Iron Chef Optimization Challenge: E6 Appetizer Edition (Round VI)

[lylsyly]

@jdizzlean: I am certain that I am not alone in appreciation of your taking the time to judge.

[Falontani]

@jdizzlean: I am certain that I am not alone in appreciation of your taking the time to judge.

Very much agreed

[RaiKirah]

Very much agreed

Indeed, thanks so much!

[Zaq]

Here's another general-purpose dispute that isn't intended to raise the score of the disputer. I've excised a bit of identifying information.

Frequently Jdizzlean states that being non lawful good is causing problems with Exalted feats. The place that he quotes says they must have morals. No where does it state you must follow laws. CG is just as viable as LG if not more so due to the fact that you dont let laws get in the way of being a good person. However many people have been docked, and [REDACTED] personally is not being penalized here. It creates an uneven playing field as others are being docked where they should not.

This is true. NG and CG characters are equally capable of being Exalted-level Good as LG characters are. Considering that there are a few PrCs in the BoED that require Exalted feats and that also specifically require being CG or NG, there's plenty of evidence that LG isn't the only form of being Exalted Good.

I will also interject a Chair comment here, jdizz: this response you gave is fairly troubling and indicates an intention to flout the judging guidelines.

UoSI scoring was so low because I basically think your build is illegal. However, I can't penalize you in both elegance and UoSI for essentially the same thing. Other then the racial issues, your ideas worked, which is why you got a 1 in elegance. Consider that 1 to be a boost to UoSI, as otherwise elegance might be 0, and UoSI would be 3, it's a wash.

One Mistake, One Penalty is indeed the rule, and it's the rule for a reason. Also, the minimum score in a category is 1, not 0. (This is a slight change from the main contest, but it's been written in the original post since the beginning of this round.) You're basically saying that you want to penalize both Elegance and UoSI for the same thing (you said that you can't, but you also said that you did), and you can't do that. If you think the build is illegal (which may or may not actually be true here), penalize once, in one category. You can't give a low score in Elegance for something you think is illegal and then, by your own admission, give a low score in UoSI for the same perceived issue. That's literally the point of One Mistake, One Penalty. If you think the build deserves a minimum score in Elegance, give them the minimum score in Elegance (which is 1, not 0). You said that the build would "otherwise" have a 3 in UoSI, so the build should then have a 3 in UoSI rather than letting a penalty from Elegance "spill over" into UoSI for the same issue.

One of my guiding principles in running this contest is to attempt to give reasonable latitude to the judges. I know firsthand that judging is hard work (okay, maybe some of our judges don't expend quite as many words per entry as I tend to, but still), and it's not actually a bad thing in a vacuum to have different individuals with different preferences rating these entries. There's been quite a few rulings over the past two-and-a-half rounds that I've rather strongly disagreed with, and I'm doing my best to keep my thumbs far away from the scales. That said, there are judging guidelines in the rules for a reason, and the Chair respectfully requests that all judges adhere to the rules laid out in the opening post.

[jdizzlean]

assuming i'm not falling over exhausted in the morning when I get home from work, I will address the remaining disputes, and weigh in on the chairs thoughts as well.

[jdizzlean]

One of the things I like best about D&D is that there are no iron clad rules. X does not always equal Y, and sometimes it does. I've slowly come to the realization on this board that I probably have a very different gaming experience than the vast majority of everyone else. This of course has colored my views on certain elements of this game, and even more clearly on how I judge, or build for, these types of competitions here. All I can do is take my version of D&D as I have played it for the past 30 or so years with various groups and go from there.

I am very much against standardized scoring where each category has specific metrics that equal a specific score, so for example, full ranks in the SI don't equate to full points from the UoSI category. Likewise, what is penalized in one build might not be in another, for they are different builds.

