Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Cerebus13 12-13-05, 08:48 AM	The purpose of this thread is to store a list of frequently asked questions and their answers for the community, and to serve as a place for players to voice their opinions on rules interpretations. In order to save the boards the spam of a new poll for every rules argument, this thread can be a place for people to vote on what they think is correct. This vote may not be supported by the rules officials of the CoCo, but it will present a good representation of what the community thinks. This thread will follow this format: - Introduction - Current Rules being reviewed. - Results of previous Rule reviews. - Frequently asked questions & their answers. - Placeholder - All other posts belong to the community to vote and discuss on any given Rule under review.
Cerebus13 12-13-05, 08:50 AM	#7 a) b) c) Other (list your idea) ------------------------ Please post in this thread with your vote on what you think is the correct interpretation for these rules! If you need to go into a deeper discussion about it use this thread or the Tavern thread, but please make your answer to these questions clear so I can tally up the responses as time passes! ------------------------ Current votes: (adjusted to fit above options if a custom idea was close enough, to ease voting results) Names in bold are current CoCo Elders. Thanks for voting! #7 a) b) c) Last post examined: #94
Cerebus13 12-13-05, 08:51 AM	#1 Can Monks use their Flurry ability to gain extra grapple options in a grapple as if they had a higher BAB? possible answers: a) Yes, but they take the standard Flurry penalty to each grapple check for that round. b) No, they may only use Flurry to grant additional attacks using the "Attack your Opponent" grapple option. #2 What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount in combat without any penalties? (there are already rules in place for using a mount in combat, it is covered in the Ride skill so don't worry about adding additions for that) possible answers: a) Combat Riding trick package b) Riding trick package #3 Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? a) Yes b) No, the time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory with a minimum casting time of a Standard Action. #4 Can psionic powers with a range of personal be placed in crawling tattoos? a) Yes b) No #5 Can a player ready a standard action to set a Tower Shield for Total Cover in order to avoid an attack aimed at them? possible answers: a) Yes. b) No. The CoCo houserules about readied actions specifically forbid you from readying an action to "dodge an attack", which this action falls under. c) Other (list your idea) #6 If a spell or power required in the making of an item costs XP (such as Permanency or somesuch) do you have to pay extra for it? How much extra? (This question is mostly in reference to items that are not already priced within the DMG, such as power stones) a) Yes. Follow the standard rate of XP cost in the CoCo, 5gp per 1 XP. b) No. c) Other (list your idea) -------------------------------------------- Results: #1 - 15 for a), 11 for b) with 1 Elder #2 - 25 for a) with 1 Edler, 1 for b) #3 - 2 for a), 23 for b) with 1 Elder #4 - 6 for a), 15 for b) with 1 Elder #5 - 4 for a), 13 for b) #6 - 14 for a)
Cerebus13 12-13-05, 08:53 AM	Moved to here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6942869&postcount=10).
Cerebus13 12-13-05, 08:54 AM	...
DTFarstar 12-13-05, 09:24 AM	#1 C) Other - They can flurry, but their grapple checks take the associated -2 penalty from flurrying. Damage Your Opponent: While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a –4 penalty on your grapple check. Exception: Monks deal more damage on an unarmed strike than other characters, and the damage is lethal. However, they can choose to deal their damage as nonlethal damage when grappling without taking the usual –4 penalty for changing lethal damage to nonlethal damage. From here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/specialAttacks.html).+Flurry of Blows (Ex): When unarmored, a monk may strike with a flurry of blows at the expense of accuracy. When doing so, she may make one extra attack in a round at her highest base attack bonus, but this attack takes a –2 penalty, as does each other attack made that round. The resulting modified base attack bonuses are shown in the Flurry of Blows Attack Bonus column on Table: The Monk. This penalty applies for 1 round, so it also affects attacks of opportunity the monk might make before her next action. When a monk reaches 5th level, the penalty lessens to –1, and at 9th level it disappears. A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows. From here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/monk.html). So, grappling in place of attack takes the -2 penalty associated with that attack this turn. Makes sense to me anyway, it's either that or they can't at all because of flurries you can only attack with unnarmed strikes and special monk weapons during a flurry, so it's either a substitute attack and takes the associated -2 or it can't be done at all. That's the way I see it anyway. I vote for the first case simply because it nerfs monk grappling enough to make it FAIR without making it crappy and it makes sense. #2 C) Other - Both : You either have Combat Riding or you make DC 20 Ride checks to control your mount anytime you get in battle. If you don't have the Riding or Combat Riding package then I believe that follows under the "RIDE (DEX) If you attempt to ride a creature that is ill suited as a mount, you take a –5 penalty on your Ride checks. Check: Typical riding actions don’t require checks. You can saddle, mount, ride, and dismount from a mount without a problem." From here (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/skillsDex.html). So, you can get on just about anything and ride it very uncomfortably, but when it comes to combat if it doesn't have the Combat Riding package then it's DC 20, and if it doesn't have Combat Riding OR Riding, then it's DC 20 with a -5 for it being unsuited to ride. Seems simple enough to me, but evidently it isn't or it wouldn't be here.
waywreth 12-13-05, 10:04 AM	#1 b) No, they may only use Flurry to grant additional attacks using the "Attack your Opponent" grapple option. #2 What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount? a) Combat Riding trick package I would like to also add the following question: Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? a) Yes However, after putting these two quotes together, I now believe differently. The reason is that the first quote states that the spell takes the same amount of time to cast in a scroll as it does from memory, unless the item description says differently. The item description being referred to here is the spell completetion item description, which is what scrolls are. This is the second quote above. In the second quote, it plainly states that a spell completion item is activated as a standard action. No exceptions. This overrides the first quote, because the first quote says it does. And, when I think about it, it kinda makes sense. It is a spell completion item. As the description says, no material components are required...you are just adding the last few words and gestures. b) No, the time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory. Edit: I vote b) no, to my own question.
SoulLord 12-13-05, 10:12 AM	#1 b) No; but they can use the flurry of blows for aditional attacks with the -2 penalty associated with it #2 What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount? If its to be used as a Mount in Battle then a) combat riding package. otherwise checks need to be made otherwise the mount will disobey commands from rider once in battle. #3 Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? no; a full round action spell would take at least a full round action to cast in a scroll
DTFarstar 12-13-05, 10:24 AM	If the scroll question gets added I vote yes. I was the one that dug up the stuff NiQuil is referencing. It's just a benefit of pay the experience and having such an easily destroyed item. Shortens everything to standard casting time. Makes scrolls of True Ressurection make sense now huh? Not having to carry all those diamonds and being able to wake Bob up the round after he is killed instead of 10 minutes later. If the question gets put on this survey I'd like to at least be able to quote the passages in the explanation of the yes answer so people can make an informed decision instead of just relying on what NiQuil says, persuasive and well-spoken though it is.
Sunwolf 12-13-05, 10:35 AM	#1 C) Yes, but monks must take their flurry penalty (-2,-1, or -0 based on Monk level) to their grapple modifier on each grapple check #2 C) Other - Both : You either have Combat Riding or you make DC 20 Ride checks to control your mount anytime you get in battle (see DTFarstars note for a good explaination) #3 Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? No; casting time is a standard action or the time to cast from memory whichever is longer. Exception: Sorcerers and bards casting a metamagiced spell from a scroll do not add additional time to the spell casting since it is not a spontaneous casting.
Cerebus13 12-13-05, 10:42 AM	I've updated the list to include #3 about scrolls and casting times, and #4 about personal powers on crawling tattoos from NiQil. Also I fixed the a) answer to #1 to include that the Flurry penalty will apply to each grapple check made that round, so once I tally votes people who put down c) with basically that answer I will switch to a). Keep the input coming in and I'll tally the results each morning!
waywreth 12-13-05, 11:05 AM	#4 Can psionic powers with a range of personal be placed in crawling tattoos? b) No (with a few exceptions - Skate being one)
lonewolf 12-13-05, 11:19 AM	1: b 2: a 3: a 4: b
Altaris13 12-13-05, 01:13 PM	#1 Can Monks use their Flurry ability to gain extra grapple options in a grapple as if they had a higher BAB? b) No, they may only use Flurry to grant additional attacks using the "Attack your Opponent" grapple option. #2 What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount? c) Other: Both a & b, if riding package is chosen & mount is used in combat, normal checks apply #3 Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? b) No, the time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory. #4 Can psionic powers with a range of personal be placed in crawling tattoos? b) No
Dracazar 12-13-05, 01:19 PM	1) B 2) I think the question need to be more precise If you mean the trick needed to mount a creature in the arena and you wish to combat with it then I vote A (and add that you can do the same thing with a move action and a ride check) If you mean the trick needed to mount a creature without specifing more, then I vote C: no trick needed. 3) A 4) A
Gonbow 12-13-05, 01:27 PM	#1 Can Monks use their Flurry ability to gain extra grapple options in a grapple as if they had a higher BAB? a) Yes, but they take the standard Flurry penalty to each grapple check for that round. #2 What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount? b) Riding trick package #3 Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? c) Other: Casting a spell from a scroll is whatever kind of action it would be casting the spell from memory and can be modified in such by metamagic feats, as per Skip Williams. #4 Can psionic powers with a range of personal be placed in crawling tattoos? a) Yes I'm not sure if this is the wisest thing to do.. but it would make tattoos a hellaof lot more useful.
