Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXII

[daremetoidareyo]

Arm spines are dumb.

[Thurbane]

Much like Psionics, Incarnum just isn't my thing. I'll neither compete nor judge, but I look forward to the reveal and the wonderful creativeness this forum inspires.

[GreatWyrmGold]

*sarcasm*The capstone blows my mind. *end of sarcasm*

Is the capstone supposed to be the seventh Essentia point? ...that's almost worse than nothing except a hit die.

It's not "August", the month, it's "august" the adjective (stress on the second syllable, not the first), which means "respected and impressive". The month August is named after Caesar Augustus, the first Emperor of Rome.

August is named after Augustus, and Augustus was named after "august". (Or, well, the slightly different Latin version of the word that the English version was copy-pasted from a few centuries ago.)


Pretty sure this is my first time, but I've got an idea in my head and that's reason enough to dip my toe in.

[WhamBamSam]

Is the capstone supposed to be the seventh Essentia point? ...that's almost worse than nothing except a hit die.

It also raises the class level-based essentia cap on Spine Enhancement.

[ciopo]

Obviously the capstone is the title!

Bragging rights, in other words

[Paragon]

That's what I was saying. Maybe the intent is for that restriction to only apply to the weps you TWF with, ie your primary and offhand -- if you want spine iteratives, you have to use both spines -- and not to prohibit secondary natural attacks. Otherwise it's a bizarre ability.

@Viscount, do you confirm this ?

[ciopo]

I'm cooking on the assumption that secondary naturals aren't allowed, per the "no other weapon" wording.The playing field changes quite a bit if it's otherwise.

Doing TWF iteratives with natural attacks is unique enough as a feature already, being granted TWF the feat on top of the spine fightning feels like making sure you're operating at -2/-2 with them instead of -4/-8.

I can see how we would see ourselves adding a bite/tail slap/whatever notclaws to the routine, but it doesn't feel like something they anticipated

[Zaq]

[. . .] but it doesn't feel like something they anticipated

Welcome to Iron Chef, my friend!

[ciopo]

Welcome to Iron Chef, my friend!

In the book with the totemist, that has natural attacks in spades, so maybe it was anticipated.

We can assume a bit of competency..... yes?

[AvatarVecna]

In the book with the totemist, that has natural attacks in spades, so maybe it was anticipated.

We can assume a bit of competency..... yes?

Oh, bless your heart. You still give WotC a little bit of credit.

[Elves]

I think it's a possible reading. After all, "this ability" is about TWFing with the spines, not necessarily the full attack action in which you do so.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Okay, turns out my idea is terrible. I'll share it once builds are released if anyone cares.

I assume it's alright to share aesthetic ideas related to our builds? Because the thing that kept me going after my first draft turned out to be hilariously underwhelming was the idea of a mineral warrior skarn being basically an obsidian Hork-Bajir, especially once I thought of naming him "the Edged Lord" and giving him a personality to match.
On a related note, I threw together a first-draft pixel animation of the Edged Lord before realizing the build was straight-up inferior to a vanilla fighter at the one thing it was supposed to be good at. I planned to make a few to spice up the Iron Chef submission, but that didn't work out.

Spoiler

Show

I'm not super happy with the end result (especially that xenomorph-looking head), but it's not shameful or anything.

[mattie_p]

.... and submitted. so I will not be judging. Good luck everyone!

[Venger]

Okay, turns out my idea is terrible. I'll share it once builds are released if anyone cares.

I assume it's alright to share aesthetic ideas related to our builds? Because the thing that kept me going after my first draft turned out to be hilariously underwhelming was the idea of a mineral warrior skarn being basically an obsidian Hork-Bajir, especially once I thought of naming him "the Edged Lord" and giving him a personality to match.
On a related note, I threw together a first-draft pixel animation of the Edged Lord before realizing the build was straight-up inferior to a vanilla fighter at the one thing it was supposed to be good at. I planned to make a few to spice up the Iron Chef submission, but that didn't work out.

