Iron Chef Optimization Challenge in the Playground LVII

[Tim Proctor]

If there is no con modifier you're trade 16.5 HP (3d10) for 17 (+2 con), even if you have a +3 Con modifier then you're only losing 9 HP for 4 AC. I honestly don't think it is a decrease in power at all for a Half-Dragon. There is a lot more to it than just that, 4 AC, immunity to sleep and paralysis darkvisions, lowlight vision, Int and Cha boosts, etc. There are a lot of cookies in the jar and it isn't black or white.

The point being that a template applied correctly is just as powerful as a class level. Yeah they can be wasted, but so can class levels.

[AvatarVecna]

If there is no con modifier you're trade 16.5 HP (3d10) for 17 (+2 con), even if you have a +3 Con modifier then you're only losing 9 HP for 4 AC. I honestly don't think it is a decrease in power at all for a Half-Dragon. There is a lot more to it than just that, 4 AC, immunity to sleep and paralysis darkvisions, lowlight vision, Int and Cha boosts, etc. There are a lot of cookies in the jar and it isn't black or white.

The point being that a template applied correctly is just as powerful as a class level. Yeah they can be wasted, but so can class levels.

In the point of the fighter you're suggesting, you're not just giving up BAB. You're also giving up 2 Fighter Bonus Feats and 1 regular Feat, since LA doesn't count as character levels for the purposes of gaining feats and attribute bonuses. That means that you're also giving up 1 stat bonus from level. All combat builds that can afford to give up three feats for a breath weapon and wings you likely don't get, please raise your hands. Oh, look: NO RAISED HANDS.

Also, you contradict yourself: you say that it would be trading 3d10 with no Con mod for a 17 Con. If you took this particular template, you'd only gain +2 Con. You gain a single point of Fort (because the Fighter needed a better Fort save) and 1 extra HP per level, but you give up 3d10+Con mod. If we assume this Fighter started out with a 10 Con (no bonus), he would get 16.5 HP from taking Fighter levels, and eventually get 17 HP from level. But waiting until 20th level to reap the benefits of that trade kinda sucks. Of course, if we assume our hypothetical Fighter has a reasonable 14 Con instead, the numbers change to 22.5 and 17. The Half-Dragon only gets more HP if the fighter in question has no Con mod, and even then only gets more HP by the end of their character career.

Let's look at that breath weapon shall we? Hm: once per day, 6d8 energy damage, with a Reflex save for half, DC...that DC sucks. 10+half racial hd (which the half-dragon doesn't normally have)+Con mod, which is on average about 3, so the DC will average around 13. Assuming they don't save (people roll 1s), they take an average of 27 points of damage, or half if they have improved evasion. That's significant for 4th level characters, but not necessarily CR 4 enemies. If they do save, it's half damage. Or no damage, with evasion. And then there's energy resistance/immunity. And of course, neither the save DC nor the damage nor the uses per day scale at all, so that barely competent breath weapon your ECL 4 character has? It's gonna suck even harder next level. And the level after that. And the level after that. And so on. Oh yeah, but it's great against lo-level swarms, which the party wizard should've already been handling. So yeah, there's that.

I agree with you that there are templates more than worth the LA; I was just trying to explain why LA is frowned upon in optimization; it's generally terrible. It should also be noted that a Half-Dragon is slightly more viable if you have Racial HD. It's just that a Half-Dragon is one of the worse ones, even though some people swear by it.

[AvatarVecna]

Apologies: I misunderstood part of your post about HP; I thought you were saying Half-Dragons would have a 17 Con. That's my fault. My point about a +2 to Con only being an advantage if the Fighter in question has no Con mod (which is stupid on that Fighter's part) still stands.
The extra goodies you mentioned are useful, but not necessarily to a Fighter. Darkvision/low-light vision is great if you're a scout, but if you're a warrior, just get a light spell cast on your armor pre-combat. The immunities are nice; less so since the elf also gets them for no LA, but still nice. The energy immunity is useful against enemies prone to using it, although they will most likely be resistant to you breath weapon. The extra AC is welcome, but past a certain point, the enemy needs a 20 no matter what your AC is, and Fighter's are the most likely to reach that point.

Also, Int and Cha bonuses? On a Fighter? I thought you were trying to argue that the Half-Dragon was optimal...

