FAQ:
Q: What's this even about?
A: I'm glad you asked, actually...

Q: Is Dragon Compendium Allowed?
A: Yes (as well as its Errata), but individual issues of Dragon Magazine are not.

Q: What about 3.0 materials?
A: 3.0 materials, whether online or in printed form, are allowed unless they've been officially updated to a 3.5 edition.

Q: Are Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, or Kingdoms of Kalamar allowable sources?
A: The Dragonlance Campaign Setting is allowed, but the subsequent books for Dragonlance are considered 3rd party, and are therefore not eligible, despite the "WotC approved" status of those books. The same holds for Oriental Adventures (1st party) and the subsequent Rokugan books (3rd party). Materials from Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, and Kingdoms of Kalamar are considered 3rd party for purposes of this contest, and are therefore not allowed.

Q: What about online sources in general?
A: If the online source is a) published by WotC, and b) not replaced by an updated version at a later time, it is eligible. Use it, link it.

Q: Where's the line drawn with "acceptable/unacceptable" for Unearthed Arcana? This will likely vary a bit from Chairman to Chairman. Item Familiars and Gestalt have always been verboten, since before IC migrated to GitP; don't expect that to change. Flaws have similarly always been noted as warranting a deduction; while I am Chairman, I'm extending that to Traits, though they warrant 1/2 the penalty in Elegance that a Flaw would because they're roughly 1/2 as useful. Alternate spell systems, alternate skill systems and alternate crafting rules all create an uneven playing field, and as such, will be disallowed for as long as I am Chairman. In a similar vein, LA buyoff and fractional BAB are also disallowed. Bloodlines and the Retraining options presented in the PHB2 are ripe for abuse, and will be strongly discouraged as long as I am Chairman. Note that judges are allowed to look askance at any use of Unearthed Arcana not specifically mentioned above, at their discretion, and otherwise penalize Elegance according to their preference.

Q: What, exactly, does the ban on Leadership mean?
A: As folks have started to try to work around the edges of this one, I'm forced to spell it out more plainly. No Leadership, Draconic Cohort, or Feats that grant a similar ability are allowed EXCEPT Wild Cohort while Heliomance is chairman. Any PrC you choose with Leadership or a Leadership-analog has that ability entirely ignored for this contest, as it may neither be used nor traded away via any means whatsoever.

Q: What's the minimum score in a category?
A: Assuming an entry is legal, the minimum score in any category is 1. If a judge is convinced that an entry is mechanically illegal by the RAW, the judge may give the build a score of 0 in Elegance, and proceed to judge the entry as if the offending material was not included. Failing to meet a special requirement for a prestige class does not merit a 0, but may qualify for a penalty, at the judge's discretion. Because this contest focuses on Player Characters, an entry that is not technically allowed for a PC, but is viable as an NPC, counts as a legal entry, but may receive a minimum score at the judges' discretion.

Q: Creatures and templates with no listed LA are playable, right?
A: No. No listed LA is equivalent to LA: -. It is not suitable for PCs. If you use it, expect judges to look extremely disfavourably on it.

Q: So what's the deal with equipment, anyway?
A: There is no official policy on how much equipment you should list. Historically, judges have frowned upon "item dependent" builds, but unfortunately the definition of that has been applied to mean anything from builds that don't function if you remove one very specific item, to builds that so much as mention a particular weapon. Builds that don't list gear should be assumed to buy useful generics - items to boost their primary stats, cloaks of resistance, appropriate magical weapons and armour, and so forth. If a build would find particular items useful, they should be listed, but experience suggests that the more generic you keep them, the more favourably judges are likely to look upon them, as a build being shut down because the Thundering Bagpipes of Urist McTrumpetbritches were unavailable is considered a weakness. Similarly, requiring items in order to be able to qualify for things tends to be frowned upon.

Q: Do you have any other rules and guidelines on how to judge?
A: We do, actually, designed to try and avoid unpleasantness we've encountered in past contests. The things we've come up with to avoid repeating this are given below.

Spoiler
Show
One Mistake, One Penalty
Spoiler: What does this mean?
Show

Judges are only allowed to penalise once for a given mistake. If someone messes up their skills and doesn't qualify for a PrC, ding them as hard as you like. Once. In one category. You don't then get to declare that because they didn't qualify for that PrC, they don't get those levels, and thus don't qualify for anything else. If Ranger is a common ingredient, ding them for Originality. Once. Don't also take off points for Two-Weapon-Fighting being a common ingredient.

Non-exhaustive list of examples:

Skills
Allowed:
  • Giving a penalty for miscalculating the number of skill points gained
  • Giving a penalty for not having enough ranks to meet a prerequisite
  • Increasing the harshness of a skill miscalculation penalty if it affects critical skills including prereqs


Not allowed:
  • Giving separate penalties for miscalculating skill points and for non-qualification where the non-qualification is solely caused by the miscalculation

Prereqs
Allowed:
  • Giving a penalty for not meeting prereqs
  • Scaling the penalty depending on how important the item that the build failed to qualify for is
  • Giving minimum score in UotSI for not qualifying for the SI
  • (Trial, may be disallowed later)Not giving credit for (note: not the same as penalising for) tactics using feats or classes other than the SI that were not qualified for (but see below)


Not Allowed:
  • "Cascading" failures to qualify - declaring that because a build doesn't qualify for a feat, for example, it also doesn't qualify for anything using that feat as a prereq
  • Treating a build as having fewer levels than it does because of FtQ for classes


Other general things that are no longer allowed:
  • Penalising because someone has chosen to build a tribute to an existing creative work
  • Deciding that a backstory has not met a fluff prerequisite well enough, or because its method of meeting it is "unrealistic". You may penalise if a fluff prereq is not addressed at all, but not for how well it is addressed.


Note that these are protections, not licenses. Deliberately taking a feat that you know you don't qualify for hoping to just suck up the judging penalty for a feat that you couldn't normally take is not okay, and may lead to your build being disqualified.


Q: Do you have any contest house rules or clarifications to ambiguous rules?
A: Some that have come up in previous contests and needed answers to:
  • All creatures are proficient with any natural weapons they may have or acquire.
  • Bonus feats that are granted even if you do not meet the prerequisites do not require you to meet the prerequisites in order to use.
  • Able Learner's benefit applies to the level you take it.