Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXII

[Troacctid]

The feat says "You can now bind a soulmeld or magic item to that chakra." I have a hard time agreeing with any reading that says no, you actually can't bind a soulmeld or magic item to that chakra. It plainly says that you can. And if it required you to use up a bind slot from your class, it would say so.

[ciopo]

To be fair, a character without spellcasting can still take the feat Spell Focus, so there is precedence for "yes, technically you can take this feat, it won't do anything for you" ( minor funny : in the benefit section they don't say "spells you cast", so every time someone takes a spell focus feat, the DC for that school is increased forever for all casters :D (This works as a nice example for why we shouldn't only look at "benefits" for determining crunch/fluff of feats))

I'm in the camp that it does give us a bind, and I'm happy that Viscount chimed in and ruled it so for this round, but Elves argument and example is good enough reasoning for a "no", too, to me.

[Elves]

The feat says "You can now bind a soulmeld or magic item to that chakra." I have a hard time agreeing with any reading that says no, you actually can't bind a soulmeld or magic item to that chakra. It plainly says that you can.

You can, but that doesn't mean you have enough binds to.
If I get a permit that says I can now do something, that doesn't mean I have the money in my pocket to go do it.

And if it required you to use up a bind slot from your class, it would say so.

Not necessarily.


The compromise ruling I'd suggest for Open Chakra is that it grants a bind if you don't have any, but not if you do (whether from class levels or another Open Chakra feat).

That's consistent with both the sample character on p 142 and with the "it says you can" argument. It's the same as the current Shape Soulmeld ruling except that it doesn't stack with existing meldshaping, in line with the given example.

[ciopo]

So, like how if you're going to multiclass with some initiators and take martial study, you better make sure you take martial study before you start taking initiator levels, that way the manouver you've martial studied is always ready? as opposed to the much less useful "added to the manouver known, but no extra readied/granted amount, no sir!"

Well, it's the kind of convoluted shenanigany limitations I like building around, I'll just have to make sure to delay getting meldshaping until after I've taken the open X feat.

It's the kind of weird interactions/limitations that appeals to me strongly.

I don't think I've ever studied Incarnum as much as this week :D

[Elves]

Order wouldn't matter. The suggestion is that you gain one bind if you don't have binds from other sources.

If you take totemist 2 and Open Hands Chakra, you'd have one bind, regardless of the order you took them in (but you can bind a meld to the hands chakra, which you would otherwise have to wait until totemist 5th for).

Or you could take Shape Soulmeld and Open Chakra with no meldshaper levels, which would also get you one bound soulmeld.

It's up to the Viscount, but I think it's a reasonable compromise that doesn't contradict any of the evidence we have.

[ciopo]

order would matter, or otherwise you'd "lose" the bind you gained from Open chakra whenever you'd later gain a bind from a meldshaping class, such as Spinemeld warrior.

the most applicable example, and I hope I'm not infringing upon build speculation, is a soulborn 6 taking open least chakra at 6th level, or any other nonIncarnum class that take shape soulmeld and later an open X chakra.

anyway, any class that prior to entering Spinemeld warrior doesn't have any bind. This compromise renders Open chakra just as unusuable, unless we stop at most 6 levels of the SI, which is bleh, or do progress the SI further, but not use the arm bind it gives us, which is further bleh.

I'd rather prefer an all or nothing, or a nuance like martial study, where there is a distinction in behavior if it's taken before or after binds are gained naturally

Your stance "you lose that extra bind if later you gain normal binds" is not much a compromise, I understand it would make the Open chakra line of feat useable for characters that don't take any Incarnum classes.

But within the scope of this round it would be moot/counter to the SI, and you're judging, so I'm okay to abide with your ruling of "it doesn't give any bind".

But chair ruling said otherwise, so regardless of that being RAW or houserule, within the scope of this round, I'd probably treat it as "+1 bind" if I were judging.

Further evidence in support that "they don't give a bind" is that the "extra bind" feat is epic, so yeah, I see it valid that Open chakra doesn't grant a bind.

