Junkyard Wars in the Playground I

[Gwachitallemall]

Here's my post on my Criteria:

Starting from a Base Score of 3:

Originality: Was the Race Expected? -.5 if yes, +.5 if no. +0 if no, but used by other players. Was the Base Class Expected? -.5 if yes, +.5 if no. +0 if no, but used by other players. Known Cheese: Yes -.5 Jaw Dropping Awesome: Yes +.5 Unique Mechanics Yes +.5 No -.5

Power: In a vacuum, unrelated to other builds, Offense, Defense, Utility: 3/3 +1 2/3 +.5 1/3 -.5 0/3 -1 Stand Alone: Yes +.5 No -.5 How do you compare to a baseline build of 20 of your base class: Good +.5 Bad -.5 Equal +0

Build Stability: Do you have at least 5 levels of the PRC, and 5d6 of Sneak Attack?: 2/2 +1 1/2 +0 0/2 -1 How does your build tie together? Well, no Multiclass or Dips +.5 one of Multiclass or Dip +0 Both Multiclass and Dips -.5
Is Shadowdancer core to the build: Yes +.5 No -.5
Bonus Points: How many Sources do you use? 7 or less: +.5

(Additional Penalty: Kender are -.5 to start with.
Well..
No, not really. I hate Kenders though.)

[Tarlek Flamehai]

Is this class allowed?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b

Any chance you have an answer for his yet?

Thanks!

[mabriss lethe]

With the impending forum shutdown starting tomorrow, continuing until...whenever, you might want to extend the entry deadline by at least a few days.

That said, I'm tentatively interested in working up an entry.

[sakuuya]

Is this class allowed?
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/psm/20040723b

Rogue variants aren't allowed, so this shouldn't be.

Also, posting interest as a competitor. My 3.5 skills are crazy-rusty, but this challenge looks like fun.

[Kazudo]

Any chance you have an answer for his yet?

Thanks!

It's almost a carbon copy of the rogue but with power points. I'm going to say that it isn't.

[Kazudo]

With the impending forum shutdown starting tomorrow, continuing until...whenever, you might want to extend the entry deadline by at least a few days.

Sorry to doublepost. When the forums come back online, I'll extend deadlines and such to match the amount of time lost since there isn't a guaranteed return date.

[Gem_Knight]

Interested I think, kind of busy today, but will give it a shot when I can.


Edit* well crud, figures the site shutdown was coming >.<

also- question- can we use 3.0 classes or PrCs if they don't have a 3.5 equivalent?

[OMG PONIES]

Yeah, in as a contestant. Things just started to come together for me. Hopefully I'll be able to do my book-diving while the boards are down and come back with a build ready to go. You know, hopefully.

[Kazudo]

Can we use 3.0 classes or PrCs if they don't have a 3.5 equivalent?

If it's never been updated in an accepted source to 3.5, it's still rules legal. Make sure that it hasn't though. Web enhancements count as updates, however (for example) Oriental Adventures was updated in a Dragon Magazine issue, which we aren't allowing, therefore we're acting as though it never happened.

Yeah, in as a contestant. Things just started to come together for me. Hopefully I'll be able to do my book-diving while the boards are down and come back with a build ready to go. You know, hopefully.

Ah! Good! Folk from the popular competition coming to humor the newbie!

[dysprosium]

What am I chopped liver?

[Sian]

What am I chopped liver?

i don't know ... how do you taste?

[PsyBomb]

I build a lot better in PF, but I'm more than happy to judge if you still need one.

My priorities are along the lines of simplicity, dedication, versatility, and fun.

Simplicity: Do i have to dig through six sourcebooks outside of the Core to understand just how you get that last point of damage through? This is my way of thinking on the Stability grade.
Dedication: Does the build maintain the theme through its entirety, as opposed to "enough to say I used it."
Versatility: Can it do something OTHER than just what the theme is?
Fun: Probably the most ephemeral of qualities, but also probably the most important. Could you take the build into a regular game to actually play it?

Each of these would be worth 2.5 points, and I'll put up more specific point-by-point grade sheet if I'm accepted as. Ties will go to the higher Fun score, followed by Dedication, Simplicity, and Versatility.

[Kazudo]

I build a lot better in PF, but I'm more than happy to judge if you still need one.

My priorities are along the lines of simplicity, dedication, versatility, and fun.

Simplicity: Do i have to dig through six sourcebooks outside of the Core to understand just how you get that last point of damage through? This is my way of thinking on the Stability grade.
Dedication: Does the build maintain the theme through its entirety, as opposed to "enough to say I used it."
Versatility: Can it do something OTHER than just what the theme is?
Fun: Probably the most ephemeral of qualities, but also probably the most important. Could you take the build into a regular game to actually play it?

