Iron Chef E6 Appetizer Edition, Round XXXV

[Zaq]

Welcome back to the Iron Chef Optimization Challenge E6 Appetizer Edition! It's October, so let's get a little bit spookier.

The form of this challenge is to take a particular D&D 3.5 game element (our "secret ingredient," or SI) and turn it into a functional E6 build, which must feature the SI as heavily as possible. (The only hard rule about this is that you must take at least one level—where applicable—in the SI, though judges are encouraged to look favorably on builds that take as many levels as possible in said SI or that otherwise use it as heavily as possible.) Your final build submission should consist of your 6 regular levels and your first 10 epic bonus feats, though providing a snapshot at earlier points through the progression is heartily encouraged. Entries are to be PM'd to the Chair (that would be me!), and they will be posted anonymously; our volunteer judges will then grade each build on a 1-5 point scale in four categories: Originality, Power, Elegance, and Use of the Secret Ingredient. The builds with the highest three scores will be awarded medals, with the Honorable Mention award going to the non-medaling build that the Chair likes best and/or that receives the most votes for HM in this thread. (HM may not always be awarded, particularly if the number of builds is very small.) And then we all have cake!*

*Note: You must provide your own cake.

This is basically like the regular Iron Chef, and let's be brutally honest with ourselves here: this isn't a gargantuan community, and we basically all know what we're talking about at this point. Make the builds, send 'em in, post some scores, and have fun. If you've got questions, lemme know. Still, let's lay out a few rules!

• Cooking Time: Builds must be submitted via PM to the Chair by 4:59 PM GMT - 9 on Monday, Oct 25, 2021 (1:59 AM GMT on Tuesday, Oct 26). The reveal shall be on the first evening the Chair has free following the cooking deadline, which is hoped to be that evening or the immediately subsequent one—I'll do my best, anyway. Judging is then encouraged to go as quickly as possible; if multiple judges volunteer, we'll set about a two-week window, but if we only get one judge, we'll try to wrap up as soon as possible after that judge presents scores. (I will admit that the deadline time may not be an exact science, but don't hide from me and we'll probably be cool.)
• Kitchen: Let's break this one down a bit.
  
  
  Spoiler: Let's talk about sources

  Show

  
  