Sidenote, as I read into it, it occurs to me that a Half-Dragon makes a better paladin or Ranger than they do a Fighter, but even then, not by much.

[Thealtruistorc]

I am new to this. Where do I submit?

[AvatarVecna]

I am new to this. Where do I submit?

Your build? PM the chairman.

[Tim Proctor]

No problems about the mix up needed, the point being is that you trade a few HP for AC and is a draw. The feats missed can be surpassed (or not) by the abilities, immunity to fire can be crazy good and no feat meets that, but it is campaign dependant, there is an issue with the decreasing margins of utility from feats (you get so many with a fighter that after 10 they kinda are near worthless). The 5th increase is generally worthless as that increase at 20th level has no relevance to the 19 prior levels of the campaign.

The point I think both of us are making is that when entrants use a template they should consider the alternatives, and how they relate to the scoring materials.

[lunar2]

just to be clear in my judging, in case there is any doubt. you will not receive power or elegance penalties simply for taking a template or monster race. if it suits your concept, use it. now, if the template weakens your build, is used in some kind of cheese or rules abuse, or doesn't fit the fluff or the concept of your build, you will take some penalties for that.

[Kazudo]

I am actually about two schools of thought when it comes to judging and LA. RHD, as long as it complements and doesn't impede the build, works for me. LA, as long as it's handled tastefully and, again, doesn't impede the build, works for me. However.

Builds that require LA Buyoff are a bit tied up in my head. On the one hand, up to +3 LA can be bought off entirely within a 20 level build. This, however, creates a small problem. There is a FIXED amount of XP that goes into a 20th level build. making magical items, casting certain spells, and LA Buyoff all fluctuate that number and cause unevenness about the build.

Therefore, the way I've figured my way around it is to say that I'll judge easily on one or two LA, but three or more I'll likely judge harshly on, especially if the build REQUIRES LA buyoff to work.

[AvatarVecna]

just to be clear in my judging, in case there is any doubt. you will not receive power or elegance penalties simply for taking a template or monster race. if it suits your concept, use it. now, if the template weakens your build, is used in some kind of cheese or rules abuse, or doesn't fit the fluff or the concept of your build, you will take some penalties for that.

I second this.

[AvatarVecna]

I am actually about two schools of thought when it comes to judging and LA. RHD, as long as it complements and doesn't impede the build, works for me. LA, as long as it's handled tastefully and, again, doesn't impede the build, works for me. However.

Builds that require LA Buyoff are a bit tied up in my head. On the one hand, up to +3 LA can be bought off entirely within a 20 level build. This, however, creates a small problem. There is a FIXED amount of XP that goes into a 20th level build. making magical items, casting certain spells, and LA Buyoff all fluctuate that number and cause unevenness about the build.

Therefore, the way I've figured my way around it is to say that I'll judge easily on one or two LA, but three or more I'll likely judge harshly on, especially if the build REQUIRES LA buyoff to work.

Also seconded. LA makes things complicated, sometimes needlessly so, and doesn't give the pc much extra power.

[Kuulvheysoon]

I am actually about two schools of thought when it comes to judging and LA. RHD, as long as it complements and doesn't impede the build, works for me. LA, as long as it's handled tastefully and, again, doesn't impede the build, works for me. However.

Builds that require LA Buyoff are a bit tied up in my head. On the one hand, up to +3 LA can be bought off entirely within a 20 level build. This, however, creates a small problem. There is a FIXED amount of XP that goes into a 20th level build. making magical items, casting certain spells, and LA Buyoff all fluctuate that number and cause unevenness about the build.

Therefore, the way I've figured my way around it is to say that I'll judge easily on one or two LA, but three or more I'll likely judge harshly on, especially if the build REQUIRES LA buyoff to work.

Last time that I used LA in Iron chef, I assumed that it wasn't used, and added an adaptation section at the bottom saying "If LA buyoff was being used, I would take extra levels in XXX", and explain what it would add to the build. It was pretty well accepted, IIRC.

[WhamBamSam]

I am actually about two schools of thought when it comes to judging and LA. RHD, as long as it complements and doesn't impede the build, works for me. LA, as long as it's handled tastefully and, again, doesn't impede the build, works for me. However.