Each of these would be worth 2.5 points, and I'll put up more specific point-by-point grade sheet if I'm accepted as. Ties will go to the higher Fun score, followed by Dedication, Simplicity, and Versatility.

As long as you phrase all of those to fit into Originality, Power, and Build Stability terms then we'll be all good.

ALRIGHT. After a bit of conversation with a few folk outside of the Playground, I've decided to reverse a decision I've made. Growing pains, new chairman of a new competition, whatever waffling excuse I need.

If it grants you Sneak Attack, it will qualify you for the competition. Class feature, racial feature, acquired template, whatever it is. HOWEVER, it should be worth mentioning that if you lose your Sneak Attack for whatever reason (shifting stances, not casting specific spells, walking into an AMF, whatever) you will probably be dinged in terms of Build Stability. That means that my previous decision on Assassin's stance should be completely ignored. As long as you get die of Sneak Attack from somewhere, you qualify.

What am I chopped liver?

As a person who needs no introduction...well...uh...Look! A poorly defined class that could be completely rebuilt using other classes! *ducks*

[OMG PONIES]

Oriental Adventures was updated in a Dragon Magazine issue, which we aren't allowing, therefore we're acting as though it never happened.

So I get to use all the 3.0 Oriental Adventures material I want without fear of reprocussions?

[Kazudo]

So I get to use all the 3.0 Oriental Adventures material I want without fear of reprocussions?

As long as it hasn't been updated, yaknow, ANYWHERE ELSE.

[Zombulian]

Alright. Ruling on Assassin's Stance: [REDACTED, see later on in the competition. Sorry for confusion.]

Ruling on Psionic Sneak Attack: Yes, but. Yes, it will qualify as a class ability for the purposes of the competition. However, relying on psionic focus might get you docked in Build Stability. Though that's a judge call.

Another thing that might come up: Any races which grant Sneak Attack will be considered essentially granting it as the class feature.

In the vein of using races to grant SA, would I say, be able to use a shapechanging ability from a class I use to turn into a race with Sneak Attack as my source?

[Kazudo]

In the vein of using races to grant SA, would I say, be able to use a shapechanging ability from a class I use to turn into a race with Sneak Attack as my source?

Well, without speculating TOO much (if you have specifics, PM me for details), I'd have to say that's going to be a go. Originally it was going to be the "Class Feature", but I think now it's pretty much the Sneak Attack game mechanic. No, Sudden Strike, Skirmish, etc. are not allowed still. However, you could theoretically do so. Keep in mind that varying too much from sanity could cause some issues in Build Stability at the whim of the judges.

[PsyBomb]

As long as you phrase all of those to fit into Originality, Power, and Build Stability terms then we'll be all good.

They all do. Dedication and Versatility fall under Power. Fun falls under Originality. Simplicity is my version of Stability. I'll rearrange them for the final grading style

[Kazudo]

They all do. Dedication and Versatility fall under Power. Fun falls under Originality. Simplicity is my version of Stability. I'll rearrange them for the final grading style

Ah. Good. Whatever helps you judge to the best of your ability!

[OMG PONIES]

Will the judges deduct if my guy has brown hair with blonde highlights instead of being a natural blonde?

[mabriss lethe]

I was fiddling around with some ideas for an entry and ran into a conundrum that I asked about on a different thread and I haven't recieved a satisfactory answered yet, so I'm asking you for a ruling on it for the context of this contest, if nothing else.

Here we go. Just how does the HD progression for Summon Shadow work? Nothing adds up. The ability's text doesn't match the example given, nor does it completely match the hard and fast numbers given for the Epic Shadowdancer version (which is 3.0 and doesn't seem to completely mesh with the 3.5 version in any case).

1. The text implies that the HD would start at 5 and cap at 9. (3 for the base creature and +2 for every 3 levels of shadow dancer.) there isn't any language to imply that the first 3 levels aren't figured into the equation.

2. The example given is a 6 HD shadow attached to a Level 9 shadowdancer. That's only possible if instead of gaining +2HD / 3 levels, they instead meant that it possessed 2 HD/3 levels. (2 HD to start at 3rd, and 2 each at 6 and 9) Not the same thing. It also does not match the HD progression in the ELH (explained below.)

3. The Epic Level Handbook continues the progression using the same language as the standard PrC, but actually lists HD in the table. It states that at 12 level a summoned shadow would have 9HD (3 for base creature +2 at 6, 9, and 12) That's only possible if the language of the original version was meant to include a statement such as "For every 3 levels beyond the third." or something similar. Again, it also doesn't mesh with the implied math of stated example in the DMG, which would give you 8 HD at 12.

