New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 91 to 120 of 122
  1. - Top - End - #91
    Troll in the Playground
     
    RogueGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2014

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    I worked out two builds for this one:

    A beholder petitioner from dwarfhome gets the racial traits of dwarves. LA is a racial trait. So if you dragonborn, you destroy all of your petitioner limitations at LA 0. Petitioner template sets your HD at 2. congrats, you're a playable beholder. You're welcome world! ocular mage is now available to the masses. Then you can get metaray. And...split ray.

    Here is the stub and the write up that i didn't finish
    Spoiler: BEHOLD
    Show
    What if I told you that what you are about to read will offer new insights into a much sought after optimization strategy: The playable beholder. And, in the process, produces an intriguing rumination on how to creatively use the dragon descendants' eldritch ancestor class feature? A standard action 2d6 - 5d6 no save ranged touch attack spell like ability; What’s not to love about that?

    First, we are going to need a faerunian beholder. A greedy beholder with a penchant for dominating greedy dwarves. A beholder whose HD feats and skill point allocation have been altered with non-default choices.

    Second, when this beholder dies, it's soul doesn't go to rest with the great mother, but instead is directed to Abbathor, the dwarven god of greed, the master of the trove, the wyrm of avarice, in his realm of glitterhell in the great tree cosmology. Glitterhell is located in an outerplane on the worldtree called Dwarfhome. This beholder made choices in his life and dominion over dwarves that pleased Abbathor enough to get this beholder soul directed his way.

    Maybe Abbathor wants a slave driver, or maybe the beholder in his dominion over dwarves won abbathor’s heart by preserving the health of his dominated dwarves as a means of creating more wealth for himself. The details aren’t super important, just this beholder needs to go to Dwarfhome. Dwarfhome is minor good aligned. So the effects of the plane itself could change said beholder. The plane already does exude an effect on its petitioners: It strips them of feats and skills, it limits them down to 2 HD. It makes them all get +10 to crafting checks, (despite petitioners losing all skill points). Dwarfhome also does something else relevant, it grants all of its petitioners the racial traits of dwarves found in the MM.

    I contend that Level Adjustment is a racial trait. When Level adjustments above +0 are discussed in regards to racial traits in all of the monster manuals, they are listed with the racial traits of their respective monster entries. When the LA is 0, they don’t include it in the racial traits section to save space. Just as they do with Hit Dice of a monster. If you have a single HD, it goes unlisted in the racial traits section of the stat block. If our 2 HD beholder petitioner now has dwarf traits, including the dwarven level adjustment, well…then that means that he can undergo the dragonbornification process, a process in which bahamut strips all of the special abilities of the creature except LA.

    Which means that the beholder is no longer tied to that outerplane. It also means that a player has a multiocular blob with a beard that cant use any beholder abilities. But, he qualifies for beholder feats and beholder prestige classes. In a pinch, if you decide that yes, you too want to make a beholder into a petitioner but you want to set yourself apart from the strategy detailed here, Glenhome, the faerunian halfling pantheon outerplane, offers a similar strategy to the one highlighted here.

    Are you with me so far? A beholder lives it life, ingratiates itself to a dwarven god efficiently enough to get a chance in their afterlife plane. It becomes a petitioner. The petitioner of Dwarfhome is cut down to 2 HD and stripped of all abilities, skills, and feats, but gets the racial traits of dwarves applied to them. This allows the beholder petitioner to be dragonbornified because LA is a racial trait and becoming dragonborn overwrites all the abilities that came before with some exceptions, thereby losing the planar commitment of petitionerdom while keeping the LA0, as dragonborn retain their original LA of the input. You have a useless playable beholder. But it has a sweet dwarven beard, its covered in scales, and it is ready to party.

    Getting a dose of dragonblood from the dragonbornification allows this beholder to alter his alertness bonus feat into a draconic feat that says 1st level only. Draconic tail is probably the best choice here. With the central antimagic eye put out by dying, 3rd level is the perfect time to take a level in …….sorcerer.

    Seeing as how we’re dragonborn, and thus have the dragonblood subtype, we take the feat-saving choice of getting draconic heritage through the sorcerer sub level. And, what do you know, since we altered the skills of the original beholder to have 8 ranks cross classed into K. dungeoneering, our 3rd level feat can be ocular spell.

    WAIT!
    How are skill ranks and feats being applied here when the petitioner template outright removes them. There is a sidebar after the petitioner template:

    Exceptional Petitioners The deities may choose particular servants for specific tasks who may remember something of their previous selves. These exceptional petitioners retain the feats and skills that they had in life but are otherwise limited as the other petitioners of their plane are.
    Now, that opens a great big can of worms when you're an 11HD aberration being shoehorned into a dwarven angel costume. I’m only going to keep bonus feats, HD 1 feat, and skill ranks up to 5, the upper limit set by having 2 HD. There is a much cheesier reading of this, but we are an elegant Dragonborn Beholder Petitioner of Dwarfhome.

    Why are we doing this?

    Eldritch ancestor is an SLA ray. And i want to put metamagic on it. Namely, split ray. And the only way that i can think to do it is through metaray. But you gotta be a beholder to select metaray. But there are no playable beholder races, as twenty years of forum threads about beholder mages will demonstrate to you.

    So, taking stock, at level 3, I have a scaly bearded beholder with a metamagic feat he can’t use He does have weapon focus (ray) though, so that’s nice.

    In order for metaray to work with the eldritch ancestor blast, it needs to be considered an “eye ray.” Many different approaches were attempted (spell thematics, ocular adept, beholder graft), but ultimately, what seemed the most elegant was to apply ocular spell to the eldritch blast. An ocular spell literally shoots a spell out of your eye, so it should work. This sets up a chicken and egg situation however, in order to turn eldritch ancestors blast into a metaray, it needs to be cast from an “eye ray,” all of which were lost as a petitioner and then double lost as a dragonborn. So that means that there is no way to cast the ocular spell in the first place to put the eldritch blast in your eye to thereafter metaray. Well, there is a solution: Midnight metamagic + complete Arcane page 71.

    These metamagic feats don’t require modified spell slots, and so they work as well with spell-like abilities or invocations as they do with spells.
    Are we to infer that spell like abilities can have metamagics applied to them so long as they do not lift the spell slot level of the spell? Cuz it really looks like complete arcane is saying that. If that’s the case, midnight metamagic allows us to invest 2 essentia into the feat, choosing the eldritch ray and ocular spell, and then you can prepare the eldritch rays into your eyes. Therefor, they are eye rays, and metaray can apply to spells in it. And because we are storing ocular eldritch rays, we can full round action shoot rays out of two eyes simultaneously, applying metaray split ray to both, for a grand total of four rays in an action. Metamagic rods for empower/maximize go on our christmas wishlist.

    The problem is the feat tightness of the build. Flaws or being allowed to keep your beholder feats via the exceptional petitioner sidebar would solve a lot. This build has more spare class levels than feat slots. So for the second essentia to make all of this work, we prestige into incandescent champion for its 1 essentia rather than blowing a feat on another essentia.

    1 Petitioner alertness (b) 1: ocular spell
    2 Petitioner
    2.99 Dragonborn Alertness becomes draconic flight
    3 dragonblood sorc (b) draconic heritage, midnight metamagic
    4 passive way monk expertise, ius,
    5 denying stance monk combat reflexes,
    6 monk
    7 dragon disciple1
    8 dragon disciple2
    9 dragon disciple3 Split ray
    10 dragon disciple4
    11 dragon disciple5
    12 Incandescent champion metaray, essentia +1
    13 kensai weapon enhancement of ray: aptitude
    14 Fighter exotic weapon pro (chakram)
    15 dragon disciple6 chakram ricochet
    16 dragon disciple7
    17 dragon disciple8
    18 Fighter stunning fist, mortalbane
    19 dragon disciple9
    20 dragon disciple10


    —----
    Dragon descendancy
    Dragonblood sorcerer 1 and monk 3 provide the prerequisite feats for dragon descendant.

    We ride dragon descendant to 5th level and take a little break to get an extra essentia, a level of kensai and a level of fighter. We are now going to take kensai based on weapon focus ray. There is no prohibition from doing so. Which means that we are imbuing our rays with the aptitude enchantment from tome of battle, which allows us to put feats that target a specific weapon onto our ray. So our fighter levels are then committed to putting these sorts of feats onto the eldritch ray. Stunning fist and chakram ricochet are the feats that I’ve selected for this, allowing us to ricochet our rays onto adjacent targets and possibly stun people with it.

    This aptitude spell like ability is typically not available to warlocks due to alignment conflicts with kensai (ordered chaos can fix that though). And other feats of interest with this include boomerang daze, lightning maces, and pharoahs fist. Im sure there are some other fun feats to apply as well.

    —-

    At tenth level of dragon descendent we can run with two ancestors at the same time, which allows for that 2d6 sneak attack damage to be added to our ray strikes.


