10 round delay rule [Archive] - Wizards Community

10 round delay rule [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
SnarkHunter
06-27-04, 02:34 AM Hi all, I'm posting about this because it seems like one of the more poorly understood and enforced rules in the arena. The 10 round limit rule started many moons ago as a way of countersacting the then common tactic of "Hide for X number of rounds until his rage/shield/mage armor wears off". In that respect its done its job but there are a few clarifcations codifications and revamps I would like to see to it. I figured a new thread would be a good way to do this.

My take:
1. It should be 10 rounds per fight per gladiator. That is 10 rounds that may be consecutive or not. If you spend 6 rounds buffing in a rope trick, jump out to summon a monster and then spend another 5 rounds buffing (11 rounds total) I think penalties should be applied

2. If it is ever impossible for your opponent to find your gladiator, by any means or roles, that should count as delaying. If you are hiding in a rope trick, 40 ft off the ground, with the rope pulled in and your opponent unable to see inivisble-that is clearly a delay. But what about the halfling rogue hiding behind a rock? Well his hide check might beat the orc fighter's spot to a bloody pulp but that doesn't mean he couldn't be found. If the orc runs to the other side of the arena, then the halfling's deprived of cover and his situation takes a turn for the worse... But if you always have cover and your hide check on a 1 will always beat a spot check on 20, even from 5 ft away, then your gladiator is delaying and subject to penalties/

3. Penalties should be universal, but derived from the situation. If someone is in an extra dimensonal location, hiding, or otherwise removed from danger for longer then 60 seconds (10 rounds), they lose. This may seem excessive but at least its easy to understand, and apply.

All coments are of course appreciated.
LLMadCow
06-27-04, 04:46 AM Quote by SnarkHunter
2. If it is ever impossible for your opponent to find your gladiator, by any means or roles, that should count as delaying. If you are hiding in a rope trick, 40 ft off the ground, with the rope pulled in and your opponent unable to see inivisble-that is clearly a delay. But what about the halfling rogue hiding behind a rock? Well his hide check might beat the orc fighter's spot to a bloody pulp but that doesn't mean he couldn't be found. If the orc runs to the other side of the arena, then the halfling's deprived of cover and his situation takes a turn for the worse... But if you always have cover and your hide check on a 1 will always beat a spot check on 20, even from 5 ft away, then your gladiator is delaying and subject to penalties.

This I happen to disagree with. I was ONLY in favor of the rule for such situations as mages using extra-dimensaional means to avoid combat. If I have a rogue who's SOLE PURPOSE IN LIFE is to be undetectable so that I can get in 10 MILLION Sneak Attacks, I should not be penalized. Every single build has its own unique limitations. For the Fighter who cannot see the invisible - tough beans! Buy a potion or a Hand of Glory.

The long and the short of it is, some characters have NO OPTION but to delay while they buff, hunt, stalk, whatever. Not everyone was born with a d10 hit die, an 18 con and the ability to rage. Some of us happen to have a WHOPPING d4 hit die and a lot of spells. We get penalized enough, why suffer us penalties for practicing the art? As it stands, I have heard way too many people chanting 'DOWN WITH THE SPELLCASTERS' and it has gone far enough!
MotherBast
06-27-04, 07:16 AM Well, I don't think you should be penalized simply because your opponit can't see you if your hiding. Now, if you do nothing but hide, and wait, that is a different story. If you just say "Hide till x buff wares off" then yes, you are in violation of the 10 round rule, which was orriginaly created to prevent that very thing from happening. Now, If you hidding while stalking your opponit, or trying to sneak attack or snipe, then your not delaying, your simply using your build to its fullest potental.

I ran a fight between Zorander and Octavian. In that fight, it was impossible for Octavian to beat Zorander's Hide check, and It was impossible for Zorander to see the Inproved Invised Octavian. For something like 55 rounds, only 3 attacks happened, as Zorander pinpointed Octavian's recasting of Imp Inv. Still, I did not punish either gladiator, because both were actively seeking their opponit, neither was delaying, they were simply unseccessful in finding their enemy.
Magagumo
06-27-04, 10:13 AM *nod*

I think your first and 3rd points are well outlined, Snark, but I'm going to agree with MB on the hide checks. It all depends, really- If your opponent's spells are rd/lvl duration, and they make it impossible for you to affect them (and I'm not talking Delay Poison or Polymorph into a flyer here, I'm discussing Shapechange into an Iron Golem for Magic Immunity and DR, Righteous Might for sheer unkillability by a weak fighter, Wind Wall for the archer, etc.) These spells all can completely negate a build's ability to affect the opponent at all, and have a general visible effect. Now, I don't think one should be waiting for a 10 min. Shield spell (can't see its effect, anyways), but unless we (foolishly) institute a 10-trd limit on these as well (Wind Wall Vs. the archer, perhaps, but not the others are "fair play") then some hiding is going to need to happen.

