Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXVII

[The Viscount]

Welcome to Optimization Stadium, the field of combat for our storied competition. Here the contestants will be transmuting lead into gold as we showcase the overlooked, underused, weird, wild, and wonky prestige classes.

Obscure darkness won the popular vote, so here's an ingredient I've rarely, if ever seen discussed, involving a society I never see talked about. Crack open Underdark and nurse your grudges, this time it's Imaskari Vengeance Taker

Welcome, contestants, judges, and guests to Iron Chef. Here in Optimization Colosseum, contestants will endeavor to create an optimized and flavorful character using a specified D&D 3.5 prestige class as a "Secret Ingredient".

Contestants: You will need to present a full 20-level build for your entry. Also required is a rundown of how your build works at lower levels, to demonstrate that it is a functional character that could be played from 1-20 in a real game. Traditionally contestants give "snapshots" of tactics and abilities at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. The purpose of these snapshots is not just to showcase your use of the SI, it is to demonstrate that your character is playable at every level. For this reason, it's still worth giving a snapshot before you have entered the SI.

Menu: The "special ingredient" can be drawn from any legal source. Originally, the plan was to mostly use Core and Completes, but that was a long time ago, and we've started running out of interesting classes to use if we restrict ourselves to those.

32 point-buy is the presumed creation method.
If you do use a different point-buy, please make your case for its necessity in your entry. Keep in mind that for using exceptionally large or small point-buys may warrant deductions in elegance and/or power.

Kitchen: Competitors will be free to use any official 3.5 rulebook in constructing their builds. Dragon magazine is disallowed, and Unearthed Arcana is allowed; but see Elegance below. Web-exclusive 3.0 or 3.5 materials by WotC are expressly allowed, but take care to verify that an updated version did not appear in print elsewhere, as this may cause an Elegance deduction at the judges' discretion. Here's a guide to most of what has and hasn't been updated. Alternate rule systems from UA such as gestalt or Generic Classes are not allowed, as they create a different playing field. Also, item familiars are forbidden. Please refrain from using Taint unless it's necessary for the Secret Ingredient.
NB: Official Errata and 3.5 updates to 3.0 content are considered valid regardless of whether their sources would otherwise be legal. This includes the 3.5 update of Oriental Adventures given in Dragon Magazine, and the 3.5 updates of Dragonlance Campaign Setting content given in later third party Dragonlance books.

Cooking Time: Contestants will have until 13:59 GMT on Sunday January 9th, 2022 to create their builds and PM them to the Chairman, The Viscount. You may submit build by email if it is too large for a single PM. Please put the name of your build in the subject line of your PM. Builds will then be posted simultaneously, to avoid copying. Judges will have until 13:59 GMT on Sunday January 23rd, 2022 to judge the builds and submit their scores. If no judges have scored by that point, only the scores of the first judge to submit will be counted.

Judging: Judging will be based on the following criteria, with each build rated on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (exemplary) in each area: Originality, Power, Elegance, Use of Secret Ingredient.

Power level is up to you. Cheese is acceptable, but should be kept to a sane level unless you're showcasing a new TO build you've discovered. In the words of one of my predecessors, a little cheddar can be nice, but avoid the mature Gruyere unless you're making a cheese fondue.

Elegance could bear a little elaboration. It basically measures how skillfully you put your build together, and whether you sacrificed flavor for power. We're cooking here - if your dish doesn't taste good, it doesn't matter how well-presented it is. Use of flaws is considered in poor taste, and judges are asked to take a dim view of this option, taking it into account while grading. Other things that will cause penalties here are excessive multi-classing, and classes that don't fit the concept.Please note the following: a legal source's relative obscurity should not be considered as penalizing Elegance, excepting the aforementioned issues with Unearthed Arcana. Using conflicting setting material may result in a penalty to Elegance at the judges' discretion, but a book's relative obscurity may not. In that same vein, drawing solely from the Core 3 (and the d20 SRD) should not be punished for lacking Originality.

Presentation: Builds will be posted anonymously, in order to avoid the potential of bias towards a particular competitor. For this reason, please don't put your name in the build, as I'm likely to miss it when reviewing the entries!

Due to concerns about standardizing entry format, I'd like everyone to try to use the following table for their entry. (A fillable, pre-formatted version found here)

Spoiler

Show

NAME OF ENTRY

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
7th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
8th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
9th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
10th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
11th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
12th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
13th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
14th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
15th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
16th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
17th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
18th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
19th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities
20th	New Class Level	+x	+x	+x	+x	Skills	Feats	New Class Abilities

Code immediately below (spoiler).