Spoiler

Show

I'm not super happy with the end result (especially that xenomorph-looking head), but it's not shameful or anything.

Hey, that looks pretty good!

[The Viscount]

@Viscount, do you confirm this ?

Read over the text some more, and I think I see what's going on. I hope this clarifies. (I edited my earlier post to point here.)

Twin-Spine Fighting's second sentence means that you can TWF with 2 spines, but you cannot TWF with 1 arm's spines and a different weapon. You may TWF, then use other natural attacks as secondary attacks in a full attack.

Some examples, because I think it might be helpful. A skarn armed with a short sword could not use Twin-Spine Fighting to TWF with the short sword as main hand weapon, and the spines as the off hand weapon.
A skarn who has a bite attack could use Twin-Spine Fighting to TWF with 2 spines, and then use the bite as a secondary attack, just like a skarn who has 2 daggers and a bite attack could TWF with the daggers, then use the bite as a secondary attack.

[Thurbane]

Just a side question: as a 1E player, I was always fascinated and amused that this PrC has "level titles", which were a thing for most classes back in the day.

I vaguely recall there may have been 1 or 2 other 3.5 classes/PrCs that had level titles...or am I imagining things?

[ciopo]

Read over the text some more, and I think I see what's going on. I hope this clarifies. (I edited my earlier post to point here.)

Twin-Spine Fighting's second sentence means that you can TWF with 2 spines, but you cannot TWF with 1 arm's spines and a different weapon. You may TWF, then use other natural attacks as secondary attacks in a full attack.

Some examples, because I think it might be helpful. A skarn armed with a short sword could not use Twin-Spine Fighting to TWF with the short sword as main hand weapon, and the spines as the off hand weapon.
A skarn who has a bite attack could use Twin-Spine Fighting to TWF with 2 spines, and then use the bite as a secondary attack, just like a skarn who has 2 daggers and a bite attack could TWF with the daggers, then use the bite as a secondary attack.

Ohhh good to know!

What about claws? I'm assuming they compete for the usage of the "limb"

Edit to avoid doubleposting : I feel it would be helpful if we have a chair ruling in how the feats shape soulmeld and open chakra X feats works when taken while having meldshaping classes, which Spinemeld warrior is.

In essence, the possible disputes in that regard are two:
does Shape soulmeld feat grant you one more "soulmelds that can be shaped" per day, or is it just added to the soulmelds "Known"? Example : a 3rd level spinemeld warrior with no other meldshaping classes take the feat "shape soulmeld(A soulmeld not in the soulborn list)", is his limit of shaped soulmelds for a day still 1 per his class levels, or is it 1(from soulborn list) plus whatever soulmeld he selected with shape soulmeldfeat?

Similarly with the "open least/lesser/greater chakra (not arms)", a 7th level spinemeld warrior that took "Open least/lesser/greater chakra(not arms)" feat, how many binds does he have? only one (either arms or whatever other he chose) or two? (1 from class levels and one locked to the feat)?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Hey, that looks pretty good!

Thanks! If only I had a build to go along with it.

I vaguely recall there may have been 1 or 2 other 3.5 classes/PrCs that had level titles...or am I imagining things?

I'm pretty sure there were, but I couldn't say which ones.

[Elves]

Edit to avoid doubleposting : I feel it would be helpful if we have a chair ruling in how the feats shape soulmeld and open chakra X feats works when taken while having meldshaping classes, which Spinemeld warrior is.

In the case of Open Chakra, we can see that it doesn't add any chakra binds for a meldshaper. The sample Sapphire Hierarch NPC (MOI 142) has Open Chakra Least, but still only has 2 binds, the normal amount for effective incarnate level 6th. That also demonstrates the use case for these feats: multiclass meldshapers, including those in PRCs that advance your meldshaping but not your chakra bind tiers.

