Villainous Competition XX​I: Yarr!

[Hackulator]

So I feel like the ban on leadership prevents us from being a pirate captain, am I wrong on this, or can we just be assumed to have hirelings if we want to go the captain route?

[danielxcutter]

So I feel like the ban on leadership prevents us from being a pirate captain, am I wrong on this, or can we just be assumed to have hirelings if we want to go the captain route?

It's possible to have allies without them, so probably the latter.

[AvatarVecna]

So I feel like the ban on leadership prevents us from being a pirate captain, am I wrong on this, or can we just be assumed to have hirelings if we want to go the captain route?

In the OP, there is the following quote:



This existed in the default text before I took over the chair position, and I'd never really noticed how relatively vague and broad this is.

I prefer the wording in the Iron Chef posts:



My personal interpretation, in terms of the Villainous Competition, is that there is a hard ban on the feats Leadership, Undead Leadership and Dragon Cohort. Wild Cohort is a more grey area, but I've allowed it in the past. Any other, similar feats I have forgotten about are on a case by case basis. Assume if they are quite similar to the specifically listed feats, they are also banned.

I'll specify, due to some enquiries I've had, that the " all similar abilities" clause in the OP, is somewhat relaxed here, so if a class granted an ability that allows some kind of followers, but not specifically granting one of the banned feats, it is OK.

From next comp onwards, I will be modifying the text in the OP to better reflect what I believe is fair and reasonable.

I've bolded the part of Thurbane's post that seems relevant to me. Given that the Dread Pirate PrC (hopefully it doesn't count as too much speculation to mention that building a Dread Pirate is a possibility in a Pirate-themed contest) gets a Leadership-esque ability as a class feature, and the ruling seems to call out class feature based Leadership as being acceptable, I think that allowing this kind of thing is an intended part of the ruling here.

[Tiri]

If Dread Pirate's Leadership-esque ability (followers only) is allowed, then I would argue a class that granted Leadership outright should be allowed to have it work in this way (followers only). It's still removing the most powerful part of the feat, and it means that the class's original power is not so reduced, especially when compared to a class with a Leadership-like ability that is not Leadership, like the Dread Pirate.

[daremetoidareyo]

Its wierd that we're discussing leadership for this competition and zero reference has been made of the one aspect that tanked a build in the last competition that is thematically appropriate for this comp and sheds light on the leadership rule of needing more nuance.

Great captain feat. It requires leadership and offers a unique ability that has nothing to do with any of the benefits of the leadership feat. It shares this distinction with literally one other feat with a leadership pre-req, blood of the warlord from races of faerun.

Copying the text from iron chef is a great way to avoid belaboring this point further while allowing thematically appropriate character design without requiring judges to preside over a melange of characters in a single entry instead of a singleton.

[Hackulator]

Should we have items, or generally not since these are monsters/CR based entries?

[daremetoidareyo]

Should we have items, or generally not since these are monsters/CR based entries?

Judges hate items. Post them if you can think of them anyway so they get over it eventually.

[Buufreak]

Should we have items, or generally not since these are monsters/CR based entries?

Judges hate items. Post them if you can think of them anyway so they get over it eventually.

Judges hate reliance on items. Especially me. If your build doesn't work without the items listed, then the build doesn't work.

My 2 cents, anyways.

[daremetoidareyo]

Judges hate reliance on items. Especially me. If your build doesn't work without the items listed, then the build doesn't work.

My 2 cents, anyways.

I see this. But as someone who prefers martials over magic users, that means magic users get a bump in power inherent to their base class choice while martials get hit in elegance for level appropriate gear.

[remetagross]

I see this. But as someone who prefers martials over magic users, that means magic users get a bump in power inherent to their base class choice while martials get hit in elegance for level appropriate gear.

It depends. A Wizard villain that is not supposed to rely on items has to content with a meager four spells in his spellbook per spell level, since he cannot rely on bought scrolls or other non-free means to improve his spellbook.

[daremetoidareyo]

It depends. A Wizard villain that is not supposed to rely on items has to content with a meager four spells in his spellbook per spell level, since he cannot rely on bought scrolls or other non-free means to improve his spellbook.