  • ALLOWED: Almost all D&D 3.5 material published by WotC: Core, Completes, monster books, Races Of books, alternate power source books (Expanded Psionics Handbook, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Battle, Tome of Magic, etc.), Spell Compendium, Book of Exalted Deeds, Book of Vile Darkness, Eberron material, Forgotten Realms material, and other WotC-published 3.5 material. (This list is NOT exhaustive and there are many other legal books that I did not mention by name!)
  • ALLOWED: Material from the 3.5 archives of the Wizards of the Coast website (including, but not limited to, the Mind's Eye articles). If you use it, link it.
  • ALLOWED: Official errata from WotC. If you're relying on this in a material fashion, it's a good idea to link it and to discuss it.
  • NOT ALLOWED: Unofficial errata, including "class fixes" (regardless of the source, including from the original author if not published in a WotC book) or fan-created content.
  • ALLOWED: Unupdated WotC-published 3.0 material (e.g., Sword and Fist, Masters of the Wild, etc.) except for 3.0 psionics. No 3.0 psionics allowed. If you are using 3.0 material, use the general-purpose skill updates (Wilderness Lore becomes Survival, Innuendo becomes Bluff, etc.) and the general-purpose rules updates (spells with a casting time of "1 action" become "1 standard action," etc.) when appropriate.
  • NOT ALLOWED: 3.0 material for which a direct 3.5 update exists. Use the updated material instead.
  • ALLOWED: Dragon Compendium and its errata.
  • NOT ALLOWED: Content from Dragon Magazine and/or Dungeon Magazine unless said content appears in an otherwise allowed source.
  • ALLOWED: Oriental Adventures, including the 3.5 update to Oriental Adventures from Dragon Magazine #318. This is a specific exception to the "no Dragon" rule!
  • NOT ALLOWED: Pathfinder content, regardless of whether it is "D&D 3.5 OGL" or not. If it didn't come from WotC, we don't want it.
  • ALLOWED: From Unearthed Arcana: racial paragon classes, alternate class features/variant classes, spelltouched feats, and variant races. (Traits and flaws are technically legal, but traits warrant a -0.5 point penalty in Elegance, and flaws warrant a -1 penalty in Elegance.)
  • NOT ALLOWED: Other Unearthed Arcana content, including (but not limited to) bloodlines, LA buyoff, fractional BAB/saves, alternate casting systems, alternate skill systems, item familiars, prestigious character classes, generic classes, gestalt, etc. When you're wondering if UA content is allowed, err on the side of caution and don't mess around with it.
  • NOT ALLOWED: Leadership, regardless of source. Game elements functionally equivalent to Leadership (including, but not limited to, Dragon Cohort, Undead Leadership, and Thrallherd) are similarly banned. (Familiars, Improved Familiar, animal companions, Wild Cohort, psicrystals, elemental envoys, and similar game elements are allowed, and they are not considered to be "Leadership." If the difference isn't obvious, feel free to contact the Chair with specific questions.)
  • NOT ALLOWED: Third-party content, homebrew, or other non-WotC content.
  • NOT ALLOWED: Epic feats from the Epic Level Handbook. Just because you're "epic" in E6 after 6th level doesn't mean that you're that kind of epic.
  • NOT ALLOWED: Any race or template with a level adjustment other than +0. (Or any other source of LA other than a race or template, if any such things exist.) However, as a specific exception for round 26, see below.
  • NOT ALLOWED: For our judges: penalizing solely based on legal sources used, regardless of whether those sources are plentiful, sparse, common, obscure, or something in between. If the material is legal, then it doesn't matter how many or how few books it came out of.
  • ALLOWED: Also for our judges: penalizing for using a source (other than material in Core; don't be vindictive about genuinely obvious stuff) that isn't listed in the build writeup. The chef may choose to present the sources in-line with the text, in a consolidated source list, or somewhere else, but if the source is listed (and is otherwise legal), it counts. If the source is not listed, you may choose to penalize for that.

  
  If you have questions about anything in this section (or hell, in this ruleset), feel free to ask the Chair.
  