In the case of a non-meldshaper, you could argue Open Chakra adds a bind due to this bit on MOI 6:

consider the follow-ing feats and prestige classes from this book, based on your character’s class:
[different classes...]
Any Character: ...Open Greater Chakra, Open Least Chakra, Open Lesser Chakra

If the Open Chakra feats are supposed to benefit any character, their benefit shouldn't rely on having meldshaper levels. But this could be a reference to multiclass characters, as above. And it creates complications: what if you have 3 open chakra feats but then take meldshaper levels that only give you 1 chakra bind? Is it a higher of the two situation? In other words, that requires additional speculative rules, so the simplest interpretation is that Open Chakra never adds binds.

(That's also my preference: I think allowing non-meldshapers chakra binds opens up too much access to meldshaper class features through feats.)

--

But as for Shape Soulmeld, MOI 126 suggests that it does let you shape the soulmeld if you have no meldshaping ability:

The second major requirement for entry is the ability to shape soulmelds. Since one of the greatest benefits of this class is continuous improvement of the character’s meldshaping abilities, taking a level of incarnate is a more effective way to meet this prerequisite than taking a feat that grants the ability to shape a soulmeld

A Shape Soulmeld meld doesn't use your class meldshaper level and the shaping seems to happen independently, which suggests it remains separate from your meldshaping for a particular class and so wouldn't benefit from features like expanded essentia capacity. I don't see anything clarifying whether it would raise a meldshaper's total number of soulmelds but the simplest interpretation is that it would.

[ciopo]

Ohhh, example creature being useful, that's great! And excellently put! It wrecks havoc with using these feats, but there's the proof :(

but what about the spell/powers that open a chakra? "A creature benefiting from this spell can bind a soulmeld or magic item to his opened chakra just as if he had gained the ability to form a chakra bind from a feat or class feature"

This all could use some editing sigh

Opinion : the "open L/L/G (slot) chkra" feat line let us bind items, but not soulmeld unless a MoI class gives us a bind?

Wouldn't that also make the Skarn monk substitution level useless? the 10th level one, it opens the arms chakra... but the monk doesn't have any "bind" for binding

[WhamBamSam]

I thought it was pretty established consensus that the Open Chakra feats/spells/etc gave you an extra chakra bind that could only be used for that specific chakra. I feel like we even got an explicit ruling to that effect the last time we had a MoI ingredient, though that was under a different chair.

[Seerow]

I thought it was pretty established consensus that the Open Chakra feats/spells/etc gave you an extra chakra bind that could only be used for that specific chakra. I feel like we even got an explicit ruling to that effect the last time we had a MoI ingredient, though that was under a different chair.

When I asked the chair via PM, I got the response that it is open to interpretation by the judges.

But I agree that an extra chakra bind used for that specific chakra feels like the most commonly accepted interpretation, and the one most consistent with how the feat is expected to work.

[mattie_p]

If a character had zero levels in an incarnum class, I feel it's obvious that shape soulmeld (x) and open y chakra (z) would allow the character to bind it. Much as taking martial study without taking levels as an initiator creates a separate pool. Even if one later takes a class, it remains separate.

But I'm away from books and this is my personal opinion, I'm not willing to post in the RAW thread without reviewing the rules.

But incarnum is weird. It really would not surprise me if there's an interaction that ends up hurting a character, much like a spectacular success on a knowledge (history) roll forces one to start chasing after Ghularak.

[Thurbane]

I'm pretty sure there were, but I couldn't say which ones.

I thought Fochlucan Lyrist was one, but on checking, apparently not.

[ciopo]

When I asked the chair via PM, I got the response that it is open to interpretation by the judges.

Best would be to have the volunteering judges chime in with their criteria and their feels on this matter, so the cooks can plan accordingly :) And Elves has expressed his opinion on this matter, so...

[Elves]

What we know from the sample NPC on page 142 is that the feats don't grant more binds if you have existing binds from meldshaper levels.

They could still potentially grant a bind if you don't have any binds from class levels.

But in that case, it's unclear what would happen if you had more binds from feats than you later gained from a meldshaper class*. Since we don't have rules for resolving that situation, the most RAW assumption, in my view, is that it doesn't happen, suggesting the other reading (the feat never grants a bind).