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]
[tr]
[td]7th[/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]8th[/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]9th[/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]10th[/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]11th[/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]12th[/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]13th[/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]14th[/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]15th[/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]16th[/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]17th[/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]18th[/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]19th[/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]20th[/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]

For entries with spellcasting, use the following table for Spells per day and Spells Known. (Spells Known only if necessary, i.e. Sorcerer or Bard, but not Wizard or Warmage)

Spoiler

Show

Spells per Day/Spells Known

Level	0lvl	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th
1st	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
2nd	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
3rd	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
4th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
5th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
6th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
7th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
8th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
9th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
10th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
11th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
12th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
13th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
14th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
15th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
16th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
17th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
18th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
19th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
20th	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-

Code immediately below (spoiler)

Spoiler

Show

[B]Spells per Day/Spells Known[/B]
[table="class:head alt1 alt2"]
[tr]
[th][B]Level[/B][/th]
[th][B]0lvl[/B][/th]
[th][B]1st[/B][/th]
[th][B]2nd[/B][/th]
[th][B]3rd[/B][/th]
[th][B]4th[/B][/th]
[th][B]5th[/B][/th]
[th][B]6th[/B][/th]
[th][B]7th[/B][/th]
[th][B]8th[/B][/th]
[th][B]9th[/B][/th]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]1st[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]2nd[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]3rd[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]4th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]5th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]6th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]7th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]8th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]9th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]10th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]11th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]12th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]13th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]14th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]15th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]16th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]17th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]18th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]19th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]20th[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[td]-[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

For other systems (Psionics, ToB, Incarnum, etc.) keep track of PP/maneuvers/essentia separately, preferably in a nice neat list.

Speculation: Please don't post or speculate on possible builds until the "reveal," in order to avoid spoiling the surprise if a particular competitor is producing a build along those lines.

Leadership is banned; we're producing a meal, not a seven-course banquet for a hundred diners. If your entry includes a prestige class or ACF that grants Leadership or a Leadership-like ability as a bonus feat, the feat should be ignored and is not eligible to be traded away for another feat or ACF through any means.

So! Who wants to sign up as a contestant, and who wants to sign up as a judge? Looking for as many contestants and judges as feel like playing!

We will award 1st through 3rd places, as well as a shout-out for honorable mention. The honorable mention prize is given to the most daring or unexpected build. Judges, contestants and guests alike are invited to vote for honorable mention via PM. If there are no votes, Honorable Mention will go to the chairman's favorite build.

Past Competitions

Courtesy of some wonderful volunteers, there is a handy-dandy spreadsheet guide to all previous builds here. PM if you'd like to contribute to the spreadsheet for access.