    As you can see, I also noticed something interesting: kensai can make his signature weapon anything that they get weapon focus on. And you can explicitly take weapon focus: ray. So, you could make that ray a signature weapon. And if its a signature weapon, you can apply the aptitude weapon special ability to it. Halfway through, I thought that this idea merited its own optimization, as it was a bit wasted on the beholder.

    silverbrow scorpion clan human
    1 decisive strike monk 1 ius, stunning fist, expertise, pharaohs fist
    2 monk combat reflexes
    3 monk 3 mortalbane
    4 Sohei weapon focus Ray
    5 dragonblood stalwart battle sorc draconic heritage, weapon focus longsword
    6 master of masks chakram ricochet
    7 DD
    8 DD
    9 DD whirling steel strike
    10 DD
    11 DD
    12 kensai Sugliin mastery
    13 kensai aptitude weapon ability
    14 DD
    15 kensai boomerang ricochet
    16 kensai Exit wound wsa
    17 DD
    18 DD Maximize spell like
    19 DD
    20 DD
    STR: 15 DEX: 13 CON: 12 INT: 14 WIS: 14 CHA: 11

    We weapon aptitude the hell out this guy, conducting stunning fists through our ray, therefor pharoahs fist, and with suuglin mastery, which allows us to make full attack actions with our suuglin, and we aptitude that to your ray. Because we have decisive strike, we can double the damage on the eldritch ancestor. Boomerang and chakram ricochet add more stunning and damaging targets. The exit wound Weapon special ability add multi vector ricochet calculations to your turn! Whirling steel allows our ray to count as a monk weapon when we weapon aptitude it. master of masks gives us all exotic weapon proficiencies, so we qualify for all of the exotic weapon feats.

  2. - Top - End - #92
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Literally two hours after the reveal I had a bolt of inspiration for the build I SHOULD have made.

    Basically archivist 8 / SI 2 / fiendbinder 10, not necessarily in that order. Get a PP reserve from race or a feat to take 15 on the Concentration checks. See, per Tome of Magic pg. 197, you can use a bardic knowledge check as the Knowledge check to research personal truenames, and you make the Knowledge check in question once per week. A bardic knowledge check once per week? How weirdly perfect for this class with its stupid ancestral knowledge ability. Fiendbinder requires that you research the personal truenames of the fiends you conjure up and boss around, so this class letting you use Concentration on that check (and psionic focus rules letting you take 15 on that check) is actually slightly useful.

    dare, I am eternally saddened that we couldn't see that build presented in full. Maybe someday.
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  3. - Top - End - #93
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    GnomeWizardGuy

    Join Date
    Feb 2021
    Location
    France

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Quote Originally Posted by H_H_F_F View Post
    Waiting for me. Mostly done, but life's been insane lately.
    How's it coming together?

  4. - Top - End - #94
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Almost done, just been crazy busy. Really hoping to be able to finish it tomorrow night - if not, it'll only arrive Sunday.

    Sorry for the delay, folks, especially on such a small round.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  5. - Top - End - #95
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Apologies, guys. Didn't make it tonight. Sunday (Saturday night, if something that seems like it might get cancelled will.)
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  6. - Top - End - #96
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Moscow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    While we are waiting H_H_F_F's judging I want ask question.
    Inevitability told about Hidecarved Dragon. What is earliest entry in this prestige class? How many levels of Dragon Descendant we can get moving through it?
    If you could make anything and everything welcome to the Zinc Saucier XLV: Figaro

    My competition's medals.

    Spoiler: For purposes of clarity
    Show
    1109 is September, 11 - my birthday.

  7. - Top - End - #97
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WhamBamSam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Quote Originally Posted by loky1109 View Post
    While we are waiting H_H_F_F's judging I want ask question.
    Inevitability told about Hidecarved Dragon. What is earliest entry in this prestige class? How many levels of Dragon Descendant we can get moving through it?
    I've played around with cheesing into Hidecarved Dragon before, and Dragonwrought Earth Kobold Binder 1/Incarnate 1/Cleric* 1/Forsaker 6 (Dragonwrought, Improved Binding, Shape Soulmeld (Wormtail Belt), Armor of Scales) should be able to just barely get there if you use the Otyugh Hole to free up the Iron Will feat and use the self-mutilation or scarification or whatever it is rules in BoVD. Won't be enough feats free to get into Dragon Descendant from 13 without flaws, though.

    *Worships ideal of Drow and Dwarf but never ever casts. What motivates this ideologically is left as an exercise for the reader.
    Last edited by WhamBamSam; 2022-09-15 at 10:34 PM.

    Iron Chef Medals
    Spoiler
    Show
    Sir Driscoll Conia - Silver - IC L

    Nick Snarespan - Gold - IC LIII

    Lucy "Legs" Silvertail - Bronze - IC LXVIII

    Bolfarg of Knoss - Gold - IC LXXVII

    Ivarr Deathborn - Bronze - IC LXXVII

    Ahmtel - Silver - IC LXXVIII

    Tocke of Nessus - Gold - IC LXXIX

    The Blessed Third - Silver - IC LXXXI

    Galahad Galapagos - Gold - IC LXXXIV

    Sai-don, Knight of the Tide - Bronze - IC LXXXIV

  8. - Top - End - #98
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Quote Originally Posted by WhamBamSam View Post

    *Worships ideal of Drow and Dwarf but never ever casts. What motivates this ideologically is left as an exercise for the reader.
    "Living underground"
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  9. - Top - End - #99
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Venger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Quote Originally Posted by WhamBamSam View Post
    *Worships ideal of Drow and Dwarf but never ever casts. What motivates this ideologically is left as an exercise for the reader.
    The letter d.
    I've got a new fantasy TTRPG about running your own fencing school in a 3 musketeers pastiche setting. Book coming soon.

    Check out my NEW sci-fi TTRPG about first contact. Cool alien races, murderous AIs, and more. New expansion featuring rules for ships! New book here NOW!

    Quote Originally Posted by weckar View Post
    Venger, can you be my full-time memory aid please?
    Iron Chef Medals!
    Amazing Princess Mononoke avatar by Dispozition

  10. - Top - End - #100
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Eternally sorry for the delays, guys. Real life is so silly.

    Full judgement going up tomorrow.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  11. - Top - End - #101
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Jesus F****** Christ.

    Back up your ****, guys. Always.

    One more delay. Very sorry, embarrassed and most of all annoyed.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  12. - Top - End - #102
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    I have not had the time this week to post a reveal anyway, so do not feel bad.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  13. - Top - End - #103
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Judgement! I swear, every time I decide to judge my life decides to spontaneously combust - this time joined by my technology as well. I'm actually a very punctual person IRL, though you wouldn't know it from my work on this forum.

    Anyway, here are your builds!
    Spoiler: Noah Itall
    Show
    Originality:

    I like the commitment to the draconic scholar theme. Every class of yours (save monk) touches on one of these two pillars, and one of your first level feats immediately brings them together, establishing the theme (though more on that in elegance).

    What I'm not a fan of is the class structure. Well, obviously there isn't much to talk about entry class creativity here usually, but taking both classes is kind of funny to me. Halfling monk is cute, though not very well used IMO, and Strongheart halfling is not good here, obviously.

    But at the end of the day, excepting halfling monk, every class level you have is either the SI or a casting progression class advancing your archivist T1 casting. And it's not like we're seeing you do all of this to pull of some weird tactic that's uniquely suitable to your build – aside from the thematic cohesion, most of this is made from bog-standard ingredients, even if they're a poor fit for what you can actually do. I'm never going to raise my eyebrows at someone telling me they use divine power and bite of X spells.

    I will grant you that I haven't really seen singer of concordance feature before – which is strange. It's easy to enter, fully progresses casting, and has a third level ability which could be used in a whole bunch of fun ways – even if you don't really do anything with that. All this to say, the particular full adcancement classes you've picked aren't as bad here as they could've been.

    Other than that… Craven is going to induce a huge eyeroll from me every time. As will persistomancy, so it's good you've left it as a sidenote. Your spell list is mostly standard even outside of the main spells you keep mentioning, but I'll give you a nod for summon giant, which is at least fun.

    Overall, this build used extremely common/cheesy elements, and didn't utilize them to achieve anything innovative or unique. It is held aloft by the virtue of a strong theme and a couple of slightly unusual choices.

    I guess that I should also give a nod (but no more than that) for archivist here. Even if it was obvious to every experienced person here what the 2 entry classes here, I recognize that for less experienced readers this would be surprising.

    Score: 1.45 points.


    Power:

    What's up with skirmish, my man? You went for it immediately, and you mention it often – but not only is it never developed, you don't feature any way to use it consistently in combat. Your early levels breakdown mentions it and includes it in the damage calculations of your bite and your unarmed strike – but you feature no way to full attack after moving! Halfling monk and skirmish are almost entirely a waste here.

    I also don't know where the +2 to damage is coming from in these level 5 calculations. Maybe you thought you had 12 STR? You have 10. I'll remind you that you're MAD as hell, which as you'll soon see is an issue that absolutely plagues your build. Whenever I complain about DCs and damage, that MADness is partly to blame.

    So actually, your full attack routine, requiring a round of buffing, does 1d4+1d3 if both hit, for an average of 4.5 damage per round – the damage done by a strength 10 character hitting someone with a mundane longsword, except the longsword has a better chance to crit.

    All of this to say, this character's breakdown heavily focuses on buffing and going into combat, but you suck at that up to level 8. Like, seriously terrible.

    Granted, the following levels bring winds of change. Knowledge devotion is very helpful. Divine power is another round of buffing, but it's better than bite of the were-rat by virtue of full BaB alone, so you're still better than you were even if you don't have as many rounds to buff as you wish. Subtle ancestor can be helpful with a flanking body, and the swordsage dip further cements you as an actual combatant. 12 is an UGLY level for a martial dip, and oh boy will we cover that dip in elegance. Jesus christ. By the way, would not enjoy your sneak attack by virtue of making the enemy flat footed – that only happens after they take the damage, if it happens at all with your DC 15 fort save at that point. And it ends by the start of their next turn, so it only helps the party – you'll never be able to capitalize on it. It is the first time you've offered a tactic that can actually enjoy skirmish, so good for you on that front I guess.

