Villainous Competition XXXVI: The Broken Man

[jdizzlean]

Welcome to Round 36 of the Villainous Competition!

Previous Competitions

Round One: Leader of Armies (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?395046)
Round Two: Nature's Revenger (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?400517)
Round Three: Double Agent (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?406015)
Round Four: Grave Keeper (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?413480)
Round Five: Crime Lord (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?420704)
Round Six: Ultimate Predator (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?430650)
Round Seven: Wicked Witch (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?444478)
Round Eight: Master of the Tundra (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?461482)
Round Nine: The Power of Villainous Thinking (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?474230)
Round Ten: Henchman Are Villains Too (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?478068)
Round Eleven: The Higher They Rise The Harder They Fall (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483052)
Round Twelve: Power Comes at a Price (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?488846)
Round Thirteen: The Gadgeteer - You Are Not Batman (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?491932)
Round Fourteen: The Thing That Should Not Be (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?496091)
Round Fifteen: The Horsemen Are Drawing Nearer (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?500829)
Round Sixteen: Burn Baby Burn (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?503974)
Round Seventeen: It's Alive! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?507768)
Round Eighteen: This is Heresy (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?511933)
Round Nineteen: He Slimed Me! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?516535)
Round Twenty: Elder Evil (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?521560)
Round Twenty-One: Yarr! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?527415-Villainous-Competition-XXI-Yarr!)
Round Twenty-Two: I Am The Night! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?531199-Villainous-Competition-XXII-I-Am-The-Night!)
Round Twenty-Three: Two Heads Are Better Than One! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?535437-Villainous-Competition-XXIII-Two-Heads-Are-Better-Than-One)
Round Twenty-Four: Wrong For The Right Reasons! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?541650-Villainous-Competition-XXIV-Wrong-For-The-Right-Reasons)
Round Twenty-Five: Keeper of the Gate (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?550139-Villainous-Competition-XXV-No-Solicitors!)
Round Twenty-Six: Get In MY BELLY (Swallow Whole) (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?556705-Villainous-Competition-XXVI-Swallow-Whole!)
Round Twenty-Seven: Multiple Personality Disorder (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?559748-Villainous-Competition-XXVII-Multiple-Personality-Disorder)
Round Twenty-Eight: Tiny Only! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?565176-Villainous-Competition-XXVIII-Bad-Things-Come-in-Small-Packages)
Round Twenty-Nine: Halloween Special (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?573496-Villainous-Competition-XXIX-A-Halloween-Special)
Round Thirty: One Feat to Rule Them ALL (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?577930-Villainous-Competition-XXX-One-Feat-to-Rule-Them-ALL)
Round Thirty-Two: In Cold Blood (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?582492-Villainous-Competition-XXXI-In-Cold-Blood)
Round Thirty-Three: oh HELL NO! (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?586377-Villainous-Competition-XXXII-Oh-HELL-NO!)
Round Thirty-Three: The Do Over (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?589107-Villainous-Competition-XXXIII-The-Do-Over)
Round Thirty-Four: Sword and Board (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?600139-Villainous-Competition-XXXIV-Sword-and-Board)
Round Thirty-Five: I Shall Call Him Mini Me! (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?605444-Villainous-Competition-XXXV-I-Shall-Call-Him-Mini-Me!)

We're a little different than most of the optimization threads. We run on CR instead of ECL.

Contestants:
You will need to present a write-up of your build with at least one of the following points: 5 CR, 10 CR 15 CR, 20 CR, and a "sweet spot" that you feel is the high point of the build, as well as presenting a fully-fleshed out 20 CR build in the table below. Feel free to present as many of these as you like, and please give a rundown of the build's abilities and playability at all of the levels you didn't show. The rules are as follows:

Secret Laboratory:
Competitors will be free to use any official 1st party (WotC) 3.5 rulebook in constructing their builds. Dragon Compendium is allowed, but Dragon magazine is disallowed. Unearthed Arcana is allowed. Unupdated 3.0 materials, as well as web exclusives by WotC are expressly allowed, but take care to verify that an updated version did not appear in print elsewhere, as this may cause an Elegance deduction at the judges' discretion. Alternate rule systems from UA such as gestalt or Generic Classes are not allowed, as they create a different playing field. Item Familiars and Taint are also banned from the competition. Leadership and all similar abilities are banned for sanity reasons.
Builds that are fully monstrous are allowed at no penalty. All class levels are to be added on as associated class levels.

Elite array (15, 14, 13, 12, 10, 8) is the assumed ability score generation method.
Some monstrous characters can technically qualify for Epic feats as soon as their ECL is over 20. While regular Epic feats will be allowed, Epic Spellcasting and all other Epic feats that affect spells, psionic powers, or item creation are not permitted. Including these would give an unfair advantage over standard characters. For Incarnum characters, Epic Open Chakra feats are allowed; other Epic Incarnum feats are not. The Essentia Capacity increases for Epic capacity as described on p. 212. For all characters, please note that Racial Hit Dice do not count towards Epic Progression; use the regular progression even if the BAB ends up higher than 20.

Deadlines:
Contestants will have until 23:59 MST June 12th to create their builds and PM them to the Supreme Chancellor. Builds will then be posted simultaneously, to avoid copying. Judges will have until 23:59 MST Saturday July 4th to judge the builds and submit their scores. If no judges have scored by that point, only the scores of the first judge to submit will be counted. Deadlines are subject to extension as/if required.

Judging:
Judging will be based on the following criteria, with each build rated on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (exemplary) in each area: Originality, Build Elegance, Competence and Power, Memorable Villainy.
Keep these questions in mind when judging each category:
Originality - Is it unexpected?
Build Elegance - Is it mechanically pretty?
Competence and Power - Can it do what the concept asks of it? Is this a powerfully-built character?
Memorable Villainy - Is this a villain with style? Will it be the BBEG players long to finally kill and then talk about for weeks?
Unearthed Arcana can be penalized for elegance if the specific feature seems unnecessary or makes the playing field unfair (In this case, you can give a 1 if it makes the field unfair.)
Power level is up to you. Cheese is acceptable, but should be kept to a sane level unless you're showcasing a new TO build you've discovered. As the Iron Chef competition states, a little cheddar can be nice, but avoid the mature Gruyere unless you're making a cheese fondue.
You may not judge if you entered the contest, unless you withdraw your submission.

Presentation:
Builds will be posted anonymously, in order to avoid the potential of bias towards a particular competitor. For this reason, please don't put your name in the build, as I'm likely to miss it when reviewing the entries!

Note:
There is now a hard limit on two (2) entries per competitor.

Using the table below, the easiest way to use it is to go to the top left of the private message, and click the little a/A icon. It allows you to see what you're writing.
Due to concerns about standardizing entry format, I'd like everyone to try to use the following table for their entry.


CR
Class
Base Attack Bonus
Fort Save
Ref Save
Will Save
Skills
Feats
Class Features


1
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


2
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


3
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


4
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


5
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


6
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


7
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


8
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


9
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


10
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


11
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


12
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


13
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


14
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


15
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


16
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


17
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


18
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


19
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


20
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


Code immediately below (spoiler).

CR
Class
Base Attack Bonus
Fort Save
Ref Save
Will Save
Skills
Feats
Class Features


1
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


2
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


3
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


4
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


5
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


6
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


7
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


8
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


9
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


10
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


11
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


12
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


13
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


14
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


15
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


16
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


17
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


18
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


19
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


20
New Class Level
+x
+x
+x
+x
Skills
Feats
New Class Abilities


You can use the table below for Spells.