Anyways, I'm glad we're working to establish effective guidelines- thje Mod can treat in on a case-by-case situation. As I said, 2. is the stickiest issue, and I believe that provided they aren't trying to outlast anything higher than rd/lvl buffs or effects, they should be allowed to do so. And of course, there's a difference between ("It's not fair, I can't use poison because my opponent cast Delay poison" and "It's not fair, I can't attack my opponent because he's on a Plane I've never heard of!" :D)
Druid Roxors
06-27-04, 04:19 PM So snark, What you are actually saying is that if your rogue character cannot beat the crap out of its oponent in less than 10 rounds he should lose? I do not think thats fair for the build. If at all, a penalty of -1 to hide and MS checks per every 2 rounds after 10.
MotherBast
06-27-04, 06:00 PM Well, if the Rogue is just hidding to "Delay" untill a buff runs off, penaltys should apply. But if your completly unable to find or harm your opponit due so some effect of condition, you should not be punished for hidding for survival.
Battousai2005
06-27-04, 07:58 PM Originally posted by LLMadCow
[B]For the Fighter who cannot see the invisible - tough beans! Buy a potion or a Hand of Glory.

Learned about that from the recieving end, huh LL ;)

1. Ok, this could be a problem, especially paired with the second. Main reason: lets assume a character has a strategy set up. If he wants to avoid the mounted archer until he can buff, he can't do all that much. Ok, buff wears off. Now he can't re-buff? That would suck.

2. I disagree with the hiding rounds. So a rouge gets of a max of 10 sneak attacks? Hardly seems fair. That is the only real way they can win in combat! So a wizard casts improved invisibility. Wow, he's now lost the match! That takes away a decisive edge.

3. So no planer traveling? Fine by me. I think it is a lot easier just to go invisible.

In general, I'd say enforcing the rules we have now works fine. If they become a problem, change them. But, as my history teacher once said, "If it aien't broke, don't fix it."
Magagumo
06-27-04, 08:01 PM Well, only 10 rounds of Planar Travel ;)

And I agree that we're pretty good with current rules, I think Snark was just rea-ffiirming them for our newer member s(you'll 2 or 3 new indidviduals have posted characters, ro at least early forms fo them :))
SnarkHunter
06-27-04, 09:59 PM Okay so allow me to defend point #2 (as that seems the most contentious) a bit. I am not averse to hiding. Lord knows I am not averse to sneak attack (ah beloved Bilo, when shall thee return to terrorise weak gladiators and wooded hamlets?).

But let me outline a scenario.

Rogue wins initiative emulates a wizard to cast Improved invis from a wand and darts towards a pillar pulling out a longbow.

For the next 10+ (at the 6th round the rogue stops to recast Imp. Inivs. from the wand) rounds the rogue snips at the forlone barb/fighter as he runs ragged around the arena trying to find him.

So after 10 rounds of punishing attacks he loses? NO!

For after each attack the rogue takes a -20 to her next hide check (see the snipe action) so even if a very foolish gladiator has invested no points in spot, the rogue has a net +0 to her hide, and with the running around trying to find her, even he has a chance of spotting. Probably not a great chance-but still a chance.

More importantly, the rogue is always interacting with his opponent. And that to me-is what keeps this game intresting. When it turns into solitare, when one player calls all the shots all the time with no chance for deviation, thats when I think things need to be addressed. We've addressed them in the past and I think the need exists to address this problem now. There isn't a particuarly attorcious example of this, I only want to codify rules before it comes about.
Jindl
06-28-04, 11:52 AM When I originally suggested the 10 round rule, it was to be very much like the 10 second count-out in professional wrestling.

In other words, the penalty doesn't apply until 10 consecutive rounds have occurred. There is no limit of 10 rounds per fight.