• Character Creation: 32 point buy is assumed. For the purposes of this contest, Level Adjustment greater than +0 is banned. (This may be revised at a later point, but I don't feel that the E6 LA rules are conducive to fun in the context of this contest.) No more than two entries per chef per contest, please; if you submit two builds and somehow are so overcome with inspiration for a third that you can't help yourself, PM me and tell me which two you care about the most.
• Highlighted because of past issues: It is not enough for your build to end with a level adjustment of +0. You must be +0 from start to finish. No using ANY build elements with a level adjustment above +0, even if they then get mitigated or reduced somehow. However, note that a special exception is in place for round 26...
• Speculation: Please do not post any form of speculation before the reveal. Just don't do it, guys. It's not cool. This means NOT posting any of the following or anything substantially similar: what you think is going to be common, significant elements of your planned build or of other potential builds, or anything else that could directly influence someone else's build choices for good or for ill. (It's acceptable to ask for rules clarifications as appropriate, but try to avoid tipping your hand too much.) Speculation is bad because it can discourage people from posting builds and can also "taint the judging pool" when it comes to Originality, so please just try to be aware of how other people might react to your speculation.
• E6: Here's how E6 works for the purposes of this contest. Build your character normally for the first six levels. After you reach level 6, you stop gaining levels and start gaining bonus feats every time you would gain 5,000 XP. Since we aren't actually tracking XP, you'll basically list your first ten epic bonus feats in the order that you take them, and we think of them as being kind of like levels. We will not use the LA-equals-reduced-point-buy rules, instead preferring to just ban races with LA, at least for now. We will not use the "capstone feats"; all feats that you take must be normal legal 3.5 feats, not homebrew E6 ones. You may not use the Epic feats from the Epic Level Handbook, though if for some reason there are non-Epic feats from the ELH that you qualify for, you may take those. (I don't think there are any, but I'm sure someone will prove me wrong.) It is up to the discretion of each judge whether this is a "hard E6" (magic above 3rd level spells is simply beyond mortal reach, items that have a listed CL above 6th are just plain not available, etc.) or a "soft E6" (if you can somehow get the magic on your character, it's yours, regardless of level), though I honestly don't expect it to come up. Don't go crazy with making assumptions about items and we probably won't have to find out.
• Presentation: Please use the table found below in the spoiler. List your epic bonus feats (in clear order) after the table. If you find a clever way of formatting that that isn't annoying and that doesn't break anything, have fun; if it's portable, I may steal it for the next round. When sending your build or any disputes to the Chair, clearly include your build's name in the subject of the PM, and please present your build exactly as you want the Chair to copy and paste it into the thread.
  If you're using a picture, cite the source and follow any relevant citation rules. Because we have had issues with this in the past, when listing your skills, please make it very clear how many ranks you have at each level. There are multiple ways to do this and we do not wish to cramp anyone's individual style by dictating exactly how this must look, but make sure that somewhere in your entry there's an explanation of how many actual skill ranks you have. It's still fine to list total skill bonuses, if that's your style, but don't only list bonuses; make sure that there is a clear listing somewhere of your ranks alone.
  Spoiler

  Show

  Level	Class	Base Attack Bonus	Fort Save	Ref Save	Will Save	Skills	Feats	Class Features
  1st	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
  2nd	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
  3rd	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
  4th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
  5th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
  6th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities

  Code for the table:

  Spoiler

  Show

  [TABLE="class: head alt1 alt2"]
  [TR]
  [TH][B]Level[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Class[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Base Attack Bonus[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Fort Save[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Ref Save[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Will Save[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Skills[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Feats[/B][/TH]
  [TH][B]Class Features[/B][/TH]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD]1st[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Level[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]Skills[/TD]
  [TD]Feats[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Abilities[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD]2nd[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Level[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]Skills[/TD]
  [TD]Feats[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Abilities[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD]3rd[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Level[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]Skills[/TD]
  [TD]Feats[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Abilities[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD]4th[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Level[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]Skills[/TD]
  [TD]Feats[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Abilities[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD]5th[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Level[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]Skills[/TD]
  [TD]Feats[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Abilities[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [TR]
  [TD]6th[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Level[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]+x[/TD]
  [TD]Skills[/TD]
  [TD]Feats[/TD]
  [TD]New Class Abilities[/TD]
  [/TR]
  [/TABLE]
• Contest houserules: Nearly the same as the main contest's rules here: all creatures are proficient with natural weapons they have or may acquire, bonus feats that are explicitly granted without meeting prereqs are usable even without those prereqs, and feats that affect which skills are class skills for you and/or how you spend your skill points (Able Learner, Martial Study, Truename Training, Apprentice, etc.) apply immediately at the level at which you take them (even though you normally spend skill points before taking a feat). When taking Open Minded as an epic feat, any skill that has ever been a class skill for you (including through your class, your race, your feats, or similar game elements, though please don't muck around with retroactively making something stop being a class skill for some stupid reason) is a class skill when determining how the 5 granted skill points may be spent. All usual rules about HD-related skill caps apply. When taking Open Minded as a non-epic feat, treat it as normal; the class skills of the class you took at the level you gained Open Minded (plus race, feats, etc.) are your class skills for those skill points, similar to if Open Minded's skill points came straight from your class.
• Judging guidelines: The minimum score in a category is 1, and the maximum is 5 (except in high-Originality rounds, wherein the maximum in Originality is 10). Judges are expected to be fair, consistent, and open-minded, and they are expected to make a good-faith effort to engage with any reasonable disputes that arise, especially when RAW is in question. That said, contestants are asked to not dispute more than necessary; let's do everything in good faith and really only dispute when a judge is being inconsistent, being unfair, or is otherwise grossly misinterpreting a build.
  Judges may not penalize Originality solely because a build is a tribute or homage to an existing creative work (in or out of D&D canon; note that this is not the same thing as penalizing Originality for using well-known optimization tactics), nor may judges penalize based solely on sources used (whether those sources are plentiful, sparse, common, obscure, or something in between, you should judge the build elements and how they work together rather than what book or what books they came out of, as long as those books are legal for this contest and are cited in the entry).
  As with the main contest, we will follow the "One Mistake, One Penalty" guideline, and it is very important that the judges adhere to it. I'm going to directly copy and paste this from the main thread, and hopefully the original author won't mind too much:
  