Cerebus13 12-13-05, 02:05 PM	Updated question #2 to make it more clear, and added up a tally of the votes so far. I would rather abstain from voting so I can be a proper indifferent party to monitor the voting process. If voting on something is split completely even we can roll a die or ask an Elder to choose the deciding vote.
Dracazar 12-13-05, 02:20 PM	c) Other: Casting a spell from a scroll is whatever kind of action it would be casting the spell from memory and can be modified in such by metamagic feats, as per Skip Williams. May you tell me the source?
waywreth 12-13-05, 02:46 PM	May you tell me the source? Using Magic Items (Part Two) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20041116a) By Skip Williams If the spell contained in a spell completion item has a casting time other than 1 standard action, that is its activation time. For example, a scroll containing a summon monster I spell has an activation time of 1 round because that's the casting time for the spell.
DTFarstar 12-13-05, 03:22 PM	Which irritates the hell out of me because I'm normally inclined to trust Skip, but he totally contradicts what is said in the DMG and that irritates me. Oh well, I never plan to use this stuff anyway so it doesn't matter, it's just the principal of the thing to me. *sigh*
Dracazar 12-13-05, 03:36 PM	Ok I modify my vote on #3 to B
Mal-2 12-13-05, 03:44 PM	Sure, though I don't think any of this is binding on pitlords without CoCo Elders being involved. #1 - B (To conform with the Rule of the Game article on natural attacks in a grapple) #2 - Not sure. #3 - Whatever the Rules of the Game article says (is that C?) #4 - B It would be nice if there was a way to link to the various Tavern discussions about these topics, but I don't know how you would find and link them all without a working search function.
lonewolf 12-13-05, 03:46 PM	Ok I modify my vote on #3 to B me 2
Usurpator 12-13-05, 03:49 PM	Cerebus13, great initiative! 1a 2a (a riding horse can be ridden without making extra checks, but not in combat: riding package. A warhorse can be ridding in combat without making extra checks: combat riding. The Hippogriff entry says that you need to train it for 6 weeks to make it fit to bear a rider in combat. Six weeks = 6 tricks = Combat Riding. 3b 4b
Snommelp 12-13-05, 11:02 PM	1: a Reason: if Natural Attacks can be used as a Grapple-for-Damage option, I see no reason to say "no" to a monk's flurries. Popular opinion is that monks are underpowered anyway. 2: a Reason: Combat Riding package. The name says it all. 3: a Reason: apparently the DMG says so (I really need to get a 3.5 DMG...) 4: I abstain Reason: I don't know psionics well enough.
lonewolf 12-14-05, 09:22 AM	I just found something under the entry of Spellstoring weapons that should decide #3: (This special ability is an exception to the general rule that casting a spell from an item takes at least as long as casting that spell normally.) greets lonewolf
SauroGrenom 12-14-05, 11:40 AM	1) Option A 2) Option A 3) Option B 4) Option A I have SRD quotes to back them all up. I'm not sure if Cerebus wants to have heated discussion here, but if so I can get into that.
Pittbull 12-14-05, 11:47 AM	Here are my votes: 1: b 2: a (for riding in combat) 3: b 4: b
NiQil 12-14-05, 11:59 AM	1) A 2) A 3) B (reversing myself here again...but Skip coming right out and saying what he did in that article is hard to argue against) 4) B After looking at the results so far, it would appear (for the most part) that the only issue that is really in contention is number 1. All of the others seem to have a majority vote in one direction.
TelinArtho 12-14-05, 12:04 PM	1 a 2 a 3 b 4 b
Gonbow 12-14-05, 12:24 PM	Seeing as the question has changed, my vote for #2 changes from B to A. Clearly, for /combat/ without penalties, you need Combat Riding!
Luni 12-14-05, 01:14 PM	#2 What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount in combat without any penalties? (there are already rules in place for using a mount in combat, it is covered in the Ride skill so don't worry about adding additions for that) possible answers: a) Combat Riding trick package b) Riding trick package c) Other (list your idea) I'm with Combat Riding Package. #3 Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? a) Yes b) No, the time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory. c) Other (list your idea) C! As the spell's casting time, but with a mininum of a standard action. My two votes are above in red.
Sindorin 12-14-05, 01:47 PM	1. A - If you can get extra options for each attack from your base attack, the same applies as per description of Flurry of Blows. 2. A - common sense, people... 3. B - It always takes at least a standard action to read from a scroll. If the spell takes longer than a standard action, you spend the standard action reading the scroll and however longer it takes to complete the spell completing the spell. 4. B - As potions cannot be made thus, so can tattoos not be made thus.
Mind Rogue 12-14-05, 02:26 PM	2.) A: Combat Riding package required. If you have the Riding package, you can ride it, but you need to make ride checks to control the mount. If it doesn't have the riding package, you need to 'push' it to accept a rider. 3) C (similar to B): Casting the spell is the same time it would normally take. If you cast a maximized fireball off of a scroll, it takes a standard action, even if you are a sorcerer and such a spell would be a full-round action for you because the scriber spent the extra time. If you cast summon monster from the scroll, it takes a full round to cast, as normal. 4) B (no): Crawling tatoos explicitely state that personsal ranged powers other than body adjustment cannot be scribed into crawling tatoos. I'd also like to dispute the respons on different manifester levels stack, as said by LLMC. My arguement for it can be found here.
Ayrynthyn 12-14-05, 02:27 PM	1) A 2) A 3) B 4) B ...all of my points and concerns have been previously voiced. isnt that special :)
Book5 12-14-05, 04:23 PM	1)C... :D [quote=SRD]Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. [/sblock] Makes me think that "Flurry of Blows" that allows "unarmed strikes and light weapons" is a category of special attack "full round action" more similar to a "grapple or a.. two weapon attack" than an "full attack" that would be considered restricted from grapple by raw. You sure cant charge, but by rai I think I would add "flurry" to the list of "if your grappleing" actions with this retort. You suffer an additional -2 to all your attacks when making a flurry of blows in a grapple. This allows a flurrier to act with greater aclarity in grapple than a normal fighter, but does not automatically grant them more "oppoesed grapple actions" that would allow them to try and pin the character more times... and damage them.
Vathelokai 12-14-05, 04:55 PM	1) A - monks should get extra grapple options as if having a high BAB. 2) A - combat riding tricks for riding in combat 3) C - casting from a scroll is the same casting time as from memory, with a minimum of standard. (also agree with mindrogue's point about sorcerers) 4) A - personal crawling tatoos are not banned by RAW; it only implies that they are banned.
Ariel23 12-14-05, 10:16 PM	#1 b) No, they may only use Flurry to grant additional attacks using the "Attack your Opponent" grapple option. They already have several advantages in grappling, and their Flurry of Blows ability does not mention grappling, nor does Grappling mention Flurry of Blows, even in a special "Monk Exception" section. If it would be anywhere, it would be there. Monks get: Improved Grapple for free (if they want to be good at grappling) Attacking the attacker while grappled (more times than the attacker can attack him) Deal lethal damage when grappling instead of non-lethal (like everybody else) Choose to do nonlethal or lethal at no penalty (meh) Grappling also says: "You can attempt one of these [grappling] actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses." Monk Flurry is not BAB based. (per se) Flurry of blows says: "When using flurry of blows, a monk may attack only with unarmed strikes or with special monk weapons" it doesn't say anything about making extra grapple checks.#2 a) Combat Riding trick package Ride Skill: "As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle." Handle Animal Skill "Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel." #3 b) No, the time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory. Scrolls: "A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way." Which do you think is faster, firing a wand or reading a scroll? Wands: "If the spell being cast, however, has a longer casting time than 1 action, it takes that long to cast the spell from a wand." Would a scroll be faster than a wand? Is this because wizards can't take on fighters one-on-one in an arena? [At low levels, I presume] Wizards aren't meant to do that. Please don't try to change the rules for live role-play to suit online arena play.#4 b) No
TheMagister 12-14-05, 10:32 PM	1) B. 2) A. Combat Riding includes the Ride trick, to my thinking. 3) B. Its spell completion, just the same way that the hour you spend every day "preparing spells" describes you as almost finishing them, and leaving just the triggering words to speak to fully complete the spell. Spells with a casting time of 1-round just have longer triggers. 4) B. TM
radu the wanderer 12-16-05, 04:14 PM	#1 Can Monks use their Flurry ability to gain extra grapple options in a grapple as if they had a higher BAB? Yes, but they take the standard Flurry penalty to each grapple check for that round. #2 What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount in combat without any penalties? (there are already rules in place for using a mount in combat, it is covered in the Ride skill so don't worry about adding additions for that) Other (list your idea) -- The Riding Trick package is all that is required to ride a mount in normal conditions. Under battle conditions, a DC 20 ride check is required each round, UNLESS the Combat Riding trick package is known. So there are two answers--- Combat Riding is the simplest and is headache free, Riding CAN BE USED in combat if the skill check passes each round. But to err on the side of caution, I'd say Combat Riding. #3 Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? No, the time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory. #4 Can psionic powers with a range of personal be placed in crawling tattoos? Yes. Why not? It's certainly not imbalancing. Even spells and powers with a range of Personal still have the target of You. The text of both Brew Potion and Scribe Tattoo specifies "...targets one or more creatures." A target of You still targets one creature, and a crawling tattoo is the psionic version of a potion--- you want someone else to have it, you will it onto them, just as you would physically hand them a potion.
