Post/Author/DateTime	Post
NiQil 02-03-06, 04:50 AM	This is a thread for CoCo Community members to let their voices be heard on various topics that sometimes come up for discussion here. The topic and question(s) will be posted in the following post, along with the current results. You are free to submit any comments you wish to make along with your vote, but please make sure that it is clear what your vote is on whatever topic is currently at hand. It would also be helpful if you could put the current topic in the subject line of your post. If you have ideas for future topics, please don't hesitate to send them to me in a PM. In order for this thread to function properly, however, I would ask that you not ask your own questions independently of the topic at hand. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to PM me.
NiQil 02-03-06, 04:50 AM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? 1) Yes 2) No Q1 Results 1: 0 [] 2: 2 [Mal-2, NiQil, Pittbull [Elder], SoulLord, Vathelokai, Zevox]
NiQil 02-03-06, 04:52 AM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. Q1 Results 1: 11 [Abyssal Stalker, Ariel23, Book5, Dracazar, DSugui, Luni [Elder], Pittbull [Elder], TelinArtho, TheMagister, Turin, Usurpator] 2: 6 [DTFarstar, lonewolf, Macbrea, MindWandererB, MitzaVolchenko, Vathelokai] Q2 Results 1: 6 [Abyssal Stalker, Luni [Elder], Pittbull [Elder], Usurpator, Vathelokai, Zevox] 2: 10 [Ariel23, Book5, Dracazar, DSugui, DTFarstar, lonewolf, Macbrea, MindWandererB, TheMagister, Turin] Q3 Results 1: 2 [Dracazar, Pittbull [Elder]] 2: 12 [Abyssal Stalker, Ariel23, Book5, DSugui, DTFarstar, Macbrea, MitzaVolchenko, TheMagister, Turin, Usurpator, Vathelokai, Zevox] 3: [] 4: 1 [MindWandererB] Q) Do you think that using online dice rollers should be mandatory here in CoCo? 1) Yes 2) No Results 1: 2 [Dracazar, Warclone] 2: 33 [Ariel23, Ayrynthyn, bgt, Book5, DSugui, DTFarstar, Gonbow, Kaigan, kedi, klangley, lonewolf, lucanthrope, Macbrea, Malither76, Maraxus, MitzaVolchenko, Myrridin, MysticMonk2005, NiQil, Pittbull [Elder], SauroGrenom, Sindorin, Skojar, Snommelp, SoulLord, TelinArtho, TheMagister, TroubleWolf, Turin, Usurpator, Vathelokai, waywreth, Zevox]
Pittbull 02-03-06, 05:27 AM	Vote for 2! My personal opinion is, it shouldn't be mandatory, but apreciated. We should enhance people to use the dice-roller, but not force them. As I posted before, my idea is: People should only get an extra credit for maps, if they use the dice-roller too. Perhaps Dracazar comes up soon with an enhanced one, to make it more easy to use it. Regarding the creditbility of hand-rolled result, I must say: I hope, we are all reliable. I understand people, saying it takes too long using the onlie-version, my last fight got 60+ rolls and it's unquestioned that real dice make it lot faster. But nevertheless, I used the roller, because it's cleaner, no resentments from your players and so on.
Maraxus 02-03-06, 05:31 AM	Do you think that using online dice rollers should be mandatory here in CoCo? Definitly not. Pitlords are what keeps the Coco running, it takes much more time then just playing. One should not restrict pitlording that way. If somebody is faster with real dice (and willing to document all rolls), he should be allowed do so. If somebody does not have a flat rate and wants to do the fights offline, even more. (Oh and yes, I have pitlorded enough fights, where the rolls were so ... unexpected, that I'm glad, I can show the players, that it was the online-rollers fault.)
MysticMonk2005 02-03-06, 05:35 AM	Im also against mandatory online dice rollers. I realy hope this rulling is overturned as if it isn't we are loosing alot of our experienced pitlords.
kedi 02-03-06, 05:35 AM	I'd like more people to use the roller, but then again, as said, I don't think it should be mandatory. There are certain situations where you can't have an acces to internet, and must you wait a couple of days in order to run the fight? I say, no. Roller is all nice and good, but rule restriction doesn't sound right, due to all respect.
Vathelokai 02-03-06, 05:43 AM	Another vote against mandating the online roller. This has come up every month or so since I've been here. Every time it gets argued into the ground with the conclusion that "There is a minority of players who cannot reasonaby use the online roller." Why exclude that minority?
Dracazar 02-03-06, 05:53 AM	Ehm... Move Silently... Hide... Vote 1! Gaseous Form... :) Aside jokes, I think online roller is Pro (professional) and here we are really Pro of Core. Perhaps we can give 4 weeks before the mandatory so people could have more time to familiarize and perhaps we could have a better roller.
MitzaVolchenko 02-03-06, 06:00 AM	2 I prefer to see online used and prefer to use it, but sometimes it just doesn't work, and if you are on a slow connection, it can double the time it takes to run a fight.
DSugui 02-03-06, 06:00 AM	I agree that the use of online rollers should not be mandatory, but rewarded. Say, half a credit for using maps, and another half for using online rollers. Some people just don't like online rollers, and I can't blame them. Most RPGers (that's who plays RPG lol :P ) like their own set of dice. It's my opinion.
bgt 02-03-06, 06:53 AM	I think online rollers should be mandatory if a fighter asks for it, otherwise I don't think it matters.
Myrridin 02-03-06, 08:57 AM	Vote for number 2 here. I use online rollers when I can, but I don't think they should be mandatory.
Turin 02-03-06, 09:02 AM	I don't really see what the big deal is to use an online roller, myself... I'm already online and at my computer when I'm creating the fight because I need the map, the two characters, a copy of the SRD handy just in case, and so forth. What's the big deal about making an annotated list of rolls in Invisible Castle and putting a link at the top of the fight? But, that being said, I'd rather be without that than without Pitlords, so I'll put in a vote for "Not Mandatory."
