Iron Chef itP Pathfinder Edition I

[Vanitas]

Prestige classes are not that awesome in Pathfinder. Most of the time, single-classed build work better.
Considering that, isn't it a bigger challenge to optimize prestige classes in Pathfinder?

Welcome to Iron Chef in the Playground Pathfinder Edition!

We will be running in a way very similar to the standard Iron Chef, but I like things fast and loose. No standardized entries, no need for full statblocks. Explain as much as you want - if it's underxplained, the judges might punish you for it (and hey, you deserved it).

We could use the same categories from standard Iron Chef - Power, Elegance, Originality and Use of Secret Ingredient. I like them. They work.

We could keep it limited to d20pfsrd.com (http://d20pfsrd.com/), because it's a lot easier that way. 20 point buy looks fine.

So, let's do it! How about... the Pit Fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/prestige-classes/other-paizo/n-r/pit-fighter)?

I'll edit this OP with more stuff if there is enough interest.

[Occasional Sage]

Darn, I was hoping there'd be a different, very specific ingredient; I've been working on an optimization build and submitting it for a contest would be icing!

I don't have time to compete, but I'm very interested in this. Worst case I could be convinced to judge.

What's the plan with 3.5 material? I'd imagine "banned, because that subverts the whole point", but somebody's gotta ask.,

[3WhiteFox3]

Definitely interested, I'm not the biggest fan of Pathfinder PRCs (they're kinda boring compared to a lot of the 3.5 ones). But since I really enjoy pathfinder, I'll see what I can do.

EDIT: Just realized that the Pit Fighter is all about performance combat which I know nothing about. I'll have to read up on it and see if I can't find some sort of build to work with.

[Vanitas]

What's the plan with 3.5 material? I'd imagine "banned, because that subverts the whole point", but somebody's gotta ask.,

That's pretty much it, yeah.

[Spore]

How do those kind of threads work anyway? Which is the target level? Do any builds have to contain the PrC? If yes, all 10 levels?

[Vanitas]

How do those kind of threads work anyway? Which is the target level? Do any builds have to contain the PrC? If yes, all 10 levels?

All builds need the prestige class, of course.
Iron Chef uses 20 level builds. Well, the description says you don't neet a 20 level build, but everyone does it anyway. Here, you really don't need a 20 level build. Do whatever you want with the prestige class and hope the judges like it.

[Psyren]

You should probably widen this to include archetypes as ingredients since that's where most of the interesting design tends to be found. Like a build that makes the most of, say, a Celebrity or Geisha bard.

There are good PrCs in PF of course (for the casters) but they tend to be aimed at a very specific purpose, whereas 3.5 was full of PrCs that were just the design team throwing darts at a chart to see what would stick.

[Vanitas]

You should probably widen this to include archetypes as ingredients since that's where most of the interesting design tends to be found. Like a build that makes the most of, say, a Celebrity or Geisha bard.
Hm, maybe. Let's see. I don't know. Probably.


There are good PrCs in PF of course (for the casters) but they tend to be aimed at a very specific purpose, whereas 3.5 was full of PrCs that were just the design team throwing darts at a chart to see what would stick.
The idea of IC is mostly bad prcs, though.

[Psyren]

The idea of IC is mostly bad prcs, though.

Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant to say that there are good and bad PrCs in PF, but all of them tend to be aimed at something specific. There's very little of the open-ended "Gee, I wonder what would happen if we printed this?" kind of experimentation like you see with Geomancer or GSA or Ollam or Fist of the Forest/Shou Disciple etc. Again, those kinds of things tend to end up as archetypes, if they go anywhere at all.

[Vanitas]

Sorry, I worded that badly. I meant to say that there are good and bad PrCs in PF, but all of them tend to be aimed at something specific. There's very little of the open-ended "Gee, I wonder what would happen if we printed this?" kind of experimentation like you see with Geomancer or GSA or Ollam or Fist of the Forest/Shou Disciple etc. Again, those kinds of things tend to end up as archetypes, if they go anywhere at all.

Oh, I got it. Agreed.

[Occasional Sage]

What kind of cooking time are you allowing?

[Vanitas]

What kind of cooking time are you allowing?

I don't know. A week? Maybe two? Interest is kinda low for now, so I really don't know.