Stormwind 12-17-05, 10:16 AM	2) A: Combat Riding trick package 3) B: The time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory. 4) A: Yes, but the Personal cost multiplier (x2) would still apply
Ariel23 12-19-05, 10:58 PM	I brought this up in the tavern, and would just like those of you voting "Yes" on #1 to realize that a 15th level monk with Greater Two Weapon Fighting will get 8 attacks/round while grappling.
NiQil 12-19-05, 11:16 PM	I brought this up in the tavern, and would just like those of you voting "Yes" on #1 to realize that a 15th level monk with Greater Two Weapon Fighting will get 8 attacks/round while grappling. Incorrect...you can't TWF in a grapple.
MindWandererB 12-19-05, 11:28 PM	As long as I'm here, here's my 2*4=8 cents: 1) A. Monks in 3e clearly got extra grapple attempts, so the same rule should apply now despite the ambiguity. Anything that deals unarmed damage should be considered an unarmed attack, IMO. I'm a little more iffy on getting extra attacks to do things other than dealing damage, but this is the best I've got. Besides, at high levels fighters outshine monks in a grapple anyway. 2) A. Combat Riding makes perfect sense. Altaris 13's idea is nonsensical since the Riding package is part of Combat Riding. 3) C. Same as a wand: as spell, but minimum one standard action. No speed-reading scrolls with Quickened spells, that's just silly. And it makes no sense that casting a spell from a wand should take longer than casting from a scroll, since scrolls are more like the original spell than wands. 4) C. The description of crawling tattoos in the XPH spells this out quite clearly. Crawling tattoos can be of any power no higher than 3rd level that target one or more creatures, except that Body Adjustment is specifically allowed and Telepathy (compulsion) powers are specifically forbidden.
Cerebus13 12-20-05, 08:17 AM	Updated question #3 to include in answer b) that it takes a minimum of a Standard Action to cast from a scroll. This moved a few more people up from c). Questions #2 #3 and #4 look to be pretty wrapped up, but #1 is still rather debateable. I'll post in the Tavern calling for any other votes (especially from Elders) and we'll see if we can wrap this up soon.
bluemage55 12-20-05, 08:38 AM	1. b 2. a 3. b 4. b
Erithmu 12-20-05, 08:59 AM	1 - a 2 - a 3 - b 4 - need to look at it to decide
Book5 12-20-05, 01:09 PM	While my heart is still with C... On the monks flurry deal I change my vote to B. On the second matter, that of Riding in combat. "Combat Riding" is the package you take to get you horse to kill things for you. "Riding" the basic package allows you to .. how do I put this.. "free guide with knees dc15 control your mount in combat .. sorta" as far as I am concerned. another B
Begferdeth 12-20-05, 08:48 PM	1-a. They get extra attacks, so let them use them. Grappling seems to be about all Monks have going for them half the time, so let em have it. 2-c. I would think Riding is one trick, and Combat Riding is Trick #2. Kind of like Attack is one trick, and Attack Outsiders/Scary things is trick #2. This would let them ride their mounts into battle, but the mounts couldnt attack unless they knew the Attack trick also. 3-b. I thought this was already answered someplace. Scrolls give you enough benefits as-is without tossing in quick-casting as a free added feat. I will never memorize another summon spell if the scroll lets me get away with a standard action. 4-b. Im gonna jump on the 'manifester doesnt equal critter' bandwagon for this one. Unless somebody comes up with a reasonable example of what "Exceptions are the body adjustment power, which can be scribed even though it affects only the manifester" could be an exception to OTHER than manifesters are not equal to creatures.
Cerebus13 01-03-06, 10:59 AM	I have tallied the results of questions #1-4 and forwarded the results onto Pitlords! #2-4 were pretty cut and dry on the community opinion, but #1 was rather close. If Pitlords makes any changes/clairifications to the CoCo rules reflecting this I will be sure to post and let everyone know. Questions #1-4 are now officially closed and moved into the archive. I have now introduced questions #5 and #6 concerning Tower Shields and XP cost in bought items. Let me know if there are any other questions you would like submitted and I will add them. Please vote and voice your opinion!
NiQil 01-03-06, 11:03 AM	5) b 6) a I personally don't see any question with either of these issues...the answers seem fairly straightforward to me.
SoulLord 01-03-06, 11:06 AM	5) b 6) a On the tower Shield stuff Perhaps it would be nice to add that you dont lose your cover by moving; does anyone remember the glassteel spell?
Macbrea 01-03-06, 11:15 AM	5) b 6) a You loose your cover bonus while moving because you gain a +4 shield bonus for using it like a shield not a wall. And you only loose your cover bonus if you attack. If you give up your attack you may claim full cover. This works similar to declaring full defensive. I don't see anyone arguing that a person can ready an action to got full defensive if attacked.
Vathelokai 01-03-06, 11:23 AM	#5 B (COCO house rule prohibits readying to dodge/break LOS) #6 ???
Ayrynthyn 01-03-06, 11:25 AM	5) b 6) a You loose your cover bonus while moving because you gain a +4 shield bonus for using it like a shield not a wall. And you only loose your cover bonus if you attack. If you give up your attack you may claim full cover. This works similar to declaring full defensive. I don't see anyone arguing that a person can ready an action to got full defensive if attacked. 5) b 6) a while my votes reflect Macbrea's, i disagree with his reasoning. There is no need to ready an action. the text from he SRD is "However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so." It does not say it requires a standard action to "set" it or any other requirements. Moving, Not Moving, the shield should give the user total cover (his choice) in any round he does not attack. The +4 AC bonus is gained in any round while he attacks.
Zevox 01-03-06, 12:37 PM	5. B - Straightforward, ducking behind total cover in any way constitutes dodging, and the house rule says you can't ready an action to do that. Ergo, no readying to use Tower Shields that way. 6. For items already priced in the SRD/PHB/DMG/XPH, B. Such things have already been factored into thier price. For items not given such prices in the SRD/PHB/DMG/XPH, A. Zevox
Snommelp 01-03-06, 01:48 PM	5) b 6) I abstain But although I agree with Macbrea, I also disagree. There is no reason that you should not be able to set the shield up like a wall and then move with it. If it seems strange to you, just imagine riot police; they do this all the time. The only difference is that they can see where they are going through their shields, so they (unlike our gladiators) have no chance of moving the wrong way and opening up their sides. Cover works both ways, remember.
Luni 01-03-06, 02:13 PM	5) b 6) I thought xp costs were already factored in @Snommelp. The dwarven Tower Shield Riot Police Squad, all have X-Ray Vision Rings, so they can see through their shields.
Mal-2 01-03-06, 02:22 PM	5: B 6: B (The XP and gold costs listed in the SRD for the items are correct. You should not need to add anything to the printed values). If I mis-understand what's being asked in Question #6, can someone please post a concrete example either here or in the tavern? Edit: If question #6 is about custom items, like scrolls and power stones without set costs in the SRD, I'll change my vote to A, but I don't understand why this is even in question. It isn't a question that has been raised in either the Fights of the Week threads or in the Tavern, AFAIK, and the SRD seems clear cut on this.
Cerebus13 01-03-06, 02:38 PM	5: B 6: B (The XP and gold costs listed in the SRD for the items are correct. You should not need to add anything to the printed values). If I mis-understand what's being asked in Question #6, can someone please post a concrete example either here or in the tavern?Perhaps I should have been more clear on #6... The question comes up with items that are not listed within the DMG, such as Powerstones and whatnot. What happens when you go to buy a powerstone for a power that has an associated XP cost? I'll fix the question to reflect this.
Ariel23 01-03-06, 03:20 PM	#5 b) No. The CoCo houserules about readied actions specifically forbid you from readying an action to "dodge an attack", which this action falls under. #6 If we are talking about a non-crafter buying a market item or about anyone paying for a spell to be cast: a) Yes. Follow the standard rate of XP cost in the CoCo, 5gp per 1 XP. Btw, that's a RAW rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/creatingMagicItems.htm), not a CoCo rule. If we are talking about someone with the appropriate Craft feat making an item, then b) No.
waywreth 01-03-06, 03:29 PM	#5 b) No. The CoCo houserules about readied actions specifically forbid you from readying an action to "dodge an attack", which this action falls under. Edit to clarify: My reasoning for voting no is that the Towershield with the exception of starting in cover on the first round, is a delay tactic. If you simply seek cover every turn it does nothing. The person fighting you simply has to say "ready an action to shoot when wielder of towershield moves" and the two of you sit there staring at each other. The Towershield should provide +4ac, and cover when used as such, not as a readied action. #6 a) Yes. Follow the standard rate of XP cost in the CoCo, 5gp per 1 XP.