Spells per Day/Spells Known
Spells per Day/Spells Known


Level
0lvl
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th


1st
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


2nd
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


3rd
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


4th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


5th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


6th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


7th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


8th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


9th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


10th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


11th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


12th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


13th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


14th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


15th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


16th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


17th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


18th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


19th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


20th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


Code Immediately Below,
Spells per Day/Spells Known
Spells per Day/Spells Known


Level
0lvl
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th


1st
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


2nd
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


3rd
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


4th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


5th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


6th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


7th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


8th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


9th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


10th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


11th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


12th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


13th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


14th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


15th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


16th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


17th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


18th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


19th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-


20th
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-



Speculation:
Please don’t post or speculate on possible builds until the reveal, in order to avoid spoiling the surprise if a particular competitor is producing a build along those lines.
Once builds are revealed, please do not comment on errors or rules issues on entries unless you are a judge. If you have such a comment, wait until the final reveal to post it.

Get ready to share those Evil thoughts. This edition’s villain is:


The Broken Man




Limitations



the only allowed sources are banned material
((meaning: all other dragonlance material, all other oriental adventures material, taint, leadership, forgotten realms, item familiars, flaws))
item familiars will use standard WBL = CR,* to determine availability of powers invested

Dragon #’s 316-352 are allowed this round
Dungeon mag, Dragon+, Gestalt, and Rokugan are still banned
the epic rules will remain in effect
a monster entry must have a CR rating in order to be a valid option
you may use the PHB for skills, feats or basic spells, all others must be pulled from the same source material as above UNLESS the specific entry you are using references other material (book, page #)
Must be Evil


We will award 1st through 3rd places, and a possible Honorable Mention.
So, start your evil plotting!

Submission:
To standardize Entries, please use this format when sending it in:

PM: Jdizzlean
Subject: Villainous Competition 36, Name of your Entry
For Revisions and disputes, do the same thing. It makes it easier for me finding the entries in my mail box.
More questions? PM me with Villainous Competition 35 Questions in the header.

Tips for submitting your entry, provided by Weaselguy:


- Use capitalization and punctuation, correctly.
- Make good use of Spoilers, for cleanliness.
- Don't forget your sources. If it's something that can be found in the contents section, then book title seems to be fine. Obscure stuff, may want to include page number too.
- DeviantArt has about 9 billion pictures that you can reference, I can almost guarantee you can find one there to fit your character.
- Make good use of tables. In addition to the Build table and the Spells table, I like doing on e for my Ability Scores, just to keep it neat.
- Do a build stub at the top of your Build Table, something like Wizard 2/Fighter 3/Abjurant Champion 5/Eldritch Knight 10



As always: let's keep it nice.

I'll mention that again - LET'S KEEP IT NICE! Bickering, name calling and nasty comments on the entries or other forum members are not tolerated.

New competition rule: if I feel an individual has been overly disruptive during the course of competition discussion, I will not be accepting and revealing any entries from that individual, and they will also not be allowed to judge. Any judging they enter will not be taken into account for the final tally.

It's sad that it had to come to this, but here's a list of permanently banned (from this Villainous Competition) members:

Novolin (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?148361-Novolin)
Yklikt (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/member.php?133435-Yklikt)

[jdizzlean]

Clarifications

Unearthed Arcana variant rules are limited: The variant character options (such as Wildshape Ranger and Thug Fighter) should not be penalized. Flaws and traits may be penalized by judges, whereas item familiars, gestalt, alternate skill systems, alternate magic systems, alternate crafting rules, generic base classes, LA buyoff, fractional saves/BAB, and bloodlines are banned. Anything not mentioned here is up to individual judges.

d20 Rokugan is not allowed material.

The Dragon Magazine update for Oriental Adventures is in use.

Leadership is banned. Any material that grants you leadership without you specifically taking it should be ignored and may not be traded away for another feat or ACF. Undead Leadership and Dragon Cohort are likewise banned. Wild Cohort and Obtain Familiar are allowed. If you are not sure if a specific feat violates the 'no leadership' rule, err on the side of caution, or ask me.

However, Leadership may be taken to qualify for another feat or class (such as the Great Captain feat or Legendary Leader prestige class), though a character still doesn't get its usual benefit in those cases. This is to allow characters to access unproblematic material that'd otherwise be made unavailable because of the Leadership ban.

On the subject of messaging the chair (me), a few guidelines:
- I am not here to give critiques on your build or guess how the judges might score it!
- For entries, please keep the entry to no more than 2 message, if at all possible.
- For entries, don't expect me to search through your entry and edit in or out material. Entries should be sent to me complete - if there is a later revision, re-submit the full build. PLEASE DON'T INCLUDE TEXT IN YOUR SUBMISSION YOU WANT ME TO EDIT OUT FOR THE POST - SUBMIT IT TO ME EXACTLY HOW I WILL POST THE FINISHED PRODUCT.
- Please make sure the name of your entry is clearly present in the message.

AvatarVecna has graciously helped to create the limitations for this round, and will be judging it. Any ruling questions asked in thread will be answered by AV unless I’m asked to intervene with a ruling.

Everyone, have fun!

[AvatarVecna]

[QUOTE=AvatarVecna;24505678]Allowed Sources:
Player's Handbook, but only for mundane equipment, feats, skills, and spells
Dungeon Master's Guide, but only for magic items
Monster Manual, but only for feats
Dragon Magazine #316-352
3.X setting material relating to Forgotten Realms
3.X setting material relating to Dragonlance (no 3rd party)
3.X setting material relating to Eberron
3.X setting material relating to Rokugan (no 3rd party)
3.X setting material relating to Ravenloft (no 3rd party)

Allowed UA Content:
ACFs
Traits
Flaws
Item Familiars
Taint
Generic Classes
Bloodlines

Not Allowed UA Content:
Gestalt
Alternate Magic Systems
Alternate Skill Systems
Alternate Crafting Systems
Fractional Saves/BAB
LA Buyoff
Any Other UA Content

Disallowed Sources:
Any other official 3.0/3.5 material1
Dragon Magazines that aren't #316-352
Dungeon Magazine

1) If there is something within the allowed material that directly references something within the rest of the official 3.0/3.5 library (say, a feat in Dragon Magazine 320 has a feat from Player's Handbook 2 as a prerequisite), then you can take the PH2 feat, provided you're doing so as a prereq for taking the DM 320 feat.



From the available settings, you may mix material together without regarding to setting purity. Doing so should not be discouraged/penalized merely for mixing mechanics from multiple settings.

For the purposes of this contest, the "you must use the most recent version of this class/feat/spell" rule ignores version in illegal sources for the purpose of determining the most recent version.

Creatures and items from illegal sources aren't allowed unless they're specifically mentioned in a legal source, and are only allowed in the specific capacity they were mentioned. As an example: a pixie is a monster from the Monster Manual (an illegal source), and thus you could not have your villain be a pixie. However, if your villain casts Summon Nature's Ally IX (a PH spell, and thus legal), that spell can summon a Pixie according to the PH, so a pixie would be legal for your villain to summon.

ACFs from a legal source that would alter a class from an illegal source make that class legal to take provided you do so with that ACF. This is less approved than taking a base class from a legal source, but it's still perfectly kosher.

A class that is presented as its own thing, even if it's very clearly a heavily-altered derivative of a banned class, isn't as discouraged as a pile of ACFs. Jester is clearly a different take on Bard, but it's so different that Jester is clearly its own thing. However, this also means that Jester can't take Bard ACFs even if Jester still retains the Bard ability that ACF trades away - because that ACF is only for Bards, and Jester isn't a Bard.



Every category starts from 3, and gains or loses points from there. My general judging criteria is below. Apologies for getting a bit verbose and caustic at times. >.>

In a themed contest, there would be some aspect of "how expected/common is [mechanic] for a villain built around [theme]", but this contest doesn't have a theme limitation in the traditional sense, so I won't be taking that into account. As such, in a contest with no explicit theming, Originality based around the theme is going to end up entangled with Memorability. As an example that I'm 99.9% sure doesn't count as speculation since there's no way they have these, if you find a monster/class combo with mechanics that explicitly interact with the fourth wall in some way (maybe "no table talk while the monster is present" or something similar to represent...idk an in-game psychic attack damaging the concept of teamwork?), that'd be super-original, and very memorable. Which is why such a thing will be counted over in Memorability instead.

