Villainous Competition XLVIII: Zealot!

[loky1109]

Well, it's good. My idea fits in it.

[Thurbane]

I'm also happy with that amendment.

[pabelfly]

The amendment really helps me. I'm for it.

[loky1109]

Okay friends, how do you feel about this?
Proposition for new limitations:
What do y'all think?

I think you should update starting post.

UPD: I disliked my first idea. (

[H_H_F_F]

I think you should update starting post.

Gave some time for others to respond, and was then on mobile for a while. Got down from a flight, I'll be on my laptop soon.

[AvatarVecna]

Works better for me, at least. Will look over stuff.

[H_H_F_F]

Round limitations have been updated in the OP.

Please make sure you've read and understood the limitations. Also, note that most previous rulings and qualifications no longer apply.

Spoiler: For example

Show

Whether or not certain immunities count as fear immunity is no longer relevant, now that this isn't a strict requirement but something for judges to penalize or reward based on reliability and completeness of said immunity.
Whether or not certain things are allowed under the damage and death rule is no longer relevant, as everything is now allowed - but explicitly, the builds should be focused on damage and death effects first and foremost. So, for example, Con Drain will not be rewarded here, as it is not a death effect nor damage - but it won't disqualify the entries, because nothing like that does.

Spoiler: a note on the alignment limitation

Show

Also, for anyone who finds they have trouble imagining or writing a Good zealot under these limitations: if you find yourself lost, you are allowed to treat Good as "on the angel's side of the battle". So, a CG zealot burning an entire township to the ground to cleanse it of demon worship is allowed.

I'm not trying to make any general arguement about D&D alignment. This is simply how it'll be treated in this round of this competition. This isn't meant to encourage discussions on alignment, but to avoid them - and to guide judges away from discouraging Good aligned builds.

You are of course still not allowed to use an option that'd carry a code of conduct that would be utterly out of line for any villain, or won't allow the villain to live up to the "die, heretic!" theme. So, LG is fine, Vow of Peace is not.

Please feel free to PM me for any further questions or issues. Good luck!

[Tohron]

It seems to me that the stereotypical zealot seems to skew towards Lawful, with "Die, Heretic!" being a reaction to someone breaking their rules. Admittedly, some followers of Lolth can be pretty zealous, but it feels like there would be more LN zealots than CG or CE zealots.

[Thurbane]

Question about the Leadership feat: if it is a req for another feat or similar, are we allowed to take it for req pruposes, but just not use it?

I thought that was in the comp rules somewhere, but I may be mixing this up with the rules for a different forum comp.

[H_H_F_F]

Question about the Leadership feat: if it is a req for another feat or similar, are we allowed to take it for req pruposes, but just not use it?

I thought that was in the comp rules somewhere, but I may be mixing this up with the rules for a different forum comp.

You're right that it was previously allowed by the rules. I've changed it to no longer be the case (the rules now clarify that it is completely banned) as I felt that there were too many edge cases there.

[Tohron]

What are the rules for the resources available to the villains? Are they supposed to stick explicitly to NPC WBL? Is there a way to calculate increased CR if they have more gear than a typical NPC of that level?

[loky1109]

Well, I have two builds. Now I need to write two stories.

[Thurbane]

What are the rules for the resources available to the villains? Are they supposed to stick explicitly to NPC WBL? Is there a way to calculate increased CR if they have more gear than a typical NPC of that level?

In my experience, there is no hard and fast rule for this.

I usually stick to gp for CR (i.e treasure amount), to be on the conservative side, but NPC WBL could also be appropriate.

Either way, be wary of relying too much on gear, since that will usually get a penalty from most judges.

[Malphegor]

Hm, I have an idea kinda premade already but it’s honestly not that zealotty really unless you squint… And I think I need to change one of the classes work. If I get some time tonight I’ll reformat my notes into an entry but I’m not confident whatsoever.

[H_H_F_F]

So, now that I have a moment, I'd like to comment on AvatarVecna's astute observations about how broad the Zealot theme is, and how many of the limitations don't seem like they really define all zealots. This point is important, because it may prove relevant to many future rounds.

As you all probably noted, the new OP for the competition came with a slight change to the formatting of the limitations. Specifically, they now have names.

This choice is not just a matter of style, however. It serves a purpose: to expand on and clarify the theme.

In this instance, I came up with a pretty clear theme: Religious or ideological Fanatic who'll stop at nothing and kill anyone and everyone who disagrees with them. I'd say it's a pretty recognizable villain trope, and a fun theme for a round.

I can't, however, get all that across in a couple of words. Maybe you can, but I can't.

So instead of doing what I did on the sheriff round, with a meandering clarification of the theme under a spoiler tag, I have the new system. The theme is calirified and specified by using a few very short phrases, each tied to a mechanical limitation that further helps get the point across. The limitation titles are therefore, in a sense, part of the theme.

I hope this clarifies my intent here for the future. Good luck to everyone cooking! As a reminder, the deadline is in 10 days.

What are the rules for the resources available to the villains? Are they supposed to stick explicitly to NPC WBL? Is there a way to calculate increased CR if they have more gear than a typical NPC of that level?

