Iron Chef Optimisation Challenge in the Playground LXXII

[Kesnit]

This is why I don't like posting 'judging guidelines'.

You are not building to please me, you are building for your own pleasure. Build for your own pleasure, see where it ends up on what I deem as worth.

Unless I've made an error in how rules interpretations works, or miss something obvious, I don't see why there should be a dispute or criticism of the criteria.

Thanks for your concern, but how I've written it is what I'm looking for.

I didn't read your comment as a judging criteria. I thought it was just your take on the class.

[Vaz]

Venger, judging criteria are completely unimportant.

[Heliomance]

Word of Chair: Judging criteria are entirely optional. It is completely the choice of any given judge, potential or actual, as to whether they wish to post them, and it is completely the choice of any given contestant as to whether they wish to follow any posted criteria.

[The Viscount]

So to summarize we need rulings on

• How absorbing a spell works now (like 3.0 rod of absorption or like 3.5 rod of absorption)
• Whether you are damaged by your own maelstrom of fire
• Whether rapid blast is a full round (as per the errata)
• Whether you need a touch attack and level check to drain permanent items (as per the errata)

Did I miss anything?

Unrelated, what on earth is happening in the image for the class? Why is the spellfire channeler wearing a had with attached mask? Who are these cloaked ethergaunt-esque figures attacking? Is the red twisted hand thing a holy symbol or a weapon? For that matter, what is the spellfire channeler holding in his right hand? What is he doing to the figure reeling backwards? It looks like a mighty backhand, but the arcs of energy are coming from...whatever he's holding.

[WhamBamSam]

So to summarize we need rulings on

• How absorbing a spell works now (like 3.0 rod of absorption or like 3.5 rod of absorption)
• Whether you are damaged by your own maelstrom of fire
• Whether rapid blast is a full round (as per the errata)
• Whether you need a touch attack and level check to drain permanent items (as per the errata)

Did I miss anything?

Unrelated, what on earth is happening in the image for the class? Why is the spellfire channeler wearing a had with attached mask? Who are these cloaked ethergaunt-esque figures attacking? Is the red twisted hand thing a holy symbol or a weapon? For that matter, what is the spellfire channeler holding in his right hand? What is he doing to the figure reeling backwards? It looks like a mighty backhand, but the arcs of energy are coming from...whatever he's holding.

You missed the one about whether or not touching a magic item to drain it counts as it touching you and causes you to release spellfire charges, unless we're counting that as resolved from Curmudgeon's post saying that A touching B does not imply that B is touching A by the D&D 3.5 definition of touch.

I assume we're going by the errata, but as you're probably not going to be draining items in combat it barely matters for Drain Permanent Item, as you can just keep retrying the level check unless the CL of the item you want to drain is somewhere between 26 and 31 (depending on your class level). Unless of course you need to keep making new touch attacks which cause more spellfire to be released.

I think the figure reeling backwards is supposed to be getting healed with spellfire. Beyond that, no idea.

Well, I think I've wrangled this mess of a class into something workable. It's not as elegant as my first idea, but I think I like it better.

[Curmudgeon]

The thing is, if the Rules Compendium doesn't count as the primary source for the variousrules it covers, then it is literally a pointless book.

I don't know why you would think that. The point of the book was to consolidate existing rules from multiple sources in one convenient package; that's all the WotC advertisements, or the interviews with the authors, ever said it would be. It's only inside RC itself that they declared a new purpose of revising the rules without using the errata mechanism.

[Amphetryon]

I don't know why you would think that. The point of the book was to consolidate existing rules from multiple sources in one convenient package; that's all the WotC advertisements, or the interviews with the authors, ever said it would be. It's only inside RC itself that they declared a new purpose of revising the rules without using the errata mechanism.

Could you give some examples of rules that are in RC, where RC is considered the primary source? I ask because 'primary source' is the usual default for 'most correct' answer to RAW questions; if there's some other criteria by which RC's specific printing is considered 'most correct' in comparison to an otherwise primary source, I'd be interested in examples of those rules.

[Troacctid]

It's not that RC is a primary source so much as there are rules in it that aren't contradicted anywhere else. Primary source rules only apply in the case of a contradiction.

[Amphetryon]

It's not that RC is a primary source so much as there are rules in it that aren't contradicted anywhere else. Primary source rules only apply in the case of a contradiction.

Are you saying it's not the primary source for any rules? "Rules in it that aren't contradicted anywhere else" is all but irrelevant unless those rules are also not included elsewhere, since one could simply go to the other source.

[WhamBamSam]

Are you saying it's not the primary source for any rules? "Rules in it that aren't contradicted anywhere else" is all but irrelevant unless those rules are also not included elsewhere, since one could simply go to the other source.

In the current instance we're talking about willingly forgoing a saving throw for a non-spell effect (Improved Storage 5). Troacctid's argument is that the Rules Compendium says you can, whereas the PHB doesn't say you can't (even though the PHB only explicitly allows it in the case of spells). If they were actually in conflict, there would be an argument that the PHB was the primary source, but the RC isn't actually contradicted in this case.

[Troacctid]

Right. If the Premium PHB said you could only forgo a saving throw against spells, but not other abilities, then that would be a rules conflict, and the more recent book (the Premium PHB) would take precedence. But both rules in this case are permissive, not restrictive, so there's no conflict.

There are of course many cases where RC is the "most correct" source, as it is explicitly authoritative in the case of a disagreement with any book that preceded it.

[Curmudgeon]

In the current instance we're talking about willingly forgoing a saving throw for a non-spell effect (Improved Storage 5). Troacctid's argument is that the Rules Compendium says you can, whereas the PHB doesn't say you can't (even though the PHB only explicitly allows it in the case of spells). If they were actually in conflict, there would be an argument that the PHB was the primary source, but the RC isn't actually contradicted in this case.

There is an actual conflict, because the Player's Handbook says you follow this procedure:

Generally, when you are subject to an unusual or magical attack, you get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. Like an attack roll, a saving throw is a d20 roll plus a bonus based on your class, level, and an ability score. Your saving throw modifier is:

Base save bonus + ability modifier

You get a saving throw to avoid or reduce the effect. You don't optionally get a saving throw; you get a saving throw — except for spells, where there's a rule giving you an option to forgo the save. Rules Compendium conflicts with Player's Handbook here because it says there's always an option to not follow the saving throw rule.

Errata Rule: Primary Sources

When you find a disagreement between two D&D® rules sources, unless an official errata file says otherwise, the primary source is correct. One example of a primary/secondary source is text taking precedence over a table entry. An individual spell description takes precedence when the short description in the beginning of the spells chapter disagrees.

Another example of primary vs. secondary sources involves book and topic precedence. The Player's Handbook, for example, gives all the rules for playing the game, for playing PC races, and for using base class descriptions. If you find something on one of those topics from the Dungeon Master's Guide or the Monster Manual that disagrees with the Player's Handbook, you should assume the Player's Handbook is the primary source. The Dungeon Master's Guide is the primary source for topics such as magic item descriptions, special material construction rules, and so on. The Monster Manual is the primary source for monster descriptions, templates, and supernatural, extraordinary, and spell-like abilities.

Nowhere but in Rules Compendium itself is there anything saying it gets to ignore the other official D&D rules. And, of course, the Primary Sources Errata Rule denies it any authority over the 3 core books.

[Troacctid]

The text you quoted from the Player's Handbook is also in the Rules Compendium (page 112). I hardly think it can be considered a disagreement when both books contain the same rule. (I mean, it's not verbatim, but for our purposes there aren't any relevant differences.)

[Curmudgeon]

The text you quoted from the Player's Handbook is also in the Rules Compendium (page 112). I hardly think it can be considered a disagreement when both books contain the same rule.

It's a disagreement when one adds an extra rule allowing an exception and the other doesn't.

[Troacctid]

If the extra rule is an exception, then book primacy is moot, because exceptions always take precedence over general rules.

[Curmudgeon]

If the extra rule is an exception, then book primacy is moot, because exceptions always take precedence over general rules.

No, that's incorrect.

An exception is a particular kind of specific rule that contradicts or breaks another rule (general or specific).

Player's Handbook has an exception about making saving throws, but it's limited to saving throws for spells. Rules Compendium has an exception about making saving throws, but without that limitation. These two exceptions are in disagreement.

[Amechra]

Check your quote from the PHB. Notice how the first word in that quote is generally?

It's a permissive rule that states the default procedure. It does not state anything to allow or disallow you from opting to fail a save. The Rules Compendium allows you to opt to fail a save. Since the PHB doesn't say anything about opting to fail saves in any situation except for spells, there is no contradiction.

To restate: If there is a general law in effect that people with red hair are not required to pay taxes, with a note later on in that same body of law that people with red hair and purple eyes can opt to pay taxes anyway, would a later statement that people with red hair can opt to pay taxes contradict this earlier, general law?

Now, if people are arguing that you can opt not to make the save in the first place... that is in contradiction with the PHB. While you can opt to fail a saving throw, you can't opt to not make one in the first place.

---

I have had two ideas. The second one might actually get a pass with a higher elegance than -3!

[Curmudgeon]

Check your quote from the PHB. Notice how the first word in that quote is generally?

That's about whether the rules stipulate a save (because some magical effects don't). It doesn't say anything about whether a player has an option to skip the save.

[Amechra]

They don't; the option you are given is whether or not you opt to fail the save. You are never given the option to not make the save in the first place.

Unless, of course, I've been misreading things.

---

In other words, Curmudgeon is right, but I think that there has been some miscommunication.

[Curmudgeon]

In other words, Curmudgeon is right, but I think that there has been some miscommunication.

I'd agree about the miscommunication, and I apologize if I seemed to be contentious. I've seen way too many of these discussions get sidetracked by emphasizing a single ambiguous phrase (or even a single word) in the rules, and I was trying to head off that possibility — probably more abruptly than was warranted.

[Zaq]

Yeah, I knew the judging for this round was going to get ugly. We've got over a week left to cook, and we're already squabbling.

Anyway, I've got the build table finished (though I may need to change a couple of the skills). I just need to write up the strategy and solidify the fluff. This character ended up going in several directions that I didn't anticipate, but it was fun to watch it evolve in front of me. Not sure exactly when I'm going to get the write-up finished and submitted, but I think it's safe to say I'll be entering this round.

Of course, as I was finishing the table last night, I came up with a clever way of using [REDACTED], which of course is 100% incompatible with the character I'm actually building. It's just one trick, but it's a pretty good one. I may be forced to make my first-ever second entry* if I can think of a way to expend the character beyond that one trick. I'm not super likely to do that, but I guess the possibility is open. I think I'll probably just hold out hope that no one else comes up with the same trick, so I can post it after the reveal. We shall see.

Overall, though, I'm having more fun than I expected with this ingredient. Its abilities are all at odds with each other, so it's really not a well-designed class at all, but at least it does have unique tricks, unlike Silver Key or Order of the Bow Initiate. I do anticipate the judging getting a bit ugly, so I hope that I'll be able to avoid taking things personally if the judges don't like my interpretations of certain abilities, but I'm still having more fun cooking than I would have expected at first glance.

*Technically, I submitted two entries to the third round of the Iron Chef E6 Appetizer Edition, but I've never submitted more than one entry to the original Iron Chef Optimisation Challenge. That round didn't even get judged, so whatever.

[Sian]

Still waiting on the rulings before i go further than i'm at already in my cooking. the result of some of the listed rulings needed, might seriously destory (or make) the worthiness of my build

[Deadline]

Was a ruling made on whether or not a worn or held magic item triggered the involuntary effects when you've got more spellfire energy levels than your Con score?

[Venger]

Was a ruling made on whether or not a worn or held magic item triggered the involuntary effects when you've got more spellfire energy levels than your Con score?

no rulings on the class's ambiguities as of yet. heliomance's book collection is inaccessible.

Still waiting on the rulings before i go further than i'm at already in my cooking. the result of some of the listed rulings needed, might seriously destory (or make) the worthiness of my build

yeah, me too. these rulings are gonna change a lot about how this si works (or doesn't work)

[Amphetryon]

For those who believe a judge's guidelines don't matter (I'm not talking about whether they post them or not), how should a judge score, without guidelines? What is the significance of those scores, and on what basis would such scores merit disputes?

[Deadline]

For those who believe a judge's guidelines don't matter (I'm not talking about whether they post them or not), how should a judge score, without guidelines?

Given that any given judges guidelines are made up anyway, I'd assume just like they do now? I may not fully understand the question being asked here.

What is the significance of those scores

The same significance we place on all the scores in this silly little internet contest? Again, I may be misunderstanding your question.

, and on what basis would such scores merit disputes?

Problems on the judges part, i.e. factual mistakes, reading comprehension fails, consistency issues, and math errors? Isn't that how scores merit disputes now?

[Amphetryon]

Problems on the judges part, i.e. factual mistakes, reading comprehension fails, consistency issues, and math errors? Isn't that how scores merit disputes now?

Because those are all parts of a judging criteria. If judging criteria are completely unimportant, then none of those things factor in, because they're part of the criteria.

[Deadline]

Because those are all parts of a judging criteria. If judging criteria are completely unimportant, then none of those things factor in, because they're part of the criteria.

I'm now certain that I'm missing something. If I misread an entries table and decide to mark it down because it qualify for X, and the chef disputes pointing out where I missed seeing the qualifications for X in the entry, how does that have any real bearing on my criteria? Likewise if I add skill points up wrong, mark dish A down twice as much as dish B for the same thing, or erroneously claim that Z requires Craft(Basketweaving) when it doesn't?

Are you referring to the judging guidelines in the Chair's post, or to the individual criteria that some judges post to give chefs an idea of how the judge will be looking at dishes?

[Amphetryon]

I'm now certain that I'm missing something. If I misread an entries table and decide to mark it down because it qualify for X, and the chef disputes pointing out where I missed seeing the qualifications for X in the entry, how does that have any real bearing on my criteria? Likewise if I add skill points up wrong, mark dish A down twice as much as dish B for the same thing, or erroneously claim that Z requires Craft(Basketweaving) when it doesn't?

Are you referring to the judging guidelines in the Chair's post, or to the individual criteria that some judges post to give chefs an idea of how the judge will be looking at dishes?

If a judge's criteria are entirely irrelevant, then any explanation of the scores is both superfluous and irrelevant, since the rationale by which a judge arrived at a particular score does not matter. No explanation of scores is necessary, so there would be no basis for dispute other than a person feeling slighted by the score obtained.

[WhamBamSam]

If a judge's criteria are entirely irrelevant, then any explanation of the scores is both superfluous and irrelevant, since the rationale by which a judge arrived at a particular score does not matter. No explanation of scores is necessary, so there would be no basis for dispute other than a person feeling slighted by the score obtained.

I'm pretty sure Vaz was saying that judging criteria should be completely irrelevant to how you build, because you should be cooking to please yourself and not the judge.

Of course we want there to be some sort of consistency, so on some level, yes, a good judging can be said to have some manner of "criteria" whether they're posted or not if you really want to split hairs about it. No one was suggesting anything to the contrary as far as I can tell.