Zevox 02-03-06, 09:32 AM	2. I just don't see a major advantage to forcing pitlords to use online rollers. Yes, I use it myself, but I can certainly see why people wouldn't want to (considering how long my fights take me to run using the thing, its perfectly understandable that others would prefer not to use it). If its credibility you're worried over, as I saw someone else (can't recall who...) point out, online rollers don't necessarily help with that, since a pitlord could just roll up multiple games using different names on the online roller and only link the one he/she wants. If we can't trust each other to be impartial when running our games, we're not much of a community. And I don't buy the "its more professional" argument either. I don't know if thats just me, since I'm probably one of the only ones (if not the only one) thats not here to "optimize builds" (I don't know if anyone's noticed, but I've never used those two terms in a post before), but rather simply to have fun, but I don't see how using an online roller is "more professional". "More professional" how? Because you can check thier math on each and every roll? If you're that worried about the specifics of what was or wasn't added to or subrtracted from the rolls, make it mandatory that pitlords who use real dice show thier math (i.e. as Snommelp does), but there shouldn't be a need to use online rollers just on that account in my humble opinion. Zevox
lonewolf 02-03-06, 09:37 AM	vote 2 see discussion thread for reasoning.
TroubleWolf 02-03-06, 10:01 AM	Mark me down for a 2. I very much like the idea of rewarding those who use the online roller, as opposed to making it mandatory for everyone. And I agree that we shouldn't exclude those people who don't have the time to use the dice roller from Pitlording.
DTFarstar 02-03-06, 10:25 AM	Vote 2 Sometimes I have REALLY shoddy internet access and that ends up with multiple rolls, or not being able to make a roll for 10 or 20 minutes. That is REALLY inconveinient, on nights when my connection is acting up being able to run my fights with real dice means they don't get turned in late.
Gonbow 02-03-06, 10:30 AM	Do you think that using online dice rollers should be mandatory here in CoCo? No. There are things that online dice are better at than real dice are. There are things that real dice are better than online dice at. Why take away flexibility? Now, if there was a convenient dice roller, I would probably use it, but there isn't. And even then, if I was in a hurry (as I have been in the past, and will be in the future), it's alot easier for me to pull out my own dice collection. On the flip side, I think math should be shown in all rolls, in the fight, not tucked away in some link somewhere as that is really the easiest way to spot errors. But that's off the topic.
TheMagister 02-03-06, 10:39 AM	No. TM
SoulLord 02-03-06, 11:00 AM	I vote No 1.-I think instead of being mandatory the use of the online die roller should be rewarded 2.-I also don't agree that not using it shows less proffesionalism 3.-sometimes you are stuck without internet conection for a long time perhaps a mere +.1 credit for each fight that uses the online roller?
Sindorin 02-03-06, 11:24 AM	I vote no. For the sake and preservation of the CoCo, I vote no.
TelinArtho 02-03-06, 11:25 AM	My vote is no - they should not be mandatory. While I do use them all the time - it is more convenient for ME. Pitlording is volunteer-work. If it becomes too much of a hassle - people will start pitlording less - even if it is more of a "perceived" hassle than an actual one. I'm of the opinion that alienating a group of people (group being any number greater than 0), is not good for the CoCo at all.
waywreth 02-03-06, 11:38 AM	I also vote no - not mandatory. If you want to roll your dice on the desktop, as long as you type out what bonuses were applied, I see no issues with this.
Myrridin 02-03-06, 11:46 AM	My vote is no - they should not be mandatory. While I do use them all the time - it is more convenient for ME. Pitlording is volunteer-work. If it becomes too much of a hassle - people will start pitlording less - even if it is more of a "perceived" hassle than an actual one. I'm of the opinion that alienating a group of people (group being any number greater than 0), is not good for the CoCo at all. I'd like to point to that statement as one of the main reasons that I stopped Pitlording in the old CoCo. I'm up for running Quests now, which I enjoy, but that's because there is a lot less bickering in them, than can arise in a straight up fight.
Macbrea 02-03-06, 11:54 AM	I also have to vote no for mandatory dice roller. I am all for giving recognition to people that choose to use one but I am against making everyone use one.
Usurpator 02-03-06, 12:08 PM	For the record: 'no' against a roller being mandatory.
lucanthrope 02-03-06, 12:13 PM	I add my vote to no as well. I haven't Pitlorded yet, but I am planning to in the not-to-distant future. I personally just like rolling dice and since I would be volunteering my time to do this I think it should be my choice. I like the idea of slightly rewarding Pitlords for using the roller though. That may make me consider using them.
Snommelp 02-03-06, 12:31 PM	As I stated in Cerebus's vote thread: If we are allowed to vote, I vote against mandatory use of online rollers. The simple fact is that servers can and do go down from time to time; what do I do if the server is down during the time I have allotted to run fights? Normally, I would just use my own dice, but with this new ruling I have but one choice: either stay up well past midnight waiting and hoping that the server comes up, or post the fight late. And with that said, it is far faster for me to run a fight using my own dice, and seeing as I post the die result and then show my work for the full roll value, there is no issue with math in my mind. If it's a problem, just make it mandatory for a pitlord to show his math, in the same way that it is mandatory to post the character sheet and the end of round summary. If this ruling is not overturned, I will be giving up pitlording; I do not enjoy being micromanaged to such an extreme, especially when the result is more time consuming and has no visible gain. So my vote is 2.
SauroGrenom 02-03-06, 12:52 PM	I vote 2
Kaigan 02-03-06, 01:04 PM	I too vote 2. Like Telin, I prefer to use the online roller, but it should not be made mandatory.