I've addressed that last round, I believe. There are no rules for equipment, and you don't have to mention it at all; on the other hand, having a list of recommended equipment that'd be particularly useful on your villain, moreso than on most characters/monsters, will certainly earn you a boost with many judges.

However, if your character absolutely needs a piece of equipment to function than intended, make sure you mention it - but expect a hit in elegance for excessive item reliance. Many judges might make the penalty more severe the more the piece of equipment is expensive for uour CR, and the more "rare" they think it is.

Good luck!

[loky1109]

First is sent. Second... fluff part is challenging.

[Thurbane]

I had two ideas, have abandoned the second (may post the stub after the reveal), and tidying up the first.

I might even manage some actual fluff/backstory for this one!

[H_H_F_F]

One week to the deadline, folks! How's everyone doing?

[Venger]

Finished with the table, outline for the backstory, just need to write it up and do playtips.

[GreatWyrmGold]

You're right that it was previously allowed by the rules. I've changed it to no longer be the case (the rules now clarify that it is completely banned) as I felt that there were too many edge cases there.

I'm not familiar with any of the classes/feats/etc with Leadership as a prereq—what were the edge cases?

[H_H_F_F]

I'm not familiar with any of the classes/feats/etc with Leadership as a prereq—what were the edge cases?

I don't want to fully go into it here, for various reasons. However, I will note that it's not just about things requiring leadership, but things granting it as well.

In the end, I don't think this limitation is too harmful for the competition, and I prefer the strong ban here.

[loky1109]

In the end, I don't think this limitation is too harmful for the competition, and I prefer the strong ban here.

I don't agree with you. Yes, it isn't very harmful, but... Before, I time-to-time read books, saw rarely, but sometimes interesting PrCs with Leadership preq and thought: what I can do with it? Now, I just sigh sadly. I don't see how rule "You can take leadership as preq for something, just ignore leadership's effect" can be abused. And the same about granting. Get class, don't use leadership, maybe class has something valuable aside from it.
I don't know really how harmful this limitation is, but several times I tried to put, for example, thrallherd in my entry. It didn't fit, but it was an option.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I'm also confused. The only thing I can see maybe being abuseable is if a prestige class or something buffs Leadership's effect and that was used to backdoor Leadership into the comp, but...it's easy to rule that commenting out Leadership's effect would comment out those buffs too, negating that exploit?

I dunno whether you want to spoiler the explanation or take it to a new thread or what, but at the moment your reason indistinguishable from not having a reason at all.

[H_H_F_F]

I'm also confused. The only thing I can see maybe being abuseable is if a prestige class or something buffs Leadership's effect and that was used to backdoor Leadership into the comp, but...it's easy to rule that commenting out Leadership's effect would comment out those buffs too, negating that exploit?

I dunno whether you want to spoiler the explanation or take it to a new thread or what, but at the moment your reason indistinguishable from not having a reason at all.

First, a general point: I can't cover everything. I don't know what won't be obviously a leadership quality to folks, and to me leadership being open just invites unfortunate mistakes. Saying "it's straight out banned" makes it safer, and almost as importantly (to me) makes the ruling consistent with the Iron Chef.

However, as for my specific concerns with "edge cases" - as I said, I have my reservations with starting a discussion here, but given your concerns, here are a couple of examples:

Spoiler

Show

Whom does HoB's Legendary Leader's additional commander aura affect? It says "followers", but unlike the rest of the class features, it doesn't specify "followers gained from your leadership feat". Is this a reference to Followers, or just to followers - for example, your PC allies whom you command due to the entirely separate rule-system of military rank?

Is PoF's influence modifier legal? It requires leadership, and you'd calculate it partly by using your leadership stats such as you cohorts and followers, but it isn't a leadership effect. Can you use it? If so, do you treat yourself as having cohorts and followers, or not? Can you take the Rulership feat, and would it take effect?

There are more out there that I debated myself in my days as a contestant. And granted, I could sit down and make a ruling (that'll probably be debated) for every single edge case I know of, and hope that I got them all - but In the end, I felt that streamlining the ban to be the same as the one in the Iron Chef was better.

I hope that even if you wouldn't've done the same, you at least get where the decision is coming from now.

[loky1109]

Whom does HoB's Legendary Leader's additional commander aura affect? It says "followers", but unlike the rest of the class features, it doesn't specify "followers gained from your leadership feat". Is this a reference to Followers, or just to followers - for example, your PC allies whom you command due to the entirely separate rule-system of military rank?

This isn't leadership issue.

I felt that streamlining the ban to be the same as the one in the Iron Chef was better.

There isn't completely ban in the IC rules.

[H_H_F_F]

This isn't leadership issue.

Disagree. It's a class that requires leadership, and addresses followers in an ambiguous manner.

There isn't completely ban in the IC rules.

True - I meant the part where you used to be able to take a class that requires leadership, which you can't do in the IC: the ban on things granting leadership is admittedly harsher.

[H_H_F_F]

Leaving aside the leadership discussion for a moment;

just 3 days to the current deadline! How's everyone doing?

[H_H_F_F]

Deadline imminent!

Is anyone working on an entry?

[Venger]

Still working. Should have it in on time.

[H_H_F_F]

The reveal is upon us! Please, no posting until I give the all-clear.