What Originality will focus on, for me at least, is your general mechanical approach. You've got a good deal of access to unorthodox approaches, I'm looking for general approaches to villainy that aren't the usual nonsense. Ohhhhh you found a class in a Dragonlance book that's "incantatrix, but better, and its not called incantatrix", wooooooooow I'm on the edge of my seat. Oh cool you're a not!barbarian using a beta version of Shock Trooper buried in Dragon's back catalog, what a rebel you are. You found a combination of monsters and classes in the approved materials that just so happen to "force" you to pick up as prereqs all the otherwise-banned feats and maneuvers that would make up a more typical lockdown build, well gee willickers that sure is BORING.

None of this is to say that those are bad destinations. Metamagic blaster, ubercharger, melee lockdown...they can all be interesting. And I fully acknowledge it might be difficult to find something that's actually not been done before. But if your access to this material isn't changing your destination, then it should at least be making the journey to get there more interesting. If you make an ubercharger using not!Shock Trooper instead of Shock Trooper, that's not doing anything new with the material - you'll win points on power for finding a path to Ubercharge despite the restrictions on normal material, but you'll lose on Originality. But if you find a PrC or feat or something that lets you Power Attack people straight into becoming ghosts upon death...that's pretty freaking cool, is an aspect of the game you don't often see connected with ubercharging, and allows your villain to do unorthodox things. You'll gain points.

(And I hope none of the above is accidentally speculation, I tried to make it kinda generic and ridiculous >.>)

So yeah: journey, or destination. If you're using weird mechanics to take your villain in wildly unexpected directions, you get a 5. If you're using the material to get a wildly different take on some classic villainy like ghost-charger up there, you'll probably be around a 4. If you're using the material access to take a different route to a common thing without doing much to shake it up, that's probably getting you a 2. And if you're just being the guy who takes Dragon Mag ACFs of commonly-good classes and cheating your way into all the usual nonsense feats you see on every build like yours, you deserve the 1 I'm going to give you.

...one last note on originality: while it doesn't happen frequently, there are certain...mechanics within the newly-allowed materials that get mentioned in charop discussions frequently despite the issues a lot of people take with the sources, just because they're so good for a particular thing. This won't be a huge ding necessarily, partially to reflect that my experience of what mechanics are brought up in this fashion might be vastly different from yours, but the greater a mechanic is...prevalent in the community hivemind, the more it's going to hurt your originality score.

As an example, yes, I'm well aware that you can use the [redacted] to access [redacted] even though you're not [redacted]. You're very smart and will get some extra points in power. But if you are aware of this mechanic you know damn well what I'm talking about despite all the redaction, and you know perfectly well that basically any build could really take advantage of that abuse. I know it, you know it, so we both know that you'll deserve at least a bit of a penalty here if you decide to include it. Just take that kinda thing into account.

So a little bit of a tangent:

The other competitions are for players, primarily. They are about working the rules to achieve a goal, and sometimes that involves operating on the assumption that a DM will rule in a particular way (or at least accept your argument for a particular ruling) on the basis of overall balance, or of what makes sense, or on designer intention when the actual RAW seems to clearly go against how they meant for it to work. It happens, you work around things as best you can to make the mechanics reflect the character you have in mind, or to build a cohesive character out of a disparate pile of mechanics. A DM doesn't have to worry about that, at least not in the same sense that players do. A DM doesn't have to worry about convincing the DM to use a particular ruling because they are the DM. The social contract is that the DM is putting a great deal of work into making a functional fun game for the group (more work than anybody else), and thus gets to set some restrictions on the players for the sake of keeping the party balanced, or the story intact. The players agree to abide by the DM's rules, and the DM agrees to make a fun game for everybody to play (for a certain value of fun). That's just...how the Gentleman's Agreement of RPGs works, at its core. By design, the DM isn't really under the same obligation to follow rules that the players are...at least, in most games.

One point of strength in 3.5 is that PCs and NPCs are designed using the same mechanics - every PC has a CR, and every monster has an ECL, even if they technically have LA "-" to indicate that it's off-limits for players. Another point of strength is that basically anything is explicitly possible without having to go outside the rules; infinite everything can be achieved by a lvl 1 nobody if they're trying hard enough. This has a wide variety of upsides, but one of the downsides is that it makes it a little harder for DMs to bend the rules than in other systems. Homebrewing and houseruling is always a possibility, but why cheat to achieve the thing you want to pull off if the base system can do it just fine? And while a DM isn't under an obligation to completely follow the rules in the same way the players are, deviating from the base system too much is likely to be a bit damaging to the social contract - we didn't have to play 3.5, we could've played a game where the DM is given more liberty to have NPCs do things that PCs just can't.

This is why even in a competition like this, where it's from a DM's perspective, there are still source limitations, and some default rulings. Leadership is mechanically pointless on a BBEG because you're the DM, you can have as many minions as you want, charisma score and cruelty be damned, so builds centered around abusing the particular mechanics of Leadership are to a certain extent wasted effort. This is why even in a competition like this, where it's from a DM's perspective, you can't just houserule mechanics to work differently, or homebrew up a new monster to use as the basis of your build. Yes, a DM could do that, but it's not very useful for a competition about building a cool villain if we're just gonna toss out the existing rules entirely. But in a competition like this, while it's unfair for each DM presenting their BBEG to rewrite the rules, it's certainly within their power to interpret the game rules favorably for their build.

This, to me, is the nitty gritty of what Elegance is. Things like a complicated stub, an NPC that's clearly minmaxing BS that no DM would let you use as a player, is only slightly bad here, because players are never going to see your villain's build properly the way a DM would if it were a PC. They're going to see how it plays in-game. They're going to have a decent enough understanding of the mechanics to know when you're using a weird interpretation or houserule. Your job as DM is to consistently lose without it seeming like you just handed them victory. Particularly when running 3.5, your job is either to not cheat the players on mechanics, or to cheat in a way that doesn't ruin the fun.

My Elegance rankings come back to two main points:

1) How acceptable would this build, with these tactics and strategies, be in a game where somebody else was the DM? This is the normal stuff you'd expect in this category for Iron Chef: weirdness regardless alignment, not meeting prereqs, multiclass penalties...strictly mechanical issues with your build. Meeting prereqs weighs strongly here, with the others being fairly weak.

2) Rulings and interpretations. This game is filled with a lot of holes where things are unspecified, unclear, or downright dysfunctional, and the DM's job is to paper over those when necessary. If your build strays into murky waters, I don't care that you're essentially cheating your way through it (since you as DM can rubber-stamp whatever method you use to circumvent the issue), but I want you to show your work. What I'm looking for is arguments that the interpretation is balanced or makes sense or is cool, and that the interpretation isn't going to cause issues with the players. In particular, hypocrisy is gonna bite you on the butt here: you can't rule that things work one way for your villain and another way for your players...or rather, you can, but this is the edition where that argument is weakest. If you really think it's just too broken for PCs to use a mechanic in the way that a villain is using, that it would just unbalance the party or the setting too much for them to use even as it's basically necessary for your villain to keep up, that's fine for Power and Memorability but it's going to cost you here.

One slight additional point that's dependent on Memorability: if you're designing a villain to be the overarching villain for the campaign, faced at multiple points, then you'll need at least some explanation for why their power has changed at PC speeds. This isn't going to be a huge leap for most villains - if you're a wizard villain, you advanced at the same speed the party did because you're essentially a PC too, and you've been gaining experience at about the same rate. If you're a monster that doesn't level up with XP, or through some established method, you're going to need to give a better explanation. It doesn't have to be mechanically supported behind the scenes, it just has to make sense: if you're a powerful undead, maybe your lair where the final battle is is super-desecrated in a way the jail you were escaping from when they first fought you wasn't. Maybe you were weakened by injuries the first time around, or had already used your higher-level spell slots. If you're a weaker beholder at first, then become a full beholder with class levels, maybe you were always the full beholder with class levels but you were at quarter-health and had some eyestalks ripped off from a major battle.

