Iron Chef XIII: Vigilante

[Kesnit]

Kesnit, you DO notice Nightwatch has access to 9th level spells, right? Power 3 seems a tad too low.

I noticed that when I first read it, but didn't score it until much later. By that time, I'd forgotten the spells. I'll adjust the score.

Edit: Score changed.

[Grynning]

I have a query for our judges after reading a number of critiques here and in the past.

I've noted some categories are voted low because of what a theoretical DM may or may not allow. Now, some instances are questionable, but others are fully within the rules, are not a matter of interpretation but the rules specifically say 'you can do this and this by doing this'. Straightforward, clear and concise.

It is thus not a matter of rules, but simply DM opinion. As we know a simple opinion can vary wildly. The judge doesn't say 'he' wouldn't allow it, just a possible DM.

I know in last competition I scored an entrant low in a category because I wouldn't allow a thing, and found it questionable. Not being a hypocrite, because it could be argued. It was a rules thing.

For something fully explained by rules, without possible interpretive error, is it really fair to entrants to dock them?

Another thing to keep in mind is that many things people consider to be "RAW" are often things that are specifically noted as optional, so really, the "RAW" is "with DM approval" (for example, using Monster entries as a player race). While I won't be one of those people who say "the rules don't matter because of rule 0" I do know that there is a line on what's reasonable and what's not. Pun-Pun, Commoner railgun, and other silly TO things all exist by exploiting strict interpretations of RAW, for instance. While no-one's ever entered anything I would consider totally unreasonable in an Iron Chef competition, using stuff that's just plain weird that probably wouldn't fly with me as a DM is one way to get marked off on Elegance.

As I mentioned briefly at the end of the last IC, judging these is subjective and based on opinion. Basically, the judges are here to say what they like and what they don't. There is no real way to "score" D&D.

[Thurbane]

Hmm, seems quite a wide array of base classes were "expected entry" (Monk, really?) into Vigilante...to my mind, one of the most obvious, Rogue, seems to be absent...

Except for Oduk. Oops, failed my Spot...or is that Search?

[Grynning]

Yeah, there wasn't much Rogue, or Spellthief, which I would have liked to have seen and likely what I would have done as a contestant. Master Spellthief feat (http://www.realmshelps.net/cgi-bin/feats.pl?Master_Spellthief) with Vigilante would have been weaker than stacking with another caster class, sure, but it would have worked out pretty nicely overall and stopped any argument about the armor thing for spellcasting.

I think a lot of people avoided Rogue because the sample character in CAdv. was a Rogue/Fighter, so most probably thought it would sink their originality scores to use it.

[WinWin]

I have a query for our judges after reading a number of critiques here and in the past.

I've noted some categories are voted low because of what a theoretical DM may or may not allow. Now, some instances are questionable, but others are fully within the rules, are not a matter of interpretation but the rules specifically say 'you can do this and this by doing this'. Straightforward, clear and concise.

It is thus not a matter of rules, but simply DM opinion. As we know a simple opinion can vary wildly. The judge doesn't say 'he' wouldn't allow it, just a possible DM.

I know in last competition I scored an entrant low in a category because I wouldn't allow a thing, and found it questionable. Not being a hypocrite, because it could be argued. It was a rules thing.

For something fully explained by rules, without possible interpretive error, is it really fair to entrants to dock them?

It depends. If a character is totally unsuitable for a game then It may deserve a deduction. Knowing what make something unsuitable varies from table to table though. I've been involved in games that had a 4 book maximum. If you needed more than the PHB and 3 other books to explain your character, then the answer was "no, make something else." Other games have been far more permissive, allowing anything that the DM was familliar with.

Some things require a permissive DM. An example would be Flaws or mixing campaign specific material. That should not deter someone from using that material, but it might not satisfy a judge. Other build elements require more work for the DM, an example might be a PrC that is associated with an organisation. Great if that organisation was already included in a campaign, potentially frustrating for both player and DM if it was not.

I would be opposed to strict rules in this area. Scoring is a subjective issue, leave it to the individual judge. It is not that the issue of what works or is acceptable in a game is not worth talking about, I just think that if you were to ask 10 different gamers you would get 10 different responses. Ultimately, a consensus on what is a good build is formed by averaging scores. That goes a long way to balancing the opinion of one person. Just my opinion.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

While though I can see the reasoning of that, I also think as a judge it behooves one to get over their own dislikes.

