Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXVII

[loky1109]

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 ).

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".

Ok. I try. I think I understood something.
Your mindset looks very GURPSy. There is book about spaceships and it is only for spaceships. Rules from it don't work for seaships or aircrafts, only for spaceships. There is book about ninja and rules work only for ninjas. Assassins, theifs etc. go further.
By default works only core rules and GM can add some splatbooks if think they need.

D&D 3.5 is different story. By default works all rules together. DM can turn some books off, but if he didn't they create single rulefield. All rules work for all creatures/characters in the same manner. There are no different poison rules for regular and for exalted persons. As like as different alignment rules for Evil, not so evil, Good, and Exalted Good characters.

If all be as you tell... Well, when I was exalted person, I can use drow poison and didn't afraid to fall, but since I broke one rule I can't do this. I still Good, but now if I use any poison, even drow I'll fall toward Evil... This is as stupid as it sounds!

[H_H_F_F]

May I suggest one of you guys starts a new thread to discuss this issue? This has come out of the realm of discussing poison use for the SI, and has become a general discussion about the ways rules should be read.

[Rebel7284]

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.

The idea that D&D is as well organized as the legal system is laughable. In addition, unless your situation is REAL basic, there are often multiple laws that are tangentially related to a single situation. That's why people hire lawyers in the first place!

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"

BOVD does no such thing. It provides a bunch of rules text and fluff on a ton of different topics. The book is thematically organized around the idea of evil, sure, but I don't see how that's remotely relevant.

2. DMG Poison section provides rules for the topic "poisons"

Correct, and does not forbid these rules from being expanded in other books later as long as there aren't any contradictions.

3. BoED can at best create specific rules for "exalted characters". It can't provide new global rules for "evil" nor for "poisons".

Writers can and do put whatever rules they want into whatever book they want. We all know that 3.5 is poorly organized, but you are clearly in the minority here in your belief that poorly placed rules don't apply. In addition, if you apply your logic more universally, it falls apart very quickly. How can other books add base classes when there is an explicit exhaustive list of all base classes in the PHB!? PHB is clearly the primary source for base classes! Other base classes must not exist!

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

Exactly! When you have complex, context-dependent situations, it's up for the DM to make the final ruling!

It's certainly fair to point out game elements that can nudge the decision in a particular direction, but when you are dealing with something as complex as D&D alignment that asks the DM to use a combination of common sense and some objective alignment rules that often don't make sense to come to a particular decision, trying to claim a particular result is guaranteed feels disingenuous, especially when the rest of your argument is "by the way, I can ignore poorly places rules."

[Gruftzwerg]

May I suggest one of you guys starts a new thread to discuss this issue? This has come out of the realm of discussing poison use for the SI, and has become a general discussion about the ways rules should be read.

Normally ambiguous rules regarding the SI are solved directly in this thread or via PM to "The Viscount" if it is build specific (and thus would reveal to much of the build).
Since "poison use" is part of the SI I think this is the intended way to solve this.

(Nobody forces you to take part in the discussion if you don't want, and nobody stops you from making your regular posts about the challenge).

Ok. I try. I think I understood something.
Your mindset looks very GURPSy. There is book about spaceships and it is only for spaceships. Rules from it don't work for seaships or aircrafts, only for spaceships. There is book about ninja and rules work only for ninjas. Assassins, theifs etc. go further.
By default works only core rules and GM can add some splatbooks if think they need.

D&D 3.5 is different story. By default works all rules together. DM can turn some books off, but if he didn't they create single rulefield. All rules work for all creatures/characters in the same manner. There are no different poison rules for regular and for exalted persons. As like as different alignment rules for Evil, not so evil, Good, and Exalted Good characters.

If all be as you tell... Well, when I was exalted person, I can use drow poison and didn't afraid to fall, but since I broke one rule I can't do this. I still Good, but now if I use any poison, even drow I'll fall toward Evil... This is as stupid as it sounds!