As to Zaq's comments from his post:

As to exalted feats. per the above, I would never be allowed to take them if I wasn't Lawful Good. However, seeing as how this is apparently not the prevailing interpretation, from now on I'll consider any build's alignment w/ some form of "good" in it to qualify, unless they take things like necromantic spells which would violate it, as in the case of the Bard that isn't in this round.

on minimum scoring. I'll eat crow, I was operating under the premise that a 0 is a perfectly reasonable score. I do know and acknowledge that you can't penalize twice, however in that specific build in question, if you can't take those SI's in the first place, how exactly do you propose to score that category? I didn't know, and so erring on what is apparently the side of idiocy, I gave a score of 2. Perhaps my reasoning that I spelled out was flawed, but I don't know that there is a correct answer since you can't penalize twice for essentially the same thing in this instance.

If at the conclusion of this round the chair or contestants would prefer it that I step down and not judge anymore, so be it. I'm not perfect, and I can make just as many mistakes as anyone else, which is why there is a grievance process (or a private message). I fully recognize that the chef's feel strongly about their builds, and the judges feel strongly about their judgements. But there has to be common ground and acceptance from both sides. I'm a reasonable person, I can take criticism when it's warranted, but feedback has to go both ways in a conversation like that.

[DeTess]

on minimum scoring. I'll eat crow, I was operating under the premise that a 0 is a perfectly reasonable score. I do know and acknowledge that you can't penalize twice, however in that specific build in question, if you can't take those SI's in the first place, how exactly do you propose to score that category? I didn't know, and so erring on what is apparently the side of idiocy, I gave a score of 2. Perhaps my reasoning that I spelled out was flawed, but I don't know that there is a correct answer since you can't penalize twice for essentially the same thing in this instance.

First of all, I see no reason for you to step down. It's clear that you just missed that a particular rule, and are used to a different ruling for exalted good from home games, so I don't see any harm done.

As for avoiding penalizing twice, I believe I ran into that when I judged last round with the build that tried some RAWyery to qualify for a bunch of ambush feats that he didn't actually qualify for. I penalized him in the elegance category, and then scored everything else as if he could have taken those feats. I suppose you could do the same thing here, penalize it once in elegance, and then judge the rest as if the build is legal.

[daremetoidareyo]

First of all, I see no reason for you to step down. It's clear that you just missed that a particular rule, and are used to a different ruling for exalted good from home games, so I don't see any harm done.

As for avoiding penalizing twice, I believe I ran into that when I judged last round with the build that tried some RAWyery to qualify for a bunch of ambush feats that he didn't actually qualify for. I penalized him in the elegance category, and then scored everything else as if he could have taken those feats. I suppose you could do the same thing here, penalize it once in elegance, and then judge the rest as if the build is legal.

You say RAWyery like it's not a ton of fun.

[DeTess]

You say RAWyery like it's not a ton of fun.

It generally is a ton of fun(that four-armed sparrow had me laughing out loud when I figured out what he was doing), but also causes some head-aches for judging if you find faults in the applied RAW that makes a significant portion of a build illegal.

[daremetoidareyo]

It generally is a ton of fun(that four-armed sparrow had me laughing out loud when I figured out what he was doing), but also causes some head-aches for judging if you find faults in the applied RAW that makes a significant portion of a build illegal.

One man's "+1d6 sneak attack" is another man's "add 1d6 damage to sneak attack"

;)

You did it right, though. If the build looks illegal by your judgly eye, dump their elegance and pretend that it might work like they thought it would work in other categories.

[jdizzlean]

Sharom:

I don't believe that Spell Rage is the same as Rage or Whirling Frenzy. Sure it's "rage", but it's a special circumstance in that it's operating completely different by allowing spell casting, which Rage specifically says you can't do. (at least not spells w/ verbal components). Whirling Frenzy is a variant of rage, so gets to use as many times as Rage would itself, but Spell Rage is a distinct stand alone, and so therefor doesn't get to benefit from other uses of "rage" granted by other classes or acf's.

Point buy is calculated BEFORE racial modifications. you then add or subtract racial and/or template modifications to come to a final tally. So the points you have listed come out to 34 points as I said. You then add or subtract racials to that.