    Speaking of sneak attack – you're extremely reliant on a flank body, and you only get one natively once per encounter. You keep mentioning catching enemies flatfooted, but… You're reliant on 2 different round/level buffs and the dark knowledge move action. When are you ever going to catch your enemies flatfooted? This problem becomes even more severe the more your swift actions become crowded as you progress.

    And where do you progress? Craven, as much as I dislike it, is a power bump, sure – but at the end of the day, you've peaked at 12. Some decent defensive options, excluding your capstone, which doesn't mesh with anything you do. You can't attack while using refuge, it's a once per combat defense at most. And since you want to take AOOs on anyone attacking you, and you don't have free or swift actions outside of your turn, you'd basically never use it. Aside from that… Nada. The same fourth level spells, the same sneak attack dice, same everything. The best thing you have for me at 20th level is an extremely mediocre attack routine relying on your hide/move silently, which without darkstalker has been completely useless for 5 levels if I'm being extremely generous.

    Now, there are good things in this category, too. You're an excellent knowledge monkey, with lore and the SI to back you up. You have 4th level spells as a prepared caster from level 10. Even if your breakdowns keep focusing on buffing spells for your god awful combat routine of "buff for three rounds and then attack with all the might of a 6th level warrior with a longsword", that doesn't mean you can't cast utility spells, or just cast polymorph and turn into something useful. Defense also counts for something, and you've done a good job at that.

    Overall, That's not enough to salvage this category for you, but you're far from getting a 1 here, like most of what I said my have implied – not with tier 1 casting that's only slightly stagnated during your first 10 levels, even if it goes nowhere after that.

    Score: 2.25 points.


    Elegance:

    General boring stuff: you've sourced everything, good. I'm beginning to shift away from paying attention to things like the way a build flows from class to class, dipping, and the way levels are spread out – but I still penalize multiclass penalties. You have them from the get-go, and they get worse with the swordsage dip. But let’s move on to the actual build discussion.

    Am I going insane?

    Or do you straight up not qualify for draconic knowledge? It's one of your first level feats, it's extremely central to your build, and you just don't meet the prerequisites at all. I'm genuinely weirded out by this DQ – did you just like, forget draconic heritage?

    Bigger oof: Where the maneuvers at, bro?! Again, am I going insane?! Why do I have to play your little puzzle in order to figure out what your basic class features are? You mention assasin's stance by name, but the rest – Shadow Garrote, cloak of deception, shadow jaunt, and distracting ember (I guess?) – I had to extrapolate those from your tactics section, and I'm still missing two maneuvers! WHY?

    In regards to the 3rd level SLA that qualifies you for Paragnostic Apostle, if your DM randomly decides that you need to have called Eldritch Ancestor to actually have access and, therefore, qualify and make the build work, remind him that you still qualify for a PrC requiring 3rd level casting when you’re out of spells slots for the day. This ought to be enough to quell this silly argument.
    Referencing a possible argument against your case and then calling it silly is in bad taste, IMO. No score reduction for that bad taste, of course, but still. If it's a bad silly argument that's incredibly obvious to anyone with a brain, don't even acknowledge it. If it isn't (and it isn't) don't call it silly and pretend like the answer is clear as sky. Your DM could kindly remind you that a wizard who retrained their wizard levels to fighter levels doesn't qualify, even if they could retrain back. That wouldn't be a perfectly analogous case, and I'd argue against it – but I'd argue that your analogy is even worse, and less similar to the situation at hand. What is the situation at hand exactly, by the way? Is it swapping an ancestor, or a touchstone site? My case stands for both, but I'm confused, which brings me to my next point:

    Most of all, I don't know what the hell you're talking about in this section to begin with. Given that you're qualifying through healing waters of Abu-Ima (hilarious name to me, by the way) and immediately self-qualify through third level spells the moment you actually take the class – what do you even want? You just shoved a terrible argument presented badly into this entry for something your build doesn't even need/use. Weird vibes. My best guesses are either that these are remnants from a completely different version of the build, or you just forgot while working on the build that you can qualify for apostle with spells.

    That second explanation might also explain your rant about being able to finally switch to the tomes of enlightenment. To be clear: I don't have any idea what you're talking about. I don't have a clue why you need an SLA with a high spell level for anything. My best guess is again, that you somehow forgot that you don't have to have an SLA for paragnostic apostle, because you can just… cast spells.

    And let's talk about spells.

    Archivist is always walking a dangerous line in these competitions. On the one hand, judges will always scoff at you for bookdiving for cheesy earlier-level spells, especially given the fact that this implies very excessive item reliance, which is penalized in elegance. The more exotic the spell, and the earlier you wish to get your hands on it, the harder it is to swallow that you've found/bought the right scroll.

    This is similar to the issue you've suffered from in originality: in the end, playing with tier 1 is playing with fire. You need to make sure you've justified in other categories what you've lost there – and in the case of archivist exotic spells, what you lose here, too.

    We have and will discuss the way these things went in other categories, but here we have a unique case of an extra issue in this category: either you're playing in a world in which druid-specific bite of the wererat scrolls are easily accessible at level 4, like mage armor scrolls made by clerics with the force domain and scrolls by disciples of Thyrm; Or you're playing in a world where an archivist adventurer could reasonably expect to rocket up the ladder of the Paragnostic Assembly by virtue of finding spells. You can't have both, you just can't.

    Some smaller points:[list][*]Language on lore of the gods not requiring you to be a cleric of a deity, just to worship it, is a good catch. Well done.[*]Mind over body doesn't work on polymorph. Replacing your ability modifier isn't the same as granting a bonus/penalty. Speaking of, and this doesn't come with an associated penalty: when choosing a class feature, please try to either note it in the build table or immediately upon taking the class in the breakdown. Having to find the knowledge is power feature you picked buried as an aside underneath recommended spells for these levels is not ideal. [*]In regards to craven, you claim that the first fear effect each day is null anyway because of singer of concordance. That's not true. Fear and compulsion are not the same thing.

    Overall, this build is a giant mess on all fronts.

    Score: 1.25 point.


    UoSI:

    This category can be a challenge for someone like you, who's nearly a full caster. This is because how well you used this class will always be partially affected by your obvious alternatives. It isn't the be-all-and-end-all of this category, not by a mile, and it doesn't mean you have to be more powerful than you would've been without it – but it does mean you're being held to a somewhat higher standard.

    So, what do you do with the SI?

    Well, as a 1/week ability, ancestral lore having backup is actually nice, and the investment in concentration makes sense regardless of it. That's nice. That logic, however, doesn’t apply to slippery mind IMO. Imagine someone with a 50% chance on average to pass a relevant will save. Slippery mind brings that down to 25%. That guy moved from being compelled half the time to a quarter of the time. That's a significant difference, that is going to come into play a lot. Let's say over time, that person's been subjected to 20 compulsion effects – the feature will block 5 of them.

    You've already got a better anti-compulsion feature, and a pretty busted will save too. The amount of times you'll get compelled is pretty damn near 0 anyway. It never hurts to get extra defense, sure, but it's superfluous. Much more so than static bonuses, rerolls become more effective the more your chances are closer to 50-50. If you only succeed on a nat 20, a reroll is very rarely going to help. If you only fail on a nat 1, (and even that only from the second time onward each day that you've been subjected to a compulsion effect), a reroll is very rarely going to be necessary. I had a similar discussion with a contestant in the Crimson Scourge round, and I always hate to point this out, but you're getting treated here with "less than expected utility". Sorry.

    Your "investment" into detect Dragonblood earns you a nod here. It's still useless and dumb, but it is there. You also deserve a nod for qualifying for Singer of Concordance with a prereq of the SI.

    Let's talk ancestors. Unfortunately, I feel that over and over during this build you've made your ancestors irrelevant, redundant, or outright harmful. I wouldn't care about that as much if it was clear to me what you were doing in this class, if at least 1 or 2 ancestors were what you're all about.

    Rampaging ancestor is again addressing an issue you don't really have (very high will), and is extremely counter-synergic with craven. Subtle ancestor is decent, and is your main focus in this build. You keep up the relevant skills, and have a bite to add to your full attacks – but you don't make enough of an effort to be able to sneak attack consistently, IMO, and that effort is mostly voided by needing two rounds of buffing for your basic combat utility. The only thing you actually use it for is craven – and by that point you've qualified for that with assassin's stance, anyway. You're in this awkward spot where you're not a full sneak attacker, but it isn't your only source (thus, not the thing allowing you to access craven). You have the skills, but no darkstalker. This is your best case for (mechanically) caring about the SI, and the result is just… kind of meh?

    Eldritch ancestor is turned into a joke immediately by shadow garrote. Why would you give up on the advantages of another ancestor for a worse version of something you took independently? Eldritch ansector is solely useful as an anti-undead/construct option. Again, your build choices making the SI redundant and superfluous, instead of investing somewhere that'd compliment it.

    Enduring ancestor is static defense. DR is mainly helpful as an alternative to AC, IMO, not as an addendum to it, but whatever. You get the expected use, basically, but nothing more than that. Granted, that's very hard to do with this particular ancestor, which is just "good numbers". Ancient ancestor – the only thing I can give you here is having good dex once you've boosted yourself. You don't make any further investment into AOO (excepting snap kick, which is completely dysfunctional so I'm ruling it out). Your only independent means of getting sneak attack only work for your turn. And again, you try your best to make it less useful by using refuge. Even if we're assuming you're flanking with a body, all an enemy needs to do in response is 5-foot step, and all you have going for you as a 20th level character after two rounds of buffing is 1d8 + okay static numbers. Less than expected utility.

    Overall, I don't feel that you've invested at all in this SI. I mostly feel like you made a monk because you should, made an archivist because you could, and kind of went on from there without really thinking about what the class features actually do and how to support them. Rather, you just kept advancing casting, kept making (bad) advancements of your melee tactics, and hoped for the best.