Ayrynthyn 02-03-06, 01:34 PM	i vote 2 (Not manditory) as well. While i normally use the online roller, i have had need to resort to my dice when my PC was unavailable durring my "run the fight" time. Id rather have that option as opposed to turning in a fight late. unless of course the late fight penalty is going away as well ;)
Warclone 02-03-06, 02:19 PM	I vote 1. Looks like it is almost entierly against mandatory voting but I think it should be known that I would support such a proposition. I'll be fine without it however.
Malither76 02-03-06, 02:53 PM	its a no for me as well
klangley 02-03-06, 02:58 PM	on required online dice rollers.
Skojar 02-03-06, 05:24 PM	I vote no. If you show your math then the only reason to demand online dice rollers is because you don't trust the PitLord, and if he's not to be trusted then he can cheat with the online roller too. It serves no purpose other than to make it harder for some of us to run a fight.
Book5 02-03-06, 06:35 PM	2: 32 [Ayrynthyn, bgt, Book5, DSugui, DTFarstar, Gonbow, Kaigan, kedi, klangley, lonewolf, lucanthrope, Macbrea, Malither76, Maraxus, MitzaVolchenko, Myrridin, MysticMonk2005, NiQil, Pittbull [Elder], SauroGrenom, Sindorin, Skojar, Snommelp, SoulLord, TelinArtho, TheMagister, TroubleWolf, Turin, Usurpator, Vathelokai, waywreth, Zevox]
Ariel23 02-04-06, 01:14 AM	No Unless we get a special one just for CoCo that is easy to use and integrates with the arena well. It must have easy-to-use editing functionality. Currently available online dice rollers do not.
Macbrea 02-07-06, 11:10 PM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. 1) No 2) No, at this time all it manages to really do is cause 1 winner and 3 losers in the standings. The effect is people feel they are failing in their record because they get stuck in various FFA and get a looser tag. 3) If we are going to have them though, I prefer option 2. A random map.
Zevox 02-07-06, 11:14 PM	Interesting decision for a new topic, Niqil. What prompted this, I wonder? Ah well, my opinions: 1: Abstaining. I'm pretty indifferent towards them - they're harder for pitlords to run and for players to write tactics for, but they're an interesting switch from typical 1-on-1 fights, and provide the possibility of greater rewards than 1-on-1s. Pros and cons, and neither side of it holds me fully. 2: Yes. Great reward for 1st place, good reward for second (equal to what they'd have gotten for 1st place in a 1-on-1 for a 4 way All vs All), decent reward for 3rd (double a normal loser reward, but still short of a normal winner reward), and a typical loser reward for last. Seems a like great setup to me. As for the effect on win/loss records and the [Failure] tags that the others are bringing up, I don't care in the least - those I ignore outright. 3: I'm going to have to select answer 2. The Grand Hall is all fine and dandy, but I'd love to see All vs Alls conducted in a city streets map or a forest map as well. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 02-07-06, 11:27 PM	1) Hate them. They take longer to run, longer to edit, turn intelligent characters into morons because PL's are tired and rushed. 2) I think the gp/xp is a matter of who cares? The loser tags make me grumpy. FFA's are just a fine way to kill a record and discourage people. 3) That arena is broken...I'd rather see them in all terrains if we have to have them.
Ariel23 02-08-06, 01:05 AM	1) Yes. Variety is the spice of life. Note: Pitlording a 4 player FFA should count as 2 fights for the week. 2) No. Any arena system which "rewards" somebody for hiding/cowering is nonsense. If the rewards are reworked, FFA is a good thing Delay penalties should be 10/(# of players -1). 2 gladiators = 10 round delay penalty 3 gladiators = 5 round delay penalty 4 gladiators = 3 (2.5 rounded up) round delay penalty 3) #2 (Yes, but random maps)
Luni 02-08-06, 01:23 AM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. FFA matches need some work I'm afraid. I've ran more than I've actually participated in. Despite the two levels of play, about 90% of fights just use the outside edge. Clearly, some more incentive to get people to move to the other level would help. Assigning random maps, makes things more interesting. Personally, I'd like to add items of power, where those who pick up gain a small bonus (+1 to hit, +1 to AC, +1 to Skills, etc). And they would all shine brightly for those invisible people. It would at least get people to move around some more. Also, adding a bridge to the statue, and adding a small lever to control it might make things more interesting as well. Personally, I'd rather increase the options to something other than; buff for 6 rounds then move towards the fighting pair and pick off the winner. 1) Yes 2) Yes 3) None of the above.
King Uther 02-08-06, 01:33 AM	My bad.
NiQil 02-08-06, 03:06 AM	If you have questions that you wish me to include in a future topic, please don't hesitate to send me a PM about them. However, in order for this thread to function properly, it is important that only the questions posed in the Topic post are the questions being answered at present.
TheMagister 02-08-06, 03:35 AM	1) 1 and agree with Ariel23 that should count as 2 matches, and wish to add that its Pitlord should be compensated with DOUBLE credit rewards. 2) 2 3) 2
Caterane 02-08-06, 04:03 AM	I'd like to point out that once we have random arenas, we will probably also randomize FFA and Hunter fight maps. Monsters need tight space else they become useless so they'll probably stay in the Dungeon. @King: You cannot use Moment of Prescience on initiative because it's not an opposed check. The old Harvesters have used it and we came up with that conclusion. Besides, high level fights tend to be short-lived. Another issue is true strike which needs to be checked carefully. This problem is even mentioned in the Rules of the Game by Skip Williams. He suggested to price the ring at 400,000 gold. Let's get Ajora up there and we'll see how it goes.
