Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pitlords 09-01-04, 01:47 AM	This thread is for Council Elders only! Please take up one and only one post which you edit just like with the old polls thread. Perhaps even take on your own color. Then save this thread under 'favorites' because it will vanish over time due to no new posts coming up. The Council of Elders •Ethendril •Motherbast •Ashenai •Snarkhunter •Magagumo •Druid Roxors Council Rules •The polls: The next thread contains all polls. A poll will be opened as long as there is one Council Elder's voice missing (exception: if a poll has already 4 voices in favor of one side then it may be considered 'closed' and the rule enacted but will stay open until everyone has voted) •Voices: Every Council Elder has one voice. •Attitude: Most of the times polls will be voted as 'Yes', 'No', or 'Abstain'. Please put one of these words at the beginning of your vote. You may explain the reason behind this in a short description (optional). In some cases the voices is required to be more specific (example: "Do you want a green, red or blue background") in which case the various voice options will by included in the poll question (e.g. "Green", "Red", "Blue") •Discussion: This board is for the votes and discussions. Post only once and edit your thread. •Decision: A poll is enacted as soon as a simple majority is reached. As soon as 4 Council Elders vote in favor of one side (absolute majority) the poll is enacted, no matter if there are still votes missing. In case of a split vote, the opinions of the three GM’s (Jindl, Caterane, Tellish of Ket) may be consulted. •Deadline: Each topic will be debated for a period not to exceed two weeks. Topics may be closed early if an early heavy majority is shown. Any Elder's voice not put to vote within two weeks is considered to have abstained. The default poll time is two weeks, but it may be prolonged if difficult and/or decisions with severe consequences are to be made. •Overview: Please post your votes so that they are easily recognizable; a list would be best. •Decision Reached: Once a decision has been reached you will make a public announcement in the tavern of such and a pm to the Pitlords account for the three GM’s to review and respond. A link to the old senate thread is included for your perusal. Old Senate Thread (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=236361)
Druid Roxors 09-01-04, 01:52 AM	New Issues: XIII Maze Spell [Re-voting, New option available] a. Caster loses for 10-round Invulnerability b. Target loses for 10-round Leaving unless he succeeds c. Target gets 10 rounds doing whatever he wants and then returns. d. Target gets 5 rounds doing whatever he wants and 5 attempting checks (auto-return still) e. Target gets 10 rounds attempting checks, no actions allowed. f. Leave as it is (up to 100 rounds) XIV Grappling While Mounted [Insufficient imput, Please revisit] a. Grapple normally, both are "mounted" b. Can't grapple at all, you need to get him out of the mount c. Grapple with Special rules? Suggest. XX Review/update/edit/reverse any ruling from the old senate thread Suggestions? Resolved Issues: The following results have not been Vetoed and are Official: I Removal of Central obstacles: 5 Nay Unanimous, Central obstacle to remain II Capping/increasing cost of undead allies: 4 For Cap No cost, 1 No cost/cap All Undead allies will be capped and no additional cost will be required. III Reduction of credit cost for monster fights: 5 Aye Unanimous, All monster fights cost 1 credit. IV Random arenas (and which ones): 3 Abstain, 2 Nay This idea still has to be further developed in order to make a consensus V Banning the gate spell in all of its forms 5 Aye Unanimous, This spell is Toast. VI The take 10 rule: 5 Aye Unanimous, no longer taking 10 in combat. VII Mo's Proposal 2 Undecided, 1 Abstains, 2 Against This proposal needs more working on before a decision could be made. VIII Addition of the Divine section in the SRD: 4 Aye, 1 Nay The divine section of the SRD will be included within the rules of the CoCo IX Snark's Moderator Statistics: 3 Aye, 1 Undecided Snark's Idea seems to be going official as of now. We trust you can handle the first run Snark :) X 10 Round rule: 1 Abstain 3 Cummulative Rounds spent invulnerable are cumulative XI Bought allies resurrected for free: 4 Aye Unanimous, Bought allies resurrected for free. XII False Life Stacking 4 No Unanimous, No stacking, all are drained at the same time. XV Max Scroll/Powerstone CL/ML 2 Unlimited, 1 ECL + 2 All scrolls are allowed. (See #18) XVI Moh's Idea, Revisited (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=317010) 2 KerlanRayne's Suggestion, 1 Druid Roxor's Suggestion We will be working on seeing how we can implement it in the next couple of days. XVII Fights per Level (Cat's Suggestion) 3, 2 fights per level at level 17+ (pre-epic) Unanimous, gladiators require 2 fights to level-up at level 17 and beyond. XVIII Item cost increase 2 Increase to all consumables, 1 None 2, 5x increase and 10 charges. All consumables (Scrolls, Potions, Unguents, Tonics, Tanglebags, Thunderstones, etc) suffer a 5x price increase. Wands/Staves suffer no price change but their charges are reduced to 10 XIX Ceiling Reduction 2 To 50ft, 1 To 100ft The official ceiling is now 50ft high. Special maps and arrangements can still make for exceptions.