I don't expect this to be a huge problem for the vast majority of participants. But because for one particular competition it kept happening, I'll say it specifically here, as a prime example of what I'm talking about: if your Villain is a dragon, and is intended to be a campaign-long villain fought at different points, and they improve via age categories, you're gonna need an explanation for why your dragon has aged 300 years in between each of the three boss battles it had with the same group of humans and gnomes and whatever. This is less of an issue if you're intended as more of a villain for a one-shot or a short adventure arc rather than a full campaign, but that gets into Memorability more.

This contest has no theme, and thus doesn't really have a set standard for power. In a fire-themed contest or a necromancer-themed contest or a non-magic contest, the bar is very obviously set at a particular place by default, but this contest won't have that. I can't just be like "I'll add up your HP, AC, save/attack/damage bonuses, and spell slots, and rank you all according to that score", because there's just gonna be too much variation and it'd end up with "everybody who isn't a spellcaster is ****, everybody who is, is golden". Equally clearly, I can't say "I'll figure out what tier I think your character is in, and then just you based against more standard villains that would very definitely be in the same tier as you" because that just means that the world's strongest commoner would get Power 5 and the world's weakest wizard would get Power 1 (even though the wizard is almost miles ahead of the commoner). Once again, it comes back to a matter of the perspective of this contest:

In the other contests, you submit as a player, and your job is to be as powerful as you can reasonably manage to give your team the best chance at victory they can manage in the adventures to come. In this contest, you submit as a DM. And the DM's job is to consistently, convincingly, lose.

So rather than just you purely on your numbers to see where between 0 and infinite you are in everything, I'll be looking at the player side of things: how much effort will the players have to put into building and playing in order to beat this villain? How does the villain's tactics and mechanics leave them open to common tricks of the martials and casters? Can you be scry-n-die'd, or are the PCs gonna have to work a little harder if they want to circumvent the adventure to defeat you?

A very reductive way of stating my criteria here would be "what tier would the party need to be built/played at to beat you", and then subtract that from 5. I'll be looking more at specifics, but in general I'll be taking common tricks into account and seeing how well you perform when they're used against you. Being immune to cheap tricks is good for your power ranking, being resistant to them is less good but still fine, being vulnerable to them loses points in power (although it can win you points in Memorability).

This is a measure of how much I think the players would remember your villain and talk about them going forward. It also has different criteria depending on how exactly the villain is meant to engage the players.

If they're a campaign-long villain, then the ideas behind their villainy, their goals and ideology the scale at which they operate, and the consequences for failing to defeat them, will all be integral to judging the villain's memorability. From such a perspective, the final fight with the actual villain almost barely matters in regards to difficulty - it's about defeating the plan, not the man. If the villain is mostly immune to the party's BS and just has to be beaten down with good old fashioned attacks, that's kinda a boring fight, but at the same time it's less about beating him than about thwarting his plan; so long as everything that led to the fight occurring was interesting, the players will remember him even if he's just a big purple brute seemingly immune to everything who has to be punched into submission.

On the flip side, a villain who is only meant to be in charge for a single adventure, or even just a one-shot, is also perfectly fine, but the steps to making them memorable are very different. The less "screen time" the villain gets, the more memorable their actual fight has to be - you can't have the whole oneshot being the villain monologuing to explain his tragic backstory and evil plan, that's just gonna bore the party to tears in a way that it wouldn't if subtle hints were laid out over the course of a campaign. If it's been an adventure of fighting wights, and the villain is just "a wight, but tougher", nobody will care or remember. If it's an adventure of fighting a rash of wights while you follow the trail of a serial killer, and at the end of the trail is an ubercharger who flatly ignores the party and just starts charging through a crowded street turning every hapless commoner he hits into a vengeful wight, that's going to be a memorable encounter - you have to try and take down the ubercharger, but you also have to do what you can to prevent a wightpocalypse from starting just because you ignored the lower-CR monsters to chase after the main villain. The PCs will remember that guy.

Puzzle bosses, villains that are difficult to just beat down but have an exploitable weakness, layered encounters where just killing the villain isn't the only goal, encounters where hurting the villain would have serious consequences so you actually have to capture them without causing harm...anything like that will make a villain memorable even if they're only around for the duration of a single session.

As an example of the kind of thing not to do, I was briefly in a low-epic mid-op game where all the players knew what they were doing, and the like dozen or so combats that actually happened all went the same way: everybody was immune to basically everything except direct HP damage, and was pretty resistant to that, so basically every fight turned into a boring slog, endless "nah im immune to that too", and the occasional argument about whether breaking the city-wide truce against epic spellcasting and disjunction was pertinent given the scale of the threat. Blah blah blah boring boring boring. The roleplay and setting and villain plans were interesting, but the game didn't last long enough for that stuff to really sink in, so all that was left was fights that weren't particularly engaging. Don't build your villain like that. Don't build some dude who fights the party once at lvl 12 or whatever, and is only memorable for how annoying it was to even affect him with anything until eventually that boring invulnerable rapid boar or whatever finally died.

Find the right balance of duration, story, and mechanics for your villain, and you'll do well in this category.

[Heavenblade]

Im kinda confused by the general vs specific guidlines...it says only the banned UA (or most of it allowed), than says th Acfs are also good to go. Also saying that X dragmags are allowed, and right after that says "dragon magazine is still banned" - a clarification would be awesome - thank you!

[AvatarVecna]

Im kinda confused by the general vs specific guidlines...it says only the banned UA (or most of it allowed), than says th Acfs are also good to go. Also saying that X dragmags are allowed, and right after that says "dragon magazine is still banned" - a clarification would be awesome - thank you!

My understanding is that the limitations within post #2 are the normal "banned materials" in all of these contests, which are overridden by this specific contest's rules (treat the stuff in post 2 as general rule, overridden by the specific rules in post 1). I'll clarify, to the best of my understanding, although jdizzlean can correct me if I've gotten it wrong.

Allowed Sources:
Player's Handbook, but only for feats, skills, and spells
Dragon Magazine #316-352
Setting material relating to Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance, or Oriental Adventures

Definitely Allowed UA Content:
ACFs
Traits
Flaws
Item Familiars
Taint

Possiblyy Allowed UA Content? (need jdizzlean to confirm):
Alternate Magic Systems
Alternate Skill Systems
Alternate Crafting Systems
Generic Classes
LA Buyoff
Fractional Saves/BAB
Bloodlines
Any Other UA Content

Definitely Not Allowed UA Content:
Gestalt

Disallowed Sources:
Any other official 3.0/3.5 material1
Dragon Magazines that aren't #316-352
Dungeon Magazine
d20 Rokugan2

1) If there is something within the allowed material that directly references something within the rest of the official 3.0/3.5 library (say, a feat in Dragon Magazine 320 has a feat from Player's Handbook 2 as a prerequisite), then you can take the PH2 feat, provided you're doing so as a prereq for taking the DM 320 feat.

2) My understanding for this ban's persistence is that d20 Rokugan is actually it's own system - mechanically compatible with 3.5 to a degree, but it's own separate system nonetheless, and is thus about as legal as using Pathfinder material. Oriental Adventures is allowed because it is 3.5 mechanics set in the Rokugan setting - sort of like if WotC released a 3.5 setting book for Golarion.

[Heavenblade]

Alright, thanks a lot, that explains it!

[Thurbane]

Limitations



the only allowed sources are banned material
((meaning: all other dragonlance material, all other oriental adventures material, taint, leadership, forgotten realms, item familiars, flaws))
item familiars will use standard WBL = CR,* to determine availability of powers invested
Dragon #’s 316-352 are allowed this round
Dungeon mag, Dragon+, Gestalt, and Rokugan are still banned
the epic rules will remain in effect
a monster entry must have a CR rating in order to be a valid option
you may use the PHB for skills, feats or basic spells, all others must be pulled from the same source material as above UNLESS the specific entry you are using references other material (book, page #)
Must be Evil



I'm somewhat confused...I get most of the other stuff, but since when has FR material been banned?