[Mongobear]

Workshop:[/B] Competitors will be free to use any official 3.5 rulebook in constructing their builds. Dragon magazine is disallowed, and Unearthed Arcana is allowed; but see Build Stability below. Web-exclusive 3.0 or 3.5 materials 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 Build Stability deduction at the judges' discretion. If you use web material, link it. Dragon Magazine Compendium is allowed. Alternate rule systems from UA such as gestalt are not allowed, as they create a different playing field. Also, item familiars are forbidden because I hate 'em. Please refrain from using Taint unless it's necessary for one or more of the Components.

I am expressing interest in this assuming theres still time, however with a question about this part.

Are you allowing the "Generic Classes" from Unearthed Arcana? I can see an arguement for both sides of them being allowed, I would just like a solid Yes/No before I use them.

[Seerow]

I am expressing interest in this assuming theres still time, however with a question about this part.

Are you allowing the "Generic Classes" from Unearthed Arcana? I can see an arguement for both sides of them being allowed, I would just like a solid Yes/No before I use them.

I believe the intent was to allow variants of established classes (like Wildshape Ranger, Thug Fighter, etc), and not allow alternate systems (such as Bloodlines, Flaws, Generic Classes, etc). But I'd wait for a response from Kazudo to be sure.

[Kazudo]

I believe the intent was to allow variants of established classes (like Wildshape Ranger, Thug Fighter, etc), and not allow alternate systems (such as Bloodlines, Flaws, Generic Classes, etc). But I'd wait for a response from Kazudo to be sure.

As far as this is concerned, I'm afraid Seerow is 100% correct. You can feel free to put an "adaptations" section at the end of your build to put in anything you had to avoid doing that would count as an Alternate System.

Concerning the Shadow's HD, we're going with the standard Text over Table.

[Seerow]

I think I've got my build done. I'm working on touch ups and text explanations/snapshots now.

I will probably wait until after the maintenance to submit though, since the table format's going to be messed up and I want to test the new table formatting before submitting.


Edit: What's the typical length for these things? And do judges typical penalize for going too short/too long? I've never paid much attention to Iron Chef, so how these things normally work is a mystery to me.

I ask because I'm worried my post is going a little long.

[PsyBomb]

So, my by-point views

Simplicity: If you can manage it using only Core plus no more than 2 books, all 2.5 points. Every additional book is going to be a half-point off.

Dedication: I'll post my minimums each round, but for this one it's 5d6 Sneak and 5 levels of Shadowdancer, losing a half-point per die or level missed.

Versatility: A bit subjective, but I'm looking for you do be able to do at least one other thing nearly as effectively as what you're building for. Not an easy category to max, and I expect most people to be getting less than 2 points. In this case, I'm looking for either a secondary combat trick to Sneak Attack, or significant out-of-combat utility.

Fun: Could you take the build into a regular game to actually play it? I'm looking for a T3-4 power range and some uniqueness to set you apart from your average Lidda and Tordek.

Each of these maxes out at 2.5 points

[Kazudo]

I think I've got my build done. I'm working on touch ups and text explanations/snapshots now.

I will probably wait until after the maintenance to submit though, since the table format's going to be messed up and I want to test the new table formatting before submitting.


Edit: What's the typical length for these things? And do judges typical penalize for going too short/too long? I've never paid much attention to Iron Chef, so how these things normally work is a mystery to me.

I ask because I'm worried my post is going a little long.

There isn't a length cap. Preferrably (for my own sake) one post length. But, I dunno. It ought to be, as some people say, similar to a poem: Long enough to cover the subject, short enough to be interesting.

[Kazudo]

So, my by-point views

Simplicity: If you can manage it using only Core plus no more than 2 books, all 2.5 points. Every additional book is going to be a half-point off.

Dedication: I'll post my minimums each round, but for this one it's 5d6 Sneak and 5 levels of Shadowdancer, losing a half-point per die or level missed.

Versatility: A bit subjective, but I'm looking for you do be able to do at least one other thing nearly as effectively as what you're building for. Not an easy category to max, and I expect most people to be getting less than 2 points. In this case, I'm looking for either a secondary combat trick to Sneak Attack, or significant out-of-combat utility.

Fun: Could you take the build into a regular game to actually play it? I'm looking for a T3-4 power range and some uniqueness to set you apart from your average Lidda and Tordek.

Each of these maxes out at 2.5 points

Again. Sorry to double post.

Can you repost your criteria and point-buy views within the purview of Originality, Power, and Build Stability, and keep in mind that scores run from 1-5 points. That way, it'll be easy for us to tally up winners, and there wouldn't be a lot of translation and conversion from your judging to the others?

For my sake and the sake of competitors trying to play to your respects!

[PsyBomb]

Will do, as soon as I get back to my computer instead of a phone.

[Inevitability]

I may be interested in this. It's nice to see another build competition.