.

[dysprosium]

I was going to say that if I remembered correctly that the Dragon update for Oriental Adventures had something about the Samurai class, which would imply that the two classes are distinctly different.

Darrin had the specifics at the ready though.

[Curmudgeon]

Before Curmudgeon weighs in... Complete Warrior was printed in December 2003. Dragon Magazine #318 was printed in April 2004. There is text in the Dragon article to update the Samurai class, which suggests a change to the Ancestral Daisho ability so that a 4th level Samurai wielding his katana/wakizashi can consider his attacks "honorable" to bypass the DR of certain creatures. Since this class ability only exists on the OA Samurai, then I would consider this a clear indication that the designers intended the OA Samurai to be used in the Rokugan setting rather than the Complete Warrior version.

The D&D authors tended to reuse names, with context providing the distinction. For instance, there is an Improved Combat Reflexes [Epic] feat, and also an Improved Combat Reflexes feat (Dragon # 340, page 87). While the Samurai (Rokugan) was updated after the Samurai (Complete Warrior, pages 8-11), the Shugenja (Rokugan) was updated before the Shugenja (Complete Divine, pages 10-14). There's a Mountebank base class (Dragon Compendium, pages 42-45) and a Mountebank prestige class (Complete Scoundrel, pages 57-60).

There's no general rule about what to do here. The later update for the Rokugan Samurai would clear that class for use in a Rokugan setting, whereas the Rokugan-specific language in the class would make it clash in other settings. However, the Rokugan Shugenja being updated before the Complete Divine Shugenja would make the Rokugan Shugenja iffy even in Rokugan. (The CD Shugenja has language suggesting it's best suited to Oriental settings like Rokugan.)

[Amphetryon]

Clearly, someone needs to go OA Samurai/CW Samurai/SI 10/Master Samurai

[Darrin]

There's no general rule about what to do here.

You don't appear to be endorsing any particular interpretation. Are you saying that both Samurai classes, so long as they are properly identified, and cross-campaign issues are adequately explained/supported in the backstory, would be legal and not incur a penalty?

[dysprosium]

Clearly, someone needs to go OA Samurai/CW Samurai/SI 10/Master Samurai

You took my idea!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Curmudgeon]

You don't appear to be endorsing any particular interpretation. Are you saying that both Samurai classes, so long as they are properly identified, and cross-campaign issues are adequately explained/supported in the backstory, would be legal and not incur a penalty?

Because there's no general rule to handle this update case (setting-specific class followed by general class followed by setting-specific class update), you could justify use of either Samurai in Rokugan (but not both in the same character, as Amphetryon sarcastically helpfully pointed out). However, mixing content from multiple settings might be penalized in the Elegance category, even with explanations; that's up to each individual judge^* to decide. I personally wouldn't do so, but I put the bar for adequate explanation moderately high. If you've got a simple build I don't require any story. If you need to include a story, you should make it both readable and worth reading.

^* - Just because I've volunteered to judge is no reason for everyone else to give this a pass. I think a competition is better with multiple judges. Come on, you slackers! Now would be the perfect time to list judging criteria at cross-purposes to mine, and give all the contestants headaches!

[Venger]

^* - Just because I've volunteered to judge is no reason for everyone else to give this a pass. I think a competition is better with multiple judges. Come on, you slackers! Now would be the perfect time to list judging criteria at cross-purposes to mine, and give all the contestants headaches!

Joking aside, this is the reason I don't think we're gonna have any judges besides Darrin. people are unlikely to judge when they think their opinions will be counteracted. (no judgements, just a prediction)

[A_S]

Eh, screw it. I'm in to judge; I've always meant to and I got no big time-consuming plans for the near future.

-----

Criteria:

Each category will start with a default score of 3.0. Bonuses will be added to this based on exceptionally good features; penalties will accrue based on problems. Generally, the size of bonuses/penalties for a single feature will range from +/-0.25 for minor features, to +/-1.0 for SICK TRICKS or plan-derailing flaws; there may be exceptions for extreme cases.