I have a thing against tieflings because of the crap ways they've been played in every game I've known them. I also, for no good reason, find most dragon-based characters annoying. Dragon bloods, and dragon affected and dragon shards and dragon spirits. Gah, stoppit already.

I also never allow races into my game with an LA over +2.

I utterly HATE the illithid heritage feats and the subsequent PrC around them from Complete Psionic, would never allow it in a game, but I rated highly a build that used them because it was still pretty cool.

When I've judged I say to myself, 'Besides your own opinion what is wrong with it?' so I often ignore it. I may not feel as positively inclined to award them, depending on the situation, but I certainly have never deducted because of it.

[Grynning]

While though I can see the reasoning of that, I also think as a judge it behooves one to get over their own dislikes.

I have a thing against tieflings because of the crap ways they've been played in every game I've known them. I also, for no good reason, find most dragon-based characters annoying. Dragon bloods, and dragon affected and dragon shards and dragon spirits. Gah, stoppit already.

I also never allow races into my game with an LA over +2.

I utterly HATE the illithid heritage feats and the subsequent PrC around them from Complete Psionic, would never allow it in a game, but I rated highly a build that used them because it was still pretty cool.

When I've judged I say to myself, 'Besides your own opinion what is wrong with it?' so I often ignore it. I may not feel as positively inclined to award them, depending on the situation, but I certainly have never deducted because of it.


I think one should try to remove personal "bias," yes - for example, I really dislike evil characters but I have given very high scores to evil characters in the past. However, when discussing elegance, I think there are some things that even the chef making the dish knows will be questionable at best. Take "The Judge" from this competition, for instance. It's a GREAT character, and I have the highest respect for the person who made it. However, the Maug race and the dip heavy build are things that I as a DM would certainly balk at, hence the low elegance score I issued. Now, would all DM's say no to it? Of course not. Some DM's would probably think it was super-cool and let it right in, especially in a high-op game. However, I think the average DM would probably be closer to my own view.

Also, the competition rules have always included Heliomance's (or whoever wrote the original rules) dislike of flaws, which are technically a "rule," and a dislike of using classes way outside of their intended role (the cloistered cleric example given in the text). Now, the last point is rarely enforced by other judges (myself included), but you can see how there is an inherent bias in the contest from the start. ALL MEDIA AND COMMUNICATION IS LIKE THIS. People are literally incapable of objectivity; especially when picking winners out of a group. So, for something that is just for fun and rather silly to begin with (c'mon, we're on a forum doing a D&D character contest based on a goofy cooking show from Japan), I don't see "Judge bias" as a huge issue.

[Cieyrin]

Hmm, seems quite a wide array of base classes were "expected entry" (Monk, really?) into Vigilante...to my mind, one of the most obvious, Rogue, seems to be absent...

Except for Oduk. Oops, failed my Spot...or is that Search?

Well, in Oduk's case, he needed Rogue to get into Fochlucan Lyrist, as he needed a source for Evasion. It wasn't so much Rogue entry so much as necessary levels to get into PRC the character wanted.

What makes me curious is why he didn't go for Monk instead, as it would have freed up some of his feats, since he was going unarmed anyways...

[true_shinken]

What makes me curious is why he didn't go for Monk instead, as it would have freed up some of his feats, since he was going unarmed anyways...
He must have been impressed by the 'Monks suck!' movement here in the boards.

[Grynning]

He must have been impressed by the 'Monks suck!' movement here in the boards.

I've always thought of it more of a "monks are poorly designed and suck beyond the first few levels, much like every other melee class in the PHB" movement...
I guess your way is catchier :smalltongue:

[Cieyrin]

He must have been impressed by the 'Monks suck!' movement here in the boards.

While I understand that, he'd only be using it for a dip like for Rogue, anyways. It's not liked he really used Sneak Attack.

Plus, consider the Tashalatora Monk 2/Psychic Warrior 18. Not weak, by any means.

[true_shinken]

While I understand that, he'd only be using it for a dip like for Rogue, anyways. It's not liked he really used Sneak Attack.

Plus, consider the Tashalatora Monk 2/Psychic Warrior 18. Not weak, by any means.

I don't agree with said movement by all means. I just know it exists.
Monk 2 is a very good dip.

[Grynning]

I don't agree with said movement by all means. I just know it exists.
Monk 2 is a very good dip.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Monk 2 is a good dip. So is Fighter 2, Paladin 2, etc.