  Spoiler

  Show

  Judges are only allowed to penalise once for a given mistake. If someone messes up their skills and doesn't qualify for a PrC, ding them as hard as you like. Once. In one category. You don't then get to declare that because they didn't qualify for that PrC, they don't get those levels, and thus don't qualify for anything else. If Ranger is a common ingredient, ding them for Originality. Once. Don't also take off points for Two-Weapon-Fighting being a common ingredient.
  
  Non-exhaustive list of examples:
  
  Skills

  Allowed:
  

  • Giving a penalty for miscalculating the number of skill points gained
  • Giving a penalty for not having enough ranks to meet a prerequisite
  • Increasing the harshness of a skill miscalculation penalty if it affects critical skills including prereqs

  
  
  Not allowed:
  

  • Giving separate penalties for miscalculating skill points and for non-qualification where the non-qualification is solely caused by the miscalculation

  
  Prereqs

  Allowed:
  

  • Giving a penalty for not meeting prereqs
  • Scaling the penalty depending on how important the item that the build failed to qualify for is
  • Giving minimum score in UotSI for not qualifying for the SI
  • Not giving credit for (note: not the same as penalising for) tactics using feats or classes other than the SI that were not qualified for (but see below)

  
  
  Not Allowed:
  

  • "Cascading" failures to qualify - declaring that because a build doesn't qualify for a feat, for example, it also doesn't qualify for anything using that feat as a prereq
  • Treating a build as having fewer levels than it does because of FtQ for classes

  
  Other general things that are no longer allowed:
  

  • Penalising because someone has chosen to build a tribute to an existing creative work
  • Deciding that a backstory has not met a fluff prerequisite well enough, or because its method of meeting it is "unrealistic". You may penalise if a fluff prereq is not addressed at all, but not for how well it is addressed.

  
  
  Note that these are protections, not licenses. Deliberately taking a feat that you know you don't qualify for hoping to just suck up the judging penalty for a feat that you couldn't normally take is not okay, and may lead to your build being disqualified.
• Dispute guidelines (NEW, PLEASE PAY ATTENTION): Disputing is long, annoying, and emotional. It's also sometimes necessary, but it's often not actually something that makes everyone have more fun. Let's go into a little more detail here.
  