Usurpator 01-03-06, 04:08 PM	#5 Can a player ready a standard action to set a Tower Shield for Total Cover in order to avoid an attack aimed at them? c.) CoCo rules forbid dodging on a ready. Unless I see it written otherwise, dodging an attack is 'moving out of the way of the attack'. The tower shield can negate the attack, but the it has nothing to do with dodging, the bearer does not move. If we are going to extend the 'spirit' of the ruling the include other actions that negate attacks besides dodging, please examine the implications more closely. By voting b. you all seem to extend the rule to: "Ready actions cannot be used to negate any offensive action by the opponent." Meaning you cannot reading casting obscuring mist, invisibility or wall of stone upon being shot, counterspell your opponent or ready to sunder his bow or disarm him of his longsword, or even try to hit and kill your opponent on a readied action.... If you do vote b. please state your definition of 'dodge' and your definition of 'attack', otherwise I can't be sure what would and what would not be considered to fall under this rule when writing my tactics. Until then I think dodge means dodge and not negate. If you want to introduce a special rule concerning the use of tower shield, feel free to do so, but don't confuse this with the dodging rule please. #6 a. Follow the RAW, 5 gp. per XP spent for spellcasting services of any sort. Don't know why this is under discussion....
Turin 01-03-06, 05:00 PM	#5 Can a player ready a standard action to set a Tower Shield for Total Cover in order to avoid an attack aimed at them? Vote: b) No. The CoCo houserules about readied actions specifically forbid you from readying an action to "dodge an attack", which this action falls under. #6 If a spell or power required in the making of an item costs XP (such as Permanency or somesuch) do you have to pay extra for it? How much extra? (This question is mostly in reference to items that are not already priced within the DMG, such as power stones) Vote: a) Yes. Follow the standard rate of XP cost in the CoCo, 5gp per 1 XP.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 02:19 PM	#5) C: I vote that we ammend the CoCo houserules on readied actions to specifically address Tower Shields. I vote that one can ready an action to set a Tower Shield for cover. #6) C: This is really a double question and needs clarified. For items that do not already include a GP cost covering the NPC caster's spent XP, then yes, we should add the addition of 5gp per 1xp spent.
MindWandererB 01-04-06, 05:34 PM	#5: What I don't understand is, why would you ready an action to take cover, rather than just taking cover? I suppose this gives you the advantage of being able to decide on-the-fly what direction to take cover from. My ruling in my own games has always been that you cannot negate an action with a readied action (except for counterspelling), so the triggering action still happens--so if you ready an action to move away when attacked in melee, you still get hit (the actions are effectively simultaneous). So basically, I'm saying B (although in my game, it would be perfectly legal to ready an action to take cover, it just wouldn't prevent you from getting hit). #6: A. No reason at all why not, I don't even know why this is on the table.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 05:56 PM	#5: What I don't understand is, why would you ready an action to take cover, rather than just taking cover? I suppose this gives you the advantage of being able to decide on-the-fly what direction to take cover from. My ruling in my own games has always been that you cannot negate an action with a readied action (except for counterspelling), so the triggering action still happens--so if you ready an action to move away when attacked in melee, you still get hit (the actions are effectively simultaneous). While yours is a legitimate house rule, it does go directly against established rules, and also prevents a classic ready action: interrupting the spellcasting of a wizard with an attack. At least, what you seem to be saying is that in your game the wizard still casts his spell and does not need to make a concentration check for damage in such a case. And in many cases simultaneous actions pose big problems. Fighter A readies to move away when he is attacked. Monk B attacks the Fighter with a grapple and succeeds. Is the Fighter still moving away? Does he take the Monk with him? Is his readied action prevented by the grapple?
MindWandererB 01-04-06, 06:14 PM	While yours is a legitimate house rule, it does go directly against established rules, and also prevents a classic ready action: interrupting the spellcasting of a wizard with an attack. At least, what you seem to be saying is that in your game the wizard still casts his spell and does not need to make a concentration check for damage in such a case. And in many cases simultaneous actions pose big problems. Fighter A readies to move away when he is attacked. Monk B attacks the Fighter with a grapple and succeeds. Is the Fighter still moving away? Does he take the Monk with him? Is his readied action prevented by the grapple?Unfortunately, the established rules go against the established rules, in this case. If the readied action precedes the triggering action, it's impossible to interrupt a spellcaster, since they haven't started casting yet. I've found that in 99% of cases, describing the two actions as being simultaneous solves the problems, but that if the readied action actually prevents the triggering action, then the triggering action doesn't happen. It's an ugly problem anyway--if you can interrupt a spellcaster by hitting them, why can't you effectively interrupt them by hiding behind an object? But you're right, this is how I deal with the problems with a house rule--I think it's in the spirit of what was intended (certainly a phalanx of warriors shouldn't be able to prevent all conflict by readying a 5' step back when attacked, allowing the enemy to get peppered with arrows or spells), but it's not RAW.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 06:28 PM	Unfortunately, the established rules go against the established rules, in this case. If the readied action precedes the triggering action, it's impossible to interrupt a spellcaster, since they haven't started casting yet. The readied action interrupts the triggering action is the way I always read it. That is to say, a triggering action is started, and before it is completed, the readied action occurs, and then the triggering action is completed (if still possible). You know that exactly the same problem occurs with AoO's, they also interrupt the triggering action and get completed before the triggering action is completed. The whole point of both type of actions it makes it possible to interrupt and negate actions of others, which is otherwise impossible in a sequential combat system. Ever played Magic, it is rife with rules that handle all kinds of timing issues in a game that needs to be sequential for it to work. Doesn't always make sense, but the rules are pretty clear in handling the timing issue in a predictable manner. And I guess 'dodging' as in moving is prohibited because it makes it too easy to nullify many other actions in an enviroment like the arena which would normally be viable build options. Making a character that charges on horseback? Impossible in a arena where people are allowed to 'dodge'. Casting short range spells? Forget it against any character with a decent move, they will just walk out of your range. It just promotes unfun tactics, which is the biggest reason I think.
Begferdeth 01-04-06, 10:33 PM	5: I vote A on this one, mainly because you arent dodging. You are taking it full on the shield. It ruins people who use arrows, since they cant hurt a shield, but a towershield wont take more than 2 lance charges before getting blown in half. Most wizards can just target the shield and still hit with a lot of spells, or just get area effect shots and blow the whole square away instead of him. Heck, carry a can of oil, and light it on fire :) Take cover now buddy! 6: Huh? I thought all costs had to be paid when making the scroll/item, including XP costs. What exactly is the problem?
DTFarstar 01-04-06, 11:56 PM	#5 - I say yes, you can do it. That's just a tower shield benefit, there are many ways around it if you think, it's up to the Archers and Spellcasters to figure out how best to do it. Melee characters will just break the stupid thing. #6 - Yeah, 5 gp per 1xp the NPC spends, and using NPCs during item creation is legal. It makes sense to me and I could have sworn I found something saying this was fine in the DMG, but I can't find it in the SRD and it might have been a supplemental book. Still say it makes sense and should be legal.
lonewolf 01-11-06, 03:26 PM	5 a 6 a I also propose another question that needs to be solved because there are 2 different rulings in the SRD: How does the elven Immunity to sleep exactly work: a) Elves are only immune to magical sleep effects. (noted like this in the races section of the PHB/SRD) b) Elves are immune to all sleep effects(including poisons). (noted like this in the MM entry of elves) c) other
Book5 01-11-06, 05:15 PM	5&6 Aa
Caterane 01-15-06, 02:55 PM	I can provide answers to all of your issues right here. Can Monks use their Flurry ability to gain extra grapple options in a grapple as if they had a higher BAB? - Yes, it is possible. I found the important line on PHB p156 "Step 3 [...] you deal damage as if with an unarmed strike". And PHB p40 "When using flurry of blows a monk may attack [...] with unarmed strikes...". What tricks are required to be known by an animal of Int 2 so that it can be used as a mount in combat without any penalties? (there are already rules in place for using a mount in combat, it is covered in the Ride skill so don't worry about adding additions for that) - Combat Riding Package, or use a Ride check Dc20 as a move action (PHB p80). Is casting a spell from a scroll a standard action regardless of the casting time of the spell scribed? - No, the time to cast a spell off the scroll is the same as casting the spell from memory with a minimum casting time of a Standard Action. That's clear. Can psionic powers with a range of personal be placed in crawling tattoos? - No. The description seems to be pretty clear in that Body Adjustment is the exception. Can a player ready a standard action to set a Tower Shield for Total Cover in order to avoid an attack aimed at them? - Yes, but the opponent sees what you are readying and should react accordingly. If a spell or power required in the making of an item costs XP (such as Permanency or somesuch) do you have to pay extra for it? How much extra? (This question is mostly in reference to items that are not already priced within the DMG, such as power stones) - You have to pay 5 gp per XP. This is absolutely necessary else one can cast wish, lose 5000 xp, fight and gain xp, wish, rinse repeat... it's like the Maven abuse just worse. Hope that helps.