Usurpator 02-08-06, 05:24 AM	Q1. Yes (when practiced in moderation, like 5% of all fights) Q2. Yes (while not entirely balanced, it is good enough and adds appeal) Q3. Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. (just keep the arena's small, since waiting out your opponent is a problem for these types of matches)
DSugui 02-08-06, 05:50 AM	Q1. Yes, they're fun, even if this means more work for the pitlord and for the players. I agree that FFA fights should count as two fights. Q2. Not really. I think that the number of kills should be a factor in the rewards of FFA matches. Q3. #2.
lonewolf 02-08-06, 05:58 AM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. Q1: 2 While I generally like Multiplayer matches, I think that the last man standing forces your tactics to delay and thats not so good. I prefere Hunter matches. An option would be to change FFA so that you gain gold/xp for killing anyone, and not for surviving although that would make them similar to hunter matches. Q2: 2 The sum of xp gained by all characters combined should be equal to the likewise xp of a hunter fight. Basically the xp for FFA is ok, but the hunterfights should gain more xp. Q3: none of the above I think FFA matches should not be run on random arenas. You need a small arena so that everyone should be able to find each other. If the delay rule is lessened to 5 rounds for FFA matches, it could also be run in other arenas without much problems, I hope.
Dracazar 02-08-06, 07:03 AM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. Q1=Yes Also I vote to double credit for FFA Q2=No Q3=1
Pittbull 02-08-06, 09:04 AM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. Q1: 1 Q2: 1, if you calculate the Powerrating, it should make a difference, if you won a single arena-fight or won a FFA-fight. Q3:1
Turin 02-08-06, 11:28 AM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches?Vote: 1) Yes but I think some adjustment needs to be made to the rewards system. They also are a lot more work for the Pitlord, and I'll second (third? whatever) the notion that there should be extra credits assigned to Pitlords who run them.Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches?Vote: 2) No because they reward waiting for the other players to kill each other off. The awards system should somehow account for the number of kills in a match. Modifying the delay rule in these matches (reducing the # of rounds allowed) could help with this respect too. Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall?Vote: 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. The Grand Hall map could use some adjustments to be a little more dynamic as well, as suggested by Luni.
DTFarstar 02-08-06, 11:29 AM	1) 2 - I think they penalize low HP casters unduly and make expendable use ever more prevalent. 2) 2 - Just seems like you would learn more even losing completely. Not to mention, like I said wizards and Sorcs especially are not going to win these without either staying out of combat or heavy expendable use, so they usually get the loser awards or one step above. 3) 2 - I think all fights should be done on random maps, monster fights and hunter fights and everything.
TelinArtho 02-08-06, 11:41 AM	1. Yes I like FFA matches. 2. I am indifferent for the rewards (though they seem fine to me). 3. I am fine with different maps or just keeping the grand hall. @Ariel and the others who mentioned it - if a fight has more than 2 gladiators (team fights, FFA and hunter) you get 1 credit/2 gladiators - rounded up. 3-4 player fights always give you 2 credits at a base (if you provide a map you get more; if you post late - it becomes less).
Vathelokai 02-08-06, 11:56 AM	1) No, I do not like the FFA matches. 2) Yes, the reward system seems appropriate to what it is. 3) Yes, but I think the random maps would be better.
Book5 02-08-06, 12:38 PM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches? 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches.
Abyssal Stalker 02-08-06, 01:03 PM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. Q1: Yes. They put the flexibility of the gladiators to the test. It's not easy to write tactics for FFA fights so there shouldn't be too much of them, but occasionally they are fun. Q2: I guess it's OK. Q3: My vote goes for the random maps!
Sindorin 02-08-06, 03:05 PM	I vote against having to post what scrolls we scribe after a paired fight is run.
klangley 02-08-06, 11:44 PM	I have no experience to form an opinion, but I do have an idea about rewards. In some multiplayer M:tG games (that other WotC game), players are awarded one point for each opponent they take out (deal the killing blow to), plus one or two additional points for being the last survivor. This makes it possible for an aggressive player to win even though he is knocked out of the match before the end, by racking up kill points early. The player who sits out and hides will win only the survivor points, which is not enough for victory. One problem with that method is that people are reluctant to not-quite-kill an opponent, so they may avoid doing damage unless they can kill their target in one shot. A solution for this format might be to award VP based on a formula that factors in damage dealt. An example system might be (tweak these numbers as needed): Each slain player is worth 1 VP per ECL. These are apportioned as follows: One point to whoever did the killing blow and the rest divided proportionately among all who damaged the player (but only if he died). It's probably best to read "kill" in this context as "reduce below zero"; players should not earn extra VPs for being the one to kick a bleeding near-corpse to death. Surviving to the end is worth (# of players/3) VP. All fractions are retained, and rewards are awarded as normal for 1st, 2nd, etc but based on VP at match end rather than order of death. This system penalizes those who use non-damaging tactics like Sleep, Hold Person or Color Spray. I don't have an easy solution for that; perhaps that's an OK result... spellcasters should have more than one trick in their bag. The good news is, delay rule should almost never be necessary.
MindWandererB 02-10-06, 02:18 PM	Q1) Do you like Last Man Standing (aka FFA) matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Last Man Standing matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q3) Do you like having Last Man Standing matches in the Grand Hall? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. Q1) 2 While I do like having some variety, I dislike FFA matches. Tactics involved in such matches are completely different than normal duels, and encourage turtling/vulturing. They screw up the power ratings (e.g. my Aerryl is 4-0 for duels but 0-2 for FFAs) because of their unpredictability. During the recent FFA binge, I was strongly tempted to sit it out, or design characters specifically to excel in that format, until the binge was over. Even now, I live in fear of them. They also require more work for both players and pitlords, which can get multiplied tremendously if there is a problem. They also mess up XP counts--for instance, if I planned on leveling as an Assassin but hadn't done the MQ yet, and suddenly won an FFA, I might be catapulted into the next level prematurely. If they are continued, I recommend double credits for pitlords, and both 1st and 2nd place counted as a "win" in the power ratings. For "spice," I think other matches are better--team battles are great alternatives, there was that proposed "capture the flag/king of the mountain" idea, and I still like the idea of a team-vs-monster format. Q2) 2 Level catapulting, 75% losers, unhelpful powerratings, etc. Badness all around. Existing rewards favor poor characters and turtles, and hinder otherwise good battle builds. Q3) 4 The Grand Hall has the advantage of being small, preventing a certain amount of hiding and buffing. I think FFAs on, for example, the City Streets map, would be disastrous, favoring the stealthy and cowardly even more. The Wilderness map will probably be okay--it may be large but there's almost nowhere to hide. Unfortunately, the Grand Hall does indeed seldom use the lower area, and it is perhaps a bit too small, allowing for flat-footed kills and cripplings (increasing randomness further). Although I vote against FFAs in general, I think they would work best on one or more new maps, a bit larger, with fewer obstacles/cover, and perhaps a free buff round.