Pitlords 09-01-04, 01:52 AM	This post is used to view what topics are currently under discussion and a tally of the votes. It also contains the closed polls and their results as well as whether it met final GM approval or not. Lastly, it will also contain any topic that the GM's, the people as a whole, wish to discuss and will also include a list of issues that have been tabled for a later date. Chose one topic (or more) and go nuts guys. Let's see some good come out of this. Removal of Central obstacles capping/increasing cost of undead allies reduction of credit cost for monster fights random arenas (and which ones) banning the gate spell in all it's forms review/update/edit/reverse any ruling from the old senate thread Mo's Proposal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=288949) Good luck. -ToK New Rules Active Starting Sept 8/2004 - Take 10 rule. Starting on the 8th, we will be enacting a "take 10" rule for most skill checks except those that you cannot normally take 10 on such as UMD. This includes but is not limited to Tumble, Spellcraft, Concentration, Spot etc... This was discussed and unanimously in favor from the 3 Gm's. It will speed the pitlording process greatly and our aim is to make pitlording less of a hassle and encourage more people to join in knowing that now you don't have to spend an extra 3 hrs just on opposed skill checks. It is also important to note that this does not apply to ACTIVE skill checks. Ex. someone making an active listen check would need to roll for it. A gladiator could conceivably deduce that if he couldn't hear someone reactively, he may have to actively listen and thus wants to roll. I think ya'll get it though. -ToK
Ashenai 09-01-04, 02:35 AM	1) Remove central obstacles? NO. I have seen the arguments for both sides, and I have to admit that it's not as clear-cut as I originally thought. Still, while I am unsure whether removing the central obstacle would help or hinder balance, it would definitely take away from the covert aspect of fights, which would, I think, be a pity. Responding to Druid Roxors' suggestion that the central obstacle ony be removed for high level fights; still no, IMO. I'd like to see round 1 Black Tentacles be more difficult to execute, not less. 2) Capping undead allies, or increasing their cost: Increasing their cost: NO, Capping their power: ABSTAIN. Increasing their cost would be specifically going against Core Rules, which I'd like us to avoid as much as possible. If they need to be balanced, I'd like to balance them by capping. I don't yet have a definite opinion on this, however. 3) Reduction of credit cost for monster fights: YES. While it does tie up a pitlord for the sake of a single player, monster fights are generally a lot simpler and quicker to run than PvP fights. Also, requiring 2 credits for a monster fight puts them out of reach for player who don't pitlord, which is unfair. 4) Random arenas (and which ones): This is a huge topic in itself, and I'd like to wait for others' input on this. There are a number of ways we can go with this. ABSTAIN for now. 5) Banning the gate spell in all it's forms: YES. I am reluctantly in favour. While I'm not a fan of banning Core stuff, Gate warps the environment too much, especially with Candles of Invocation available. 6) Reviving issues from the old Senate thread: non-issue for now. 7) Mo's Proposal: YES. I think we should try three fights a day; if it proves to be too frustrating, we can always go back to two. Two fights a day makes it too easy to do an inactive/fight/inactive/fight pattern, which would have the always fresh gladiator pitted against "tired" opponents. With three fights, you could still do this, but you'd advance just as fast relying on bumps. :) I'm undecided regarding Druid Roxors' proposal that there should only be one fight per day, but with a more limited spell selection. On the one hand, it's a simpler method that achieves similar aims. On the other hand, it takes a lot of the fun decision-making--"how many spells should I be willing to spend on this battle?"--out of the original proposal. 8) Addition of the rest of the SRD. Namely Divine Spells/Domains and Feats: YES. I don't see any reason why not. I see nothing unbalanced there, and it can only add to the variety of builds. 9) Moderator stats: YES. I was late with my vote for this one, but I've included it, just for the record. 10) The 10 round rule: ABSTAIN. I don't mind having it cumulative, though I'd like to actually see a significant abuse of the non-cumulative version in practice first. 11) Ressurrecting bought allies for free: YES (a). 