[Elves]

anyway, any class that prior to entering Spinemeld warrior doesn't have any bind. This compromise renders Open chakra just as unusuable, unless we stop at most 6 levels of the SI, which is bleh, or do progress the SI further, but not use the arm bind it gives us, which is further bleh.

I don't see how it's unusable there. The SI only grants arms bind. A submission that wants to use chakra bound thunderstep boots might find Open Feet Chakra significantly preferable to taking 4 entire levels of incarnate or 5 of totemist.

[Troacctid]

Further evidence in support that "they don't give a bind" is that the "extra bind" feat is epic, so yeah, I see it valid that Open chakra doesn't grant a bind.

Bonus Soulmeld is also epic, so I don't think this carries much water.

[daremetoidareyo]

why are we postulating on nerfing meldshaping on one the most sparse and barebones ingredients offered in a while?

[The Viscount]

why are we postulating on nerfing meldshaping on one the most sparse and barebones ingredients offered in a while?

We're all wretched and ruined from years of Iron Chef. We don't want gifts to make it better.

[Korahir]

We're all wretched and ruined from years of Iron Chef. We don't want gifts to make it better.

Yeah, punish us more. Give us Warchief or Shining Blade so we can rejoice at Spinemeld Warrior.

Despite my initial disdain for the class I learned to like it. Heck, I want to play my build I just submitted. Good luck to everyone.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Yeah, punish us more. Give us Warchief or Shining Blade so we can rejoice at Spinemeld Warrior.

Despite my initial disdain for the class I learned to like it. Heck, I want to play my build I just submitted. Good luck to everyone.

That's when you have Stockholm syndrome towards a fictional character that you created yourself that you know you've spent to much time in the playground.

[ciopo]

It's not that bad, certainly better than Soulborn....

Has there been IC rounds where the SI was a base class? I gave a look at the list in the chair OP and at a spot they all seemed PrC to me, also I'm going to read the incandescent champion round now, toots!

[GreatWyrmGold]

Yeah, punish us more. Give us Warchief or Shining Blade so we can rejoice at Spinemeld Warrior.

That's not healthy. If you can't find joy in this competition except through ever-escalating suffering, you'll eventually end up submitting a Truenamer build and realizing there's nowhere left to go.

[Zaq]

That's not healthy. If you can't find joy in this competition except through ever-escalating suffering, you'll eventually end up submitting a Truenamer build and realizing there's nowhere left to go.

I mean, I've taken silver with that. Gold, even, technically (in that the build had more levels in truenamer than in any other base class)...

[Korahir]

That's not healthy. If you can't find joy in this competition except through ever-escalating suffering, you'll eventually end up submitting a Truenamer build and realizing there's nowhere left to go.

That's the beauty of 3.5 dnd to me. There is always somewhere to go to. Also isn't it lovely to spice up some throwaway potato with horseraddish, sour cream and salt and turn it into a beautiful baked potato?

[ftafp]

That's not healthy. If you can't find joy in this competition except through ever-escalating suffering, you'll eventually end up submitting a Truenamer build and realizing there's nowhere left to go.

or worse, moving to 5e and spending your nights scouring the sourcebooks for something vaguely resembling a rule until the aneurysms rock you to sleep

[Karl Aegis]

So you get a sole primary natural weapon that you add Strength and a half to your damage rolls, but can make iterative attacks as if it were a light weapon. Neat way to get more than one attack with a natural weapon. It's not a bad alternative to Two-Weapon Fighting.

Of course, the sample characters aren't consistent either way. So, who knows.

[ciopo]

The way I parse spine fightning, it overrides the usual "a single natural weapon does 1.5 str bonus damage" with the light weapon 0.5 str bonus damage

[Karl Aegis]

The way I parse spine fightning, it overrides the usual "a single natural weapon does 1.5 str bonus damage" with the light weapon 0.5 str bonus damage

A light weapon wielded in the primary hand still uses the full strength bonus of the wielder.

[H_H_F_F]

Hey friends!