MitzaVolchenko 02-15-06, 02:32 AM	Q1) Do you like Hunter matches? 1) Yes However, most people don't bother writing hunter tactics...they just treat them like another FFA on a different map. iT makes me irritable when I am running them as the oe person that does send proper hunter tactics usually gets owned because of it. Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Hunter matches? 4) No, I think the rewards system should be completely redone for both Hunter and Last Man Standing matches. People should gain absolutely nothing for killing out of turn, and the number of loser tags that rack up from these, like the FFA's, is not fair. Q3) Do you like having Hunter matches in the Cavern? 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. Go for the random goodness...the only add-on that I actually thought had real promise is of course the one that hasn't been implemented yet...go figure.
Zevox 02-15-06, 08:20 AM	1. Do you like Hunter matches? A: Like with All vs Alls, I'm indifferent on that. I like how they provide players with a different scenario for the fights and the possibility of greater rewards than typical fights, but I'm not fond of the increased difficulty for tactics and pitlording. More or less evens out. 2. Do you like the reward system (xp/gp) for Hunter matches? A: No (but none of the answers Niqil provides applies to my opinion). I like the idea of giving bonus money to the competitors based on how many targets they kill, but as it stands now if you through some fluke or enemy interference (or enemies not writing tactics appropriate for the scenario as Mitza mentioned) don't manage to kill your target, regardless of how well you did in the fight, you still get virtually nill rewards. I'd like to see this reward system merged in a way with the All vs All one - players get greater rewards both for killing thier target and for lasting longer (though obviously the rewards shouldn't surpass those of the All vs All matches in total). 3. Do you like having Hunter matches in the Cavern? A: #2 - Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. Like with All vs Alls, I'd love to see some variety in the arena choices. Zevox
MindWandererB 02-15-06, 01:49 PM	Q1) Do you like Hunter matches? 1) Yes 2) No Q2) Do you like the rewards system (xp/gp) for Hunter matches? 1) Yes, they are fine as is. 2) Yes, but I think that the reward system for Last Man Standing matches should be reduced to be identical to Hunter matches, since the amount of people involved are the same. 3) No, I think the reward system should be raised to be identical to Last Man Standing matches, since the amount of people involved are the same. 4) No, I think the rewards system should be completely redone for both Hunter and Last Man Standing matches. Q3) Do you like having Hunter matches in the Cavern? 1) Yes, that is the perfect place for them. 2) Yes, but I think they would be even more fun if these matches have random maps just like the proposed idea for normal arena matches. 3) No, they should be assigned to a different map permanently. 4) No, no matter what map is used I do not think these fights work properly. Q1) 2 I have mixed feelings about them, most of which have to deal with the rewards. I like the idea, but most of the time it devolves into an FFA, since it's usually not too smart to ignore someone who's attacking you. Once two characters locate each other, it's usually in their best interests to duke it out--which sucks when one of them doesn't get a reward for killin gthe other. Similarly, stealth-turtles have a 50%/50% chance of getting their reward by just letting someone else do it for them. So while I like the idea, I think it needs some sort of major overhaul to work the way it's supposed to. Q2) 4 Now, I do think that both types of fights should be equally desirable. That means that 1) the average reward should be the same for both, and 2) the maximum reward should be the same for both. But I also think FFAs are too lucrative XP/GP-wise, but too harsh powerrating-wise. Note that the only difference between Hunter and FFA matches is the reward structure--otherwise, they're both 3-4 people duking it out to the death. So they have to be equal, but different.... I honestly don't know how this can be achieved. Q3) 3 The problem with the Cavern map, logical as it may seem for Hunter matches, is that it exacerbates the existing problems. It's highly likely that two people will encounter each other first and be obligated to fight, even though one of those two people has no incentive to kill the other (other than survival). The only way to help with this problem is with a smaller or more wide-open map, such as the Great Hall or the Wilderness.
NiQil 02-20-06, 03:17 AM	Q1) 2 From what I can tell, by the RAW they don't. The monster entry for psicrystals does not list any advancement available for psicrystals, which means they only get the feat they are listed with (Alertness). All available familars except the owl also have no advancement listed, and the owl does not advance far enough in Hit Dice (2) to gain anything beyond the first feat it would have even if it had no advancement. So if they cannot advance, then they cannot gain feats.
klangley 02-20-06, 03:52 AM	hmm, it must be the economist in me... as with the FFA match, it seems to me that the way to encourage the kind of play you want is to make that kind of play the most rewarded. My idea for hunter matches (stolen, again, from a M:tG multiplayer format, this time the "star" 5 player game). Call this the "enemy of my enemy" format. Player A's enemies are C and D. Player B's enemies are D and E. Player C's enemies are E and A. Player D's enemies are A and B. Player E's enemies are B and C. The first living player to have no living enemies, regardless of how they died, is the winner. The fight immediately ends. Everyone else loses. Ties are possible. Rewards are scaled so that the winner scores equal to two normal arena victories, and the four losers each score equal to two normal arena defeats. What this means is that each player has not only two people he wants to kill, but also two people he does NOT want to die... at least not right away. And these allies each share one objective with him but are opposed on another objective (B and C agree that E is evil and must die, but B's attacks on D may be opposed by C....especially after E is dead.) This format also rewards aggression, as simply surviving will not be enough... if you go hide, someone else will win. This might have to be run separate-thread, or more than one week with a break after each death, since tactics and objectives will change as one person falls. Suddenly there are reasons to heal someone besides yourself, or seek non-lethal ways of interfering with someone. It would also require a map with 5 balanced start positions... and if you're making a pentagram-shaped arena, why not put a summoned demon in the center just for kicks? Demon can't leave the center area or affect anything outside of the center, but will attack anyone moving in (or pushed in). Or maybe not, the pitlord for this will have enough to do without running a demon as well.