Cerebus13 01-15-06, 03:18 PM	I'll forward this post onto NiQil to post within the Prison thread and come up with another batch of questions on Monday. Pearls of Power come to mind for a more detailed explanation of how they should work, and I may be able to come up with a few more.
MindWandererB 01-15-06, 03:33 PM	I can provide answers to all of your issues right here. If a spell or power required in the making of an item costs XP (such as Permanency or somesuch) do you have to pay extra for it? How much extra? (This question is mostly in reference to items that are not already priced within the DMG, such as power stones) - You have to pay 5 gp per XP. This is absolutely necessary else one can cast wish, lose 5000 xp, fight and gain xp, wish, rinse repeat... it's like the Maven abuse just worse. Wait, we have a problem here. It sounds like you're saying two very important things here. 1) Spells with XP costs should incur a gp cost. Any character that can cause an XP cost without a corresponding gp cost can pull a Maven. A character as low as 7th level (Psychic Reformation) (whoops, that one's banned) 9th level (Permanency/Incarnate) can potentially do this. 2) Items containing spells with XP costs need to incur an extra gp cost, even if you make it yourself. So a scroll of wish would cost (1912.5 + 25000) = 26912.5 gp in addition to (153+5000) = 5153 XP to scribe. This has ramifications on item market prices as a consequence. Am I understanding correctly? These are two very huge conclusions.
Caterane 01-15-06, 04:15 PM	Here's what I found in the Rules of the Game: All about Crafting Magic Items: Prerequisites Every item has a list of prerequisites, which are shown right after the item's caster level in the item's description. (If a character wants to make a new item, the item's description must include a list of prerequisites.) Typically, a list of prerequisites includes one feat and one or more spells; however, an item's prerequisites can include multiple feats, spells, and also miscellaneous requirements such as level, alignment, skills, and race or kind. When two spells at the end of a prerequisites list are separated by"or," only one of those spells is required in addition to every other spell mentioned prior to the last two. For example, the prerequisites for a ring of three wishes are the Forge Ring feat and wish or miracle, meaning that either the wish or miracle spellis required as well as the Forge Ring feat. In addition, the item's creator must have a caster level at least as high as the item's caster level (see page 215 in the Dungeon Master's Guide). Also, an item's creator must have a caster level high enough to cast any prerequisite spell the item has. Two or more characters can work together to create an item, with each character providing one or more prerequisites. To provide a spell prerequisite, a character must have prepared the spell (or know the spell, in the case of a sorcerer or bard). The rules say you can use a spell completion or spell trigger magic item or a spell-like ability that produces the desired spell effect to provide a spell prerequisite. A command or use-activated item cannot provide a spell prerequisite. That means that you have to have the requisite Caster Level to craft the item. IMO this is a good ruling on magic items. Crafters already save a lot of money, 50% per item in addition to the xp they lose (because when you re-earn those xp you gain again gold). It is also logical: Without this rule, a crafter can basically craft ANY item. You don't need the mentioned CL, and you could borrow the requisite spells from someone else (see grayed part). The gray part is already forbidden in the coco but in a real campaign, it would be possible. I cannot imagine that this has ever been the intention of the designers. Else a wizard can craft cure wound staffs with Entangle and Holy Weapon in it. That's bent in real, and broken here. I think we should address this quickly! There should be some weeks time to refund all illegal items. @Mindwanderer: We have to discuss this further. This is a problem that needs to be solved before there are characters that abuse this.
Usurpator 01-15-06, 04:21 PM	Can a player ready a standard action to set a Tower Shield for Total Cover in order to avoid an attack aimed at them? - No. See FAQ House Rules. No dodging of attacks. Would you be able to clear up the house rules then? 'Dodging' doesn't include using a shield to block attacks in my vocabulary, dodging includes moving out of the way as far as I know the meaning of the word. If you don't mean dodge and include blocking/negating the attack in the 'dodge' description? Can you ready to cast a wall of stone to block an attack, or a mirror image? Can you counterspell a spell? I don't mind the ruling going either way, but the current rule has me confused. I thought I knew what 'dodging' meant, but now I am unsure.
Cerebus13 01-15-06, 04:29 PM	Here's what I found in the Rules of the Game: All about Crafting Magic Items: That means that you have to have the requisite Caster Level to craft the item. IMO this is a good ruling on magic items. Crafters already save a lot of money, 50% per item in addition to the xp they lose (because when you re-earn those xp you gain again gold). It is also logical: Without this rule, a crafter can basically craft ANY item. You don't need the mentioned CL, and you could borrow the requisite spells from someone else (see grayed part). The gray part is already forbidden in the coco but in a real campaign, it would be possible. I cannot imagine that this has ever been the intention of the designers. Else a wizard can craft cure wound staffs with Entangle and Holy Weapon in it. That's bent in real, and broken here. I think we should address this quickly! There should be some weeks time to refund all illegal items. @Mindwanderer: We have to discuss this further. This is a problem that needs to be solved before there are characters that abuse this.Um, wow....that is a huge change. That will nerf a LOT of casters in the CoCo. Be ready to deal with a lot of character changes and other things because there are few casters who even meet the CL requirement for the stat boosting items (such as Headband of Intellect) that most casters make for themselves. This change would make Craft Wondrous Items pretty much useless until 8th caster level and on for a lot of stuff. Are you sure you want such a blanket nerf to go out over casters?
Usurpator 01-15-06, 04:31 PM	Here's what I found in the Rules of the Game: All about Crafting Magic Items: Unfortunately, that Rules of the Game article is contradicted by the D&D FAQ: Unless stated specifically, items never have a minimum caster level as a prerequisite. (The “CL” entry is the default caster level of the item, not a requirement for creation.) A 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item could create a harp of charming (even though he’s not high-enough level to cast suggestion, a prerequisite for creation), as long he had access to the suggestion spell during creation (such as from an item or another character). This reading is supported by Monte Cook (who wrote the magic item creation rules). I have provided a link earlier during the discussion where Monte explains this in a FAQ of his own. IMO Rules of the Game articles contain lots of errors and 'Skip's House Rules'. I think they are good for clarifying rules, but not to quote hard game rules form, Skip just isn't that meticolous in his research and proofreading. Next thing you know scrolls in CoCo are spell trigger items (which he also mentions in a Rules of the Games article).
Vathelokai 01-15-06, 04:38 PM	That means that you have to have the requisite Caster Level to craft the item. IMO this is a good ruling on magic items. Crafters already save a lot of money, 50% per item in addition to the xp they lose (because when you re-earn those xp you gain again gold). It is also logical: Without this rule, a crafter can basically craft ANY item. You don't need the mentioned CL, and you could borrow the requisite spells from someone else (see grayed part). The gray part is already forbidden in the coco but in a real campaign, it would be possible. I cannot imagine that this has ever been the intention of the designers. Else a wizard can craft cure wound staffs with Entangle and Holy Weapon in it. That's bent in real, and broken here. I think we should address this quickly! There should be some weeks time to refund all illegal items. @Mindwanderer: We have to discuss this further. This is a problem that needs to be solved before there are characters that abuse this. This was addressed in the FAQ, and it is at odds with the rules of the game article. The rules for magic item creation permit a character creating an item to use scrolls, wands, or even another caster as the source of the spells to be placed in the item. The rules do not, however, state clearly whether the character crafting the item has to be of a level sufficient to cast a given spell. Is the caster level of the character with the item creation feat being used to create the item (the “creator”) a limit on the power of the item? For example, can a 3rd-level wizard with the Craft Wondrous Item feat create items containing any spell (assuming access to the spells by other means), or is he limited to 2nd-level spells? Unless stated specifically, items never have a minimum caster level as a prerequisite. (The “CL” entry is the default caster level of the item, not a requirement for creation.) A 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item could create a harp of charming (even though he’s not high-enough level to cast suggestion, a prerequisite for creation), as long he had access to the suggestion spell during creation (such as from an item or another character). Since the borrowing spells thing has already been banned (at least that's what you say above, I don't remember it gettting banned, but I'll go check the prison) I don't see how it is broken, nor how it needs fixed. *EDIT* Beat to the punch by Usurpator.
Pittbull 01-15-06, 04:42 PM	Haven't we already resolved the casterlevel-creating-item-issue? Just check this post (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6399366&postcount=2) from the Elder's council.
Caterane 01-15-06, 04:46 PM	What the hell...? Why are there two contradicting articles on the same homepage? Are we the only ones who have detected this and no one has reported WotC? Ah nevermind. With this new information, forget about Skip's article then. @Usurpator: I think we can allow readying a towershield. Not because your argument convinced me but because I don't see anything problematic coming from it. After all, the opponent can see what you are doing so if you ready a towershield he would probably not shoot you. @Cerebus: Please add the decisions from the Council from Pittbull's link above to your thread or whereever you keep that info.
