Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground L

[Deadline]

Glad to know I am not the only one that felt that way...

Well, that's good news to me! I took silver in that competition, so maybe I can manage to place here as well!

[Feilith]

Since my midterms are finishing I might be in again

Could we define creature type? Because as far as I know creature type is humanoid, or monstrous humanoid and bugbears are most definitely not a creature type.

Yeah, bugbear isn't a creature type, but at the same time you could pick humanoid/outsider/elemental and have a much broader range than would a ranger's favored enemy because the ranger has to pick a sub-type for his broad type.

Would it be easier if we made it consistent with Ranger favored enemies? or just leave it restricted at the Creature type level

Edit: Also, would we count Sworn foe as Favored enemy for prerequisites?

[thethird]

Personally I would limit it to the enemies that a vanilla ranger can select as favored enemies (no evil, nor spellcasters for example)

[Venger]

Personally I would limit it to the enemies that a vanilla ranger can select as favored enemies (no evil, nor spellcasters for example)

rangers can select spellcasters as per the popular arcanists ACF

[Keynub]

rangers can select spellcasters as per the popular arcanists ACF

Yeah, that's what he meant by "vanilla" ; that is, base Ranger, no ACFs.

The intent seems quite clear to me, despite the contradictory RAW : it would be an entry in a Monster Manual or similar books. A race, if you wish.

[Kuulvheysoon]

rangers can select spellcasters as per the popular arcanists ACF

But that's an ACF for the Ranger, not the actual class feature.

I'll take a look over my copy of HoH when I get to the apartment and see what I can do for y\all.

And yes, one of these days, I'll pick a simple, clear SI. One of these days....

[Venger]

Yeah, that's what he meant by "vanilla" ; that is, base Ranger, no ACFs.

The intent seems quite clear to me, despite the contradictory RAW : it would be an entry in a Monster Manual or similar books. A race, if you wish.

see, the problem with this is that monster/race/creature are used essentially interchangeably by rule books.

if I pick "elf" for example. can I attack sun elves, wood elves, fire elves, etc, or do I have to pick one of the thousands if different types?

[Keynub]

see, the problem with this is that monster/race/creature are used essentially interchangeably by rule books.

if I pick "elf" for example. can I attack sun elves, wood elves, fire elves, etc, or do I have to pick one of the thousands if different types?

I'd say that as long as a single entry exists that covers any number of creatures, all of these creatures are sworn foes.

So, your sworn foe is all elves instead of just grey elves, or all Demons instead of just Babaus.

It's lackluster, but I believe this is what was intended - and since the RAW is contradictory, it cannot be followed to the letter. ("Creature type" followed by an example that is not a creature type and preceded by a counterexample that is a creature type - are you serious, WOTC?).

If we are to follow the RAW and ignore any examples, this would be a creature type, and would not even bother with a subtype.

Whatever interpretation we choose, the text does not mention subtypes or anything related to ranger favored enemies.

And the "specific kind of monster or organization" followed by "must be a single creature type such as bugbears" only messes with my head more. Where did the "organization" thing go?

Well. In the end, I'm just even more confused.

[thethird]

But that's an ACF for the Ranger, not the actual class feature.

That is one of the reasons why I said "vanilla"

see, the problem with this is that monster/race/creature are used essentially interchangeably by rule books.

if I pick "elf" for example. can I attack sun elves, wood elves, fire elves, etc, or do I have to pick one of the thousands if different types?

That is the other reason why I said "vanilla"

[Amphetryon]

That is the other reason why I said "vanilla"

I'm sorry; I don't read this as answering Venger's question one way or the other. Could you clarify?

[Keynub]

*a whole lot of wrongness*

One of the example Corrupt Avengers has "drow" as a sworn foe.

I give up.

[Venger]

Never fear, that's why we have a chairman. Whatever he rules, as long as we're all consistently playing by the same rules, then it'll be a fair contest.

the salient rules info, since the chairman's AFB:

Sworn Foe (Ex): At 1st level, you must choose a specifi c
kind of monster or an organization as your sworn foe. This
cannot be a broad category such as aberrations but must be
a single creature type, like bugbears.

I'm with you, keynub, I've got no RAW ground to stand on, so looks like the chairman's gonna need to make a decision here.


EDIT: could you clarify how taint symptoms work? you mentioned we can pick our symptoms, so do we pick whether we want physical or mental deformities so we can prioritize our stats accordingly?

[The Viscount]

Behold the wonders of Heroes of Horror, the book written by people who didn't know how to write for D&D.