12) False Life Stacking: NO (c). 13) Maze spell: AS PER NORMAL CORE RULES (f). I think this is one place where we can bend the "10-round rule" and actually have the spell work just like it says it does. The 10-round rule was introduced as a counter to certain boring/unrealistic tactics. The Maze spell has no such problems; therefore, I see no advantage to enforcing the 10-round rule with regard to Maze. 14) Grappling while mounted: The one initiating the grapple can (and must) move into the defender's space. Both are now mounted on the defender's mount. If the defender manages to escape the grapple, the attacker falls off the mount (and--if it's a land-based mount--takes 1d6 damage unless he manages his Soft Fall check, as per the rules under the Ride skill). The mount can either join the grapple, or stay out of it, as it chooses. If it doesn't join, it can attack into the grapple. 15) Max scroll CL (or powerstone ML): UNLIMITED (g). I believe there are better solutions to level 2 and 3 scroll abuse... like making one-shot items more expensive. 16) MOH's idea, revisited: KERLANRAYNE'S IDEA (d). I think KerlanRayne's idea hits the sweet spot: it's balanced, it's fun, it's easy to understand, and it mimics a "real campaign" to some extent. I like it a lot. 17) Fights per level: 2 FIGHTS PER LEVEL AT LEVEL 17+ (d). I think we should leave this as is for now. There aren't enough gladiators to have them fight twice every level, unless we don't mind fighting the same opponent over and over and over again. And we do mind. :) 18) Item cost increase: x5 INCREASE TO ALL CONSUMABLES (c-2). See the massive Tavern thread for my reasons. I believe that this will make fights more balanced, and make a much larger percentage of the permanent magic items actually useful. Characters will no longer all be walking alchemy shops! Yay! 19) Ceiling reduction: TO 50 FEET (b). Again, my reasons can be read in the Tavern thread. In multiple places. :)
SnarkHunter 09-01-04, 08:55 AM	Proposal What if we started collecting Pitlord stats? I mean we could do as simple or complicated as necessary but it seems like it could be a good idea if we had numbers for: % Fights completed/Assigned % Fights on time/Assigned % Player satisfaction/players responded (This is fairly nebulous but if one or both players would post in the fights thread that they were satisfied, or not satisfied with how the fight was run would probably be good enough) Having this would serve two purposes-We could have a best Pitlord award for the one with the best stats, and we could start assigning fights based on previous performance. Not that people who mess up one week would never get a fight again, but just as a way of splitting hairs when theres a surplus of pitlords and a lull in fights. Thoughts? Votes Removal of Central obstacles: Not in favor, though I would like to see more done to make initiative less important. There'll be ways around it to be sure but we should make the people work for them. The one that apeals to me the most would be making the default arena have multiple starting locations, and making it at least somewhat difficult to determine who is at what location. capping/increasing cost of undead allies: Yes/No. Increasing the cost shouldn't be required if we limit the power of the skeletons. By CR seems like the best bet, and I recall there being a decent formula floating around for that purpose somewhere. reduction of credit cost for monster fights: Yes. Very much in favor, 1 credit should be plenty. Though it might be a good idea to have the option of multiple credits if the CR of the monster is close (within 1 or 2) of the Gladiator. random arenas (and which ones): Abstain. Not so much in favor, I'd rather have one arena which everyone becomes familiar with. It makes fights easier to run anyway, but I'll consider other options. banning the gate spell in all it's forms: Yes. In favor for the reasons already mentioned. review/update/edit/reverse any ruling from the old senate thread: I'd need to go over them, then we'll see. Mo's Proposal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=288949): Abstain. Still not sold on it, but as I've said its apeal grows... Adding Divine stuff. Yes. I'd say on a trial basis at least adding it wouldn't be a terrible idea. Moderator stats: Yes For obvious reasons :) The 10 Round rule: I vote cumulative, else it be unbalancing. Bought allies ressurected for free: Aye False Life Stacking No stacking all are drained at once. I really didn't know this was still being discussed. Maze Spell Change! 