Vathelokai 01-15-06, 04:49 PM	Would you be able to clear up the house rules then? 'Dodging' doesn't include using a shield to block attacks in my vocabulary, dodging includes moving out of the way as far as I know the meaning of the word. If you don't mean dodge and include blocking/negating the attack in the 'dodge' description? Can you ready to cast a wall of stone to block an attack, or a mirror image? Can you counterspell a spell? I don't mind the ruling going either way, but the current rule has me confused. I thought I knew what 'dodging' meant, but now I am unsure. Yes. Ready actions have proven to be a problem in the arena which is directly related to the nature of the Core Coliseum. In an enviroment where players have to delegate tactics for the whole fight, they cannot react to sudden special situations that arise from ready actions, and the Pitlord has to adept. This however lead to complaints and frustration, and therefore the CoCo has the following (partly house-) rules for ready actions: You cannot take a free 5ft step as part of your ready action. A ready action must be specifically defined. There must be a concrete trigger and a concrete action. A ready action must be a basic non-exotic action. You cannot ready to dodge an incomming attack. If it is unclear wether a certain ready action should be allowed or not, the Pitlord has the final say in it.I believe that this should say... You cannot take a free 5ft step as part of your ready action. A ready action must be specifically defined. There must be a concrete trigger and a concrete action. A ready action must be a basic non-exotic action. You cannot ready to move behind full or partial cover to avoid an incomming attack, nor can you ready to move as far away as possible to avoid an attack. ...I also have problems with the "non-exotic actions" clause. It's just too vague.
Usurpator 01-15-06, 04:58 PM	I believe that this should say... You cannot ready to move behind full or partial cover to avoid an incomming attack, nor can you ready to move as far away as possible to avoid an attack. That is better, but I prefer: - You cannot ready to move on a attack, if that movement puts you out of range (or reach) of that attack. - You cannot ready to move on a attack, if your movement causes that attack to fail by breaking LOS or LOE. 'Move away as far a possible' is still to vague. I think moving at half speed still shouldn't allow you to ready and then move and avoid the attack. But possibly my definition could use some sharpening as well, did I miss anything? I agree with you about the exotic action, don't know what to do with the 'exotic action' clause. I usually just ignore it, since I have no idea what constitutes an 'exotic action' in this context? Using a breath weapon, a petrification gaze? Certainly exotic.
Caterane 01-15-06, 05:04 PM	It seems this has already been debated and I've missed it. I do not think that readying a towershield would be a problem because you can see the action but I like the change in the line Vath made because it is very clear. This would however again change the towershield issue LOL Idea: Let us create this part of the FAQ together. Any suggestions for definitions?
MindWandererB 01-15-06, 05:27 PM	@Usurpator: I think we can allow readying a towershield. Not because your argument convinced me but because I don't see anything problematic coming from it. After all, the opponent can see what you are doing so if you ready a towershield he would probably not shoot you. I guess you didn't keep up with the fights the week this became an issue. To summarize, the problem arose when a high-speed archer came up against a slower melee-type with a tower shield. The instruction "ready to take cover from the tower shield when fired at" effectively produced total immunity to ranged attacks. Without the ability to ready, the archer would have been able to move around the shield and fire, but the ready action effectively allowed the melee'er to rotate the shield freely during the opponent's turn. The result was a stalemate--the archer wasn't willing to close and wasn't able to get around the cover, and the melee'er wasn't able to close and wasn't willing to drop cover. So basically, the problem is that any character who is stronger in melee than at ranged combat can pack a tower shield and use the aforementioned tactic. Archer builds become completely useless against such tactics, with no workaround except invisibility or flight. One possible solution, other than prohibiting taking cover as a readied action, is to consider the covered character to be the one delaying, and to use pitlord discretion to penalize them (with damage, removal of the shield, etc.). I'm not sure if this solves every possible problem, but it would fix the situation in the fight in question. Edit: Never mind, I failed to read all the messages before replying. But my contribution: - You cannot ready to move on a attack, if that movement puts you out of range (or reach) of that attack. - You cannot ready to move on a attack, if your movement causes that attack to fail by breaking LOS or LOE.This phrasing would permit the tower shield issue, since it's a standard action and not a move action. How about "You may not ready an action to move out of range of an attack in response to that attack, nor may you ready an action to break line of sight in response to an attack."
Usurpator 01-15-06, 05:44 PM	So basically, the problem is that any character who is stronger in melee than at ranged combat can pack a tower shield and use the aforementioned tactic. Archer builds become completely useless against such tactics, with no workaround except invisibility or flight. Tthis it true, but the reverse is also true. The archer character with faster movement can never be caught by the melee character if he just keeps moving away, effectively making melee characters useless against such tactics. I have employed the 'stay at minimum x ft. distance, and withdraw/run when an enemy comes close, keep using ranged weapons....' tactic once as well, the results are not pretty when you can pull it off. NiQil is a frequent user of the tactic. The 'unwilling to close' tactic makes for a boring fight if you ask me. Readying a tower shield is an equally boring response, but the first tactics does deserve it somewhat. For a demonstration what happens if you don't allow readying a tower shield on shooting, this is what happens to the slower melee character: Flamehair vs. Alexi Wood Actually, had the problem this week as well. My character Borodin Brightaxe faces NiQil's 'Death' in the ECL 3 league. Death is a superior speed archer type, my character a cleric melee type. If NiQil writes, 'stay at more than 130 ft. distance at all times and shoot at Borodin' then there's effectively nothing my character can do (although I tried to write tactics to work around that simple one line tactic from NiQil as best as I could) other than hope he spends all his arrows before Borodin dies.
Usurpator 01-15-06, 05:52 PM	Edit: Never mind, I failed to read all the messages before replying. But my contribution: This phrasing would permit the tower shield issue, since it's a standard action and not a move action. How about "You may not ready an action to move out of range of an attack in response to that attack, nor may you ready an action to break line of sight in response to an attack." My rule does allow the tower shield tactic (intentionally). Unfortunately, your rule not only disallows tower shield, but also casting obscuring mist, wall of stone or anything like that in response to an attack. I don't know if we should go that way. Actually, your rule makes it techically impossible to cast Blindness/Deafness on your opponent on a ready action, since it will break line of sight if it succeeds.... Don't know if that is your intention. The big problem with the tower shield is that it is a cheap resource that never runs out and is 100% effective (just like moving away to avoid an attack), unlike most other 'readied responses' to attacks.
Cerebus13 01-15-06, 06:19 PM	So basically, the problem is that any character who is stronger in melee than at ranged combat can pack a tower shield and use the aforementioned tactic. Archer builds become completely useless against such tactics, with no workaround except invisibility or flight.This is not completely true according to the official D&D FAQ, so I wouldn't worry about it too much MindWandererB. This quote from it is relevant:Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner). You have total cover against any attack’s line of effect that passes through that side of your space. If an attack’s line of effect goes through the corner of the side of your space that the shield blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex saves) instead of total cover. If an attack’s line of effect passes through a side of your space that the shield does not block, you get no cover from the shield at all. To determine where the line of effect enters your space, draw a line from the attacker’s center to your center. Or, in the case of a magical effect, from the effect’s point of origin and your center. Tower Shields are indeed powerful, but are beatable with proper tactics and mobility. Edit: In addition, a player that simply readied actions to take cover from their opponents ranged attacks would be in violation of the 10 round rule if they did nothing to engage in combat.
NiQil 01-15-06, 06:54 PM	What the hell...? Why are there two contradicting articles on the same homepage? Are we the only ones who have detected this and no one has reported WotC? Ah nevermind. With this new information, forget about Skip's article then. @Usurpator: I think we can allow readying a towershield. Not because your argument convinced me but because I don't see anything problematic coming from it. After all, the opponent can see what you are doing so if you ready a towershield he would probably not shoot you. @Cerebus: Please add the decisions from the Council from Pittbull's link above to your thread or whereever you keep that info. @ Cat: I'll be adding those rulings to the Court Decisions post shortly. Might I recommend you place a link to the Court Decisions post in the Rules thread under House Rules if you haven't already done so? That way everything is all in one place.
MindWandererB 01-15-06, 10:04 PM	This is not completely true according to the official D&D FAQ, so I wouldn't worry about it too much MindWandererB. This quote from it is relevant: Tower Shields are indeed powerful, but are beatable with proper tactics and mobility.The quote fails to adequately represent the power of this technique. If you use an action to take cover, it it true that only one side of your body is protected. But if instead you ready an action to take cover, then you can wait to see what direction your opponent will fire from, and then put the shield on that side. The only way to defeat this would be to fire, move around the shield, and then fire again, all in the same round, which is impossible. Otherwise the shield-bearer will always put the shield on the correct side. In a one-on-one duel, this is an unbeatable technique. However, I agree with you that using such a technique would cause a 10-round penalty. The fight that sparked the debate ended up penalizing the other character instead (I believe that as long as you have a chance of hitting at the time you make the shot, you shouldn't be considered "delaying"--but you would have to spend 10 arrows pointlessly shooting).
Luni 01-15-06, 10:32 PM	It is even simpler than that. You can't set a tower shield on a corner! Only an edge. Just move so that you are diagonal to your opponent, and there is no way he can set a tower shield for total cover. Tower shields are designed for melee, anf for group warfare, not wide open 1 on 1 duels.