    Score: 1.7 points.


    Total Score: 6.65 points.I'm sorry for such a bad score. I think I'm becoming a meaner judge as time goes on. I'm just doing my job the best I can, but I always feel bad criticizing the hard work of others so harshly. I want to talk a bit more about this entry in general.

    I Loved the theme. I'm Conflicted about your presentation – some information is very clearly communicated and helpful, while some is hidden or straight up missing – and instead we have weird long rants about nothing, it seems. I deeply dislike how messy and inattentive this entry is, and how much it really is a big fat nothing sandwich when it comes to what I'm led to believe are your areas of focus – combat and the SI. This ingredient sucks, and I empathize with you – but this is an optimization competition, and I need more than a cool theme and 10 levels of the SI.

    If I'm being honest, this reminds me of my first entry to the competition ever, back in the atavist round, with Anadina the Mad. Strong investment in the theme, trying to pay attention to each class feature – but in the end, not really optimizing anything, and focusing on unique new options I found exciting at the time (in my case, VoP and Cloistered Cleric devotion feat swap) rather than on actually doing anything interesting with what the SI had to offer. I worked around the SI more than I worked for it.

    This entry is better than Anadina, and shows a far deeper familiarity with the material and a better eye for character building, but in the end, it's the same issue. Add that to rules sloppiness, accidental counter-synergy, and serious presentation issues, and you come out with a bad score. Again, I'm sorry about that. I'm sure you will do (and have done) better on flashier ingredients that can actually spark the imagination.

    Better luck next time!


    Spoiler: Samantha d'Jorasco
    Show
    Originality:

    Yet another MAD halfling monk sneaking around snap-kicking people? Well, I won't hold it against you. Hope you do better here than the last one.

    Fluff is short and sweet. I like how deeply entrenched it is in Eberron lore.

    Monk, of course, is expected, but I can't say I thought about DFA – even though it seems obvious, now that I look at it.

    The trick with Nosomatic Chirurgeon is something I've been aware of since Killer Mike back in the Disciple of Mammon round, but it's still creative, and I can't say that it sprung to my mind here. Nice – it makes for unconventional tactics using unconventional materials to do so.

    Feat choices are a mixed bag here, and we'll talk more about some of them in later categories. Overall, it's a positive.

    Overall, not bad at all. Pretty creative stuff. Nothing here that blows my mind, but a couple that would have if I was a newer judge, which counts for something at least.

    Score: 3.75 points.


    Power:

    Your early levels are great. Entangling exhaltation at 1, HiPS and soulwarp strike at 3… But how well do you hold up?

    The eldritch ancestor trick is… decent. At the end of the day, it isn't enough damage to be super impactful; It's just half a point better on average than the ranged option, and it hinders your action economy – though it does play nice with skirmish. It's a nice option to have, but with so much effort poured into it, I feel kind of sad that the damage is so mediocre. Even loading it into an unarmed strike will sometimes prove not worth the effort – moving from touch AC to normal AC will occassionally prove a bad trade, even with the added benefit. I think you should've dipped Noso 1 much, much earlier, but I get wanting to avoid that.

    As an aside: Since judging Killer Mike, I've come to the conclusion that the best use of this combo would be duskblade 13, Noso 1, Disciple of Mammon 3, Something 3, with mastery of day and night and perhaps the TWF tree. That relies on the interpretation that duskblade 13 can affect the same character multiple times, but it's solid other than that. There's probably a better source of at-will 4th or higher SLA out there, but DoM is the best of the ones I've checked.

    Your side gig as a healer is cute. It's a useful tool to have for emergencies once you get your hands on heal, but you're no healer, truly. I appreciate the slightly improved action economy, though.

    Hiding is great, but it's not backed up by anything. It's awesome in combat, but you don't have the skill support to also be a pseudo rogue/ranger.

    But at the end of the day, you're pretty trash as a combatant, I think. Noso comes too late for its DCs to be relevant, most healing comes too late, Your damage is low… You've made a focused build and it's clear what you're about and how you approach combat, but you're just sort of trash. I think cutting down on Noso levels, turning it into a far earlier 1 level dip, and then finding some actual martial prowess with your remaining 4 levels could've made for a much more compelling build in this catrgory.


    Overall, you have excellent early-game, and you're being held aloft by Blend into shadows, but most of your options come weak or come late. You sort of suck a little bit.

    Score: 1.6 points.


    Elegance:

    Simplicity does not equal elegance, and I care less and less about dipping and completing PRCs as time goes on – but completing 2 PRCs, and moving neatly from one class to another throughout your career is still nice.

    Anyway: this build pulls off some real RAW nonsense to HiPS as a swift action at will. But does it work? I had a longer paragraph here before losing my file about whether or not you can sacrifice a "use" of an at-will SLA, which is a trick you pull twice in this build. The conclusion was that language in the SRD section on SLAs leans in your favor, implying at-will is "infinite uses" rather than "NA uses".
    A spell-like ability usually has a limit on how often it can be used. A spell-like ability that can be used at will has no use limit.
    So, good job on that front! Having two central options in your build relying on the same clever rules interaction definitely earns you points here. I'm always a fan of strict RAW readings that manage to work out without a hitch. But speaking of RAW nonsense, there are a few things we have to address.

    So, maybe you've already encountered this judging tool I use with entries like this. I call it "Live By The RAW, Die By The RAW". Basically, it means that when building an entry, you can say "It's stupid, but it's RAW" or you can say "well, RAI is clearly this," and "Any reasonable DM would rule that…" – but you can't do both.

    That means that if you're going to look me in the eyes and tell me about you hiding in the area of magical darkness concealed within your own underwear, then don't complain when I tell you that Nosomatic Chirurgeon doesn't advance your invocations.

    Well, probably.

    Nosomatic Chrurgeon has some very unusual language regarding its spell advancement.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dragonmarked
    If you have no levels in any spellcasting class, this class grants you the spellcasting ability of the adept (DMG 107) from 1st to 4th level. You do not gain levels in the adept class nor any of the other features of that class, but simply adopt that class's spellcasting progression and spell list as the spellcasting ability of this class.
    There's an argument to be made about which is the specific and which is the general rule, enough for me not to drop the hammer here, but I'd say your case is definitely weaker. You could try to claim that getting both is an option, but the bolded sentence clearly states that the adept casting replaces the normal features. Now, obviously, there's a case to be made that 5th level adept spellcasting is actually better than see the unseen and humanoid shape, but this isn't power – it's elegance, and this whole mess is not elegant.

    So, that's it about Nosomatic Chirurgeon, but it's not it when it comes to problematic RAW in your build. Let's talk about snap kick.

    To me, snap kick works pretty clearly RAI: Once on your turn, when using an action to make melee attack(s), you can make 1 additional unarmed strike. You have to declare doing so before making any attacks, and take -2 to hit for the round. Essentially, it's Flurry of Blows unchained. You'll note that IMO, RAI does not support snap kicks on AoOs. You didn't explicitly call those out, but I'm mentioning them here.

    However, Samantha can't appeal to RAI anyway. She appeals to RAW. So, what is the RAW of snap kick?

    Quote Originally Posted by ToB p.32
    When you make a melee attack with one or more melee weapons (including a standard attack, full attack, or even a strike maneuver), you can make an additional attack at your highest attack bonus. This attack is an unarmed attack that deals damage equal to your base unarmed attack damage + 1/2 your Str bonus. You take a -2 penalty on all attack rolls you make this round.
    There is no such thing as a melee attack with more than one melee weapon. But the "or" would mean the feat would be fine, if that was the only issue. Much more importantly though, a full attack cannot be "included" in a list of melee attacks, as it isn't one. The feat is wrong about itself. RAW, it's nonsensical. Taking "melee attack" as the authoritative part and ignoring or trying to smooth over everything else is IMHO going beyond the realm of RAW interpretation, and into adjudication. Houseruling. There is no readable RAW of snap kick, IMO. I know many disagree, and think of the "including" section being wrong as trivial, and not at the core of the feat. Others will try to frame the RAI as RAW, and ignore the "melee attack" predicator. I disagree.

    On a side note, I also find it interesting that the (very common) reading that allows snap kick on AoO cannot find any reasonable way to avoid snap kick granting snap kick other than "it obviously isn't sensible."

    Either way, whether or not you try to pull off a permissive reading or not, you still have this RAW black hole in the middle of your RAW-Reliant build, so it's a penalty.

    Other than all of this mess, we also have the issue with sourcing Saurial. It's a smaller issue, but if something is your combat form when your build hits its peak, you should source it. This isn’t just me being strict: your combat form is buried in the last page of a serpent kindgdoms web enhancement I didn't even know existed, which is also cross-setting material. I feel like this entire thing could've been handled better here.

    Overall, a lot of cleanliness and cleverness that would otherwise give you big wins here save you from the disgrace of how bad it could've gone.

    Elegance score increased due to dispute.

    Score: 2.5 points 3.25 points.


    UoSI:

    Pretty strong category for you.

    You have a very good case for expanding on eldritch ancestor, converting it into a melee option. This gives you significantly more versatility. Even if it didn't shine too bright in power, it does very well here. I'd also say that your Noso tactics in general mean you have more reason to attack unarmed than most. I'll give you a nod for the cute synergy with just general monk stuff from the SI.

    Subtle ancestor gets better than expected use – the HiPS and Darkstalker combo comes early and helps you both benefit from the skill bonus and enable the sneak attack. Good stuff. The rest gets about expected utility from you, but optimizing two ancestors and being able to use the rest efficiently is great.

