Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground XX

[OMG PONIES]

The incarnum abilities, as far as I can tell, are limited to incarnum base classes. All you really need to know for the PrCs, or at least Incandescent Champion, is how essentia works (which seems like "I put essentia in this ability"). But since you won't be PLAYING the character, you don't really need any more than that. If you use incarnum, you are going to have to figure out how that works.

You need to know about max essentia investments, when and how you can change those investments, and how those investments can make a strong character. Granted, you don't need to actually DO that as you would in a normal campaign, but a strong Iron Chef entry should know (and explain) how to do everything it claims to do.

[Cartigan]

You need to know about max essentia investments, when and how you can change those investments, and how those investments can make a strong character. Granted, you don't need to actually DO that as you would in a normal campaign, but a strong Iron Chef entry should know (and explain) how to do everything it claims to do.

How those investments make a strong character is subjective and the only thing really related to the iron chef challenge. The other things are important in so much as you want to avoid being incorrect if you are going into too much detail about how the character is played.

[OMG PONIES]

How those investments make a strong character is subjective and the only thing really related to the iron chef challenge. The other things are important in so much as you want to avoid being incorrect if you are going into too much detail about how the character is played.

Essentia limits and reallocation are also of fundamental importance in this round of Iron Chef. If a build is submitted that claims great bonuses by putting more than their maximum essentia into an ability, or if they claim they can swap around essentia in an illegal manner, I will dock them. I will dock them hard. Those two things are basic parts of the system, and they are intrinsically relevant to this competition.

[Amphetryon]

I also don't recall any judge to date commenting on 'too much detail about how the character is played' being a problem.

[OMG PONIES]

I also don't recall any judge to date commenting on 'too much detail about how the character is played' being a problem.

True. Too much backstory, maybe. Too much crunch just helps us understand why your character is as awesome as you claim it is.

[Cartigan]

Essentia limits and reallocation are also of fundamental importance in this round of Iron Chef. If a build is submitted that claims great bonuses by putting more than their maximum essentia into an ability, or if they claim they can swap around essentia in an illegal manner, I will dock them. I will dock them hard. Those two things are basic parts of the system, and they are intrinsically relevant to this competition.

Which is what I said - you only need to worry with it if you going into too much detail. You don't have to provide a detailed play by play of what you are doing. You don't have to say "I put 20 essentia" in an ability. All you have to say is what percent of available essentia you put where, and that you are providing a percent of the essentia you can put in an ability. You have in so doing described what you are doing, legally and exactly as far as theorycraft is concerned, without having to have the slightest idea about anything more than the basics.

[ILM]

I think people are really holding back due to not understanding incarnum making it a system they would have to learn at least on a basic level to enter the contest.

Pretty much. I'd like to compete in one of these, but I don't use Incarnum, don't have the book, and even if I did I cba to learn.

[Amphetryon]

This is nothing more than an inquiry:

Given the hesitation and concerns folks have raised over this particular Secret Ingredient, has any thought been given to changing the Secret Ingredient to one slightly more accessible to the community at large?

[OMG PONIES]

Which is what I said - you only need to worry with it if you going into too much detail. You don't have to provide a detailed play by play of what you are doing. You don't have to say "I put 20 essentia" in an ability. All you have to say is what percent of available essentia you put where, and that you are providing a percent of the essentia you can put in an ability. You have in so doing described what you are doing, legally and exactly as far as theorycraft is concerned, without having to have the slightest idea about anything more than the basics.

Actually, speaking in percentages rather than flat numbers is more obtuse for the judges, and may cause some to take a slight deduction. Personally, I'd rather see "I invest 3 essentia in this ability" rather than "I invest 33% of my essentia," since then I'd have to find your essentia pool total and calculate the percentage myself. Throughout the book, everything is listed in flat essentia points. Why differentiate?

Also, your solution does nothing to fix my problem; instead, it simply hides it. Let's take, for example, a 20th-level character with 10 levels in incandescent champion, assuming a bare minimum essentia pool of 9 (8 from the class + 1 needed to enter). Without using Incarnum Overload*, their maximum essentia capacity for any feat, soulmeld, or class feature is 4. So if the entry reads "I invest 66.66% of my essentia," "I invest 2/3s of my essentia," or "I invest 6 essentia," it still means the same thing--they can't do it! Be warned, competitors: you have a maximum essentia capacity. You may also have ways to enlarge it, but there is still a cap. You won't be investing 20 essentia into anything anytime soon without some fancy footwork.

*or any other methods, since I don't want to get into speculation.

[Cartigan]

Actually, speaking in percentages rather than flat numbers is more obtuse for the judges, and may cause some to take a slight deduction. Personally, I'd rather see "I invest 3 essentia in this ability" rather than "I invest 33% of my essentia," since then I'd have to find your essentia pool total and calculate the percentage myself. Throughout the book, everything is listed in flat essentia points. Why differentiate?

1) The amount invested could change every level. Or every day as the case may be.
2) Why are you even going that in depth yourself? Why are you deducting from players for being obsessive compulsive? Unless the actual effect changes based on how much you invest, as opposed to proportional numerical changes, what's the point in exact specifications of the amount?

Also, your solution does nothing to fix my problem; instead, it simply hides it.

In what way? You can never over reach if you simply specify proportional allocations.

Let's take, for example, a 20th-level character with 10 levels in incandescent champion, assuming a bare minimum essentia pool of 9 (8 from the class + 1 needed to enter). Without using Incarnum Overload*, their maximum essentia capacity for any feat, soulmeld, or class feature is 4. So if the entry reads "I invest 66.66% of my essentia," "I invest 2/3s of my essentia," or "I invest 6 essentia," it still means the same thing--they can't do it! Be warned, competitors: you have a maximum essentia capacity. You may also have ways to enlarge it, but there is still a cap. You won't be investing 20 essentia into anything anytime soon without some fancy footwork.

You don't need to calculate how much they are investing down to a number to see that they are breaking the rules. 66%/(2/3) is obviously larger than the amount allowed to invest in any single ability. Therefore, over. Either avoiding even that level of specifity avoids this problem - why do more than indicate where you are going to focus your essentia investment primarily? Or being even more generically specific.

If you are making a build to showcase how awesome your ability to generate numbers is, you are obviously going to be very specific in how your numbers go here or there and how they add up to be awesome. If you aren't, who cares since you aren't actually playing the character.

[Cartigan]

This is nothing more than an inquiry:

Given the hesitation and concerns folks have raised over this particular Secret Ingredient, has any thought been given to changing the Secret Ingredient to one slightly more accessible to the community at large?

Then Zaq would be very sad. Everyone gets a -2 on their judging for the replacement SI.

[OMG PONIES]

1) The amount invested could change every level. Or every day as the case may be.

True. I'm not saying people should say "I always invest X essentia in this." However, it would be nice to see something like "At this level, I usually invest X essentia in this, Y essentia in that, and Z essentia in the other, which provides the following results..."

2) Why are you even going that in depth yourself? Why are you deducting from players for being obsessive compulsive? Unless the actual effect changes based on how much you invest, as opposed to proportional numerical changes, what's the point in exact specifications of the amount?

I'm not going to deduct from players for being detailed*. The actual effects DO change based on how much you invest. "Equal to the points of essentia invested in this ability" is a phrase that's slapped on nearly everything in Magic of Incarnum, especially the Incandescent Champion. I don't know where your concept of proportional numerical changes is coming from---can you elaborate on that a bit?

In what way? You can never over reach if you simply specify proportional allocations.

You don't need to calculate how much they are investing down to a number to see that they are breaking the rules. 66%/(2/3) is obviously larger than the amount allowed to invest in any single ability. Therefore, over. Either avoiding even that level of specifity avoids this problem - why do more than indicate where you are going to focus your essentia investment primarily? Or being even more generically specific.

I'm confused here. How is it obvious that 66% of your essentia is larger than the allowed amount? If, at 20th level, your essentia pool is 3, then 66% of that is only 2 essentia--well within the limit for a 20th level character. If, on the other hand, your essentia pool is 9, then 66% of that is 6, and we're above the normal** essentia limit. Either way, specifying only a percentage doesn't give the judges an idea of your concrete abilities. What I'm asking is simple--save the judges from having to do the math ourselves, please.

*OCD is a real disorder, and I don't want to downplay it by using it as an adjective.
**Though see my previous post.

[Cartigan]

Obsessive Compulsive Disorder is uncontrollable obsessive compulsiveness. But that's neither here nor there.

[Amechra]

Just want to say that I'm really happy with this SI, mainly because I found a beautiful synergy...

Mmmm... synergy.

Also, would something like this be useful? (You can use this if you like; I'm just going to put the minimum possible essentia pool at a given level, based off of entry at 7th level):

Spoiler

Show

{table=head]Level|Essentia Pool|Typical Essentia Investment
1|

1

|
2|

1

|
3|

1

|
4|

1

|
5|

1

|
6|

1

|
7|

2

|
8|

3

|
9|

4

|
10|

4

|
11|

5

|
12|

6

|
13|

7

|
14|

7

|
15|

8

|
16|

9

|
17|

9

|
18|

9

|
19|

9

|
20|

9

|[/table]

I've gotten points of for being unspecific, and this will speed up the whole look-through for the judges

[OMG PONIES]

I <3 Amechra. That's exactly what I'd like to see.