Oh god how did an IC contest turn into a monk thread?

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:v2hJx-nUQghccM:http://static.funnyjunk.com/pictures/expecto_patronum0.jpg&t=1

ok back to the contest now. for serious. We still waiting on one more judge?

[true_shinken]

I don't think anyone disagrees that Monk 2 is a good dip. So is Fighter 2, Paladin 2, etc.
There is actually a famous quote from Doc Roc, a poster somewhat deified around here, claiming Monk 2 absolutely sucks.
I completely disagree.

[Cieyrin]

There is actually a famous quote from Doc Roc, a poster somewhat deified around here, claiming Monk 2 absolutely sucks.
I completely disagree.

I think the thought was if all you're going for in that dip is Evasion, you may as well just get a Ring of Evasion and call it good. You got better things to do with your levels.

[true_shinken]

I think the thought was if all you're going for in that dip is Evasion, you may as well just get a Ring of Evasion and call it good. You got better things to do with your levels.
It was regarding to prestige class qualification, and losing all your abilities because someone sundered a ring, because someone cast dispel magic/disjunction on you or because you entered an antimagic field is very risky.
In my games, that would be the same as using an Item Familiar. You're specifically forcing the DM to screw you over to make the 'cost' you took have any meaning.

[Amphetryon]

In my games, that would be the same as using an Item Familiar. You're specifically forcing the DM to screw you over to make the 'cost' you took have any meaning.Out of curiosity, does that mean that taking a level in Rogue for Evasion 'forces the DM' to start piling on enemies immune to SA, or perhaps 'forcing the DM' to hit you with level-draining effects to 'screw you over'? If not, what meaning does the 'cost' of the level have, relatively?

[Cieyrin]

It was regarding to prestige class qualification, and losing all your abilities because someone sundered a ring, because someone cast dispel magic/disjunction on you or because you entered an antimagic field is very risky.
In my games, that would be the same as using an Item Familiar. You're specifically forcing the DM to screw you over to make the 'cost' you took have any meaning.

That's like saying the DM should stop using Ref Half spells because you have evasion. Also, that ring costs quite a pretty penny. 25k is nothing to sneeze at, making it not available till the mid-levels or maybe even farther, depending on the game. My games have a tendency towards low wealth, so that becomes even more of an investment. Punishing a player for spending their hard-earned coin makes no sense.

[true_shinken]

Out of curiosity, does that mean that taking a level in Rogue for Evasion 'forces the DM' to start piling on enemies immune to SA, or perhaps 'forcing the DM' to hit you with level-draining effects to 'screw you over'? If not, what meaning does the 'cost' of the level have, relatively?

If you take a level of Rogue, I believe a good DM should give you opportunies to use your evasion.
If you bought a ring of evasion for that ability alone, I'd expect a DM to do the same.
If you bought a ring of evasion to qualify for a prestige class that obviously used the requirement of evasion as a balance point, requiring you to take levels of Monk/Rogue/something for it, then you are messing with the rules plain and simple. Expect sometime something to hit you where it hurts, because you gave yourself a glaring weakness. It's like having the cold subtype and expecting not to be hit with fire ever.

In my game I have a Paladin/Swordsage with Str 9. He uses a Belt of Giant Strenght to increase his Str to 13 - he has the Power Attack feat. Every once in a while someone hits him with a ray of enfeeblement, forcing him to rely on his other tricks to win. Once an enemy tried to sunder his belt, but he killed said enemy with an attack of opportunity.

Using a magical item to fullfil requirements and expecting that to never be a problem is just silly, IMHO.

[Cieyrin]

Using a magical item to fullfil requirements and expecting that to never be a problem is just silly, IMHO.

I agree, though specifically calling characters out on it seems wrong to me. It's also breaks with Player vs. Character knowledge to specifically go after the ring to deny them their PRC abilities. How do your foes know that will happen, since PRC prereqs aren't exactly a seeable attribute that you can exploit. Enfeebling somebody so they can't Power Attack is similar, though not quite the same, as reducing Strength weakens many meleers that it's more common knowledge. Idk, it just rubs me the wrong way.

[Amphetryon]

If you take a level of Rogue, I believe a good DM should give you opportunies to use your evasion.
If you bought a ring of evasion for that ability alone, I'd expect a DM to do the same.
If you bought a ring of evasion to qualify for a prestige class that obviously used the requirement of evasion as a balance point, requiring you to take levels of Monk/Rogue/something for it, then you are messing with the rules plain and simple. Expect sometime something to hit you where it hurts, because you gave yourself a glaring weakness. It's like having the cold subtype and expecting not to be hit with fire ever.

In my game I have a Paladin/Swordsage with Str 9. He uses a Belt of Giant Strenght to increase his Str to 13 - he has the Power Attack feat. Every once in a while someone hits him with a ray of enfeeblement, forcing him to rely on his other tricks to win. Once an enemy tried to sunder his belt, but he killed said enemy with an attack of opportunity.

Using a magical item to fullfil requirements and expecting that to never be a problem is just silly, IMHO.

Thanks for answering.

[true_shinken]

I agree, though specifically calling characters out on it seems wrong to me. It's also breaks with Player vs. Character knowledge to specifically go after the ring to deny them their PRC abilities. How do your foes know that will happen, since PRC prereqs aren't exactly a seeable attribute that you can exploit. Enfeebling somebody so they can't Power Attack is similar, though not quite the same, as reducing Strength weakens many meleers that it's more common knowledge. Idk, it just rubs me the wrong way.
I see your point, but then again the only thing I mentioned specific against the ring is sundering. Dispel/disjunction/antimagic are good against any adventurer; but against someone who needs those items as a crutch, they are almost lethal.

Also, a wizard noticing that 'he needs to be more strong than average to pull that trick, so I'll drain his strenght' does not seem weird at all to me. If a character knows you need extraordinary reflexes to take advantage of the lyrists' training and knows you got those from an item, destroying the ring so you would lose power simply looks like a smart move. It is a bit of stretching, though, since most people wouldn't have that knowledge.

[WinWin]

In a game using only the DMG and Complete Adventurer, that stupid clause in CW and CArc would not even be an issue.

It is easier to assume that clause only applies to PrCs in those 2 books, rather than modifiying the core.

If you want to score a build differently because of your preferences, then that is your perogative as a judge. As for cheesing prerequisites, that is a whole other issue. But it mainly comes down to individual preferences IMO.

[true_shinken]

In a game using only the DMG and Complete Adventurer, that stupid clause in CW and CArc would not even be an issue.

It is easier to assume that clause only applies to PrCs in those 2 books, rather than modifiying the core.

If you want to score a build differently because of your preferences, then that is your perogative as a judge. As for cheesing prerequisites, that is a whole other issue. But it mainly comes down to individual preferences IMO.
WinWin, that's not even what we were talking about. We were discussing Monk as a possible substitute for Rogue in Oduk's build and how the playground general view of 'Monk sucks' might have made the contestant avoid it and then Ring of Evasion was brought up. I was simply stating my personal opinion on the topic.

[WinWin]

-removed.

I need caffiene

[Amphetryon]

Any word from the last judge, or were there non-rules disputes still pending?

[Pechvarry]

I wish there was a "size of your orcish shot puts" category, 'cuz it took a pair for Oduk to take that little of Vigilante and focus entirely on the casting of it instead of the class, knowing how big of a hit he'd take to UoSI.

I salute you.

[WinWin]

If anyone's around and availale, feel free. If no one says anything before tomorrow evening, I'll move forward to non-rules disputes: 4 judges is a sufficient minimum for me.


Any word from the last judge, or were there non-rules disputes still pending?

AFIK there was enough judges. I could step up I guess, but we have already had 4. I guess the finishing touches need to be put on a few things, disputes resolved, etc.

[Akal Saris]

I wish there was a "size of your orcish shot puts" category, 'cuz it took a pair for Oduk to take that little of Vigilante and focus entirely on the casting of it instead of the class, knowing how big of a hit he'd take to UoSI.

I salute you.

In the first few competitions, a lot of us actually didn't take that many levels in the secret ingredient, but since then it seems to have become 10 or nothing for most contestants =P

[Ozymandias9]

Any word from the last judge, or were there non-rules disputes still pending?


I got a vague pm about judging, but no response on follow-up. As such, I'm going to post the rest of the disputes momentarily.

[Ozymandias9]

Remaining outstanding disputes

@Cieryn
Re: Rhys, Martial Weapon Proficiency

Human Paragon gets a free Martial Weapon Proficiency. I happened to choose Scythe. I understand it becomes redundant at 2nd level, but taking Human Paragon at 1st was better for skills and therefore locked me in to taking a MWP of some sort.