This was mainly to allow sneaky types to be sneaky throughout the fight, while still preventing them from waiting out buffs by hiding for several minutes at a time.

This was how the 10 round rule was brought into being, and is how it is currently supposed to be run.

Any suggestions for improving this are welcome.

-Jindl
SnarkHunter
06-28-04, 05:26 PM For me, and there seems to be some agreement here, that interpretation (COCO=wrestling) is just not appropriate. It gives greater strength to the already very potent Spellcasters. It seems excessive and unecessary.

But then thats just a few peoples opin. I'd love to hear more.
Battousai2005
07-01-04, 03:16 PM Potent spellcasters? Like who?

Look, you want an example of how you beat invisible opponents, look at Kage. For who-knows-how-many weeks, he was paired against casters. As we all know, caster=invisible. It was here I brought the idea: ready to disrupt casters. Granted, Hatzinger worked me, but all the other times, it worked rather well.

Also, the idea of only 10 rounds of hiding will hurt some builds/fights. My best example is this.

Mounted Archer vs. Rouge.

-Rouge hides, sneaks up (say this is 3 rounds, and that is generous and assuming the person does not have far shot). Not wanting to exchange shots with an archer.
-Ok, so archer fails spot and listen.
_Sneak attack!!!
-OK, so archer is not dead, moves away (1 full round)
-Rouge Hides
-Archer gets ready to shoot.
-Repeat.

Ok, this way, the rouge has a chance. The archer does as well as he might be able to see the poor sap. Now, same scenario, different rules.

-Hide, lalalalalala.
-Spot fails, lalalalala
-Ok, rouge sneak attacks, but lets say he took 5 rounds to do all this. Archer retreats, heals a bit, and now we have a problem. The rouge cannot do this again more than once. Well, we are at an impass. Rouge just appears and now TWANG, TWANG, TWANG. We now have a pincusion where the rouge once stood.
Magagumo
07-01-04, 03:55 PM Wow, an archer with a bad spot check?? (Guess its not an elf or a ranger :P)
Battousai2005
07-02-04, 08:30 PM Originally posted by Magagumo
Wow, an archer with a bad spot check?? (Guess its not an elf or a ranger :P)