Builds that require LA Buyoff are a bit tied up in my head. On the one hand, up to +3 LA can be bought off entirely within a 20 level build. This, however, creates a small problem. There is a FIXED amount of XP that goes into a 20th level build. making magical items, casting certain spells, and LA Buyoff all fluctuate that number and cause unevenness about the build.

Therefore, the way I've figured my way around it is to say that I'll judge easily on one or two LA, but three or more I'll likely judge harshly on, especially if the build REQUIRES LA buyoff to work.

I liked the rule that they used for a few rounds in ZS where you get 1 fewer exp than you'd need to get to level 21, and can use the extra exp for LA buyoff or other shenanigans. I understand why IC doesn't use those rules though.

Also, reposting my question from earlier for the honorable chairman, now that my entries are in for JW and I can focus on maybe getting a build in here.

Cavefighting gives you bonuses that apply only while standing in difficult terrain. If you make a jump as part of your attack (rather natural, given the SI's boosts to the skill), and make your swing while in midair, do you lose those bonuses?

[AvatarVecna]

Just thought of an potential problem: has there ever been a problem with build-thieves in the Iron Chef competition?

[Muggins]

Just thought of an potential problem: has there ever been a problem with build-thieves in the Iron Chef competition?

I believe that may be the very reason for the anonymous, synchronous build reveal. As for whether it's ever happened, I don't know.

[AvatarVecna]

I believe that may be the very reason for the anonymous, synchronous build reveal. As for whether it's ever happened, I don't know.

Not quite what I meant; no one's ever tried to submit a build that was found to be a carbon copy of a build elsewhere on the internet as far as we know, right?

[lunar2]

Not quite what I meant; no one's ever tried to submit a build that was found to be a carbon copy of a build elsewhere on the internet as far as we know, right?

i'm sure it's happened. there's only so many ways you can effectively build certain prestige classes, and the game is 14 years old, counting 3.0. with some builds, every effective combination has probably been done at least once.

edit: at LA buyoff. using LA buyoff will be a -1 to elegance per level from me, just like using a flaw. it's a complicated variant rule for a competition like this, and should be discouraged. it also, like flaws, creates and uneven playing field between those who use it to sneak in powerful races, and those who use normal races, because of the different amounts of XP. similarly, magic item crafting other than artificer (using only their crafting points, no actual XP) will get you a penalty, for the same reason.

[AvatarVecna]

All categories start at 3; they can increase up to 5, and decrease down to 1 (or 0 under exceptional circumstances). All bonuses and penalties are added up and, if applicable, rounded to the nearest hundredth before determining final score in a category. If anyone wishes to debate a particular point of my criteria, I’m willing to argue.

Originality

Spoiler

Show

Baseline Build (starting at score 3) assumes unexpected, but not unique race and class selections, an interesting fluff story that shows the provided stat blocks possesses some actual character.

+0.25 for a unique race (up to once per character). Unique templates and sub-races make a base race unique if it wasn’t already.

+0.25 for a unique class (up to twice per character).

+0.25 for a unique Prestige Class (up to once per character).

Ad hoc bonuses for unexpected, interesting, and useful mechanics (max of 0.75).

Ad hoc bonuses/penalties for fluff. Does your stat block have a personality, or an interesting origin story? If so, max bonus is +0.75. If you’re just a character without a cause, max penalty is -0.75.

Varying penalties for non-unique character options in the sub-categories of race, classes, Prestige Classes, and mechanics: -0.1 if three competitors share an option, -0.3 if more than a third of the competitors share an option, and -0.5 if more than two thirds of the competitors share an option. These penalties are determined for each sub-category, making the maximum penalty here -2.0. The SI is not considered when determining a character’s originality in the Prestige class sub-category.

Power

Spoiler

Show

Baseline Build (starting at score 3) can perform well enough in its roles, and can reasonably contribute in the completion of challenges fit for a character of their level. The Baseline Build has a gradual power curve that is consistent across all 20 levels, but doesn’t result in an extraordinary amount of power at any given level. The Baseline Build is best early in the adventuring day, but gets noticeably worse as the day goes on. Power is determined by base character, not any items they would need to buy, unless the competitor can provide a reason why a particular item would be more useful than normal for their character.

Every build will receive a bonus or penalty in all five sub-categories based on how it compares to the other builds. The best build for a particular sub-category gets a bonus of +0.1, the worst gets a -0.1 penalty, and the remaining builds get a bonus/penalty on the line those two would make graphically. Ties in any sub-category are counted as the same, and receive the same bonus/penalty.