Vathelokai 02-20-06, 04:25 AM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? 1) Yes 2) No As much as I would like to, I just don't think it's core. Home games though, I'm all over it. That's a no vote.
Pittbull 02-20-06, 06:57 AM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? 1) Yes 2) No 2) Answer is no!
Zevox 02-20-06, 09:03 AM	1. Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? A: Of course not. Feats are gained by gaining HD or by qualifying for bonus feats somehow. Familiars and Psicrystals do neither. They already get a variety of special abilities and a few statistical advancements as thier master gets stronger, why should they get feats as well? Zevox
SoulLord 02-20-06, 10:24 AM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? 1) Yes 2) No As much as I would like for vandelars familiar to have multiple feats I have to vote NO
Mal-2 02-20-06, 10:51 AM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? A: No. I thought the usual question on this topic was if psicrystals worked differently from familiars? I'm pretty sure it's well established that familiars gain no extra feats for "gaining" hitdice. Psicrystals are written up slightly differently, though. Personally, I think the two should work in the same way, so I'm happy enough to say no to both.
Gonbow 02-20-06, 02:00 PM	Q1: Wrong question. Familiars are clearly stated to not gain feats. Psicrystals are not clearly stated to not gain feats. This should not be one question. Though the two beings are meant to be analog in a magic = psionics kind of way, they clearly are not. Just as Touchsight is clearly not the same as See Invisibility.
DSugui 02-20-06, 02:22 PM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? They are different. Familiars do not increase HD (the use the master's HD for the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice), so they can't take any new feats. Psicrystals do increase HD (The entry for Psicrystal in the monster section says: Hit Dice: As master’s HD ) so I think they can gain feats.
SauroGrenom 02-20-06, 02:24 PM	First I think this should be split this question up into two different questions. Too often we lump familiars and psicrystals into the same pile. They are different. There are clearly different sets of rules that govern each. By the RAW, Familiars do not gain feats or BAB as there master's increase in level. I don't think we need a community vote or elder ruling on this point unless we want to contradict what is written in the description of familiars. The Familiare description specificially tells us the BAB, HP, HD, Skills, Saves, and abilities of the Familiare. It also specificially tells us that the increased HD of a familiare does not grant ability score increases, feats or skill points. Animal companions and special mounts gain feats, ability increases, saves and skill points with the increased HD associated with increased level of there masters. Unlike all other such companions, Familiare's do not gain these benefits. The Psicrystal description specificially tells us that psicrystals are constructs with Skills, Saves, HP and special abilities based on there masters number of levels in a psionic class. There is no mention of HD, BAB or Feats in the description that accompanies the psion class entry. However there is additional information in the Psicrystal entry in the psionic monsters section of the SRD. By the RAW Psicrystals are constructs with a number of HD equal to the combined total of there master's levels in psion and wilder. This is clearly stated in the psicrystal entry in the psionic monsters section of the SRD. I don't think there is any room for interpretation. We have a set of rules that clearly fills in all the gaps. The HD of the psicrystal is determined by the master's number of levels in psion and wilder. The special abilities of the crystal are determined by the number of levels in all psionic classes. The HP, skills and saves of a crystal are determined by the master's base saves, skills and HP. The BAB of the crystal is determined by its number of HD as a construct, and the crystal gains stat boosts and feat increases as a construct of the given number of HD. You may notice that a psiwarrior is stuck with a psicrystal with 0HD. This sucks, but it's how the rules are worded. Nobody is suggesting that because familiare's don't gain feats with increased HD, that special mounts and animal companions shouldn't gain feats with increased HD. What this question appears to be is a suggestion that because Familiare's don't gain BAB, stats and feats, that psicrystal's must also not gain BAB, stats and feats. I think that's a bad idea. This question appears to be more about whether we want to make a house rule to make psicrystals more like familiares. To that I say NO.
NiQil 02-20-06, 02:47 PM	Due to some rather inflammatory statements I have received privately, I am hereby discontinuing my participation in this thread. If someone else wants to start a new one, feel free. However, I will no longer be running this one.
Skojar 02-20-06, 06:07 PM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? No. We shouldn't implement rules that aren't already spelled out in the Core unless they help in the flow and balance of arena battles.
Ariel23 02-20-06, 06:41 PM	Q1) Do you think that psicrystals and familiars should gain feats as their masters advance? 2: No They get abilities as listed on the chart, not feats. They don't gain levels or HD. It's more like a template. The psicrystal IS a feat. These are not animal companions or paladin mounts which are intended to be supplemental cohorts of a sort. Additionally, animal companions do gain HD, so we are not construing them to be something they are not.