Pitlords 01-16-06, 05:40 AM	I have invested some additional thought into the towershield issue as it seems to be more complicated than I initially assumed. Here's my final decision and the reason why. Readying a towershield to negate a hit violates the coco house rules. I have read the whole argument and can understand both sides to some extend and I think my decision is a compromise in general between the melee and ranged factions. Melee says the archer stays away which is boring, and the archer says he has no way to damage the opponent unless forced into melee against a tank. Both sides will get a piece of the cake: You can set a towershield to total cover during your action normally. That makes you immune to ranged attacks. Sometimes when you have a very good positioning, you can make sure that even a quick archer suffers at least cover penalties to his shot. Archers on the other hand can move around to negate the total cover, and if they are fast enough they can even negate the cover completely. And if the archer is not fast enough, the tank still delays so after ten rounds he will be penalized. Melee Tanks cannot just dig in just because the archer keeps his distance. They need to be able to deal with foes that stay away because it is a viable tactic. And Archers cannot just complain about a good protection when they have no alternative tactic to deal damage with their bow (ie move around cover, area effects, spells, psionics, etc). I will also change the wording of the FAQ: Arena Rules II accordingly. You cannot take a free 5ft step as part of your ready action. A ready action must be specifically defined. There must be a concrete trigger and a concrete action. You cannot ready to auto-negate an incoming attack in any form (eg. move out of range or sight, dodge/move behind total cover, any form that renders the attack impossible).
Cerebus13 01-16-06, 10:29 AM	You cannot take a free 5ft step as part of your ready action. A ready action must be specifically defined. There must be a concrete trigger and a concrete action. You cannot ready to auto-negate an incoming attack in any form (eg. move out of range or sight, dodge/move behind total cover, any form that renders the attack impossible). @Pitlords Does the rules about not allowing readied actions to auto-negate attacks include stuff like: counterspelling, or casting silence on a caster? The examples you provide seem to only involve physical activity, so I am not sure.
Pitlords 01-16-06, 10:43 AM	Counterspelling and Silencing are absolutely okay. They are different in nature because they do not negate a hit by avoidance but by actively countering them. It has nothing to do with physical things. You could, for example, ready to grapple your opponent to foil an attack, or to strike when the wizard casts. Is this better? You cannot take a free 5ft step as part of your ready action. A ready action must be specifically defined. There must be a concrete trigger and a concrete action. You cannot ready to auto-negate an incoming attack by avoidance (eg. move out of range or sight, dodge/move behind total cover, any defensive form that renders the attack impossible). For example, you can still negate a spell by countering it because you are actively doing it.
Mal-2 01-16-06, 10:44 AM	@Pitlords Does the rules about not allowing readied actions to auto-negate attacks include stuff like: counterspelling, or casting silence on a caster? The examples you provide seem to only involve physical activity, so I am not sure. From my understanding of those rules: Counterspelling is okay, because it's not automatic. There is a chance you will fail to identify the spell being cast, or not have an appropriate counter spell. Readying to cast silence is trickier. I'd think casting it on the opponent would be okay, because they would get a save. I'm not sure about casting it in front of your opponent and just getting them in the area. That seems to break the rule.
Cerebus13 01-16-06, 10:50 AM	@Pitlords Yes that is more clear. You can't negate attacks by using avoidance techniques (like running out of range or behind cover, tower shields, etc), but other means of negating attacks are alright. ----- I've moved the last two questions into the vote history post. With LLMadCow's opening of a thread "Ask an Elder" I do not see much use of this thread any more unless there is some hotly contested issue that everyone wants to vote on. I'm posting a question or two to his thread as I think of them, so unless you specifically want something added here (just PM me to add it) I suggest looking there first.
Pitlords 01-16-06, 10:52 AM	Cerebus, I want to thank you for your initiative. Such active participation is from what this or any other board lives. I have given you 5° for it.
Altaris13 01-17-06, 03:03 PM	You cannot take a free 5ft step as part of your ready action. A ready action must be specifically defined. There must be a concrete trigger and a concrete action. You cannot ready to auto-negate an incoming attack in any form (eg. move out of range or sight, dodge/move behind total cover, any form that renders the attack impossible). Wowser.... That last part is a doozy. This is a common tactic for some people, and really changes many past fights. I think this should be completely reconsidered, and heavily debated. I believe this is a valid tactic that benefits those with the movement to use it. Sir Valkin comes to mind. None of my PCs have ever done this, but they would if they had reason to.
Cerebus13 01-17-06, 04:55 PM	Wowser.... That last part is a doozy. This is a common tactic for some people, and really changes many past fights. I think this should be completely reconsidered, and heavily debated. I believe this is a valid tactic that benefits those with the movement to use it. Sir Valkin comes to mind. None of my PCs have ever done this, but they would if they had reason to.I don't see how this can penalize people with the movement to perform these actions, because they were never allowed to in the first place. The original rule was "You may not ready an action to dodge an incoming attack." Moving to avoid something is pretty much the definition of dodge, so I don't think this was ever allowed.
Altaris13 01-17-06, 05:01 PM	I don't see how this can penalize people with the movement to perform these actions, because they were never allowed to in the first place. The original rule was "You may not ready an action to dodge an incoming attack." Moving to avoid something is pretty much the definition of dodge, so I don't think this was ever allowed. Example tactics: Mini is attempting to close on Thelgar. Thelgar readies to move when Mini approaches 35ft. Mini approaches to 35ft and tries to use Mindthrust on Thelgar. Thelgar's readied action preempts Mini's attack. He moves out of range. Wouldn't this be a legal and valid tactic?
NiQil 01-17-06, 05:07 PM	Example tactics: Mini is attempting to close on Thelgar. Thelgar readies to move when Mini approaches 35ft. Mini approaches to 35ft and tries to use Mindthrust on Thelgar. Thelgar's readied action preempts Mini's attack. He moves out of range. Wouldn't this be a legal and valid tactic? This is a legal tactic, and is not prohibited by the new wording of the rule. Here's why: Your trigger is 35 ft away. So as soon as Mini hits 35 ft, and before any other actions are taken, including Mini stepping into the square for 35 ft, the ready action triggers, causing Thelgar to move away. Mini still has a standard action at this point to use. Though Mini may have intended a Mind Thrust after closing, it was never actually done. Nor was it the trigger for the ready action, so you were not moving away to avoid an attack...you were moving away when your opponent got close. There is a distinct difference there. Mini may now do with the standar action as Mini wishes, though the difference in range between the two may affect what Mini chooses.
DTFarstar 01-17-06, 05:16 PM	Depends, if he readied to move when Mini mindthrusted, then no, but it he readied to move away when player approached within x-feet, then yes. It isn't negating an attack because no attack has been attempted yet. Of course, now one probably can't be, but that's not the point. Edit: Grrr, Niqil. You were quicker.
Altaris13 01-17-06, 05:27 PM	Exactly my reasoning NiQil & DT. But they accomplish the same thing.
NiQil 01-17-06, 05:35 PM	Exactly my reasoning NiQil & DT. But they accomplish the same thing. In this case, that is true....but one violates the ready rule, while the other doesn't. It's all about the wording you use and the trigger you use. To put this in another context, what if Thelgar was afraid that Mini was going to hit him with a color spray, and readied an action to double move away if Mini gets within 15 ft? Mini does, so Thelgar moves away...and then Mini decides to hit him with a magic missile instead. You are not negating an attack, you are defending against a range increment. If you had readied the action to move away on any spellcasting, that would be a violation, because it is specifically to negate an attack by spell. See the difference?
MindWandererB 01-17-06, 05:36 PM	Exactly my reasoning NiQil & DT. But they accomplish the same thing.Not precisely. 1) A moving attacker can continue moving. Without the no-dodge rule, a halfling in full plate getting shot at by a high-level monk could ready an action to step behind a pillar whenever shot at, negating the hit, but if the move is triggered by movement instead, the mover can just keep moving and regain line of sight. 2) The attack isn't wasted. Important for spells and limited-use items--if a level 3 wizard tries to move to 30' and Scorching Ray, and the defender just readies a 5-foot step out of range, it matters what the trigger was--if it was the attack, then the spell/scroll is expended to no effect, but if it's triggered by the movement, the caster can try again later.
Usurpator 01-17-06, 06:14 PM	I am with NiQil on this one. Moving away on reaching a particular distance is fine, it will rarely foil an attack. Mini moves and comes within range, Thelgar moves away, Mini sees she is not within range, and won't use her attack. It is not foiled or negated, it never happened. No precious resources where spent, Mini would not be at any additional disadvantage. If Thelgar had moved away while she was manifesting, she might have spent precious pp. on a target that is too far away to attack. That is what the readying rule is trying to prevent (IMO), letting an opponent waste precious resources without giving up anything yourself and without your opponent able to do anything about it. EDIT: I would not allow it on a charge though, since in that case it would effectively foil the attack, since it is one of the rare occasions that movement and attack are combined into one action.