    Overall, a good fit for most f the SI with excellent ways to enable one ancestor and to greatly expand another.

    Score: 4.35 points.


    Total Score: 12.95 points. Samantha features good attention to the SI, but is hindered by a lack of attention to the fine letters on a build that's based on fine letters, and fails to truly utilize every level and feat at her disposal to follow up on the strong premise. We couldn't see eye to eye here. My general point stands, but is irrelevant to the way you attempted to build this.


    Spoiler: Naughty Loafer
    Show
    Originality:

    On the one hand, wow. Seriously, wow. I've had Modrons on my mind lately, what with a Quinton showing up on oots, but still, I would've never thought of something like this in a million years. Incredible.

    On the other hand, this is just a psion (One of the strongest T2 classes, IMO) with some SI taped on top as a joke. Like, what you've managed to achieve is impressive, but the fact that you achieved it with "just get 9ths lol" isn't playing in your favor here.

    I've had a way longer rant explaining myself here originally, and clarifying in different ways that this isn't "penalizing for power", but I don't have it in me to rewrite it right now, and I think you get where I'm coming from.

    Overall… not much to talk about except "Full caster manifester 17" on the one hand and "the madman actually did it" on the other. Psychic meditation is weird.

    Score: 4.1 points.


    Power:

    So, obviously, you start off a bit on the weak side for a psion, but you get to the good stuff soon enough, and at the end we're talking about a straight psion here, all the way to 9ths – even if just one 9th.

    Powers are sort of a mixed bag. Not having the feat space for expanded knowledge puts you at a disadvantage, sure, but some of your picks are just… weird. 7th level is full of absolute bangers, and as an egoist you can get fission. And you choose… Sequester? You never explain why, and it's weird. Other choices are suboptimal, but adapted to the secundus form. And let's talk about that.

    200 xp cost. That alone makes half your feats and 3 of your levels extremely situational. To be a Secundus 10+ hours per day, you'd have to sacrifice an absolutely insane amount of xp.

    True metamorphosis is, therefore, very situational. You can use it here and there as a combat buff, when you can afford the action economy – but you can't be adventuring as a secundus. It's also… still built on top of a half BaB chassis, you know. In those terms, going foe Egoist 8/ Slayer 10/ SI 2 would've been far better – but if we start removing SI levels from this build, we wouldn't stop, so I get why you didn't go there.

    Overall, you've got a slightly unoptimized psion with 3 dead levels and a trick that doesn't quite work. That's still very good.

    Score: 4.65 points.


    Elegance:

    Well, you know by this point that I don't hold to the "Elegance=Simplicity" view, but if I would, going straight egoist for seventeen levels would surely help you. Everything is sourced excellently. Powers are slightly subpar (you'd do better pointing out which ones are from which book) but I don't really have an issue with that.

    What I do have an issue with is qualifying for the class. It's always a headache when you take something you only qualify for occasionally. Some things I'll nearly always let slide – if you're a druid you're in wild shape most of the time, so leveling up "while" in wild shape makes sense. This though? Every time you use your trick to qualify, you're pushed further from leveling up. I guess the duration is enough to say you win a combat while in Secundus form, and level up? I'm not killing your build here, but that's ugly.

    Stacking psion levels with effective monk levels is clever. It circumvents the argument about whether or not you can stack with 0 levels of monk, and it's a good way to actually utilize being a Secundus. Nice! In general, I feel like every feat in the build has one of two uses: better monk **** or doing monk **** for longer, by being a better psion. The only exception is Dragontouched, which is a prereq. Good stuff.

    That's a good point to mention the effective character levels. I think you're within a fair interpretation of RAW, but having to independently update to 3.5, and ignoring the actual text of the combat section for an explanation that shows up in what's commonly referred to as "fluff text" definitely leaves you vulnerable. Your reading of Modron is 100% within RAI, I think, but that hardly matters here, of course.

    Aging is a slap on the wrist from me, personally.

    Overall, mostly good stuff standing on shaky ground.

    Score: 3.4 points.


    UoSI:

    Never have I come closer to giving someone a 0 in this category. This was hilarious. You won the bet! Well done.

    Score: 1 point.


    Total Score: 13.15. You knew what you wanted, and you went for it. But even once you've achieved it, you still devoted time and effort to make everything come together as nicely as you could. I'm always a fan of that. Well done!


    Spoiler: Mr. Neighsayer
    Show
    Originality:

    Gods, I haven't thought about that in years. Earlier Youtube was wild, I tell you. The plane bit got me, well done.

    Devoted defender was something I played with when I tried building for this, as often with tanky ingredients, but using it on a mount was not something I saw coming. Human monk is, of course, the baseline, and generally dipping ToB is to be expected in martial oriented SIs.

    However, the particulars are definitely unique, and not just the "Designate mount as charge so I my attack can be designated as charge on mount" thing. Clarion commander? Undermountain tactics? What is this?

    Overall, mixing up somewhat common ingredients to create a very unique cocktail. Well done.

    Score: 4.5 points.


    Power:

    Contrary to what you may have heard, size does matter. That is, as mentioned in elegance, you only get highground against medium or smaller enemies, and you can only overrun large or smaller enemies – because as you've established, it's you doing the overrunning, not Mhia. That's a very limiting factor.

    You also have to reckon with the fact that Mhia's overrun bonus isn't that great. I disagree that you had to go with run and endurance, but even if I didn’t: where's mauling gauntlets? Where's improved overrun? Do you know what can happen to you at the event if failure? Disastrous.

    So, the combo is kind of limited: it only works on large or smaller opponents (medium or smaller, ideally), doesn't work on flatfooted opponents or opponents who've already expended their AoO, and risks an opponent throwing you off your horse far too often. Which, with the 5 feet back rule, might also mean you can no longer protect that amazing creature.

    It's also less potent than you make it out to be, I think: the rules for mounted combat say "If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge." Overrun happens while moving, which is decidedly not at the end of a charge. It'd also probably require 2 targets to work – one to charge, one to overrun on the way – and they'd have to be aligned properly.

    All this, however, also assumes that the combo works at all, which I'm not fully buying. I'm questioning myself just enough to still give you credit in this category, but we're certainly about to have a discussion in elegance.

    Other than the combo… I mean, power attacking with a two handed weapon is a good chassis, mounted charge is a good chassis. You can do damage. You can play defender, when not busy defending your amazing mount. That role would play very well with your decisive strike. You're good at supporting a melee party.

    Giving up monking has its advantages, I guess.

    Score: 3.35 points.


    Elegance:

    Trading places with your mount because you RAW share the same space anyway is brilliant. Nothing says you need to dismount or anything. It's a very cool find. Undermountain tactics is also cool. I did know being mounted counted as high ground (though only against enemies smaller than your mount) but I never made the connection. Neat!

    I'm also a big fan of how focused the build is, how efficient it is, and how everything comes together. I'm also a big fan of your presentation here! So very clear, and sourced so comfortably. Great! Not a dead level or feat in the thing.

    As I've elaborated before, class background is always going to be a very harsh penalty from me. It's an optional rule, explicitly stating that it should not be used on one character and not the others to avoid an uneven playing ground. It's a flaw, basically. Having a truly excellent fluff justification for it in the source material doesn't fix the issue.

    I was ready to get all smug with telling you Thicket of Blades is third level, and per the RAW you were obligated to take a first level stance, live by the RAW die by the RAW, etc. Then you went and paid attention to that, and didn't even take thicket of blades. Well done.

    A slap on the wrist for giving me a Mhia summary instead of (even a quick) table. What are the rest of her skill points? Could be relevant. Where are her ability bonuses at every fourth HD going? I would assume strength, but I shouldn't have to assume.

    Hate the rules compendium ruling. Stupid. I've tried putting together an argument for trample not actually giving you the hoof attack, but I can't stand by it as a legitimate interpretation of RAW. However, I completely disagree with the interpretation that you can hoof someone you knocked down with undermountain tactics. That sentence is predicated on the previous one. If you ignore that predication, you might as well say your mount gets a hoof attack against anyone you trip, even if it's a 1000 miles away. No.

    Okay, I've strained you enough. Why do I doubt the combo? Well, mounted combat, as you know, has this rule:
    If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack.
    Now, what does that mean? Can you not make any more attacks, ever? One per round? One per turn? One per action? Or is it just a way to phrase the "no full attacks" rule following it? (Psst! It's these 2 last interpretations that you want!)

    It's ambiguous, but the usual interpretation would be "per round" or "per turn". Not solid enough to void your trick entirely, but it still leaves you with a serious penalty in elegance.

    Overall, beautiful build dealing with some serious issues. Could've still done great here if it wasn't for class background. I kind of wanted to waive it away here, but I have to be fair.

    Score: 3.4 points.


    UoSI:

    I swear, I want to give this build more credit here. But in the end… It's about harm's way. It's about clarion's call. It's about trample. The extra attack from ancient ancestor? It's the third one. It's icing on the cake. It's very good icing, but no more than that. Enduring ancestor gets better than expected use by knowing that you're going to get opportunity attacked very often, sure. And you have the constant flanking thing for subtle ancestor, but you're not a full attacker, you don't have the damage delivery system to make it work. I guess you're making better than expected use of rampaging ancestor? Static bonuses are better on mounted chargers and power attackers, after all.

    But you don't make use of the monk abilities or the trash, and you're not really elevating the ancestors enough to fully make up for that.

    Don't get me wrong – you're doing alright here. But at first glance, this build felt to me like it should do amazingly here – and it doesn't.

    Score: 3.75 points.


    Total Score: 15 points. Do narwhals next.