MindWandererB 02-20-06, 08:09 PM	No. As an aside, Psicrystals are horribly implemented: there's the whole no-HD problem for the psicrystals of Psychic warriors, and then there's "owner level" in the abilities chart, which doesn't say if it's manifester level, class level, character level, or whatever. One would have to say character level, the way it's written, but it's sort of silly to have a fully-developed crystal with an ML of 1.
klangley 02-21-06, 02:50 AM	No. As an aside, Psicrystals are horribly implemented: there's the whole no-HD problem for the psicrystals of Psychic warriors, and then there's "owner level" in the abilities chart, which doesn't say if it's manifester level, class level, character level, or whatever. One would have to say character level, the way it's written, but it's sort of silly to have a fully-developed crystal with an ML of 1. As it parallels familiars, it should be class level in the class(es) that allow you to have a psicrystal.
MindWandererB 02-21-06, 03:50 AM	As it parallels familiars, it should be class level in the class(es) that allow you to have a psicrystal.The problem is, there is no class that allows you to have a psicrystal--eligibility for the feat is determined by manifester level, not class level. Unbodied, for instance, qualify to have one, even without any class levels.
Kaigan 02-21-06, 11:27 AM	This is from the SRD. Psicrystal abilities are based on the owner’s levels in psionic classes. Levels from other classes do not count toward the owner’s level for purposes of psicrystal abilities. So I guess that about sums it up. So while you need a manifester level to get one, you only have to have psionic class levels to gain the psicrystals other abilities.
MindWandererB 02-21-06, 02:22 PM	So I guess that about sums it up. So while you need a manifester level to get one, you only have to have psionic class levels to gain the psicrystals other abilities.Unfortunately, that results in absurdities. Unbodied with no class levels: Has a psicrystal with no abilities whatsoever: it has no personality, it's blind and deaf, and it can't communicate with its master. Psychic Warrior 1/Soulknife 19: Has the abilities of a level 20 psion, despite its ML of 1.
Kaigan 02-21-06, 03:38 PM	Unfortunately, that results in absurdities. Unbodied with no class levels: Has a psicrystal with no abilities whatsoever: it has no personality, it's blind and deaf, and it can't communicate with its master. Psychic Warrior 1/Soulknife 19: Has the abilities of a level 20 psion, despite its ML of 1. And why is that absurd? There is NO point in taking a psicrystal if you are only taking a class to take the manifester level. Take your example: A psychic Warrior 1/Soulknife 19. What's the point of doing that? You waste a feat to take the psicrystal. And what do you gain? +3 to a skill, or +2 to a save? and some abilites for the psicrystal which aren't to useful to the build. Edit: It might serve as a scout, but that's all I can see it being used for.
Book5 02-21-06, 04:08 PM	Due to some rather inflammatory statements I have received privately, I am hereby discontinuing my participation in this thread. If someone else wants to start a new one, feel free. However, I will no longer be running this one. OH NO! ... eh your pretty busy anyway Prisonlord. I'll do it. Any "comments" on that regard? ... :D PS - The books is fireproof ;) @Psicrystal ok ya'll are not reading sauro's post A psicrystal’s characteristics depend on its master. Its Hit Dice are equal to its master’s Hit Dice (counting only levels in psion or wilder), its hit points are equal to half its master’s, and its saving throw bonuses are the same as its master’s. HD = Feats. not the period. I would vote but it doesnt look like the votes will be recorded.
MindWandererB 02-21-06, 05:28 PM	And why is that absurd? There is NO point in taking a psicrystal if you are only taking a class to take the manifester level. Take your example: A psychic Warrior 1/Soulknife 19. What's the point of doing that? You waste a feat to take the psicrystal. And what do you gain? +3 to a skill, or +2 to a save? and some abilites for the psicrystal which aren't to useful to the build. Edit: It might serve as a scout, but that's all I can see it being used for.So you can't use it to deliver powers. That's the only aspect you can't use. Even with just one ML, you get +3 to a skill or +2 to a save, plus Alertness, plus a workaround for magical darkness/silence, plus the scouting use. At higher levels, it serves as a translator and flying scout. And you didn't address the other absurdity: a psicrystal without even the level 1 abilities. @Book5: Familiars are one example where HD <> Feats. So "period" is indeed "not the period."
Kaigan 02-21-06, 05:47 PM	So you can't use it to deliver powers. That's the only aspect you can't use. Even with just one ML, you get +3 to a skill or +2 to a save, plus Alertness, plus a workaround for magical darkness/silence, plus the scouting use. At higher levels, it serves as a translator and flying scout. And you didn't address the other absurdity: a psicrystal without even the level 1 abilities. @Book5: Familiars are one example where HD <> Feats. So "period" is indeed "not the period." I don't even know why I'm trying to defend myself here.... I just quoted what it says in the rules and it seems like you are attacking me for doing so. And I don't know about the psicrystal without level 1 abilites.... I'm just quoting the rules. And I don't know why you get so upset about the psicrystal having all those abilites at with a character that only has a ML of 1 from a class. Let's take your example again: PsyWar1 Soulknife 19: 1) It takes a feat, that I'm sure a Psywar/soulknife would like to use elsewhere. 2) It gains these abilites at levels 1-2: Alertness, improved evasion, personality, self-propulsion, share powers, sighted, telepathic link. Now I don't know why you're complaining about this becuase this is what he would get anyways, whether the soulknife levels stacked or not. 3) Deliver touch powers: Not too useful. Takes the use of powerstones and not useful in this build. 4) Telepathic speech at levels 5-6. So not until level 5 can this person really use the psicrystal for proper scouting. Even then it can't detect invisibility. 5) Flight at levels 9 and 10. Sure it has a flight of 50' but it has (poor) flight ability. 6) Power resistance. Big whoop. 7) Sight Link. Again deals with the scouting but hey, why not this occurs at level 13-14. 8) Channel Power. Again big whoop. So I don't know what the complains are about. I wouldn't waste a feat for this. And if I did, does it have a big impact? No.