That seems like less of a travesty than having no absolutely no means of hitting an incorporeal enemy and zero recourse for adjusting that. And mentioning a tried and true option for accomodating that weakness means your score goes down?

Meanwhile, having a class feature like tower shield proficiency or heavy armor proficiency be actively weighed against a dish for deigning to suggest an optimal piece of equipment to fit into that slot. It's like being allowed to have spell slots but getting penalized for choosing what actually goes into those slots.

The "reliance"-on-items metric for a judge perpetuates caster supremacy, even in the pony show of build creation. 4 spells known per level for a wizard isn't even close to that level of constraint. Especially if you compare that contest limitation to sorcerers (no know stones, oh NO!!! However shall that builder be content?)

[AvatarVecna]

It depends. A Wizard villain that is not supposed to rely on items has to content with a meager four spells in his spellbook per spell level, since he cannot rely on bought scrolls or other non-free means to improve his spellbook.

Collegiate Wizard and/or Greyhawk Method (depending on if you think they stack or not) combined with Elven Generalist gives you quite a few extra spells in your spellbook...not that this is a particularly significant limitation. A recent thread had a poster put forth the idea that a Wizard 20 with literally nothing worth mentioning except Shapechange and Astral Projection is a great deal more powerful than all but perhaps the most optimized Fighter builds. At lower levels, the same is probably true of a Wizard with Scrying, Teleport, and Polymorph to a certain extent. While it's taking me some time to hunt down ATM, I recall putting together a pretty decent Wizard spellbook with nothing but the base number of spells all chosen from Core, that still had a significant amount of blasting, BFC, buffing, debuffing, and utility, and didn't even touch summoning spells except for Gate.

A pennyless wizard who can't turn cash into extra spells in their spellbook is still a mother****ing wizard. A fighter who can't turn cash into magic items is, in many respects, about as capable against high-level enemies as a commoner would be...unless they've used Leadership to pick up a Wizard cohort, I suppose.

EDIT: A Post of mine from another thread unrelated to spellbook size:

The minimum number of spells necessary to be flexible enough that you can T1 your way through things? Hmm...Command Undead, Animate Dead, Polymorph, Scrying, Teleport, and Contingency should do well. If you absolutely had to do it with three, I'd probably say Polymorph, Scrying, and Teleport: Scrying lets you gather information far in advance, giving you a bit of time to research possible specialized spells for defeating the foe in question (or at least specialized Polymorph forms for the same purpose), Teleport (particularly combined with Scrying) gives you greater control over the circumstances the fight will take place in, and Polymorph lets you play a giant game of Rock Paper Scissors where you get to make your choice after seeing your opponents. It won't always be perfect, but it doesn't have to be. But being T1, to my understanding, means having lots of different combos at various levels you could pull off for these three categories. I'm off to put together a few spells lists.

A post later in that same thread has a list of Core-only spells, separated out by level and by what category they really help with. There's some spells that are present in multiple categories because they're particularly useful, powerful, or flexible spells, but I have a feeling that you could squeeze all of them into the same spellbook (haven't checked yet, but I will soon, just to be sure).

[Buufreak]

Collegiate Wizard and/or Greyhawk Method (depending on if you think they stack or not) combined with Elven Generalist...

... which is just enough copy/pasta wizardry to tank an originality score to oblivion.

On the question of martials needing equipment, I've done my best to judge the power/competence bit far closer to the later. You are a full caster? You better really bring some a-game. Martial? Show me exactly what you can do beyond hitting with a shiny stick.

[AvatarVecna]

... which is just enough copy/pasta wizardry to tank an originality score to oblivion.

On the question of martials needing equipment, I've done my best to judge the power/competence bit far closer to the later. You are a full caster? You better really bring some a-game. Martial? Show me exactly what you can do beyond hitting with a shiny stick.

And as the rest of my post is pointing out, that's only necessary if you can't be satisfied with your basic 2 per level, which is more than enough to create a highly versatile and powerful mage.