Look at Pard ;)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
SnarkHunter 06-27-04, 02:34 AM	Hi all, I'm posting about this because it seems like one of the more poorly understood and enforced rules in the arena. The 10 round limit rule started many moons ago as a way of countersacting the then common tactic of "Hide for X number of rounds until his rage/shield/mage armor wears off". In that respect its done its job but there are a few clarifcations codifications and revamps I would like to see to it. I figured a new thread would be a good way to do this. My take: 1. It should be 10 rounds per fight per gladiator. That is 10 rounds that may be consecutive or not. If you spend 6 rounds buffing in a rope trick, jump out to summon a monster and then spend another 5 rounds buffing (11 rounds total) I think penalties should be applied 2. If it is ever impossible for your opponent to find your gladiator, by any means or roles, that should count as delaying. If you are hiding in a rope trick, 40 ft off the ground, with the rope pulled in and your opponent unable to see inivisble-that is clearly a delay. But what about the halfling rogue hiding behind a rock? Well his hide check might beat the orc fighter's spot to a bloody pulp but that doesn't mean he couldn't be found. If the orc runs to the other side of the arena, then the halfling's deprived of cover and his situation takes a turn for the worse... But if you always have cover and your hide check on a 1 will always beat a spot check on 20, even from 5 ft away, then your gladiator is delaying and subject to penalties/ 3. Penalties should be universal, but derived from the situation. If someone is in an extra dimensonal location, hiding, or otherwise removed from danger for longer then 60 seconds (10 rounds), they lose. This may seem excessive but at least its easy to understand, and apply. All coments are of course appreciated.
LLMadCow 06-27-04, 04:46 AM	Quote by SnarkHunter 2. If it is ever impossible for your opponent to find your gladiator, by any means or roles, that should count as delaying. If you are hiding in a rope trick, 40 ft off the ground, with the rope pulled in and your opponent unable to see inivisble-that is clearly a delay. But what about the halfling rogue hiding behind a rock? Well his hide check might beat the orc fighter's spot to a bloody pulp but that doesn't mean he couldn't be found. If the orc runs to the other side of the arena, then the halfling's deprived of cover and his situation takes a turn for the worse... But if you always have cover and your hide check on a 1 will always beat a spot check on 20, even from 5 ft away, then your gladiator is delaying and subject to penalties. This I happen to disagree with. I was ONLY in favor of the rule for such situations as mages using extra-dimensaional means to avoid combat. If I have a rogue who's SOLE PURPOSE IN LIFE is to be undetectable so that I can get in 10 MILLION Sneak Attacks, I should not be penalized. Every single build has its own unique limitations. For the Fighter who cannot see the invisible - tough beans! Buy a potion or a Hand of Glory. The long and the short of it is, some characters have NO OPTION but to delay while they buff, hunt, stalk, whatever. Not everyone was born with a d10 hit die, an 18 con and the ability to rage. Some of us happen to have a WHOPPING d4 hit die and a lot of spells. We get penalized enough, why suffer us penalties for practicing the art? As it stands, I have heard way too many people chanting 'DOWN WITH THE SPELLCASTERS' and it has gone far enough!
MotherBast 06-27-04, 07:16 AM	Well, I don't think you should be penalized simply because your opponit can't see you if your hiding. Now, if you do nothing but hide, and wait, that is a different story. If you just say "Hide till x buff wares off" then yes, you are in violation of the 10 round rule, which was orriginaly created to prevent that very thing from happening. Now, If you hidding while stalking your opponit, or trying to sneak attack or snipe, then your not delaying, your simply using your build to its fullest potental. I ran a fight between Zorander and Octavian. In that fight, it was impossible for Octavian to beat Zorander's Hide check, and It was impossible for Zorander to see the Inproved Invised Octavian. For something like 55 rounds, only 3 attacks happened, as Zorander pinpointed Octavian's recasting of Imp Inv. Still, I did not punish either gladiator, because both were actively seeking their opponit, neither was delaying, they were simply unseccessful in finding their enemy.
Magagumo 06-27-04, 10:13 AM	nod I think your first and 3rd points are well outlined, Snark, but I'm going to agree with MB on the hide checks. It all depends, really- If your opponent's spells are rd/lvl duration, and they make it impossible for you to affect them (and I'm not talking Delay Poison or Polymorph into a flyer here, I'm discussing Shapechange into an Iron Golem for Magic Immunity and DR, Righteous Might for sheer unkillability by a weak fighter, Wind Wall for the archer, etc.) These spells all can completely negate a build's ability to affect the opponent at all, and have a general visible effect. Now, I don't think one should be waiting for a 10 min. Shield spell (can't see its effect, anyways), but unless we (foolishly) institute a 10-trd limit on these as well (Wind Wall Vs. the archer, perhaps, but not the others are "fair play") then some hiding is going to need to happen. Anyways, I'm glad we're working to establish effective guidelines- thje Mod can treat in on a case-by-case situation. As I said, 2. is the stickiest issue, and I believe that provided they aren't trying to outlast anything higher than rd/lvl buffs or effects, they should be allowed to do so. And of course, there's a difference between ("It's not fair, I can't use poison because my opponent cast Delay poison" and "It's not fair, I can't attack my opponent because he's on a Plane I've never heard of!" :D)