3.5 structures rules. It provides a primary source for each topic and than allows specific exceptions to trump those general rules for their niche. These exceptions have supremacy for their niche and not for the overall topic. It's "Specific Trumps General" not "Specific becomes General". Pls stop ignoring this.

The idea that D&D is as well organized as the legal system is laughable. In addition, unless your situation is REAL basic, there are often multiple laws that are tangentially related to a single situation. That's why people hire lawyers in the first place!



BOVD does no such thing. It provides a bunch of rules text and fluff on a ton of different topics. The book is thematically organized around the idea of evil, sure, but I don't see how that's remotely relevant.

Really? Have a look at the very first sentence in the BoVD pls:

Book of Vile Darkness is a sourcebook of evil.

and while we are at it, for the sake of completeness:

While the Book of Vile Darkness concerns itself with all things evil, dealing with the most reprehensible subjects ever covered in the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, this book tackles the opposite subject.

I assume that we can agree that the opposite of "evil" is "good" and thus the BoED has supremacy over the topic "good" and not "evil".

Correct, and does not forbid these rules from being expanded in other books later as long as there aren't any contradictions.

That would be a specific exception for a niche (as said) and not a new general rule.

Writers can and do put whatever rules they want into whatever book they want.

Contradicts the book and topic supremacy mentioned in the PSR. No, the PSR penalizes any rules not in the right place. Otherwise you ignore book and topic supremacy.

We all know that 3.5 is poorly organized, but you are clearly in the minority here in your belief that poorly placed rules don't apply. In addition, if you apply your logic more universally, it falls apart very quickly. How can other books add base classes when there is an explicit exhaustive list of all base classes in the PHB!? PHB is clearly the primary source for base classes! Other base classes must not exist!

At the beginning you said that most people (majority) rely on lawyers to understand/interpret laws. Now you wanna decide what is RAW (similar to laws) by majority? Sorry but there is no guaranty that the majority is right when it comes to RAW. RAW is decided by applying the PSR to the rule texts.

Exactly! When you have complex, context-dependent situations, it's up for the DM to make the final ruling!

It's certainly fair to point out game elements that can nudge the decision in a particular direction, but when you are dealing with something as complex as D&D alignment that asks the DM to use a combination of common sense and some objective alignment rules that often don't make sense to come to a particular decision, trying to claim a particular result is guaranteed feels disingenuous, especially when the rest of your argument is "by the way, I can ignore poorly places rules."

Let us revert to my original statement:

Do we want this mess to influence the judges?

Are you really fine that each judge should decide this for himself?
While those who cook the builds have to blindly hope that the majority of the judges favors the chef's point of view.
Keep in mind that someone with my point of view could also end up on a judge spot.
I don't think that it would be healthy to ignore this issue and would love to solve this for sake the contest itself.
This is why I would like to have a reliable guideline how the contest sets the rules and not having each judge decide for themselves.

[mattie_p]

There's been plenty of discussion, I would love to hear from the chair at this point. In the absence of a ruling, it will be in the judges hands, as it so often is.

[H_H_F_F]

Normally ambiguous rules regarding the SI are solved directly in this thread or via PM to "The Viscount" if it is build specific (and thus would reveal to much of the build).
Since "poison use" is part of the SI I think this is the intended way to solve this.

My point was that it seemed to me at the time of posting that the discussion was getting away from "the SI's poison use" and into territory of "how does the primary source rule interact with the specific trumps general rule", which seems outside the scope of this thread. I felt that perhaps that discussion, despite having implications for this contest, would be better placed in a new thread.

(Nobody forces you to take part in the discussion if you don't want, and nobody stops you from making your regular posts about the challenge).

Of course. Never implied otherwise.

[The Viscount]

Please make a separate thread if anyone wishes to continue this discussion about sourcebooks and primacy.