Spoiler: The First Hundred

Show

Iron Chef I: Entropomancer
Iron Chef II: Psibond Agent
Iron Chef III: Cancer Mage
Iron Chef IV: Stonelord
Iron Chef V: War Chanter
Iron Chef VI: Master of Masks
Iron Chef VII: Green Star Adept
Iron Chef VIII: Pyrokineticist
Iron Chef IX: Animal Lord
Iron Chef X: Mythic Exemplar
Iron Chef XI: Blade Bravo
Iron Chef XII: War Mind
Iron Chef XIII: Vigilante
Iron Chef XIV: Seeker of the Song
Iron Chef XV: Drunken Master
Iron Chef XVI: Assassin
Iron Chef XVII: Ardent Dilettante
Iron Chef XVIII: Unseelie Dark Hunter
Iron Chef XIX: Dread Pirate
Iron Chef XX: Incandescent Champion
Iron Chef XXI: Ghostwalker
Iron Chef XXII: Dervish
Iron Chef XXIII: Divine Crusader
Iron Chef XXIV: Tactical Soldier
Iron Chef XXV: Scion of Tem-Et-Nu
Iron Chef XXVI: Shadowdancer
Iron Chef XXVII: Mindbender
Iron Chef XXVIII: Cryokineticist
Iron Chef XXIX: Consecrated Harrier
Iron Chef XXX: Initiate of Pistis Sophia
Iron Chef XXXI: Shadow Sentinel
Iron Chef XXXII: Temple Raider of Olidammara
Iron Chef XXXIII: Drow Judicator
Iron Chef XXXIV: Dragon Disciple
Iron Chef XXXV: Death Delver
Iron Chef XXXVI: Acolyte of the Skin
Iron Chef XXXVII: Justiciar
Iron Chef XXXVIII: Hand of the Winged Master
Iron Chef XXXIX: Renegade Mastermaker
Iron Chef XL: Nightsong Infiltrator
Iron Chef XLI: Geomancer
Iron Chef XLII: Shadowblade
Iron Chef XLIII: Bladesinger
Iron Chef XLIV: Urban Soul
Iron Chef XLV: Talon of Tiamat
Iron Chef XLVI: Cipher Adept
Iron Chef XLVII: Cold Iron Warrior
Iron Chef XLVIII: Shadow Sun Ninja
Iron Chef XLIX: Thrall of Orcus
Iron Chef L: Corrupt Avenger
Iron Chef LI: Black Flame Zealot
Iron Chef LII: Anointed Knight
Iron Chef LIII: Zerth Cenobite
Iron Chef LIV: Osteomancer
Iron Chef LV: Mountebank
Iron Chef LVI: Dwarven Defender
Iron Chef LVII: Darkrunner
Iron Chef LVIII: Spellsword
Iron Chef LIX: Fleet Runner of Ehlonna
Iron Chef LX: Lasher
Iron Chef LX(II): Acolyte of the Ego
Iron Chef LXII: Dungeon Lord
Iron Chef LXIII: Witchborn Binder
Iron Chef LXIV: Slime Lord
Iron Chef LXV: Thunder Guide
Iron Chef LXVI: Dwarven Chanter
Irogn Chef LXVII: Gnome Giant Slayer
Iron Chef LXVIII: Fang of Lolth
Iron Chef LXIX: Shiba Protector
Iron Chef LXX: Order of the Bow Initiate
Iron Chef LXXI: Silver Key
Iron Chef LXXII: Spellfire Channeler
Iron Chef LXXIII: Flux Adept
Iron Chef LXXIV: Crinti Shadow Marauder
Iron Chef LXXV: Thief of Life
Iron Chef LXXVI: Legacy Champion
Iron Chef LXXVII: Great Rift Skyguard
Iron Chef LXVIII: Risen Martyr
Iron Chef LXXIX: Black Blood Hunter
Iron Chef LXXX: Master of Many Forms
Iron Chef LXXXI: Serene Guardian
Iron Chef LXXXII: Elocator
Iron Chef LXXXIII: Winterhaunt of Iboorighu
Iron Chef LXXXIV: Waverider
Iron Chef LXXXV: Astral Dancer
Iron Chef LXXXVI: Twisted Lord
Iron Chef LXXXVII: Shadowsmith
Iron Chef LXXXVIII: Arboreal Guardian
Iron Chef LXXXIX: Thrall of Demogorgon
Iron Chef XC: Bloodstorm Blade
Iron Chef XCI: Fatemaker
Iron Chef XCII: Eye of the Xanathar
Iron Chef XCIII: Hoardstealer
Iron Chef XCIV: Doomlord
Iron Chef XCV: Gnomish Artificer
Iron Chef XCVI: Oozemaster
Iron Chef XCVII: Aerial Avenger
Iron Chef XCVIII: Visionary Seeker
Iron Chef XCIX: Life Eater
Iron Chef C: Swiftblade

Iron Chef CI: Night Mask Deathbringer
Iron Chef CII: Blade Dancer
Iron Chef CIII: Psion Uncarnate
Iron Chef CIV: Atavist
Iron Chev CV: Primeval
Iron Chef CVI: Disciple of Mammon
Iron Chef CVII: Insidious Corruptor
Iron Chef CVIII: Crimson Scourge
Iron Chef CIX: Tattooed Monk
Iron Chef CX: Rage Mage
Iron Chef CXI: Watch Detective
Iron Chef CXII: Spinemeld Warrior
Iron Chef CXIII: Celebrant of Sharess
Iron Chef CXIV: Thayan Gladiator
Iron Chef CXV: Shining Blade of Heironeous
Iron Chef CXVI: Peregrine Runner

[The Viscount]

FAQ:
Q: What's this even about?
A: I'm glad you asked, actually...

Q: Is Dragon Compendium Allowed?
A: Yes (as well as its Errata), but individual issues of Dragon Magazine are not.

Q: What about 3.0 materials?
A: 3.0 materials, whether online or in printed form, are allowed unless they've been officially updated to a 3.5 edition.

Q: Are Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, or Kingdoms of Kalamar allowable sources?
A: The Dragonlance Campaign Setting is allowed, but the subsequent books for Dragonlance are considered 3rd party, and are therefore not eligible, despite the "WotC approved" status of those books. The same holds for Oriental Adventures (1st party) and the subsequent Rokugan books (3rd party). Materials from Ravenloft, Planescape, Dark Sun, and Kingdoms of Kalamar are considered 3rd party for purposes of this contest, and are therefore not allowed.

Q: What about online sources in general?
A: If the online source is a) published by WotC, and b) not replaced by an updated version at a later time, it is eligible. Use it, link it.

Q: Where's the line drawn with "acceptable/unacceptable" for Unearthed Arcana? This will likely vary a bit from Chairman to Chairman. Item Familiars and Gestalt have always been verboten, since before IC migrated to GitP; don't expect that to change. Flaws have similarly always been noted as warranting a deduction; while I am Chairman, I'm extending that to Traits, though they warrant 1/2 the penalty in Elegance that a Flaw would because they're roughly 1/2 as useful. Alternate spell systems, alternate skill systems and alternate crafting rules all create an uneven playing field, and as such, will be disallowed for as long as I am Chairman. In a similar vein, LA buyoff and fractional BAB are also disallowed. Bloodlines and the Retraining options presented in the PHB2 are ripe for abuse, and will be strongly discouraged as long as I am Chairman. Note that judges are allowed to look askance at any use of Unearthed Arcana not specifically mentioned above, at their discretion, and otherwise penalize Elegance according to their preference.

Q: What, exactly, does the ban on Leadership mean?
A: As folks have started to try to work around the edges of this one, I'm forced to spell it out more plainly. No Leadership, Draconic Cohort, or Feats that grant a similar ability are allowed EXCEPT Wild Cohort. Any PrC you choose with Leadership or a Leadership-analog has that ability entirely ignored for this contest, as it may neither be used nor traded away via any means whatsoever.

Q: What's the minimum score in a category?
A: Assuming an entry is legal, the minimum score in any category is 1. If a judge is convinced that an entry is mechanically illegal by the RAW, the judge may give the build a score of 0 in Elegance, and proceed to judge the entry as if the offending material was not included. Failing to meet a special requirement for a prestige class does not merit a 0, but may qualify for a penalty, at the judge's discretion. Because this contest focuses on Player Characters, an entry that is not technically allowed for a PC, but is viable as an NPC, counts as a legal entry, but may receive a minimum score at the judges' discretion.

Q: Creatures and templates with no listed LA are playable, right?
A: No. No listed LA is equivalent to LA: -. It is not suitable for PCs. If you use it, expect judges to look extremely disfavorably on it.

Q: So what's the deal with equipment, anyway?
A: There is no official policy on how much equipment you should list. Historically, judges have frowned upon "item dependent" builds, but unfortunately the definition of that has been applied to mean anything from builds that don't function if you remove one very specific item, to builds that so much as mention a particular weapon. Builds that don't list gear should be assumed to buy useful generics - items to boost their primary stats, cloaks of resistance, appropriate magical weapons and armor, and so forth. If a build would find particular items useful, they should be listed, but experience suggests that the more generic you keep them, the more favorably judges are likely to look upon them, as a build being shut down because the Thundering Bagpipes of Urist McTrumpetbritches were unavailable is considered a weakness. Similarly, requiring items in order to be able to qualify for things tends to be frowned upon.

Q: Do you have any other rules and guidelines on how to judge?
A: We do, actually, designed to try and avoid unpleasantness we've encountered in past contests. The things we've come up with to avoid repeating this are given below.

Spoiler

Show

One Mistake, One Penalty

Spoiler: What does this mean?

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:

• Penalizing 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 penalize if a fluff prereq is not addressed at all, but not for how well it is addressed.
• Please don't base your scores off the scores of another judge.

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.

Q: Do you have any contest house rules or clarifications to ambiguous rules?
A: Some that have come up in previous contests and needed answers to:

• All creatures are proficient with any natural weapons they may have or acquire.
• Bonus feats that are granted even if you do not meet the prerequisites do not require you to meet the prerequisites in order to use.
• Able Learner's benefit applies to the level you take it.
• Weapons from soulmelds are considered to be magic weapons for the purpose of overcoming DR.
• Unarmed Swordsage grants Improved Unarmed Strike at level 1.
• Not finishing Savage Progression is subject to a penalty to Elegance
• One dispute per entry. Submit disputes by PM to the Chair.
• Ghostwalk ghost is banned
• Gold, silver, and bronze are awarded regardless of ties (e.g., 2 silvers does not preclude bronze)
• Spelltouched feats are legal and can be taken just like any other feat when you meet the prerequisites and have the feat slot available.

Q: Can I submit more than one entry?
A: You may submit up to two entries into a given competition.

Q: What's with the deadline?
A: For ingredients around the holiday season, we usually give extra cooking time because people are so busy. If chefs need additional time, I'd be happy to extend additionally.

Q: What does the line about Target of Vengeance and Favored Enemy mean?
A: See here.

[H_H_F_F]

Ugh, arcane caster round.

I don't know whether it's me or the ingredients, but I've been feeling consistently stumped since Thayan Gladiator. Probably me, given how many wonderful entries we've had since then.

My first idea fell apart within a few seconds. My second idea has strong "Why am I even in this class" vibes. I'll try to pull something off.

[AvatarVecna]

Reasons to not take this class:

1. Unseen Seer exists

[Wildstag]

Oh boy, I'm not sure I have enough teenage edge to channel for a prestige class like this. It looks interesting though.

[Wolfem]

Added placeholder in Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet for this cook.

[Zaq]

Interesting. My initial idea is a little tame, but I bet if I lean in hard enough then something will pop out the other side.

Request for a Chair ruling! "An Imaskari vengeance taker who has levels in the ranger class may add one-half the bonus noted above (rounded down) to her favored enemy bonus when attacking or using the indicated skills against a target of vengeance that is also one of her favored enemies." Does this replace or augment the ToV bonus? My sincere hope is that it stacks because otherwise it's effectively saying that ranger IVTs are only half as good as non-ranger IVTs, and while that's in-character for WotC (seriously, any opportunity they had to make the ranger worse, they jumped on), I really want to believe that that's not intentional.

So like, if you've got a ranger with favored enemy (animals) at +4 and you've got 4 levels in IVT, if you swear revenge against the white whale, do you get to add a total of +4 or +10 (i.e., +4 from ToV, +4 from FE, +2 from half of ToV added to FE) against the white whale?

Spoiler: Also, I'm sorry, but this was mandatory

Show

[H_H_F_F]

I took it to mean you'd take +6 - the full 4 from favored enemy and half from the SI, which would absolutely suck in later levels.

[The Viscount]

Interesting. My initial idea is a little tame, but I bet if I lean in hard enough then something will pop out the other side.

Request for a Chair ruling! "An Imaskari vengeance taker who has levels in the ranger class may add one-half the bonus noted above (rounded down) to her favored enemy bonus when attacking or using the indicated skills against a target of vengeance that is also one of her favored enemies." Does this replace or augment the ToV bonus? My sincere hope is that it stacks because otherwise it's effectively saying that ranger IVTs are only half as good as non-ranger IVTs, and while that's in-character for WotC (seriously, any opportunity they had to make the ranger worse, they jumped on), I really want to believe that that's not intentional.

So like, if you've got a ranger with favored enemy (animals) at +4 and you've got 4 levels in IVT, if you swear revenge against the white whale, do you get to add a total of +4 or +10 (i.e., +4 from ToV, +4 from FE, +2 from half of ToV added to FE) against the white whale?

Spoiler: Also, I'm sorry, but this was mandatory

Show

Practice safe optimization. Nobody wants a hernia.

This is troubling text. I agree with you that this does not make sense, but I can't see much else in the way of readings of this text. We can make that "may" do some work.
You may add one-half your ToV bonus to Favored Enemy bonus, treating the sum as your effective favored enemy bonus when dealing with a target of vengeance that is also a favored enemy.
You may elect not to do this, in which case you follow normal rules, gaining full ToV bonus and full Favored Enemy Bonus against a target of vengeance that is also a favored enemy.

[Venger]

What a terrible class. In to cook.

[Gruftzwerg]

Dunno if I will enter this round. But I'm curious how poison use will be handled?

poison use = evil?

I mean, the prc gives poison use as an ability but doesn't require you to be evil. On the other hand, IIRC poison use is considered an evil act (by RAW..). It would be nice to clarify this topic before anybody ends up with the wrong alignment here.


So, for the purpose of this contest:
"Does the use of poison automatically make you evil?"

And to further extend the question:
"Can good characters with special codes (e.g. Paladin), or even exalted characters use poison without causing issues?"

[The Viscount]

Poison use does not automatically change your alignment to Evil. Like other evil acts, it can be balanced out or overcome by good acts.

Paladin specifically cannot use poison, as it is called out in their code of conduct. For other characters, it depends on the specific rules laid out in their class/feat/etc. If it isn't specifically prohibited, I don't see why not.

[loky1109]

BoED said that only poisons which do ability damage/drain or death is Evil.

[Akal Saris]

I've played a death attack character before (black flame zealot), and it was actually quite fun to stay hidden for a few rounds and then launch an attack. Reminded me of playing a 2e thief where your first attack out of Hide was the only one that mattered.

Fun fact: Just now I went searching to see if there were some interesting threads on death attacks on the forums, and realized that I was one of the main participants in a thread from 11 years ago :P Yeesh!

[Malphegor]

It’s weird that this doesn’t demand you be Deep Imaskari when one thinks about it. Maybe the Imaskari hire outsiders to do their dirty work sometimes?

[Akal Saris]

It’s weird that this doesn’t demand you be Deep Imaskari when one thinks about it. Maybe the Imaskari hire outsiders to do their dirty work sometimes?

They probably have enough trouble recruiting people for this PrC as it is.... ;)

[Gruftzwerg]

It’s weird that this doesn’t demand you be Deep Imaskari when one thinks about it. Maybe the Imaskari hire outsiders to do their dirty work sometimes?

The recruit from everywhere. As long as a character has the will of vengeance , he is a possible target for the requiting agents of the lodge..^^

The Lodge of the Retributive Masters recruits from everywhere in the Upperdark, and even from the surface, though its recruiters travel there only by night.

[The Viscount]

BoED said that only poisons which do ability damage/drain or death is Evil.

Yes, this is the more accurate statement.

[Gruftzwerg]

BoED said that only poisons which do ability damage/drain or death is Evil.

Yes, this is the more accurate statement.

I'm aware of that, but that doesn't solve the contradicting state of the rules.

A)
3.0 BoED says:

"Using poison that deals ability damage is an evil act because it causes undue suffering in the process of incapacitating or killing an opponent. Of the poisons described in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, only one is acceptable for good characters to use: oil of taggit, which deals no damage but causes unconsciousness."

B)
3.5 DMG says:

"The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal, and even in big cities it can be obtained only from specialized, less than reputable sources."

The primary source is the DMG Poison section. Thus the BoED "Ravages and Afflictions" section has no right to change these rules. It's the "ravages and affliction" paragraph and not a poison paragraph in BoED. The Primary Source Rule demands that we follow the DMG. BoED doesn't show any intent to change the Poison rules, but also has no right to add to the rules. So by RAW, BoED is to be ignored.

Which leaves us with the problem that Imaskari Vengeance Taker need to be lawful, while they get the poison use ability...

____

so.. let me ask you gently again.

Do we want this mess to influence the judges?

Bearing the risk that the judges may have different interpretations and views that may automatically disqualify multiple builds. And while one judge maybe has problems with A), the other judge maybe have problems with B).

Imho this will just kill the fun in the competition. So we would be best advised to settle this before everybody invest time into builds who would face harsh judgements because of this..

edit: and the rabbit hole goes even deeper...
Normally, if you want to stay "lawful" and use illegal items you need 2 feats (!) to accomplish that. Do we want to force all builds who wanna stay "lawful" to invest into those otherwise useless feats? Or do we wanna accept that all Imaskari Vengeance taker need to be "lawful" to enter, while becoming "non lawful" by their use of their given abilities? Note that the DMG makes no difference between poison that does ability dmg/death and those those with other effects. All poisons are illegal if we follow the DMG (even Drow wine...and if you really go to full extend all alcoholic drinks could be illegal..)..

Really, I hope that we can ignore this ballast.. Otherwise we will be left with really poor looking builds who are afraid of using their class skills or have so much invested into untold requirements that most builds will feel/look the same.

[Rebel7284]

I probably won't have the spoons to post a build, but in my opinion, we can accept that it's likely that:
1. A given Imaskari Vengeance Taker is likely to perform chaotic actions and possibly even evil actions at some point in their career.
2. Neither of those types of actions are guaranteed to shift the alignment for any particular Imaskari Vengeance Taker.

For example, if a Retributive Master asks the PC to use poison on a particular quest, obeying your code of obedience is lawful, using poison is chaotic. Overall, the effect on alignment may very well be 0.

[loky1109]

The purchase and possession of poison is always illegal

First. Legality doesn't have direct connection with lawfulness.
Second. "Always illegal"? Really? In Menzoberranzan, too?

The primary source is the DMG Poison section. Thus the BoED "Ravages and Afflictions" section has no right to change these rules.

I don't see how DMG and BoED contradict each other. Illegal doesn't means Evil.

[Gruftzwerg]

I probably won't have the spoons to post a build, but in my opinion, we can accept that it's likely that:
1. A given Imaskari Vengeance Taker is likely to perform chaotic actions and possibly even evil actions at some point in their career.
2. Neither of those types of actions are guaranteed to shift the alignment for any particular Imaskari Vengeance Taker.

For example, if a Retributive Master asks the PC to use poison on a particular quest, obeying your code of obedience is lawful, using poison is chaotic. Overall, the effect on alignment may very well be 0.

I would be happy if we could agree on this, since this is not what RAW would dictate.
We have feats that accomplish this, so one would expect that a prc who wants the same fiat, would need to either have those feats or an ability that grants the same.
So, we either live with the mess (not a fan of this option) or we assume these things for the Imakari Vengeance Taker as general DM fiat for this contest (imho the better option for more build diversity and less judging problems).

First. Legality doesn't have direct connection with lawfulness.
Second. "Always illegal"? Really? In Menzoberranzan, too?

This is why I'm so offended by this rule. If we follow the DMG, all poisons are illegal. This includes even such simple things as Drow Wine in Menzoberranzan (unless you can find a rule that calls out an exception, dunno if we have one). And any character that wants to stay on the lawful side, would need to take 2 feats to not get problems with the authority (and imho his alignment). Heck, even antitoxins would be illegal since you need poisons to create most of em.

I don't see how DMG and BoED contradict each other. Illegal doesn't means Evil.

1. Before they even might cause a conflict, BoED lacks the permission to provide new rules for this topic. BoED is the primary source for for extreme "good" things. If the said quote would have been in the BoVD, we could argue that the book is the primary source for being evil. You can't throw rules about being "evil" into a book that claims that it provides rules for being "good". From a RAW standpoint, this doesn't work. The same goes for putting new poison rules into the "Ravages and Afflictions" section of a book that doesn't deal with poisons in the first place.

2. Anything that doesn't quote the primary source rules correctly, contradicts em. Even just trying to add rules is a contradiction. You would need to create a specific niche exception or call out that you are going to change rules.
The "Ravages and Afflictions" section is not a specific exception/niche of poisons. Nor do they call out that they wanna change/add rules.

[loky1109]

Spoiler

Show

I can't understand why you think lawful character can't do illegal things.

BoED lacks the permission to provide new rules for this topic. BoED is the primary source for for extreme "good" things.

Can't agree with it.

You can't throw rules about being "evil" into a book that claims that it provides rules for being "good".

Of course I can and should. Or we should agree that good character can't fall via evil doings. Evil and Good aren't separate themes, it is single theme.

From a RAW standpoint, this doesn't work.

Your reading of RAW mostly doesn't work at all. It is very weird in most cases.
Plus, this challenge isn't about TO, more about PO, so your totally unworkable in any real game RAW readings don't matter. Even if them work.

Anything that doesn't quote the primary source rules correctly, contradicts em.

Wat???

I read your post to very end and... I don't want to discuss with you. Your rules reading is so... strange, so obviously wrong, and uncomfortable, but you defend it so stubborny... I even want add you in ignore list to not to see your posts. This is kinda achievement.

[WhamBamSam]

I have at least one idea for this that I quite like. In to cook.

[Gruftzwerg]

Spoiler

Show

I can't understand why you think lawful character can't do illegal things.


Can't agree with it.


Of course I can and should. Or we should agree that good character can't fall via evil doings. Evil and Good aren't separate themes, it is single theme.


Your reading of RAW mostly doesn't work at all. It is very weird in most cases.
Plus, this challenge isn't about TO, more about PO, so your totally unworkable in any real game RAW readings don't matter. Even if them work.


Wat???

I read your post to very end and... I don't want to discuss with you. You rules reading is so... strange, so obviously wrong, and uncomfortable, but you defend it so stubborny... I even want add you in ignore list to not to see your posts. This is kinda achievement.

Sorry if you have a hard time to differentiate what RAW is and how the PSR affects this.
BoED can at best only create rules for "evil" in context of "exalted" characters (which would be a specific exception), cause that's the topic of the book. Exalted, not evil. The PSR creates structures with books and topics. If you ignore this, than your interpretation becomes RAI at best and ain't RAW anymore.

So, if you want to know if poisons are evil, the sources to consult should be:

1. general alignment rules (the primary source for alignments in the PHB)
2. possible specific "evil" rules (anything mentioned in the BoVD)
3. possible even more specific poison rules regarding alignment (anything mentioned in the DMG Poison section)

What buffs me the most in our discussions between the two of us here is, how you are sole presenting your opinion without any logical argument (e.g. "I can't agree with this", so yeah what is your interpretation of the situation then??). That doesn't help in a conversation. So, if your desire is to ignore my posts, you just lose the opportunity that one of us (either me or you) might understand the position of the other. And that is sad. Ignoring people with different opinions is counterproductive if you want to discuss something (that's what the forum is about: discussion things).

And btw, while most judges favor PO, doesn't mean that TO is forbidden in these contests. It's in the opening posts.

_____________________

I have 2 possible build ideas, but unless this topic is settled I dunno if I will invest the time into them.

[loky1109]

Different opinion isn't thing.
I just taking mind pain when reading your arguments. Even in rare cases when I agree with you.
_________
I'm very sorry for off topic.
I have some ideas, but don't like them.

[Troacctid]

I'm with loky here. Your reading is nonsensical, Gruftzwerg. You're arguing that general rules supersede specific ones. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

[Gruftzwerg]

Different opinion isn't thing.
I just taking mind pain when reading your arguments. Even in rare cases when I agree with you.
_________
I'm very sorry for off topic.
I have some ideas, but don't like them.

It's not that I don't like to hear opinions. I love to hear different opinions on a topic. But if you don't provide any argument with your opinion, all I can say is: "yeah, that is your opinion". If you provide an argument, I could think about it if I was wrong or tell why I don't think your argument applies.
And I'm sorry if this causes headaches for you, but you are not alone. We all share the pain of rules even without discussion. The problem is the bad editing of 3.5 here and not the people discussing. I can just wish that you find a way to take these discussions less stressful. Believe me that I bear no ill intentions here, cause I have been there myself (stressed by rules and rule discussions). But if we can leave negative emotions aside, rule discussion can be very fun too (the sometimes silly conclusions/consequences that a RAW interpretation would have... like "poison = always illegal..= drow wine in menzob. also illegal ).

I'm with loky here. Your reading is nonsensical, Gruftzwerg. You're arguing that general rules supersede specific ones. That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

No, i'm arguing that BoED has neither topic supremacy over poisons, nor for evil.
Further, I'm arguing that the sole specific exception it may create is for "exalted characters", the topic where the book has supremacy.

Conclusion: BoED creates a niche for exalted characters that poisons with ability dmg/death are evil. But sole for exalted characters, not for characters overall. It's "Specific Trumps General", and not "Specific becomes General".

[Rebel7284]

No, i'm arguing that BoED has neither topic supremacy over poisons, nor for evil.
Further, I'm arguing that the sole specific exception it may create is for "exalted characters", the topic where the book has supremacy.

Conclusion: BoED creates a niche for exalted characters that poisons with ability dmg/death are evil. But sole for exalted characters, not for characters overall. It's "Specific Trumps General", and not "Specific becomes General".

You don't get to just ignore rules because in your opinion they aren't on-topic enough. The primary source rules are very poorly defined, but no matter how you define them, they only apply if there is a contradiction. Both DMG and BoED rules can be applied together without a conflict.

As for your assertion that evil and chaotic acts MUST shift alignment, that is simply wrong. Looking at the rules for alignment in the DMG p. 134, you three things:

1. Alignment Change Is Gradual
2. Time Requirements: Changing alignment usually takes time.
3. The example of Garret clearly has the player performing a pattern of behavior over multiple sessions in order to cause alignment to change.

and most importantly:
4. You’re in Control: You control alignment changes, not the
players.

So, clearly, the DMG expects the DMs to look at a pattern of behavior over time and make a judgement call. Again, this is overall pattern of behavior, including context and such!

[Gruftzwerg]

You don't get to just ignore rules because in your opinion they aren't on-topic enough. The primary source rules are very poorly defined, but no matter how you define them, they only apply if there is a contradiction. Both DMG and BoED rules can be applied together without a conflict.

Let me try to give a real life example:
If you wanna look up your consumer rights regarding a situation, would you search for em in the traffic laws? I assume, you would start with the laws regarding consumer rights. Unless your situation ain't traffic specific, the traffic laws won't help.

Now, if you wanna know if poison use in 3.5 is evil, we have two sources regarding the situation:
1. BoVD provides rules for the topic "evil"
2. DMG Poison section provides rules for the topic "poisons"
3. BoED can at best create specific rules for "exalted characters". It can't provide new global rules for "evil" nor for "poisons".

As for your assertion that evil and chaotic acts MUST shift alignment, that is simply wrong. Looking at the rules for alignment in the DMG p. 134, you three things:

1. Alignment Change Is Gradual
2. Time Requirements: Changing alignment usually takes time.
3. The example of Garret clearly has the player performing a pattern of behavior over multiple sessions in order to cause alignment to change.

and most importantly:
4. You’re in Control: You control alignment changes, not the
players.

So, clearly, the DMG expects the DMs to look at a pattern of behavior over time and make a judgement call. Again, this is overall pattern of behavior, including context and such!

Sure, the change doesn't happen overnight. But we can't deny that the prc gives "poison use". And if the character is going to use that ability on a regular base (which is the normal chase when you get an ability) he will have the alignment shift. And lets better not question how you obtained the ability to safely apply poison (trough training I would assume, which would be a pattern of behavior..).

The rule situation ain't that simple as it might look like on first impression here.