Druid Roxors 06-27-04, 04:19 PM	So snark, What you are actually saying is that if your rogue character cannot beat the crap out of its oponent in less than 10 rounds he should lose? I do not think thats fair for the build. If at all, a penalty of -1 to hide and MS checks per every 2 rounds after 10.
MotherBast 06-27-04, 06:00 PM	Well, if the Rogue is just hidding to "Delay" untill a buff runs off, penaltys should apply. But if your completly unable to find or harm your opponit due so some effect of condition, you should not be punished for hidding for survival.
Battousai2005 06-27-04, 07:58 PM	Originally posted by LLMadCow [B]For the Fighter who cannot see the invisible - tough beans! Buy a potion or a Hand of Glory. Learned about that from the recieving end, huh LL ;) 1. Ok, this could be a problem, especially paired with the second. Main reason: lets assume a character has a strategy set up. If he wants to avoid the mounted archer until he can buff, he can't do all that much. Ok, buff wears off. Now he can't re-buff? That would suck. 2. I disagree with the hiding rounds. So a rouge gets of a max of 10 sneak attacks? Hardly seems fair. That is the only real way they can win in combat! So a wizard casts improved invisibility. Wow, he's now lost the match! That takes away a decisive edge. 3. So no planer traveling? Fine by me. I think it is a lot easier just to go invisible. In general, I'd say enforcing the rules we have now works fine. If they become a problem, change them. But, as my history teacher once said, "If it aien't broke, don't fix it."
Magagumo 06-27-04, 08:01 PM	Well, only 10 rounds of Planar Travel ;) And I agree that we're pretty good with current rules, I think Snark was just rea-ffiirming them for our newer member s(you'll 2 or 3 new indidviduals have posted characters, ro at least early forms fo them :))
SnarkHunter 06-27-04, 09:59 PM	Okay so allow me to defend point #2 (as that seems the most contentious) a bit. I am not averse to hiding. Lord knows I am not averse to sneak attack (ah beloved Bilo, when shall thee return to terrorise weak gladiators and wooded hamlets?). But let me outline a scenario. Rogue wins initiative emulates a wizard to cast Improved invis from a wand and darts towards a pillar pulling out a longbow. For the next 10+ (at the 6th round the rogue stops to recast Imp. Inivs. from the wand) rounds the rogue snips at the forlone barb/fighter as he runs ragged around the arena trying to find him. So after 10 rounds of punishing attacks he loses? NO! For after each attack the rogue takes a -20 to her next hide check (see the snipe action) so even if a very foolish gladiator has invested no points in spot, the rogue has a net +0 to her hide, and with the running around trying to find her, even he has a chance of spotting. Probably not a great chance-but still a chance. More importantly, the rogue is always interacting with his opponent. And that to me-is what keeps this game intresting. When it turns into solitare, when one player calls all the shots all the time with no chance for deviation, thats when I think things need to be addressed. We've addressed them in the past and I think the need exists to address this problem now. There isn't a particuarly attorcious example of this, I only want to codify rules before it comes about.
Jindl 06-28-04, 11:52 AM	When I originally suggested the 10 round rule, it was to be very much like the 10 second count-out in professional wrestling. In other words, the penalty doesn't apply until 10 consecutive rounds have occurred. There is no limit of 10 rounds per fight. This was mainly to allow sneaky types to be sneaky throughout the fight, while still preventing them from waiting out buffs by hiding for several minutes at a time. This was how the 10 round rule was brought into being, and is how it is currently supposed to be run. Any suggestions for improving this are welcome. -Jindl
SnarkHunter 06-28-04, 05:26 PM	For me, and there seems to be some agreement here, that interpretation (COCO=wrestling) is just not appropriate. It gives greater strength to the already very potent Spellcasters. It seems excessive and unecessary. But then thats just a few peoples opin. I'd love to hear more.
Battousai2005 07-01-04, 03:16 PM	Potent spellcasters? Like who? Look, you want an example of how you beat invisible opponents, look at Kage. For who-knows-how-many weeks, he was paired against casters. As we all know, caster=invisible. It was here I brought the idea: ready to disrupt casters. Granted, Hatzinger worked me, but all the other times, it worked rather well. Also, the idea of only 10 rounds of hiding will hurt some builds/fights. My best example is this. Mounted Archer vs. Rouge. -Rouge hides, sneaks up (say this is 3 rounds, and that is generous and assuming the person does not have far shot). Not wanting to exchange shots with an archer. -Ok, so archer fails spot and listen. _Sneak attack!!! -OK, so archer is not dead, moves away (1 full round) -Rouge Hides -Archer gets ready to shoot. -Repeat. Ok, this way, the rouge has a chance. The archer does as well as he might be able to see the poor sap. Now, same scenario, different rules. -Hide, lalalalalala. -Spot fails, lalalalala -Ok, rouge sneak attacks, but lets say he took 5 rounds to do all this. Archer retreats, heals a bit, and now we have a problem. The rouge cannot do this again more than once. Well, we are at an impass. Rouge just appears and now TWANG, TWANG, TWANG. We now have a pincusion where the rouge once stood.
Magagumo 07-01-04, 03:55 PM	Wow, an archer with a bad spot check?? (Guess its not an elf or a ranger :P)
Battousai2005 07-02-04, 08:30 PM	Originally posted by Magagumo Wow, an archer with a bad spot check?? (Guess its not an elf or a ranger :P) Look at Pard ;)