Also, by my understanding, Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Campaign setting are banned this round, but other d20 Rokugan and other 3E Dragonlance material is allowed?

And just on the off chance, how about Kingdoms of Kalamar, or 3E Ravenloft?

[3SecondCultist]

I'm in for this one! This sounds really challenging.

Question though: if we find a class, race, feat etc in one of the listed Dragon Magazines but it later gets reprinted in a 1st party 3.5 book, is it okay to use? A quick read through several editions of Dragon reveals tons of material that later gets added to the main game, so I'm wondering if we can work around the 'use the latest version / errata' rule that this contest goes on. I understand that might lead to a loss in Originality or Elegance, but I would like to see all the same what our options are.

[NontheistCleric]

I, too, have a question:

To what extent are the official books (PHB, Forgotten Realms and Oriental Adventures aside) 'banned'? For example, normally I expect a build would get a pretty big hit to Elegance if its primary tactic revolved around, say, summoning a monster that only appeared in one of the non-first-party Dragonlance books or Dragon Magazine. Does that mean we should consider things like creatures from official books totally off the table for things like summoning or polymorphing and limit it only to creatures that appear in the allowed sources for this round, or does the ban only entail us not being able to use elements in those sources in our actual build, but can still reference them for tactics? As a non-creature example, if one of our villains' tactics involved using a spell or power or other ability to create some mundane or magical item from an official book, would that be allowed or not allowed?

[3SecondCultist]

I, too, have a question:

To what extent are the official books (PHB, Forgotten Realms and Oriental Adventures aside) 'banned'? For example, normally I expect a build would get a pretty big hit to Elegance if its primary tactic revolved around, say, summoning a monster that only appeared in one of the non-first-party Dragonlance books or Dragon Magazine. Does that mean we should consider things like creatures from official books totally off the table for things like summoning or polymorphing and limit it only to creatures that appear in the allowed sources for this round, or does the ban only entail us not being able to use elements in those sources in our actual build, but can still reference them for tactics? As a non-creature example, if one of our villains' tactics involved using a spell or power or other ability to create some mundane or magical item from an official book, would that be allowed or not allowed?

I have an addendum to these questions: what about spells in general? Say that one of us found an alternate version of a spellcasting or psionic class that is really cool in one of the DragMag books, but they have near identical spell list to the base class. Would those spells / powers be not allowed at all? Or is it just feats, class levels, and races (the actual build stub and table of advancement) that need to come from 'banned' material?

[GrayDeath]

Well, this does sound confusing.

And doesnt match the title quite as wewll as most former Competitions.


till, intruiging.....hmmm.....

[NontheistCleric]

I have an addendum to these questions: what about spells in general? Say that one of us found an alternate version of a spellcasting or psionic class that is really cool in one of the DragMag books, but they have near identical spell list to the base class. Would those spells / powers be not allowed at all? Or is it just feats, class levels, and races (the actual build stub and table of advancement) that need to come from 'banned' material?

I'm not jdizzlean or AvatarVecna, of course, but I think


you may use the PHB for skills, feats or basic spells, all others must be pulled from the same source material as above UNLESS the specific entry you are using references other material (book, page #)

implies that spells, at least, are included in the ban, since otherwise an exception would not have needed to be made for the PHB.


And doesnt match the title quite as wewll as most former Competitions.

Unfortunately, material for snappy titles is bound to run a bit thin now and again.

[AvatarVecna]

I'm somewhat confused...I get most of the other stuff, but since when has FR material been banned?

Also, by my understanding, Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Campaign setting are banned this round, but other d20 Rokugan and other 3E Dragonlance material is allowed?

And just on the off chance, how about Kingdoms of Kalamar, or 3E Ravenloft?

d20 Rokugan isn't allowed because it's a different system. OA and DCS (and similar) are allowed on the basis that setting-specific material like that is usually discouraged, so here it's not discouraged.

My ruling: setting-specific material is all kosher, including mixed together, and shouldn't be discouraged/penalized.


I'm in for this one! This sounds really challenging.

Question though: if we find a class, race, feat etc in one of the listed Dragon Magazines but it later gets reprinted in a 1st party 3.5 book, is it okay to use? A quick read through several editions of Dragon reveals tons of material that later gets added to the main game, so I'm wondering if we can work around the 'use the latest version / errata' rule that this contest goes on. I understand that might lead to a loss in Originality or Elegance, but I would like to see all the same what our options are.

My ruling: sources that are illegal to use for this contest don't count for the purposes of using the most recent version of a feat, class, spell, or otherwise.


Does that mean we should consider things like creatures from official books totally off the table for things like summoning or polymorphing and limit it only to creatures that appear in the allowed sources for this round, or does the ban only entail us not being able to use elements in those sources in our actual build, but can still reference them for tactics?

As a non-creature example, if one of our villains' tactics involved using a spell or power or other ability to create some mundane or magical item from an official book, would that be allowed or not allowed?

My ruling: creatures and items from illegal sources aren't allowed unless they're specifically mentioned in a legal source, and are only allowed in the specific capacity they were mentioned.

As an example: a pixie is a monster from the Monster Manual (an illegal source), and thus you could not have your villain be a pixie. However, if your villain casts Summon Nature's Ally IX (a PH spell, and thus legal), that spell can summon a Pixie according to the PH, so a pixie would be legal for your villain to summon.

Something to ask for clarification about: I'm unsure if core gear (weapons, armor, adventuring supplies, and magic items) were intentionally excluded as part of the contest rules or not. This is something you'd need clarification from jdizzlean on.

EDIT: If there's an issue with the rulings, like you think it doesn't match what you think contest intentions are, ping OP about it.

[Thurbane]

Are ACFs from Dragon Mag allowed, assuming they are just the bog standard PHB classes with one small feature changed?

[3SecondCultist]

Something to ask for clarification about: I'm unsure if core gear (weapons, armor, adventuring supplies, and magic items) were intentionally excluded as part of the contest rules or not. This is something you'd need clarification from jdizzlean on.

EDIT: If there's an issue with the rulings, like you think it doesn't match what you think contest intentions are, ping OP about it.

First of all, thank you for the clarifications and quick reply. That makes my life a great deal easier to deal with for the build idea I have.

As far as the question of gear goes, I also would like to pose it to the OP. I understand that magic items might come from the DMG rather than the PHB, but at least core mundane gear should hopefully be on the table?

[jdizzlean]

My understanding is that the limitations within post #2 are the normal "banned materials" in all of these contests, which are overridden by this specific contest's rules (treat the stuff in post 2 as general rule, overridden by the specific rules in post 1). I'll clarify, to the best of my understanding, although jdizzlean can correct me if I've gotten it wrong.



Possiblyy Allowed UA Content? (need jdizzlean to confirm):
Alternate Magic Systems
Alternate Skill Systems
Alternate Crafting Systems
Generic Classes
LA Buyoff
Fractional Saves/BAB
Bloodlines
Any Other UA Content



no alternate systems/fractionals allowed. if you want to include a generic class/bloodline, go for it. LA buyoff isn't a thing when dealing w/ CR.


I'm somewhat confused...I get most of the other stuff, but since when has FR material been banned?

Also, by my understanding, Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Campaign setting are banned this round, but other d20 Rokugan and other 3E Dragonlance material is allowed?

And just on the off chance, how about Kingdoms of Kalamar, or 3E Ravenloft?

Dragonlance for example is generally only acceptable to use the campaign setting as all others are considered 3rd party (iirc). really for this round, it comes down to what books/mag's AV has on hand. if you have questions about a specific book, PM him. if access exists, I'll add that book to the allowed materials list, however unless it's listed above, it's probably not going to happen.

[Heavenblade]

A couple of questions
1. Does the prerq rule extends for classes? (A feat requires being a member of a certain class - Can I use the class?)
2. How does the rule regarding latest source being banned etc. Works with erratas? I mean, if I take an Acf to a certain class, and that class was erratad in a later book - does this build take errata into account?
Edit- clarification for question 2 - the class I took was erratadin the errata FOR the book it appeared in - not reprinted or anything.