Re: Sally, Rings

The intention was not to use all 3 at once. Freedom of Movement and Arcane Mastery will generally remain on at all times, but the Ring of Master Artificer is only useful if you run out of infusions and need an extra 3rd and 4th level one. Then it isn't but a move action to remove one and don the other.

Re: Sally, Quick Search/Hide

Quick Hide is the only real reason for Sally's bluff skill. It was also mentioned that a Domovoi was chosen partially for its rogue-like skill sets, which includes Bluff, unlike Vigilante itself.

The smoke cloud was also mentioned as being useful for hiding and is a perfect aid to the diversion.

Re: Allistair, armored casting

1) My understanding is that the chairman ruled that either interpretation of the armored spell casting issue was valid.

It is listed for at least some other prestige classes. Under the circumstances, I'm going to say that both interpretations are legal. The prior ruling is superseded.

Re: Allistair, familiar stacking issues

2) A few judges have brought up the urban companion vs normal familiar issues. Both urban companion and obtain familiar refer to the normal summon familiar class feature, which has the clause that levels from classes that can obtain a familiar stack for the bonuses. The obtain familiar text only adds that all arcane caster levels count instead of only levels from familiar granting classes. I would argue that it is a valid assumption that the two would stack, but as stated in the build it would not change the build much if the DM disagreed. The wording of the summon familiar feat suggests to me that a pc is not intended to ever have more than one familiar. With 2 familiars the urban companion would be based off of ½ ranger levels (3 at level 20) and the regular familiar would be based off of Vigilante caster levels (8 at level 20). The only requirement for obtaining a blink dog through the improved familiar feat is 5 BA and an arcane caster level of 5. These are both met by level 12 when Allistair takes improved familiar regardless of the ruling on the stacking issues. The improved familiar feat also is not limited to a one time deal (it applies whenever the pc can acquire a new familiar) and the arcane caster level requirement is not tied to the familiar granting source in any way (it was not written with the thought of having 2 familiars). If the DM allows for two familiars they should both be able to be blink dogs, and if not the non improved familiar can still be granting small size for flanking through alter self or magic items. The familiar bonuses from master levels are not very important to the build, only the BA and HP scaling with the master. Having two familiars would only help the build, but as stated I don’t believe that that is the intent of the game rules.

Re: Dymphna, “cherry-picking”/consistancy

Monk was chosen for flavor as well as tactical reasons--I thought a penniless, homeless character would function best as a monk. I will admit, the high saves, bonus feats, and evasion were tactical reasons for the selection, but I'd hardly call this cherry picking. In the same vein, Viyana had no deduction when taking Master Inquisitive for Alertness and extra skill ranks, nor did Oduk lose points for taking two levels of rogue (granting sneak attack and evasion). As such, I would ask that you consider adjusting your score for Dymphna.


@True Shinken

Re: Sally, Action economy


Breaking action economy like you do is also not party friendly at all.
I'd appreciate some elaboration.
This one doesn't seem to be a dispute per say, but it never hurts to elaborate, so feel free to do so if you wish.
(My reading of the comment was that the emphasis on multiple constructs would end up with on player using a disproportionate amount of time per round relative to other players without minions or summons.)

Re: Dymphna, Mobility issues

The bard spell list has some great candidates for alternative mobility, including (but not limited to) Swift Fly and Alter Self.




@Grynning
Re: Dymphna, Mobility issues

The bard spell list has some great candidates for alternative mobility, including (but not limited to) Swift Fly and Alter Self.

[OMG PONIES]

In the first few competitions, a lot of us actually didn't take that many levels in the secret ingredient, but since then it seems to have become 10 or nothing for most contestants =P

Out of the 12 completed rounds we've had, ten winners have used all levels of the Secret Ingredient. That sets a precedent to use all of the levels. Also, some judges incorporate "completion of the SI" into "use of the SI" though many times the two may be at odds.

[Ozymandias9]

On another note, I'll not be available to chair for the next couple of months. Anyone interested in taking over.

[true_shinken]

On another note, I'll not be available to chair for the next couple of months. Anyone interested in taking over.
I volunteer to chair the next one. Is there any problem in you both chair and judge, btw?