As for the original question posed.
The DMG's line about poisons simply isn't accurate. For example, drink-and-tell mead is a poison with provided stats in page 59 of Races of Stone, and is clearly not illegal as it is common and openly used in Goliath society.

More importantly, as has been pointed out, Lawful alignment isn't just about following the rules set by the local government. A lawful character need not always follow the local laws at all time, provided they have some consistent credo or ruleset for governing their behavior, such as the code of conduct followed by Imaskari Vengeance Takers.

If it'll make you feel better I'll say it with authority.
Imaskari Vengeance Takers are not considered to be at risk for becoming nonlawful simply for using poison.

Are we good?

[Wildstag]

As for the original question posed.
The DMG's line about poisons simply isn't accurate. For example, drink-and-tell mead is a poison with provided stats in page 59 of Races of Stone, and is clearly not illegal as it is common and openly used in Goliath society.

Ackshually... Goliaths are typically Chaotic Neutral, so it could be an unlawful thing to do...

[AvatarVecna]

Personally if I was going to point to a reason this class is stupid if "lawful=follows the law", I'd point out you're essentially joining a vigilante organization. You're not even doing the Batman thing where you hurt people who did bad things to others - entering the class requires you to pay back somebody who hurt you. The class isn't called "justice taker", it's called "vengeance taker". You're not Batman, you're not even The Punisher, you're just as *******.

...speaking of Punisher, I feel like discussing the lawfulness of vigilante vengeance might be a bit too spicy for this forum.

[Gruftzwerg]

My point was that it seemed to me at the time of posting that the discussion was getting away from "the SI's poison use" and into territory of "how does the primary source rule interact with the specific trumps general rule", which seems outside the scope of this thread. I felt that perhaps that discussion, despite having implications for this contest, would be better placed in a new thread.

I get what you are saying. But try to see it from my point of view. I#m one of the few people here on the forum that include the PSR in their thoughts and explanations. Most people aren't either aware of the rule or don't bother to much with it since they don't get the full extend of the rule. If I would do that every time (open a new thread for the PSR) we would have multiple threads for it in a month...

But what saddens me the most is, that while multiple people get offended and jump into the discussion, we all seem to have missed that "Poisons" have their own section in the BoVD. I know that I skimmed over the index last night and it looks that I have missed it somehow. The question is, did everybody miss it? Imho this seems unrealistic. So, people start to argue without consulting the sources first. And that is a problem. Due to the scattered rules in 3.5 we rely on the hive mind of the forum to not miss any relevant text passages. Last night, we all have managed to miss it somehow. The discussion could have been shortened if people (including me, since I let myself drag into these discussion) would be more focused on the outcome of the discussion instead to just argue.

____________

So, the updated status of "Poison Use":

1. DMG - Poison section calls out that poisons are illegal everywhere.

2. BoVD - calls itself out as sourcebook for "evil" and has a "poison" section.

3. Funny enough is that the "Harvesting Venom" paragraph from BoVD has a less restrictive view on legality:

"There is no open market for poison raw materials, because the use of poison is often illegal, or at least rarely admitted to."

The problem here is that by RAW at least, this contradicts the DMG. And since "law" ain't the topic of BoVD, it has no permission to change rules regarding the legality. But this could be seen as indicator for RAI!

4. BoVD doesn't differentiate between evil and non evil poisons use.

5. BoED does differentiate between evil and non-evil poisons use.
Here we have a similar problem as with (3). BoED has supremacy over "good" and not "evil". Thus, it has no permission to alter any general rules (found in BoVD) for "evil". BoED would have the permission to call some poisons out as good, but that is not the chase here. Again, RAW says "nope", but it is a good indicator for RAI.


my conclusion so far (unless we are still missing relevant rules..?): we have 3 options

A) By RAW, "Poison Use" is always illegal and always evil. The most restrictive interpretation with the least build diversity.

B) By RAI, "Poison Use" can be evil or not depending on the poison type and is in most areas illegal. A bit less restrive for builds.