[Amphetryon]

Those without coding chops would probably appreciate a copy-pasta code of that table for their submissions. I know it's not especially difficult but not all of us geeks are computer geeks.

[OMG PONIES]

Code:

Spoiler

Show

{table=head][b]Level[/b]|[b]Essentia Pool[/b]|[b]Typical Essentia Investment[/b]
1|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
2|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
3|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
4|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
5|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
6|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
7|[CENTER]2[/CENTER]|
8|[CENTER]3[/CENTER]|
9|[CENTER]4[/CENTER]|
10|[CENTER]4[/CENTER]|
11|[CENTER]5[/CENTER]|
12|[CENTER]6[/CENTER]|
13|[CENTER]7[/CENTER]|
14|[CENTER]7[/CENTER]|
15|[CENTER]8[/CENTER]|
16|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
17|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
18|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
19|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
20|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|[/table]

[Amphetryon]

Code:

Spoiler

Show

{table=head][b]Level[/b]|[b]Essentia Pool[/b]|[b]Typical Essentia Investment[/b]
1|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
2|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
3|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
4|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
5|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
6|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|
7|[CENTER]2[/CENTER]|
8|[CENTER]3[/CENTER]|
9|[CENTER]4[/CENTER]|
10|[CENTER]4[/CENTER]|
11|[CENTER]5[/CENTER]|
12|[CENTER]6[/CENTER]|
13|[CENTER]7[/CENTER]|
14|[CENTER]7[/CENTER]|
15|[CENTER]8[/CENTER]|
16|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
17|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
18|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
19|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|
20|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|[/table]

<3. +1 internet for Mr. Ponies.

[Amechra]

Spoiler

Show

{table=head][b]Level[/b]|[b]Essentia Pool[/b]|[b]Typical Essentia Investment[/b]

1|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|

2|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|

3|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|

4|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|

5|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|

6|[CENTER]1[/CENTER]|

7|[CENTER]2[/CENTER]|

8|[CENTER]3[/CENTER]|

9|[CENTER]4[/CENTER]|

10|[CENTER]4[/CENTER]|

11|[CENTER]5[/CENTER]|

12|[CENTER]6[/CENTER]|

13|[CENTER]7[/CENTER]|

14|[CENTER]7[/CENTER]|

15|[CENTER]8[/CENTER]|

16|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|

17|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|

18|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|

19|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|

20|[CENTER]9[/CENTER]|[/table]

Have fun!

[Cartigan]

Those without coding chops would probably appreciate a copy-pasta code of that table for their submissions. I know it's not especially difficult but not all of us geeks are computer geeks.

This isn't really coding...


I was just going to append it to the main table, but I suppose this works too.

[true_shinken]

All you have to say is what percent of available essentia you put where, and that you are providing a percent of the essentia you can put in an ability.

I want to point out that dealing with percentages you will most likely end up with 'free essentia', which would probably be a hit in power or elegance.
My advice: just say exactly what you are doing. Remember the rules of the contest, you only need to actually accurately describe your tactics in a single point of your character. Essentia is the heart of incarnum. If you get it wrong, expect the judges to deck you. If you dodge it, expect the judges to deck you as well.

EDIT: Ninja ponies! Ninja ponies everywhere!

[Woodzyowl]

Ya know what? This sounds like fun, so I'll try it out (although I'm probably going to fail miseraby). Don't worry, I'm not going to submit something (too) stupid. I hope.

[Cartigan]

I want to point out that dealing with percentages you will most likely end up with 'free essentia', which would probably be a hit in power or elegance.
My advice: just say exactly what you are doing. Remember the rules of the contest, you only need to actually accurately describe your tactics in a single point of your character. Essentia is the heart of incarnum. If you get it wrong, expect the judges to deck you. If you dodge it, expect the judges to deck you as well.

Oh well, I'm aiming for inadvertent last.

[Zaq]

Ya know what? This sounds like fun, so I'll try it out (although I'm probably going to fail miseraby). Don't worry, I'm not going to submit something (too) stupid. I hope.

That's, um, almost the spirit! You'll be fine, really. Hell, my first ICOC entry got honorable mention (and he was almost a joke), and my second try got third place. I think that the key (at least for me) is to aim for something totally unexpected. Not only will you probably do well in Originality, but you probably won't be using the same tricks that everyone else is, which means that you'll at least be judged somewhat differently for Power.