EDIT: Besides, if that's how you're doing Originality (that is, originality of individual mechanics as far as thinktank goes), it becomes a choice between using stuff that comes up a lot in theorycrafting (and probably end up fairly eh at best power-wise), or use the things that are known to be good and abandon part of your originality to get some decent power. Part of why, when I'm judging, Originality is more about villain concepts than individual mechanics, to avoid making people pick between a rock and a hard place, or forcing them to find a path to significant power that's weird enough that it's rarely been done before in an edition that's practically old enough to drive a car.

[remetagross]

That seems like less of a travesty than having no absolutely no means of hitting an incorporeal enemy and zero recourse for adjusting that. And mentioning a tried and true option for accomodating that weakness means your score goes down?

Meanwhile, having a class feature like tower shield proficiency or heavy armor proficiency be actively weighed against a dish for deigning to suggest an optimal piece of equipment to fit into that slot. It's like being allowed to have spell slots but getting penalized for choosing what actually goes into those slots.

The "reliance"-on-items metric for a judge perpetuates caster supremacy, even in the pony show of build creation. 4 spells known per level for a wizard isn't even close to that level of constraint. Especially if you compare that contest limitation to sorcerers (no know stones, oh NO!!! However shall that builder be content?)

Fair enough, though all builds are generally considered to be stuffed with the big 6 magic items. That includes magic weapons, so that's for dealing with incorporeal foes. On the other hand, relying on very specific items, I can understand being frown on. Be that an Amulet of Ooze Riding or a scroll of some obscure 3.0 Oriental Adventures spell. Sure, a Wizard can pick it as a free level-up spell, but then that means renouncing to one of the must-have spells of that level.

[Buufreak]

And as the rest of my post is pointing out, that's only necessary if you can't be satisfied with your basic 2 per level, which is more than enough to create a highly versatile and powerful mage.

EDIT: Besides, if that's how you're doing Originality (that is, originality of individual mechanics as far as thinktank goes), it becomes a choice between using stuff that comes up a lot in theorycrafting (and probably end up fairly eh at best power-wise), or use the things that are known to be good and abandon part of your originality to get some decent power. Part of why, when I'm judging, Originality is more about villain concepts than individual mechanics, to avoid making people pick between a rock and a hard place, or forcing them to find a path to significant power that's weird enough that it's rarely been done before in an edition that's practically old enough to drive a car.

I understand that, and maybe I should refrain from posting from my phone because it is just so limiting. The easiest thing to say is I try not to overgeneralize, and look at everything subjectively, and not comparatively to one another. If at any point I say something like "well, you are mundane, and there is a full caster submitted..." it is safe to assume my account got hacked.

But my main point here is while no build is a perfect 20, I'm also not going to intentionally tank a score based on another. If you have an unoriginal idea, but are going about it an original way, you'll get the points that deserves. If you are using the same TO build crap that has flooded front page after front page, then expect me to score appropriately. Like I said, no build will be perfect, but as you strive for it, you will find greatness, and a score to match it.

[Venger]

So leadership allowed or what

My personal interpretation, in terms of the Villainous Competition, is that there is a hard ban on the feats Leadership, Undead Leadership and Dragon Cohort. Wild Cohort is a more grey area, but I've allowed it in the past. Any other, similar feats I have forgotten about are on a case by case basis. Assume if they are quite similar to the specifically listed feats, they are also banned.

I'll specify, due to some enquiries I've had, that the " all similar abilities" clause in the OP, is somewhat relaxed here, so if a class granted an ability that allows some kind of followers, but not specifically granting one of the banned feats, it is OK.

No leadership. No way. No how.

[Deadline]

Judges hate reliance on items. Especially me. If your build doesn't work without the items listed, then the build doesn't work.

My 2 cents, anyways.

This. When I judge (at least when I judge Iron Chef or Junkyard Wars), your build should work without items. I assume relevant WBL for all builds, which really just means those items can shake out of the decision making process entirely (i.e. all builds will have relevant stat boosting items, offensive, and defensive items). If your build has 12 Str and takes Power Attack (because you qualify while wearing your +2 Str item), that's where you are going to take a hit from me.

For VC, I'd probably do it a bit different, and be sure to note any important "Treasure" (items are Treasure on NPCs, right?). I did this for my entry in the "Henchmen Are Villains Too" round - Mozz'rat.

Generally, look in the various Monster Manuals to see what I'm on about. Most will just say something like "Standard Treasure", but some entries specify an item or two.

[Hackulator]

How do you want us to format our entries if the creature doesn't easily fit into that table, IE I have a bunch of monster hit dice that get me to a certain CR and then class levels on top of it.

[daremetoidareyo]

How do you want us to format our entries if the creature doesn't easily fit into that table, IE I have a bunch of monster hit dice that get me to a certain CR and then class levels on top of it.

Many entrants add a column that differentiate HD from CR and put the monster race on the first row.
It's really easy in WYSIWYG mode (the top left button of the text prompt window). Click on your table and then click the insert column after button on the table toolbar (the bottom row of buttons on the text prompt window with a green arrow pointing down)

[Thurbane]

How do you want us to format our entries if the creature doesn't easily fit into that table, IE I have a bunch of monster hit dice that get me to a certain CR and then class levels on top of it.

You can always insert extra rows into the table in my OP.

Or, better yet, have a look at how previous entries have done this. There will be plenty of examples, and people have tackled it different ways.

I would also ask that speculation be kept to a minimum, even if a particular PrC seems an obvious choice for this particular round.

For Leadership etc. as I said earlier, I have clarified for the current comp in the 2nd post. For future comps, I will change the wording of the OP to be clearer.

[Jormengand]

As far as items are concerned, when judging (which I did exactly once, but shh) I don't mind reliance on items in general so much as specific items. If your build needs a magic melee weapon that's fine. If your build has specific +longsword feats and therefore really wants a magic longsword, that's fine becuase the build would work just as well with +battleaxe feats and a magic battleaxe. Hells, even if you absolutely need some kind of magic longsword, that's fine. I'd be a lot more wary of specifically need a holy flaming speed longsword +5 for some reason.

Also, I'd give a lot more slack to "I need magic swords" or "I need scrolls" or "I need +stat items" or "I need amulets of the silver tongue or rings of jumping" than I would give to "I need this specific item that does this incredibly odd thing."

Though it probably doesn't matter since I have a vague idea for a build in mind.

[Tiri]

For Leadership etc. as I said earlier, I have clarified for the current comp in the 2nd post. For future comps, I will change the wording of the OP to be clearer.

What do you think of my suggestion on how to handle Leadership? Just curious.

[Thurbane]

What do you think of my suggestion on how to handle Leadership? Just curious.

I'll give it some consideration, but to be honest, I won't be going far from what I've got in the second post.

It may be worth noting that we've had an entry win since I've been chair that had the Leadership feat.

The competitor asked me if it was OK (it was a req for a PrC), and I replied that it was his own choice, and the judges would score as they saw fit (or judge the build illegal).

[GrayDeath]

Damn, ran into a problem with my concept.

Say, if anyone reading this would like to help me find a very specific thing that would make or break m Idea (a noncompetitor/Judge of course) or, if h is one of these rare D&D Encyclopediaheads, tell me simply that it does not exist, then I would be very grateful.

As wasting roughly 8 hours searching has left me rather disheartened.

[Inevitability]

Damn, ran into a problem with my concept.

Say, if anyone reading this would like to help me find a very specific thing that would make or break m Idea (a noncompetitor/Judge of course) or, if h is one of these rare D&D Encyclopediaheads, tell me simply that it does not exist, then I would be very grateful.

As wasting roughly 8 hours searching has left me rather disheartened.

I think I'm going to miss out on this competition. Feel free to PM me.

Fairly sure this isn't against the rules: asking the same question on the boards for everyone to see wouldn't be either, even if you used the answer in your build, right?

[GrayDeath]

It would still mark my entry as mine clear as day, and probably influence others (be it judging or building), which I do not want.

But thanks for the offer, I`ll take it (and also thanks for those who already PM`ed me).

[danielxcutter]

Eh, think I won't make this one either. Now that I think of it there wasn't anything really special about it, and I don't have the motiviation or the time either.

[Telonius]

Mine is in - hope it's not victory by default.

[Thurbane]

Mine is in - hope it's not victory by default.

No, it's all good, we've got a relatively healthy amount of entries for this one, and I would anticipate more before the deadline.

As always, if anyone has a request for an extension, it will be considered.