Life seems to be (hopefully) back on track, after a very confusing period of time. I'll try cooking for this one, I think, even though I have no concrete ideas at the moment. Two questions for the chair:

1. Did we ever get an answer on claws? They're usually unavailable when fighting with weapons, but the spines don't really occupy the hands...

2. If we replace TWF with another feat as per the class feature, do we need to have the required Dex for that feat? It would seem the answer is yes, but I thought I'd make sure.

Good luck guys!

[Beni-Kujaku]

Hey friends!

Life seems to be (hopefully) back on track, after a very confusing period of time. I'll try cooking for this one, I think, even though I have no concrete ideas at the moment. Two questions for the chair:

1. Did we ever get an answer on claws? They're usually unavailable when fighting with weapons, but the spines don't really occupy the hands...

2. If we replace TWF with another feat as per the class feature, do we need to have the required Dex for that feat? It would seem the answer is yes, but I thought I'd make sure.

Good luck guys!

The return of the halfling! Glad to hear that! Good cooking!

1. Don't think we have had an answer

2. Explicitly yes. The spinemeld warrior says "any feat for which you qualify", which includes Dex requirements.

[The Viscount]

Hey friends!

Life seems to be (hopefully) back on track, after a very confusing period of time. I'll try cooking for this one, I think, even though I have no concrete ideas at the moment. Two questions for the chair:

1. Did we ever get an answer on claws? They're usually unavailable when fighting with weapons, but the spines don't really occupy the hands...

2. If we replace TWF with another feat as per the class feature, do we need to have the required Dex for that feat? It would seem the answer is yes, but I thought I'd make sure.

Good luck guys!

1. If you're asking whether the skarn spines as detailed in the race writeup preclude you from using claws:
Claws are not wielded, so skarn spines would not stop you. If the claws you gain have a restriction that would prevent you, that takes precedence.

2. Yes, you must qualify for the feat.

[H_H_F_F]

1. If you're asking whether the skarn spines as detailed in the race writeup preclude you from using claws:
Claws are not wielded, so skarn spines would not stop you. If the claws you gain have a restriction that would prevent you, that takes precedence.

2. Yes, you must qualify for the feat.

Thank you! That was what I meant to ask.

[Zaq]

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with this class. Basically everything I've come up with so far only works despite the SI rather than because of the SI. Which, you know, I tend to notice when I judge and I tend to ding people for.

I'm going to keep trying but I'm getting a little discouraged. I've already put together more than one build skeleton and just thrown it away because I don't like it.

[AnimeTheCat]

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with this class. Basically everything I've come up with so far only works despite the SI rather than because of the SI. Which, you know, I tend to notice when I judge and I tend to ding people for.

I'm going to keep trying but I'm getting a little discouraged. I've already put together more than one build skeleton and just thrown it away because I don't like it.

I feel like the SI just isn't bringing... anything... that only it can do. I'm searching as well, but not finding much that can't already be done, or is already done better by something else.

[Beni-Kujaku]

I'm becoming increasingly frustrated with this class. Basically everything I've come up with so far only works despite the SI rather than because of the SI. Which, you know, I tend to notice when I judge and I tend to ding people for.

I'm going to keep trying but I'm getting a little discouraged. I've already put together more than one build skeleton and just thrown it away because I don't like it.

Yeah‚ it's not a good class. Silver lining! It's not a good race either.

[ciopo]

Personally, I did identify a niche it seemingly fits in, I don't know if it falls under the umbrella of build speculation to talk about it tho.

[Beni-Kujaku]

Personally, I did identify a niche it seemingly fits in, I don't know if it falls under the umbrella of build speculation to talk about it tho.

I'm pretty sure it does. Keep it for yourself, we will amaze at your creation during the reveal. Right now, sulking only!

[Seerow]

Personally, I did identify a niche it seemingly fits in, I don't know if it falls under the umbrella of build speculation to talk about it tho.

I'm also pretty proud of where mine has shaped up. Curious to see if we found the same thing or not. Just hoping I get internet back soon so I can finish my formatting and submit on time, because that is one thing I definitely don't want to be stuck doing on a phone.