Spoiler

Show

Let’s say there’s 5 competitors; their HP totals are 180,170, 150, 140, and 120, in that order. Their bonuses/penalties int he HP sub-category are +0.1, +0.05, +0, -0.05, and -0.1.

The sub-categories are HP, Average AC (all three AC types averaged), Primary Attack Bonus (attack bonus for the weapon you’ll use the most), Skill Points, and Average Saves (all three saving throw bonuses averaged). These bonuses and penalties apply for each sub-category, putting the total potential bonus/penalty at +/-0.5.

If your character can cast spells/use psionic powers, they will receive a bonus/penalty of ((caster level/manifester level)/20)-0.5; if they have multiple classes granting them spellcasting/psionic powers, each is calculated separately in this regard. This means that a full caster/manifester level gives a bonus, but a low caster/manifester level on a 20th level character is worse than not having spellcasting at all. The maximum bonus/penalty from this is +/-1.0.

Ad hoc bonuses/penalties for your build’s ability to adapt to the situation. If your build’s response to every situation is “I hit it with my axe”, you get a penalty. If your character has multiple options for just about any situation they come across, they get a bonus. This is the reason why people love Batman, and also the reason why Hawkeye is generally despised. Max bonus/penalty is 0.5.

Ad hoc bonus for builds that manipulate the game mechanics to their advantage; in other words, I’m admittedly fond of cheese. Max bonus of +0.25.

Ad hoc bonuses/penalties for how consistent a builds power is throughout the day. Consistent power throughout the day is a bonus; the potential for a character to Go Nova is a penalty. A character built to take advantage of such potential gets a large penalty here, although their capabilities will be noted elsewhere in this category. Max bonus/penalty is +/-0.25.

Elegance

Spoiler

Show

Baseline Build (starts at score 3) is solid and easy to follow, but has some dips and takes levels in a weird order. Possible ways to alter the build are obvious, but not explained. It has some cheese, but avoid cheap optimization tricks.

+0.25 for never having multiclass penalties.

+0.25 if your build is easy to follow; it should be fairly easy to understand when you took what. I shouldn’t need to reverse engineer your build to figure out if you qualified for everything.

+0.25 if your character doesn’t have any racial HD or LA. This isn’t a measure of their power, but of their ease of play: both tend to complicate character creation and gameplay for any gaming group that suffers them. That said, if they bring significant power to your build, that will be noted in the Power category.

Ad hoc bonuses are awarded for citing the more obscure options your build employs. I don’t care if I need to have the entire set of 3.5 legal books in front of me to find all the options you took, but if it’s not in the Core 3 or the Complete books, cite your source, for my sake. And the bonus. Which has a maximum of 0.25.

-0.25 per dip, defined here as having less than 3 levels in a class, including full PrCs (PrCs with less than 10 levels only count for this purpose if you take a single level). Max penalty is -0.75.

Ad hoc bonuses/penalties for a build’s playability, or lack thereof. If someone who only knows the basic rules of play was to use this character, they shouldn’t need to dig through multiple FAQs and erratas from WotC to figure out why you made your character take a feat chain that seems pointless unless you know this neat little rules trick that gives you unlimited wishes or whatever if you have them. This includes any cheap cheese, questionable RAI, and excessive rules lawyering used to justify your build. Max bonus/penalty is +/-1.0.

Ad hoc bonuses/penalties if alternate character options are/aren’t sufficiently discussed. Someone looking through Iron Chef for potential characters should have ways to adapt existing builds to suit the character they have in mind. Max bonus/penalty is +/-0.5.

-0.25 if the build has taken a feat/PrC/etc. that it doesn’t actually qualify for (up to three times per character). Furthermore, the build’s Power score will be determined and calculated as if they did not possess the feat/PrC/etc. in question. Failure to qualify for the SI counts, and will also result in a power decrease.

-0.25 for shenanigans. Alignment shouldn’t need to change for your build to work; similarly, mixing setting-specific materials will also be a penalty.

Use of Secret Ingredient

Spoiler

Show

Baseline Build (starting at score 3) assumes 10 levels of SI with SI 1 taken at CL 11. Baseline Build has use for the SI class abilities but doesn’t combine them with additional options to exceptional effect.