SauroGrenom 02-21-06, 06:00 PM	@Book5: Familiars are one example where HD <> Feats. So "period" is indeed "not the period." Well Technicially Familiares don't actually gain HD as the master increases in HD. The relevant passages are A familiar is a normal animal that gains new powers and becomes a magical beast when summoned to service by a sorcerer or wizard. It retains the appearance, Hit Dice, base attack bonus, base save bonuses, skills, and feats of the normal animal it once was, but it is treated as a magical beast instead of an animal for the purpose of any effect that depends on its type. Hit Dice: For the purpose of effects related to number of Hit Dice, use the master’s character level or the familiar’s normal HD total, whichever is higher The fact is that familiar's doint gain real HD. They are treated as having increased HD for the purpos of effects related to number of HD. PsiCrystals gain real HD. They are not just treated as having increased HD. In every case I can think of where real HD are involved, feats, saves and ability increases are awarded. Psicrystals get these effects as well. The rules are all there folks, no need for interpretation, just a carefull read will tell you all you need to know. I summarized the relevant rules in my previous post.
MindWandererB 02-21-06, 06:00 PM	I don't even know why I'm trying to defend myself here.... I just quoted what it says in the rules and it seems like you are attacking me for doing so.Sorry, I don't mean to attack you. I just happen to disagree with you. :P This issue isn't whether it would be a strategic choice for such a character, or whether something would end up "broken." This issue is whether it makes sense.
Luni 02-21-06, 06:03 PM	Since the topic about Psicrystals is taking over the boards, we are going to combine them in one thread: Notes: A monster’s statistics block supersedes the descriptive text. Rules as Written: 1) Psicrystal abilities are based on the owner’s levels in psionic classes. Levels from other classes do not count toward the owner’s level for purposes of psicrystal abilities. 2) Its Hit Dice are equal to its master’s Hit Dice (counting only levels in psion or wilder), its hit points are equal to half its master’s, and its saving throw bonuses are the same as its master’s. Clearly not correct as it disagrees with the stat block. 3) A psicrystal is treated as a construct for the purposes of all effects that depend on its type. 4) Skills: A psicrystal has the same skill ranks as its owner, except that it has a minimum of 4 ranks each in Spot, Listen, Move Silently, and Search. (Even if its owner has no ranks in these skills, a psicrystal has 4 ranks in each.) A psicrystal uses its own ability modifiers on skill checks. Clearly, all HD count becasue the stat block is correct, and the text is wrong. Do psicrystals gain feats? I'm unsure, so I emailed WoTC to find out. Don't yell at each other guys.
MindWandererB 02-21-06, 06:23 PM	1) Psicrystal abilities are based on the owner’s levels in psionic classes. Levels from other classes do not count toward the owner’s level for purposes of psicrystal abilities.Sorry, I have to continue to play Devil's Advocate here. The PrCs in the XPH are psionic classes, right? So what about all the "+1 level of existing manifesting class" classes that say "He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (bonus feats... psicrystal special abilities, and so on)." So we have a contradiction here.
Luni 02-21-06, 06:29 PM	Sorry, I have to continue to play Devil's Advocate here. The PrCs in the XPH are psionic classes, right? So what about all the "+1 level of existing manifesting class" classes that say "He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (bonus feats... psicrystal special abilities, and so on)." So we have a contradiction here. Prestige Psionic Classes are not Psionic Classes then. The HD of the psicyrstal would still increase irregardless.
MindWandererB 02-21-06, 06:35 PM	Prestige Psionic Classes are not Psionic Classes then. The HD of the psicyrstal would still increase irregardless.Then you have a problem with Psionic Fists and Warminds, where they have a ML and thus qualify to have a psicrystal, but they get no abilities, not even Personality, Sighted, Self-Propulsion, or Telepathic Link.
Luni 02-21-06, 06:39 PM	Then you have a problem with Psionic Fists and Warminds, where they have a ML and thus qualify to have a psicrystal, but they get no abilities, not even Personality, Sighted, Self-Propulsion, or Telepathic Link. But fighters qualify for Spell Focus even though they don't have spells. Psionic Fists and warminds get no benefit then, just as fighters get no benefit from spell focus. Unless you think we should give fighters spells. Edit: Seriously, the Psionic stuff has gaps of information missing.
MindWandererB 02-21-06, 06:52 PM	But fighters qualify for Spell Focus even though they don't have spells. Psionic Fists and warminds get no benefit then, just as fighters get no benefit from spell focus. Unless you think we should give fighters spells. Edit: Seriously, the Psionic stuff has gaps of information missing.That seems a bit different to me. A fighter with Spell Focus does indeed get the bonus to spell DCs, he just can't actually do anything with it. A warmind with Psycrystal Affinity, with this ruling, doesn't actually get the benefit at all. The problem is pretty obvious: in the change to 3.5, and probably halfway in the middle of writing the XPH, they decided that psicrystals should be a feat rather than a class feature, but they didn't clean up after their old mess. The +1 ML PrCs, for instance, obviously consider psicrystal advancement to be a class feature, when it isn't. (The "any other feature" clause is just wrong, because it isn't a feature. That's like saying that levels in Horizon Walker don't give extra uses of Stunning Fist based on your previous (non-monk) class levels--uses per day of Stunning Fist is a function of character level, not class level, so it's just an incorrect example, just like the reference to Breath of the Black Dragon under Form of Doom.)
Book5 02-22-06, 03:59 PM	Saurogenome is correct. Please, he has refrenced every pertinant rule. The only question is whether or not certain abilities (+1 ML) and etc. Mindblade etc. Incoincistancies in the rules, etc. again the answer is simple - Its Hit Dice are equal to its master’s Hit Dice (counting only levels in psion or wilder), Psicrystal HD = Master Psion & Wilder levels ... only. All the other stuff is irrelevant. HD gives all HD thingos as usual, including feats. Without Psion or Wilder Levels the crystal has "1 HD" (its base unaugmented) and if it didnt get all the HP and saves off the master's generic (total) HP/Saves etc. then it would have 1hp as well.