So if the original book is allowed in this context, the question is wether the errata for that book comes into account?

[jdizzlean]

to the extent possible, try to use things as printed in the allowed materials without going into all the normal things. try to stay within the spirit of the round.

[Heavenblade]

Point is that in the entirety f the material allowed there are like...three or four base classes? unless I use Dragmag acfs - and even sticking with those that change the class in big ways, that still greatly enhanced the possibilities.

[Thurbane]

Point is that in the entirety f the material allowed there are like...three or four base classes? unless I use Dragmag acfs - and even sticking with those that change the class in big ways, that still greatly enhanced the possibilities.

Yeah, I found that too. Assuming Rokugan/Kalamar/Ravenlioft books are out, base classes are scarce. If I get a chance to enter, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that Dragon Mag ACFs of PHB classes count as allowed for this round.

Annoyingly, a lot of the really interesting ACFs pre-date issue 316. :smallyuk:

[AvatarVecna]

Ah, right. Sources are what I've got access to...I'll check when I get home to be absolutely about setting stuff, but in general FR, OA, and Eberron are stuff I've got access to. I'll call qround to check on what sources I can borrow from friends as far as hardcovers go.


Yeah, I found that too. Assuming Rokugan/Kalamar/Ravenlioft books are out, base classes are scarce. If I get a chance to enter, I'm gonna go ahead and assume that Dragon Mag ACFs of PHB classes count as allowed for this round.

Annoyingly, a lot of the really interesting ACFs pre-date issue 316. :smallyuk:

ACFs for normal-book classes are legal but going against the spirit a bit. Although yeah there's some serious limits on base classes if they're off the table. Should still be decent-ish monsters available, but I know how much people love not using classes... :smalltongueout:

[AvatarVecna]

KoK is out, EoCR is in.

OA and Rokugan material that's actually 3e/3.5 is in. Lot5R stuff is not kosher.

[NontheistCleric]

KoK is out, EoCR is in.

OA and Rokugan material that's actually 3e/3.5 is in. Lot5R stuff is not kosher.

Sorry, I'm not up to date on my acronyms, but what does EoCR stand for?

[AvatarVecna]

Sorry, I'm not up to date on my acronyms, but what does EoCR stand for?

Expedition to Castle Ravenloft. I don't think I have any books besides that one in the Ravenloft setting, though.

[Heavenblade]

I see that Acfs are frowned upon...what about alternative classes - there are some places in dragon magazine that took a base class and gave it a LARGE spinz wih some totally different class abilities and progressions (even though some stayed the same)

[AvatarVecna]

I see that Acfs are frowned upon...what about alternative classes - there are some places in dragon magazine that took a base class and gave it a LARGE spinz wih some totally different class abilities and progressions (even though some stayed the same)

If it's a full package presented as a full class, I feel it's different enough to be it's own thing. To use an example, Jester is clearly a different take on Bard, but it's such a different take that it basically has to be presented as its own thing.

[3SecondCultist]

Given how on hand AV is to judge and answer submission questions directly (thank you again for that), would it be possible for either AV or jdizzlean to compile the answers together in the OP rules for the contest? As it stands, the points there are not entirely correct or missing crucial info (which setting books are in, rulings on items and classes, rulings on errata, etc) for anyone coming in who might want to submit.

I know at least for myself it’s easier if I can find all of the key and fringe rulings in one place instead of combing a forum thread for answers piecemeal. It’ll help me from definitely missing a contest requirement at the 11th hour. :smalltongue:

[Heavenblade]

If it's a full package presented as a full class, I feel it's different enough to be it's own thing. To use an example, Jester is clearly a different take on Bard, but it's such a different take that it basically has to be presented as its own thing.

Follow up questions - what if it's a full package that retains some of the original class features' and then a legaly-sourced ACF replaces those?

Cause technichaly I could say the packages are just a "Big bunch of ACFs", but that depends on the reading of this stuf, I think.

[AvatarVecna]

Given how on hand AV is to judge and answer submission questions directly (thank you again for that), would it be possible for either AV or jdizzlean to compile the answers together in the OP rules for the contest? As it stands, the points there are not entirely correct or missing crucial info (which setting books are in, rulings on items and classes, rulings on errata, etc) for anyone coming in who might want to submit.

I know at least for myself it’s easier if I can find all of the key and fringe rulings in one place instead of combing a forum thread for answers piecemeal. It’ll help me from definitely missing a contest requirement at the 11th hour. :smalltongue:

I'll collect what I can in my first post, the "judging criteria" post.


Follow up questions - what if it's a full package that retains some of the original class features' and then a legaly-sourced ACF replaces those?

Cause technichaly I could say the packages are just a "Big bunch of ACFs", but that depends on the reading of this stuf, I think.

I want to see if I'm understanding you correctly using an example: "Witch" is a class that is clearly a twist on the Wizard, but is such a giant change to basically everything that it's presented as its own thing, but "Witch" still gets a Familiar, and you're asking whether that means that "Witch" can take a Wizard ACF that switches out the familiar for something else?

No. If "Witch" is its own thing, it can't take Wizard ACFs - because it's a Wizard ACF, not a Witch ACF. If "Witch" is just Wizard with so many stacked ACFs that it's basically not the same class anymore, then "Witch" can very clearly take Wizard ACFs, but equally clearly "Witch" isn't actually its own thing. I hope this answers your question sufficiently.

[AvatarVecna]

Post #3 is updated with rulings/clarifications.

[NontheistCleric]

A few more more things I don't think we covered:


Creatures and items from illegal sources aren't allowed unless they're specifically mentioned in a legal source, and are only allowed in the specific capacity they were mentioned. As an example: a pixie is a monster from the Monster Manual (an illegal source), and thus you could not have your villain be a pixie. However, if your villain casts Summon Nature's Ally IX (a PH spell, and thus legal), that spell can summon a Pixie according to the PH, so a pixie would be legal for your villain to summon.

What about feats? Say, for example, there's a class in a legal source that grants bonus feats from an illegal source? Does it work like Leadership normally does, in that we just treat them as not existing entirely, or would they function like creatures and items and be legal as long they were specifically mentioned?

On that note, given that Leadership is on the OP's 'allowed' list, does it follow the same rules as last round in regard to leader/cohort levels and CR? Can we attract followers, and if so, do they follow those rules as well?

[AvatarVecna]

A few more more things I don't think we covered:

What about feats? Say, for example, there's a class in a legal source that grants bonus feats from an illegal source? Does it work like Leadership normally does, in that we just treat them as not existing entirely, or would they function like creatures and items and be legal as long they were specifically mentioned?

This is covered in post #1 and #3 already. My ruling about creatures and items was a direct extension of the already-existing rule about legal sources referencing feats or spells from illegal sources.


On that note, given that Leadership is on the OP's 'allowed' list, does it follow the same rules as last round in regard to leader/cohort levels and CR? Can we attract followers, and if so, do they follow those rules as well?

I would assume that Leadership being legal works exactly the way it did during the round where "Leadership is legal" was the whole of the rules. OP can specify otherwise if they wish.

[NontheistCleric]

This is covered in post #1 and #3 already. My ruling about creatures and items was a direct extension of the already-existing rule about legal sources referencing feats or spells from illegal sources.

Oh, you're right. I missed that.


I would assume that Leadership being legal works exactly the way it did during the round where "Leadership is legal" was the whole of the rules. OP can specify otherwise if they wish.

Presumably, although what I really wanted to know was if followers were allowed. They weren't last round, but I think only jdizzlean can say whether that was a feature of Leadership being legal in general or of that round in particular.

[jdizzlean]

i would say you could include followers. however, since we just had a "leadership" round. a build that uses leadership and a pile of followers shouldn't have an advantage per se over one that doesn't use it this round. it should just be taken as another ingredient in the dish and therefor not the focus of the entire build. i know that's a little grey for a ruling, but there it is. besides, as stated earlier, this isn't a PC comp, you're essentially the dm, and could include followers for an entry w/o leadership being involved. so the amount of investment into it, and where and how you take that, is still up to you.