    Thanks for participating, guys! This was a tough ingredient, and I'm very glad you all stepped up!
    Last edited by H_H_F_F; 2022-09-27 at 05:17 PM.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  14. - Top - End - #104
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    This week is going to be busy for me, so I'm going to say chefs have until 13:59 Saturday October 1st for disputes, if any. If everything wraps up earlier I may be able to do the reveal during the week, depending on the whims of fate.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  15. - Top - End - #105
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Name Alignment / Race Class Levels Chef Judge 1: Inevitability Judge 2: H_H_F_F Total Place
    Noah Itall L(?)N Strongheart Halfling Invisible Eye Style Halfling Monk 1/Archivist 4/Paragnostic Apostle 1/Singer of Concordance 3/Dragon Descendant 10/Swordsage 1 14.00 6.65 20.65 4th
    Samantha d'Jorasco L? Halfling Dragonfire Adept 2/Soulwarp Strike Halfling Monk 3/Dragon Descendant 10/Nosomatic Chirurgeon 5 16.50 12.95 29.45 2nd
    Naughty Loafer CN Changeling Changeling Egoist 17/Dragon Descendant 3 13.00 13.15 26.15 3rd
    Mr. Neighsayer LN Human " Overwhelming Attack Style Invisible Fist Decisive Strike Monk 3/Fighter 2/Dragon Descendant 10/Devoted Defender 2/Crusader 3" 14.75 15 29.75 1st

    Thank you very much for judging, H_H_F_F! Very thorough and fun to read.

    Updated 2022-09-27
    Last edited by Zaq; 2022-09-27 at 08:51 PM.
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  16. - Top - End - #106
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Thank you very much for your efforts.

    One dispute for you H_H_F_F.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha d'Jorasco
    Hiding is great, but it's not backed up by anything. It's awesome in combat, but you don't have the skill support to also be a pseudo rogue/ranger.
    Both judges mentioned this and I have to say I don't really understand the criticism? On this build, hiding is a combat strategy, and sometimes, as a bonus, it might also allow for sneaking past enemies to bypass an encounter sometimes. Can't a girl just put points in invisibility without suddenly being expected to also pick locks, disarm traps, and find secret doors?

    So, maybe you've already encountered this judging tool I use with entries like this. I call it "Live By The RAW, Die By The RAW". Basically, it means that when building an entry, you can say "It's stupid, but it's RAW" or you can say "well, RAI is clearly this," and "Any reasonable DM would rule that…" – but you can't do both.

    That means that if you're going to look me in the eyes and tell me about you hiding in the area of magical darkness concealed within your own underwear, then don't complain when I tell you that Nosomatic Chirurgeon doesn't advance your invocations.
    How is this hinging on a RAW technicality? Blend into Shadows doesn't let you hide in darkness. It lets you hide in plain sight when you are near darkness. You don't have to be in or concealed by the darkness. You don't even have to be adjacent to the darkness. The flavor text of the feat is "You can draw from nearby magical shadow to cloak yourself in darkness." Draw from. It's a source of power, not a source of concealment. I mean, half the point of the effect is that you don't need concealment.

    Do you mean that using it with an at-will SLA is RAW abuse? It seems to me like that's clearly RAI, and the nitpicky reading is the "Actually, it doesn't technically have uses, so you can't expend one" version, not the "Sure, you have unlimited uses, so obviously you can use it unlimited times" version.

    In short, the RAI is clearly this, any reasonable DM would rule that, and I will absolutely 100% live and die by RAI here. Please, by all means, judge me accordingly.

    There's an argument to be made about which is the specific and which is the general rule, enough for me not to drop the hammer here, but I'd say your case is definitely weaker. You could try to claim that getting both is an option, but the bolded sentence clearly states that the adept casting replaces the normal features. Now, obviously, there's a case to be made that 5th level adept spellcasting is actually better than see the unseen and humanoid shape, but this isn't power – it's elegance, and this whole mess is not elegant.
    Again, I will happily live by RAI and die by RAI. The RAI here is that a dragonfire adept who takes a prestige class with "+1 level of existing (arcane) spellcasting class" does not gain the normal benefit of that spellcasting advancement, and instead gains +1 level of invocations and breath weapons. Nosomatic chirurgeon offers "+1 level of spellcasting advancement," so DFA kicks in and replaces that ability with DFA advancement at the appropriate levels. That's RAI, and it's how I presented the build.

    If you do want to talk RAW, it's possible you may have had this discussion before in regards to warlock, and that would be fair, if I were using warlock. With warlock, the wording on the advancement rules is more ambiguous. But the rules for dragonfire adept explicitly say to ignore the normal effect of the "+1 level of spellcasting," whatever the specifics of its text may be, and advance invocations instead. So, the RAW lines up with the RAI, which is that you ignore the part about adept casting and advance DFA. If you want to argue that the line about adept spellcasting still applies since it's separate from the regular casting advancement, so it shouldn't be ignored by DFA, then fine, but all that results in is Samantha getting both progressions, since the adept casting never says anything along the lines of "instead" or "rather than." And even if the DM somehow ruled against both RAI (which says you advance DFA only) and RAW (which also says you advance DFA only) and said the adept casting replaces the DFA advancement—so what? Adept casting is still totally fine for Samantha. It enables spell trigger items, and she's high enough level at that point to be buying a kickass staff. The bottom line is the ruling doesn't matter, because no matter what interpretation you land on, it's good for this character.

    Now, obviously, there's a case to be made that 5th level adept spellcasting is actually better than see the unseen and humanoid shape, but this isn't power – it's elegance, and this whole mess is not elegant.
    I mean, I don't know what else you want from me here. I presented the build under the reading that is the most conservative in power level, the most closely aligned with RAI, and the most closely aligned with RAW, and I also built in such a way that the build doesn't lose any power in the theoretical scenario where the DM rules it another way. What's inelegant about that? Am I getting penalized because I included material that some people think is dysfunctional, even though nothing in my build is reliant on that dysfunction, and the dysfunction in question is dubious to begin with?

    Much more importantly though, a full attack cannot be "included" in a list of melee attacks, as it isn't one. The feat is wrong about itself. RAW, it's nonsensical. Taking "melee attack" as the authoritative part and ignoring or trying to smooth over everything else is IMHO going beyond the realm of RAW interpretation, and into adjudication. Houseruling. There is no readable RAW of snap kick, IMO. I know many disagree, and think of the "including" section being wrong as trivial, and not at the core of the feat. Others will try to frame the RAI as RAW, and ignore the "melee attack" predicator. I disagree.
    Once again, I challenge you to come up with a version of the RAW where Snap Kick is not beneficial to Samantha. She really doesn't care exactly how the DM interprets it because there's no possible reading where she can't get extra attacks out of it. Honestly, I don't even understand the supposed dysfunction that you're complaining about? If there's no way to interpret Snap Kick so that it doesn't grant infinite attacks...okay? Sure? That's obviously amazing for Samantha, because it means she has infinite attacks and can easily OTK all her enemies. If you're saying that that's cheese and shouldn't be allowed...also okay? I wasn't even expecting it to be allowed, and I certainly wasn't arguing that it should be allowed. One extra attack per turn is awesome. If you want to say that the "one or more melee weapons" clause means it doesn't trigger off of unarmed attacks, since they're made without any weapons, that's not a problem; Samantha is perfectly happy to use a manufactured weapon for her main attack. If you want to say that it doesn't work on opportunity attacks...I mean, it's a weird ruling, but whatever, I wasn't invested in that trick (as you identified). However, if you're arguing that the feat somehow loopholes itself into having no effect whatsoever...well, no offense, but I can't imagine how any good-faith reading of the text could arrive at that conclusion. Even when rules contradict themselves, they don't just vanish in a puff of logic. You throw to the DM, the DM picks one of the conflicting rules to override the other, and the game chugs forward.

    I guess it's just a little strange that you seem to be putting all these dysfunctions in my mouth? I just want to use Snap Kick the way it's intended to be used and make one extra unarmed attack when I attack with my weapon. I never expected or argued for any shenanigans. In fact, I deliberately hewed as closely to RAI as I possibly could in all aspects of the build. I don't understand why you're judging me on all these seemingly irrelevant RAW questions when my entry never mentioned any of them and literally doesn't even care about the answers one way or the other.

    Like, if I had a section in my build about how I'm strategically using low-light vision to double the effective area of my darkness invocation, then you would probably have something to say about that. But I'm not using that trick, and it would be super weird if you saw darkness in my table and then just decided that my build must be inelegant because the rules for magical darkness don't work properly. Similarly, if I submitted a warmage build based on channeling shocking grasp and poison through unarmed strikes, you wouldn't complain in elegance that chill touch is completely dysfunctional and broken and dock me points because warmages happen to automatically have access to it.

    Also, you can't dock me points in elegance for using Snap Kick because you think it grants me an infinite kick loop, and then also dock me points in power because I'm not strong enough in combat. Am I one-shotting everything or not? Make up your mind!

    Samantha features good attention to the SI, but is hindered by a lack of attention to the fine letters on a build that's based on fine letters, and fails to truly utilize every level and feat at her disposal to follow up on the strong premise.
    TL;DR nothing whatsoever in this build is "based on fine letters," and you can take that to the bank.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  17. - Top - End - #107
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Full response will take a bit, I'm celebrating the new year with friends. At a glance, I feel like I didn't make myself clear enough. Sorry about that, Samantha! It seems like our core disagreement is about whether or not your build tries to rely on clearly nonsensical RAW or not. Most everything you point out comes down to that, or to me clearly not communicating myself to well.

