Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground LVII

[Tim Proctor]

remember that most of the time, wizard 7 is better than fighter 20. overland flight + bow and a crapload of arrows = win. the fighter's going to die eventually.

Why would the fighter not shoot back?

[Amphetryon]

Why would the fighter not shoot back?

Higher ground bonus puts the Fighter at a disadvantage (arguably offset by different BAB), before accounting for any other spells the Wizard has access to through his Class.

[WhamBamSam]

fighter 19/wizard 1 gets abrupt jaunt for tactical teleportation, true strike for enemies with concealment, swift expeditious retreat for when they really need to get somewhere, a familiar that's better at spot and listen than they are, while simultaneously making them better at spot and listen, a boosted will save, and other things i may be missing. yes, fighter 19/wizard 1 is clearly better than fighter 20.

remember that most of the time, wizard 7 is better than fighter 20. overland flight + bow and a crapload of arrows = win. the fighter's going to die eventually.

Well, it won't be getting both Abrupt Jaunt and the familiar, but yeah. Those things are pretty obviously worth the 1 point of BAB and 3 HP that it loses relative to the level of Fighter.

In other news, my build doesn't seem to be working. I'm having qualification issues, and RAW may not be on my side when it comes to an important aspect of my combat strategy. I think I may have to back down and judge this round. I'll make one more try at getting it working, but if it doesn't come together to my satisfaction, I'm scrapping it and digging up my criteria.

[Tim Proctor]

Higher ground bonus puts the Fighter at a disadvantage (arguably offset by different BAB), before accounting for any other spells the Wizard has access to through his Class.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the higher ground is +1 bonus, and the BAB of 3 will lose to a fighter 20. It's a bad example, a wizard 7 shouldn't win against a fighter 20 unless something really fishy is happening. If it devolves into a archery match the fighter will win.

[AvatarVecna]

fighter 19/wizard 1 gets abrupt jaunt for tactical teleportation, true strike for enemies with concealment, swift expeditious retreat for when they really need to get somewhere, a familiar that's better at spot and listen than they are, while simultaneously making them better at spot and listen, a boosted will save, and other things i may be missing. yes, fighter 19/wizard 1 is clearly better than fighter 20.

Yes, but not purely because of their spellcasting. The abrupt jaunt ability is stupid broken, but that's not an aspect of the wizard's spellcasting; it would be noted in the cheese section of the Power category. True Strike is useful for 1 attack per casting, even if it's put into a continuous magic item, since it only applies to the next attack. Still, a limited number of True Strikes per day is useful...provided that's all you prepare. The familiar isn't spellcasting either, and neither is the will save (which helps in the Average Saving Throw sub-category).

I should be more specific when I type: a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 is better than a Fighter 20 if extremely limited use of first level spells (all of which are much more easily accessed through magic items), a broken alternate class feature, and built-in mini-Leadership are better than any kind of fighter bonus feat you could get at the end of the your career.

[AvatarVecna]

Except Fighter 19/Martial Wizard 1 is probably better than Fighter 20 and Fighter 19/Cloistered Cleric 1 is definitely better than Fighter 20.

But not purely for their spellcasting ability; it's their other class features that make them worthwhile, which would be accounted for elsewhere in the Power category.

[WhamBamSam]

Yes, but not purely because of their spellcasting. The abrupt jaunt ability is stupid broken, but that's not an aspect of the wizard's spellcasting; it would be noted in the cheese section of the Power category. True Strike is useful for 1 attack per casting, even if it's put into a continuous magic item, since it only applies to the next attack. Still, a limited number of True Strikes per day is useful...provided that's all you prepare. The familiar isn't spellcasting either, and neither is the will save (which helps in the Average Saving Throw sub-category).

I should be more specific when I type: a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 is better than a Fighter 20 if extremely limited use of first level spells (all of which are much more easily accessed through magic items), a broken alternate class feature, and built-in mini-Leadership are better than any kind of fighter bonus feat you could get at the end of the your career.

You can trade in Scribe Scroll for a Fighter bonus feat as well. All that a Fighter 20 has on a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 is a point of BAB and 3 HP. That's it. And Cloistered Cleric 1 is a better dip than Martial Wizard.

And what does it matter if those features are spellcasting or not? The fact still remains that your criteria would result in a -0.45 to power for the very fact that it's there. The extra class features needing to make up for a fighter bonus feat and point of BAB is fine. Having to make up for another class feature that the class also happens to add is much sketchier. If the Fighter 19/Wizard 1 had only 9 Int and couldn't cast his spells at all, he would score higher by your rubric, which is silly.