[jdizzlean]

How goes it gang....?

[jdizzlean]

ok gang.

once again, the deadline has come and gone, and not a single entry...

is it time for me to step down and have someone else run this? Are my restrictions just to much? i thought this round would've had an explosion of entries due to the availability of Dragon Mag. I myself had a half dz ideas, just not the time to do anything w/ them due to work and personal life issues.

[daremetoidareyo]

I think the restrictions were a difficulty that damped down willingness to build. No one was entirely sure what was in the allowable vs. Unallowable, and on top of that, the restrictions seemed...i don't know the exact words...forced?

I'll try to explain myself.

The villainous competitions offer this sliver of utility to make a big bad or little bad evil guy that you can drag and drop into your campaign, if you're running one. And if not, you can imagine how to face them. And these restrictions don't serve that veneer of actual gameplay-value, no dm with time crunch issues (all of an) is gonna limit themselves to dragon material only except selected splat book sources.

In addition,

The theme, the artistic inspiration that we're bending our rules knowledge and imaginations around, instead of a big archetype (witch, invisible man, ooze, bug-man) or terrain (desert, dungeon, aquatic), or trope (awful lawful, good aligned), our theme was "dragmag is allowed, except more difficult than that"

And so it was uninviting in two ways:1 if you had a favorite dragmag thing, you then had to work way harder to do what you imagined you would do with it, if you even could. 2 if you don't have extensive drag mag knowledge, the theme was hard to kick into imagination because it didn't offer the narrative hooks to trigger effort.

[Heavenblade]

I had a couple of ideas - I think that something that really limited me was the limitstion to a specifif number of dragon magazines, which I never really understood. It meant that I always managed to always get halfway through a cool build before I just didnt have enough source material frpm the allowed books to fill in all the entry.


I actually made a list of all feats and prcs that came out of the allowed magazines, and while there were a couple of interesting combos, most of them weren't particularly villainous - I actually completed a build, but it was not really "Villainous".


If I may suggest, perhaps expanding the allowed sources to cover all dragon magazine, and maybe give up to X items from nondragon stuff?


That is a limitation that makes you think smart, while not tying your hands.


I really digged the premise of this round, the actualt work was just a lot more complicated than I expected.

[NontheistCleric]

is it time for me to step down and have someone else run this? Are my restrictions just to much? i thought this round would've had an explosion of entries due to the availability of Dragon Mag. I myself had a half dz ideas, just not the time to do anything w/ them due to work and personal life issues.

I think daremetoidareyo has the right of it. The awkwardness of this round's source restrictions and the fact that there was no real theme just didn't feel very inspiring, and moreover I think it may simply have been complicated by the fact that many people simply may not have easy access to the sources allowed this round, at least compared to the usually assumed 'core set' of the actual Core books, Completes and the other assorted non-setting specific sourcebooks. Can't build with it if you don't have it, after all.

Of course, it's also true that the world is going through a general crisis at the moment, and needless to say, an internet competition with no real stakes or prizes is not going to be very high on anyone's priority list. I actually had an idea I thought was fairly good, but just didn't have enough time to finish. I don't think you should take this as an indication you should step down (unless you want to anyway); circumstances are just beyond our control sometimes.

It might also be worth considering, if you're planning on continuing, having some rounds with less tight mechanical/source restrictions. While they do increase creativity in a way that the more broadly thematic rounds don't, they seem to have been the trend for the last few rounds (excluding Do Over, obviously) and fatigue with regards to this style of round may be a factor in the visibly decreased turnout, especially considering the extra layer of mental complexity they add.

[GrayDeath]

Overall:

No, dont step down. Its not really YOU.

But the rounds had the problematic Combiantion of: Forum Down, Corona, "strange Themes"

Which made them less than easy to get into.

(I seem to remember I still ahve a "Bonus" due to my Mammoth Judging, lets see what we can come up with together^^).

I would say, keep this "Ultra strange Round" inr eserve for a later date, let everybody rest a bit, and then lets go with a new toopic. :)

[Falontani]

As others have said, it wasn't your fault. I personally only have 4 Dragon magazines to my name, and those only because a player wanted to use something specific from the magazine and I have a rule in my games that if I don't own the content, it doesn't exist.

I had a few passing ideas, but I just couldn't figure out how to make an actual creature without just advancing and choosing random feats.

I can't wait to compete in this one again, and have been eagerly waiting for this round to conclude to hopefully try next round.

[jdizzlean]

ok.

I have a trainee this week, again. then I'm on vacation next week, I'll think on some less "intense" round ideas. gray, feel free to pm me any thoughts, and I'll try not to screw them up to badly :belkar:

[SirNibbles]

A problem I experience with nearly every single one of these competitions is not seeing it until it's already over. It'd be nice if we could have a sticky of open competitions (and perhaps utilise title changes to signify whether a competition is open or closed to entries).

I'd've loved to make something on this topic but I didn't see it until now.

[3SecondCultist]

I had a fun idea for a build, and had actually started to theorycraft it pretty well. It would have been fun, memorable, and powerful enough (loopholes for effectively infinite gold will do that to any build).

Unfortunately, before I was in any state to submit it, I was sent to the hospital for nearly a week for a serious health scare. After that, I’m not afraid to admit that the competition kind of slipped my mind until I assumed that I would have no time to write up and submit the build.

[daremetoidareyo]

Unfortunately, before I was in any state to submit it, I was sent to the hospital for nearly a week for a serious health scare. After that, I’m not afraid to admit that the competition kind of slipped my mind until I assumed that I would have no time to write up and submit the build.

That sounds terrifying.

[Falontani]

I had a fun idea for a build, and had actually started to theorycraft it pretty well. It would have been fun, memorable, and powerful enough (loopholes for effectively infinite gold will do that to any build).

Unfortunately, before I was in any state to submit it, I was sent to the hospital for nearly a week for a serious health scare. After that, I’m not afraid to admit that the competition kind of slipped my mind until I assumed that I would have no time to write up and submit the build.

I hope things are going better!

[GrayDeath]

Unfortunately, before I was in any state to submit it, I was sent to the hospital for nearly a week for a serious health scare. After that, I’m not afraid to admit that the competition kind of slipped my mind until I assumed that I would have no time to write up and submit the build.

Something similar hit me on the 16th. Almost Heart Attack. Luckily i got out on the 18th and it wasnt a dangerous cause (really, that gave me a healthy shock...).
Hoping you got better as well!!

@ Chair: Sent., I hope youll like it. :)=

[Thurbane]

Hey jdizzlean, don't be disheartened by the lack of entries this round. The reqs may have been a bit ambitious, but it was definitely a worthy theme! :smallsmile:

May I suggest a few other themes for the future?

Army of One: leadership etc. still banned, but focuses on classes or monsters with minions, familiars, summons, companions etc.

More than Ordinary: focusing on NPC classes. No races with RHD, and no class levels other than NPC classes (Commoner, Magewright etc.) - but you can pile on templates, optimize feats and other stuff to make them a threat.

This Isn't Even My Final Form: villain evolves and changes type, size or body shape as it increases in CR.

...also, if you need a break from the chair, due to mod responsibilities etc. I'm happy to jump back in the seat for a bit, if that helps?

[daremetoidareyo]

Kaiiju!!!

Low intelligence giant sized monsters that stomp cities!

[Falontani]

The working man; the big bad manipulates the economy to accomplish his goals

[NontheistCleric]

Come Out Of This Man: Villains focused on possession-type tactics, controlling others directly in some way.

They Called Me Mad: Villains must have a mechanical ability that explicitly involves madness in some way.

[PrismCat21]

is it time for me to step down and have someone else run this? Are my restrictions just to much?

I certainly wouldn't mind for this at all.

{Scrubbed}

[jdizzlean]

those are some good suggestions, thank you. i will try to get a less restrictive round up soon. i really thought access to dragon mag and taint would've spawned some great stuff.