Altaris13 01-17-06, 06:16 PM	I completely see the difference. However, the affect is still basically the same. Most people will not write tactics to obtain close range, but rather will say to use X spell at range A, and Y spell at range B. The intention here is what is important. In the Valkin vs Thelgar fight, Valkin kept moving out of range. He did not use readied actions. But what if he did? I pitlorded a fight where once pc used this same tactic. Ready to move X # of feet on any sign of movement or casting from the opponent. Were those illegal tactics? Should I have flagged them as such? My point here is that the /intention/ is the same. The person is intending to dodge an incoming assault by breaking LOS. I think that is a valid and OK tactic to use. When the rules say you cannot ready to dodge an attack, I believe they're saying that you cannot spend your action to /dodge/ the attack. I do not believe the rules are referencing movement at all.
Usurpator 01-17-06, 06:22 PM	I pitlorded a fight where once pc used this same tactic. Ready to move X # of feet on any sign of movement or casting from the opponent. Were those illegal tactics? Should I have flagged them as such? I would have flagged them. For one, he uses two triggers instead of one, which I would not allow. Secondly, negating attacks by moving out of LOS *with a readied action* is exactly what the rule is trying to prevent. Trust me, if there was no such rule, my gladiators would have tactics rife with ready actions. The attraction is just too great: you totally foil an opponents attack and get the respond immediately after while he is caught with his pants down. Invisible wizard with scorching ray? Just move away after you hear casting. Next round charge the now visible wizard who has one less scorching ray in his repetoire. Or rinse and repeat until the wizard is out of spells.... The only response the ones playing wizards would have is to start readying actions themselves, and then you get into the battle of the two readying opponents, both waiting for the other to make the first move, since neither wants his action go to waste. That is what the rules is designed to prevent, IMO.
Altaris13 01-17-06, 06:26 PM	I would have flagged them. For one, he uses two triggers instead of one, which I would not allow. Secondly, negating attacks by moving out of LOS *with a readied action* is exactly what the rule is trying to prevent. Trust me, if there was no such rule, my gladiators would have tactics rife with ready actions. The attraction is just too great: you totally foil an opponents attack and get the respond immediately after while he is caught with his pants down. Invisible wizard with scorching ray? Just move away after you hear casting. Next round charge the now visible wizard who has one less scorching ray in his repetoire. Or rinse and repeat until the wizard is out of spells.... The only response the ones playing wizards would have is to start readying actions themselves, and then you get into the battle of the two readying opponents, both waiting for the other to make the first move, since neither wants his action go to waste. That is what the rules is designed to prevent, IMO. OK, good points. Thanks for the discussion guys.
NiQil 01-17-06, 06:31 PM	I completely see the difference. However, the affect is still basically the same. Most people will not write tactics to obtain close range, but rather will say to use X spell at range A, and Y spell at range B. The intention here is what is important. In the Valkin vs Thelgar fight, Valkin kept moving out of range. He did not use readied actions. But what if he did? I pitlorded a fight where once pc used this same tactic. Ready to move X # of feet on any sign of movement or casting from the opponent. Were those illegal tactics? Should I have flagged them as such? My point here is that the /intention/ is the same. The person is intending to dodge an incoming assault by breaking LOS. I think that is a valid and OK tactic to use. When the rules say you cannot ready to dodge an attack, I believe they're saying that you cannot spend your action to /dodge/ the attack. I do not believe the rules are referencing movement at all. In this case, it is the working of the ready action that is important, not the intent. If I say "ready to move away if my opponent closes to within 15 ft" because I want to avoid a color spray, I am not in violation. If I say "ready to move away if he casts something" I am in violation. It's all about the wording.
MysticMonk2005 02-02-06, 07:13 PM	(I think this is the right place for this rather then clutter the FotW thread) The recent ruling of mandatory dice rollers seems to of started quite an upset amoungst pitlords. Even though Im not activly pitlording at the time the new ruling does further discourge me from pitlording again. Maybe there should be a community wide vote or atleast a pitlord wide vote on this. Just my 2cp
kedi 02-02-06, 07:55 PM	On dice issue: Most of the pitlords use it, and I know I do because I find it easier to click-click-cut-paste and le voila than roll-seek-write. I think what's upseting people is the boundries. Sure it's never nice tobe obleged to use the dice on a 56k, or not being able to make yourself some coffee and sit by the TV, watching the news while pitlording. But, pitlording requires a certain level of commitment. People are at least, spending days after days on their builds, stay awake to get the pairings when they're posted, write down tactics, track down pitlords... That goes on and on. So when a player reads a game you've run, it's normal that he or she expects professionality. It's expected that you use a reader-friendly template, not to mess around with numbers -and it couldn't hurt to see the dices rolled. I don't think it's just abolutely necessary that pitlords are worried about favourism and cheating, but as rules indicate, there's no reason whatsoever to not use online dice. So it might be a problem for 56k users, and while yes it may be annoying to be have to use the online dice, but it also shows a certain level of commitment to your duty as a pitlord. Same applies for maps (Although I just can't figure out how to use them...). So while yes, Ariel commented as such we all should trust each other as a community, but I believe trust coming from satisfaction to know that your pitlord is doing the best he or she can is healthier in the long run.
SoulLord 02-02-06, 08:23 PM	On dice issue: Most of the pitlords use it, and I know I do because I find it easier to click-click-cut-paste and le voila than roll-seek-write. I think what's upseting people is the boundries. Sure it's never nice to be obligued to use the dice on a 56k, or not being able to make yourself some coffee and sit by the TV, watching the news while pitlording. But, pitlording requires a certain level of commitment. People are at least, spending days after days on their builds, stay awake to get the pairings when they're posted, write down tactics, track down pitlords... That goes on and on. So when a player reads a game you've run, it's normal that he or she expects professionality. It's expected that you use a reader-friendly template, not to mess around with numbers -and it couldn't hurt to see the dices rolled. I don't think it's just abolutely necessary that pitlords are worried about favourism and cheating, but as rules indicate, there's no reason whatsoever to not use online dice. So it might be a problem for 56k users, and while yes it may be annoying to be have to use the online dice, but it also shows a certain level of commitment to your duty as a pitlord. Same applies for maps (Although I just can't figure out how to use them...). So while yes, Ariel commented as such we all should trust each other as a community, but I believe trust coming from satisfaction to know that your pitlord is doing the best he or she can is healthier in the long run. I'll just say that I respectfully disagree. Pitlords don't ... well didn't have to use online rollers to be "proffesional" or commited to their fights.
klangley 02-02-06, 08:36 PM	I don't believe the use or non-use of a particular program has anything to do with the dedication, fairness or professionalism of a game judge. If I were to pitlord a match, from my sailboat with its balky wireless that blinks in and out with the tides, I would not want to use an online tool when I have perfectly good real dice that rarely go offline in mid-operation (when they do, it's usually the cat's fault). This seems like a rule made for the sake of making rules. Can we at least have a vote on it?
kedi 02-02-06, 08:45 PM	Well, I do remember "old" days, Mohi gave me a link to "check it out" and I got my first char on the CO boards. Then we moved here. Back then our playerbase was quite short -if anyone was viewing the boards save busy wednesday, it would be a feat. Everyone knew each other, and it was more or less (having roots spread to days when it all began) a group of people rolling dices and having fun together. Make note that back then, rules thread post was not that large. So it means we can't really expect what happened back then. Things have changed and taken a serious path, I figure with my observations. With due all my respect, I believe using online dice, something's that conidered less easy than using your own dice, just to be able to proove what's going on to your player is a responsibility, if nothing. And of course, it's just my opinion.
Skojar 02-03-06, 02:17 AM	With the change to mandatory online dice rollers, I will be phasing out of the CoCo, maybe keeping one character active, and definately not pitlording. It is too much of a hassle, as I run the fights offline and the post using the format: [dice result]+modifier1+modifier2. I am also a bit discouraged by the unpredictability. I had assumed that the whole point to sticking to Core only was so that people wouldn't bring in some whacked-out crazy feat from Races of XXX or whatever, but because of the alternating liberal and super strict readings of the RAW and the considerable unwritten houserulings, I don't know what's acceptable until I either get penalized for it or get screwed by it in the arena. At least when I could run a fight in a reasonable amout of time, at my leisure it wasn't that big a deal, but with the changes I think it will be much more time than it's worth. In the time I spend running one fight with the online roller, I can write up a whole adventure for my face-to-face games.
Snommelp 02-03-06, 04:05 AM	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.
Warclone 02-03-06, 10:13 AM	I think online rollers should be mandatory. The simple fact is, it's not that hard to use them. It probably just a tad harder than rolling IRL, or MUCH easier depending on if you have to roll somthing en masse. Is that tad harder sometimes worth it? A definite yes. If I knew everybody here in person, offline rolling would be fine. But I don't. And I do not feel comfortable taking some guy's word for it that I rolled a 1 in a critical situation. Show me. If you were a DM, you are allowed to roll in secret because you are allowed to fudge rolls. However, you are not a DM here and you are not allowed to fudge rolls. Allowing offline rolling is like letting a player roll under the table where nobody can see and then he reports his roll to the rest of the group. "Oh, what do ya know, I rolled a 20!" In the spirit of keeping CoCo like a campaign (legitimacy aside), anyone who is not allowed to fudge a roll (aka everyone) should be forced to roll publically (aka online roller). I was very disappointed to begin with when I heard online rolling was not mandatory. Please, restore the legitimacy of the CoCo!