  Spoiler

  Show

  • Do NOT dispute to make an argument that goes fundamentally beyond what's in your write-up. It is the responsibility of the chef to make sure that the write-up is complete and contains their best arguments for what the build does and why it's awesome. If you didn't explain your tactics well or didn't spell out something that a judge misses, just do better next time. Don't drag it out after the fact.
  • Do NOT dispute just to be clever or witty or cheeky. Please. We're all adults here and so I assume you know what that means. Don't treat the build as a setup and your oh-so-clever dispute as the punchline. It's not as funny as it is in your head. Trust me. I've been down that road.
  • Do NOT dispute just to say "oh yeah, my bad, I missed that" or some equivalent. If you're not directly challenging the judge, save the commentary until after the reveal. I 100% get that the urge to respond to commentary is very strong, but type it out and sit on it for a while if you've gotta.
  • Do NOT dispute just to try to wheedle more points out of the judge. Note that this is different from saying that the judge is being truly unfair or is being truly wrong by black-and-white RAW. A dispute is NOT the place to try to scrape together a few last quarter-points. If you didn't put it in your write-up, that's on you. This also means that a dispute is really not the place to have long back-and-forth tit-for-tat arguments. That's a surefire way to get people grumpy. It's a contest on a D&D board, guys, not the results of a federal election.
  • Do NOT dispute to tear down another build. That's just plain not cool. If you entered the contest, it's not on you to judge the other builds.
  • DO dispute if the judge is being blatantly biased by giving you a substantially different ruling on a build element compared to another chef who used the same build element in nearly the same way. (Note that position in a build may affect if you're using that element in "nearly the same way" or not.) Please reserve this for the truly blatant examples. I mean it. Remember, it's the contestant's responsibility to make their best argument in the original write-up.
  • DO dispute if the judge is actively going against the contest rules. Note that there are relatively few ways in which a judge can go against contest rules (we intentionally give very wide discretion to our judges), but examples include truly breaking One Mistake One Penalty, penalizing just because of number of sources of (legal) material, and so on.
  • DO dispute if the judge is clearly ignoring unambiguous RAW. Note that this is for unambiguous RAW; if the RAW is shady and you're making an argument that isn't completely clear and that it wouldn't be strange for a GM to frown on, the judge has every right to frown on it as well. (You generally know when you're indulging in shady RAW. Be mature about this.) But if the judge is saying you didn't hit a prereq that you clearly did hit (and included in your write-up!), saying you can't do something that the plain text of the ability says you can do, or anything like that, by all means, call 'em out.
  • Do NOT dispute if the judge doesn't agree with your interpretation of ambiguous RAW. Yes, this is a retread of the previous bullet point; this is that important. If you're relying on ambiguous RAW, it's on you to lay out clearly why it should work the way you want it to work. Again, be mature and act in good faith: you really know when you're pushing things like this. If they don't like it, they don't like it. Move on.

  
  
  Disputing is a privilege, not a right. In the Chair's sole discretion, disputes that do not meet these guidelines and/or that do not seem to be offered in good faith may be suppressed. The Chair reserves the right to choose to post all, some, or none of a dispute if appropriate.
  
  
• Other bits and bobs: If there's something major and relevant I haven't mentioned, assume that the way I handle it will probably be the same as the main contest unless stated otherwise or unless doing so would be an obviously absurd result. If you've got questions, I'll give you answers.

This round's secret ingredient:
The BINDER, from Tome of Magic!



Allez Optimizer!

The Builds:

Name	Alignment / Race	Class Levels	Chef	Judge 1: loky1109	Judge 2: daremetoidareyo	Total	Place
Bulgy	TN Anthropomorphic Weasel	Druid 1 / Binder 5	MinimanMidget	13.25	18.75	32	2nd
Chami	TN Human	Binder 5 / Chameleon 1	Quentinas	12.25	16.5	28.75	4th
Jack's Adventuring Solutions	TN Silverbrow Human	Binder 5 / Chameleon 1	AsuraKyoko	12.25	17.25	29.5	3rd
Stuffy Doll	CE Warforged	Binder 5 / Crusader 1	The Viscount	11.75	17.75	29.5	3rd
Terae	LG Elan	Paladin 1 / Binder 4 / Knight of the Sacred Seal 1	Quentinas	13.5	19	32.5	1st

Spoiler: Contest History

Show

Round 4: Knight
Round 5: Ninja
Round 6: Racial Paragon Classes
Round 7: Hexblade
Round 8: Shugenja
Round 9: Swashbuckler
Round 10: Crusader
Round 11: Soulknife
Round 12: Factotum
Round 13: Prestige Classes
Round 14: Mountebank
Round 15: Sorcerer
Round 16: Dragon Shaman
Round 17: Lurk
Round 18: Paladin
Round 19: Scout
Round 20: Incarnate
Round 21: Shadowcaster
Round 22: Dragonmarks
Round 23: Fighter
Round 24: Pets
Round 25: Warlock
Round 26: Monsters
Round 27: Ardent (exhibition round)
Round 28: Rogue
Round 29: Signature Spells
Round 30: Any Prior Ingredient
Round 31: Ranger
Round 32: Tanking
Round 33: Psychic Warrior
Round 34: Flight

Spoiler: Way Old Stuff (2012 and earlier; Amechra's run as Chair)

Show

Round 1: Divine Mind
Round 2: Monk
Round 3: Marshal

[Zaq]

Here's a few gentle recommendations that are intended to improve scores and make things easier for the judges. As always, THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS POST ARE NOT RULES. Judges and contestants are free to honor them or ignore them; my intent here is only to help, and NONE of what I'm saying here is required. (That said, did you see the new dispute guidelines? Those ARE rules, so please go read them. And I'm even going to be better about enforcing them this time.)

Recommendations:

• Double-check ALL of your prereqs. Every. Single. One. Feats, PrCs, whatever. You might even go so far as to spell out when you meet each one, but again, that's not a requirement. But one of the single biggest causes of point loss is failure to meet prereqs.
  
• Tell the judges what's cool about your build! You spent hours or days on this (y'know, probably) and know it inside and out, but the judges are getting a whole bunch of these dishes all at once and don't know the build history of each one. You're significantly more likely to score well if you spell out exactly what makes you awesome than if you try to just let it stand on its own.
  
• Make it easy to read! Skill tables are awful, though they're an incredibly necessary evil. Full Monster Manual-style statblocks are occasionally useful but are also insanely dense if not formatted well. Judges are very likely to miss something if you aren't careful with how you present your info. Remember that judging takes a lot of time, energy, and focus, so don't rely on the judge being willing/able to decode something in order to see what makes you interesting!
  
• Be memorable. Remember that we've all seen these ingredients used at least once before. What makes you different?

I figure that contacting entities with mysterious motives from beyond the void and offering them a taste of reality by letting them into your soul is at least a little bit spooky and Hallowe'en-themed, right? The tricky part with binder is that everyone has access to the same vestiges, so making yourself stand out will involve more than just picking a cool vestige--you've gotta show off how you use your cool vestige in ways that the rest of your fellow chefs don't! In the same vein, you're probably going to want to spend a little bit of time polishing up your tactics section (in whatever form that happens to take) and really laying out what you plan on doing with these vestiges once you've bound them. Everyone has inherent binder flexibility, so why is yours cooler than theirs?

[H_H_F_F]

Tough one. I'm going to try to come up with an entry.

[Quentinas]

Yeah definetely a tough one, tried to play one and it was quite difficult

[mattie_p]

Binders are a lot of fun, but the customization is going to be everything here.

[MinimanMidget]

Oh boy. I've been asking for this round for a while (thanks Zaq!), so I'd better try and come up with something good.

[H_H_F_F]

Yeah definetely a tough one, tried to play one and it was quite difficult

I like binders a lot, but they're going to be a real headache to try and customize effectively. Like "I take [REDACTED] at level 1, and... yeah. I'm pretty much good. Hey, how 'bout that weapon focus?"

[The Viscount]

Man I love binder. This might be the one to spur me to enter.

[Quentinas]

I have a question what is the ruling about qualifying for feats using the feats given by vestiges (for example precise shot from leraje, whirlwind attack from Paimon and so on)

[The Viscount]

I have a question what is the ruling about qualifying for feats using the feats given by vestiges (for example precise shot from leraje, whirlwind attack from Paimon and so on)

Not the Chair, but this passage from ToM page 19 might be the answer.