    I'll look into your claim that the HiPS trick is within RAI and "reasonable DM" territory. If I come out on your side, most of what you've complained about is gone anyway.

    Shana Tova!
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  18. - Top - End - #108
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Spoiler: Response to Samantha's Dispute
    Show
    Before we get into the thick of it, I wanted to comment on this:
    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha
    Both judges mentioned this and I have to say I don't really understand the criticism? On this build, hiding is a combat strategy, and sometimes, as a bonus, it might also allow for sneaking past enemies to bypass an encounter sometimes. Can't a girl just put points in invisibility without suddenly being expected to also pick locks, disarm traps, and find secret doors?
    I can't speak for anyone else, but the reason I mentioned it isn't that it was penalized in anyway. It was like: "okay, you're getting credit for this unique combat tactic, but if you think you also get some skill monkey points out of it, you aren't really; you'd need more investment for that". You're not expected to have anything, I'm just clarifying that you don't. Another chef in your position might have thought they built an excellent sneak, without thinking about the other aspects required of such a character to function.

    This is also a good example of an issue with my style of judgement, that has shown up a couple of times in this dispute: I talk too much. It has its benefits, but sometimes it makes it hard to know what's a criticism, what's a thought on the build, and what's an interesting aside. I think the upsides are worth it: you get a deep dive into my thoughts on the specifics of your build, and I personally think there's something reassuring about a judgement where the judge clearly put a lot of thought into what I was doing – but it can get confusing. Sorry about that.

    Another clarification before we get into the thick of it is about snap kick. I probably muddied the water with this:
    Quote Originally Posted by my judgement
    On a side note, I also find it interesting that the (very common) reading that allows snap kick on AoO cannot find any reasonable way to avoid snap kick granting snap kick other than "it obviously isn't sensible."
    Note that this is a side note about yet another major weakness of the "clearly this works on an AoO" argument, which you weren't (explicitly) making. My point here isn't "snap kick is broken because it gives you infinite attacks". My point is "snap kick is broken because it doesn't speak in actual game terms." That's why I used the phrase "RAW black hole". In my view, snap kick is as much of a functional feat as a feat saying "you can use a quick action to expend one of your wizard magics to increase the threshold of the next magic you do by an amount equal to the spell points of the magic sacrificed". Sure, it's pretty clear what the RAI here is – but RAW, it's just utter nonsense. I don't need to come up with an interpretation of RAW that's bad to Samantha, because my position here is there is no legitimate interpretation of RAW here.

    Somewhat similar case for adept casting. The point wasn't "you get adept casting", the point was "RAW is murky".

    Anyway, let's get into the majority of your dispute: at the end of the day, the case you make is that you don't have to die by the RAW, because you don't live by it; in other words, that you built this PC to be completely functional in real tables, playing by presumed RAI and common sense.

    I have to admit that I'm a tad surprised by this revelation.
    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha
    And if you don’t want to be surrounded by a blob of dim light all the time, just cast darkness on your underwear. Your clothes will block the emanation, and nobody can say there isn’t an area of magical darkness within 10 feet of you.
    To me, this read as very tongue in cheek, and clearly broadcasted to be a "but the rule technically never says…" sort of argument. So now that it's been clarified that this was a completely serious, non-tongue-in-cheek suggestion, I have to ask myself: is it sensible?

    The question of the "sensible DMness" of sacrificing at-will abilities is… questionable, IMO. Iffy. The language of blend into shadows, for example, clearly assumes you have limited daily uses. But even if it didn't, I'd say there's definitely weirdness there. These are abilities requiring you to sacrifice something, and you end up getting something for nothing. It's an argument waiting to happen, IMO. RAW is ironclad on your side, but I'd say a small penalty for slight shenangians would be in place if I were to judge you by that metric.

    No, the real question is drawing shadows from your underwear to hide yourself in. The very premise of it, with assuming your clothes would block LoE, got me thinking you knew you were pulling some nonsense. Guess I was wrong. Let's just assume you're carrying a darkness pebble in a small meral container hung on a necklace, or something. You have magical darkness with completely blocked of LoE on your person at all times.

    You say this:
    Draw from. It's a source of power, not a source of concealment. I mean, half the point of the effect is that you don't need concealment.
    Which I don't fully agree with. You don't Draw some magical energy, "power", from magical shadow. You just "Draw from magical shadow". I think that clearly means what you draw is… well, magical shadow. If I have to "draw from the waters of the well" what I draw is water, not life essence.

    This distinction is semi-important, because it helps me strengthen why I see this reading as clever RAW manipulation rather than normal play. It would still be relevant with magical energy, but it helps visualize it when we remember it's shadow – and I mean, the feat is called "blend into shadows" – are you really trying to sell me on the intent being no magical darkness or shadow involved? You're drawing shadows from a source near you. They're moving to you. In a sensible game, they'd need to be able to do that, IMO.

    I originally read your build as essentially saying "See how clever I am? They only mentioned range, they forgot LoE!" which to me is clearly assumed.

    I want to make it clear: I'm not trying to "bust" you here. As a DM, in a normal, casual game, I wouldn't let that fly – and not for balance reasons, but because it would feel to me like rules lawyering that doesn't fit the way that magical ability should work. I'd just say "nah, I'm ruling this as requiring LoE, that's clearly how it's [meant to/ supposed to/ should] work."

    But what's new here is that even though I see this, as the end of the day, as a fine-letter reliant build, you didn't see it that way. I can't take the fact that this build isn't reliant on fine print to the bank, because I disagree.

    Now, this is putting me in a weird spot I haven't been in before, I don't think. Because I obviously can't judge your build as having an illegal element here (it's completely legal), and I also don't feel like I can tell you "live by the RAW, die by the RAW" – because it doesn't seem fait to hold you to a standard you didn't "sign up for". But the fact remains that the end product as I see it is one that still tries to dance in both weddings, whether or not that was intended. It's still a build that, IMHO, has to appeal to both strict RAW and to sensible, presumed RAI DMing.

    Best I can give you, I guess, is what you sort of asked for. Essentially, the opposite of "live by the RAW". I'm going to remove all the penalties associated with rules-weirdness in this build, but I'm also going to take away some of the praise for "clever rules interactions", and add penalties for iffyness on the stuff we disagree on.

    This isn't something I like doing. To me, RAW takes precedence, and I personally hate getting an elegance penalty for using what I think is Ironclad RAW just because it'd start an argument at a real table. I also don't really have a strong metric to do that, because I don't do that. But in this particular instance, it doesn't seem like I have a sensible choice. I'm not a fan of this approach, and I hope to never have to take it again – but with the obvious assumption of good faith on your side, it seems like the fairest option,
    -1.0
    +1.75
    Grand total: +0.75 elegance

    Ugh. Such a mess. I'm sorry my judgement obviously rubbed you the wrong way – I hope we can see eye to eye on these subjects in the future!


    Original judgement post will be updated with the new elegance score in a moment.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  19. - Top - End - #109
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Also, since I didn't say this: if they weren't on the pedestal, my HM would go to naughty loafer.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  20. - Top - End - #110
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Table updated accordingly. Thanks again H_H_F_F!
    In the Beginning Was the Word, and the Word Was Suck: A Guide to Truenamers

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc Roc View Post
    Gentlefolk, learn from Zaq's example, and his suffering. Remember, seven out of eleven players who use truenamer lose their ability to taste ice cream.
    My compiled Iron Chef stuff!

    ~ Gay all day, queer all year ~

  21. - Top - End - #111
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    One follow up.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha d'Jorasco
    I originally read your build as essentially saying "See how clever I am? They only mentioned range, they forgot LoE!" which to me is clearly assumed.

    I want to make it clear: I'm not trying to "bust" you here. As a DM, in a normal, casual game, I wouldn't let that fly – and not for balance reasons, but because it would feel to me like rules lawyering that doesn't fit the way that magical ability should work. I'd just say "nah, I'm ruling this as requiring LoE, that's clearly how it's [meant to/ supposed to/ should] work."
    It sounds like you misunderstood my suggestion. I never said it doesn't require LoE. The whole point of putting the darkness under your clothing, rather than in a box or backpack or something, is so that it is right up against your skin, with no barrier in the way. Imagine casting darkness on a pebble, placing it inside a birdcage, then throwing a blanket over the birdcage. Does the canary inside the birdcage have line of effect to the darkness? Answer: Yes. Even though the darkness is blocked by a barrier, that barrier only breaks line of effect for creatures on the opposite side of it. The canary and the pebble are both underneath the blanket together, so their line of effect to one another is unimpeded.

    No, the real question is drawing shadows from your underwear to hide yourself in. The very premise of it, with assuming your clothes would block LoE, got me thinking you knew you were pulling some nonsense. Guess I was wrong. Let's just assume you're carrying a darkness pebble in a small meral container hung on a necklace, or something. You have magical darkness with completely blocked of LoE on your person at all times.
    No, you wouldn't put it into a metal container, because then it doesn't have LoE to you. You and the darkness should both be under the same covering together.

    Which I don't fully agree with. You don't Draw some magical energy, "power", from magical shadow. You just "Draw from magical shadow". I think that clearly means what you draw is… well, magical shadow. If I have to "draw from the waters of the well" what I draw is water, not life essence.

    This distinction is semi-important, because it helps me strengthen why I see this reading as clever RAW manipulation rather than normal play. It would still be relevant with magical energy, but it helps visualize it when we remember it's shadow – and I mean, the feat is called "blend into shadows" – are you really trying to sell me on the intent being no magical darkness or shadow involved? You're drawing shadows from a source near you. They're moving to you. In a sensible game, they'd need to be able to do that, IMO.
    Shadow is a magical power source in D&D, but the distinction is only semantic here. The main concern is that a traditional darkness centered on you provides concealment to people around you, annoying your allies and blocking your precision damage. If the shadows move to cover just you, without creating an area of concealment around you, then that's mission accomplished, and the strategy worked.