Prism That would've been much better as a PM. I don't claim to be perfect, but i have yet to suggest a round that isn't game possible. one of the great strengths of D&D is that you can really do anything, and every game is different. while some of the things put forth for rounds might not fly at YOUR tables, they do for others, and strict adherence to RAW isn't always best way to go about things. Adding, or subtracting a few things from a class, or from sources allowed makes people think differently, rather than "how can i cram what i always do into this round", or "how can i circumnavigate the restrictions to make it seem like i'm following them, but i'm not."

all the simple rounds, i.e. build a fire mob, build a ice mob, build a sea mob, have been done already.

[AvatarVecna]

If we're looking to do a "special build rules that are normally" banned round in a way that might not be quite as limiting as this one...maybe a gestalt round? Plenty of games play with it, and a gestalt villain build using CR opens up lots of possibilities. Might still need a solid theme though.

[Falontani]

I know I've had some of my entries judged illegal when in fact the rules themselves were grey on the matter. I personally try to stay as close to RAW in my campaigns either as a player or as a dm; but sometimes RAW is wrong, and if a dm makes a ruling that changes the RAW for everyone, then the game is just as valid as any other. I am fine with restrictions or even outright changes to the RAW, as long as it leads to fun, either in game mechanics, or in theme.

I enjoy a game where a Halfling luchador can grapple the goliath earth mage because the dm allows the roll to happen because it would be more fun than saying that the Halfling is too small.

[NontheistCleric]

all the simple rounds, i.e. build a fire mob, build a ice mob, build a sea mob, have been done already.

Whether or not this is true, I feel like pointing out that more complicated or specific concepts don't necessarily need to be more mechanically restricted—many successful rounds of this competition have had quite lenient restrictions, even when the concept wasn't easily condensed into 'X mob', as you put it. I can understand in part PrismCat's frustration, because it is true that your tenure as Chair has been marked by significantly more involved restrictions that at times have been difficult to interpret the true intent of or make workable. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but like all approaches, it has its problems.

In fact, it's possible that concepts that are difficult to mechanically codify might actually benefit from more permissive restrictions that are essentially a statement of intent rather than an attempt to rigidly limit what can and cannot be done. After all, scores are ultimately up to the judges, and they're sensible enough to know whether an entry has stuck suitably to the theme or not. Having a bunch of strict rules is sometimes just temptation to find those loopholes you so abhor, especially for the kinds of people who frequent D&D 3.5 optimization forums.

All that said, though, we actually haven't done a 'sea' round. Pirates, perhaps, but pirates are such a small slice of all the villainy possible in the sea.

[Thurbane]

Whether or not this is true, I feel like pointing out that more complicated or specific concepts don't necessarily need to be more mechanically restricted—many successful rounds of this competition have had quite lenient restrictions, even when the concept wasn't easily condensed into 'X mob', as you put it. I can understand in part PrismCat's frustration, because it is true that your tenure as Chair has been marked by significantly more involved restrictions that at times have been difficult to interpret the true intent of or make workable. I'm not saying that's necessarily bad, but like all approaches, it has its problems.

In fact, it's possible that concepts that are difficult to mechanically codify might actually benefit from more permissive restrictions that are essentially a statement of intent rather than an attempt to rigidly limit what can and cannot be done. After all, scores are ultimately up to the judges, and they're sensible enough to know whether an entry has stuck suitably to the theme or not. Having a bunch of strict rules is sometimes just temptation to find those loopholes you so abhor, especially for the kinds of people who frequent D&D 3.5 optimization forums.

I agree with this. Not to detract from your good work as chair jdizzlean, but the overly complex restrictions have deterred me from entering recently. And they do feel more-so than with previous chairs. For example, I had been waiting for a reptilian round for years, as they are my personal favorite kind of villain, but when it rolled around, the restrictions made me put the round in the "too hard" basket. :smallfrown:

It's fine to have a couple of mechanical or source restrictions in a theme, but when it feels like you are trying to solve some kind of complex puzzle to understand what you are and aren't allowed to use, it can detract from the fun factor, and stifle your creative impulses.

Just my 2 coppers: and again, not meant as a personal attack. I know firsthand what a time consuming and often thankless task chairing this comp is.

[GrayDeath]

The Chair and I are working on the next round.
Which will be grand, if you ask me (and I will be judging it, stating in advance).

It will be clearly themed and have little additional restrictions, some might even be slightly loosened compared to regular.

And please keep it friendly and send messages like the above one via PN if you feel you must.

Its not really helpful to completely demotivate the Chair, ya kow?

[ben-zayb]

Whether or not this is true, I feel like pointing out that more complicated or specific concepts don't necessarily need to be more mechanically restricted—many successful rounds of this competition have had quite lenient restrictions, even when the concept wasn't easily condensed into 'X mob', as you put it. I agree somewhat. While, yes, mechanical limitations have always been part of the competition, these were often ones that weren't too gratuitously limiting and made very solid reasoning themewise. Warlords archetypically are rarely wizards or telepaths, so the 9th level spell/power limitation made sense. The Henchman round had balls to the walls mechanical restrictions that still made thematic sense, because of course you gotta build something that doesn't mechanically overshadow the BBEG as much as possible. On the other side of the coin, tiny-sized characters are still a bit archetypal, but they don't necessarily have strong thematic ties for or against psionics—so banning psionics seemed done for a purely artificial method of preventing one power. Scaly villain is quite an interesting theme, but the name-based restriction is puzzling, especially because other themes didn't have or need it.

Personally, I'm so okay with restrictions as long as there is a balance between the mechanical difficulty imposed and how strongly essential it is to make the build reflect the theme. I'm also okay with "go wild" rounds that only have Evil as the restriction, because the judges themselves can decide how good the build is in repping the round.

@jdizzlean It's up to you if you want to continue. Being the host of competition is enough of a pressure (having experienced it recently), and I don't want to add further pressure for or against you continuing to do it. Although I highly advise taking notes of the suggestions presented if you wish to continue.

[Thurbane]

@ GrayDeath & jdizzlean: any word on a new round? Are we calling this one done and dusted?

[jdizzlean]

it's on me, i've been super busy at work, and irl. i honestly haven't had the time to polish up his submission to me and post it. i will endeavor to do so this week

[GrayDeath]

And dont forget to get back to me first.

Wea re after all trying for perfection, arent we? ^^

[NontheistCleric]

How's progress on the next round going, Chairman? Just wondering; no pressure.

[Thurbane]

Not being pushy, but if one or both of you are otherwise occupied, I'm happy to run a round or two?

[PrismCat21]

Not being pushy, but if one or both of you are otherwise occupied, I'm happy to run a round or two?

I'll happily throw my support behind you Thurbane. This round effectively ended two months ago when the deadline came and there were no entries.

Instead of posting another round like was promised, the chair has instead judged the Iron Chef E6 competition this last weekend, with the last word to us regarding this competition being in July. That's not cool :smallannoyed:

If the current chair would rather be doing other things... that's fine! We need to know so that other, willing, people can step up and take over.

[AvatarVecna]

I've got an idea for half the mechanics of a round, but not a theme or thematic limitations to keep things from getting too crazy. I'd be fine running that but I'd need a day or so to really iron it out. Most of my ideas end up eother...like, too open-ended and it's harder to judge builds against each other, too limited and it stifles creativity to the point nobody competes...eh.

[GrayDeath]

I contacted him.

Lets see how it goes.

I for one also dont have a problem with someone else doing a Competition in between (heck maybe even mine) if Jdizzlean should not have the time or energy (I know that until yesterday I was only sleepwalking through the days, it being sooo hot over here....).

[jdizzlean]

sorry for the delay. i have been incredibly busy in RL both personally and professionally with next to no time for anything. i was able to judge the e6 round at work, while i had a trainee and then use my notes to type it in word and send myself the file to post. not ideal, but it gave me something to do besides stare at the walls for 12 hours.

hopefully the new round is far less restrictive and folks can get some things in.