[nedz]

4. Are we supposed to treat "unnerve" as a new status condition, or simply regard it as fluff text and increase the penalties from frightful fury? I'm assuming the duration on this is same as frightful fury.

Thats... a good question. for some reason, I was thinking that it was in amongst the shaken and cowering conditions. I'll toss it up to Curmudgeon.

I would be surprised if even Curmudgeon can help you here since this is a known dysfunction.

I think that this is going to require a chairman's ruling.

[Kazyan]

There's a lot of different fluff things I could do with this. Mechanics, not so much. Waiting on rules clarifications so I know what to go with (or choose to judge).

[Kreuz]

I'm stumped.

Right now I can only come up with a different character condensed in the levels that are NOT Corrupt Avenger.

[dysprosium]

Yes, clarification would decide whether I go with Column A or Column B . . .

[Piggy Knowles]

Hmm... currently, I've got nothin'. I'll let things simmer for a bit before I decide if I enter or not. If I don't enter, I'll try to judge, although it depends on availability.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Of course, once you take your first level of the PrC, as long as you don't keel over dead from your corruption, you effectively can build an arbitrary score due to Taint Suppression. This can lead to... shenanigans.

Might also want to clarify how creatures with a Con of - interact with Taint, as well as certain other means of being immune to the effects of taint.

[Korahir]

So far I got nothing interesting for this SI. I may judge for the first time, if I can't come up with anything worthwhile.

[thethird]

I'm sorry; I don't read this as answering Venger's question one way or the other. Could you clarify?

I was not attempting to answer, what I was trying to say is that I advocate for classic favored enemies (i.e. those listed on table 3-14 of page 47 of the PHB) which has an entry for: elf and that applies to all kinds of elves, if I am not mistaken.

[Keynub]

EDIT : Disregard that.

[Amphetryon]

I was not attempting to answer, what I was trying to say is that I advocate for classic favored enemies (i.e. those listed on table 3-14 of page 47 of the PHB) which has an entry for: elf and that applies to all kinds of elves, if I am not mistaken.

That's a much clearer "answer" than the previous. Thank you.

[GreenSerpent]

I believe I have spotted "unnerved" somewhere else - under the Alternative Frightening rule, page 61. The changes to the Frightened condition it proposes are the same as the penalties of the "unnerved" condition caused by Unnerving Fury.

[Haluesen]

EDIT: could you clarify how taint symptoms work? you mentioned we can pick our symptoms, so do we pick whether we want physical or mental deformities so we can prioritize our stats accordingly?

Well when the chairman said that, I am supposing he meant we can choose what our symptoms are for the varying levels of corruption, rather than rolling them on the charts randomly. The class specifies moderate corruption which is the physical deformities. I think that depravity would be completely extra for any character here.

I was not attempting to answer, what I was trying to say is that I advocate for classic favored enemies (i.e. those listed on table 3-14 of page 47 of the PHB) which has an entry for: elf and that applies to all kinds of elves, if I am not mistaken.

I second this, and hope the chairman rules so. It would make things a lot less confusing.

The people here continue to either teach me or confuse me. You are all coming up with questions to things I had thought were rather straightforward. And is taint really so easily abusable? I love the taint rules, but as a DM I would never stand for the kind of shenanigans people suggest, like undead with limitless taint or whatever else.

[Vaz]

Those prerequisites are simple, but not "easy". That BAB is a killer for multiclass entry. =(.

[Piggy Knowles]

Hmm... I actually just got an idea. Will have to see if it works out.

[Kuulvheysoon]

Of course, once you take your first level of the PrC, as long as you don't keel over dead from your corruption, you effectively can build an arbitrary score due to Taint Suppression. This can lead to... shenanigans.

Might also want to clarify how creatures with a Con of - interact with Taint, as well as certain other means of being immune to the effects of taint.

Alright, I'll rule that Creatures immune to the effects (or have no Constitution score) are treated as Undead/[evil] Outsiders for the purposes of this competition.

Well when the chairman said that, I am supposing he meant we can choose what our symptoms are for the varying levels of corruption, rather than rolling them on the charts randomly. The class specifies moderate corruption which is the physical deformities. I think that depravity would be completely extra for any character here.

Pretty much exactly what I meant. I'll apologize for not being perfectly clear.

I second this, and hope the chairman rules so. It would make things a lot less confusing.

Give me a day to think on it - I believe the RAI is to mean a single monster (like Human, Aboleth, Red Dragon, etc...), but that seems extraordinarily limiting.

[Vaz]

I has something.

[relytdan]

edit- received the answer - thanks