[AvatarVecna]

You can trade in Scribe Scroll for a Fighter bonus feat as well. All that a Fighter 20 has on a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 is a point of BAB and 3 HP. That's it. And Cloistered Cleric 1 is a better dip than Martial Wizard.

And what does it matter if those features are spellcasting or not? The fact still remains that your criteria would result in a -0.45 to power for the very fact that it's there. The extra class features needing to make up for a fighter bonus feat and point of BAB is fine. Having to make up for another class feature that the class also happens to add is much sketchier. If the Fighter 19/Wizard 1 had only 9 Int and couldn't cast his spells at all, he would score higher by your rubric, which is silly.

That's a legitimately good point...the bit at the end, at least. It matters whether the features are spellcasting or not because that's all this particular calculation cares about. The awesomely powerful mechanics that also come with being a full caster are great, and will be accounted for in the cheese section (which needs a higher maximum, I think), but it's not spellcasting, which, if you are a maxed out spellcaster, is stupidly powerful in its potential variety.
Still, your point about the 9 Int Wizard is a good one, although I'm not sure what to do about it.
Under the current criteria, a terrible caster with great class features gets more penalties than bonuses for what is almost always a power upgrade. But if I change the criteria so that it's fair to the people dipping into caster classes for the class features, it ends up being stupidly powerful for better casters, to the point that, even in a competition like this one, where the SI isn't spellcaster-based at all, a decent spellcaster could dominate the game just by being magical.
I'm unsure how to solve this problem, and I'm willing to take suggestions, if anyone's got an idea on how to fix this.

[WhamBamSam]

I would argue that there's a tipping point (probably around 3rd level for a Wizard), where it starts to beg the question of why you aren't just staying Wizard.

Ponies' judging criteria are generally a pretty good example of fairness. Some of his power score comes from whether you were actually made more powerful by the SI (though I could see that scored under UoSI as well). I'd have to read back and see how he deals with things like Cleric dips, but I know I've seen him penalize people who take enough Cleric to start to be considered 'Cleric builds' rather than 'melee builds with Cleric in them.'

To use the last SI as an example, Cleric 10/Dwarven Defender 10 is a Cleric build hamstringing itself, but a Fighter 8/Cleric 1/Barbarian 1/Dwarven Defender 10 is a Fighter build with a few useful dips.

Maybe just make the spellcasting sub-category minimum 0 or something? Whatever. It's your criteria, I should probably stop badgering you about it.

[AvatarVecna]

Maybe just make the spellcasting sub-category minimum 0 or something? Whatever. It's your criteria, I should probably stop badgering you about it.

Oh, no, I appreciate the feedback; I don't want to be a terrible judge, and I'd prefer for my inexperience to not cheat someone out of their deserved win, but I just don't know enough to consider all the possibilities. Having someone with some more experience pointing out the flaws in my reasoning improves the reasoning and in turn the judging. I think I'll change the minimum, but not the maximum.
I'll make changes to my criteria in a few days, when everyone's gotten their two cents in. Once again, thanks for the feedback.

[lunar2]

one thing to consider is that powerful and cheesy do not mean the same thing. the reason the power category is there is to measure how powerful you can get.

cheesy, as far as i have seen, refers to using the rules in ways that are not intended, such as using sanctum spell or precocious apprentice to get into mystic theurge early. abrupt jaunt is not cheesy. it does exactly what it's meant to do, which is make you nearly impossible to hit. dark chaos shuffle is not cheesy. one spell is meant to give you abyssal heritor feats, the other is meant to take them away. they even share a name and a book, so you know they were meant to be used together. both options may be too powerful for some campaigns, but in an optimization challenge, simply being powerful should not ever be a penalty, so long as your power makes sense.

as for criteria, you don't need specific formulas for everything. that's one way to do it, but feel free to ad hoc a bonus or penalty when it's needed. or, go with a relative criteria. a wizard build is compared to straight wizard, and a fighter build is compared to straight fighter. fighter 19/wizard 1 is clearly more powerful than fighter 20, so you give it high marks in power, despite being far weaker than wizard 20, because it's not a wizard build.

[Kazudo]

The benefit to a more free-form criteria is that builds receive a more relative score depending on the situation and judge. The benefit to a formulaic criteria is that the judging is more even spread. The question becomes are you Judgebot3000 the fair, who judges all builds evenly and equally and has often less than a half point variance between builds, or are you Judgicus the Wise who judges all builds based on their own merits and can sometimes be a fickle, unpredictable entity whose scores can run the entire gambit of possibilities? That's up for you, the judge, to decide.

[AvatarVecna]

The benefit to a more free-form criteria is that builds receive a more relative score depending on the situation and judge. The benefit to a formulaic criteria is that the judging is more even spread. The question becomes are you Judgebot3000 the fair, who judges all builds evenly and equally and has often less than a half point variance between builds, or are you Judgicus the Wise who judges all builds based on their own merits and can sometimes be a fickle, unpredictable entity whose scores can run the entire gambit of possibilities? That's up for you, the judge, to decide.

I'm trying to split the difference, but I think I need to be a little more free form in this particular area of my judging, since it's got so many holes in it.

[Kazudo]

I typically prefer a more open minded one. Now, if I set a precedence in my own judging, I'll be alright with being reminded. Counting one build off for abusing a specific tactic, then failing to do so later, I can see being disputed. However, if it's a thing that is pretty much completely unique as a build setup, then I don't feel like I'm shoehorning it into my criteria. Rather, my criteria shapes itself to fit the competition without me having to set unrealistic expectations beforehand.

[lunar2]

Why would the fighter not shoot back?

ok, turns out i was wrong. i thought there were rules concerning shooting up and down, to the effect that you can shoot down at someone who can't shoot back up, but there's not.

however, 7th level wizards can still kill 20th level fighters. the spell order is fly, spectral hand, invisibility on the hand, shivering touch. 2 shivering touches, at most, will drop a fighter, and you can finish them off at will.

[Tim Proctor]

ok, turns out i was wrong. i thought there were rules concerning shooting up and down, to the effect that you can shoot down at someone who can't shoot back up, but there's not.

however, 7th level wizards can still kill 20th level fighters. the spell order is fly, spectral hand, invisibility on the hand, shivering touch. 2 shivering touches, at most, will drop a fighter, and you can finish them off at will.

By the time he casts the first spell he took 4 arrows to the face and died. While there is a small chance of rope-trick, etc. a fighter would have to be build poorly in order for that to happen. Even at tier 5 or 6 the 13 extra levels generally ensure victory, there isn't a point debating, but what can happen and happens on average are different. You have to be within 31 feet, cast 4 spells, bluff, and make a touch attack against a level 20 fighter.

[lunar2]

By the time he casts the first spell he took 4 arrows to the face and died. While there is a small chance of rope-trick, etc. a fighter would have to be build poorly in order for that to happen. Even at tier 5 or 6 the 13 extra levels generally ensure victory, there isn't a point debating, but what can happen and happens on average are different. You have to be within 31 feet, cast 4 spells, bluff, and make a touch attack against a level 20 fighter.

170 feet, actually. spectral hand is a medium range spell. and you only have to come that close in the last round, when your using shivering touch.

as for arrows, wind wall is a 3rd level spell, and completely shuts down archery. scrying is a 4th level spell, so you can know where the fighter sleeps, and catch him off guard. if you want to make sure he fails the save, write on a piece of paper that it belongs to him, and use it as the possession of his for the spell, to give him a -4 to the will save.

[AvatarVecna]

ok, turns out i was wrong. i thought there were rules concerning shooting up and down, to the effect that you can shoot down at someone who can't shoot back up, but there's not.

however, 7th level wizards can still kill 20th level fighters. the spell order is fly, spectral hand, invisibility on the hand, shivering touch. 2 shivering touches, at most, will drop a fighter, and you can finish them off at will.

Because Shivering Touch isn't incredibly, ridiculously, laughably broken.

A no-save 3d6 Dex damage spell with no minimum Dex (like the minimum Str on Ray of Enfeeblement)? Bestow Curse (which can take away 6 points of any attribute) is a 3rd lvl Cleric spell and a 4th Sorcerer/Wizard spell. Bestow Curse is negated by a Will save and has a counterspell, neither of which Shivering Touch has.

[AvatarVecna]

By the time he casts the first spell he took 4 arrows to the face and died. While there is a small chance of rope-trick, etc. a fighter would have to be build poorly in order for that to happen. Even at tier 5 or 6 the 13 extra levels generally ensure victory, there isn't a point debating, but what can happen and happens on average are different. You have to be within 31 feet, cast 4 spells, bluff, and make a touch attack against a level 20 fighter.

It's only 4 attacks if the Fighter isn't optimized for ranged. It's 6 Attacks, assuming Haste and Rapid Shot. To even stand a chance, the Wizard has to win the initiative, which won't happen if the Fighter has the right feat/item, which he probably will at 20th level. Even then, nobody, not even a Fighter, gets to 20th level by being a complete dumbass. He's likely got a series of bonuses vs. Will save effects, immunity to mind-affecting spells, SR, DR, as well as a significant number of dealing with opponents who try to fight the melee guy from ranged. There's at least a few ways of being immune to Dex damage; if nothing else, undead are immune to physical attribute damage.

[lunar2]

Because Shivering Touch isn't incredibly, ridiculously, laughably broken.

A no-save 3d6 Dex damage spell with no minimum Dex (like the minimum Str on Ray of Enfeeblement)? Bestow Curse (which can take away 6 points of any attribute) is a 3rd lvl Cleric spell and a 4th Sorcerer/Wizard spell. Bestow Curse is negated by a Will save and has a counterspell, neither of which Shivering Touch has.

ray of enfeeblement is a first level ranged touch spell. it's also applying a penalty, which can't be healed, but must instead be dispelled, meaning you have to get into caster checks, and remove any other buffs on the target, as well.

bestow curse is decreasing the score, not damaging it, meaning it doesn't heal, and it stacks, since it's not a penalty, but an actual decrease. it also can be applied to any ability score, not just dex.

shivering touch can be countered by itself and dispel magic, like any other spell. it doesn't affect cold subtype creatures. the damage heals naturally, or is done away with by a restoration or a heal. sure. shivering touch is powerful, but it's only broken because it almost always drops dragons in one hit, not because of its effects on everyone else, who tend to have higher touch acs and more dex than a dragon.

but yes, all 3 of those are very powerful spells. too bad ray of enfeeblement doesn't stack, but you can only expect so much from one of the best first level debuff spells. even maximized, knocking off 9-11 points of strength is a nice effect for a 4th level slot.

[Vaz]

By the time he casts the first spell he took 4 arrows to the face and died. While there is a small chance of rope-trick, etc. a fighter would have to be build poorly in order for that to happen. Even at tier 5 or 6 the 13 extra levels generally ensure victory, there isn't a point debating, but what can happen and happens on average are different. You have to be within 31 feet, cast 4 spells, bluff, and make a touch attack against a level 20 fighter.

Wind Wall. Entropic Shield. Mage Armour. Shield.

If we're talking straight class features, and none use of WBL (even equivalent values - fairly sure you can pick up a Candle of Invocation at ECL7, and all the other arms wars that wealthomancy is able to achieve, and said Wizard is able to break easier than a Fighter can), then the Wizard outclasses there with enough defences.

The Wizard is likely to have Initiative - Nerveskitter allows that, along with prioritising Dex, possibly as a result of Polymorphing into a high Dex form, or even Celerity in a pinch.

It doesn't even have to be Wizard. Druid is already a better fighter by ECL7; not only is Dire Ape available as well as the whole slew of Quarterstaff buffs that entails, but a Snowsight+Obscuring Snow means it can also outshoot you while riding its flying AC.

[Ikeren]

I just realized there isn't an Iron Chef for my favourite "Why does this exist? This is a mile away from functioning" prestige class. Is there a rule that if I suggest it I can't compete?

[Amphetryon]

I just realized there isn't an Iron Chef for my favourite "Why does this exist? This is a mile away from functioning" prestige class. Is there a rule that if I suggest it I can't compete?

No such rule. I'm among those who suggested Darkrunner, and have submitted this round.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I just realized there isn't an Iron Chef for my favourite "Why does this exist? This is a mile away from functioning" prestige class. Is there a rule that if I suggest it I can't compete?

If that was true, almost no one would have competed for Acolyte of the Skin, eh Amph?

[WhamBamSam]

Guh. It's astonishing how restrictive Cavefighting and Improved Cavefighting are by strict RAW. Everything I've come up with has involved not actually standing in difficult terrain at critical times.

I'm not going to get a build in for this one. I'll dredge up my judging criteria, and perhaps tweak them a bit at some point before the reveal.

[AvatarVecna]

The Darkrunner isn't widely loved, it seems. So many people dropping out...
Who knows, this competition might even be won by default if this keeps up.

[lunar2]

from the looks of it, we'll have more judges than competitors, if this keeps up. may we have a new record for highest total scores?

[Sian]

well, i'm currently in the prossess of spellchecking and factchecking my build before sending it off. the two other builds i had was either to bland (and had issues getting the Skill Points to fit) or much more a [redacted] build than a SI build (even if SI was the class that it went deepest into)

[Muggins]

I've scrapped about a dozen builds which either didn't work or didn't have as many skill points as I wanted. I wish Darkrunner had better saves and 8+Int skill points per level.

[Deadline]

I've scrapped about a dozen builds which either didn't work or didn't have as many skill points as I wanted. I wish Darkrunner had better saves and 8+Int skill points per level.

I had a similar issue with the build I was putting together for the current Junkyard Wars. The build involved 4 different prestige classes (which all shared similar feat and some skill pre-reqs), and I couldn't get enough skill points to satisfy the pre-reqs, even using a Factotum base class and the Open Minded feat.