100 rounds then returned to the arena. Grappling While Mounted: Not sure how this would work. I think Mag's thought of the grappler needing to pull the target from the saddle is the best bet. Max Scroll/Powerstone CL/ML: After giving this some thought I think limiting to CL+3 is reasonable. Even at 2nd level it shouldn't be impossible to get a scroll of Fireball. If no one else agrees then CL+2 is also acceptable Moh's Idea, Kerlan's suggestion But start with only 2 fights a day and move up to three if it seems necessary. Fights per Level (Cat's Suggestion) Since this simply means more fighting of the same characters I don't think it would be very fun. Instead I'd support a freeze at 17th or 18th level, till some new blood gets up there *cough Evram Cough*. Item cost increase No increase to consumables, I don't think it would be fun fair or attract more members to the arena. XIX Ceiling Reduction I'll say to 100ft. Generally I believe in incrementalism eh? New Rules Active Starting Sept 8/2004 - Take 10 rule. This seems like a bad idea. I know people have complained (I've complained too heaven knows) but its part of the game. Ideally we could have a computer program calculate this for us, but for now, I think making these skill checks non-random subtracts from the vitality of the game.
Magagumo 09-01-04, 09:46 AM	X. In regards to being completely untargetable (burrowed, ethereal, melded, Resilient sphere) I claim it should be cumulative. XI. Aye, I sometimes hold back for fear of crippling someone financially. XII. In issue of balance, I think they should deplete simultaneously as they are from different sources (if an undead gains temp hp, its all from thei touch, so it stacks together, buts several False Life spells really shouldn't) XIII. E. A useful spell that can allow the caster soem time vs. hsi unintelligent but otherwise high saving foes (i.e. Clerics and Druids) but we should let the Target attempt escapes, and get a free return after a maximum of 10 rds of exclusion. XIV. A./C. A tricky business, and I am influenced by cinema here- I would say you "mount" the horse, griffon, etc. at the beginning of your next turn if you are the same size as your opponent, but you have no control on the animal (although your combiend weight could have an impact...). If you are the same size or large than the mount, then you are not considered mounted and any movement by the mount must be treated as an attempted "break the grapple", whose failure results in the mount moving, and the rider left behind. XV. g, see 5x cost below... XVI. 4, Kerlanrayne's suggestion. I'm willing to give this a try... could be the clinching edge nedded for soorcerors and pure meleers (fighters) to win over the 2nd lvl barbs, clerics, psions, and wizards. I think t might acually convince someone to go straight barbarian.... XVII. I think two fights at 17+ level would work best. XVIII. c, 2. Let eh 5x cost apply to all consumables and let charged items be purchased for normal cost with 10 chgs. XIX. Frankly, I think if we dropped it to 100' (within normal bow incrememnt) it would best reflect the aerial battles I have engaged in and seen within my own campaigns. 50' is a bit low, but 100' allows the Far Shot thrower to still hit... barely. Also, Close Range spells can be avoided up to 20th lvl +, so one cannot snipe from the top at the poor grounded individuals. ________________________________________ __________________________ 1. I believe the current Arena map, esp. the central obstacle, ahs been the foundation on which my interest (and our greatest successes) have been founded. I exagerrate, of course, but I believe the sheer ability of the obstacle to eliminate 1st turn kills and obnoxious 1st-rd disruption tactics has had merit. I still believe Phantom Steed may need to eb examined for its ability to completely negate this feature- only through racial speed and haste has the obstacle been skirted, and the results are far less dire than the pahntom steed's ability to annihilate most melee builds. 2. Personally, I do not care for the udnead allies fate (as Tommy ahs proven a better resource), and I have seen no evidence of abuse through Crimson Sunrise or Nightingale. Only time will tell, but the higher levels seem to have eliminated all but the movement-based edge of these creatures. Our -5 Ride chk house rule has served well, I believe. 