This one doesn't seem to be a dispute per say, but it never hurts to elaborate, so feel free to do so if you wish.
(My reading of the comment was that the emphasis on multiple constructs would end up with on player using a disproportionate amount of time per round relative to other players without minions or summons.)
That's exactly it.

[OMG PONIES]

Wow, quick response on the new chair!

Anyway, once these disputes are resolved, are we free to move on to ICO XIV?

[Amphetryon]

Is there any problem in you both chair and judgeJudging and chairing would make you the only judge who was not viewing the entrants anonymously. Since the idea behind making entrants anonymous is to prevent perceived bias toward or against a particular entry based on your views of its author, some contestants may see this as a concern.

[kestrel404]

Yeah. Also, the point of having a chair is so that there is someone the contestants can appeal to when they disagree with a judge.

I'm pretty sure the positions are supposed to be mutually exclusive, just like trying to be a judge and a contestant.

[Grynning]

In regards to Dymphna's mobility - I took Swift Fly, Dimension Door, etc into account, however, those are very limited options with vigilante's small number of spells known, and since no spells known list was included with the entry, I couldn't very well count them. I still gave a 3, which is not a bad score for power.

[true_shinken]

OK, so juding + chairing is not OK.
I'll stick to chairing, then, if it's alright for everyone. Please send me suggestions for the next secret ingredient and we'll have it up as soon as tis one wraps up.

[Cieyrin]

Remaining outstanding disputes

@Cieryn
Re: Rhys, Martial Weapon Proficiency
I missed that Human Paragon granted proficiency. It was a tad misleading the way you presented it, as I thought you had used a feat slot to gain proficiency. My mistake.

Re: Sally, Rings

Re: Sally, Quick Search/Hide
On the rings, yeah, I may have been heavy-handed. Enjoy +0.5 points.

As for Quick Search/Hide, I also stand corrected. Enjoy another +0.5.

Re: Allistair, armored casting

Re: Allistair, familiar stacking issues
Missed the armored casting comment. Faulty memory, I guess. Enjoy +0.5.

As for familiar stacking, you reiterated in more detail what I said during my judging, except for the Ranger Improved Familiar bit. Upon rereading CW's Improved Familiar a second time, I see my folly about the Ranger's Urban Companion, as I assumed the Arcane Caster Level was the Master level, which isn't the case. Enjoy another +0.5.

Re: Dymphna, “cherry-picking”/consistency

Inconsistency in my scoring noted. enjoy +1.
Score Adjustments:
Dymphna +1 = Final Score 15
Allistair +1 = Final Score 14
Sally +1 = Final Score 16.5

On that note, I don't think I'll be judging next contest, as dealing with rules disputes ate up a lot more time than I was planning to invest in the contest and I'd rather not repeat such. Perhaps my D&D-fu was not as strong as I'd've liked but I'll be going back to lurking spectator for the near future.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Updated Scores

1st Rhys - 15/15.5/15/13 = 58.5
2nd Sally - 16.5/13.5/14/14 = 58
3rd Dymphna - 14/14.5/14.5/11.5 = 55.5
4th Nightwatch - 12.5/16/14.5/9.5 = 54.5
5th The Judge - 13/14.5/13.5/12.5 = 53.5
6th Allistair - 13/15.5/12/10.5 = 52
7th Viyana - 11/11/13.5/14 = 49.5
8th Oduk - 10/12/11/10.5 = 43.5

[Amphetryon]

It could be a photo-finish...

[Dusk Eclipse]

Go Go Sally!!! :Writes a big sign that says just that:

>.> <.< what?? that is the build I liked the most.

[true_shinken]

Go Go Sally!!! :Writes a big sign that says just that:

>.> <.< what?? that is the build I liked the most.

I was cheering for Nightwatch :/
Power alone could bump him a lot higher.

[Ozymandias9]

And one final dispute. After this one is resolved, we'll finish her up.

@Cieyrin:
Re Nightwatch


Nightwatch's success is in spite of Vigilante, not because of. Replacing Vigilante with more Bard would probably work better, since the only thing he's using Vigilante for is the casting.
Vigilante gives Nightwatch his signature weapon/style, in fact faster than you could get it without some fighter levels. It gets him both quick search and fast hide, both of which he's designed to use to good effect between his divination ability (much of which would allow him to search from a distance) and his sneak attack dice.

[true_shinken]

Oh a dispute towards Nightwatch! Go Nightwatch go!

[OMG PONIES]

Judging disputes mean possible score adjustments, and that means I get to play with my spreadsheet more, so I'm for it!

[Cieyrin]

And one final dispute. After this one is resolved, we'll finish her up.

@Cieyrin:
Re Nightwatch

Using net proficiency from Vigilante is something I overlooked, I'll grant you that. You also make use of Quick Hide decently by having an investment in Bluff, which was otherwise not readily apparent.

I still refute you used Quick Search well, considering your Divinations aren't Search friendly. The Prying Eyes aren't intelligent enough to search an area and lack a Search bonus, either, for that matter, just a Spot bonus. Scrying just lets you see a target, which again would be utilizing your Spot and Listen checks. Your other recon spells don't provide any means to do so, either. The only time I can see your character utilizing Quick Search is when you're physically there. You have significant ranks in Search, so you can at least do that passably, just not primarily in the method you claimed you should have been able to.

Considering the above, I award + 0.5 to UoSI, though Vigilante still falters in comparison to Sublime Chord and Unseen Seer in your build, which take over the spotlight from them on.
Score Adjustments:
Nightwatch +0.5 = Final Score 12.5
Hope this is the last one. I'm going to sleep now...

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Final Scores
(adjusted to correct score)

1st Rhys - 15/15.5/15/13 = 58.5
2nd Sally - 16.5/13.5/14/14 = 58
3rd Dymphna - 14/14.5/14.5/11.5 = 55.5
4th Nightwatch - 12.5/16/14.5/10.5 = 54.5
4th The Judge - 13/14.5/13.5/12.5 = 54.5
5th Allistair - 13/15.5/12/10.5 = 52
6th Viyana - 11/11/13.5/14 = 49.5
7th Oduk - 10/12/11/10.5 = 43.5

[OMG PONIES]

Um...you're...wrong? I think.

Current Scores
1st Rhys - 15/15.5/15/13 = 58.5
2nd Sally - 16.5/13.5/14/14 = 58
3rd Dymphna - 14/14.5/14.5/11.5 = 55.5
4th Nightwatch - 12.5/16/14.5/10.5 = 53.5
4th The Judge - 13/14.5/13.5/12.5 = 53.5
6th Allistair - 13/15.5/12/10.5 = 52
7th Viyana - 11/11/13.5/14 = 49.5
8th Oduk - 10/12/11/10.5 = 43.5

A minor quibble, but Nightwatch and The Judge are tied for 4th, as per my calculations.

[true_shinken]

So I believe Rhys won?

Ozy, could you give me the contact information of the guy that makes the trophies?

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Um...you're...wrong? I think.

A minor quibble, but Nightwatch and The Judge are tied for 4th, as per my calculations.
Yup, you're right. Kesnit may have altered vote cuz my pasted copy doesn't show it 10.5 originally.

[OMG PONIES]

Ozy, time to stick a fork in this one? Shinken, Ozy will contact Strategos for this round's trophies...I think you're free to start round XIV.

[true_shinken]

Ozy, time to stick a fork in this one? Shinken, Ozy will contact Strategos for this round's trophies...I think you're free to start round XIV.

Yeah, I meant I need his contact information to request the trophies for the next one ^^

Also, Ozy still hasn't pronounced the official winner.

[Ozymandias9]

The final standings for this round are in and the winner is
Amphetryon's Rhys, with a total score of 58.5.

In second place is The Vorpal Tribble's Sally, with a total score of 58.

The rest of the standings are as follows.
3rd--OMG Ponies's Dymphna, 55.5
4th--WinWin's The Judge, 53.5
4th--Kestrel404's Nightwatch, 53.5
6th--Rancor1's Allistair “The Night Angel” Vansen, 52
7th--DaragosKitsune's Viyana, The Unseen, 49.5
8th--darbythegambler's Oduk Nanoc, 43.5

In addition, since he was unable to compete primarily do to my error,
Dark_Nohn's Vandel Juxtevin warrants an Honorable Mention.

I've not yet heard back from the illustrious Strategos regarding my inquires on trophies for the last contest, nor have my fervent cries for a fill in artist been answered. I will however, follow up and see if I can get a hold of Strategos tomorrow, since she (the avatar looks female at least) seems to have been active as of late.

P.S. for true_shinken: Strategos's contact information is Strategos. You PM her.

[The Vorpal Tribble]

Curses! I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling judges and their dislike of Artificer crafts!