Base score of 0 for any build that doesn’t take levels in SI or qualify for levels in SI.

-1 if build qualifies for SI, but did not qualify at the level the SI was entered.

+0.5 for taking SI at earliest possible level.

-0.2 for every level of SI not taken.

Ad hoc bonus awarded for cleverly combining SI class abilities with additional options to exceptional effect, This will likely also result in an increase to Power.

Ad hoc bonuses/penalties if character concept matches up well/poorly with SI flavor. If you were to describe your character concept without mentioning classes, races, etc., I should think that the SI is the Prestige Class most in line with your character concept. If it seems like the SI doesn’t fit well, or worse, if it seems like it was only taken to qualify for this competition, that counts against you. Max bonus/penalty is +/-1.0.

Once again, all my points of judgement are up for debate. They aren’t specific to this competition; they’re general guidelines.

[Amphetryon]

Not quite what I meant; no one's ever tried to submit a build that was found to be a carbon copy of a build elsewhere on the internet as far as we know, right?

A couple of competitors in earlier rounds submitted builds that they'd personally discussed at length on other fora, if memory serves; Originality takes a hit relative to how well the judges recognize a particular build (many judges use metrics that reference "builds and handbooks known on the interwebz"), but the anonymous submission process, coupled with folks potentially having different screen names on different sites, makes accusations of 'stealing someone else's concept' really awkward to try to demonstrate.

ETA: So, apparently part of your judging criteria includes AC? Given how requiring specific equipment to function is regularly dinged in this competition, that's going to be a quirky metric in comparison to other scores.

[Tim Proctor]

I don't know if they're running it the same way that I was but for AC I go by wearable armor type 4 for light, 8 for medium, and 12 for heavy. I also add in max dexterity for that wearable type, etc. then end up with a tally. But I also bounced that off of average HP for a total defense value worth upto 1 point. So the formula looks like this ((AC/40) + (HP/500)), and I hope that they're running something similar.

[Amphetryon]

I don't know if they're running it the same way that I was but for AC I go by wearable armor type 4 for light, 8 for medium, and 12 for heavy. I also add in max dexterity for that wearable type, etc. then end up with a tally. But I also bounced that off of average HP for a total defense value worth upto 1 point. So the formula looks like this ((AC/40) + (HP/500)), and I hope that they're running something similar.

Do you base that off of the best they can wear without penalty, or what they list? Many builds I've seen here list no specific armor - particularly when armor optimization isn't key to the SI or concept - because 'listing specific equipment gets you penalized,' to paraphrase something you've specifically mentioned in the past re: this competition. There are ample ways to boost AC relatively sky-high that don't involve wearing armor at all, just magic items, after all.

[Muggins]

If your character can cast spells/use psionic powers, they will receive a bonus/penalty of ((caster level/manifester level)/20)-0.5; if they have multiple classes granting them spellcasting/psionic powers, each is calculated separately in this regard. This means that a full caster/manifester level gives a bonus, but a low caster/manifester level on a 20th level character is worse than not having spellcasting at all. The maximum bonus/penalty from this is +/-1.0.

Well, there goes Darkrunner's expected entry. I honestly wasn't expecting caster level to come up when the SI doesn't progress it at all, but this does seem a tad drastic.

Just because a build has spellcasting doesn't mean it has to pump up its caster level, or even make its spells a focus.

[Tim Proctor]

Do you base that off of the best they can wear without penalty, or what they list?

I count wearable type.

[lunar2]

yeah, i'm also going to have to say getting a penalty for low caster level on a PRC that does not advance caster level is probably a bad idea. even 4 levels in a half casting class gets you access to scrolls, and one level gets you wands and staffs. there is no situation where being able to cast spells actually makes you weaker, so you should never be penalized for it relative to not being able to cast spells. additionally, with your metric, the highest a caster could possibly get while completing the SI is +0 (10/20)-0.5=0. so you're essentially giving out penalties to nearly everyone who uses a casting class in their build, which is ridiculous.