*Because of p142, we know they don't stack. So would the meldshaper class(es) overrule the feats, screwing you over? Or would the higher number apply? In that case, what if you take multiple meldshaper classes -- is the "higher number" the sum of all binds granted by your meldshaper levels, or only the highest number granted by a single class? The point isn't which one; it's that we're in speculation territory now, not RAW territory.

[The Viscount]

I thought it was pretty established consensus that the Open Chakra feats/spells/etc gave you an extra chakra bind that could only be used for that specific chakra. I feel like we even got an explicit ruling to that effect the last time we had a MoI ingredient, though that was under a different chair.

Let's cement it then.

Open Chakra grants you an extra chakra bind that can only be used for that specific chakra.

Shape Soulmeld adds 1 to the number of soulmelds you can shape the first time you take it. If you take it more than once, it merely adds to your list. The feat specifies it doesn't stack, just that you choose a new soulmeld if you take it again.

I recognize that the sample characters don't necessarily abide by these rules, but I'm leery of basing anything on sample characters. They're really all over the place, and very often wrong.

[Elves]

I'm leery of basing anything on sample characters. They're really all over the place, and very often wrong.

They're also often useful for determining intent. (Another recent example I came across is fist of the forest and monk's AC bonus stacking.)

Like the FAQ, people seem to have taken a few mistakes as a mandate to ignore them. But they should still be presumed accurate unless proven otherwise. Sample characters even more so than FAQs, because they're part of the book.

In this case, it's the one example we have of how Open Chakra is meant to work. And it's clear. So on that one point (meldshapers with existing binds who take Open Chakra), I think the old ruling should be changed.


In any case, I'll see you all once the submissions are in.

[GreatWyrmGold]

(That's also my preference: I think allowing non-meldshapers chakra binds opens up too much access to meldshaper class features through feats.)

While you do make a good argument, I disagree with it.

First, I present a Rules As Interpreted argument: The descriptive text for each Open [adjective] Chakra feat reads "You open up one of your body’s centers of power, allowing you to bind a soulmeld or a magic item to that chakra." It seems obvious to me that the designers intended for this feat to let you bind soulmelds to a given chakra, regardless of whether you could bind soulmelds otherwise.
Second is...well, more of a philosophical difference. You think that meldshaping should be restricted to characters who take meldshaping class levels. I think the point of these feats (and Shape Soulmeld) is to make meldshaping not restricted to those characters.

Like the FAQ, people seem to have taken a few mistakes as a mandate to ignore them. But they should still be presumed accurate unless proven otherwise. Sample characters even more so than FAQs, because they're part of the book.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the sample characters consistently abide by the rules well enough for us to derive rules interpretations purely from the sample characters in the absence of other evidence. (Same for the FAQs, for what that's worth.) They can support other arguments, but they can't be arguments in and of themselves.


Quick disclosure: I recently had an entry in another optimization contest who used Shape Soulmeld and Open Least Chakra to bind a soulmeld to her hands. That might affect my viewpoint. Certainly, having that viewpoint is why I built that character that way.

[Elves]

Re Greatwyrmgold:

What I said about preference was an aside. It's not the reason for anything else I said there.

Shape Soulmeld actually is stated to add meldshaping ability if you don't have it (MOI 126).
Open Chakra it's not clear what happens if you don't have any existing binds. Only what happens if you do (you don't gain any extra).

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't think the sample characters consistently abide by the rules well enough for us to derive rules interpretations purely from the sample characters in the absence of other evidence. (Same for the FAQs, for what that's worth.) They can support other arguments, but they can't be arguments in and of themselves.

Well, they're in the rulebook. They can be wrong, but burden of evidence is on the reader to disprove them. And where they're demonstrably wrong they should be ignored, but it's not RAW to ignore them without cause.

In this case there's no cause because the feat and spell text are genuinely ambiguous. That's why the indication of intent is valuable.