You may have won this time, Amphetryon, but I'll have the treasure someday!

*is lead away in handcuffs*

[Amphetryon]

Hooray, 9th (?) time's the charm! VT, it was a real nail-biter of a race there at the end, and could easily have gone to you or a couple of other entrants. :smallsmile:

[Grynning]

Grats to both of you. There was some tough competition in this one, after I did my scores I knew it was still anyone's game, though I'm glad Rhys came out on top. I think he and Nightwatch were my personal favorites out of the bunch; I guess Nightwatch's Batman references and low number of Vigilante levels were pretty divisive among the other judges though.

[true_shinken]

Grats to both of you. There was some tough competition in this one, after I did my scores I knew it was still anyone's game, though I'm glad Rhys came out on top. I think he and Nightwatch were my personal favorites out of the bunch; I guess Nightwatch's Batman references and low number of Vigilante levels were pretty divisive among the other judges though.

Yeah, that's sad, I really liked Nightwatch.

Congratulations, Amphetryon! You really deserved this prize.
I'll be posting the next challenge in a matter of minutes.

Ozy, thanks for hosting the last Iron Chefs. Will you be joining us as a judge/contestant?

New contest is up (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=174434)

[OMG PONIES]

Congrats to the winners! I now see my problem--I was reading the Heir of Siberys requirements wrong. I took "Race: dragonmarked race" to be "Race: any dragonmarked race," while it could just as easily (and more logically) be read "Race: member of the dragonmarked race corresponding to your Siberys Mark."

Mea culpa. Man, now I'm wondering what the scores would have looked like if Dymphna was an Elf Monk 2/Paladin 5/Vigilante 5/Heir of Siberys 3/Vigilante +5. Oh, hindsight. Plus, Dymphna d'Thuranni sounds like a pretty sweet name, and she could have rebelled from the more shady ways of her House.

[Grynning]

Congrats to the winners! I now see my problem--I was reading the Heir of Siberys requirements wrong. I took "Race: dragonmarked race" to be "Race: any dragonmarked race," while it could just as easily (and more logically) be read "Race: member of the dragonmarked race corresponding to your Siberys Mark."

Mea culpa. Man, now I'm wondering what the scores would have looked like if Dymphna was an Elf Monk 2/Paladin 5/Vigilante 5/Heir of Siberys 3/Vigilante +5. Oh, hindsight. Plus, Dymphna d'Thuranni sounds like a pretty sweet name, and she could have rebelled from the more shady ways of her House.

Yeah, that probably would have tipped Dymphna up into the running for #1. She already was tied for second highest score from me. I honestly wish I'd seen that build a long time ago, she'd have been perfect for a Sharn-based urban intrigue campaign I was in a few years back, though I probably wouldn't have gone VoP.

[Cieyrin]

Sweet, Amphetryon finally bags one! :smallbiggrin:

And, again, it's not that I disliked any of the builds, it's a matter of how builds are graded in Iron Chef that some criteria may have been low. darbythegambler's Oduk, for example. It was wonderfully insightful to get double Bard casting but it lacked polish that could have made it wonderfully better. Plus, the focus wasn't on Vigilante. Oduk was easily my favorite but it just didn't meet up with the criteria that builds are judged on. I'd love to delve into that build and fix it up and play that character but, well, that's something for another time, neh? :smallwink:

[The Vorpal Tribble]

All I can say is Iron Man is gonna have something to say when the Superhero Union finds out vigilante justice and smithing aren't thought to go together...

[Amphetryon]

I've not yet heard back from the illustrious Strategos regarding my inquires on trophies for the last contest, nor have my fervent cries for a fill in artist been answered. I will however, follow up and see if I can get a hold of Strategos tomorrow, since she (the avatar looks female at least) seems to have been active as of late.

P.S. for true_shinken: Strategos's contact information is Strategos. You PM her.

Quick note: The gender indicator on Strategos says male, FWIW.

[OMG PONIES]

All I can say is Iron Man is gonna have something to say when the Superhero Union finds out vigilante justice and smithing aren't thought to go together...

Come on Trib, Sally was less like Iron Man and more like the Quintessions (or Primus, depending on your canon) creating an army of Transformers.

[Amphetryon]

Any word from Strategos?

[Amphetryon]

Still no trophies?

*dramatic sigh*

[true_shinken]

Still no trophies?

*dramatic sigh*

Strategos never answered me :smallfrown: