Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground LIX

[Piggy Knowles]

What about a formalized dispute template? I'm just going off the cuff here, but something like:

1. Disputed Issue (please cite the judge's comment that you are disputing):

2. Dispute Type ( please select one):

• Rules concern
• Consistency

3. Dispute (please be brief):

4. Relevant citations:

Something like that. Keeps things from getting heated or personal (hopefully), and forces disputes to remain focused and relevant.

[KrimsonNekros]

I'm with Piggy Knowles. I think that combined with a restricted gradient to half points for judging should work.

[AvatarVecna]

What about a formalized dispute template? I'm just going off the cuff here, but something like:



Something like that. Keeps things from getting heated or personal (hopefully), and forces disputes to remain focused and relevant.

I'm with Piggy Knowles on this one; the template is a great idea. I think keeping a points system with .25 steps per category would be best: smaller than that, and there's too much variation; bigger, and there's too little.

[OMG PONIES]

which is also what i (prehaps somewhat unelegantly) mentioned ... the changing granuarity in recent times ranging between 1 to 5, prehaps with .5 and .25 increments, to where its down towards .1 or .05 increments, is probably one of several core issues which have merged together into a perfect storm recently.

The small gap between scores actually began in Round III, and hasn't really changed drastically since. In that round, Iamyourking was the first to use quarter-point increments. Tenth-point increments were introduced by Rizban in Round XXVIII, while twentieth-point increments showed up the next round in Jeriah's scoring. While you're right that two-hundredth point increments didn't show up until Round LIII with Kesnit's scores, I don't see much of a correlation between small point increments and increased disputes.

One judge in the new scoring system is not really enough data to decide if it was a success or not. But only three posted disputes was a welcome change. The theory was that since the judging was supposed to be easier there would be more judges. Blame the summer weather? (That's what I did with the lackluster showing for the latest round of Zinc Saucier . . .)

I agree! While I'm not ready to trumpet the arrival of the Ultimate Judging System, it provided much more freedom in judging. I say we try it again. Some judges like myself will go with a point system of sorts anyway, but it leaves the freedom to others who want to rank the builds based on something else. For someone who loves Originality, they'd be free to give Saint Smokey the gold. Someone who digs devotion to a theme could give it to Swiftrunner, whose rabbit theme I really loved. Or if a judge prefers builds that take risks to try something new, they could award the top spot to Zahnik Boom. I loved his attempt to break the sound barrier by RAW. The new system gives us the power to focus on the builds presented as we'd like; that's fun. Right now, we're doing a lot of wringing our hands over the system itself...that's not fun.

I never had a problem with the points system even with having number scores go in quarters (0.25, 0.50, 0.75) to help pinpoint the scores. I do this in my own judging. Only one judge in recent memory abused the judging system as much as that one did with scores in the thousandths citing a ridiculously unnecessarily overcomplicated system applied haphazardly which was too rigid to accept or handle change.

Even in blue text, can we please avoid calling out particular individuals? It creates negativity where my opinion is that we don't need anymore.

With the one build this round going from 9th to 3rd: In Ponies' old rubric it would have been a 1 point swing (-0.5 for not qualifying for feat to +0.5 no Elegance issues). Would that build have jumped up that many places? Don't know, hard to tell without looking at it the "old" way. But again this new system with only one judge and only 13 builds, there isn't enough data to tell.

Agreed, seeing that much of a swing surprised me. However, I think that's based entirely on how I chose to rank the builds and not that much on the new system.

Dispute Window: This seems like a good idea. Potentially one would have to wait until multiple judges score and then can decide whether or not to weigh in. A potential issue could be availability for entrants to get disputes in that window. That could be alleviated with the Chairman collecting them and posting them all at once at the predetermined time. (Which is not unlike what happens now.)

What if there's only one judge, but there are missed rules, etc. (much like what I missed on Shindra's use of Spelldancer or Nal'ridelthi's feat qualification this round)?

When to dispute?: I like the idea of only disputing for factual errors and medal contention. This can be combined with the point above. Contestants and judges are not going to see eye to eye on certain things and what may fly at one table would never even be considered at another. Some judges are just not going to like certain builds. It is really that plain and simple. An example from recent rounds: the worship of Elder Evils (to get the extra vile feats) along with worshipping Demon Lords. I hate this. To me it is inelegant and warrants a deduction. Even when presented with a WotC example provided by WhamBamSam, I would not change my opinion on it. I would keep the Elegance penalty in my own judging--even if citing RAW, citing WotC designers, or citing the Space Pope's official stance on it.

Hey, let's not bring real-world Space Religion into this! But I agree--having a standard on what is or isn't a valid dispute would definitely help.

[Thurbane]

Maybe a stupid suggestion, but since The 1 to 5 scale can and will include 0.25 increments, wouldn't it be more straightforward to change it to a 1 to 20 scale, and leave off the decimal points?

Maybe it's just me, but there's something I find really off putting about scores like 3.75/5

[Amphetryon]

Maybe a stupid suggestion, but since The 1 to 5 scale can and will include 0.25 increments, wouldn't it be more straightforward to change it to a 1 to 20 scale, and leave off the decimal points?

Maybe it's just me, but there's something I find really off putting about scores like 3.75/5

But, we're 3.5 players! We're not accustomed to dealing with scales based around a 20!

[AvatarVecna]

Maybe a stupid suggestion, but since The 1 to 5 scale can and will include 0.25 increments, wouldn't it be more straightforward to change it to a 1 to 20 scale, and leave off the decimal points?

Maybe it's just me, but there's something I find really off putting about scores like 3.75/5

Sarcasm aside, this is a good idea. Hell, if we got meta about it, we could say that our online personas (our "characters", if you will) had to make a Craft (3.5 Character) check, and each categories score was our d20 result.

[Kesnit]

While you're right that two-hundredth point increments didn't show up until Round LIII with Kesnit's scores, I don't see much of a correlation between small point increments and increased disputes.

I judge on 0.5-point increments. Averages go to 3-decimal places, but that's only averages, once the overall score is calculated.

[dysprosium]

I agree! While I'm not ready to trumpet the arrival of the Ultimate Judging System, it provided much more freedom in judging. I say we try it again. Some judges like myself will go with a point system of sorts anyway, but it leaves the freedom to others who want to rank the builds based on something else. For someone who loves Originality, they'd be free to give Saint Smokey the gold. Someone who digs devotion to a theme could give it to Swiftrunner, whose rabbit theme I really loved. Or if a judge prefers builds that take risks to try something new, they could award the top spot to Zahnik Boom. I loved his attempt to break the sound barrier by RAW. The new system gives us the power to focus on the builds presented as we'd like; that's fun. Right now, we're doing a lot of wringing our hands over the system itself...that's not fun.

We have to wring our hands on the system because there have been builds that are actually against the rules--missed feat requirements, missed prestige class requirements, etc. I know I've been guilty of these things myself. We can't award a build that is wrong (that is a terrible word for it but I think you get the picture).

Even in blue text, can we please avoid calling out particular individuals? It creates negativity where my opinion is that we don't need anymore.

I didn't name names, or is it just that we all know who I was talking about?

Sometimes the world is too politically correct and it gives certain individuals the opportunity to behave poorly because asking them to stop would be some kind of -ism. (And that is all I'll say on that.)

Agreed, seeing that much of a swing surprised me. However, I think that's based entirely on how I chose to rank the builds and not that much on the new system.

I was just trying to compare this round's scores to previous rounds. Of course it is more like comparing apples and oranges since these systems are quite different.

What if there's only one judge, but there are missed rules, etc. (much like what I missed on Shindra's use of Spelldancer or Nal'ridelthi's feat qualification this round)?

You have a point but the dispute would still be heard even if it is presented in a window. We never know how many judges are going to judge in a round. Real life happens that those who say that they can might have things happen. The reverse could also be true when someone who thought they would have no time find that there is time to judge.

Hey, let's not bring real-world Space Religion into this! But I agree--having a standard on what is or isn't a valid dispute would definitely help.

I think that is what a lot of us have been clamoring for. We've seen this competition evolve over the past x years. I would like to say that it has been for the better over all. Formalizing a dispute process seems to be the next evolutionary step. Maybe? I don't know anymore. I just like building characters. A lot.

[Amphetryon]

Agreed, seeing that much of a swing surprised me. However, I think that's based entirely on how I chose to rank the builds and not that much on the new system.

It may help to provide perspective by recalling that various entries have gone up by roughly the same number of places in the past, once either disputes were weighed or additional judges weighed in. I know in the past several of my entries have been horribly 'swingy' from judge to judge, based on how particular bits were interpreted.

[Drackstin]

Can anyone help me out a little on this, i have never tried to do one of these before, and i found a 32 point buy calculator on the internet, but it lets me go down to 7 on stats to get an extra point, is that legal? also i wanted to ask if a back story or reason for picking said race or class is needed? an lastly should i add gear = to 20th wealth character on the build?

[Sian]

... you do know that this one is over and we're sitting around waiting on the Chair to set up the next right?

in general you shouldn't need to suggest Gear (as everyone gets better with gear) unless theres certain gear thats much better/more important than excepted, and a background story is very handy to have it beyond merely a statblock

[sideswipe]

Can anyone help me out a little on this, i have never tried to do one of these before, and i found a 32 point buy calculator on the internet, but it lets me go down to 7 on stats to get an extra point, is that legal? also i wanted to ask if a back story or reason for picking said race or class is needed? an lastly should i add gear = to 20th wealth character on the build?

no you can not go below 8

yes you can have gear, but unless its a specific piece you need for the build then don't bother. there is a well known list of items that are crucial to any character, so those do not need to be included. also an over dependence on items is usually considered bad.

i just mention a few items in my build, like what stats i would increase as priorities and any other nice bits my character might want. any more then that is usually redundant.

[Drackstin]

... you do know that this one is over and we're sitting around waiting on the Chair to set up the next right?

in general you shouldn't need to suggest Gear (as everyone gets better with gear) unless theres certain gear thats much better/more important than excepted, and a background story is very handy to have it beyond merely a statblock

oh i got the dates mixed up, i thought this one just started lol. i had 6 builds ready to go lol.

no you can not go below 8

yes you can have gear, but unless its a specific piece you need for the build then don't bother. there is a well known list of items that are crucial to any character, so those do not need to be included. also an over dependence on items is usually considered bad.

i just mention a few items in my build, like what stats i would increase as priorities and any other nice bits my character might want. any more then that is usually redundant.

Good to know, i had a build ready but didn't want to submit it without knowing if 7 was an option. also i just wanted to show one or 2 items that the char would use to to make the biggest difference in style. not a full set.

thank you for the responses.

[Drackstin]

Sorry for this second post, but now finding out this ended because i forgot this was Sept, i wanted to post my first build so people could tell me if i"m on the right track. thank you for looking at it.

Spoiler: Daznar the fast

Show

Desert Half-orc – Clostered Cleric 1/ Druid Avenger Variant 1/ SwordSage 8/ Fleet Runner 10
Stats: STR-13, Dex-13, Con-14, INT-10, WIS-18, CHR-8 (Stat points +1Dex, +1STR, +1STR, +1STR, +1STR)
HD- 1d6+19d8+60 (142)
Daznar the fast.
Level Class BAB Fort Ref Will Skills Feats Class Features
1st Clostered Cleric +0 +2 +0 +2 24 Run, Expeditious dodge Lore(EX), Domain (knowledge, Sun, Celerity), Aura (Ex), Turn or Rebuke Undead (Su), Spells
2nd Druidic Avenger Variant +0 +4 +0 +4 4 Track AC Bonus (as monk), Fast Movement (as monk), Favored Enemy (Undead), swift tracker, Fast Movement (as Barbarian) Rage (Ex), Nature Sense, Wild Empathy.
3rd SwordSage +0 +4 +2 +6 6 Mobility Quick to act +1, Discipline Focus (Weapon Focus “DM” bastard sword (katana) )
4th SwordSage +1 +4 +3 +7 6 AC Bonus (SwordSage)
5th SwordSage +2 +5 +3 +7 6
6th SwordSage +3 +5 +4 +8 6 Power Attack Discipline focus (insightful strike “DM”)
7th SwordSage +3 +5 +4 +8 6 Quick to act +2
8th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +3 +7 +4 +10 2 Fast Movement, Greater Mobility, Additional Domain (Animal)
9th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +4 +8 +4 +11 2 Spring Attack Evasion, +1 caster level(Clostered Cleric)
10th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +5 +8 +5 +11 2 Leap of the hart
11th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +6/1 +9 +5 +12 2 Shot on the Run, +1 caster level (Clostered Cleric)
12th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +6/1 +9 +5 +12 2 Powerful Charge Run like the huntress
13th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +7/2 +10 +6 +13 2 Improved evasion, +1 caster level(Clostered Cleric)
14th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +8/3 +10 +6 +13 2 Run like the wind
15th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +9/4 +11 +6 +14 2 Greater Powerful Charge Leopard's pounce, +1 caster level(Clostered Cleric)
16th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +9/4 +11 +7 +14 2 Swiftness of the tigress
17th The Fleet Runner of Ehlonna +10/5 +12 +7 +15 2 Cheetah's sprint, +1 caster level(Clostered Cleric)
18th SwordSage +11/6/1 +13 +8 +16 6 Leap Attack
19th SwordSage +12/7/2 +13 +8 +16 6 Sense magic
20th SwordSage +13/8/3 +13 +9 +17 6 Discipline focus (defensive stance”DM”)
Clostered Cleric
Level 0lvl 1st 2nd 3rd
1st 3 2+1 - -
9th 4 3+1 - -
11th 4 3+1 2+1 -
13th 5 4+1 3+1 -
15th 5 4+1 3+1 2+1
Druidic Avenger Variant
Level 0lvl 1st
2nd 3 2
SwordSage
Level Maneuvers Known Maneuvers Readied Stances Known
3rd 6 (Wind Stride, Moment of Perfect Mind, Sapphire Nightmare Blade, Charging Minotaur, Stone Bones, Sudden Leap) 4 Child of Shadow
4th 7(Action Before Thought) 4 Step of the Wind
5th 8(Emerald Razor) 5
6th 9(Insightful Strike, + Shadow Garrote, - Sudden Leap) 5
7th 10(Mind Over Body) 6 Pearl of Black Doubt
18th 11(Greater Insightful Strike, + Moment of Alacrity, - Wind Stride) 6
19th 12(Avalanche of Blades) 6
20th 13(Quicksilver Motion, + Ancient Mountain Hammer, - Charging Minotaur) 7

Primary fighting style is 2handed Bastard sword gorilla tack ticks, run in and run out killing one by one and staying as far away as posable until the numbers are low enough. stacking the AC from Pearl of black doubt and then charging in with everything he has.

hope its good.

[sideswipe]

here is a point. after the last post it has come up as a question in my mind. can i submit more than one entry?

[dysprosium]

By current rules, you can enter two at the most, like I did this round.

[The Viscount]

You can, but two is the maximum number of entries per competition you may submit.

[sideswipe]

so when i had two spellsword builds i loved.... and i had to cry as i picked one, like picking which of my future children i had to keep.... i could have used both

[Deadline]

Sorry for this second post, but now finding out this ended because i forgot this was Sept, i wanted to post my first build so people could tell me if i"m on the right track. thank you for looking at it.
hope its good.

The build looks reasonable to me, but I would highly recommend using the Build Tables in the OP. It makes the format easy to read (unlike your spoilered text), and generally ensures you won't miss something important. I'd also look at the entries this round and see how they were formatted. Then, take a look at past winners and see how those were formatted.

[arkangel111]

So... is the competition over? I had aired a dispute and yet to see it posted. But I also have a rules question concerning my build that I didn't throw in with it because I wasn't sure if it would work.

[Drackstin]

so when i had two spellsword builds i loved.... and i had to cry as i picked one, like picking which of my future children i had to keep.... i could have used both

The opening post said you can submit multiple, but never said a limit.

[Drackstin]

The build looks reasonable to me, but I would highly recommend using the Build Tables in the OP. It makes the format easy to read (unlike your spoilered text), and generally ensures you won't miss something important. I'd also look at the entries this round and see how they were formatted. Then, take a look at past winners and see how those were formatted.

I used the format from the OP. But it didn't copy and paste correctly. Should I use the code?

[Deadline]

I used the format from the OP. But it didn't copy and paste correctly. Should I use the code?

Yes. It's basically a couple of big tables.

[Deadline]

So... is the competition over? I had aired a dispute and yet to see it posted. But I also have a rules question concerning my build that I didn't throw in with it because I wasn't sure if it would work.

It's over in the sense that no new builds can be submitted, but it isn't 100% completed yet (as in, possibly a last minute judge can post their scores, and there may be some disputes left to be addressed).

[Darrin]

The opening post said you can submit multiple, but never said a limit.

This was a somewhat informal rule Kuhlveysoon introduced recently... when the number of entries gets above 20+, then judging them all (and dealing with the disputes) takes up way too much time. I think the limit only applies while he is Chairman (although I suspect subsequent Chairpersons would be inclined to keep it in place).

Aha. Found it. Kuhlveysoon instituted a 3-entry maximum in IC LII, and then said moving foward there would be a 2-entry maximum. I don't think it was ever added to the Intro post or FAQ.

(I think dysprosium was the last person to submit 3 entries in LC XLVI... took 6th, 11th, and 12th place.)

[OMG PONIES]

So... is the competition over? I had aired a dispute and yet to see it posted. But I also have a rules question concerning my build that I didn't throw in with it because I wasn't sure if it would work.

The Chairman last posted two days ago, so he may currently be doing some things out there in real life. People keep telling me about it, but it sounds overrated.

[Ikeren]

@Drackstin: People generally penalize 1 level dips quite a bit here. There is also an emphasis on correct formatting and submitting good fluff, so you should probably do that, too.

[Thurbane]

Can anyone help me out a little on this, i have never tried to do one of these before, and i found a 32 point buy calculator on the internet, but it lets me go down to 7 on stats to get an extra point, is that legal? also i wanted to ask if a back story or reason for picking said race or class is needed? an lastly should i add gear = to 20th wealth character on the build?

The only RAW legal way to go below 8 with point buy is with racial penalties (or things like Willing Deformity: Madness), and even then it doesn't grant extra points to spend elsewhere.

With gear, as has already been pointed out, best not to make it integral to the build. *However*, speaking as a one time judge, it never hurts to put a "recommended equipment" footnote near the end of your entry.

Another tip: always include some notes about how the character can contribute to a party both in AND out of combat. Especially the latter - it's usually very obvious what a build can do in combat, but for other stuff (scouting, NPC interactions etc.), not so much.

Best of luck with your future entries.

[Drackstin]

@Drackstin: People generally penalize 1 level dips quite a bit here. There is also an emphasis on correct formatting and submitting good fluff, so you should probably do that, too.

Well since the competition was over i didn't add the fluff, and the problem with the PrC is that you need to one level dip to get into it, also the fluff of the race and classes would have cleared the dip up a bit, but i understand what they might penalize it. as for the format, its a copy paste from the OP, i didn't use a code though, just pasted the table in word and filled it in, so the format is correct, its just not in code so it didn't post as a table, so i know for next time to use a code. thank you for the advise.