[WhamBamSam]

yeah, i'm also going to have to say getting a penalty for low caster level on a PRC that does not advance caster level is probably a bad idea. even 4 levels in a half casting class gets you access to scrolls, and one level gets you wands and staffs. there is no situation where being able to cast spells actually makes you weaker, so you should never be penalized for it relative to not being able to cast spells. additionally, with your metric, the highest a caster could possibly get while completing the SI is +0 (10/20)-0.5=0. so you're essentially giving out penalties to nearly everyone who uses a casting class in their build, which is ridiculous.

Thirded. Or nth'd or whatever. Without getting into any speculation for this particular SI, there are a lot of perfectly sensible dips and level breakpoints in melee builds that happen to grant some small amount of casting. I could see some of the dips being penalized in elegance or originality, but not power.

[Kazudo]

Alright. Blew the dust off of my old judging criteria, have my sleeves rolled up, and I'm ready. Here's this:

My Judging Criteria:

Originality:
This appears to be a somewhat cut and dry section at first, but can be pretty tricky as some of the competitions have made apparent. Therefore, I will go ahead and advise that all builds will be considered when dealing with this category. Originality is such a relative concept. I will only deduct for "unoriginal builds" being defined by a rising trend (specifically three or more competitors). That being said, I'd like to point out the following things as far as my judging are concerned.
1. Using the same number of levels in the same class as another competitor will not necessarily garner a point deduction unless there is a trend.
2. Using the same tactic as another competitor will not necessarily garner a point deduction unless, again, there is a trend.
3. Using the same racial combination as another competitor will, barring incredibly similar looking somewhat complex combinations, not necessarily garner a point deduction unless there is a trend.

This list is not exhaustive, but merely a guideline.

Power:
This is again a section that should be simple but is very complex due to the nature of the game and competition. Therefore, my stance on this will be to compare to other characters in the same party dynamic as the individual in question. Party dynamic here is, again, a relative term. I don't have a specific party in mind to compare to, however if the build is presented, for example, as a sneak attack rogue, I will compare its power and effectiveness to that of other sneak attack rogues regardless of whether the build has any levels in rogue or, say, substitutes sneak attack for sudden strike or other similar game mechanics. I will not be judging competitors' builds against each other for this category, but will be considering each entrant separate.

Elegance:
This one is special. It's not cut and dry, and will be used in the most careful way possible. When dealing with this specific category, I will be considering each entrant separate. This category will be used to determine how relatively well the build flows together. As in my originality statement above, I will point out a few examples.
1. Dipping classes (dipping defined as two levels or fewer for the purpose of gaining a special ability or skillset) may not necessarily garner a point deduction unless there appears to be no connecting fluff to ensure it meshes well with the remaining build.
2. Use of certain elements such as known cheese, template stacking, variant rules (such as LA buyoff) may not necessarily garner a point deduction unless it violates any of my own personal concepts of sanity checks or any other point in this criteria.
3. Awkward placement of classes in the progression may not garner a point deduction if there is connecting fluff.

Again, this list is not exhaustive but merely a guideline.

Use of Secret Ingredient:
This one is very simple. If the ingredient is used as the primary focus of the build, it will score well. If it does not, then it simply won't. Merely utilizing every level of the Secret Ingredient does not immediately make it the primary focus of the build. Synergy must be present in order to score well in this area. Each build will be judged separately. There is an important caveat to this though: should one build fully exemplify synergy and UoSI, it may subconsciously be used as a benchmark for other builds. I apologize if this happens, but this is simply because I may not have ever seen the Secret Ingredient used firsthand and might have very little in the way of a personal benchmark to compare to.

On the subject of fluff versus crunch: I do not require any form of excessive backstory, nor does the entry have to be submitted with any kind of accompanying narrative. However, fluff and description are indispensable tools to helping me see the character as you envision it while creating it. I reference that crunch penalties may not be crunch penalties if smoothed over with appropriate levels of fluff. This does not mean that excessively long fluff entries will be additionally penalized or will have penalties ignored, simply that a crunch penalty may, in fact, not be a crunch penalty if presented with fluff to connect everything together. Sorry if I appear confusing, but it was the easiest way I could explain the notion.

In addition, any additional explanation you feel is necessary for your character presentation is always welcome. I don't expect to have the build spoon-fed to me as one would an infant or first time player, however assuming that I can draw the same conclusions you did during your cooking would be unwise as evidenced by at least one judge in every competition. If you're banking on me making an assumption, explain it anyway. Worst comes to worse, you'll have punched a few extra keys and made a few extra lines of text.