Charnel Touch does work w/ tomb tainted, I missed that.

DR 2 would be great if you didn't have free unlimited healing, in that regard it becomes less awesome than it would otherwise be. You could probably argue that you can touch yourself as a free action, your fingers touching each other for example while you hold onto your weapon (or make a fist), and so 1/round you could simply apply Charnel Touch to healing instead of extra damage to the unarmed strike.

Originality +.25 Score 3.75
Elegance +.5 Score 4
Use of SI +.75 Score 3.25

Total Score: 14.75


Helga:

The point of precise shot is so that you can attack w/ your ranged weapons into melee w/o a penalty. Obviously you attack from range or switch to melee, everyone does. But when you attack from range into melee you still get that nasty penalty to hit, meaning your BAB is essentially +1 to which you add STR only.

TWF combat style from Ranger only grants you a lesser penalty for using a second weapon. You could've taken the ranged style instead and gotten Rapid Shot free (which you actually take at epic 6th). Plus, where do you get ITWF from for free?

On Wild Cohort: I stand corrected, but this highlights the "cite your sources" in the original build. That would have alleviated this conflict in the first place.

Originality +.5 Score 4
Elegance +.5 Score 2.5

Total Score 13.5

Bann:

Use of SI +1

Total Score 12.5

[Falontani]

I just want to highlight the fact that I am grateful that Jdizzlean is judging, and I really hope that you don't feel attacked as a judge. As the sole judge at the moment your judgements are truly choosing who wins or loses. So I'm sure some feel like they have to nitpick every single thing you said vs if multiple judges said the same thing then the contestant might think they were actually wrong instead of thinking the judge may have erred. Please do not be discouraged. We are grateful

[lylsyly]

I just want to highlight the fact that I am grateful that Jdizzlean is judging, and I really hope that you don't feel attacked as a judge. As the sole judge at the moment your judgements are truly choosing who wins or loses. So I'm sure some feel like they have to nitpick every single thing you said vs if multiple judges said the same thing then the contestant might think they were actually wrong instead of thinking the judge may have erred. Please do not be discouraged. We are grateful

You can run this across the board for me as well. In particular, I REALLY understand how RL can interfere ;)

[Dread_Head]

I would also like to add my voice to the chorus of people grateful to you for sparing the time to judge this round jdizzlean!

[RaiKirah]

I would also like to make it explicit that I am grateful for you taking the time and effort to judge this round. It is really appreciated!

[lylsyly]

Is it too early to give suggestions for the next round?

[Zaq]

Who else is judging? Long_shanks, DEMON, AvatarVecna—I know you all mentioned an interest in judging. Is that still on the table for any of you, or for anyone else? I feel like it’s best to have multiple judges when possible.

Is it too early to give suggestions for the next round?

You can certainly make suggestions if you want, but I will tell you that I have at least the next six ingredients picked out, and I mostly just want to nail down the order.

Let’s take a straw poll on this issue, though: do you folks want the next ingredient to have full BAB or not full BAB?

[DeTess]

Let’s take a straw poll on this issue, though: do you folks want the next ingredient to have full BAB or not full BAB?

We just had one with 3/4, and one that was mostly 3/4 with some outliers. I'd be up for another with full BaB.

[lylsyly]

Full BAB Please!

[Zaq]

As much as I’d really love to have another judge, we have indeed passed the deadline, so unless someone pipes up and says they’re almost done judging before I get home from work in a few hours, I’m thinking we’ll move to the next round tonight.

Our non-binding straw poll has two votes for full BAB. I’m still accepting votes on that.

Anyone feel like making a table with scores? I can if no one else does, but my tables always kinda suck.

[lylsyly]

LOL, I have barely figured out the build table or I would. Maybe next time ;)

[Long_shanks]

Who else is judging? Long_shanks, DEMON, AvatarVecna—I know you all mentioned an interest in judging. Is that still on the table for any of you, or for anyone else? I feel like it’s best to have multiple judges when possible.

You probably missed my message at the end of last week, but work has got in the way (which is a good thing, since it had been quite slow for a while). So, I'm currently stuck makin' money instead of judging internet competitions. Sorry for the false hopes ;)

[Zaq]

Alrighty then ladies and gentlemen, let's get moving. As always, if someone wants to prettify this table, it will be greatly appreciated. (I tried using the "head alt1 alt2" style but that made the colors unreadable, so bleh.)

Name	Race/Alignment	Class stub	Score after 1 judge	Chef
"Thews" Ironhand	CN Amphibious Frostblood Half-Orc	Half-Orc Paragon 3 / Orc Paragon 3	8	thorr-kan
Sythaeryn the Silvan Singer	NG Half-Elf	Half-Elf Paragon 3 / Human Paragon 3	14	lylsyly
Sharom	CE Desert Half-Orc	Dread Necromancer 2 / Half-Orc Paragon 3 / Rage Mage 1	14.75	Falontani
Sahran, Will of the Desert	? Aligned (nonlawful?) Desert Half-Orc	Half-Orc Paragon 3 / Barbarian 2 / Fighter 1	15.25 (Bronze)	MinimanMidget
Rokar the Rager	CG Half-Orc	Half-Orc Paragon 3 / Orc Paragon 3	13.5	lylsyly
John Drake	CG Human	Human Paragon 3 / Dragonfire Adept 2 / Chameleon 1	10.75 (HM)	Randuir
Heru Sunblood	LG Desert Half-Orc	Half-Orc Paragon 2 / Paladin 4	16.5 (Gold)	Dread_Head
Helga	? Aligned (nonlawful?) Halfling	Ranger 2 / Barbarian 1 / Halfling Paragon 3	13.5	Falontani
Garek Grutshank	LG Desert Half-Orc	Half-Orc Paragon 2 / Paladin 4	14.75	Darrin
Dorcas Thistlethwaite	CG Stonehunter Gnome	Savage Bard 2 / Marshal 1 / Gnome Paragon 3	15.75 (Silver)	RaiKirah
Bann Ru'Falo / Jedeck Hyll	CG Changeling	Martial Rogue 2 / Half-Elf Paragon 2 / Half-Orc Paragon 2	12.5	RaiKirah

This was an excellent round. I don't know what precisely I was expecting, but it sure as hell wasn't seven half-orc paragons. I'm glad you folks rose to the challenge of "um, this SI is actually just intended to be filler in a larger build, so how do we make it the spotlight?" I had to give Honorable Mention to John Drake just for making me laugh with the fluff (and for crafting a remarkably functional E6 Chameleon build), though there was some very stiff competition this time around—seriously, a Rage Mage? Two Rageadins? Wonderful stuff all around!

Congrats to everyone who entered and thanks to our lone judge—let's not let him be so lonely next time, 'kay?

New thread here!

[RaiKirah]

Thank you Zaq for hosting! And thanks to Jdizzlean for judging!

I had a lot of fun with this round, and was really impressed with the builds others came up with! Looking forward to the next!

[MinimanMidget]

Wow, I never expected to go home with a medal. Thanks to jdizzlean for judging and Zaq for chairing. And although it's unimportant, as an avatar of the desert Sahran is True Neutral.

[DeTess]

Wow, I hadn't expected to walk out with a HM. Anyway, thanks to zaq for hosting, and jdizzlean for judging!

[lylsyly]

I would also like to thank the host and judge. My first Competition, did better than I thought I would. Learned a bit too. On to the next one.

[DEMON]

Apologies to everyone.

I did intend to judge this round, but RL was strongly opposed to my intention.

[Dread_Head]

First of all many thanks to Zaq for hosting and jdizzlean for judging. I had lots of fun working on a few different ideas using various paragon classes before (like nearly everyone else ) settling on Half Orc Paragon. I've been lurking for the past couple of rounds and had builds worked out but chickened out of entering them, very glad I got over that and submitted my build this round See you all next time.