[Spore]

We could start with better known classes for now. I have seen this class the first time and several others did too. Also including archetypes instead of prestige classes sound good. As Psyren mentioned, PF has pretty terrible power comparison in some areas (compare a geisha, a normal bard and an arcane duelist, you go from putrid green over greyish meh to heck yeah awesome).

[Occasional Sage]

What would you consider the "better known classes" that would draw interest?

[Spore]

Well, in that context, that class is certainly "core" as in published by Paizo. I overlooked that fact because only the bigger books are even released here. Plus I don't know performance combat at all.

But as a player of mine plays a pretty awesome halberd wielding half orc guardian that specializes in disabling rather than killing he would love the class and I could easily base a character on his fighter with retraining some feats of course. Even if the description says rage class feature, I highly doubt the standard barbarian 5 has enough feats to properly benefit from Pit Fighters.

[Korahir]

I'd be interested too, but Pit Fighter didn't really catch my attention. I agree that for PF archetypes would be better than many PrC.

[Spore]

I'd be interested too, but Pit Fighter didn't really catch my attention. I agree that for PF archetypes would be better than many PrC.

Yeah. Focus on the strong points of the class. A Geisha 20 certainly couldn't kill a balor on her own, but boy: She could write a contract in calligraphy (http://www.buzzfeed.com/aaronc13/15-hot-and-heavy-gifs-of-gorgeous-calligraphy-porn)that Asmodeus would cream his pants several times (and he doesn't even wear them) for and perhaps rethink his career choices because this fine individual in front of him is certainly better at writing up contracts than him.

[3WhiteFox3]

One thing to remember about Archetypes is that they are very different from PRCs from an optimization standpoint.

The main areas that would need reworking for such an ingredient would be Use of Secret Ingredient and Originality. Archetypes lose the ability of a PRC to be entered by any build that meets it's prerequisites, instead limiting the build to a certain class. PRCs also have set levels that can be inserted into a build, while archetypes substitute abilities at many different level points.

What would determine the UoSI score? Would you have to take every single substitution for any given Archetype to gain full points?

If that's the case then we'll be seeing quite a few [archetype] 20 builds, which limits the possible builds substantially, requiring the use of feats/skills/variable class features (or archetypes if the archetypes stack) as the primary means of distinguishing between builds, which is a big departure from Iron Chef. This is made even more complicated since Pathfinder rewards staying in one class far more than 3.5 did.

I'm not arguing for or against having Archetypes be focused on as ingredients, but I think it should be considered the differences that have to be made to make them work best as ingredients.

My solutions are the following, builds should be encouraged to only use as much of the secret ingredient as is strictly necessary to make the build work, if you're just picking up abilities just to get points in UoSI, then you aren't really trying to blend the ingredient with the rest of the build. This will open up builds to make the most of their class levels and branch out a little more and give more leeway for more creative builds.

[Vanitas]

One thing to remember about Archetypes is that they are very different from PRCs from an optimization standpoint.

The main areas that would need reworking for such an ingredient would be Use of Secret Ingredient and Originality. Archetypes lose the ability of a PRC to be entered by any build that meets it's prerequisites, instead limiting the build to a certain class. PRCs also have set levels that can be inserted into a build, while archetypes substitute abilities at many different level points.

What would determine the UoSI score? Would you have to take every single substitution for any given Archetype to gain full points?

If that's the case then we'll be seeing quite a few [archetype] 20 builds, which limits the possible builds substantially, requiring the use of feats/skills/variable class features (or archetypes if the archetypes stack) as the primary means of distinguishing between builds, which is a big departure from Iron Chef. This is made even more complicated since Pathfinder rewards staying in one class far more than 3.5 did.

I'm not arguing for or against having Archetypes be focused on as ingredients, but I think it should be considered the differences that have to be made to make them work best as ingredients.

My solutions are the following, builds should be encouraged to only use as much of the secret ingredient as is strictly necessary to make the build work, if you're just picking up abilities just to get points in UoSI, then you aren't really trying to blend the ingredient with the rest of the build. This will open up builds to make the most of their class levels and branch out a little more and give more leeway for more creative builds.

I'm starting to think Archetypes don't make good secret ingredients at all.

[Ailowynn]

Definitely interested.

Should we submit a build via PM? Forum post? Something else?

And I could totally see using archetypes as secret ingredients, depending on the one I question, of course. A spellslinger might be interesting.

[Vanitas]

Definitely interested.

Should we submit a build via PM? Forum post? Something else?
PM should work