IN ADDITION: Should I find the time, in the interest of improving the quality of my judging as a whole, for each entrant I will also attempt to include a "Judge's Advice" section. My judging will be brief and to the point with short statements, my Judge's Advice segment will likely be long and wordy to explain not only how I'd improve the build assuming any ideas jump out at me, but also how to improve the quality of future submissions. I doubt that last bit will come up often, however.

[Amphetryon]

IN ADDITION: Should I find the time, in the interest of improving the quality of my judging as a whole, for each entrant I will also attempt to include a "Judge's Advice" section. My judging will be brief and to the point with short statements, my Judge's Advice segment will likely be long and wordy to explain not only how I'd improve the build assuming any ideas jump out at me, but also how to improve the quality of future submissions. I doubt that last bit will come up often, however.

My first thought here - having not seen a definitive example of what you mean - is that this particular addendum is potentially troublesome, as it could easily be (mis)construed as an "I'm a better Character-builder/Optimizer than you are" lecture from on high. As I sincerely doubt you intend it to be understood this way, I'm merely pointing out a concern.

[Kazudo]

No, and I know that it could be construed that way. I'm not in any way a guaranteed better optimizer or competitor than anyone. My first entry scored 20th, and aside from that my involvement is limited. However, it's more an addendum reserved for those handful of builds that may crop up that have glaringly obvious things that could very easily have been worked out; mostly procedurally. For example, I may raise a question in the phrase of "Your build was all over the place and it wasn't readily obvious as to why you would do that, you were docked points for it in Elegance. I can't see why you wouldn't just rearrange it to be easier in these ways. I'm sure there's a reason, but maybe next time if you're going to do things like that you may consider addressing the potential concern in-entry."

Which is just a hypothetical situation. It would also be a place to say "Your build was very, very equipment dependent which would make it difficult to line the build up entirely. If there would be some way to reduce the dependence on equipment, your build may have scored better." basically, let's not just make better optimizers through popular opinion, let's also make better competitors.

[AvatarVecna]

So, it appears that a couple concerns has risen about my criteria: AC and spellcasting.
Regarding AC: yes, it's going to be difficult to determine since for most every character out there, it's the most item-dependent stat. I'm going to be assuming the best masterwork (but not magical) armor available to the character, including relevant special materials. I'm not sure how else to handle this, other than not trying to account for AC, but I think it's definitely relevant to a character's power...although not too much; it only counts for up to +/-0.1, so having the worst AC is hardly a gamebreaker here.
Spellcasting is something I spent a lot of time looking at, only to be disappointed with every way I handled it. Should I assume anyone with spellcasting ability is going to have and take advantage of access to spell trigger items? Should I assume a high caster level is a sign of someone's casting power, or should it be based on the maximum spell level a character can cast? I decided on caster level, because it was the most commonly applicable; if a particular character can demonstrate that their spellcaster is effecting at casting despite having only a single wizard level on an otherwise melee-focused build, I'll give them a bonus to power. The other concern I noticed, and need to clarify on: if you don't have a caster level, you don't get a penalty or bonus for this section of the Power category. Being a Fighter 20 isn't anywhere near as great as being a Wizard 20, but it's still better than being a Fighter 19/Wizard 1. I'm not going to make any assumptions about magic item use for a caster, because there's too much variety, and too many ways to get access to them. And besides, having a full caster level is still just as good as having the highest average AC, HP, skill points, Primary Attack Bonus, and Average Saving Throws. Spellcasting is ridiculously powerful in its variety, but if you suck at it, you get a penalty that non-magical characters don't have to worry about.

[WhamBamSam]

Except Fighter 19/Martial Wizard 1 is probably better than Fighter 20 and Fighter 19/Cloistered Cleric 1 is definitely better than Fighter 20.

[lunar2]

fighter 19/wizard 1 gets abrupt jaunt for tactical teleportation, true strike for enemies with concealment, swift expeditious retreat for when they really need to get somewhere, a familiar that's better at spot and listen than they are, while simultaneously making them better at spot and listen, a boosted will save, and other things i may be missing. yes, fighter 19/wizard 1 is clearly better than fighter 20.

remember that most of the time, wizard 7 is better than fighter 20. overland flight + bow and a crapload of arrows = win. the fighter's going to die eventually.