3. I concur with Ash, the fights are not more of a strain on Mods, but less so. Personally, given that resources are being expended (and RL time is a resource) without level advancement, I wouldn't be oppossed to allowing them to not count at all- the fighter is still occupied for the week, it's generally a quick fight, and it gives our plethora of Mods an opportunity to earn creds. Also, as Ash said, it brigns the opportunity to our non-Mods. 4. Personally, I view this as to much effort for all, as it introduces too much randomness into oru equation. Ideally, different combatatnts would function better/worse depending on the terrain- but that seems more like playtesting for a campaign, rather than our simple [and successful] linear style of one arena. 5. Finding it difficult to perfect Moh's proposal, I agree that banning this spell is a correct move on our part. Sometimes, we have to do things for the fighters, y'know? And this is as one-shot as it gets [re: candles of invocation] 7. I think Moh's heart is in the right place, but I can't come to terms with how to best align characters for each tier. After all, fighting an opponent who has fully rested (due to a loss, etc.) while you are weakened is certianly unfair. If we ensure that one cannot rest until one has fought 2-3x (and I believe 2 to be the magic number here), we find a greater difficulty in trying to align which characters casn fight whom (some may win both fights, others may flounder in the first and pick it up in the second, etc.). Without a massive pool of combatants to work with [perhaps when we have 30-40 active fighters a week ;)], we openly risk slowing growth further, causing some to quit out of frustration. Since we are forcing two fights to be won at 16th+ to advance, perhaps that would be the location to test this idea out? 8. I am somewhat concerned for the balanced nature of certain feats, such as Knockdown, but with recent clarification re: trip, I would be satisfied to see them let in. The turn undead feats are very nice for a setting which sees few-no turnable undead. I'm afraid that "taking 10" is far too great a risk. I can stand rolling the die, because sometimes luck is the only way a stealth character hides (or is found), or the low-level buffer manages to stay hidden until they emerge as a limited duration war machine. 9. I say give Snark's idea a try.
Druid Roxors 09-01-04, 12:41 PM	X. 10 round rule a. Cummulative XI. Bought ally ressurection a. Aye XII. False Life Stacking c. No stacking XIII. d. Target gets 5 rounds doing whatever he wants and 5 attempting checks (auto-return still) XIV. c. Grapple 1st round then use a grapple check next round to "move within a grapple" to pull him out of horse. Or a. If no consensus. XV. b. Max = ECL + 2 XVI. c. For obvious reasons ;) XVII. c. OR d. Depends on which is winning :D XVIII. a. No increase XIV. b. to 50 ft ________________________________________ _________________________ [color=gray]I. Removal of Central obstacles No/Yes. Keep the central obstacle on low level fights. Remove on high level fights (9+). Add 4 other obstacles in the arena of at least large size. (you can take this answer as a NO, and a new proposal) II. Capping/increasing cost of undead allies Yes to capping, No to cost III. Reduction of credit cost for monster fights Aye, 1 credit is enough for such a simple fight. IV. Random arenas (and which ones) If the player places "random arena" on his character sheet, Yes. Not as a standard though. V. Banning the gate spell in all it's forms Aye, you will never see this spell in a campaign. Remember the DM decides if the creature you called is to exact revenge or what it will do after the spell ends. This spell has DM decission making and is completely imbalanced. BAN VI. Review/update/edit/reverse any ruling from the old senate thread Take 10 rule. Does "insane" ring a bell? No posibility of failure for concentration, no posibility of failure in hide/ms... Characters like Kelek would be completely INVINCIBLE. I believe that, although excruciatingly frustrating, fights must be done with dice luck involved. Reviewing the rest. VII. Mo's Proposal As I have already stated, I refuse to agree upon 3 fights of your CR per day. My arguments on the thread are sound and solid, I believe that 2 fights would be adecuate. As another posibility: Reducing the luck factor and better reflecting what the CoCo is all about, I would vote on a reduction of spell slots (and abilities) to 2/3 normal and one fight per day. VIII. Addition of the rest of the SRD. Namely Divine Spells/Domains and Feats. Aye. It is part of the SRD now and it brings much more into play. New Clerics, new tactics, New intresting Feats... Vote AYE! IX. Snark's Idea: Aye! I believe that a rating system could help keep pitlord in line, reminding them that every action they take will have weight later on.[color=gray]
Ethendril 09-01-04, 01:05 PM	Here I am.
MotherBast 09-02-04, 04:09 PM	I get the last word, LOL. 1- Central Obstical Removal. NO. Personaly, I think the central obstical favors casters a lot. But also, I belive no central obstical favors casters a lot. Take it or leave it, casters still kill on round 1 with a win init roll. I don't wana have to redo my map, again. 2- Capping/incressing cost of undead. YES to capping, NO to incressing cost. 3- Monster Fights. YES. Monster fights are far easier to run than regular fights. 4- Random Arenas. NO. Just to many reasons not to do this. Tactics, favoritism, workload, and I'd have to make a map for every available option. That would suck. 5- Gate Spell. YES. As much as I hate to say it, I think its time we begin instituting a "banned" list of spells. GATE would deffanatly be on there. Latter, Time Stop might be another to concider, and it alows no save, and basicly means the first person to cast it wins. Using Mirical and Wish to wish your foe dead is another I'd ban. 6- Old debates. NO. I can't think of any that need review at this time. 7- Mo's proposal. NO. Reasons against have all been stated by others already. 8- SRD- NO. that section is listed as being for God's and extraplanier beings in the book it comes from, so I don't think allowing players access to it is a good idea, since it is supposed to require DM approval to take those feats. The "take 10" rule. The second worst idea I have ever heard concerning the CoCo.
LLMadCow 01-21-05, 01:14 PM	For starters - I guess someone should open a new Elders Thread. Agenda: Crafting scrolls - 1 per day, up to 1,000gp worth, or as per 1/3 total spells per day? Caster Level for Crafting - Yes, as per Rules of the Game or No, as per the Official Errata? Resolve older issues and correct some of the old votes to ensure things accurately reflect the current standard. Examples: Current Arena is listed as 150' high, but was voted to be 50', or so I gather from reading previous threads. Currently all consumables such as scrolls, potions, wands, etc. cost standard, but a previous vote put them at 5x cost. So, we do need to get up to speed, as a group. The only way for the elders to have an active voice is to debate and discuss and make sure that we are all current on the issues that are important to the participants in Living Gladius! LL
Jindl 01-21-05, 01:37 PM	For starters - I guess someone should open a new Elders Thread. Agenda: Crafting scrolls - 1 per day, up to 1,000gp worth, or as per 1/3 total spells per day? Caster Level for Crafting - Yes, as per Rules of the Game or No, as per the Official Errata? Resolve older issues and correct some of the old votes to ensure things accurately reflect the current standard. Examples: Current Arena is listed as 150' high, but was voted to be 50', or so I gather from reading previous threads. Currently all consumables such as scrolls, potions, wands, etc. cost standard, but a previous vote put them at 5x cost. So, we do need to get up to speed, as a group. The only way for the elders to have an active voice is to debate and discuss and make sure that we are all current on the issues that are important to the participants in Living Gladius! LL I agree that we need a new Elder's thread for Living Gladius. The scroll crafting issue is something that needs further discussion. The CL requirement for crafting items has been discussed for several weeks on its own thread, and the active Elders (Jindl, Snarkhunter, LLMadCow, Cellardweller) have unanimously voted in favor of following the Errata (no CL requirement) and disregarding the Rules of the Game. This issue could be considered to have reached a final decision. As for the change in arena height and the 5x consumable rules, they were both overturned by the GM's. A new vote would be required to do them again (since we have different Elders now). @Ash/Cat - Please open a new Elder Forum for LG thread (under Pitlords). Also, please comment here about the final decision on CL requirement for crafting items. -Jindl
LLMadCow 01-21-05, 04:38 PM	As for the change in arena height and the 5x consumable rules, they were both overturned by the GM's. A new vote would be required to do them again (since we have different Elders now). I am not saying that we need to be voting on the 5x cost and the height of the arena, I was always happy with cost by the book and a 150' ceiling. I know by running quick numbers, it is possible to have a gladiator who is roughly 30' tall with a 30' reach weapon, so that a 50' ceiling would be funny.