C) Ignore all the alignment stuff for "Poison Use" and sole focus on the "lawful" requirement for the SI. This would increase build diversity the most but would rely on "DM fiat".

As said, for the sake of the chefs in the contest, it would be nice to settle this before people invest times into build who might end up with the wrong alignment. Leaving it open for each judge ( virtually multiple DMs ) is just an unnecessary risk for the chefs. Normally (in real games) you deal with one DM. Here we are dealing with multiple judges who all might have different opinions on this SI relevant topic since RAW and RAI differ so much.

edit:

Personally if I was going to point to a reason this class is stupid if "lawful=follows the law", I'd point out you're essentially joining a vigilante organization. You're not even doing the Batman thing where you hurt people who did bad things to others - entering the class requires you to pay back somebody who hurt you. The class isn't called "justice taker", it's called "vengeance taker". You're not Batman, you're not even The Punisher, you're just as *******.

...speaking of Punisher, I feel like discussing the lawfulness of vigilante vengeance might be a bit too spicy for this forum.

I agree with both points.
Which pushes me slightly towards option (C). Just have the required alignment (lawful) and don't bother with the rest.

edit 2:

Please make a separate thread if anyone wishes to continue this discussion about sourcebooks and primacy.

As for the original question posed.
The DMG's line about poisons simply isn't accurate. For example, drink-and-tell mead is a poison with provided stats in page 59 of Races of Stone, and is clearly not illegal as it is common and openly used in Goliath society.

More importantly, as has been pointed out, Lawful alignment isn't just about following the rules set by the local government. A lawful character need not always follow the local laws at all time, provided they have some consistent credo or ruleset for governing their behavior, such as the code of conduct followed by Imaskari Vengeance Takers.

If it'll make you feel better I'll say it with authority.
Imaskari Vengeance Takers are not considered to be at risk for becoming nonlawful simply for using poison.

Are we good?

thx, and sorry for the post. I had the tap open for over an hours and didn't notice that you answered in the meanwhile..
Could you also settle the "evil" thing as final request? Do we follow BoVD (RAW) or BoED (RAI). Or do we completely ignore it (c).

[The Viscount]

I don't know that judges would make a big deal of it, but if you must know:

Poison use always being illegal A doesn't make any sense and B obviously isn't true. Ignore this part. As mentioned, legality is immaterial since Lawful alignment isn't just about doing what local laws say.

Poison use by strictest RAW is an evil act. However, as said before, using poison does not automatically change a creature's alignment towards evil. There are a wide array of magical beasts and animals with poison who are neutral, so clearly liberal use does not by itself push you over. The pseudodragon is an Int 10 creature that's always neutral good, so clearly it can be done. There are various actions that can overcome or balance out its use.

Short answer: B, but with some refinement.

Any further questions on this front should be via PM.

[Gruftzwerg]

I don't know that judges would make a big deal of it, but if you must know:

Poison use always being illegal A doesn't make any sense and B obviously isn't true. Ignore this part. As mentioned, legality is immaterial since Lawful alignment isn't just about doing what local laws say.

Poison use by strictest RAW is an evil act. However, as said before, using poison does not automatically change a creature's alignment towards evil. There are a wide array of magical beasts and animals with poison who are neutral, so clearly liberal use does not by itself push you over. The pseudodragon is an Int 10 creature that's always neutral good, so clearly it can be done. There are various actions that can overcome or balance out its use.

Short answer: B, but with some refinement.

Any further questions on this front should be via PM.

thx for the quick response <3

[Seward]

Ok, I'm in. I see one thing in the ingredient it'll be fun to play with, a way to try to pull in the other class features into character behavior and can try to improve in areas where I didn't do as well last time, including actually cooking long enough to avoid using salt instead of sugar at a key moment.

Something I'm stuck on. Poison crafting rules, both from "scratch" or by harvesting from animals.

AEG has some stuff, but it is really old and I don't know if it was superseded, clarified or what. I assume from dmg, it is just a "Craft Poison" check with usual rules (including xxx creation and fabricate rules since we are talking arcane casters here) with dc's similar to those in the AEG tables (15-25 for most, a few more rare taking more and maybe some things like drow sleep poison not normally craftable) but as the whole prior discussion goes, there are some sources I have never read (BOED and LM among them) so if the consensus is that the final ruleset for 3.5 indicated something else, I'd like to know before I get too deep into cooking with craft poison and ancillary spells (simply buying poisons still works assuming appropriate social skills/background fluff but you can go broke quickly that way if you have alternatives)

[The Viscount]

The most up to date version of poisonmaking rules is found in Complete Adventurer under Craft, to the best of my knowledge.

[Seward]

CA rules are pretty much the same as AEG with a different poison table, so I'm good to go on that front.

Thanks.

[H_H_F_F]

I finally have something for this round.

It's not a winner by any stretch of the imagination, but it's something.

[Zaq]

My idea's finally coming together. Now I just have to actually write it. But at least I think I know what I'm trying to do...

This is not technically a protest build.

[Seward]

I got snowed in for a week, so spent a lot of time cooking (both real world and this project). I got to last night where I was bumping up against the maximum character count and just tinkering a few words here and there and decided to send it in before I messed up and broke the formatting or somehow deleted something beyond recall.

The weather's probably going to break a bit over the next couple days, and I need to think about other stuff. Today it's just shoveling the snow off my and my sister's car. Again. And continuing the seige of Fort Box (all the moving boxes packed into our spare bedroom that need to be unpacked and sorted)

I already miss California. (cue California Dreaming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-aK6JnyFmk by the Mommas and Poppas)

[loky1109]

I have idea. I'll try to build it.

[WhamBamSam]

My idea's finally coming together. Now I just have to actually write it. But at least I think I know what I'm trying to do...

This is not technically a protest build.

"It's not a protest build... It's a VENGEANCE build!"

[H_H_F_F]

I got snowed in for a week, so spent a lot of time cooking (both real world and this project). I got to last night where I was bumping up against the maximum character count and just tinkering a few words here and there and decided to send it in before I messed up and broke the formatting or somehow deleted something beyond recall.

The weather's probably going to break a bit over the next couple days, and I need to think about other stuff. Today it's just shoveling the snow off my and my sister's car. Again. And continuing the seige of Fort Box (all the moving boxes packed into our spare bedroom that need to be unpacked and sorted)

I already miss California. (cue California Dreaming https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-aK6JnyFmk by the Mommas and Poppas)

Dude I haven't been abroad in 2 years you can't do this to me.

God I miss snow.

[Seward]

"It's not a protest build... It's a VENGEANCE build!"

Yeah.

This organization....

A secret society dedicated to righting wrongs

pretty much only by assassination.

Interfere with righting a wrong? You go on the list too.

take vengeance on those who deserve justice, on those who commit crimes against creatures protected by the Retributive Masters, and on those who impede the vengeance taker in her task

I don't imagine many of these characters will be very nice people, or especially popular with other party members.

"Hey guys, lets have some downtime. 2 days in the city!"

"Yeah. Last time we did that you hid in the tavern for 32 hours, prepared spells for an hour then vanished for an hour and the gate guard that disrespected you ended up dead."

"Coincidence!" (bluff is an IVT class skill after all)

God I miss snow.

It is considerably less enticing (although it is pretty) when you spent the week you should have spent buying everything socializing with family members that hadn't seen you in 2 years, had a storm blow in and barely made it back with nothing but travel snacks and a few bricks of cheese because your car was too packed with moving stuff to fit anything more than "whatever fits in my wife's lap". We did manage one shopping spree at a local grocery store after 8" of snow but before it all iced over, and have food but no boots, waterproof gloves, etc, and we're sharing a $3.99 combination brush and ice scraper bought on that trip with my sister who moved in during the summer and isn't used to snow yet either that is doing all the work we should be using snow shovels, brooms etc for.

We formerly lived 30 years in the Bay Area and figured it would be smarter to buy the cold weather stuff up here than to buy a crappy, inadequate version there. We were both right and wrong. Once we stop being iced-in and manage a day of shopping (our new Subaru can handle snow and torrential rain, and has proved it already) this will get a lot better. At least we're learning the hard way what we need. And our elderly dog turns out to love snow. We think he experienced it as a puppy.

We had compelling reasons to make the move and to do it when we did, in spite of the risks of travel etc in winter. We were rolling hot dice until the last week, mostly getting away with it. Something like this was bound to happen, and it could have been worse.

[H_H_F_F]

It is considerably less enticing (although it is pretty) when you spent the week you should have spent buying everything socializing with family members that hadn't seen you in 2 years, had a storm blow in and barely made it back with nothing but travel snacks and a few bricks of cheese because your car was too packed with moving stuff to fit anything more than "whatever fits in my wife's lap". We did manage one shopping spree at a local grocery store after 8" of snow but before it all iced over, and have food but no boots, waterproof gloves, etc, and we're sharing a $3.99 combination brush and ice scraper bought on that trip with my sister who moved in during the summer and isn't used to snow yet either that is doing all the work we should be using snow shovels, brooms etc for.

We formerly lived 30 years in the Bay Area and figured it would be smarter to buy the cold weather stuff up here than to buy a crappy, inadequate version there. We were both right and wrong. Once we stop being iced-in and manage a day of shopping (our new Subaru can handle snow and torrential rain, and has proved it already) this will get a lot better. At least we're learning the hard way what we need. And our elderly dog turns out to love snow. We think he experienced it as a puppy.

We had compelling reasons to make the move and to do it when we did, in spite of the risks of travel etc in winter. We were rolling hot dice until the last week, mostly getting away with it. Something like this was bound to happen, and it could have been worse.

Oh man, that sounds like an experience.



I still envy you though. I got lost in the mountains above Bergen once in the middle of winter. Made it out with blue fingertips and the shakes. Didn't make me love snow any less.

I may be a kindred spirit with your dog.

[loky1109]

I sent my entry.
It's very weird, as I can see.

[H_H_F_F]

I have two entries I'm working on. I'm not in love with either, but I think they will be worth the judges' time.

Speaking of which, do we have any confirmed judges this round?

[loky1109]

I have two more ideas and... How bad is this SI... It comes with big price and gives a few much than nothing. (((

[H_H_F_F]

I'm pretty settled on one entry, I'm debating whether or not the other one is worth submitting.

[The Viscount]

Probably, time permitting. I'm not sitting on many entries at this moment, so unless a lot of people are holding on to their entries, it won't be a large round.

[Gruftzwerg]

Probably, time permitting. I'm not sitting on many entries at this moment, so unless a lot of people are holding on to their entries, it won't be a large round.

Still don't know If I have the time to make it till the deadline. I'm trying to find some time...

1-2 builds possible

[Seward]

Still snowed in and kinda got an idea for another entry. If the rain that we're supposed to get tonight is snow instead maybe I'll have time to do a second.

SO many things I should be doing....but can't.

I have two more ideas and... How bad is this SI... It comes with big price and gives a few much than nothing. (((

What? You don't think Sneak Attack AND Favored Enemy is worth a caster level? Plus a good skill list but with only 4 skill points a level?

Plus POISON use, which is so good that we took away that first sneak attack die we were gonna give.

The strange thing is, I actually think a party with 4 of these guys could actually be pretty dangerous if they did their adventures in a kinda nonstandard way. I did a D&D-like game where half the party were assassin-types and wow, it didn't go at all like your typical murderhobo-gatecrasher party.