Abilities that duplicate the benefit of a feat do so even if the recipient does not qualify for the feat.

[Quentinas]

Not the Chair, but this passage from ToM page 19 might be the answer.

That was not my question let's make an example with a vestige impossible to obtain
Assuming that I binded Otiax (so i have combat reflexes as long it's binded and the sign is manifested in his case) can i take as a feat from level up Deft opportunist that require combat reflexes even if I don't have combat reflexes except while Otiax is binded?

[Zaq]

That was not my question let's make an example with a vestige impossible to obtain
Assuming that I binded Otiax (so i have combat reflexes as long it's binded and the sign is manifested in his case) can i take as a feat from level up Deft opportunist that require combat reflexes even if I don't have combat reflexes except while Otiax is binded?

I believe that by RAW, you do indeed qualify as having a feat that a vestige gives you.

You will, as usual, lose access to any feat that you don't have the prereqs for (such as if you stop binding the vestige that gives the prereq feat).

If anyone has a RAW quote to the contrary, I'm all ears!

[Quentinas]

I had an idea but it's difficult as class for me to optimize , and another question . Is this (like any previous multiple of 5 ) an high originality round? My spot check must have been quite low if I didn't see it in the first two post

[Zaq]

No, this isn't high-originality. I've decided that I need to choose high-orig or normal-orig just based on the ingredient and not necessarily based on the number.

[AsuraKyoko]

Oh, I can't believe I almost missed this! Binder is one of my favorite classes, so I'll have to get to brewing right away!

[Zaq]

How's the cooking, team?

[The Viscount]

Skeleton done, just need playtips and it's ready to send. Fingers crossed to finish today.

[mattie_p]

Not going to happen for me. I might be able to judge depending on the number of entries and my work schedule. Starting a new job in about 10 days so trying to but a bow on everything going on here.

[H_H_F_F]

Not going to happen for me. I might be able to judge depending on the number of entries and my work schedule. Starting a new job in about 10 days so trying to but a bow on everything going on here.

Good luck!

[Quentinas]

I have the ideas i need to make the tables...so let's see if i can finish in this sunday and with the time in monday

[MinimanMidget]

I'm mostly done, just need to write it up.

[AsuraKyoko]

I have most of the build done, just need to finish selecting a few feats and do the writeup. Should be done today.

[Curbludgeon]

I'm interested in whipping up something for this, but that it is not only left ambiguous if Improved Binding counts as akin to spell access above 3rd vis-a-vis "hard/soft E6" but that said usage would be judged subjectively gives me pause.

[mattie_p]

If I judge it'll be soft E6. I don't believe any judges in the recent past went with the hard interpretation but I'm not going to check either.

[daremetoidareyo]

I'm interested in whipping up something for this, but that it is not only left ambiguous if Improved Binding counts as akin to spell access above 3rd vis-a-vis "hard/soft E6" but that said usage would be judged subjectively gives me pause.

I plan on judging still, and I’ll treat improved binding as absolutely cool. The 4ths aren’t comparable to spellcasting 4ths

[AsuraKyoko]

I'm afraid I'm going to need a bit more time to finish. Would it be alright to push the deadline a bit? Maybe a few hours? I'll definitely be done by the end of the evening for me, but I just need some more time after I finish work on Monday.

[Zaq]

Sure, I don't mind waiting a bit.

Is anyone else still cooking as well?

[Quentinas]

No I rushed but I finished and now I go to sleep for me is 00.37 AM of tuesday at the end I'm quite tired but I'm satisfie and quite interested in what anyone created

[AsuraKyoko]

And submitted! I'm looking forward to seeing what the other builds are!

[MinimanMidget]

I could use a few extra hours to get the fluff polished up, if that's okay.

Edit: All done, sorry about that.