Oh well, I'm aiming for inadvertent last.

Trying something polarizing? After submitting Aesc, I can't really argue against that. Sometimes the fun comes from seeing the comments, not the scores.

If the field stays this thin, I may actually be motivated to do something. I understand the system, anyway, enough to build something.

Doooooo iiiiiiiiitttttt.

Never done Iron Chef before, but I love Incarnum, so I'll submit a build.

Being new to this, I may have an inordinate amount of questions (though I'm good for now, we'll see once the build starts. I'm so excited!).

Excited is good! Questions are fine! More contestants! MOAR!

Seriously though, I think we can cobble together something resembling a quorum (yes, I am aware that we don't have a defined quorum). Hell, this can't be harder to optimize than Vigilante, for Kord's sake. At least it does have worthwhile features. They just happen to have very little synergy with anything else.

As far as essentia goes, I wouldn't mind hearing a quick mention of your essentia cap at your various breakpoints, but I'm not going to out-and-out require it. (That said, including it indicates to me that, on some level, you know what you're doing, which I'd go so far as to say is something you want me to believe.) Saying exactly how many essentia you keep in each soulmeld/receptacle runs counter to the entire point of essentia: it's meant to be ever-changing, shifting around to give you exactly the bonus you need when you need it. That said, if you want to say "at this level, I get the Cornflower Cupcake ability, which obviously enhances my already formidable sweet-based tricks. With 4 essentia in it, I can frost up to 6 cupcakes a round, or 10 if my Ultramarine Sprinkles ability is active!" or something like that, I think that'd do just fine.

I will warn, though, that if I get the impression that you believe that all of your essentia receptacles will be constantly maxed out, I'm not going to like that too much. Don't have Schrödinger's Essentia Pool. Mentioning your abilities at their best is fine, but if you sound like you think that you'll always have maxed essentia in everything, I'm not going to be happy. Is this warning vague? Perhaps a little bit, but at least you've been warned.

[Cartigan]

After reading more into this, I may have to pull out of the contest. It's just BAD. I mean, truly god awful. I don't see why ANYONE would ever take this.

Maybe I will just submit something truly godawful, worthy of how terrible it is.

[Zaq]

After reading more into this, I may have to pull out of the contest. It's just BAD. I mean, truly god awful. I don't see why ANYONE would ever take this.

Maybe I will just submit something truly godawful, worthy of how terrible it is.

This is a contest that has produced interesting and (kinda) useful Psibond Agents, Mythic Exemplars, Drunken Masters, Vigilantes, and Green Star Adepts. You can't tell me that this class is worse than Stonelord, can you? Everyone's working with the same crappy class. Don't disappoint me. You can do it.

[Cartigan]

This is a contest that has produced interesting and (kinda) useful Psibond Agents, Mythic Exemplars, Drunken Masters, Vigilantes, and Green Star Adepts. You can't tell me that this class is worse than Vigilante, can you? Everyone's working with the same crappy class. Don't disappoint me. You can do it.

I could produce an interesting, if not terribly playable Vigilante. And you should SEE my theoretical Drunken Master.

This class is COMPLETELY focused on melee combat, but it doesn't have full BAB and the limits on essentia make Incandescent Strike a joke. It's capstone is absurd - you can't attack or roughly anything else or end it prematurely? It's penalizing you for upping your Charisma for all your other abilities! Incandescent ray makes the Warlock look flat out overpowered. You could maybe work with Unbearable Countenance if there weren't a multitude other abilities in the game several times better.

I can't think of a single build to can into this that wouldn't be better going into ANYTHING else. Vigilante might not be a great class, but at least it does what it aims to do.

[true_shinken]

I can't think of a single build to can into this that wouldn't be better going into ANYTHING else. Vigilante might not be a great class, but at least it does what it aims to do.

I'll justy point one thing out: one of Incandescent Champion's abilities is downright broken on what it can accomplish in niche cases, as an old friend of mine in 339 pointed out years before (he is somewhat of a titan).
Yes, this class has potential.

[Woodzyowl]

I can't think of a single build to can into this that wouldn't be better going into ANYTHING else. Vigilante might not be a great class, but at least it does what it aims to do.

Agreed. I'm a pathetic optimizer, and a pathetic class is just going to make my job harder. However, if a total n00b (pardon my leet) is going to attempt to do something with this, you should give it your best shot.

[Xodion]

Is it really that bad? I almost want to find this book just to see...