Spoiler: Originality

Show

• Does the build use classes or races that are unexpected?
• Does the build showcase a trick, synergy, etc. that I haven't seen before?
• Is the build overly reliant on "known cheese?" Builds won't be penalized for taking strong options just because they're commonly taken (e.g., I'm not taking points away from stealth builds for taking Darkstalker), but if your only tricks are well known optimization staples, expect penalties.
• Note: I will not be penalizing based on how many of a given race or class appear in this particular competition.

Spoiler: Power

Show

• Is the build a mechanically effective example of its general build type? Power will be judged according to what kind of character the build is (so Wizard builds will be judged relative to other Wizards, while chargers will be judged relative to other charger builds).
• Is the build overly reliant on resources it may not have access to (e.g., frequent rests to constantly use nova powers, specific equipment that may not be available, etc.)?
• Can the build meaningfully contribute to gameplay when its favorite tricks aren't appropriate?
• Note: Please (briefly) explain how your tricks work to me! I might be able to immediately see the synergy among all your build choices, but then again, I might not. You're likely to have the power of your build reckoned higher if you make sure I know what's so good about combining X and Y.

Spoiler: Elegance

Show

• Do the class levels, feats, etc. line up nicely? Bonuses may be applied for builds where everything fits together neatly; penalties may result from, e.g., feats taken many levels before they become useful.
• Does the build qualify for everything it takes? Expect a penalty for each failure to qualify (but see also Use of the Secret Ingredient if you don't qualify for that).
• Does the build rely on any questionable rules interpretations? If so, it may accrue penalties accordingly. Convincingly making the case for the required rules interpretation (or arguing why the build is still functional under different interpretations) may reduce or eliminate these penalties.
• Does the fluff line up with the crunch? Is the build you serve actually good at the things that the character is presented as being good at in their fluff?
• Does the build use material designed for mutually exclusive settings? Note that just coming from a setting-specific source book won't necessarily trigger this penalty, but actually setting-specific material (e.g., using both Dragonmarks and Initiate of Mystra) will.
• Is the presentation and fluff exceptionally good? I won't be penalizing based on missing or poor fluff, but small bonuses may be awarded for particularly good fluff.
• Note: I will not be penalizing for dipping or for multiclass XP penalties.

Spoiler: Use of the Secret Ingredient

Show

• Does the build take all levels of the secret ingredient? No bonus will be awarded for doing so, but penalties will be assigned for not doing so. By default, these penalties will be -.25 for missing 1-2 levels, -.5 for missing 3-4 levels, and -1 for missing 5 or more levels. However, these penalties may be reduced or negated if an argument is made for why skipping those levels helps your build use the secret ingredient better than it would otherwise have been able to.
• Do you make good use of the class features of the secret ingredient? Did you just use them as obviously intended, or have you found other stuff to combine them with that makes them shine more than they do on their own?
• Do you make good use of the requirements of the secret ingredient? Did you find a silver lining in the things you had to use as prerequisites, or are they just sitting around in your build for qualification purposes and then ignored?
• Note: Any build which fails to qualify for the secret ingredient will automatically receive a score of 1 in this category, regardless of other factors.

Specific rulings for this competition:

• I will consider Humanoid (Human) races to qualify as human for purposes of meeting prerequisites. By my reading, the relevant verbiage from the second paragraph in the variant rule sidebar on p.150 of Races of Destiny refers to general rules, not to part of the variant rule described in that sidebar; essentially, I agree with Piggy Knowles' interpretation here. I understand that Curmudgeon disagrees; such is life. *edit* Already ruled on by the chairperson.
• The secret ingredient is, itself, Rokugan-specific material. Thus, using any of the base classes which are banned in the Rokugan setting will constitute material from multiple settings, and will be penalized accordingly under Elegance. However, I will not be considering it a failure to qualify for the secret ingredient, as I consider this a fluff conflict rather than a mechanical failure to meet prerequisites.

[Venger]

Eh, screw it. I'm in to judge; I've always meant to and I got no big time-consuming plans for the near future.

great, thanks a million, criteria look great. thanks for not slamming us in the originality for doubling on race in a race specific ingredient. and classes too. since the competition's anonymous, I never really agreed with that, so it's nice to see a judge have a similar interpretation

re: power, you mention undue reliance on equipment.

does this mean the iron chef standard of "your character is naked at all times, if you mention so much as a +stat item, you have ruined your chances of medaling" or is it less stringent? I want to know where the line falls for you, if you'd be so kind. what is undue in your evaluation?

what level of explanation of tricks/combos would you like? in my earlier work, I tended to make my strategy writeups too long, so people wouldn't read them. is just a mention good, or would you prefer a step-by-step thing or something else?

I can't think of a way to ask this without sounding stupid, so I'll just throw it out there:
what do you mean by "fluff/crunch must line up" do we need to mention all our feats in our story? should we not mention any fluff thing our guy can't do? do you mean we should stick with the suggested setting? something else?

Specific rulings for this competition:[list][*]I will consider Humanoid (Human) races to qualify as human for purposes of meeting prerequisites. By my reading, the relevant verbiage from the second paragraph in the variant rule sidebar on p.150 of Races of Destiny refers to general rules, not to part of the variant rule described in that sidebar; essentially, I agree with Piggy Knowles' interpretation here. I understand that Curmudgeon disagrees; such is life.

psst, the chair ruled that this is the case already:

Okay, having now had a chance to look at Races of Destiny and seen that it claims that giving half-human races the human subtype

I'm going to say that the Human subtype counts as being Human for all intents and purposes. That said, you will need to have a VERY good reason why a non vanilla human is a member of the Phoenix clan, being taught their special techniques.

so don't worry, no one will be dinged for this

uotsi's gonna be rough this round since almost everything is passive.

[A_S]

Thanks for the feedback, Venger.

re: power, you mention undue reliance on equipment.

does this mean the iron chef standard of "your character is naked at all times, if you mention so much as a +stat item, you have ruined your chances of medaling" or is it less stringent? I want to know where the line falls for you, if you'd be so kind. what is undue in your evaluation?

Nothing so scary as assumption of constant nudity! D&D is balanced around WBL; I assume characters have access to a reasonable variety of equipment at most times. I would penalize builds that require extremely specific or not-quite-RAW equipment to function.

For instance, back in the day, I remember a build whose main schtick was projecting itself through a pair of Ring Gates. If it didn't have access to a pair of Ring Gates, its main tricks didn't work. That build would receive a penalty in Power from me. So would a build whose main trick relied on hitting epic skill check DC's that could only be met reliably if the DM OK'ed a custom Competence bonus skill item.

If a build is so non-reliant on equipment that it's able to do everything it does naked, that level of adaptability might merit a bonus in Power. But I'm not going to be penalizing sword-fighters for needing a sword, or spellcasters for needing a component pouch.

what level of explanation of tricks/combos would you like? in my earlier work, I tended to make my strategy writeups too long, so people wouldn't read them. is just a mention good, or would you prefer a step-by-step thing or something else?

I'm not sure I can give a catch-all answer to this one; it's going to depend on the trick. If it's something very simple, like "I have a bunch of ways to apply fear effects, and stacking fear effects is good," then a sentence plus a list of the things that go together is probably enough. If the trick only works because of an interaction between obscure rule wordings that I might not know about, it might merit a couple paragraphs worth of explanation (like, if I didn't already know how the d2 Crusader worked, that's the kind of thing that would probably need some explanatory text).

I probably don't need pages and pages of text, though. Something between a sentence and a paragraph or two for a given trick should suffice. Even just a couple bullet points for totally obvious tricks.

I can't think of a way to ask this without sounding stupid, so I'll just throw it out there:
what do you mean by "fluff/crunch must line up" do we need to mention all our feats in our story? should we not mention any fluff thing our guy can't do? do you mean we should stick with the suggested setting? something else?

I mean that the build as presented should be mechanically good at the things that the character is presented as being good at in the fluff. So, if you tell me a story about a master swordsman, you should serve up a build that is exceptionally good at dealing damage with a sword. If your story is about a holy man so pure and wise that the elements themselves willingly serve his whim, then he'd better be able to do some cool elemental magic. Basically, don't repeat the mistake of the Monk class, and make a badass martial artist who is actually terrible at martial arts.

psst, the chair ruled that this is the case already:

Whoops, I missed that ruling! Thanks for the update.

-----

Updating my criteria post to be a little clearer about this stuff now.

[Venger]

Thanks for the feedback, Venger.

happy to do it. thanks for taking it so well, I really appreciate it.

Nothing so scary as assumption of constant nudity! D&D is balanced around WBL; I assume characters have access to a reasonable variety of equipment at most times. I would penalize builds that require extremely specific or not-quite-RAW equipment to function.

god I wish that were the case. I've gotten slammed many times early on for not having a naked ability high enough to take a feat or similar, because apparently +stat items are something that you can't reasonably be expected to buy for your governing stat. oh, okay, great, thanks.

For instance, back in the day, I remember a build whose main schtick was projecting itself through a pair of Ring Gates. If it didn't have access to a pair of Ring Gates, its main tricks didn't work. That build would receive a penalty in Power from me. So would a build whose main trick relied on hitting epic skill check DC's that could only be met reliably if the DM OK'ed a custom Competence bonus skill item.

gross. well don't worry (spoiler alert: my dish won't do any of those things)

If a build is so non-reliant on equipment that it's able to do everything it does naked, that level of adaptability might merit a bonus in Power. But I'm not going to be penalizing sword-fighters for needing a sword, or spellcasters for needing a component pouch.

that's at best unlikely with a mundane ingredient, but good to know.

I'm not sure I can give a catch-all answer to this one; it's going to depend on the trick. If it's something very simple, like "I have a bunch of ways to apply fear effects, and stacking fear effects is good," then a sentence plus a list of the things that go together is probably enough. If the trick only works because of an interaction between obscure rule wordings that I might not know about, it might merit a couple paragraphs worth of explanation (like, if I didn't already know how the d2 Crusader worked, that's the kind of thing that would probably need some explanatory text).

I probably don't need pages and pages of text, though. Something between a sentence and a paragraph or two for a given trick should suffice. Even just a couple bullet points for totally obvious tricks.

fair enough. thanks, that's basically what I needed to know.

I mean that the build as presented should be mechanically good at the things that the character is presented as being good at in the fluff. So, if you tell me a story about a master swordsman, you should serve up a build that is exceptionally good at dealing damage with a sword. If your story is about a holy man so pure and wise that the elements themselves willingly serve his whim, then he'd better be able to do some cool elemental magic. Basically, don't repeat the mistake of the Monk class, and make a badass martial artist who is actually terrible at martial arts.

oh, okay, great. you understand why I wanted to ask, right? it's just hard to phrase it right. sounds reasonable to me.

Whoops, I missed that ruling! Thanks for the update.

-----
Updating my criteria post to be a little clearer about this stuff now.

sure thing!I want you up to date, and I know these threads move fast.

[A_S]

The Ring Gate build was actually super cool, but I'd still have had to penalize it .

[Occasional Sage]

And on the gripping hand, I am not going to win that argument.

Thank you for that. Motie references need to happen more.

[Venger]

The Ring Gate build was actually super cool, but I'd still have had to penalize it .

nothing in the world is more heartbreaking to me than looking at old iron chef dishes and seeing all the tables being broken.

[A_S]

nothing in the world is more heartbreaking to me than looking at old iron chef dishes and seeing all the tables being broken.

I knoooooooooowwwwwwww........

*gross cry*

[Venger]

I knoooooooooowwwwwwww........

*gross cry*

Let's make that a goal by the end of the year. same as how ponies did the archive.

maybe we could just do it by request (at least at first) for greats like gazebo jones or whoever since there are billions of dishes. we could break it up on a volunteer basis and assign people to rounds like the dysfunctional rules handbook thread.

[A_S]

Let's make that a goal by the end of the year. same as how ponies did the archive.

maybe we could just do it by request (at least at first) for greats like gazebo jones or whoever since there are billions of dishes. we could break it up on a volunteer basis and assign people to rounds like the dysfunctional rules handbook thread.

I could actually probably write a script that would convert old tables into new tables. If it turns out to be too much of a pain, we can always man-hour it up. But the automated route is at least worth looking into. I'll get back to you.

*edit* Done with the quick and dirty version. PM'ing you.

[Darrin]

I could actually probably write a script that would convert old tables into new tables. If it turns out to be too much of a pain, we can always man-hour it up. But the automated route is at least worth looking into. I'll get back to you.

*edit* Done with the quick and dirty version. PM'ing you.

If we're going to fix all the old entries... should we post those to the original thread or start a new thread? Probably something we should clarify with the Mods.