    And no, I'm not trying to sell you on the intent being no magical darkness or shadow involved. You need to have the darkness invocation active within 10 feet of you to use the feat. That was never in dispute.

    My point is "snap kick is broken because it doesn't speak in actual game terms." That's why I used the phrase "RAW black hole". In my view, snap kick is as much of a functional feat as a feat saying "you can use a quick action to expend one of your wizard magics to increase the threshold of the next magic you do by an amount equal to the spell points of the magic sacrificed". Sure, it's pretty clear what the RAI here is – but RAW, it's just utter nonsense. I don't need to come up with an interpretation of RAW that's bad to Samantha, because my position here is there is no legitimate interpretation of RAW here.
    As far as I can tell, the only rules keyword in the feat that doesn't have a proper definition is "standard attack," and it's in a parenthetical example where it carries minimal weight, RAW-wise. Melee attack, melee weapon, full attack, strike maneuver, attack bonus, and unarmed attack all have glossary and/or index entries. And the wording is pretty much the same as e.g. Improved Buckler Defense or Distracting Attack, so the syntax isn't especially unusual either.

    Besides, asking "What if the DM rules that Snap Kick simply doesn't work at all under RAW and therefore has no effect?" is not meaningfully different than asking "What if the DM bans Snap Kick at their table?". It's not fair to judge an Iron Chef build like that, because this competition has a defined ban list. In Iron Chef, Snap Kick is not banned or nerfed, and that's that. The possibility that it might be banned in the fashion that you suggest is moot; we are all operating under the basic assumption that it is legal. And if this is really truly a sticking point for you, then I'll appeal to the Chair to make a definitive FAQ ruling on it.

    Somewhat similar case for adept casting. The point wasn't "you get adept casting", the point was "RAW is murky".
    There are a lot of rules that are murky. Natural attacks are murky. Soulmelds are murky. Chill touch is murky. Prestige classes that advance spellcasting are murky. Even the Dodge feat is murky. But you probably wouldn't apply an automatic elegance penalty to any build that uses Dodge, or say that any build with Dodge necessarily has to "dance in both weddings" because the phrase "During your action" doesn't have a clearly defined rules meaning. Nor, I suspect, would you dock points from every incarnum build just because it's unclear in the rules how soulmelds interact with spell resistance, or from every mystic theurge build just because it's unclear whether it advances spells known. Or, to use an even more analogous example, would you still have penalized my build the same way if it had used acolyte of the skin or blood magus instead of nosomatic chirurgeon? Their advancement abilities aren't any less ambiguous—they both say they don't provide any other benefits beyond spells per day and spells known, which should preclude any advancement of breath weapon or invocations known.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  22. - Top - End - #112
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Spoiler: Response 2 to Samantha
    Show
    What if the DM rules that Snap Kick simply doesn't work at all under RAW and therefore has no effect?
    This, and all other comments in the same vein, are missing the point. You're claiming you're not pulling any RAW nonsense here, so it's also irrelevant and we don't need to keep discussing it, but I'll try to clarify it one more time: if an entry is pulling stuff no DM would ever allow because it's technically RAW, I'm also going to punish it for stuff no DM would ever have an issue with because it's technically RAW. It doesn't need to be banned by the competition for me to point that out and address it when appropriate, just like craven doesn't need to be banned for me to find it cheesy and address that in originality.

    Anyway, to the main part of your dispute: we're back at the same juncture of "Holy hell, you think this is RAI? you think this is something a normal table runs? We have very different views on that."

    If your trick has to rely on clothes, specifically clothes, blocking LoE, then you're in much bigger trouble than you were before explaining this. I'm not going to lower your points again because, come on, but like, COME ON!

    I think the RAW of clothes blocking LoE is very damn shaky at best, but the RAI of it? The "normal tableness" of it? No way in ****ing hell and back. You realize that the argument you're making simply has to say that a character wearing a hooded cloak is immune to most magic as long as they're back is turned to the caster? That a character in full plate only has to hang a thin veil on their eyes to be immune to most magic, period? This is even before we start running into the related shady stuff about LoE to only a part of your body, which D&D is really not equipped to handle, because it only references creatures. But we really don't need to get into that, because again, I just don't see any actual table ever letting clothes block LoE, ever - which is why I tried to be generous and said your character has some lead chest or something, because at least then most DMs would be willing to talk.

    In short: I'm again astounded by how differently we think of RAI and normal gaming here. If I didn't think otherwise, I would be absolutely certain that you were consciously trying to pull a (weak) case of RAW here.

    No change in score, because lowering score after a dispute that didn't mean to do that feels nasty and I don't do that.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  23. - Top - End - #113
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    One more message from Samantha d'Jorasco's chef (in the interests of time, I'm going to say this is the final message for this exchange).

    Quote Originally Posted by Samantha d'Jorasco
    Again, I think you've misunderstood what's going on here. A lightproof covering placed over an object can block the magical darkness radiating from it. It's in the spell description for darkness.
    Last edited by The Viscount; 2022-09-29 at 11:02 PM.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  24. - Top - End - #114
    Troll in the Playground
     
    WhamBamSam's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Michigan
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Any guesses as to the next SI? I don't think we've had any hints other than Viscount saying it's bad.

    Iron Chef Medals
    Spoiler
    Show
    Sir Driscoll Conia - Silver - IC L

    Nick Snarespan - Gold - IC LIII

    Lucy "Legs" Silvertail - Bronze - IC LXVIII

    Bolfarg of Knoss - Gold - IC LXXVII

    Ivarr Deathborn - Bronze - IC LXXVII

    Ahmtel - Silver - IC LXXVIII

    Tocke of Nessus - Gold - IC LXXIX

    The Blessed Third - Silver - IC LXXXI

    Galahad Galapagos - Gold - IC LXXXIV

    Sai-don, Knight of the Tide - Bronze - IC LXXXIV

  25. - Top - End - #115
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Somehow it isn't psionics.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  26. - Top - End - #116
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2020
    Location
    Moscow
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    I aspire it's something unupdated 3.0 - Fist of Hextor, Red Avenger, Forsaker. Something like this.
    If you could make anything and everything welcome to the Zinc Saucier XLV: Figaro

    My competition's medals.

    Spoiler: For purposes of clarity
    Show
    1109 is September, 11 - my birthday.

  27. - Top - End - #117
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GnomePirate

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    Jerusalem
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Response to samantha:

    Gotcha. I still think this creates a lot of issues with the system not being able to address LoE to part of a creature, especially when it simply has to go on your skin and not your head - the game gets really weird once you start doing stuff like that.

    However, it's still a better case with most DMs and the RAI than I originally gave you credit for with the lead box, I think. +0.25 in elegance.


    So sorry for the late and short response by the way. I'm in the Sahara, internet and free time have been on short supply. Thanks to all of our chefs for participating, and to Samantha's chef for fighting for their build.
    Screaming defiance with the last breath

    It would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.


    My judgments and medals!

    The Iron Chef Optimization spreadsheet!

    Song, Sword, and Sorcery: my 5E homebrew half-caster bard (Version 2.0!)

  28. - Top - End - #118
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Venger's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    Quote Originally Posted by loky1109 View Post
    I aspire it's something unupdated 3.0 - Fist of Hextor, Red Avenger, Forsaker. Something like this.
    I thought we'd already done forsaker, so would be safe from it. This does not appear to be true.
    I've got a new fantasy TTRPG about running your own fencing school in a 3 musketeers pastiche setting. Book coming soon.

    Check out my NEW sci-fi TTRPG about first contact. Cool alien races, murderous AIs, and more. New expansion featuring rules for ships! New book here NOW!

    Quote Originally Posted by weckar View Post
    Venger, can you be my full-time memory aid please?
    Iron Chef Medals!
    Amazing Princess Mononoke avatar by Dispozition

  29. - Top - End - #119
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    There is only 1 way to be safe from Forsaker.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

  30. - Top - End - #120
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    The Viscount's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2012

    Default Re: Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground CXXI

    It's time for the reveal!

    Quote Originally Posted by Zaq View Post
    Name Alignment / Race Class Levels Chef Judge 1: Inevitability Judge 2: H_H_F_F Total Place
    Noah Itall L(?)N Strongheart Halfling Invisible Eye Style Halfling Monk 1/Archivist 4/Paragnostic Apostle 1/Singer of Concordance 3/Dragon Descendant 10/Swordsage 1 Paragon 14.00 6.65 20.65 4th
    Samantha d'Jorasco L? Halfling Dragonfire Adept 2/Soulwarp Strike Halfling Monk 3/Dragon Descendant 10/Nosomatic Chirurgeon 5 Troacctid 16.50 13.20 29.70 2nd
    Naughty Loafer CN Changeling Changeling Egoist 17/Dragon Descendant 3 loky1109 13.00 13.15 26.15 3rd
    Mr. Neighsayer LN Human Overwhelming Attack Style Invisible Fist Decisive Strike Monk 3/Fighter 2/Dragon Descendant 10/Devoted Defender 2/Crusader 3 Zaq 14.75 15 29.75 1st
    Congratulations to all our competitors. Thanks again to the efforts of our judges!

    New round up shortly.
    Kolyarut Avatar by Potatocubed.
    Quote Originally Posted by willpell View Post
    Only playing Tier 1s is like only eating in five-star restaurants [...] sometimes I just want a cheeseburger and some frogurt. Why limit yourself?
    Awards

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •