Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Pitlords 02-10-05, 11:25 AM	Council of Elders Discussion Forum This thread is for Council Elders only! Please do not post here unless you are an Elder. The Elders are Cellardweller Jindl LLMadCow Pittbull Sindorin This thread is where you can discuss the current topics to keep the Council itself clean of anything else but votes. You can either make one post or use it as a regular thread, as you wish. Please copy your current discussion into this thread. Portal to the Council of Eldershttp://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Struktur/Pfeil1.gif http://www.caterane.de/CoCo/Struktur/Portal-blue.gif (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=444107)
Pitlords 02-10-05, 11:36 AM	Note that there is a new voting system: •Voices: Every Council Elder has three voices with different weighs. Your first voice counts as 3 votes, your second voice as 2 votes, and your third voice as one vote. You can assign these voices in order of your priority to your options. Comments are appreciated. If you have a better suggestion, feel free to post it.
LLMadCow 02-10-05, 11:52 AM	I'll move everything over here tonight. If there is a general concensus, why don't we each take one post, and then just tack on new Pitlord posts for each topic we discuss? Is this seat taken? <Looks around> Well, I call dibs on this seat. <Sits down and gets comfortable> 1) Maze Spell - f. Leave it as it is (up to 100 rounds). A creature who has had Maze cast upon them is forcefully sent out of the arena for a period of greater than 10 rounds. This is not their choice, unless they have cast it upon themselves, and as such should not qualify them for the ruling that they lose for leaving the arena for 10 rounds. This comes down to: Leaving the Arena for more than 10 rounds vs Being kicked out of the Arena for more than 10 rounds. @Jindl - Having an enemy gone for 10 minutes does not exactly constitute a win. If I am running a game and the most creative thing the party can manage is Maze, they have problems. Maze would allow for a party to have up to 10 minutes to buff, but then the enemy returns. I would agree that Imprisonment and Temporal Stasis would confer a win, since they last until negated; Maze lasts for no more than 10 minutes. 2) Grappling While Mounted - c. Grapple with Special rules. Note: This was edited for clarity and minor changes in thought. @Cellar/Jindl/Snark - Has we even considered the option of automatically having the mount make an attack against AC 10 to give the rider a +2 from Aid Another? This would be a simple solution for Mounted Grappling. If we go with requiring a Grapple Check to succeed against both the mount and rider, this makes having a mount much more powerful. The mount becomes the 'Free Ally' (In regard to XP and GP) who helps prevent grappling and can also be a powerful combatant at lower levels. As Jindl alluded to, perhaps we do need a 'dismount opponent' portion of the grapple check? Perhaps at stage 4 of the Grapple, you make another opposed grapple check that is modified by the Aid Another to bring the opponent into your square? I have no problem with the mount and the rider both being engaged with a grapple. This follows the rules of multiple grapplers. I feel that grappling should be based: Size and Altitude. It has already been established that character who is mounted and acting against a non-mounted creature smaller than the mount, gets a +1 bonus for Higher Ground; however, I would say that a Small creature cannot grapple with a mounted creature who is mounted on a large, or greater, mount and visa-versa. If both medium creatures are mounted, then they can grapple each other if their mounts are in close enough proximity to allow it. A medium creature can grapple a large creature; thus a barbarian on foot could grapple the horse that the fighter is riding on. A large creature can grapple another large creature, to include grappling the creature riding the large creature. If two mounted opponents try to grapple each other, then they occupy 1/2 of both spaces and the legs stay in their own spaces, unless one voluntarily leaves a mount. Also, if both are mounted, one has the option of trying to escape a grapple using the Aid Another option (resulting in +2 grapple). 3) Autospot Sneakers - c. As long as he begins and ends movement behind cover/concealment he is not autospotted As I stated in other threads, I feel that a large part of the ability hide is the ability to know when to move and when to not move. Reality says that a person cannot be looking in every direction all the time, so when Combatant A makes a successful Hide check vs Combatant Bs Spot Check, it just happens to be that he has picked a good time to make a dash between hiding spots. Shot on the run is ideal for such a manuver, but it may still incur the sniping penalty of -20. I believe that the psionic ability Ubiquitous Vision is specifically designed to give 360 degree vision, and may allow for Autospot, but this is the only thing that would allow this. @Cellar - Would you consider a compromise of 5' of uncovered movement per every 5 in your total hide Check? So, if you have 15 Ranks, +5 Dex Modifier, Elixir of Hide, and roll a 15, for a total of 45' worth of hide during uncovered movement? This is far more reasonable than 5' per 5 Ranks, especially in the arena. The end result of this would be restricting movement to 45' if there is no cover between position A and B, but allowing greater distances IF there is additional cover along the way, such as columns, rocks and the center obstacle. (Note that if we go this route, I am opposed to also enforcing the penalty based on speed of movement.) One thing we have to remember is that we are trying to make some sort of functional middle ground for builds whose only real advantage is hide. In the FAQ for Living Gladius, it has established that the arena is a sort of middle ground that offers enough of everything to allow different abilities and spells to be used. Is it fair that there is mysteriously enough grasses, weeds, bushes and even trees for Entangle to work, but not enough tall grass or foliage to allow enough concealment for us to Hide?
Pittbull 02-10-05, 11:52 AM	(2) If you want two grapple-checks against the rider and the mount, are there two grapple-checks (rider and mount) too, if a mounted character grapples a grounded character? I don't like the idea that a halfing with strength 6 and a good ride-skill on a strong mount, is hard to grapple, he doesn't stick to the mount, they aren't grown together. I like LL's idea of aiding another, a strong mount is more likely to help it's rider than a weaker. But all in all it depends on the rider, if he is strong enough to stay in the saddle. Considering size is nice too, grappling somebody who is riding an elephant might be impossible for a small person. But I'm still thinking about the problem who's sharing which's pace.
Caterane 02-15-05, 05:02 PM	Hey Elders, you can use this forum :) Let's move your discussion to this thread please, and try to finish your voting. @Pittbull: You need to take a seat in the Council. You can use my nice new portal above :cool:
Jindl 02-15-05, 06:50 PM	I'll transfer over later tonight (after finishing my fight, updating my campaign, sending RP to Kaigan for my quest, and updating my pc's ... geez, I need a life :( )
Caterane 02-19-05, 10:32 AM	:zzz: Are the votes in the Council your final decision? I'd prefer rules that are enacted because the discussion proved them to be the best ones, not because the time to vote was up. What are your comments on the new voting system? Do you have a better one in mind? Let's work it out together!
Pittbull 02-19-05, 10:41 AM	I like the new voting-system. Let's make a date until the decissions have to be made to get the ball rolling. We realy need to speed up!!! Cat, would you derterming the dead-line?
Caterane 02-19-05, 10:46 AM	Well, as I said, I'd prefer to have rules based on well discussed decisions not because the time ran out. If that doesn't work we need a deadline but I hope that won't be necessary.
Pittbull 02-19-05, 10:54 AM	1)Grappling: Is it possible to add LL's idea of aiding another as a special rule? If you don't want to add another special rule lets say both are mounted. 2)Sneaking: I would prefer the 5' per skill-check/5 for the autospot dicussion. If we want to keep it simple I think (c) is the right choice.
cellardweller 02-22-05, 02:12 AM	Re: Hiding. LL, have you thouroughly thought out the the consequences of your position? If the arena contains enough tall grass to provide concealment, gladiators would no longer need to use rocks or pillars to hide. You are effectively giving everyone HiPS. I could also not disagree more with your proposal of making it 1' for each hide modifier. House rule has always been a 4 letter word around these parts and I'd like to keep it that way. The SRD clearly states 1' for each hide rank. As an alternate compromise position I put forward the addition of a "fog of battle". The arena would have a fog that provides enough concealment to make a hide check outside a distance of 150' (negotiable). This is not enough concealment to provide a miss chance though. (See images in Indri vs Rook) for an idea of what I mean.
cellardweller 02-22-05, 02:18 AM	Re Mounted Grappling The latest set of RoG articles have cleared up what happens if you try to grapple someone on a mount that can bear you (ie treat as normal). But what it doesn't cover is what goes on if the mount cannot bear you. I'd like the question amended to reflect this. What happens if you attempt to grapple an opponent who is mounted and thier mount cannot bear you? a) You cannot grapple. b) You must succeed in grapple checks against both your opponent and their mount c) You must use the Move the grapple option to unmount them first
Pittbull 02-22-05, 03:01 AM	Re: Hiding. The SRD clearly states 1' for each hide rank. Oh, I missed that. Can show me that part. This might be the rule we have to use.
cellardweller 02-22-05, 03:09 AM	Oh, I missed that. Can show me that part. This might be the rule we have to use. sure If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a –10 penalty because you have to move fast.
Pittbull 02-22-05, 03:56 AM	OK, there we have the rule, it's pretty tough for all the sneakers, but my opinion is to stay "en core". Despite I like the 5' per skill-check/5 -rule personnally a lot more. For me the the question is, whether to take: a, 1' per rank and stay core or, b, 5' per skill-check/5 and help the poor sneakers. :)
Pittbull 02-22-05, 04:26 AM	Another point is: Having full-transperancy for magic/psionic powers. Does the power escape detection work against see invisible, as nondection does? Cloud-mind is anather nice power to hide, but it's onyl one-attack benefit. The idea to give an oportunity to hide if there is a distance >150ft, is nice too.
Pittbull 02-24-05, 04:02 AM	Yet another point: Ceres Solus the Vagabond (Sindorin) vs Evram the Soulless (SnarkHunter) is finished. I'm not very happy with this fight, and I think the GM's and other Elder's should have a look at it, especially the Pitlord Note I left after declaring a winner. I thought, there is the rule of having only a mount or ally, which is your ECL-2. I posted this concern allready in the violation-thread, but Sindorin told me, that he has dicussed with Cat and it's OK. I know horses and dogs do not count for this rule, but can we consider a Pegasus as a horse? I would say no, because it's far to powerful. Sorry for Sindorin, but I think we should allow Pegasi only in ECL5 and above, we might also think of XP-sharing as we do for allies. EDIT: Shall we keep this rule of ECL -2?
Pittbull 02-25-05, 08:22 AM	Grappling while Mounted: Here is something Skip Williams said: (1)Aid Another: Helping an ally in melee combat while mounted works just like making a melee attack while mounted. Aiding another with a check while mounted works just like using a skill while mounted. You can use the aid another action to assist your mount in melee combat (improving either its attack rolls or its Armor Class against one opponent). If your mount is not attacking this round, you can make an attack roll against AC 10. If your mount is attacking this round, you must first succeed on a DC 10 Ride check to attack along with your mount. (2)Escape a Grapple: If you and the foe grappling you are both aboard the same mount, the mount's movement doesn't affect the grapple. If the foe that is grappling you isn't aboard your mount, your mount cannot move away unless you fall off or escape the grapple first. The time you take escaping the grapple limits your mount to a single move. You can instead try to move your opponent. To do so, you must first win an opposed grapple check. If you succeed, your mount can make a single move, dragging your and your foe along (subject to its carrying capacity).
cellardweller 02-26-05, 03:43 AM	Is this in an officicial document or an off handed comment somewhere?
cellardweller 02-26-05, 03:52 AM	As an alternate compromise position I put forward the addition of a "fog of battle". The arena would have a fog that provides enough concealment to make a hide check outside a distance of 150' (negotiable). This is not enough concealment to provide a miss chance though. (See images in Indri vs Rook) for an idea of what I mean. cd@COCO>/usr/sbin/ping jindl.coco.wizards.com channel 2: open failed: connect failed: Connection timed out cd@COCO>/usr/sbin/ping snarkhunter.coco.wizards.com channel 2: open failed: connect failed: Connection timed out cd@COCO>/usr/sbin/ping llmadcow.coco.wizards.com channel 2: open failed: connect failed: Connection timed out
Caterane 02-26-05, 03:45 PM	House of Commons: http://home.arcor.de/caterane/Miscellaneous%20Pictures/Students.jpg Elder's Forum: http://maisnam.net/7/bored/001.gif
Pittbull 02-27-05, 05:42 PM	@Cat: :allalone: @Cellar: It's from the rules of the game, from the official D&D site.
Pittbull 03-01-05, 01:07 PM	Regarding grappling: This week Skip Williams is starting to talk about grappling in his "Rules of the Game"-series: Just take a look (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050301a)!
Pitlords 03-01-05, 09:05 PM	Hey Elders, the 3-2-1 voting system isn't optimal because you can drop votes onto things no one votes anyway. I think the easiest thing is give everyone one voice. In case of a tie, the highest votes are voted on again by everyone. Basically that means those who voted on a minority vote need to reassign their vote to one of the highest votes. In the current polls this means: Maze Spell: Jindl needs to revote on (c) or (f) Grappling: Snark needs to revote on (c) or (d) Autospot: Jindl hasn't voted yet. Only (a) or (c) I think this is the easiest way to vote. If you have a better idea please tell me.
Caterane 03-06-05, 03:22 PM	Hi Elders, I am seriously considering a revision of the maximum caster level for scrolls and powerstones. These items have been problematic in the Classic Arena but now they are utterly game-deciding. Wizards win because of their CL 9 Magic missiles, Psionic characters suddenly have 40 hp at lvl 3 because of a cheap vigor powerstone (which they can renew), and dozens of other spells and powers that are way too powerful for such a level. While it is not strictly against the rules to have more powerful spells, no DM would hand out a CL 9 scroll at lvl 3 ...not to mention enough CL 9 scrolls to fight with them every battle! This is not realistic and doesn't confirm the effectivity of your build. In a real campaign you cannot rely on such items. As you can see there are very good arguments for both the balance guys and the real campaign style faction. To me it is pretty obvious that these items need a cap, and soon. From next wednesday on I'll finally have much more time on my hands and will finish the FAQ. It would be good if I have your opinions on that. The question is: what kind of cap? Caster Level = ECL? ECL+2? +x? I see little reason why a scroll should be available in higher versions when tattoos and potions are not. I don't want to see higher caster level scrolls completely barred but we could probably add them to the list of items that can be bought with credits. For those who now say that would be unfair to those that don't moderate, please note that paying 1 credit per custom scroll will get quickly very expensive, is another way to spend credits, encourages to pitlord, and rewards those who do. Ok, please tell me what you think about that
cellardweller 03-06-05, 07:05 PM	Agree ECL+2
Pittbull 03-07-05, 11:38 AM	If the majority wants a change, I will agree to Ecl+2. Personally, I like the current system.
LLMadCow 03-14-05, 11:57 PM	Yes, I live. I can understand the issue of balance in the arena. There is a big issue with the need for balance, otherwise one or another type of PC becomes superior. The current trend in the arena is to look at what happens in battles and then respond. Why don't we try taking a pre-emptive look at balancing Living Gladius? I think we can break down spellcasters and look at them objectively. Perhaps some of the current restrictions or standards can be changed back, while others are instated? On one hand, we look at the psions have 40HP and the Wizards firing off CL 9 Magic Missiles, but you have to acknowledge, that without those, we still have spell casters with only 1/3 of the spells available. So, do we restrict their items and their spells? (Also, does this restrict rogues from using scrolls all together, or does it mean that a 7th level fighter who takes 1 level of Wizard can toss CL 10 scrolls?) While I am posting a rant, why are magic items restricted to 1/3 usage? Boots of haste for 4 rounds? A wand with 1 use instead of 3? The problem I have with this is that EVERYONE uses magical items. This skews the entire spectrum of spending and just confuses things. The 'NEW' uber-PC becomes some guy who manages to make best use of his non-restricted items. I'll vote on this topic, but we need to discuss it more and refine it to something with a little more thought.... I am almost willing to say that I think if we cap the scrolls we need to free up some of the spells per day. I think I would vote in favor of capping scrolls, but offering up 1/2 spells per day instead of 1/3. Just food for thought!
Caterane 03-15-05, 04:47 AM	It has already been implemented. A Ftr7/Wiz1 can toss a CL 10 scroll because he fights other Level 8 characters so the scroll is much less dangerous to him than to a lvl 3 character. And we do not restrict items with charges. Wands have 50 charges and may be used freely. The 1/3 rule is also necessary. Spellcasters are doing very well, and we all know that at low level they are at their weakest. 1/2 spells is little restriction to a high level mage. And of course I see no reason why to rant about the 1/3 spell rule when we have seen only 2 levels in the CoCo so far.
LLMadCow 03-15-05, 09:49 AM	It has already been implemented. A Ftr7/Wiz1 can toss a CL 10 scroll because he fights other Level 8 characters so the scroll is much less dangerous to him than to a lvl 3 character. And we do not restrict items with charges. Wands have 50 charges and may be used freely. The 1/3 rule is also necessary. Spellcasters are doing very well, and we all know that at low level they are at their weakest. 1/2 spells is little restriction to a high level mage. And of course I see no reason why to rant about the 1/3 spell rule when we have seen only 2 levels in the CoCo so far. So, no scrolls for Rogues anymore? UMD gets nerfed? With a dedicated rogue, specializing in UMD it becomes possible to have some solid scroll using ability and I think this is one of the aspects of rogues that can help give them an edge in the arena. If this has not been nerfed, how is it calculated? Are they also at ECL +2? [Edit: Never mind, I understand that Rogue 8 would be allowed to attempt to cast an CL 10 scroll, requiring a UMD of 30. Gotcha.]
Pittbull 03-21-05, 09:57 AM	:zzz: :whatsthis :plotting: :w00t: :bigeyes: :allalone: :zzz:
Pitlords 03-24-05, 07:25 AM	Hi Elders, I'd like to have your input on the topic of tattoos vs crawling tattoos. I had quite some problems in coming up with a balanced way to deal with custom one-shot expendable items because every time it sounded balanced for all items, the crawling tattoo of vigor popped in my mind and broke everything again. Per current ruling a Level 4 gladiator can get a CL 4 Crawling Tattoo of Vigor (+20 hp) at not credit cost, and 200 gp. Looking at the aid potion (1d8+3 hp for 300 gp) this doesn't sound right to me. Now potions are balanced because you cannot create one with a range of personal. Tattoos don't have that limitation but cost double as much which balances out more or less. However, the crawling tattoo loophole blows this up again. What do you think about that? EDIT: I think I came up with a good solution: Tattoos still follow the minimum ML requirement (which is their limit) plus they follow the 1° per 2 CLs above the normal limit rule. That way, it doesn't hamper Scrolls and Powerstones (they are still ECL+2 or 1° per 2 CL above ECL+2 which is their limit) but contains the broken-potential of tattoos with the same rule, because they have a different limit (minimum ML). Example: Crawling tattoo of Vigor ML 20 (+100 hp for 1000 gp) now costs 10 credits. No one can build a character around a vigor tattoo now.
Pittbull 03-24-05, 08:09 AM	Sounds good to me, I concede!
cellardweller 05-17-05, 10:19 PM	Issues that require resolution: 1) Blacklight - total concealment as per 3.0 darkness or 20% concealment as per 3.5 darkness 2) Ranged weapons without LoS 3) Targeting center of area effect 4) Eversmoking bottle I'm hoping with only 3 elders we can get some of these resolved quickly. What I am thinking: 1) 20% concealment. It my belief that this was an editing oversight similar to the random action spell 2) Spash has convinced me that this is just a typo - only LoE required 3) Allow targetting of center 4) As per 3.0 darkness targeted on the bottle with a radius that grows from 50' to 100' What the description says: 1) There is smoke in an area of between 50' and 100' from the bottle when it unstoppered 2) When it is stoppered the smoke begins to dissapate. 3) Vision is completely obscured within the area of effect. What the description does not say : 1) The smoke persists when the bottle is removed from the area So without reading anything else into it or trying to guess how magical smoke behaves, you have an effect similar to 3.0 darkness centered on the bottle. I beleive this is how it should be treated in the future.
Pittbull 05-18-05, 02:18 AM	1) 20% concealment 2) Only LoE required 3) Allow targetting of center 4) As per 3.0 darkness targeted on the bottle with a radius that grows from 50' to 100' I support you!
Caterane 05-18-05, 10:04 AM	Announcement: With Snark Hunter and LLMadCow gone, there is a huge gap in the Council. I don't know when or if they are coming back but we cannot wait for them to show up but need to make the Council operational again. I have thought about a new Elder for some time, and I am glad to announce that Sindorin is from now on an Elder of the CoCo. I have already talked to him and dispatched a mail to WizO Shadow to change his title (and Pittbulls; sorry, but I have sent 3 mails already. They had some problems with the technix). I am sure this is a good addition to the Council!
Jindl 05-18-05, 12:03 PM	Issues that require resolution: 1) Blacklight - total concealment as per 3.0 darkness or 20% concealment as per 3.5 darkness 2) Ranged weapons without LoS 3) Targeting center of area effect 4) Eversmoking bottle I'm hoping with only 3 elders we can get some of these resolved quickly. 1. The spell description doesn't use the words concealment or total concealment. The exact wording is that "The caster creates an area of total darkness. The darkness is impenetrable to normal vision and darkvision, but the caster can see normally within the blacklit area. Creatures outside the spell’s area, even the caster, cannot see through it." This seems pretty clear to me. The area is total darkness and impenetrable to vision. It blocks LOS. 2. There's nothing to indicate that this is a typo. The same rule existed in v3.0. You must have LOS to the target (be it a square or a character) to use a ranged weapon. 3. I don't think you should be able to identify the center of an area of affect. From a pc's vantage point, they can only see 1 side of the area of effect. They don't know how deep it extends, so how can they determine the center? Plus there are many creatures/characters that lack the intelligence to determine the center of an effect anyway, so even if this were allowed, the character should have to make some sort of knowledge check. 4. Can we please just ban this item? Well, short of that here's my take on it: #1 - Nothing in the item description indicates that this smoke is any different from normal smoke, which is an environmental hazard. The rules for smoke inhalation should apply while within the area of effect. Of course, they can hold their breath as normal. #2 - The initial radius of 50 ft does not move with the unstoppered bottle. If the bottle moves, the 10 ft expanding radius moves with the bottle. #3 - Any smoke outside the radius currently supported by the bottle begins to dissipate normally. So here's an example of how I think the bottle should work: Ixenthor unstoppers the bottle, causing smoke to expand 50 ft around him. Any creatures within this area (including Ixenthor) fall under the rules for smoke inhalation (see the quote below). Ixenthor then flies 60 ft out of the initial smoke cloud. The still open bottle isues more smoke, growing a 10 ft radius around Ixenthor, who is still carrying it. If Ixenthor moves, the 10 ft radius will grow around the bottle each round. If he stays still the current radius will expand 10 ft each round. Any smoke not within the current radius of the bottle is considered unsupported and will begin to dissipate normally. Smoke Inhalation: Forest fires naturally produce a great deal of smoke. A character who breathes heavy smoke must make a Fortitude save each round (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or spend that round choking and coughing. A character who chokes for 2 consecutive rounds takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Also, smoke obscures vision, providing concealment to characters within it. -Jindl
Sindorin 05-18-05, 01:54 PM	Issues that require resolution: 1) Blacklight - total concealment as per 3.0 darkness or 20% concealment as per 3.5 darkness 2) Ranged weapons without LoS 3) Targeting center of area effect 4) Eversmoking bottle 1) I agree with Jindl for the exact same reason - total darkness would not give you a 20 percent miss chance because a 20 percent miss chance would be applied if the person making the attack could see the target slightly (in the case of Blur or a really good spot/listen vs. Invisibility). It gets very complicated when the spell follows the subject because then a smart ranged attacker can simply aim for the point where the caster should be, and the attack is subject to a miss chance. -It grants Total Concealment, but it is very easy to shoot the person against a miss chance because of my argument for #2. 2) I bring the example of the siege. In a siege there is usually a line of archers back behind the wall that fires their arrows into the air, nearly hitting the backs of the heads of the archers/other people that are standing on the wall. They are given a target by a "spotter" that is on the wall telling them the distance of the enemy, and then they adjust before shooting. They definitely do not have LoS, but they can affect the squares beyond the wall by firing over the obstacle in front of them. The rules are simply misworded. They say that you may not attack a square against which you do not have a line of sight, whereas I think that they simply forgot to add or change this from, perhaps, 3.0 or before (though I wouldn't know because I wasn't really gaming before then). -Ranged attacks may target a square that the attacker has Line of Effect against, not necessarily Line of Sight. 3) In order to identify the center of an area effect spell, you need to know the spell's dimensions after knowing what spell it is. This requires a Spellcraft/Psicraft check. Some spells like entangle have an obvious center because the plants don't grant any form of concealment. Spells like Darkness and Blacklight that do grant concealment need to be identified before you can say 'i target the center of the effect'. -Requires Spellcraft/Psicraft 4) I hate little items that cause big debates. Especially controversial ones such as this that bring in rules that no build has any real defense against. Then again, if I wanted to I could take a look at the Pyrotechnics spell, which is required to enchant the Bottle. Have we seen any casters that use Pyrotechnics? We shouldn't punish a build for saying "ooh, that looks shiny" but we should make sure that the item is properly ruled. -Pyrotechnics makes choking smoke, so the bottle should as well. And it should affect the wielder as well since it originates from the botte, whereas Pyrotechnics is a long range spell... P.S. Hello everyone!
cellardweller 05-18-05, 11:30 PM	Blacklight - 2 for 2 against. I guess that in this case the printed text should take priority. Full Concealment it is. Ranged weapons without LoS - 3 for allowing 1 against. 3) Targeting center of area effect - 2 for 2 against, I'll add another argument to the pile. In order to determine the center of a circle of known radius, you only need 2 points (x1,y1 and x2,y2) then the center can be found by solving for the simultaneous equations (x1-x)^2-(y1-y)^2=r and (x2-x)^2-(y2-y)^2=r. It has been brought up that this is beyond the abilities of some gladiators. I will counter that with another example of the same problem. An ogre sorcerer with 4 int is facing 4 opponents that are spread out. He wants to place a fireball to catch all 4 of them, but this is only achievable from 1 vertex. In order to determine the required vertex the sorcerer must do exactly the same set of calcuations 3 times. Are you going to deny the 4int sorcerer the ability to place the fireball? How about a 22 int wizard? Where do you draw the line between those that can do math and those that can't? 4) Eversmoking bottle - here and there We still a definition of "dissapates normally"
Pittbull 05-19-05, 03:12 AM	1. Yes, full concealment! 2. LOE! 3. What's about a Int DC5 check? 4. Will dissipate normaly, but with smoke-inhalation rules? I would say yes!
Jindl 05-19-05, 11:13 AM	1. Agreed if by total concealment you mean that the area of the spell blocks LOS. 2. I'm not going to win this argument, eh? Well, I do protest that this vote is a direct alteration of a Core rule. The rule is plainly written that you must have line of sight to attack with a ranged weapon. v3.5 has been out for about 2 years now and this is an important part of the game, so I think its safe to assume that if this was a typo, it would have been corrected in the Errata by now. Since it has not been errata'd, the rule must be written as intended. Directly changing Core rules is not something I agree with nor is it something we should be doing. This sets a dangerous precedent for the next time somebody just doesn't agree with a game mechanic. I urge you all to reconsider your votes in this matter. 3. Targetting an area of effect is different than correctly guessing the location of the center space within a large opaque area. It's not overly difficult to aim your fireball at the center between a couple of targets. You can see the target location, and you can see all of the targets you are aiming between. When you are trying to fire into the center of an opaque area, you can't see your target, nor can you see half of the area. It is difficult to determine depth (since the PC's vision is 1st person POV, not 3rd person omnicient like the player's vision). IMO, if we allow this we are going to have to create a houserule to estimate what difficulty of which skill or ability score to base a check upon. That's a lot of invention. I think we should just disallow targetting the center of an opaque area of effect larger than a certain radius (like 10 ft or 15 ft radius). 4. I believe dissipating normally requires 10 rounds in an area of little wind, 4 rounds in a moderate breeze, and 1 round in a strong wind. -Jindl
Sindorin 05-19-05, 12:39 PM	2. That's true, we would be altering something in the Core rules... I think the main problem a lot of people have with it (it hasn't bothered me yet) is that it is one of the few 'nerfs' to ranged builds. But, based on the purpose of this forum and this council, I change my vote on the matter because you are right about it... relative to this game, whereas my example was more based on real life; I've never participated in a Dungeons and Dragons siege...
Caterane 05-19-05, 01:09 PM	I don't know why this LOS issue is up here at all. The description for ranged combat says: (1) "With a ranged weapon, you can shoot at any target that is within line of sight" And the total concealment description says: (2) "If you have a line of effect to a target but not a line of sight (for instance, if he is in total darkness or invisible, or if you're blinded), he is considered to have total concealment from you. You can't attack an opponoment that has total concealment, though you can attack into a square that you think he occupies." Quote (2) confirms quote (1) by saying "you cannot attack..." (see red ink) but it also explicitely and clearly says that "you can attack into a square" This is so super clear; it couldn't be any clearer. WotC didn't change it because there is no need for a change. Anyone here who rules out that an archer cannot release an arrow at an invisible yet pinpointed mage is a) creating a house rule which is completely pulled by the hair, and worse b) is hitting with an axe into a very sensible system. Spasheridan has already visually shown the effects such a (house-)rule would have, and some of you have found examples on their own (siege archer). These are not only real life examples but also clearly show how ridiculous the effects would be of making it impossible to execute ranged attacks against invisible beings.
Jindl 05-19-05, 01:11 PM	Its up here because of how the two rules interact. If you are shooting at the square your invisible opponent occupies, then that square is the target. So you must have line of sight to the square. It doesn't get much clearer than that. -Jindl
Sindorin 05-19-05, 01:14 PM	If you're shooting at a square, what would the square's AC be? wouldn't you then have to hit the target's AC? Sorry, I'm just not used to shooting at squares. I love peppering those damn triangles and circles though.
Caterane 05-19-05, 01:17 PM	That's a different thing. The question here is: Can I release an arrow at someone who is invisible? If yours and Sindorin's definition would be true, then someone could stand kneedeep in mud (clearly pinpointable) or cry to the top of his lungs "HERE! HERE I AM!" (clearly pinpointable) but the archer could not shoot an arrow at this spot. This surely can't be true. @Sindorin: The square does not have an AC (although I'd rule Ac 5 because it has no dex, and a size penalty for several squares; -1 for 4 squares, -2 for 16 sq and so on). The LOS issue is about wether it is possible to attack an invisible being that has been pinpointed with a bow. The answer is "yes, with a 50% miss chance". AC would of course be the invisible gladiator's AC.
Sindorin 05-19-05, 01:19 PM	never mind
Jindl 05-19-05, 01:20 PM	According to the rules for splash weapons, a square has an AC of 5 (medium sized target with a 0 dex). However, that isn't the mechanic used in this rule. This rule allows you to attack an invisible opponent by targetting the square you think they occupy. When combined with the other rule, this indicates that you must have LOS to the square in order to target into it. Any other interpretation totally negates the first rule which requires LOS. And so if you are considering another interpretation then I would put forth the question: "Why write a rule requiring LOS if you were then going to negate that rule completely with another rule?" and the question: "Which rule should have precendence, the general 'attacking a foe with concealment' rule or the rule specifically written to govern ranged weapon attacks?" -Jindl
Caterane 05-19-05, 01:21 PM	Please explain why they would not be able to be shot at... Sindorin, I am the one who says it is possible to attack an invisible being. You just decided to rule that it isn't possible when you changed your mind 5 posts above. YOU have to explain why they would not be able to shoot at an invisible being.
Sindorin 05-19-05, 01:23 PM	You should be able to shoot an arrow at their estimated location, but the opponent is invisible - by definition, they are not visible, so there is no way you would see them without buffs or good spot checks (or listen in some cases). Thus, shooting an arrow at 'their square' implies a miss chance applicable to any attack vs. invisible opponents...
Jindl 05-19-05, 01:23 PM	That's a different thing. The question here is: Can I release an arrow at someone who is invisible? If yours and Sindorin's definition would be true, then someone could stand kneedeep in mud (clearly pinpointable) or cry to the top of his lungs "HERE! HERE I AM!" (clearly pinpointable) but the archer could not shoot an arrow at this spot. This surely can't be true. The archer could shoot at that spot, if he could see that spot to aim at it. But if the archer was in a fog bank, and didn't have LOS to the muddy square, then the game mechanics say that he can't shoot at it. @Sindorin - Incidently, you example about archers in a seige (above) is also not possible in DnD, because the archers don't have LOE to their targets on the other side of the castle walls. DnD doesn't use an arcing flight path for arrows. -Jindl
Sindorin 05-19-05, 01:24 PM	lol it looks like there's an agreement there... after picking out the scorched bits of confusion.
Caterane 05-19-05, 01:27 PM	Any other interpretation totally negates the first rule which requires LOS. And so if you are considering another interpretation then I would put forth the question: "Why write a rule requiring LOS if you were then going to negate that rule completely with another rule?" and the question: "Which rule should have precendence, the general 'attacking a foe with concealment' rule or the rule specifically written to govern ranged weapon attacks?" Here you are wrong. The two rules don't negate each other, they both say the same with the second one just being longer by addressing total concealment. The second rule still says it is not possible to attack a target, but at the same time it lists an alternative option (attack square) on how to deal damage against someone invisible. If LOS: attack character If no LOS: attack square that you think he is in. 50% miss chance applies. The archer could shoot at that spot, if he could see that spot to aim at it. But if the archer was in a fog bank, and didn't have LOS to the muddy square, then the game mechanics say that he can't shoot at it. Then someone who is blinded would not be able to shoot an arrow. Or you could not close your eyes and shoot an arrow. Because you have no LOS to anything. If that doesn't sound wrong to you...
Jindl 05-19-05, 01:31 PM	lol it looks like there's an agreement there... after picking out the scorched bits of confusion. Not exactly. Cat thinks that the archer doesn't need LOS to the square that is occupied by the invisible opponent. I think they do. -Jindl
Sindorin 05-19-05, 01:41 PM	Not exactly. Cat thinks that the archer doesn't need LOS to the square that is occupied by the invisible opponent. I think they do. -Jindl I was kind of referring to a different sort of agreement... but I get yelled at for changing my mind so I will get out of you two's hair.
Jindl 05-19-05, 02:14 PM	I was kind of referring to a different sort of agreement... but I get yelled at for changing my mind so I will get out of you two's hair. Cat wasn't yelling ... he was discussing passionately. ;) You wouldn't be an Elder if we didn't think you had valuable input to these kind of discussions. So by all means, keep discussing. -Jindl
Caterane 05-19-05, 02:25 PM	Yeah Sindorin, listen to Jindl (well, not to what he says about LOSs *lol*) We're all discussing passionly at times but that doesn't mean we don't like or respect each other. I'm not even mad at Cellardweller (although he deserves a *shakes fist*).
Sindorin 05-19-05, 02:27 PM	it's all good, i was passionately being sarcastic. I think I was getting confused a bit at what we were arguing about as well. I'm still a bit new to the whole debating whether we should follow what's written or not thing.
Caterane 05-19-05, 02:37 PM	Ok, back to the topic at hand. Quote (1) Ranged attacks says: - If you don't have a LOS, you cannot attack someone. Quote (2) Total concealment says: - If you don't have a LOS, you cannot attack someone, but you can instead attack the square you think he is in. The point that you need a LOS to the being is already dealt with. The second part - the attack square part - doesn't say anything about the need for a LOS. The LOS part only refers to attacking a creature. That's what I mean. If you need a LOS to the square aswell, then a blinded person cannot use a bow at all. You would not be able to aim an arrow at someone who doesn't move (like Ixenthor), close your eyes, and then release the arrow, because you have no LOS even though you still have your arrow aimed. You would not be able to shoot an arrow into a fog even though you know the exact position of your target. These examples should clearly show the complications that arise aswell as the illogicality if we rule for the need of a LOS to a square. Spash has pointed out other examples which produced even more ridiculous effects. And here another example that backs up my theory: The description doesn't distinguish between someone who is blinded, someone who is invisible, and someone who stands in total darkness. With Jindl's interpretation though, we would have to distinguish between these methods of no LOS. An invisible being would be able to be shot at while the same target would not be targetable in darkness or if the attacker is blind or has his eyes closed. This however would definately deserve mentioning in the PHB and just makes it weirder to not be able to attack a square without LOS.
Pittbull 05-20-05, 04:29 AM	If LOS: attack character If no LOS: attack square that you think he is in. 50% miss chance applies. I think this is the right way to handle this topic, but there is this still a need of LOE, even it's in an arch.
Caterane 05-20-05, 07:05 AM	Yes of course. I think there's a rule to fire in an arc somewhere but that's not core so we shouldn't concern ourselves with that. Looks like it is 2v2. In case of a draw and according to the Council rules, I put my vote down too: You do need a LOS to a target. If you don't have a LOS, you cannot attack that target but you can attack the square you think the target is in without the need for a LOS, and with a 50% miss chance.
Jindl 05-20-05, 09:39 AM	Ok, back to the topic at hand. Quote (1) Ranged attacks says: - If you don't have a LOS, you cannot attack someone. Quote (2) Total concealment says: - If you don't have a LOS, you cannot attack someone, but you can instead attack the square you think he is in. The point that you need a LOS to the being is already dealt with. The second part - the attack square part - doesn't say anything about the need for a LOS. The LOS part only refers to attacking a creature. That's what I mean. It just occurred to me that there might be a language translation issue here. From the way you worded this, I think you understand the word "target" to mean a person. But the definition of "target" means that a target can be a person, an unattended object, or the square an invisible person occupies. The 1st quote above actually says that you must have LOS to the target, not to someone. That's why I'm saying that if the 2nd quote allows you to shoot at the square, then the square is the target, and you must have LOS to the target. All of these "examples" such as the blinded archer and the shooting at the ground while in total darkness, etc. are fine. They assume that you can hit some large immovable object with an arrow. But that is different than attacking a specific creature, aiming at weak points in their armor, etc. That's what an attack roll represents. And I think the LOS results from the need to see your target in order to aim at it. You don't have to aim to hit the ground with an arrow. But you do have to aim to hit a specific target. How can you aim if you can't see the target (whether that target is the enemy, or the space occupied by an invisible enemy)? -Jindl
Caterane 05-20-05, 10:10 AM	I don't think there's a translation issue here. Let me formulate it that way: Quote (1) Ranged attacks says: - If you don't have a LOS, you cannot attack a target. Quote (2) Total concealment says: - If you don't have a LOS, you cannot attack a target, but you can instead attack the square you think the target is in. That's pretty clear now. Nowhere do the rules say that a square is a target as in "creature" (for spell descriptions). All of these "examples" such as the blinded archer and the shooting at the ground while in total darkness, etc. are fine. They assume that you can hit some large immovable object with an arrow. Yes, but that would not be possible anymore with your interpretation. Unless you want to create (another?) house rule by defining what a big immovable object is and what not. But that is different than attacking a specific creature, aiming at weak points in their armor, etc. That's what an attack roll represents. And I think the LOS results from the need to see your target in order to aim at it. You don't have to aim to hit the ground with an arrow. But you do have to aim to hit a specific target. How can you aim if you can't see the target (whether that target is the enemy, or the space occupied by an invisible enemy)? If you have to see a target, then you cannot aim at weak spots of invisible characters too. I don't understand you Jindl. Please correct me if I got this wrong... - You say, it is possible to shoot an invisible being when you know the position and can see the square. - But you also say you need to be able to see the target in order to aim at weak spots, which you don't have in case of invisible beings. So according to your second statement one would not be able to attack invisible beings, LOS to square or not. These two arguments exclude each other. And you cannot just say that if someone is blind we have to define what is a valid target and what not. Do you want us to make a list, like Blinded archer vs medium fighter, not possible Blinded archer vs large fighter, possible, unless he moves Blinded archer vs colossal being, possible, unless it moves more than 30ft etc because that's what we would need to do with your interpretation of the rules. Additionally, that would produce so many strange situations, and we would detect new ones all the time which we would have to add to that list, and Pitlords would have to check this list while running a fight, or learn it by heart. On the other hand, if we just allow attacks against squares without LOS, then we would not have any problems. Blind one makes a listen check. If he pinpoints, he can target the square and suffers a 50% miss chance. That's so easy to do. It is backed up by the rules. And this is the reason why WotC didn't change the wording in 2 years, or sent a clarification of ranged combat, something your rule would definately require.
cellardweller 05-20-05, 10:22 AM	Regarding LoS vs LoE, the letter of the rule as I see it supports Jindl's opinion, however I believe the intent of the rule is allow LoE ranged attacks, which is why I have voted as I have. Dissallowing LoS attacks just leads to too many unnatural scenarios such as those that have already been described. 3. Targetting an area of effect is different than correctly guessing the location of the center space within a large opaque area. ... If the afformentioned sorcerer were blind, but successfully pinpointed all of the targets locations would you allow him then? How about a blind int 22 wizard?
Jindl 05-20-05, 10:42 AM	@cellar - If the blind caster pinpointed by listen, then yes I'd allow him to target an area spell in between the creatures he pinpointed. The rules don't require LOS to target area effect spells, only LOE. But that is a completely different scenario than assuming that a sighted creature can correctly identify the center of a large opaque area of effect. I don't understand how you can consider it reasonable to assume that a character standing 20 ft outside of a 100 ft radius smoke cloud can correctly locate the 5 ft square at the exact center of the cloud? @Cat/cellar - Target is defined in spell descriptions, and can include objects, areas, creatures, attended objects, spell effects, and any number of other things. When firing at a square, the square is the target. Now please explain how you think a blind archer can fire at a 5 ft square 100 ft away when he can't see the square? How does he aim? How does he know what, if any, cover is between himself and the square? I think the intent of the rule is to require LOS for ranged attacks, and that the rule for targetting the square of a totally concealed creature was intended for melee attacks, not ranged attacks. If LOS wasn't needed, then why would the rule say that you must have LOS to attack with a ranged weapon? And I would like to repeat my earlier caution: 2. I'm not going to win this argument, eh? Well, I do protest that this vote is a direct alteration of a Core rule. The rule is plainly written that you must have line of sight to attack with a ranged weapon. v3.5 has been out for about 2 years now and this is an important part of the game, so I think its safe to assume that if this was a typo, it would have been corrected in the Errata by now. Since it has not been errata'd, the rule must be written as intended. Directly changing Core rules is not something I agree with nor is it something we should be doing. This sets a dangerous precedent for the next time somebody just doesn't agree with a game mechanic. I urge you all to reconsider your votes in this matter. -Jindl
Pitlords 06-09-05, 07:28 AM	This is the discussion forum for discussions on issues. Here are two new ones: - Fascinate ability of the bard: how to handle it - Familiars and Psicrystals: how do we calculate their CR or ECL for the purpose of max allies?
Sindorin 06-09-05, 10:31 AM	I have been rather torn on the fascinate issue. The main reason, I have found, is that I am reluctant to nerf a class's ability out of the coliseum, and that the wording in the PHB seems to be loosely interpreted and rather vague. It's gotten me so frustrated that I opened up a thread in the D&D rules thread asking how it should be, simply wanting a completely neutral response. Their responses have convinced me that yes, in a gladitorial arena setting, fascinate would not have been possible, thus I was wrong in moderating Elder vs. Lance... blinded by pride, I guess. Maybe I was just fascinated. Fascinate was not meant to be a combat ability. A familiar is part of the wizard/sorcerer/adept. It is still though a seperate entity that must still communicate with the master, thus classifying it as an ally. I'm not sure how this should be calculated, though... I'll wait for more suggestions and think about this one for now.
Caterane 06-09-05, 01:15 PM	Is a psicrystal a class ability? You have to take a feat to get it. Familiar, perhaps ECL = half HD because he has half hp? Just a thought. @Elders: Take your seat in the new Council. Only one. And please keep it clean of discussions. Thanks.
Jindl 06-09-05, 01:31 PM	Is a psicrystal a class ability? You have to take a feat to get it. Familiar, perhaps ECL = half HD because he has half hp? Just a thought. They're not class ability allies, they are feat granted allies. However, if you look at the psicrystal entry in the Psionic Monsters section of the SRD, you'll see that its CR is "Included with master". Based upon this, I would say that there is no adjustment for using a psicrystal ally. Treat them just like a familiar, even though they were granted by a feat. Incidently, Improved Familiars are also granted by a feat, yet they are still considered to be class ability allies. -Jindl
Caterane 06-09-05, 01:43 PM	Improved familiar is an improvement of a class ability. Without the ability to aquire a familiar in the first place there's no use for this feat. So this is not a good example for feat granted class features(?) Let's say, a Cerebremancer wants to enter with a familiar, a psicrystal, and a leadership cohort. He has also animated some undeads. How do we determine the max CA for this character?
Jindl 06-09-05, 02:02 PM	Just use Cellardweller's formula. The CR entry for a psicrystal is "Included in master" which means it is a CR0 creature (it adds 0 to the CR of an encounter or to the CR of its master). The familiar is a class ability, which means its CR is also "Included in master", which gives it a CR0. The cohort has an ECL, which gives it an Aecl = the cohort's ECL. The undeads have a CR, which gives them an Acr = the sum of their CR's, and they individually must all be CR <= pc's ECL-4. The CA = Aecl + Acr, and must be less than the pc's ECL-2. The problem I see with the ally rule as you have it written is that you assume that class feature allies have thier own CR. They do not. Their CR is always "included in master". By definition, the class feature ally's strength is included in the balanced strength of the character class. Since their strength is already included in the CR of the master, they do not individually add anything to the CR of the encounter, which gives them an effective CR of 0. The same is true for improved familiars, psicrystals, even the variant special paladin mounts. Because feats have to be used (or the bonus abilities/HD are reduced for variant special mounts), these allies are already balanced to be equivalent to the what the pc's CR would be if it used a normal class ally. Basically, I think you need to replace the text of the "Class Allies" paragraph with the following: "Class Allies have their CR's already included in their master's CR, and as a result do not factor in to the CA of the character." -Jindl
Caterane 06-09-05, 02:30 PM	Then a thrallherd could enter with his ECL-1 thrall, a second one at level 10, and a leadership cohort. That'd be a level 20 PC, a lvl 19 thrall, two lvl 18 cohort/thralls, and a psicrystal. The Harvester could enter with his ECL 18 planar druid cohort and a ECL 18 leadership ally. I don't even want that much power! Clearly that's way too much. Same is true for a regular druid and his companion, although on a smaller scale. Your crocodile has saved you 10 times over when you were lvl 3. Now adding a full CA doesn't sound like "balance". But we've discussed that to the death already. The question at hand is how to calculate familiars and psicrystals, and wether psicrystals are class allies or not.
Jindl 06-09-05, 03:02 PM	Then a thrallherd could enter with his ECL-1 thrall, a second one at level 10, and a leadership cohort. That'd be a level 20 PC, a lvl 19 thrall, two lvl 18 cohort/thralls, and a psicrystal. He can't have a cohort, per the thrall description. And the thrallherd, while a very powerful PrC, is supposed to be balanced against the pure psion because it loses bonus feats, loses a manifester level and the associated power points, and had to spend a feat on the crappy Inquisitor prereq. In your example, it would be a 20th level PC, a 19th lvl thrall, an 18th lvl thrall, and a psicrystal (and the character would spend yet another feat on that!). I'm not saying it isn't really powerful, just that its not as powerful as you made it sound. Compare it to the "normal" psion who has a higher ML (remember that augmenting is based on this), more pp's (especially important under the 1/3rd rule), and 5 extra feats devoted to combat. Not to mention that the thrallherd had to spend >10 levels of slow advancement in order to get there, and that on most of those levels the pure psion would have been more powerful. Then you have to consider that the thrallherd has to spend considerable resources to equip those thralls, while the pure psion can spend all his money on his own elite equipment. I'd also like to point out that under current rules, Figurines of Wondrous Power don't count as allies at all, and a 20th lvl PrC could own about 50 bronze griffons. Compared to that, the thrallherd isn't so tough. The Harvester could enter with his ECL 18 planar druid cohort and a ECL 18 leadership ally. I don't even want that much power! Again, no he can't. The thaumaturge's planar ally replaces his cohort (if he has one). So it still only 1 ally. The only difference is that he wouldn't lose 10% of his rewards each fight (which is good, because he is already spending a bunch of money to equip his ally). Clearly that's way too much. Same is true for a regular druid and his companion, although on a smaller scale. Your crocodile has saved you 10 times over when you were lvl 3. Now adding a full CA doesn't sound like "balance". All I'm saying is that class allies are balanced as part of the classes themselves, and per the rules do not add to the EL of the encounter. The CoCo's ally formula is to award more/less rewards based upon the fact that the EL of the encounter changes depending on how many allies the gladiators use. Since class feature allies are built into the master's CR, they do not have any impact upon the EL of the encounter. But we've discussed that to the death already. The question at hand is how to calculate familiars and psicrystals, and wether psicrystals are class allies or not. Psycrystals are not class feature allies. I already said that above. However, they are just like class feature allies in that they have a CR of 0, since their CR is included in their masters. Whether you include them in your formula with a CR 0 or just don't include them, either way you'll get the same result. -Jindl
Caterane 06-10-05, 04:46 PM	He can't have a cohort, per the thrall description. And the thrallherd, while a very powerful PrC, is supposed to be balanced against the pure psion because it loses bonus feats, loses a manifester level and the associated power points, and had to spend a feat on the crappy Inquisitor prereq. Instead of bonus feats, the thrallherd gets psionic charm, psionic dominate, greater dominate, and superior dominate. While he wastes a feat on inquisitor, the psion wastes a feat on leadership which the thrallherd gets for free, and a MUCH better version actually. While the thrallherd has one ML less than the psion, his thrall has one more than the psion's cohort. All in all, these two classes are balanced out. However, we now add 2 free thralls who are both better than the leadership cohort, and the balance shifts tremendously. Wait, that's not all: the thrallherd now has still his full CA available (while the psion's CA is completely filled by the cohort) with which he can get additional allies. For example, by using superior dominate to get a 3rd powerful ally? So, and now I ask you on who you would bet: ECL 20 Psion, ECL 18 cohort ECL 20 Thrallherd, ECL 19 thrall, ECL 18 thrall, ECL 18 ally And these two parties should have the same CR? No way. I'd also like to point out that under current rules, Figurines of Wondrous Power don't count as allies at all, and a 20th lvl PrC could own about 50 bronze griffons. Compared to that, the thrallherd isn't so tough. Yeah, you'd just have to spend 500,000 gold and 50 rounds to activate to get some griffons who have no chance of even harming a lvl 20 PC. All I'm saying is that class allies are balanced as part of the classes themselves, and per the rules do not add to the EL of the encounter. The CoCo's ally formula is to award more/less rewards based upon the fact that the EL of the encounter changes depending on how many allies the gladiators use. Since class feature allies are built into the master's CR, they do not have any impact upon the EL of the encounter. Well, obviously, they are not. You cannot tell me that a Thaumaturg4/Fighter1 is as powerful as a Thaumaturg5 who gets a powerful planar cohort of an ECL almost as high as your opponoment. And my example above with the thrallherd confirms this. There is not one feat as powerful as leadership because you get an ally. Features that grant allies are unmatched! So, either WotC hasn't thought about that long enough, well, let's say not at all, or they took the roleplaying component and the institution "Dungeon Master" into their calculations. We have neither of that here in the arena. Instead, we have found a really good solution by giving those with class allies the very nice advantage of not having to pay a penalty in their fights. But please Jindl, let us end this discussion because that won't change. Much more important is the fascinate ability because I don't want you to have your characters sit out. We've already heard some opinions. Let's try to formulate some good options on which you can vote. Question: How should we handle the bard's fascinate? And I'd like to hear some other suggestions for the familiar/psicrystal thing. Jindl says CR 0. If that passes unanimous, we don't even have to vote on it.
Pitlords 06-11-05, 10:13 AM	Come on guys! Let's don't fall asleep again!!
Sindorin 06-11-05, 12:11 PM	Much more important is the fascinate ability because I don't want you to have your characters sit out. We've already heard some opinions. Let's try to formulate some good options on which you can vote. Question: How should we handle the bard's fascinate? It is not meant for the arena unless the bard happens to use it right off the bat, and nothing has become violent yet. I don't think we really need to vote on the familiar/psicrystal thing. Their CR is so low it shouldn't make a difference.
LLMadCow 06-11-05, 02:30 PM	Come on guys! Let's don't fall asleep again!! No, there will be no falling asleep right now. Just deep meditation. I am still working on wrapping my mind around the crazy companion/cohort/ally/animated-friend-who-helps-win-battles formulae that is being used. In the mean time .. in between time - ain't we got fun! Not much money, oh but honey, ain't we got fun!?!?! Sorry about that last bit. On to what matters.... Fascinate (Sp): A bard with 3 or more ranks in a Perform skill can use his music or poetics to cause one or more creatures to become fascinated with him. Each creature to be fascinated must be within 90 feet, able to see and hear the bard, and able to pay attention to him. The bard must also be able to see the creature. The distraction of a nearby combat or other dangers prevents the ability from working. For every three levels a bard attains beyond 1st, he can target one additional creature with a single use of this ability. Combat does not get much closer than one being an active participant in a gladitorial arena! If that reply doesn't work for you, then I can focus on the other half of the sentence. Knowingly being in an arena with an opponent who has not been defeated puts one in obvious danger. There is NO WAY that Fascinate was meant to be used in such a manner. @Sindorin - Do not feel to bad about Nerfing a class ability like this. This was nerfed from the get go due to its very nature and the fact that LG is centered around an arena. The ability would be useful in Quests and Campaigns, so the character is still viable. If we are going to save abilities, I am so looking forward to future rogues using thier Trap Finding and Trap Sense Boni within the newly modified arena... "As [Insert name of some Barb/Fighter here] charges to attack [Insert name of some wizard here], he falls down into a spiked pit that was well hidden and he failed his reflex save to avoid it! [The Wizard] wins by default!"
Sindorin 06-11-05, 02:39 PM	@Sindorin - Do not feel to bad about Nerfing a class ability like this. This was nerfed from the get go due to its very nature and the fact that LG is centered around an arena. The ability would be useful in Quests and Campaigns, so the character is still viable. If we are going to save abilities, I am so looking forward to future rogues using thier Trap Finding and Trap Sense Boni within the newly modified arena... Well, earlier I had worried about it, but I asked a neutral source (the D&D DM Rules Question Board) and I realized that my interpretation of the rules can in some ways differ from other people. It does make sense to me now though, and you're right, it would be an interesting thing to have in a quest... but it is not for the arena. I'll never forget before I joined the CoCo when KattAttack22 showed us this map he made of an arena - the old arena, before starting objects. He said we could make characters and fight each other. I made a gnome barbarian named Runsintowalls, and our friend Harry made a bard. He put me to sleep and took my mount, and all my possessions, and then he also tied me hanging upside down from one of the pillars, and that was that :), from there, I pretty much was scared of bards...
Pitlords 06-12-05, 08:45 AM	Ok, the first Issue is up. Please go to the Council and vote on the Fascinate Ability. If you finish your voting before next wednesday, fights featuring Lance will be much clearer. I also want to bring up a new topic to discuss: Prebuffs Effects that last 16 hours can be used as prebuffs which is fine and a good reflection of the reality of D&D where a lvl 16 wizard won't be encountered without a mage armor running. However, there are other effects with different durations that will definately be constantly available in a Campaign. The most obvious ones are "at will" abilities. These can be reactivated with a thought anytime. Let's take Ixenthor for example who has daylight at will and it lasts almost an hour per usage by now, so he only has to reactivate it once an hour. There should be no problem at all to have it up all day. It costs nothing. I think "at will" effects, or those who are their equivalent (like a ring that can be activated anytime anew) should definately become elligle prebuffs, and unless you are unanimously against it, I'd announce it right away. Secondly, Jindl mentioned stacking spells to sum up to 16 hours. For example, a lvl 12 wizard could use four Extended Resist Energy (4 hours each) spells to use them as a prebuff. This however is a much more problematic matter because of the nature of the 1/3 rule. Two thirds of your spells are unusable anyway so you could blow them out completely at no disadvantage. This however would in no way reflect the reality of D&D. Not even close. So the question is, how to solve this. If unsolvable, we can just forget about it. I want to propose a second 1/3 limit, just for prebuffs, anyway. This should definately become CoCo rule because of the mentioned abuse above. With this new limit for prebuffs, stacking spells might be an option but we should discuss this properly and check for any abuse before voting on it. Spells and Powers are one thing. What about other effects? Like a druid's ability to wildshape. Should he be allowed to use up several usages to enter wildshaped? On the one hand, yes, he will be able to run around all day as whatever dirtdigger he chooses in a real Campaign. But would he do it? Would he not speak and roleplay with his fellow players but stay in animal form and just eat his pizza? Wouldn't he only use his wildshape when combat seems imminent? That line of thought is what's bothering me with this stacking of effects. No, he wouldn't run around all day wildshaped so if suddenly a combat occurs, he would not enter it wildshaped. But that's debatable. I'm sure Jindl has a lot to add to that but I also want to ask the other Elders. And: what other x/day abilities would be affected by this? Ok, your turn Elders @Cellar: Please take your seat in the Council so that I can close it if not in use.
Sindorin 06-12-05, 01:24 PM	I don't think stacking makes any sense... with the 1/3 rule you are going to mess yourself up for the start of an arena fight. I think we should keep the 16 hour for prebuffs rule in effect, but the 1/3 rule should be taken from the levels remaining after the prebuffs are up, since the prebuffs will last the majority of the day. Fairly simple.
Caterane 06-12-05, 01:27 PM	That would be more realistic but would be nigh impossible to track because you'd have to calculate 1/3 everytime anew. Any change in the prebuff section and the available spell levels would have to be calculated anew. Way too complicated.
Sindorin 06-12-05, 01:32 PM	I do not think it would be that complicated. It's one thing to add up the durations of several spells you have cast, then it's a whole simpler thing to count up your spell slots and divide it by three. With the stacking thing I am forseeing several abuses - every wizard will bascially enter completely buffed, using anything at their disposal to simply add up duration times. Wizards could enter polymorphed this way, and polymorph was never meant to ever be a prebuff.
Pitlords 06-12-05, 01:41 PM	Yes, I know. That's why I suggested to limit prebuffs to 1/3 too.
Sindorin 06-12-05, 01:57 PM	I guess it is the clause in the stacking thing that says "of course this is not like real D&D at all" that gives me a bad feeling about the rule. Even with 1/3 of spells available for prebuffs, there are still ways to abuse it... coupling long spells with extended short spells, perhaps?
Caterane 06-12-05, 02:09 PM	Well, at lvl 12, you need to cast extended polymorphs four times which are 20 spell levels. That will probably take up most of your prebuff capacity. Perhaps we should wait until someone is at that level and revise it again then. As it is now, you can use your full 2/3 to prebuff. That's way too much. We should limit it to 1/3, or even less but for simplicities sake I'd say 1/3 so that you have to calculate it only once. Thoughts? What about the "at will" abilities?
Sindorin 06-12-05, 02:15 PM	Are you saying that only spells of the same name can be stacked? I'm just making sure I understand parts of this proposal. At-will abilities - I'm not sure where I stand on this because I don't like at-will abilities.
Caterane 06-12-05, 02:38 PM	Example: I - lvl 12 - want to enter with resist fire because I face a riding dog :smirk: To use it as a prebuff, it has to have a duration of 16 hours, per CoCo rule. Now I cast 1 extended resist fire. That costs me 3 spell levels. It lasts 4 hours. Not enough. I cast another extended resist fire. Costs another 3 spell levels which are deducted from my prebuff capacity, summing up to 6. It lasts 4 hours, together with my first resist fire = 8 hours. Still not enough but getting closer. I repeat that another two times. Now I have spend (4*Ext.Resist fire) 12 Spell levels, and reached a total duration of (4*4hours) 16 hours. I can now enter with resist fire prebuffed. A level 12 wizard has about 90 total spell levels. He can use 30 in the fight (1/3) and another 30 for prebuffs (1/3). With the 12 spell levels for resist fire deducted, he has 18 prebuff spell levels left. Prebuffing with polymorph costs 20 Spell-levels. So he has 10 left which he can use on mage armor, contingency plus contingency trigger spell, for example. The PC could polymorph himself in the arena with a standard action. With random starting positions, a lost ini isn't that lethal anymore so prebuffs have lost some significance. It doesn't matter wether you like at will abilities or not; it's wether it is realistic not to allow them. After all, there is nothing that would prevent a real PC to have it run all day. And this needs to be reflected here.
Sindorin 06-12-05, 02:47 PM	Hmm... it doesn't sound that bad because it will use up a lot of levels. I'd like input from the other elders before taking a full stance on the at-will abililties.
LLMadCow 06-12-05, 02:50 PM	I also want to bring up a new topic to discuss: Prebuffs Effects that last 16 hours can be used as prebuffs which is fine and a good reflection of the reality of D&D where a lvl 16 wizard won't be encountered without a mage armor running. However, there are other effects with different durations that will definately be constantly available in a Campaign. The most obvious ones are "at will" abilities. These can be reactivated with a thought anytime. Let's take Ixenthor for example who has daylight at will and it lasts almost an hour per usage by now, so he only has to reactivate it once an hour. There should be no problem at all to have it up all day. It costs nothing. I think "at will" effects, or those who are their equivalent (like a ring that can be activated anytime anew) should definately become elligle prebuffs, and unless you are unanimously against it, I'd announce it right away. This seems like an easy one. Since "at will" does not take an action, I'd allow the prebuff of an "at will" ability if it lasted 10 rounds. So, the poor guy goes around reactivating the ability all the time. Can we really divide "Unlimited Uses" into 3? No. So, let the guy keep firing them off, no questions asked. However, that being said, leads into the next issue... Secondly, Jindl mentioned stacking spells to sum up to 16 hours. For example, a lvl 12 wizard could use four Extended Resist Energy (4 hours each) spells to use them as a prebuff. This however is a much more problematic matter because of the nature of the 1/3 rule. Two thirds of your spells are unusable anyway so you could blow them out completely at no disadvantage. This however would in no way reflect the reality of D&D. Not even close. So the question is, how to solve this. If unsolvable, we can just forget about it. I want to propose a second 1/3 limit, just for prebuffs, anyway. This should definately become CoCo rule because of the mentioned abuse above. With this new limit for prebuffs, stacking spells might be an option but we should discuss this properly and check for any abuse before voting on it. I can agree with this. Let them buff to their hearts content, stacking as needed, but using no more than 1/3 of their spells. So - 1/3 spells a day for casting, 1/3 spells a day for buffs and 1/3 spells a day for utility? This sounds realistic. Spells and Powers are one thing. What about other effects? Like a druid's ability to wildshape. Should he be allowed to use up several usages to enter wildshaped? On the one hand, yes, he will be able to run around all day as whatever dirtdigger he chooses in a real Campaign. But would he do it? Would he not speak and roleplay with his fellow players but stay in animal form and just eat his pizza? Wouldn't he only use his wildshape when combat seems imminent? That line of thought is what's bothering me with this stacking of effects. No, he wouldn't run around all day wildshaped so if suddenly a combat occurs, he would not enter it wildshaped. But that's debatable. I'm sure Jindl has a lot to add to that but I also want to ask the other Elders. And: what other x/day abilities would be affected by this? The reality of a Druid Wildshaped is this: Torc of Animal Speech* + Natural Spell = Druids never returning to their natural form unless they have to. This has been my experience in EVERY RL campaign I have been in; mind you, I have NEVER played CORE outside of Gladius. So, if you eliminate the need for a Druid to speak to anyone - 1vs1 combat in an arena, they will stay Wildshaped all day long. *Torc of Animal Speech – This item has two great functions. 1) It allows the druid to talk to his or her animal companion. 2) When wildshaped it lets another member of the party talk to the druid. It is a must-have for all druids. As far as other abilities go, I will have to look at them later. More to follow.
Pitlords 06-12-05, 07:27 PM	I stumbled upon another problem: animal trainers. The MM entry for bought Magical Beasts say something like "Require training before it can bear a rider [...] requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check" Question 1: six weeks for what? Just to be able to carry a rider? Or does it know six tricks by then? Question 2: if (1) is six tricks, then which ones? And can I teach 1 trick in 1 week? Question 3: if (2) is yes, then what is the price for one trick? Question 4: if (2) is no, then how do we track 6 weeks of training on the Roster? Here's the relevant part from the MM: Fees for Animal Trainers: Basic Animals.......50 gp (per trick) Giant Eagle.......1000 gp Griffon...........1500 gp Hippogriff........1000 gp Giant Owl.........1000 gp Pegasus...........1000 gp Spider Eater......3000 gp Any other ideas?
LLMadCow 06-13-05, 12:58 AM	I stumbled upon another problem: animal trainers. The MM entry for bought Magical Beasts say something like "Require training before it can bear a rider [...] requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check" Question 1: six weeks for what? Just to be able to carry a rider? Or does it know six tricks by then? Question 2: if (1) is six tricks, then which ones? And can I teach 1 trick in 1 week? Question 3: if (2) is yes, then what is the price for one trick? Question 4: if (2) is no, then how do we track 6 weeks of training on the Roster? Here's the relevant part from the MM: Fees for Animal Trainers: Basic Animals.......50 gp (per trick) Giant Eagle.......1000 gp Griffon...........1500 gp Hippogriff........1000 gp Giant Owl.........1000 gp Pegasus...........1000 gp Spider Eater......3000 gp Any other ideas? Well, a quick look reveals this: TRAINING A HIPPOGRIFF A hippogriff requires training before it can bear a rider in combat. Training a hippogriff requires six weeks of work and a DC 25 Handle Animal check. Riding a hippogriff requires an exotic saddle. A hippogriff can fight while carrying a rider, but the rider cannot also attack unless he or she succeeds on a Ride check. Hippogriff eggs are worth 2,000 gp apiece on the open market, while young are worth 3,000 gp each. Professional trainers charge 1,000 gp to rear or train a hippogriff. As well as.... HANDLE ANIMAL (CHA; TRAINED ONLY) Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose. Special: You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do. Answers 1: Six weeks for Combat Riding. Answers 2: Six tricks: attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. One trick per week. Answers 3: The price for one trick would be 1/6 of the price for standard training; rounded up as necessary. Answers 4: N/A Edit: Caterane - You have to start giving me some harder ones or I am sure to ace the test!
Pitlords 06-13-05, 01:42 AM	@CD: The Council is only for votes. Let's discuss it here. @LL: Thanks. So basically I can still use my gained mount as a mount even without training.
LLMadCow 06-13-05, 01:58 AM	Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger may select a type of creature from among those given on Table: Ranger Favored Enemies. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures. Favored Enemy (Ex): At 1st level, a ranger may select a type of creature from among those given on Table: Ranger Favored Enemies. Due to his extensive study of his chosen type of foe and training in the proper techniques for combating such creatures, the ranger gains a +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures. Please take note of the flavor text added in the PHB (Indicated by the underlined text) that has been left out of the SRD. I have a few questions about how Favored Enemy and Alter Self work together. Question 1: Does the use of Alter Self, Polymorph, etc, negate the +2 bonus from Favored Enemy? Question 2a: If Q1 = Yes, then explain why mental skills would no longer get bonus considering that underneath the new exterior the personality is still the same as the base race; does the Ranger proficient in bluffing elves suddenly have no idea how to bluff an elf who looks like a bear? Question 2b: If Q1 = No, then explain why physical aspects would still get a bonus; how does a Ranger proficient in hunting Dwarves get a +2 bonus on damaging a Dwarf who has polymorphed himself into a dragon? Question 2c: If Q1 = Partial, then explain which ones still work.
LLMadCow 06-13-05, 02:43 AM	@LL: Thanks. So basically I can still use my gained mount as a mount even without training. My understanding of the Handle Animal skill is that any animal that has not been "Handled" is still a wild animal. There are a bunch of specific tricks (Attack, Come, Defend, Down, Fetch, Guard, Heel, Perform, Seek, Stay, Track and Work) as well as a number of general purpose sets of tricks (Combat Riding, Fighting, Guarding, Heavy Labor, Hunting, Performance and Riding). HANDLE ANIMAL (CHA; TRAINED ONLY) Riding (DC 15): An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay. Training an animal for riding takes three weeks. So, my ruling would be that to use a mount, just for riding purposes, it takes 3 weeks and costs 1/2 of the listed price. If at a later date you decide to upgrade it to battle proficiency, pay the other 1/2 of the cost and take another 3 weeks.
Pitlords 06-13-05, 05:02 AM	Ah super Brian! That was what I am looking for! That means that an animal who is supposed to bear a rider needs the riding package, or know the tricks. That's a good rule. Re: Fav.Enemy: If you polymorph into the creature, the ranger gets the bonus because he knows where to hit you. EDIT: Meeeeh, I still don't get it. Question: What does an animal or magical beast need to know to carry a rider? The Riding/Combat-riding package? Or the tricks mentioned in there? What if my animal doesn't know the heel, stay, come tricks, or the riding package. Can't I use it as a mount then until it knows these tricks? It would be much easier to invent a "ride" trick. These 6 six weeks a trainer requires to train a mount for riding, is this the riding package? This would take only 3 weeks, not 6. I hate bad wording!!
LLMadCow 06-13-05, 10:37 AM	Ah super Brian! That was what I am looking for! That means that an animal who is supposed to bear a rider needs the riding package, or know the tricks. That's a good rule. Re: Fav.Enemy: If you polymorph into the creature, the ranger gets the bonus because he knows where to hit you. EDIT: Meeeeh, I still don't get it. Question: What does an animal or magical beast need to know to carry a rider? The Riding/Combat-riding package? Or the tricks mentioned in there? What if my animal doesn't know the heel, stay, come tricks, or the riding package. Can't I use it as a mount then until it knows these tricks? It would be much easier to invent a "ride" trick. These 6 six weeks a trainer requires to train a mount for riding, is this the riding package? This would take only 3 weeks, not 6. I hate bad wording!! Here is everything you will ever need to know about the Handle Animal skill in regard to training an animal: HANDLE ANIMAL (CHA; TRAINED ONLY) Tricks Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks. Come (DC 15): The animal comes to you, even if it normally would not do so. Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend a specific other character. Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated. Guard (DC 20): The animal stays in place and prevents others from approaching. Heel (DC 15): The animal follows you closely, even to places where it normally wouldn’t go. Stay (DC 15): The animal stays in place, waiting for you to return. It does not challenge other creatures that come by,though it still defends itself if it needs to. General Purpose Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose. <Notice that a Riding Horse would have Stay but a Warhorse would not. We can make all sorts of guesses and/or assumptions, but for whatever reason, a Warhorse does not care about staying for anyone.> Riding (DC 15): An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay. Training an animal for riding takes three weeks. So, if you simply want an animal to ride around on, train it for Riding. If you want to take it into combat, train it for Combat Riding. The REAL benefits of Combat Riding are as follows: RIDE (DEX) Fight with Warhorse (DC 10): If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action. Control Mount in Battle (DC 20): 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. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for [Animals Trained For Combat Riding]. So, for all those people who want to use NON-COMBAT-TRAINED mounts in combat, they need to make a DC 20 Ride check EVERY ROUND! For any round where they fail their DC 20 Ride Check, they do nothing that round! No movement, no combat, no healing, no casting. Bringing this into light may be a big issue for the arena. A few have used non-combat trained mounts in the past and never worried about the DC 20 Ride Checks. When does Combat begin? Initiative? First offensive gesture - spell, attack, etc? @CAT - Just train it for combat!
Jindl 06-13-05, 10:49 AM	@Cat - The MM is saying that these magical beasts, although they are intelligent mounts, still require training in order to act like mounts (moving on the characters initiative, obeying his commands, not bucking him off in combat, etc). I agree with LL. Just train the thing in the combat riding package. -Jindl
Caterane 06-13-05, 12:16 PM	Brian, you didn't think I haven't checked the SRD on Handle animals and Ride 10 times upside down before asking here, did you? The answer is not in there! So, what you're saying is that unless every animal and magical beast on the roster is being trained in the combat package, it needs a DC 20 ride check every round? That would cause a lot of chaos. Besides, this package requires 6 weeks to complete. How are we going to track that and who wants to wait that long until he can use his animal? And what is combat riding anyway? The Combat Riding Package is nothing but a bundle of regular tricks where most are not even used in combat. Let's say, I want to ride my Heavy Direbird which I just quested and I don't want him to attack, come, defend, down, guard, nor heel, but just sit on it and fly around while I attack once in a while myself? Which trick says he won't go crazy in combat? That's my problem. And Brian, no need to quote the HA section a third time. Really. :D
Jindl 06-13-05, 12:34 PM	@Cat - The relevent section about untrained mounts in combat is in the Mounted Combat section of the SRD (don't worry, I won't quote it here;)). You should also check the DMG, where the section on Unusual Mounts is listed. There's some discussion there about requiring training in the riding or combat riding purpose before a creature can be used as a mount. -Jindl
LLMadCow 06-14-05, 08:43 AM	Brian, you didn't think I haven't checked the SRD on Handle animals and Ride 10 times upside down before asking here, did you? The answer is not in there! So, what you're saying is that unless every animal and magical beast on the roster is being trained in the combat package, it needs a DC 20 ride check every round? That would cause a lot of chaos. Besides, this package requires 6 weeks to complete. How are we going to track that and who wants to wait that long until he can use his animal? And what is combat riding anyway? The Combat Riding Package is nothing but a bundle of regular tricks where most are not even used in combat. Let's say, I want to ride my Heavy Direbird which I just quested and I don't want him to attack, come, defend, down, guard, nor heel, but just sit on it and fly around while I attack once in a while myself? Which trick says he won't go crazy in combat? That's my problem. And Brian, no need to quote the HA section a third time. Really. :D When I was a little boy I watched Sesame Street and I enjoyed it quite a bit. It often had a segment of the show where it had music and pictures and a song that sang about how... One of these things is not like the others, One of these things just doesn't belong, Can you tell which thing is not like the others Well watching the show taught kids how to pick up on patterns and recognize differences in things - blame my family for my sarcasm. As tempting as it is to copy and paste VAST portions of the SRD all over for everyones viewing pleasure, I will distill it to this: Combat Riding, Fighting, Guarding and Hunting - all of the combat skill sets - include Attack and Down Combat Riding and Riding - the only riding skills sets - include Come and Heel. So, in order to ride an animal we can assume that you must teach it Come and Heel. In general I would give an animal the trick Down, since it deals with the Fight/Flee issue as well as the Attack command, since if your mount takes any damage and does not have Attack or Down, it is up to the DM to rule on exactly what actions the animal would take.* Maybe when the Direbat gets shot with an arrow it becomes angry and wants to engage in battle - bet you wish you had paid for the DOWN command! Or what about when you want to stay engaged in battle, but your mount wants to run away in fear - one more hit is all you need to end this fight - but nope! The two of you are running away due to injuries the mount has suffered. Defend and Guard are always nice bonuses of the Combat Riding package. so, I recommend taking all of them! *Yes, this is a roleplaying game where we go around fighting monsters and animals and such, but the reality of it is that some animals would easily run away from many different attackers.
LLMadCow 06-15-05, 09:16 AM	Okay guys, I really do need some help here, so I am going to have to expand this one. First off, go look at my previous post on this same topic to see the beginning of this. This is going to be the rest of that discussion and some of my thoughts on it. Favored Enemy grants: +2 bonus on Bluff, Listen, Sense Motive, Spot, and Survival checks when using these skills against creatures of this type. Likewise, he gets a +2 bonus on weapon damage rolls against such creatures. Scenario Theron the ranger has been hunting the elusive wizard Cormac for some time. Theron has sought this bounty out, for he has a knack for capturing Elves, though they be hidden deep in the woods! Cormac knows very well the abilities of Theron, for if it weren't for the idiocy of the town guard where they took him after his capture 6 weeks back, he would've been taken before King Ogden! And there was no one else was to blame except for the very same ranger who seems to have found him again! "Well," thinks Cormac, "I shall have to surprise him and find another means of escape." Deprived of his medation for weeks, he had no spells memorized, but he did have a scroll handy! With a swift motion he draws the scroll and begins to cast (Alter Self). He quickly changes into the form of a human. "How disgusting, but this ought to do the trick!" Questions Question 1: Does the use of Alter Self negate the +2 bonus from Favored Enemy? i.e. - Does Theron lose his +2 boni vs Cormac? Question 2a: If Q1 = Yes, then explain why mental skills would no longer get a bonus considering that underneath the new exterior the personality is still the same as the base race. Human looking Cormac still thinks like an Elf, so shouldn't Theron still get +2 bonus to Bluff and sense Motive? Although he looks different, the way he moves and acts would still be the same as an elf. Question 2b: If Q1 = No, then explain why physical aspects would still get a bonus considering that the physical body is completely different from the Favored Enemy creature type; how does a Ranger proficient in hunting Elves get a +2 bonus on Listening, Spoting, [Tracking] or Damaging a race that he is not used to? Question 2c: If Q1 = Partial, would you agree with the following statement, or something similar? Regarding Rangers & Favored Enemies: When a Favored Enemy changes into another form, the Ranger retains their Favored Enemy bonus to Bluff and Sense Motive, but loses all others. Conversely, when a creature changes form into another form that is of a Rangers Favored Enemy, the Ranger will only get their Favored Enemy Bonus to Listen, Spot, Survival and Damage.
LLMadCow 06-17-05, 10:57 AM	As I promised a few people.... Can we address the issue of allowing undead allies at character creation? I propose one of two options, with details to be hammered out later: Option 1: Outright allow the purchase of corpses through the shadier parts of Gladius. This would not be cheap. This would be the easy way for the character to go about it. Option 2: Allow the purchase of slaves to be killed and raised as undead allies. In a real setting, I am sure that quite a few necromancers got started by paying for corpses or digging them up, but I do not envision many necromancers going out to fight their own battles that often - that is the whole point of them being necromancers! Charge them gold, charge them credits, charge them whatever - but I do feel that it should be allowed in some fashion. Calculate the amount to charge based on ECL of the pre-bones critter and everything turns out fine.
Pittbull 06-17-05, 11:19 AM	But how much is a corpse?
SoulLord 06-17-05, 11:39 AM	oops sorry wrong board
Caterane 06-22-05, 07:51 AM	4 days till Fascinate closes. If you haven't voted, do it soon else you abstain.
Caterane 06-26-05, 02:20 PM	The Fascinate issue has been resolved. As expected, Fascinate is banned from the arena, or any combat for that matter. I would've wished Option 2 had made it as I don't think using fascinate once (before any attack even) is game-breaking, and the bard class could have used a small boost. Anyway. There are surely some uses for it in Quests, but the main application it will find in Campaigns. Please clear your posts in the Council. Ok, on to two new issues: (1) Extending Handle animal The Dungeon Masters Guide (p205) says that Handle Animal can be extended to other creatures with an intelligence of 1-2, as well as vermin. Other creatures of int 1-2 would be Carrion Crawler (HA+13, CR 4), Rust monster (HA+15, CR 3), and Phantom fungus (HA+12, CR 2). None of these creatures will be in any way game-breaking but would add a little bit diversity. If someone wants to play a plant druid, he can bring in some phantom fungi, and which fighter wouldn't fear the dreaded Rust Monster! The DMG also gives examples on how to handle vermin with this skill. It doesn't matter which way we would choose; fact is that it can be possible. None of the vermin is game-breaking either but we would have many more options. Since we're already restricted to Core Only, we should make use of what the core rules allow us. Every Underdark campaign has spider-riding duergars or drow, and why shouldn't some desert characters ride centipedes. The rules are clear (creature HD = HA skill+10) and I don't see any problems here. (2) Uses for Diplomacy Taking this a step further, I thought about making one of the most important skills - which is currently completely useless - more attractive. At the same time we would have yet more options for allies, and thirdly it would take a bit away from the over-dominant leadership feat (which not every DM allows!). That's three birds with one storm; not to mention that half-elfs would be more useful and synergy skills (bluff, know nobility, sense motive) too. The DMG even mentiones once in a while that for creatures with an intelligence of more than 2, you have to use diplomacy instead of handle animal. So let's do it. We still have to define the range of creatures (it must be weaker than leadership), and the amount of diplomacy necessary to get the beast (like HA probably). The ally cap makes sure that you wouldn't be able to enter with a too powerful ally. Ok Elders, please tell me what you think about it. Edit: Oh and tell us what you think about LLMadCow's corpse gatherer suggestion. The Bonesnatcher Guild is still active in Gladius. Allow? If yes, prices? Credits?
Pittbull 06-26-05, 04:09 PM	Fascinate: I'd like to have a boost for bards too, but I believe that the rules are clear on that and we shouldn't bend them. We need to keep house-rules as limited as possible. :weep: Handle animal: I would like to extend the use of the skill. Spider-riding duergars are pretty cool. :cool: Since it is in the DM I have no problem to accept that. Diplomacy: Might be a nice idea, let's discuss it, what certain rules do you have in mind?
LLMadCow 06-26-05, 04:30 PM	My vote goes for a modified #3. I will have to call it 3a. Fascinate cannot be used at all in the arena. For the purpose of Quests and Campaigns, Fascinate cannot be used on a creature who has rolled for their Initiative; combat occurring within 90' of the Fascinated creature negates the ability. This change is compared to: Fascinate cannot be used at all in the arena. For the purpose of Quests and Campaigns, combat is defined as "Initiative has been rolled". I propose the change to clarify that some people may be taking combative actions outside of the 90' range of the Fascinate ability and, therefore, should not be a factor in the use of the ability. I do want to see Fascinate used, and I want to ensure that it has enough functionality and strength to not get nerfed within a campaign. I am seeking a simple addendum to the current ruling. Any thoughts guys?
Caterane 06-26-05, 05:21 PM	Brian, your vote was glass clear: "Fascinate cannot be used at all in the arena." Besides, there is no modified version of any choice. We have discussed the Fascinate issue for more than 3 weeks plus 2 weeks voting; more than enough time to object. I also don't think your 3a suggestion is a good one. If Godzilla fought a Dire T-Rex 90ft next to you, I don't think you'd stand there fascinated. To put your suggestion in rules, a listen and spot check vs nearby combat would have to be made and we already have enough of such rolls. Besides, it would be a completely pulled by the hair houserule. Why not 100ft or 89? Even if you change your mind and vote now (which is only possible if you rage through the Council for a week and a day, posting in size7 and mad-smilies :D) then it would still not be enough for a majority. Unless Cellardweller does the same LOL LOL That'd be a spectacle Ok, what about my latest suggestion?
LLMadCow 06-27-05, 01:34 AM	Brian, your vote was glass clear: "Fascinate cannot be used at all in the arena." Yes, we all agree that my vote was as clear as glass..... My vote goes for a modified #3. I will have to call it 3a. Fascinate cannot be used at all in the arena. For the purpose of Quests and Campaigns, Fascinate cannot be used on a creature who has rolled for their Initiative; combat occurring within 90' of the Fascinated creature negates the ability. I do not deny voting for choice #3 in any way, shape, or form. I am not asking to change my vote. What I am saying is that I wanted to see a slightly different wording. Besides, there is no modified version of any choice. We have discussed the Fascinate issue for more than 3 weeks plus 2 weeks voting; more than enough time to object. If you look at the time stamp on my Elder vote and read my post, you will notice that 12 days ago I posted that I was voting for #3, although I was seeking to see it ratified to something I refered to as #3a. I also don't think your 3a suggestion is a good one. If Godzilla fought a Dire T-Rex 90ft next to you, I don't think you'd stand there fascinated. To put your suggestion in rules, a listen and spot check vs nearby combat would have to be made and we already have enough of such rolls. Besides, it would be a completely pulled by the hair houserule. Why not 100ft or 89? Well, for starters, the DIRE T-REX, going off of the fact that the avergae dire animal* is going to be 374.8125% the size of their base counterpart, I am not sure when we are going to run into a 67HD battle in the arena. I would agree that no one is going to be standing anywhere nearby at all when this colossal monster wanders by in all it's glory to engage in melee vs Godzilla. *Average Dire Animal: For the 12 Dire Animals the average was calculated by comparing the original # of animal HD to the # of dire animal HD. Example - an ape has 4d8 whereas the Dire Ape has 5d8 - the change is 125%. For the Dire Bear and Dire Shark, single entries, there happened to be multiple entries for both bears and sharks, I calculated a seperate entry for each. The bear entries were: 400, 200 and 150.The shark entries were 600, 257 and 180. The end result was 16 entries. Discounting the radical difference for the Dire Bat the change is still around 300%. Now after coming up with such extenuating circumstances, I will point out some very realistic circumstances that really do occur in campaigns and quests in real campaigns that could happen in the CoCo. Let's get our imaginations going everybody.... We are following the actions of our party as they sneak through the woods and try to take out some dark elves. One within the party (Bard 10) has a superb disguise that he believes is going to allow him to be taken for one of their own. He has managed to sneak into the camp and although they are momentarily caught off guard, he makes a quick bluff and announces that he was sent from base camp to relay a message! <Little do they know that our party managed to waylay a drow messanger 2 hours ago and discover the wereabouts of this very encampment they had been in search of!> As the group settle back into their camp, he sits down and starts to sing the only drow song he has ever studied as he weaves his magic and fascinates his enemies (3 Drow). So far no one has rolled initiative, but watch what is about to happen with the rest of the party and learn why fascinate should not be interrupted! Elsewhere ... we find the rest of the party getting restless when a dark figure jumps out from behind a bush. "There's 3 of them!" Once again the party's rogue has managed to scout, undetected by even his teammates. They share the information. It seems that the Drow have formed a perimeter and they are each sitting between 100' and 120' away from camp, depending on their ability to find a comfortable tree. Fast forward - the rogue sneak attacks and quickly drops one with some lethal poison. The Wilder drops another quite easily. However, the Monk is having a bit of a time this evening. He managed to Stun his opponent, knocking the wind from him, and he has landed a few hits, but the drow has not gone down as easily as he had hoped. <Initiative has been rolled by both parties, however, they are 120' away and that 120' is forest that is rather dense. So that listen check to be made by the 3 drow in camp is DC16; thats +1 to the DC for each 10' and +4 to the DC for fascinate.> No one hears anything, Olidamara laughs at them all.> The monk finally drops the 3rd drow. Fast Forward ... The party has made the odds more in their favor and attempts to sneak in on the remaining drow, however, someone forgot to silence the clerics full plate and he moves as silently as the Terrasque! The Bards fascinate is ended and everyone rolls for their initiative. Fascinate finally ended when the three drow were aware they were threatened. The earlier combat was too far away for them to be aware of due to the distance and the fact that they had a bard singing to them! That is how it should be working. And, btw, I chose 90' because that is the distance that is referenced within the fascinate ability, and I specifically mentioned it when I said: I propose the change to clarify that some people may be taking combative actions outside of the 90' range of the Fascinate ability and, therefore, should not be a factor in the use of the ability. Yeah, if you use size 7 people tend to notice. Props to ... well I noticed it when someone put size 7 font in their sig, even if it was annoying. I do not remember who it was, but way to go for him/her. WAY TO GO FILL IN YOUR NAME IF I AM TALKING ABOUT YOU! Ok, what about my latest suggestion? I think I missed it. Can we get that in a bigger font? Maybe something in size 9? Give me time and I will quote the entire SRD, the complete works of Gary Gygax and the Klingon translation of the Bible. In size 7.
Caterane 06-27-05, 02:12 AM	Your example would not work in the arena therefore we banned it from the arena. But what did I say when I announced the resolution just a few posts up? There are surely some uses for it in Quests, but the main application it will find in Campaigns. You just found one example :thumbsup: Good work Man! LOL
LLMadCow 06-27-05, 03:21 AM	Your example would not work in the arena therefore we banned it from the arena. But what did I say when I announced the resolution just a few posts up? You just found one example :thumbsup: Good work Man! LOL DO NOT PLACATE ME! The example I gave, according to how the rules currently stand, would violate the rules of the CoCo. It would be a violation in a Quest and it would be a violation in a Campaign. According to the current rules, when ANYONE HAS ROLLED INITIATIVE, ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE QUEST/CAMPAIGN, at the current point in the time (Likely within the last 24 hours, but perhaps as little as the last 10 minutes), fascinate does not work. I recommended that if Init has been rolled outside of 90' of them, since that is the range of the fascinate ability, that it should still work, but you said no. So, I still say my example is an IMPROPER use of Fascinate. According to you, due to the fight between the Monk and the drow, since Initiative had been rolled (regardless of how far away!), the fascinate ability would have ceased to work on the three drow in the encampment, and when the drow made their checks to see if they could hear anything, they would have made their checks at DC 12 - for distance, not DC 16 - for distance + Fascinate. So, although it worked in the beginning, it would have ceased functioning in mid cycle, whereas I would have had it keep functioning due to the 120' range. :thumbsdow However, since it is now obvious that you agree that it should function the way I posted it, why not let us vote on ratifying the answer to the 3a that I have recommended?
Caterane 06-27-05, 03:39 AM	If the fascinated creature is not aware of the combat then the ability would still affect him. Infact, if he isn't aware, he hasn't rolled initiative. First attacks would be made in the surprise round which is before initiative. To prevent such implications, I would have voted for option 2 but I'm not an Elder and I won't question their decision.
LLMadCow 06-27-05, 04:35 AM	To prevent such implications, I would have voted for option 2 but I'm not an Elder and I won't question their decision. Option 2 was a horrible idea! Look at it this way: Who would go into an arena, planning for a battle to occur, and ever be in a position where the could be fascinated by some guy with a musical instrument? Golly-gee Wilbur, I thought we were going to fight someone to the death and the winner enjoy fame and glory, but it seems that Mr. Osborne and his pet bat want to sing us a song. I like songs Wilbur. Do you think Mr. Osborne knows the song Puft the Elder Dragon?
Caterane 06-27-05, 06:49 AM	I don't know... either you've eaten a clown or you forgot the "O" in LOLMadCow Muahahaha Could we now discuss current issues please?
LLMadCow 06-27-05, 11:08 AM	I don't know... either you've eaten a clown or you forgot the "O" in LOLMadCow Muahahaha Could we now discuss current issues please? I do know ... I was hungry, it was a clown, and ... not yet. Size 7 <Runs off laughing and screaming!!!>
LLMadCow 06-29-05, 01:43 AM	Ok, on to two new issues: (1) Extending Handle animal I like it - Let's vote on it and do it. If there are no objections, I'd like to see it fast tracked. (2) Uses for Diplomacy Cat ... I need you to explain this one so much more. I understand some of what you are getting at, but much of this confuses me. What, excactly, are you proposing we change with the diplomacy skill? Edit: Oh and tell us what you think about LLMadCow's corpse gatherer suggestion. The Bonesnatcher Guild is still active in Gladius. Allow? If yes, prices? Credits? For starters, I propose that if it is in the SRD as a creature that you can purchase, you can start with it as an undead ally. Horse, Dog, Griffin, Giant Eagle, etc. The assumption is that it was purchased as a slave/mount/etc and was CDG'd while in a vulnerable state. Cost = Book price + whatever it might cost to raise it as undead. I would like to see other undead available. The issue is should we, and can we? As it stands, people quest and/or fight to get corpses. Maybe at the minimum we can allow certain undead allies at start for credits...?
Jindl 06-29-05, 04:42 AM	(1) Extending Handle animal The Dungeon Masters Guide (p205) says that Handle Animal can be extended to other creatures with an intelligence of 1-2, as well as vermin. Other creatures of int 1-2 would be Carrion Crawler (HA+13, CR 4), Rust monster (HA+15, CR 3), and Phantom fungus (HA+12, CR 2). None of these creatures will be in any way game-breaking but would add a little bit diversity. If someone wants to play a plant druid, he can bring in some phantom fungi, and which fighter wouldn't fear the dreaded Rust Monster! AFAIK, this is already in effect. The skill description in the PHB states that HA can be used on other creatures with an Int of 1 or 2, and that the DC is 5 higher than what would be required for an animal. The list of HA allies already includes all creatures (prior to the introduction of psionics) with a 1 or 2 Int, including the examples you used above. The extension you are referring to is allowing HA to be used on nonintelligent creatures, like vermin. For starters, I propose that if it is in the SRD as a creature that you can purchase, you can start with it as an undead ally. Horse, Dog, Griffin, Giant Eagle, etc. The assumption is that it was purchased as a slave/mount/etc and was CDG'd while in a vulnerable state. Cost = Book price + whatever it might cost to raise it as undead. That sounds perfectly reasonable. Any ally that can be bought, can certainly be bought and killed (or bought when really sick ...). I would agree to this much, as a start. -Jindl
Pittbull 06-29-05, 05:31 AM	For starters, I propose that if it is in the SRD as a creature that you can purchase, you can start with it as an undead ally. Horse, Dog, Griffin, Giant Eagle, etc. The assumption is that it was purchased as a slave/mount/etc and was CDG'd while in a vulnerable state. Cost = Book price + whatever it might cost to raise it as undead. I would like to see other undead available. The issue is should we, and can we? As it stands, people quest and/or fight to get corpses. Maybe at the minimum we can allow certain undead allies at start for credits...? I like this too! That's really a good idea!
Caterane 06-29-05, 09:02 AM	Ok, seems like the Corpse idea is welcomed. Here's my proposal to set it in rules: You can start with or obtain any undead animate creature that can be bought (it is assumed to be bought and killed, then animated for pricing purposes). This should only be available to evil characters*. Likewise, you can buy a variety of corpses from the Bonesnatcher's Guild. This is only available to non-evil characters*. * I really don't want to see any good character killing a bought mount, or dealing with animated corpses. This is a violation against the spirit of this alignment and no DM would allow that. This rule synergizes well with the nature of LivingGladius. If you are all ok with that and the following questions have been addressed, I'll write it into the FAQ. Questions: - What kind of corpses should be available in the Bonesnatcher's Guild? - How expensive should they be? Either individual prices, or a formula. - Abilities: 25 pt buy, elite array, or standard array? (2) Diplomacy As I said, the MM says that diplomacy (rather than HA) should be used for creatures with an int of 3 or higher. I'd like to make use of that rule to make diplomacy useful. There are of course limitations and requirements that need to be fulfilled. Here's an idea: you can use diplomacy to obtain an ally a) You must be able to communicate permanently with the creature, either by language, a permanent spell, or telepathy. A mutual friendship is based on constant communication. If you have to cast tongues everytime you want to tell your beast something, it wouldn't be enough. This makes languages more important. This requirement limits the amount of swayable creatures. b) The creature must be susceptible for diplomacy. An Allip may be intelligent but such a being is surely not interested in anything (I could be wrong with the Allip but it is just an example; we would have to define the range of creatures). This would diminish the list of creatures further. c) You need the necessary skill modifier in diplomacy which depends on the creatures CR. Why CR? In case of animals - who don't have (m)any significant special abilities, their main power is determined by their HD. This is not necessarily the same for intelligent creatures. Many have spell-like or other powerful ablities which are not dependent on their HD. d) You have to quest/miniquest for the ally. Only permanent modifiers count so drinking a potion of eagle's splendor doesn't help. e) The alignment of the ally must be within one step of yours, and must match at least one aspect of your alignment. There might be other limitations, for example, certain races might not work together (elf/drow, githyanki/githzerai, etc) while other receive boni even (githyanki/red dragon). f) You can only have x number of allies with diplomacy. For roleplaying purposes, the amount of gold penalty you receive for using an ally is the payment for your ally. Tell me what you think. If you have additional ideas, please tell me. Let's work on that together.
LLMadCow 06-29-05, 11:13 AM	Questions: - What kind of corpses should be available in the Bonesnatcher's Guild? - How expensive should they be? Either individual prices, or a formula. - Abilities: 25 pt buy, elite array, or standard array? I am unsure about the guild and what corpses they should have to offer. Again, I am still unsure about the prices. Abilities! Watch out, danger ahead! I'll take 25 Point Buy, for 1000 Alex Abilities: A zombie’s Strength increases by +2, its Dexterity decreases by 2, it has no Constitution or Intelligence score, its Wisdom changes to 10, and its Charisma changes to 1. Danger Room Scenario: So, with this in mind let's buy our stats for our Griffon Zombie. Str..26 +8 (+8 Race, +2 Zombie, 10 points) Dex..19 +4 (+4 Race, -2 Zombie, 13 points) Con..N/A Int..N/A Wis..10 +0 (Absolute 10 - Racial) Cha..1 -5 (Absolute 1 - Racial, 2 Points) It doesn't matter where the misc 2 points go, since the 23 points are all going to be thrown at Dex and Str. For this I vote for Standard Array. Elite would just be crazy-insane! (2) Diplomacy A - Must be able to communicate 50% of the time. Who talks non-stop? LITERALLY??? B - This is a very broad range of creatures. Diplomacy can be based off of the wants and needs idea. Supply and demand? "I'll feed you, help outfit you, and assist you in specific combat scenarios in which we both benefit from winning." C - Fair enough. D - This makes sense. E - I'd debate this quite a bit. Many people can understand the benefit of having allies of different alignments. I am Chaotic Good by nature. However, I can understand having a Neutral Evil, or even a Lawful Evil ally in some instances. Note:Do you have any idea how many guys I know who would tell you that their GF/Wife is Chaotic Evil? That or completely insane, and they'd rather believe that sanity isn't the issue cause then why are they dating/married to a potential mental patient? F - Only X number of allies, or only X number of allies in the arena? (Due to diplomacy?)
Tellish_of_Ket 06-29-05, 11:53 AM	a) no language barriers should exist between the two allies. That's not to say that an elf who refuses to speak common would be considered a problem just because he wants to be pig-headed about it. b) agreed. Must have intelligent greater than 2, and must be able to communicate meaningfully as well. Cannot be on ones "hated enemies" list etc...An Elven Ranger with favored enemy (ya ya, i know it's not because he may hate them): human should not be allowed to use Dip on a human. Leadership of course, but not Dip. c) fair enough as well...but one thing i wanna say. If this proves to lead to uber-brokeness, it needs to be removed retroactively and replaced with whatever new system is devised. d) So what you're saying is that a person wearing a cloak of charisma to gain the ally, could never take that cloak off in battle to put on a cloak of resistance just for the battle or risk losing his DIp-Ally? I'm gonna temporarily disagree until i know exactly what u mean. e) completely 100% disagree. If the persons alignment is a few steps away, then the DC (using the DMG as an example) just becomes a little harder to set their mood to friendly. If buddy has an extremely high Dip score, that he can talk the treasure out of a dragon, so be it. f) An ally should be paid for in upkeep and equipment as per usual. The costs to house them are listed in PHB, DMG so no need to fork out more gold than needed. Same should apply to those acquired via leadership if you ask me. Time goes by in Gladius and they should have an expense associated with them, (housing, feeding) that is above and beyond just their equipment. Also since the ally can level and gain exp, why lose more than you need? The exp from quests/fights etc should follow all the same rules as adventuring with a party. Since the Dip-Ally is an individual entity (not following blindly cuz your cool like leadership feat can), and is more volatile to leave, he/she should get an equal share of exp, but all gold remains that of the "owner" for lack of a better term. No gold penalty should apply, because the penalty of paying for all his/her kit should more than balance that. -ToK
Caterane 06-29-05, 02:26 PM	Questions: 1) What kind of corpses should be available in the Bonesnatcher's Guild? 2) How expensive should they be? Either individual prices, or a formula. 3) Abilities: 25 pt buy, elite array, or standard array? Some clarifications: 1) Corpses from the Guild should never be better or cheaper than the ones that you have to buy and kill! I thought the purchasable races would be the non-humanoid ones while the Guild provides the standard PHB races. We can extend that later slowly one corpse type after another. For example: "BRANDNEW! Troglodyte Corpses available now!". Additionally, we can make a seperate list with more exotic races (again, only a limited range) which cost credits. I'd say this list includes all examples from the MM. 2) Obviously wildelf corpses should be a bit more expensive than humans because every advantage of a human is lost to a corpse. Since the range of creatures is not that vast, we could go with individual prices. 3) The Bonesnatcher's know what is important for a good corpse: strength and dex so they will gather such corpses rather than weak fumblers. Seems logical but this must not interfere with the gathering of a corpse by going on a quest. We need a standard array for all animated dead. Another cool side-effect of that is that you could now sell corpses (from quests and campaigns) to the Bonesnatcher's yourself! This effectively assigns a certain amount of reward price to corpses and one could create a corpse gatherer, perhaps even be part of the Bonesnatcher's Guild later. Only available to non-good of course.
Caterane 06-29-05, 02:46 PM	Diplomacy As I said, the MM says that diplomacy (rather than HA) should be used for creatures with an int of 3 or higher. I'd like to make use of that rule to make diplomacy useful. There are of course limitations and requirements that need to be fulfilled. Here's an idea: you can use diplomacy to obtain an ally a) You must be able to communicate permanently with the creature, either by language, a permanent spell, or telepathy. A mutual friendship is based on constant communication. If you have to cast tongues everytime you want to tell your beast something, it wouldn't be enough. This makes languages more important. This requirement limits the amount of swayable creatures. b) The creature must be susceptible for diplomacy. An Allip may be intelligent but such a being is surely not interested in anything (I could be wrong with the Allip but it is just an example; we would have to define the range of creatures). This would diminish the list of creatures further. c) You need the necessary skill modifier in diplomacy which depends on the creatures CR. Why CR? In case of animals - who don't have (m)any significant special abilities, their main power is determined by their HD. This is not necessarily the same for intelligent creatures. Many have spell-like or other powerful ablities which are not dependent on their HD. d) You have to quest/miniquest for the ally. Only permanent modifiers count so drinking a potion of eagle's splendor doesn't help. e) The alignment of the ally must be within one step of yours, and must match at least one aspect of your alignment. There might be other limitations, for example, certain races might not work together (elf/drow, githyanki/githzerai, etc) while other receive boni even (githyanki/red dragon). f) You can only have x number of allies with diplomacy. For roleplaying purposes, the amount of gold penalty you receive for using an ally is the payment for your ally. I'll add the collected ideas later so that we have a summary. A - Must be able to communicate 50% of the time. Who talks non-stop? LITERALLY??? Complicated, unnecessary, artificial. Neither do I want to create a rule for that nor do I want people sitting down and calculating their total amount of time they could talk to the ally. To keep it as simple as possible: either you can talk with it or not. Communication is essential for diplomacy. E - I'd debate this quite a bit. Many people can understand the benefit of having allies of different alignments. I am Chaotic Good by nature. However, I can understand having a Neutral Evil, or even a Lawful Evil ally in some instances. Note: Do you have any idea how many guys I know who would tell you that their GF/Wife is Chaotic Evil? That or completely insane, and they'd rather believe that sanity isn't the issue cause then why are they dating/married to a potential mental patient? Diplomacy is less bonded than leadership. I have sometimes problems with chaotic friends and I get along better with lawful ones. However, I'd never hang around with an evil guy, and surely wouldn't tolerate him in my clique or as a friend. On the other hand, politicians are able to sway peoples of all alignments, so it should not be impossible. Just harder to do, as Tellish suggested. PS: relations are based on love, not convincing arguments. F - Only X number of allies, or only X number of allies in the arena? (Due to diplomacy?) The number of allies you can bring in is determined by the Rules of Gladius: Allies. The questions is how many diplomacy allies can you possess. There must be a limit. I'd suggest to increase the DC by 2 for all allies for every additional ally you possess beyond the first. c) fair enough as well...but one thing i wanna say. If this proves to lead to uber-brokeness, it needs to be removed retroactively and replaced with whatever new system is devised. This is firmly kept in check by the Rules of Gladius: Allies which limit the amoutn of allies you can bring into a fight. No worries here. d) So what you're saying is that a person wearing a cloak of charisma to gain the ally, could never take that cloak off in battle to put on a cloak of resistance just for the battle or risk losing his DIp-Ally? I'm gonna temporarily disagree until i know exactly what u mean. The same rules like for leadership would apply to Diplomacy allies. If you lose the cloak in a battle, nothing happens but if you can't retrieve it for an extended period of time (here: 1 week), the ally leaves. e) completely 100% disagree. If the persons alignment is a few steps away, then the DC (using the DMG as an example) just becomes a little harder to set their mood to friendly. If buddy has an extremely high Dip score, that he can talk the treasure out of a dragon, so be it. Perhaps +5 DC per step away from your own? That's +10 to the skill for the lawful evil guy trying to get a lawful good ally. And +20 for s.o. if you're chaotic evil even. f) An ally should be paid for in upkeep and equipment as per usual. The costs to house them are listed in PHB, DMG so no need to fork out more gold than needed. Same should apply to those acquired via leadership if you ask me. Time goes by in Gladius and they should have an expense associated with them, (housing, feeding) that is above and beyond just their equipment. We have no rules for upkeep, and it is hard to track. If you use an ally you get a % penalty to your rewards. These can be considered upkeep if you want. Let's keep it simple.
LLMadCow 06-29-05, 06:06 PM	Okay guys, here is where I am coming from in regard to the whole communication issue. People can work together and even communicate with each other to a certain degree if they have planned things out when they were able to communicate. Example: Wizard 12 spends a great deal of time in search of :censored: and when he finally finds one he casts Tongues, with a rod of extend, and opens up communication with it. Now the two of them talk for a while and during their discussion, the wizard expresses that he can enable the tongues ability for 8 hours a day, every day - 12 if need be, and that he will keep some scrolls on hand for emergencies. During their next conversation the two continue to talk and hammer out a negotiated relationship of what the :censored: wants from the relationship. Eventually the two come to an agreement that is going to work out for them both. After spending some time they have a fair amount of hand signals and gestures they both understand, just in case something happns and they cannot communicate with each other in their normal manner. Helm of Telepathy - On one hand, this would allow constant communication between two people, thus allowing for Diplomacy to be used. On the other hand if Dispel Magic shut it down then they are out of luck.
Sindorin 06-29-05, 07:19 PM	It would be fun to find a way to make every skill useful in some way... not just Diplomacy.
Pittbull 06-30-05, 04:41 AM	Questions: 1. What kind of corpses should be available in the Bonesnatcher's Guild? 2. How expensive should they be? Either individual prices, or a formula. 3. Abilities: 25 pt buy, elite array, or standard array? 1. All kinds! 2. I have no idea, but I think should cost credits too! 3. Definitely standard array, nothing else! (2) Diplomacy a) You must be able to communicate permanently with the creature, either by language, a permanent spell, or telepathy. A mutual friendship is based on constant communication. If you have to cast tongues everytime you want to tell your beast something, it wouldn't be enough. This makes languages more important. This requirement limits the amount of swayable creatures. The language is the best way, but as LL mentioned a helm of telepathy is a solution too. b) The creature must be susceptible for diplomacy. An Allip may be intelligent but such a being is surely not interested in anything (I could be wrong with the Allip but it is just an example; we would have to define the range of creatures). This would diminish the list of creatures further. YES! c) You need the necessary skill modifier in diplomacy which depends on the creatures CR. Why CR? In case of animals - who don't have (m)any significant special abilities, their main power is determined by their HD. This is not necessarily the same for intelligent creatures. Many have spell-like or other powerful ablities which are not dependent on their HD. CR is the right measure, but perhaps we shouldn't take the skill-modifier, but the ranks. d) You have to quest/miniquest for the ally. Only permanent modifiers count so drinking a potion of eagle's splendor doesn't help. That should depend on the CR. e) The alignment of the ally must be within one step of yours, and must match at least one aspect of your alignment. There might be other limitations, for example, certain races might not work together (elf/drow, githyanki/githzerai, etc) while other receive boni even (githyanki/red dragon). That's very improtant, solutions like +5 on DC per alignment shift should work. f) You can only have x number of allies with diplomacy. For roleplaying purposes, the amount of gold penalty you receive for using an ally is the payment for your ally. All allies should calculated together, regardles from which source (undead, diplomacy, leadership, but no class-features) and be retricted by the ECL-CAP.
Caterane 06-30-05, 05:43 AM	It would be fun to find a way to make every skill useful in some way... not just Diplomacy. What about using Gather information to learn the starting box of your opponoment before the fight begins? DC depends on opponoment's ECL. The higher in level the fight, the more this information will be protected thus the gladiator would have to constantly raise the skill. Thoughts? Other ideas for skills? @Pittbull: Why do you think we should allow all corpse types? I think we should leave exotic types to miniquests with some exceptions perhaps.
Pittbull 06-30-05, 06:00 AM	@Pittbull: Why do you think we should allow all corpse types? I think we should leave exotic types to miniquests with some exceptions perhaps. I only wanted to say, that generally all kind of corpses should be allowed, but exotic-one should be quested of course!
Tellish_of_Ket 06-30-05, 09:27 AM	What about using Gather information to learn the starting box of your opponoment before the fight begins? DC depends on opponoment's ECL. The higher in level the fight, the more this information will be protected thus the gladiator would have to constantly raise the skill. Thoughts? Other ideas for skills? @Pittbull: Why do you think we should allow all corpse types? I think we should leave exotic types to miniquests with some exceptions perhaps. I'm in 100% agreeance with this. I would also like to add that since diplomacy isn't as strong as regular HA or Leadership, maybe if someone has certain number of ranks in Diplomacy, Appraise, they would be entitled to discounts from regular phb items? It isn't breaking by far. I mean paying 90gp for ur longbow instead of 100 isn't hugely advantageous, but does fairly represent your investment in ur skills. I can get really silly with this....examples: Forgery+Diplomacy+bluff = arrest warrant for gladiator u are fighting, thus giving you the win by succeeding on a high DC. Disguise+Bluff: Disguise yourself as your opponents ally, thus confusing him to possibly attack his own ally thinking it was u. ....stuff like that. LOL On a more serious note, how about using Sleight of Hand in the same way others use their craft skills. The pc sits out a week and some rolls are made against a DC chart of marks (which i do have, we could just use the Living Greyhawk ones) and earns a certain amount of gold. or Intimidate: Arena guard lets you slip in late at night to set traps in the arena as your pre-buff. You send only the pitlord the co-ordinates. -ToK
Caterane 06-30-05, 01:14 PM	I'm in 100% agreeance with this. I would also like to add that since diplomacy isn't as strong as regular HA or Leadership, maybe if someone has certain number of ranks in Diplomacy, Appraise, they would be entitled to discounts from regular phb items? It isn't breaking by far. I mean paying 90gp for ur longbow instead of 100 isn't hugely advantageous, but does fairly represent your investment in ur skills. Interesting idea. Since the gp rewards are much more dynamic than in the Classic CoCo, we could indeed do that. Wizards save a bunch of money by crafting stuff (while their xp decrease) and Quest/Campaign rewards vary significantly sometimes. So using Diplomacy and/or Appraise shouldn't be a problem if we come up with a good chart. What do the others think about it? Forgery+Diplomacy+bluff = arrest warrant for gladiator u are fighting, thus giving you the win by succeeding on a high DC. This however is not acceptable. It's surely no fun if your character loses because your opponoment has maxed out some skills (which is easily doable). Disguise+Bluff: Disguise yourself as your opponents ally, thus confusing him to possibly attack his own ally thinking it was u. Same thing as above. Skills, or any ability for that matter, should never affect your opponoment. Intimidate: Arena guard lets you slip in late at night to set traps in the arena as your pre-buff. You send only the pitlord the co-ordinates. We have a rule: no prebuffs that affect the arena. You haven't read the pre-epic level fights. Please note that your examples above might work in Campaigns though. That's up to the Campaignlord. On a more serious note, how about using Sleight of Hand in the same way others use their craft skills. The pc sits out a week and some rolls are made against a DC chart of marks (which i do have, we could just use the Living Greyhawk ones) and earns a certain amount of gold. This idea would work. I'd even say we extend it to craft and profession to earn extra money IF you are set ready (else you could create a PC, wait a year, and wreak havoc). That way the extra income is in line with the wealth increase. Thoughts?
Tellish_of_Ket 06-30-05, 02:18 PM	I was kidding about the joke stuff...didn't really require any comments or serious thoughts to striking them down. LOL Both the Appraise/Diplomacy and the Sleight of Hand idea would require charts. The sleight of hand (and sitting out a year) isn't as profitable as you might think. I'll give you the most broken example i can think of for ECL 3 right off the top of my head as i sit and write this. *Gith +6 racial dex bonus, rogue lvl 1 *16 pts to give 18 dex, +6 = 22 dex to start. *4 ranks +6 dex modifier, nimble fingers feat +2= +12 Sleight of Hand. According to the LG chart for pick pocketing, he would chose what kind of mark to steal from. Safe/Typical/King's Jewels. If he choses the "Safe Score". he can't get caught, even on a 1. On average he'll get either 1d3 gp for that week, or 3d6 gp for that week. Lets assume he gets the 3d6 (avg 9 gp/week). If he does this for a full year, he earns 9 x 52 = 468 gp...hardly game breaking. A newb wizard with crafting saves more than that upon character creation and doesn't have to lose any weeks of play time. Lets say our "uber slighter" went on to bigger targets. King's Jewels. If he gets a combined roll of 19 or less, he is CAUGHT!!! Must make a DC 25 bluff check or lose 7 time units (we can call this weeks because it represents the same amount of time...1 TU in LG is = 1 week RL) in jail. DC 20 = 3d10+5gp DC 25 = 3d10 +20 gp DC 30 = 3d20+40 gp DC 35 = 6d20+50 gp DC 40 = 6d20+80 gp DC 50 6d20+120 gp Lets see what level he needs to be to have a 50/50 chance at succeeding at DC 50!!! One more level gets him +2 syngery (from bluff), and 1 more skill pt. Now he has +15. First off he had to do a fair bit of fighting to get that level. Now he takes a year off to steal. With so many attempts...i will start by giving him 20, then 19, then 18 etc... He only makes 15 weeks of success (assuming he rolled perfect odds) with the max DC of 25. The rest of his time is spent in jail. (or trying to bluff his way out). Thus earning him a maximum of 235 gp over 15 weeks. Again. not even close to game breaking. To constantly achieve a DC 50 he would need to be 15th level, max ranks. = 18, +2 feat, +2 synergy, +12 dex, +10 item (and 25 credits) = +44.......ok so now he doesn't get caught on King's Jewels anymore. He goes on another 52 week hiatus of looting....7560 gp (avg) So after a full year of playing, spending massive credits, and spending another year out looting, he gets to make as much money as what most 5-7th lvl wizards can save. Hardly gaming breaking. I don't think you have to worry about Sleight of Hand getting out of control. IMHO anyhow. Diplomacy/Appraise would require a chart as well. -ToK
Caterane 06-30-05, 02:55 PM	This is way too complicated. Who should check that for all gladiators? I have no time for that for sure and 7000 gp more is game-breaking (that's +130% starting wealth); I'll make a character now and put him on rest for the next year; no drawback for me now. But I like the idea of making more skills useful. Here's my idea: - We make a chart with fixed DCs, and a gold value behind it. - You are always assumed to take 10 (like with all other skills) - You must be set to ready, and write into the headline that you want to use <skillname> - I will add it to the roster under the same header as handle animal. You can add that amount of gold after the fight is done. Like with handle animal, this would be a free action for the week but you can only do one such free action. That means, you can either train a horse a trick, or steal something, or use profession to earn money. There would be a number of useful skills with effects on the Character. Here's my list with the basic thoughts. A character can do one of these actions in conjunction with being set ready. - Handle animal: teach a trick to an animal (already implemented) - Diplomacy1: discount when buying things - Appraise2: discount when buying things - Craft3: earn money a week according to chart - Sleight3: earn money a week according to chart - Perform3: earn money a week according to chart - Profession3: earn money a week according to chart - Gather info4: learn starting location of opponoment 1: Since you can also use it to get an ally, the secondary function should be worth less. We have to make a chart which shows how much % discount you get with a certain modifier. 2: Appraise resembles a mercentile background; you are used to deal with money and wares. This should give you a bonus to your diplomacy score when checking for discounts (stack?) or perhaps can be used alone even. 3: These skills are the prime abilities for people to earn their daily bread. We have to make a chart with DCs and income. The income must scale relatively to the ECL (ie the overall wealth of the gladiator) so that it won't become useless at higher levels yet not game-breaking at low levels. Craft skills which already have a function (craft armor, weapons, etc) should earn less than skills with no secondary function (like profession) else no one would not take craft. 4: The DC would depend on the ECL of the opponoment. It is much more difficult to learn that secret in case of a top pre-epic fight than a low level one. This ensures that you need to constantly raise the skill to make use of it. These suggestions would be easy to incorporate but would add a lot and we would finally see more skills than hide/spot. There are some additional skills that currently have no function but which might be put to use. These are: Bluff, Forgery, Intimidate, Sense motive, and Decipher script. Perhaps they could be put to use with synergy skills like Tok proposed. Example would be to have the Diplomacy/Appraise combo to get the discount, or Forgery/Bluff might have an effect (although not imprisoning a PC). We should focus on the skills above though and expand later.
Tellish_of_Ket 06-30-05, 03:16 PM	But I like the idea of making more skills useful. Here's my idea: - We make a chart with fixed DCs, and a gold value behind it. - You are always assumed to take 10 (like with all other skills) - You must be set to ready, and write into the headline that you want to use <skillname> - I will add it to the roster under the same header as handle animal. You can add that amount of gold after the fight is done. Like with handle animal, this would be a free action for the week but you can only do one such free action. That means, you can either train a horse a trick, or steal something, or use profession to earn money. There would be a number of useful skills with effects on the Character. Here's my list with the basic thoughts. A character can do one of these actions in conjunction with being set ready. - Handle animal: teach a trick to an animal (already implemented) - Diplomacy1: discount when buying things - Appraise2: discount when buying things - Craft3: earn money a week according to chart - Sleight3: earn money a week according to chart - Perform3: earn money a week according to chart - Profession3: earn money a week according to chart - Gather info4: learn starting location of opponoment 1: Since you can also use it to get an ally, the secondary function should be worth less. We have to make a chart which shows how much % discount you get with a certain modifier. 2: Appraise resembles a mercentile background; you are used to deal with money and wares. This should give you a bonus to your diplomacy score when checking for discounts (stack?) or perhaps can be used alone even. 3: These skills are the prime abilities for people to earn their daily bread. We have to make a chart with DCs and income. The income must scale relatively to the ECL (ie the overall wealth of the gladiator) so that it won't become useless at higher levels yet not game-breaking at low levels. Craft skills which already have a function (craft armor, weapons, etc) should earn less than skills with no secondary function (like profession) else no one would not take craft. 4: The DC would depend on the ECL of the opponoment. It is much more difficult to learn that secret in case of a top pre-epic fight than a low level one. This ensures that you need to constantly raise the skill to make use of it. These suggestions would be easy to incorporate but would add a lot and we would finally see more skills than hide/spot. There are some additional skills that currently have no function but which might be put to use. These are: Bluff, Forgery, Intimidate, Sense motive, and Decipher script. Perhaps they could be put to use with synergy skills like Tok proposed. Example would be to have the Diplomacy/Appraise combo to get the discount, or Forgery/Bluff might have an effect (although not imprisoning a PC). We should focus on the skills above though and expand later. Ok, i see you got my PM. The charts are there and ready to go. You can just use the standard "take 10" rule that we use for everything else. This is way too complicated. Who should check that for all gladiators? I have no time for that for sure and 7000 gp more is game-breaking (that's +130% starting wealth); I'll make a character now and put him on rest for the next year; no drawback for me now. Are ye daft boy? You don't make that coin at lvl 3, you make that coin at lvl 15 after two years of SOLID playing. Sheesh, language barrier or what? Anyhow, i see you got my PM...which means you also read my suggestion of no crafting/skilling two weeks in a row. So go ahead and make ur noob-sleighter and take a year off...you'll only make at most 468 gp. Anyhow, you have the chart. We can modify it as needed to suit the needs of Living Gladius. -ToK
Caterane 06-30-05, 05:22 PM	Disallowing crafting two weeks in a row is difficult to track and you wouldn't be able to craft stuff for more than 7000 gp then (you can craft for 1000/day). There are many new rules here and they all interact well with each other. We can use existing rules and extend them. Like Handle animal. You can teach one trick every week. You now just have additional options instead of only handle animal. Your charts are not optimal and don't address the different wealths. Here are my comments: Alchemy: You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning yoru check result in gold pieces when you spend one week. You may neither take 10, nor take 20 on this roll. [Alchemy already has a main function: crafting alchemy. It would fall into the chart with lesser income. And there are no checks outside the arena so it'd be take 10.] Craft: You can practice your trade and make a decent living, earning half your check result (rounded town) in gold pieces when you spend one week crafting. You may neither take 10, nor take 20 on this roll. [Like Alchemy, some craft skills have a main function and would fall into the lesser chart. Craft basketweaving would earn full money.] Perform: You find the best place to practice your art for goth coin and admiration (usually the most prosperous ro cultured settlement in your region). Lower than DC 10: You’re panned. You earn nothing DC 10: Routine performances. You earn 1d4+1 gp DC 15: Enjoyable performacnces. You ear 1d8 +1 gp DC 20: Great performances. You earn 3d6+3 gp DC 25: Memorable performances. You earn 10d6 gp You are such a crowd favorite you are asked to stay again. Must spend one more week peforming. DC 30: Extraordinary performance. You earn 10d6+30 gp and must spend another week performing. [As I said, there are no rolls. Even with take 10, this chart does not cover the need of different ECLs. A lvl 3 PC might have +5 perform so he earns ~5 gp. That's nothing. Likewise, to get a DC of 30 you'd have to be around lvl 10 and earning 100 gp for your valuable skill points is not satisfying. And finally, you can't force someone to perform again the next week when he would rather train an animal, or go on a quest; besides, who's gonna track this?] Sleight of Hand: The Safe Score: DC 9 or less: You are caught, and you may be arrested. Succeed at a Bluff check (DC 12) or you lose 2 more weeks of time in jail. While imprisoned you may not gain further coin from skills. DC 10 to 14: Failure, you gain no coin DC 15: Small success, Gain 1d3 gp DC 20: Success, gain 3d6 gp DC 25: Great success, gain 3d6+5 gp DC 30: More than you hoped for, gain 3d6+20gp [This chart has the same problem like the one above. The income is not worth putting any skillpoints in there. Sleight of hand+20 for ~30 gp?] The Typical Mark: DC 14 or less: You are caught and may be imprisoned. Succeed at a Bluff check (DC 15) or lose 4 more weeks in jail. While imprisoned you may not gain further coin from skills. DC 15: Minimal success, gain 1d6 gp DC 20: Some success, gain 3d10g p DC 25: Success, gain 3d10+5 gp DC 30: Great success gain 3d10+20 gp DC 35: More than you dreamed of, gain 3d10+40 gp [This is also not implementable. That's too complicated, and we don't have rolls outside the arena. These basic functions, like buying things, making use of skills, etc must work automatically. You also cannot force someone to sit out for a whole month. The character progression is already much slower but having one of your PCs inactive for 4 weeks is frustrating. All all that because of 30 gp.] The OverKing’s Jewels DC 19 or less: You are caught and may be imprisoned. Succeed at a Bluff check (DC 25) or spend 6 weeks in jail. While imprisoned you may not gain further coin from skills. DC 20: Light success, gain 3d10+5 gp DC 25: Some success, gain 3d20+20 gp DC 30: Success, gain 3d20+40 gp DC 35: Great success, gain 6d20+50 gp DC 40: More than you dreamed, gain 6d20+80 gp DC 50: More than anyone dreamed of, gain 6d20+120 gp [Same as above, just worse. 6 weeks in jail is inacceptable.] Profession: You can practice your trade and make a decent living earning your skill check in gp. You may neither take 10, nor take 20 on this roll. [No rolls outside the arena] The amount of gp must be dependend on your skill modifier and your ECL but there must be a cap else someone specializes in one skill and becomes Richy Rich. Example: Income = skill (take 10)*ECL Cap = max 100 gp per ECL Effects with Skill+5 ECL 3: (15*3) = 45 gp ECL 10: (15*10) = 150 gp Effects with Skill+15 ECL 3: (25*3) = 75 gp ECL 10: (25*10) = 250 gp That's easy to calculate, with no rolls, not too much but not too insignificant to not bother. Although one thing we'd have to do is to make earning money only available in conjunction with being actively earning xp somewhere. That way, the skill income is a nice bonus but would be in line with his level. Skills that already have a main function (some craft skills) would earn only half that amount.
Tellish_of_Ket 06-30-05, 06:52 PM	Grrrr....language barriers. Why the sudden selective memory? If you recall, those charts were sent BEFORE the posts...and BEFORE the discussion of no rolls. It's an absolute NO BRAINER that the chart would have to be modified to simulate a system of "take 10". So why you are now c/p, my charts (from LG) and then going into detail, when those details have already been discussed about the no rolls policy is totally beyond me. I feel like pulling my hair out though, as it's tantamount to talking to a brick wall. :banghead: K, lets just hit the reset button. 1) Chart is there. Needs to be modified to accomodate a "no roll" system. 2) take out any instance where it says "jail" or "roll". 3) k, now modify. Just not sure what part of "c/p from LG" that you missed so it was obvious it was only to be used as a sample to modify to begin with and not what i was proposing as law. And there are no checks outside the arena so it'd be take 10. [As I said, there are no rolls. too complicated, and we don't have rolls outside the arena. Same as above, just worse. 6 weeks in jail is inacceptable. [No rolls outside the arena K, whatever chart you come up with, remember NO ROLLS IN ARENA i said. Don't make me get LL's size 7 font. and...NO ROLLS. There's a saying in russia about "broken phones". Unfortunately my Russian is really rusty and can't remember it. Anyhow, modify it, send it back, and i'll review it. -ToK
Caterane 07-01-05, 03:23 AM	I've already proposed a formula. It's in my last post; the lower part that you haven't read. A formula which takes the increasing ECL into consideration is much better than a chart with fixed incomes. That formula was just from the top of my head but it's a good start. And remember: no rolls!
Sindorin 07-01-05, 12:11 PM	Since there is apparently some confusion about this among the pitlords -- I would like an official ruling: Should lay on hand healing be subject to the 1/3 rule? Higher level monks will also get a healing pool (Wholeness of Body) so this question also applies to them. It is not limited in number of times a day it can be used but by how much healing is available. I have seen it ruled both ways (all available) and (1/3 available) so which way is the correct ruling? My comments: The 1/3 rule seems in general to be aimed at limiting spellcaster/manifester power. Lay on hands (and monk Wholeness of Body) abilities help increase capabilities of a partial or non-spellcasting classes. As such does it make sense to limit this kind of healing in the arena? If the answer is not clear cut can we get an Elder ruling? What should be subject to the blasted 1/3 rule and what should not?
Caterane 07-01-05, 12:24 PM	Per CoCo RAW it is subject to the 1/3 rule, although in this special case we could interprete it so that you can use your full healing capabilities, for the paladin's sake. Infact, I'd even recommend it. I wouldn't mind giving paladins a bit more power by excluding lay on hands from the 1/3 rule. The main reason howevre is that the paladin is already very frontloaded. If we rob him of another benefit from taking paladin levels beyond level 2, the attractivness of that class suffers further. Elders? Quick decision perhaps?
Tellish_of_Ket 07-01-05, 12:27 PM	I already gave my opinion on it WAY back when the post was first made. I should not suffer from the 1/3 rule. -ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 07-01-05, 12:31 PM	I've already proposed a formula. It's in my last post; the lower part that you haven't read. A formula which takes the increasing ECL into consideration is much better than a chart with fixed incomes. That formula was just from the top of my head but it's a good start. And remember: no rolls! OK, i like the modified chart you posted. It has some positives and negatives and the biggest thing i like is it's simplicity. It may not be as "Living" oriented as my original but good for now. -ToK
Sindorin 07-01-05, 12:34 PM	I don't think it should either, because if the other 2/3 you are saving is at some point used for your character, what are characters who have no healing capabilities supposed to do? Only be able to use 1/3 of their potions? It may be balancing, but the 1/3 rule and other house rules are the main reasons that all the friends I have attracted to this place have gone away. LoH should not be subject to the 1/3 rule. If any paladin witholds his granted healing capabilities should need for healing others come into play for the sole purpose of needing it for the arena, would this not be by the paladin's code, thus making him an Ex-Paladin :)?
Caterane 07-01-05, 12:46 PM	@Sindorin: Your friends probably haven't seen what full spell access did. And I don't think any of their wizards would blow out every single spell in every encounter. @Tellish: We shouldn't take the "Living" aspect too literally. We can never hope to match a campaign 1 to 1 but that's neither our aim nor necessary. The CoCo has its own enviroment and every rule must be in line with this. The most important aspects are "simplicity" and "balance", and once these key requirements have been fulfilled, we try to make it as "alive" as possible. And I think we did a very good job compared to the Classic CoCo... Let's take your charts as an example: yes, they are much closer to what the PHB suggests but these incomes won't work here; nor in a campaign btw. In a campaign, no adventurer past level 4 would earn his living with his learned profession, and no gladiator of any ECL would bother investing skill points for 5 gp a week. We can now either let it go and accept that Profession will be useless, or make CoCo rules for it. I'm for the latter. Long speech but that shows the direction this board heads into and the requirements it needs to fulfill on its way.
Pittbull 07-01-05, 01:04 PM	Paladins should keep full access to lay on hands, no 1/3 ruling!
Pitlords 07-01-05, 01:13 PM	Ok, since I don't think Cellardweller - who is (like Tok had been) invested by Guildwars - pops up anytime soon, that's the majority. Unless Jindl and MadCow object in size8 :P I'll write it into the FAQ.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-01-05, 01:14 PM	@Tellish: We shouldn't take the "Living" aspect too literally. We can never hope to match a campaign 1 to 1 but that's neither our aim nor necessary. The CoCo has its own enviroment and every rule must be in line with this. The most important aspects are "simplicity" and "balance", and once these key requirements have been fulfilled, we try to make it as "alive" as possible. And I think we did a very good job compared to the Classic CoCo... Let's take your charts as an example: yes, they are much closer to what the PHB suggests but these incomes won't work here; nor in a campaign btw. In a campaign, no adventurer past level 4 would earn his living with his learned profession, and no gladiator of any ECL would bother investing skill points for 5 gp a week. We can now either let it go and accept that Profession will be useless, or make CoCo rules for it. I'm for the latter. Long speech but that shows the direction this board heads into and the requirements it needs to fulfill on its way. I know. :( But it was my dream in designing LivGlad to be as completely accurate as a complete living campaing as possible. Which is why i wanted to CoCo to remain as it was and LivGlad a seperate entity. But as you point out thinning the ranks wasn't a good idea. I appreciate you picking up where i left off and helped make it a success. It's also why i developed a time-clock system for it originally. So you wouldn't have to worry about "sitting out for a year to amass wealth", or 1/3 rules or anything limiting like that. Nor simulated crafting, nor limiting ally caps, or rules whatsoever. But lots of micro-management required of course. I guess i will always dream about LivGlad it being more than it can be. Complicated as it would have been with tons of micro-management, but no more/no less than a real campaign. Maybe when technology advances that this board can simulate complete 3D campaign style gaming, i'll just have to be happy with what LivGlad has become and thankful that it was at least born. For an idea that i was told originally "sucked, LOL LOL...will never work or be popular", it sure has grown. -ToK
Caterane 07-01-05, 01:31 PM	Since you love rubbing that quote in my face... your original idea would not work. I've spend countless hours over it, and there were so many problems arising that I came to a point were I decided to begin from scratch. Permanent player death (because no Nimbus), a time system that no one can track, player/player trade, and much more; none of that can realistically be formed into a managable board system. Just like your examples above with stealing the King's Jewels and ending up in prison, or using forgery for the documents that throws your opponoment in chains thus giving you the win (which you initially didn't mean as a joke ;) ) this is not doable. Yes, all that happens in a campaign, but it is not realistically simulatable on any board in the world, at least not until someone invents AIs who handle all the details and generate and deal with random events on a massive scale. But the idea headed into the right direction, and the title "LivingGladius" (from LivingGreyhawk) suggested a certain amount of freedom that the completely rigid Classic CoCo desperately needed. And there originated the first steps of this board we have now. To summarize it: The vision you had was a good one but the drugs Mike brought over were way too strong LOL
Tellish_of_Ket 07-01-05, 01:47 PM	No permanent death within the arena, that was still in place. A time system, though difficult, still manageable. The forgery joke was to get a rise out of you....i see it work. It was said with tongue-in-cheek. I do realize the complication with simulating a real live campaign and when i originally thought of it, i had no intentions of also creating characters to run. I would simply manage (micro-manage) the campaign. So keep that in mind when you say things would be too time consuming. Like i said earlier, i realize the complete package was "pipe dream" and thus had to settle for the more "realistic" version we have now. No complaints Cat, none. Well, i always have complaints, i mean, what critic doesn't. :p ;) People are enjoying themselves and that is good and your hard work in seeing it to fruition is very much appreciated. -ToK
Caterane 07-01-05, 01:52 PM	Then you'll surely love to hear that we haven't even reached 50% of what the final version will look like. It just takes time and we'll do it slowly, step by step. PS: All your dreams can come true in a CoCo Campaign, and to some extend in Quests.
Pittbull 07-01-05, 03:47 PM	@ToK: Just test it out and use your credits for an ECl7-8 character and aply for a spot in King Uther's campaingn. I think, he's still searching for a fifth player. I believe it'll be an awesome campaingn. Go, Uther, go!!!!
LLMadCow 07-03-05, 07:33 AM	@Elders! Now that I have your attention, can we come to an agreement on something simple and easy? Can we vote to allow any and all Epic Level Handbook material from the SRD into the CoCo at any point which a character qualifies. i.e. - No Epic Feats until level 20+, No paying credits for ECL 24 races until we hit Level 24 play, etc, however we can allow monsters and races into play as soon as viable according to level and CR and such. The SRD has a great deal of material that we have yet to adopt, and I would even propose that we take it a step further and adopt an SRD 3.5/Core 3.53 Policy in regard to what we accept for the whole of the CoCo/LG. The reality of it stands that we have adopted the majority of the SRD, quote the SRD in many instances, declare much of the non-SRD Core material to be 'flavor text' and thus not valid for arguements and that SrSRDiseum sounds like a mental disorder that affects the elderly. Some of the SRD is going to be out of bounds, but with a few simple reminders of current CoCo rules, I think everyone will do fine. If it doesn't have a LA, it is not a playable race or template. This eliminates any issues with people trying to play deities, paragons, pseudonaturals, etc. Simple reminders, such as the above, should do the trick. LL
Tellish_of_Ket 07-03-05, 10:57 AM	@ALL: I read the fight, and i do agree and even in the past have always stipulated that you must start at ground level. Even with perfect flying, you can't start at the ceiling, so same should apply to incoproreal. You cannot start below the surface. Also, "peeking" out of a solid object would be and should be, and by all definition of the rules IS taking a 5' while maintaining 9/10 cover. -ToK
Caterane 07-03-05, 12:00 PM	@LLMAdCow: It's in the SRD so you can use it. @all: Incorporal needs to be looked upon closer than before. There are some problems with it that I want to address here. (1) Starting in the ground I know it's currently allowed to start within the ground but this is IMO a remnant of the Classic CoCo when we could prebuff with walls of stone and such things. It is not in the spirit of the rules that someone starts being invulnerable. We have random starting positions now which replaced it. Also, flyers cannot start flying either but must start on the ground. He can hover but he cannot begin at 5ft altitude. I don't know why a ghost should be exempt from that rule. Thirdly, the starting positions mimic the beginning of a combat in a campaign. That's why you cannot start hidden because no rogue can rely on hiding all day to enter every combat hidden. The same is true for ghosts travelling underground for 16 hours. That's why I propose a change that you cannot enter along the z-axis (also for burrowers), nor in one of the rocks (incorporals). (2) Using Telekinesis to enter with corporal items The same problem is true for using telekinesis to enter with the bundles of huge bastardswords and alchemist fires. To do that Anna would have to concentrate all day (16 hours) on her TK ability, with breaks of 1d4 rounds every 72 seconds. (3) Attacking from inside a cover Normally, you can stand behind cover and attack. You are clearly in one space. A ghosts being inside a pillar and sticking its head out should be handled differently. This sticking one head out is a movement and the smallest unit of movement is a 5ft step, not a free "stick head out" action. That is also in line with the rules to negate cover. While everyone could ride around a pillar to auto-spot the rogue, no one can do that with a ghost who remains in the pillar and "just sticks its head out" for a second. An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see farther from the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. It seems that you'd have cover only after the attack. (4) Telekinesis vs worn items Telekinesis to strip someone of his worn items does not work. The PHB explicitely mentions "held items", which means held in one hand, else you could strip him of the armor. To steal a worn or stored item, you must use the "disarm" option of TK which only targets one item (with several restrictions). (5) Sneak attack while attacking with Telekinesis While Anna might be hidden, her huge bastardswords ain't. You can clearly see them lying on the ground thus opponoments are neither flatfooted nor can Anna employ sneak attacks in this way. (6) Enchanting incorporal items I am under the impression that you need to touch the item you want to enchant. The enchanter - in this case the spellcasting service - is a corporal source who is supposed to enchant incorporal items. The DMG mentions "tools" and "equipment" you need to work on the to be enchanted item. Incorporal items cannot be manipulated though. (7) Incorporal items at the beginning The MM says a ghost keeps all his possessions plus 2d4 it valued in life. This number needs to be rolled on the Quest to become a ghost. One solution to getting new items would be to pay the ethereal travel spell for the one who has to bring her the equipment to the Ethereal Plane. Same for enchanting stuff (see 6). (8) Two weapon fighting and Incorporal touch attacks I don't think you can use TWF to gain 2 incorporal touch attacks. First of all, an incorporal touch is no weapon, nor do you hold a weapon in each hand for that matter. Then, natural attacks do not allow for iterative attacks from a high BAB. Ok Elders, Anna is alone in the level 9 league so we have some time to discuss that.
LLMadCow 07-03-05, 02:38 PM	@LLMadCow: It's in the SRD so you can use it. Fabulous! Human Paragon Rogue, here I come! @all: Incorporal needs to be looked upon closer than before. There are some problems with it that I want to address here. (1) Starting in the ground I know it's currently allowed to start within the ground but this is IMO a remnant of the Classic CoCo when we could prebuff with walls of stone and such things. It is not in the spirit of the rules that someone starts being invulnerable. We have random starting positions now which replaced it. Also, flyers cannot start flying either but must start on the ground. He can hover but he cannot begin at 5ft altitude. I don't know why a ghost should be exempt from that rule. Thirdly, the starting positions mimic the beginning of a combat in a campaign. That's why you cannot start hidden because no rogue can rely on hiding all day to enter every combat hidden. The same is true for ghosts travelling underground for 16 hours. That's why I propose a change that you cannot enter along the z-axis (also for burrowers), nor in one of the rocks (incorporals). I agree that it would be a good idea for everyone to start at (X,Y,0) (2) Using Telekinesis to enter with corporal items The same problem is true for using telekinesis to enter with the bundles of huge bastardswords and alchemist fires. To do that Anna would have to concentrate all day (16 hours) on her TK ability, with breaks of 1d4 rounds every 72 seconds. This is a very good point; it had never occurred to me that Anna's TK was having to be rebooted every 72 seconds. So, in the arena we all hear a bunch of swords clattering onto the floor every 1.2 minutes, and then a few seconds later they start floating again? And it should be noted that her speed for moving the swords is limited to 20' per round. (3) Attacking from inside a cover Normally, you can stand behind cover and attack. You are clearly in one space. A ghosts being inside a pillar and sticking its head out should be handled differently. This sticking one head out is a movement and the smallest unit of movement is a 5ft step, not a free "stick head out" action. That is also in line with the rules to negate cover. While everyone could ride around a pillar to auto-spot the rogue, no one can do that with a ghost who remains in the pillar and "just sticks its head out" for a second. An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see farther from the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. It seems that you'd have cover only after the attack. Well, check this out: Varying Degrees of Cover: In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. For instance, a character poeering around a corner or through an arrow slit has even better cover than a character standing behind a low wall or an obstacle. In such situations the normal cover bonuses to AC and Reflex saves can be doubled (to +8 and +4, respectively). A creature with this improved cover effectively gains improved evasion against any attack to which the Reflex save bonus applies. Furthermore, improved cover provides a +10 bonus on Hide checksNote: The red text is only found within the PHB; this may have been added for clarity and/or flavor text. So, Anna either is peering or she isn't. So, offer her up for targets of attack, or don't; just give her some AC and Ref boni if you make her available for attacks. (4) Telekinesis vs worn items Telekinesis to strip someone of his worn items does not work. The PHB explicitely mentions "held items", which means held in one hand, else you could strip him of the armor. To steal a worn or stored item, you must use the "disarm" option of TK which only targets one item (with several restrictions). I do not understand this. Can you please post some links to this 'stripping' for a better reference. Disarming is one thing. I do not believe that there is ANY way for Anna to remove an item from a person short of manifesting and using Sleight of Hand, unless she is disarming a weapon or weapon like item; Disarm has specific targets and those can be listed later. (5) Sneak attack while attacking with Telekinesis While Anna might be hidden, her huge bastardswords ain't. You can clearly see them lying on the ground thus opponoments are neither flatfooted nor can Anna employ sneak attacks in this way. I always thought the swords were Ghost-Touched. I guess they aren't? If the swords are out there are easily seen, there is no catching someone flat-footed. There is no surprise when a set of 12 swords comes charging at you, when you've been looking at them for the last few rounds ... sliding along the ground, falling to a suddend stop, standing still for a few rounds, and then finally rising from the ground once again to begin moving towards you. (6) Enchanting incorporal items I am under the impression that you need to touch the item you want to enchant. The enchanter - in this case the spellcasting service - is a corporal source who is supposed to enchant incorporal items. The DMG mentions "tools" and "equipment" you need to work on the to be enchanted item. Incorporal items cannot be manipulated though. Agreed. (7) Incorporal items at the beginning The MM says a ghost keeps all his possessions plus 2d4 it valued in life. This number needs to be rolled on the Quest to become a ghost. One solution to getting new items would be to pay the ethereal travel spell for the one who has to bring her the equipment to the Ethereal Plane. Same for enchanting stuff (see 6). Do not roll. Average = 5, Max = 8, Half = 4 ... we need to pick one for all ghostly gladiators. (8) Two weapon fighting and Incorporal touch attacks I don't think you can use TWF to gain 2 incorporal touch attacks. First of all, an incorporal touch is no weapon, nor do you hold a weapon in each hand for that matter. Then, natural attacks do not allow for iterative attacks from a high BAB. I am going to have to do some research on this one. I have some thoughts, but I need to follow up on them prior to posting.
Caterane 07-03-05, 03:02 PM	I do not understand this. Can you please post some links to this 'stripping' for a better reference. Disarming is one thing. I do not believe that there is ANY way for Anna to remove an item from a person short of manifesting and using Sleight of Hand, unless she is disarming a weapon or weapon like item; Disarm has specific targets and those can be listed later. Here are a few examples from previous fights: Anna flys 30-ft south sinking part way into the ground and as she does so she targets 12 of the potions of her opponent to Telekinesis toward the pillar at (-15, 11). {Eagles Slendor W: 6,+10 = 16 vs. DC 21, fails; Bull’s Strength W: 1,+10 = 11 vs. DC 21, fails; d20 = 5 Owl’s Wisdom W: 7,+10 = 17 vs. DC 21, fails; d20 = 19 Magic Fang W: 20 auto-saves; d20 = 1 Cure Moderate Wounds W: 11,+10 = 21 vs. DC 21, saves; d20 = 16 Magic Fang (2nd) W: 16,+10 = 26 vs. DC 21, saves; d20 = 12 Bear’s Endurance W: 17,+10 = 27 vs. DC 21, saves; d20 = 4 Shield of Faith W: 9,+10 = 19 vs. DC 21, fails; d20 = 20 Hide from Undead W: 17,+10 = 27 vs. DC 21, saves; d20 = 13 Cure Light Wounds (2nd) W: 19,+10 = 29 vs. DC 21, saves; d20 = 8 Universal Solvent W: 4,+10 = 14 vs. DC 21, fails; d20 = 17 Bull’s Strength (2nd) W: 2,+10 = 12 vs. DC 21, fails; Dmg: I’m not rolling damage since all the ones that failed would take 11d6 dmg which is enough to destroy them, Telekinesis available in 1d4: 1 rnd} Anna works her way back toward the Gorgon and as she does so she targets all 9 of her opponents potions, his longbow, cloak, and boots to Telekinesis toward the ceiling {Longbow W: 16,+10 = 26 vs. DC 21, saves; Boots of Speed W: 19,+10 = 29 vs. DC 21, saves; Cloak W: 15,+10 = 25 vs. DC 21, saves; CLW W: 3,+10 = 13 vs. DC 21, fails; CLW W: 16,+10 = 26 vs. DC 21, saves; Bear’s Endurance W: 16,+10 = 26 vs. DC 21, saves; Shield of Faith W: 6,+10 = 16 vs. DC 21, fails; Magic Fang (in hand) W: 6,+10 = 16 vs. DC 21, fails; Magic Fang W: 13,+10 = 23 vs. DC 21, saves; Universal Solvent W: 17,+10 = 27 vs. DC 21, saves; Hide from Undead W: 7,+10 = 17 vs. DC 21, fails; Hide from Undead W: 18,+10 = 28 vs. DC 21, saves; failed potions are destroyed from falling dmg; Telekinesis in 1d4: 3 rnds} Anna moves around the Gorgon and as she does so she targets all of her opponents potions, his longbow, cloak, boots, greatsword, both quivers of arrows, the ring of Feather Fall, and the Third eye to Telekinesis toward the ceiling {Quiver 1 W: 15,+10 = 25, saves; Quiver 2 W: 17,+10 = 27, saves; Greataxe W: 18,+10 = 28, saves; Bow W: 2,+10 = 12, fails; Boots W: 5,+10 = 15, fails; Cloak W: 20, auto-save; Ring W: 9,+10 = 19, fails; Third Eye W: 20, auto-save; CLW W: 20, auto-save; Bear’s Endurance W: 6,+10 = 16, fails; Universal Solvent W: 8,+10 = 18, fails; Hide from Undead W: 10,+10 = 20, fails; The potions are destroyed, I’m ruling all other stuff except the bow are undamaged, Dmg for the Bow 15d6 (1st die of dmg can’t break through hardness) = 6, 3, 4, 6, 4, 1, 3, 2, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1, 2, 3 = 52 -9 hardness = 43, bow is destroyed since it had 40 hp, Telekinesis in 1d4: 2 rnd} The opponoment had to make 12 will saves - one for every item - and if he fails, this items is removed from his body. In a few rounds, Anna can completely strip a gladiator of all his items, especially with her guerilla tactic to attack from the 100% savety within the ground and sink back into in the same round. This however is not in the way the Telekinesis spell works!
Jindl 07-03-05, 03:56 PM	(1) Starting in the ground I know it's currently allowed to start within the ground but this is IMO a remnant of the Classic CoCo when we could prebuff with walls of stone and such things. It is not in the spirit of the rules that someone starts being invulnerable. We have random starting positions now which replaced it. Also, flyers cannot start flying either but must start on the ground. He can hover but he cannot begin at 5ft altitude. I don't know why a ghost should be exempt from that rule. Thirdly, the starting positions mimic the beginning of a combat in a campaign. That's why you cannot start hidden because no rogue can rely on hiding all day to enter every combat hidden. The same is true for ghosts travelling underground for 16 hours. That's why I propose a change that you cannot enter along the z-axis (also for burrowers), nor in one of the rocks (incorporals). I'll point out that I never have asked for Anna to begin in total cover. I only asked that she start in a position of cover, partially within the ground. That shouldn't be any different a flyer starting in a hovering position. Having said that, your argument is crap. If starting positions are to mimic the beginning of combat in a campaign, then flyers should start flying, burrowers should start burrowing, incorporeals should start within the walls, and rogues start hidden. When was the last time your DM had an ankheg walk along the ground to attack the players? Or had an arrowhawk craw along the surface of the mountain to attack? How many fights in your campaigns start with the enemy rogue out in the middle of a room? That's ridiculous. Flyer's do fly all day. Burrowers do burrow to travel. Incorporeals do remain within cover all day. And rogues can and do remain hidden for LONG periods of time, especially when setting up ambushes. If you think its the best decision for LG to not allow these starting conditions, then say so. But don't try to say it would better reflect a real campaign. Its the opposite of real starting positions in a real campaign. (2) Using Telekinesis to enter with corporal items The same problem is true for using telekinesis to enter with the bundles of huge bastardswords and alchemist fires. To do that Anna would have to concentrate all day (16 hours) on her TK ability, with breaks of 1d4 rounds every 72 seconds. Anna's average speed with using TK in this manner is 17 ft per round. That's faster than some of the corporeal gladiators. Should I remind you of Slefwee, the Arena Fish? His speed was 5 ft, yet nobody ever questioned how long it would take him to get into position. Anna and her swords could run circles around him. Or what about Bruno the gnomish necromancer. He regularly brought a 300 lb iron boulder to his starting position in the arena. The simple fact is that Anna's corporeal gear is limited to a weight of 300 lbs, because that is the limit of her TK. And I have been very careful to keep her gear under that weight. Of course, when she acquires an ally soon, that limit won't apply anymore, because the ally can move the gear for her. But for your argument to apply as a fair ruling, you must designate a minimum speed for all gladiators of greater than 17 ft per round. Otherwise you are just picking on one character (and if you want to examine individual characters, lets take a peek at Ixenthor next.) You're also assuming that Anna has to walk more than 300 ft without pausing. How often does anyone walk that far without stopping for a few seconds? With one concentration on TK, she can travel 300 ft, thats the entire length of the arena. And she can set the basket down at the end of it (so the items don't "clatter to the floor"). She is more mobile with her TK than you give her credit for. (3) Attacking from inside a cover Normally, you can stand behind cover and attack. You are clearly in one space. A ghosts being inside a pillar and sticking its head out should be handled differently. This sticking one head out is a movement and the smallest unit of movement is a 5ft step, not a free "stick head out" action. That is also in line with the rules to negate cover. While everyone could ride around a pillar to auto-spot the rogue, no one can do that with a ghost who remains in the pillar and "just sticks its head out" for a second. An incorporeal creature can enter or pass through solid objects, but must remain adjacent to the object’s exterior, and so cannot pass entirely through an object whose space is larger than its own. It can sense the presence of creatures or objects within a square adjacent to its current location, but enemies have total concealment (50% miss chance) from an incorporeal creature that is inside an object. In order to see farther from the object it is in and attack normally, the incorporeal creature must emerge. An incorporeal creature inside an object has total cover, but when it attacks a creature outside the object it only has cover, so a creature outside with a readied action could strike at it as it attacks. It seems that you'd have cover only after the attack. I do think its a 5 ft step to go from total cover to a position of cover. I've never thought otherwise. In order to see their enemies, I think incorporeals spend a significant portion of their time in a position of cover, partially within solid objects. That's cover, not total cover. Whenever Anna goes into a positon of total cover, she usually will lose track of where her opponent is. But most of the time, she only has cover from the ground, making her fully vulnerable to attack (if you can locate her), and giving her the ability to see her surroundings. Anna is in a position of cover before, after, and during any attacks. She does not attempt to attack from total cover. And incidently, ghosts do not have to remain adjacent to the surface of the object (see the Rules of the Game - Incorporeality). (4) Telekinesis vs worn items Telekinesis to strip someone of his worn items does not work. The PHB explicitely mentions "held items", which means held in one hand, else you could strip him of the armor. To steal a worn or stored item, you must use the "disarm" option of TK which only targets one item (with several restrictions). The spell description states "held possessions" can be targetted by the violent thrust. I would agree with your statement that stowed gear and worn items do not qualify as held possessions (although this has been run differently in the past). (5) Sneak attack while attacking with Telekinesis While Anna might be hidden, her huge bastardswords ain't. You can clearly see them lying on the ground thus opponoments are neither flatfooted nor can Anna employ sneak attacks in this way. You're assuming that the foes are aware that they will be attacked by the huge, inert swords laying on the ground. Sneak attacking requires the target to "not be aware" of the attack. While most arena gladiators have researched Anna as a potential opponent enough to know that her swords are the source of a potential attack (and treat them that way), in quests/campaigns it is unlikely that an enemy would expect a bunch of swords to jump up and attack them. In thoses cases, the foe would be flatfooted and sneak attack would be available. I'll also point out that there are methods of making the one of the swords invisible (and thus granting sneak attack damage to the first one). (6) Enchanting incorporal items I am under the impression that you need to touch the item you want to enchant. The enchanter - in this case the spellcasting service - is a corporal source who is supposed to enchant incorporal items. The DMG mentions "tools" and "equipment" you need to work on the to be enchanted item. Incorporal items cannot be manipulated though. Anna is only incorporeal when she is manifested. The rest of the time, herself and her gear are ethereal. That makes it really simple for her to buy items or have her current equipment enchanted further. All she needs to do is have it shifted back and forth to the material plane (or find an ethereal spellcaster to do the work for her). Don't confuse the ghosts temporary incorporeality from manifesting with the permanent incorporeality of creatures like shadows, wraiths, and spectres. The fact that the ghost is fully solid on the ethereal plane all of the time, makes it easy for her to acquire new equipment and have her current equipment manipulated. (8) Two weapon fighting and Incorporal touch attacks I don't think you can use TWF to gain 2 incorporal touch attacks. First of all, an incorporal touch is no weapon, nor do you hold a weapon in each hand for that matter. Then, natural attacks do not allow for iterative attacks from a high BAB. This is another example of "you think", not what the RAW actually says. Draining touch is NOT a natural attack. It is a supernatural ability that triggers on a successful touch attack. And it is well established that creatures can use two weapon fighting to deliver touch attacks, since they are light weapons. A monk using chill touch could combine flurry with twf to deliver 3 (or more) chill touches per round. Anna's use of twf to deliver her draining touch ability is no different.
Caterane 07-03-05, 04:48 PM	Jindl, calm down. I'm not picking on Anna but ghosts and incorporality are complicated things and I wanted to address some things that are outdated because of the new nature of LG, some things that may have been handled incorrectly in the past and need revision, and some things that are not clear where I like to her your comments for you're the expert on incorporality. We will discuss it and if your arguments are more convincing than those of the others, then I promise you nothing will happen, ok? :cool: I'll point out that I never have asked for Anna to begin in total cover. I only asked that she start in a position of cover, partially within the ground. That shouldn't be any different a flyer starting in a hovering position. Ok, then we're on the same page. Partial cover is absolutely okay. Everyone can start behind the pillar or the rock so you start partially (cover) in the ground, as can burrowers. That's worth a :) As for the other argument about starting positions, I don't agree with that but we can discuss it another time. It's not important for this issue here. Anna's average speed with using TK in this manner is 17 ft per round. That's faster than some of the corporeal gladiators. It's not the speed, but the fact that you'd have to actively concentrate all the time. It's like with concentrating on a spell for all day. Bruno btw had a stormgiant who helped him carry the 300 lb iron boulder. Just use Oz' dog; he's used to be burdened with thrice his weight LOL I do think its a 5 ft step to go from total cover to a position of cover. I've never thought otherwise. :) I would agree with your statement that stowed gear and worn items do not qualify as held possessions (although this has been run differently in the past). :) While most arena gladiators have researched Anna as a potential opponent enough to know that her swords are the source of a potential attack (and treat them that way), in quests/campaigns it is unlikely that an enemy would expect a bunch of swords to jump up and attack them. That's perfectly ok. :) Anna is only incorporeal when she is manifested. The rest of the time, herself and her gear are ethereal. That makes it really simple for her to buy items or have her current equipment enchanted further. All she needs to do is have it shifted back and forth to the material plane (or find an ethereal spellcaster to do the work for her). Don't confuse the ghosts temporary incorporeality from manifesting with the permanent incorporeality of creatures like shadows, wraiths, and spectres. The fact that the ghost is fully solid on the ethereal plane all of the time, makes it easy for her to acquire new equipment and have her current equipment manipulated. I have some questions here. How do you "shift your equipment back and forth to the material plane"? Why is it "easy for her to aquire new equipment"? You'd need someone who transports the things you bought to the ethereal plane. This costs money because it is a spellcasting service. This is another example of "you think", not what the RAW actually says. Draining touch is NOT a natural attack. It is a supernatural ability that triggers on a successful touch attack. And it is well established that creatures can use two weapon fighting to deliver touch attacks, since they are light weapons. A monk using chill touch could combine flurry with twf to deliver 3 (or more) chill touches per round. Anna's use of twf to deliver her draining touch ability is no different. Thing is that monks cannot combine twf with flurry. Quote "There is no such thing as an off-hand attack for a monk striking unarmed" [PHB,p41]. The monk could use it if he attacks with his monk weapons (quarterstaff for example, plus headbutt). Then, a 16 HD Dread Wraith (http://www.geocities.com/sovelior/srd/monstersTtoZ.html#wraith) for example has also an Incorporal Touch and a BAB of +8. According to your theory it should attack with +16/+11 but it gets only 1 attack, even when fullattacking. This is a hard proof that your bab has no effect on your Incorporal Touch. And this is how every natural weapon (or natural weapon-like if you wish) is being handled throughout the MM (T-Rex fullattack: 1 bite at 18 HD).
Tellish_of_Ket 07-03-05, 09:47 PM	1) Starting positions should always be (x,y,0). Not matter what character or benefit they may have. Not just Anna, but everyone. 2) complete hogwash. I’m gonna side with Jindl on this one. The speed a character “arrives” at the arena is irrelevant. Pale with his horse moving 240” didn’t get any benefits for getting there “sooner”, so penalizing Anna for getting there “later” doesn’t make sense. 3) perfectly legal tactic. Anna remains “peeking” outside the object and simply has cover. IF the enemy gladiator can spot her, she’s fair game. 4) sorry, can’t strip a gladiator naked. Dunno who ran that fight in the example Cat gave, but that was BAaaaad! The use of TK clearly (imho) outlines how it works. 5) the swords are just lying there, but who knows when they will raise up to strike? Just as hiding/moving silent works, it’s “when they least expect it” that it happens. As per RAW the first attack would be vs flat-footed with sneak, the remaining 11 would not. 6) who says there isn’t a fully functional ethereal city built on top of Gladius. Just cuz we didn’t write about it (or invent it) doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. 8) gonna research. Just My Thoughts, -ToK
Caterane 07-03-05, 10:06 PM	2) complete hogwash. I’m gonna side with Jindl on this one. The speed a character “arrives” at the arena is irrelevant. Pale with his horse moving 240” didn’t get any benefits for getting there “sooner”, so penalizing Anna for getting there “later” doesn’t make sense. Ray, please read my last reply again. I never said that speed matters; I said the opposite. My reasoning is based on something completely different which I'm not going to repeat. 5) the swords are just lying there, but who knows when they will raise up to strike? Just as hiding/moving silent works, it’s “when they least expect it” that it happens. As per RAW the first attack would be vs flat-footed with sneak, the remaining 11 would not. With the same reasoning, every attack would be made vs FF. Who's gonna say when the opponoment strikes? No, the only relevant thing is wether you spot the threat or not, and huge bastardswords don't make hide checks.
LLMadCow 07-03-05, 11:37 PM	(2) Using Telekinesis to enter with corporal items The same problem is true for using telekinesis to enter with the bundles of huge bastardswords and alchemist fires. To do that Anna would have to concentrate all day (16 hours) on her TK ability, with breaks of 1d4 rounds every 72 seconds. This is what everyone is missing out on. It's not the speed (And boy am I sorry I EVER mentioned it!), but the fact that Anna has a potential advantage that is not guaranteed. At the beginning of every fight, rolls need to be made, and arranged as follows: 1st - Roll 1d4 to determine how many rounds Anna will be unable to use her TK. 2nd - Take results of the 1st roll and add them to 12 (The total number of rounds she can successfully use TK). 3rd - Take the result from the second step, pick high or low (for what rounds are down time), roll as 1d(2nd step total) and find results. Example 1: Starts good for Anna Step 1 - 1d4 = 3 Step 2 - 3 + 12 = 15 Step 3 - Low, 1d15 = 11. Anna begins combat carrying the swords for the 11 of a 15 round cycle, the first 3 rounds were a down time, so at the end of round 5 the swords will drop for d4 rounds. This cycle needs to be rolled for the entire fight. Example 2: Starts bad for Anna Step 1 - 1d4 = 3 Step 2 - 3 + 12 = 15 Step 3 - Low, 1d15 = 2. Anna begins combat waiting 2 rounds to be able to pick up the swords; 1 round passed before the fight began and in round 3, her TK ability will be available again for 12 rounds, at the end of which she rolls 1d4 for the down time again. This cycle needs to be rolled for the entire fight. Does this all make sense? Anna's TK is not a guaranteed Pre-buff. In all honesty she should begin the fight without it being active and just start using it at round 1. That would eliminate all confusion. If the issue is the idea of setting down and picking the items up all day long, I see nothing wrong with this. it would not be the first time a gladiator began combat and sat something down for later use.
Caterane 07-06-05, 08:34 AM	Ok, seems that we have solved incorporality issues. Let's get back to discussing the original issues... Here's a summary of what we have so far: Extending Handle Animal to Vermin seems to meet no opposition; I'll add them - and the Carrion Crawler, Rust Monster, and Phantom Fungus - to the list of available handle animal creatures. This gives us a little more diversity. Acquiring Corpses: It is ok that you can kill any creature that you can buy, and raise it as an undead. You have to pay the cost for the creature, and that for animate undead, of course. You must be evil to do that. Secondly, the Bonesnatchers Guild offers a variaty of corpses. They have all player races from the PHB and the Psionics Handbook available, all with Non-Elite Array (13,12,11,10,9,8). Obviously, only the 12 and 13 matter which you can distribute freely among strength and dexterity. You must have a non-good alignment to buy a corpse. Still, we need a price for them. Prices should vary depending on the benefits (half-giants or wilelves better than humans). If you don't propose something I'll make a chart on my own. Any other "corpse" must be acquired in a miniquest. Sell corpses: You can now sell a corpse to the Bonesnatchers that they sell on their own for half the price. You must be able to carry it home to Gladius of course, and you must be non-good. Extending Usage of Skills: I've proposed a chart and a formula for skills. Let's summarize it. If your character is set ready and participating in an arena fight, he can use Profession, Sleight of hand, Craft, and Perform to earn extra money that week. For Quests it is up to the Questlord to decide: while you should have problems crafting a weapon on a Quest or going pickpocketing in the wilderness, you might be able to perform in a tavern while in a village. You must link the Pitlords GM Avatar Post on the fights thread to a new header called "Incomes" or "Economics". Profession, Sleight of hand, Craft*, and Perform earn you: Income = skill (take 10)*ECL Cap = max 100 gp per ECL *Craft (weapons, armor, bows, alchemy, poison) earns you half that value (because these have a secondary function). TO BE DISCUSSED (1) Gather information to learn opponoments starting position. DC? (The DC would depend on the ECL of the opponoment) (2) Appraise+Diplomacy chart or formula to gain discount when buying things. (3) Diplomacy to acquire allies: - Creatures with INT 3 or higher - Must be able to communicate - Same alignment (DC+5 for each step away) - Suspensible to diplomacy - Quest/Miniquest - Diplomancy DC increase by 2 for all allies for each additional ally Questions: - Range of creatures? By type? - Skill modifier to get ally?
Sindorin 07-06-05, 01:53 PM	One thing with Gather Information on the start locations - I think it should at least tell us what start block the person is in, but there would not be any way to know where in the start block the person chose to start in - you would not receive exact coordinates after the successful check; also, as in a real campaign, you do not know whether you failed the check or not, so you could gather false information and think that they are in the wrong square.
Caterane 07-06-05, 02:52 PM	Sure, box only. False information is too difficult to handle; and we're taking 10 always.
LLMadCow 07-08-05, 11:28 AM	@Cat - I am not ignoring you; I know there is a lot to be replied to, but I wanted to throw this out there before I dash out for work. @Elders - Prior to Cat [Whisper,Sarcasm]Going Postal on Zerone[/Whisper,Sarcasm] about his time constraints and whatnot, it was becoming apparent that maybe something should be done to help Caterane be able to relax some. To this end, I would like to offer up an awesome idea! We, as Elders, host our own thread, but anyone can post in the thread. The thread would be called: Ask An Elder and it would have formats and guidelines and such. Players would post their questions and, as part of the format of the thread, they would all be requested to Edit the Title of their message to ANSWERED after they have received a reply, and we as Elders would title our replies as REPLY to [Player] - [Subject]. There would be no other discussion, just questions and answers. This is where they should be able to take game-mechanics related questions and ask. There would be no replies by any other than Elders, or Cat if he chose to. So, what do you think? If you like it and Cat likes it, we could toss around some ideas, post it here and then one of us could open the thread with a main post detailing the exact guidelines for posting, question format, answer format, etc. LL
Caterane 07-08-05, 11:40 AM	Thanks Brian, but I think an additional thread confuses the users too much. Where to ask? Tavern? House of Commons? Ask an Elder? FotW? Too many threads already. But I have an idea. Questions go to the Tavern, and I'm sure there are a lot of users who can answer them. Mostly it's just a simple question anyway. Sindorin already leads the House of Commons where he answers and helps users to understand the rules, and keeps debates flowing. So I'd need someone who runs the Violations thread in the same way. Check the sheets, especially new ones, help newbies create characters, post violations, etc. Anyone interested? Perhaps we find some work or field of competence for every Elder. I'm open to ideas.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-12-05, 08:05 AM	Proposed solution to monster fights. Instead of rolling on the dungeon encounter charts, roll on the wilderness encounter tables. The player decides which area he/she wishes to venture forth in, and you give even odds on the whole table. It makes for a very risky proposition since the player is completely outside the nimbus. ex. Spike wishes to trollop through the warm hills where he grew up knowing that it is abound with riches. Pitlord turns to page 97, DMG and rolls 19. (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=115864) A few weeks go by and no one has heard back from the stalwart dwarf and think maybe he decided to move back home and retire. It is the last anyone sees of Spike. And that is the chance you take. Spike could have just as easily fought a few hobgoblins for pitiful experience and gold, or an adult copper dragon and found a new wealth of riches. I know my above example shows the extreme of what can happen, but this way it is left up to chance. If a player wishes to adventure (mini-quest) in a certain geographical region they must accept the risk that comes along with it. This "randomness will certainly put an end to freebie monster fights that make no sense. -ToK
Caterane 07-12-05, 08:25 AM	That means, lower level chars are most likely screwed while high-level ones have their way with any encounter. My solution would be to make it what it is supposed to be: a dungeon encounter. The vast arena surely doesn't qualify as that. Fighting a dire bear in the arena is ridiculous; any level 3 PC with a potion of fly can kill it. Now imagine a direbear in a 50x50 room with a 10ft ceiling... I think we should create a special monster pit for these fights. Or better even, a mini dungeon so that there are some options for everyone. At the same time we decrease the level I roll on from ECL+1 to ECL+0, or ECL-1 even. Until then, they will be replaced for now by the new ALL vs ALL fights which can deal with uneven numbers in a similar way (1 vs 1 vs 1). Question is how to distribute the rewards? Only the winner? Or a ranking? Based on what?
Tellish_of_Ket 07-12-05, 09:30 AM	lower lvl guy isn't screwed, just very risky. High level guy doesn't have his way with the encounter. Poor Spike was unfortunate enough to encounter CR 25 dragon...which is ample to kill any gladiator you wish to through at him. Unless it rolls over for mer-man i guess, but that's a special case on its' own. lol It may not be worth it for high lvl players because of the likelyhood of fighting an EL 2 and waste their time or an EL 25 and just plain die. But i see your point though. What about "Pitlord Multiple Choice"? Anna (ECL 8?) is odd and the Pitlords Account presents her with her choice, based on 5 possible encounters with EL's based on her ECL, that would stand a fair chance. a) Young Red Dragon b) Mindflayer c) blue slaad d) 2 Bralani eladrin e) Babau demon riding a remorhaz Whoever she choses to face, you assign a pitlord to the fight. --------------- If you do 1 vs 1 vs 1. *The winner gets exp as defeating the other two players. *The others get xp for losing to the winner, AND if they also defeated a player. *The loser-loser, gets xp for losing to the other two glads. My Opinion. -ToK
Caterane 07-12-05, 09:41 AM	I would have to analyze every character that gets a monster fight, compare it with the DMG chart, make a list with appropriate encounters, wait for the player to pick one, then add them to the roster. It takes me about 3-4 hours to do pairings. I have no intention to make it any more complicated. Mini Dungeon is IMO an easy solution. If you do 1 vs 1 vs 1. *The winner gets exp as defeating the other two players. *The others get xp for losing to the winner, AND if they also defeated a player. [How do you define that someone has defeated a gladiator?] *The loser-loser, gets xp for losing to the other two glads.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-12-05, 09:43 AM	Well, you were looking to delegate some responsibilities, delegate someone as the Monster Man. I'd volunteer for that position. And my opinion on the 1 vs 1 vs 1 idea still stands. -ToK
Jindl 07-12-05, 09:43 AM	I think a blending of these ideas may offer the best solution. Here's what I propose: Design a couple of different maps, one for each encounter terrain. So a plains terrain may have little cover, while a forest terrain may have lots of cover, and an underground terrain may be an enclosed space with a low ceiling, etc. If pitlords decides to make it a monster fight then: Let the player determine the terrain, and randomly select a monster of that terrain of ECL-2<EL<ECL+2. That way, whatever monster is selected, the battle zone will properly represent the habitat of the creature, and the challenge will be within a couple of EL's of the character. And the player had some choice in what environment they were "adventuring". As for Anna, she will own most monster fights because she has incorporeality, draining touch, and perfect flight. Of course, I'd rather have her fighting other gladiators, but if Pitlords forces her into a monster fight, <shrug> thats his decision.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-12-05, 09:55 AM	I can agree to that. Sounds like a fair compromise. I would still volunteer to be the Monster Man to take some of the burden from your hands. -ToK @Jindl: You think 9 half-dragon kobolds (EL 9) wouldn't give you a run for your money? I bet they would. Even with just minor magic items.
Jindl 07-12-05, 10:03 AM	@Jindl: You think 9 half-dragon kobolds (EL 9) wouldn't give you a run for your money? I bet they would. Even with just minor magic items. Evasion and Anna's Reflex +15 = no damage from breath weapons. Kobold's Will +1 and Malevolence DC19 = bad for the kobolds. Kobold's Will +1 and Telekinesis DC19 = 5d6 falling damage on the 1HD kobolds. No, Anna would completely own them. With her Hide +44, they would never even see her. But enough off topic here, we can continue via PM if you have other ideas :-)
LLMadCow 07-12-05, 11:32 AM	Blur - Can we use it to hide? I'll be back to reply in about 12 hours. LL The hiding rules suggest that you must gain cover or concealment from something between you and your opponent. You hide behind cover. You use the concealment of a darkened room or an obscurring mist (because the darkness or the fog is between both characters). A blur effect is you giving concealment to yourself (similar to the cloak dance feat of the XPHB). There is nothing between your form and that of the creature trying to spot you. Since you are not gaining concealment from an intervening effect, I think it is against the spirit of the hiding rules.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-12-05, 05:38 PM	Heck no. No spin-doctoring or word twisting or loop-holing allowed. As with what Jindl said, it's not in the spirit of the rules. -ToK
SoulLord 07-12-05, 05:47 PM	oops sorry wrong board to post.
Caterane 07-12-05, 05:48 PM	I agree. Blur gives concealment for the reason of simplifying technicality. For wording purposes, the term "20% miss chance" would have been better than the term "concealment". However, what matters is that hide-concealment is supposed to hamper the vision by affecting the environment, not the character who is still very well spottable with a blur spell.
LLMadCow 07-15-05, 10:09 AM	After reviewing all of the facts surrounding concealment, I still have some minor doubts, but here are the conclusions I have come to: Area of effect concealment always allows one to hide. Edited: Personal effect concealment does not allow one to hide, but would also disallow sneak attacks (against the subject of Blur), due to no longer discernible anatomies. I think it is key that the FAQ define the differece between Personal and Area Concealment and the difference in their uses. LL Edit: Strike thought and reverse it: I got my thought backwards.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 10:30 AM	I agree. You can't hide behind your blur, because there isn't anything to hide behind. Blur is not an area effect, it's a personal affect...AND it moves with you. So you can try to hide all you want, but if you're in plain view of your opponent, fat chance unless you have HiPS. This is loop-holing at it's best (Oops, meant to say jindlizing, hehe lol...j/k), and best to close it unless sage says otherwise (and yet another sad day when that happens). Feigning in combat is definately different. It's faking our your opponent to open a vulnerable spot and hitting him when it counts. I hope you're not suggesting you can sneak attack while under the effects of blur without doing anything else, (ie. flanking, feinting, invis, etc...)?
Pittbull 07-15-05, 10:35 AM	After reading the whole discussion, I agree too. Blur-concealment doesn't work for hiding!.......Poor sneakers!!! :(
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 10:43 AM	After reading the whole discussion, I agree too. Blur-concealment doesn't work for hiding!.......Poor sneakers!!! :( Poor sneakers? No sure how you figure that. hehe. Sneaking was so powerful apparently that it had to be nerfed from it's normal version...so i'm not sure why now, all of a sudden, they think they are screwed? Sneaking is still very powerful. Just ask Anna. I'll just assume you were being silly when u said that. :) -ToK
LLMadCow 07-15-05, 10:48 AM	All vs All fight. Well, since we are talking A vs B vs C, why not do it like this...? Each person is worth XXX EXP/GP If you deal at least 30-40% of the damage to kill an opponent, and he then gets killed by the other player, you earn 50% of that win and then if you lose you also earn 100% of your loss earnings. However if you deal 30-40% damage to kill someone and they never die, you get nothing but los earnings. Scenario 1: A and B team up to kill C = A and B each earn (50% Win vs C) and C earns (150% Lose vs A and B). Now, A and B go head to head, with A killing B = A earns (100% Win vs B) and B earns (100% Lose vs A). If Everyone is Level 3 (900 win, 300 lose), it works out like this: A and B team up to kill C = A and B each earn (450xp/gp) and C earns (450xp/gp). Now, A and B go head to head, with A killing B = A earns (900xp/gp) and B earns (300xp/gp). Total Winnings: A:1,350xp/gp B:750xp/gp C:450xp/gp Total: 2,550xp/gp Scenario 2: A rushes in and kills B quickly, aka - in 4 rounds while C is buffing and hiding, and then comes back and managesto get the drop on our buffed C and kill him anyway! Total Winnings: A:1,800xp/gp - Killed two enemies by himself. B:300xp/gp - Killed by a lone opponent.. C:300xp/gp - Death by stealth. Total: 2,400xp/gp Just my thoughts so far.....
LLMadCow 07-15-05, 11:05 AM	I think it is key that the FAQ define the differece between Personal and Area Concealment and the difference in their uses. I edited my previous post about concealment. After all the TONS of reading, I got some wires crossed. Confusion fixed. When I re-read it, I was worried too.... :eek: LL
Tellish_of_Ket 07-15-05, 11:44 AM	Actually you hit on a very good note there LL. Let me try and take it one step further that for ever point of dmg you do to your opponents you get x/{maxhp} percent of the exp for that opponent. A (45 hp) vs B (30 hp) vs C (65 hp) A dies first, but before he died he was in a life/death struggle with C and did 60 pts of dmg. 60/65 = 92% exp value for C, and full loss exp for B B killed A by doing the last 3 pts of dmg to him while he was fighting C (3/45=7%). B was subsequently killed by C so he gets the full loss exp for C. C, while B is ganking A, heals, rages and clubs B to death. He gets 42/45=93% xp for A, and full win xp for killing B. Assuming everyone is lvl 3 (900xp/gp win, 300 xp/gp loss) it looks something like this. Final Results: A = 92% of C [828xp/gp] + loss to B [+300xp/gp] = 1128 xp/gp B = 07% of A [063xp/gp] + loss to C [+300xp/gp] = 363 xp/gp C = 93% of A [837xp/gp] + win vs B [+900xp/gp] = 1737 xp/gp This appears to be a very accurate system. If you think AoE can abuse this lemme show another example. A (35hp) vs B (35hp) vs C (40hp) vs D(20hp) A, C get quickly wrapped up into melee. With some brief exchange of arrow fire, and psionic abilities, they soon all lock horns. B sneaks around a bit, shoots of an arrow or two, and the annoyed A & C, team to rip him a new one for his cowardly ways. D, the buffing mage, rides around prancing on his pony and lines them all up for a fireball or two. A is at half, B has 6 hp left, and C has only lost 5 hp. Fireball hits, let's assume the worse and they all fail their saves. Lets assume median dice rolls from a 5d6 fireball dealing 17 pts of dmg. A = 1 B = -10 C = 18 C takes advantage of the foolish buffing wizards antics and kills A. C turns and launches a couple of quick arrows at the mage before getting fireballed again. Here's how it balances out. A [5/40=13% of C] + [15/35=43% of B] + [full loss from C & D] = 1104 xp/gp B [5/35=14% of A] + [full loss from D & C] = 612xp/gp C [13/35=37% of A] + [14/35=40% of B] + [15/20=75% of D] + [full loss from D] = 1668 xp/gp D [17/35=49% of A] + [6/35=17% of B] + [35/40=87% of C] = 1377 xp/gp As you can see, the most active person with the most longevity got the most exp. I know and i've read that the "last man standing" should get a bonus or get more exp cuz he outlived everyone. I'm gonna disagree. A bonus for last man standing will proliferate much potential abuse. People will be delaying for 4 rds, attacking, or shooting an arrow from their hidden position and hide for 4 more rounds. This way, if you ain't active and doing stuff, you can't getting jack. Although it may look complicated, it is actually VERY simple. DmgYouDid ---------- = % of xp from that opponent. oppmaxhp Whoever is involved will killing you, you get loss exp from them. I haven't decided if i wanna include the -10 hp that gladiators have, it prolly should accomodate it. But we'll see what the initial reaction is to my proposal first. -ToK
LLMadCow 07-16-05, 12:37 AM	@ToK - I am totally in favor of the % based XP system, and I would have suggested it, but I was afraid that people would have complained that it was too complex. People seem to be worried about how to handle the issue of Heal/Vigor/CLW, etc and I have an easy solution. Since you have to overcome this to kill a person anyway, why not just slap this number on top of their HP when calculating the XP? No need to subtract anything. It works like this: A vs B vs C. A 40HP B 30HP C 25HP During the battle, A downs 3 CLWs for a total of (3d8+3=14), B uses two seperate tattoos of vigor (2*5), one early and one late, and C uses nothing, but B administers one of Cs CLWs (1d8 +1 = 7!) to C in order to hopefully get some help in winning the fight, and it pays off!. So when calculating the total HP, it works like this: A 54HP (40HP + 14 CLW) B 40hp (30HP + 10 Vigor) c 32HP (25HP + 7 CLW) Make sense? It's easy and simple! You can do all the math to see who earns how much, but there's no reason to go around subtracting damage done when the start healing. Just start adding those points on as if they were more HP. If temporary HP are activated and deactivated before they can be used up, then they do not count towards the total HP. Only the Damage that is successfully done and counts towards the death or attempted death of the character counts towards the HP total.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-16-05, 01:29 AM	That is an excellent idea. It's still my prefered system, but so far from the commons thread and a few other elders (jindl, cat) it seems like the assassin game is winning. See the commons thread for the discussion. It also seems pretty simple, but can be complicated as well. At least with % based xp, there isn't any worrying about anything. You just total up the dmg and split it up. With this system, you don't have to worry about "accidently" fireballing someone who isn't your target and stealing xp from the other person. Or getting them caught in an entangle and messing him up. I know for one, i would like to entangle my opponent in the middle of it, but with the limit on AoE that is being proposed in the House of Commons, i would have to get them in the edge to avoid getting another possible player that isn't my target that is nearby. If i had to vote, i would vote % based xp, with LL's addition to calculating their life. Just add them all up and use that as the 100% marker for what he's worth. And despite what people might say, you cannot just fireball and win all the exp. And yeah, others may get caught in your entagle area as well, and if you think that they are getting "screwed" by it, tough. It's a FFA, live with it. If the players see a mage with a few FB scrolls or a druid with 3 entangles mem'd, i would figure they would be smart enough to tag that player first. -ToK
Pitlords 07-16-05, 12:22 PM	That's a good idea, Brian, but as I already said, the d20 system is too complex to be based on damage alone. If someone casts 5 penalty spells on a PC, then he has done far more to bring that PC down then the one who kills him in the end with damage. Area effects will only affect your target. Problem solved. I will now go ahead and write up the rules for All vs All fights. We can check them out in the coming weeks, and adjust if necessary.
LLMadCow 07-16-05, 12:44 PM	Assassin problems: I swear to you, I can so easily see accidental attacks due to 'Oops - he was too close to my fireball' or 'Oops - he got stuck in my entangle' Not to mention, has anyone thought about this - 200gp for four entangles (Self crafted), each lasting 40 rounds, and a large portion of the arena floor is painted in undergrowth. There are a nice number of area spells that make it worth-while for a pair of spellcasters who are not set to kill each other, to team up and make life impossible for the rest of the world, until they eventually have to face off. And if there is some rule in this assassin game that says you can only go after your target.... LL vs Cat vs Jindl vs ToK vs Snark Watch this...... LL ==> Jindl ==> Cat ==> ToK ==> Snark ==> LL Now, in this scenario, Snark is hunting LL and LL is hunting Jindl. Do you expect LL to ignore the fact that Snark is trying to kill him? "Hey there Snark! I do wish you'd stop stabbing me in the back, but I'll have to address that when I am done killing Jindl." Okay, so he doesn't ignore Snark, he kills Snark with a +1 Greatsword of SnarkBane and a lucky Crit, and then goes after Jindl. Hey! Now, ToK has to hunt LL. While LL is busy looking for Jindl, he finds that apparently Jindl got into a Cat fight and ... doing the mental calculations ... that means ... where is Cat? And ... looking around, where is ...! ToK drops LL with a well placed arrow (actually a well placed volley of arrows, but who's counting? Rapid shot, Many shot, Crystal Bow of Speed, etc) and now it is down to Cat and ToK ... or is it? Nope. At the last second, in dramatic flare, Cat drops from above, attacks with the classic Vorpal Longsword of dramatic entrances. Fight over, unless Cat CDG's himself for the extra XP and GP. (Would that count double as a win and a loss against yourself?) IF everyone has a sinlge target, Assassin is broken. A free for all makes the most sense and ToK and I have proven that it can be quite functional and VERY easy to manage. If people are wanting to try things out, why not give a test run of both versions? The test run does not have to count at all. Just pick some characters, copy them into another thread and then and when all tactics have been submitted to the pitlord, he can run the fight. Any time of the week, what matters is that we see how the test run functions. The person running it can give feedback on tactics and opinions on what should be included in this different style of multi-opponent combat. LL
Tellish_of_Ket 07-16-05, 01:03 PM	I think everyone saw the potential of many problems with A > B > C > D > A which is why Cat proposed [A vs B] // [C vs D] = [winner ab] vs [winner cd]. But i like what you propose, try them both out. Personally, i like unrestricted FFA as we both proposed but i'm not opposed to trying them both out. -ToK
Caterane 07-16-05, 01:22 PM	We will test the fight but since that's not done in one test run, nor in 3 and we cannot force people to fight or pitlord fights that do not count, we will find out by implementing it next wednesday. I would prefer FFA, sure, but there are many problems. AvsB and CvsD is basically just as small tournament in the same arena which I would like to prevent if possible. So we will go with the A->B->C->D suggestion and see how it works. I also want to point out that it will be more likely only A->B->C because such fights are being used to make uneven leagues even until we get Monster fights back. I've added the rules explanation in the Rules of Gladius: Arena Combat I. If we find a good way to make FFA fights, we will rename the current version "Assassin Fight" or something, and use "All vs All" for FFA fights. The most important thing atm is to get something running...
LLMadCow 07-16-05, 01:44 PM	That's a good idea, Brian, but as I already said, the d20 system is too complex to be based on damage alone. If someone casts 5 penalty spells on a PC, then he has done far more to bring that PC down then the one who kills him in the end with damage. Area effects will only affect your target. Problem solved. I will now go ahead and write up the rules for All vs All fights. We can check them out in the coming weeks, and adjust if necessary. Take note of what I put emphasis on, and let me tell you how AWESOME I think this idea is. There are a lot of questions that go with this, and depdning on the answers, more questions.... 1. Do Lasting Area Effects (LAEs) re-target to your new enemy? (Yes, see 3; No, see 4) 2. Do area effects also affect the caster? (But Cat said 'No') 3. If your 'potential next enemy' witnessed you casting a LAE, and has been immune to it thus far through the battle, and is suddenly affected by it, don't you think this would clue him in? 4. If LAEs do not re-target to your new enemy, then it makes the spell a waste. Why bother? We are looking for balance in the arena, but if a spell is going to be used on one enemy and then dissapate, when it should last much longer, why wouldn't it? The reality of a free for all is that players should be in contact with each other some before hand and if I were involved in one, I would assume as much. The anticipated goal would be: Take out the Primary Spellcasters and Manifesters - Psions, Sorcerers, Wizards and Wilders; Druids, Clerics, Psychic Warriors, and Bards would be next. If you want to go with Assassin, you should make it a big circle, and make it go both ways. You have two targets. Like this: A vs B vs C vs D vs E A <==> B <==> C <==> D <==> E <==> A This is completely fair and as people die, it works like this: A <==> B <==> C <==> D <==> E <==> A A <==> B <==> C <==> D <========> A A <==> B <========> D <========> A <====> B <========> D <==========> D wins Make sense?
Caterane 07-16-05, 01:56 PM	Hm, I thought these area spells would retarget but I think it would be kinda weird. Well, ok, area spells should affect everyone then but if they affect another target, you need to have at least your own target in it too. If the other guy is coincidently also within the area, his fault. Also makes area spells more worthwhile. The assassin circle has the potentiol of teaming up. Just write a secret PM to one of the players: B writes D that both should attack A and C first which are both their targets. Not good. We want to prevent teaming up, or at least make it disadvanteous to you. That's why ABCD is a good thing.
LLMadCow 07-16-05, 01:57 PM	I also want to point out that it will be more likely only A->B->C because such fights are being used to make uneven leagues even until we get Monster fights back. I hate the idea EVEN more, realizing that it is going to be in a small battle scenario. So, the best I can do is set my dodge buddy as the guy who I am not attacking, and hope for the best. Run away from Joe and Attack Bob. If I manage to kill Bob, then turn and Kill Joe. Your tactics have to be insane. Especially so, if your target is hiding and buffing for 9 rounds, while your enemy is outright trying to kill you for those 9 rounds, and you are not allowed to fight back at all? Mean while, the guy who has been trying to kill you has been expending resources on you and now the guy buffing jumps out and kills the guy. Real fair there! How many fights have one PC with a HUGE Hide/MS and the other has a low Spot/Listen and so easily nothing happens for a while. Well, in this case the hider hides and the spoter gets killed while he is not allowed to fend off his attacker. Then, as it turns out the guy who is hiding is easily spotted by the guy who is still in combat, so he gives up hiding and buffing and is forced into combat. It could go a lot of different ways, but I do know that forcing a specific opponent in a 3 way fight is not fair and balanced.
Caterane 07-16-05, 02:18 PM	@He-who-is-never-satified.... oh wait, that was Zerone :D I am sure will find a flaw in every scenario. If your target (B) is hiding, then the target of your target (C) can kill your hunter (D) more easily because he has no pressure from behind which in return frees your back.
LLMadCow 07-16-05, 02:47 PM	@He-who-is-never-satified.... oh wait, that was Zerone :D I am sure will find a flaw in every scenario. If your target (B) is hiding, then the target of your target (C) can kill your hunter (D) more easily because he has no pressure from behind which in return frees your back. THERE IS NO D! I am specificially speaking of a A vs B vs C battle. 3 people. How is it NOT teaming up on someone when you can make it so he can attack no one and at the same time be attacked mercilessly with no recourse? That is a distinct possibility, by a variety of means, using your plan. Ghost ==> Angel ==> Wilder ==> Ghost Check this out. Angel downs a Potion: Hide/Undead, declares he is doing a bunch of buffing, attack Wilder once, down another Pot:H/U and then resume buffing. Wilder is not being attacked by Angel, so he is free to find some miraculous way to assault Ghost. Wilder assaults Ghost with a few mind thrusts and drops it. Now, Ghost could not locate Angel and Ghost could not attack Wilder; is that fair? Sounds to me like a form of double teaming to totally negate all aspects of an opponent. Remove their ability to attack and remove their ability to defend against their only attacker. Finally, Angel comes along and just destroys Wilder, since Angel spent a bunch of rounds buffing and ignoring Ghost. Sounds easy to me. I'd love to be Angel I'd hate to be Ghost. In other scenarios I am sure there are other characters to hate to be, but it will all come in due time.
Caterane 07-16-05, 02:56 PM	Well, what the ghost could do is to request a rerun in the FOTW thread for being damaged by a mind thrust. You see, everything is balanced. PS: you forgot player D.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-16-05, 03:32 PM	PS: you forgot player D. Uh, i sense a size 7 coming soon. lol -ToK
LLMadCow 07-16-05, 03:42 PM	Well, what the ghost could do is to request a rerun on the FOTW thread for being damaged by a mind thrust. You see, everything is balanced. PS: you forgot player D. THERE IS NO PLAYER D! Fine. Try this on for size..... Edited to remove any silly arguements. Ghost ==> Angel ==> Wilder ==> Ghost Angel Casts: Hide/Undead (High DC, and Ghost fails Will Save), declares he is doing a bunch of buffing, attack Wilder once, recasts H/U (Ghost rolls poorly again) and then resumes buffing. Wilder is not being attacked by Angel, so he is free to find some miraculous way to assault Ghost. Wilder assaults Ghost with SOME MIRACULOUS ASSAULT and drops it. Now, Ghost could not locate Angel and Ghost could not attack Wilder; is that fair? Sounds to me like a form of double teaming to totally negate all aspects of an opponent. Remove their ability to attack and remove their ability to defend against their only attacker. Finally, Angel comes along and just destroys Wilder, since Angel spent a bunch of rounds buffing and ignoring Ghost. I am not here to debate how to kill Anna. I am here to say that there is a SEVERE PROBLEM with the current plan for a 3 way fight. Cat, you can argue semantics with me if you wish, I will argue semantics and become legalistic. Fighter ==> Rogue ==> Wizard ==> Fighter The Rogue quickly hides and begins buffing. The Wizard buffs 3 rounds and goes after the Fighter. The fighter hopelessly hunts the Rogue while getting blasted by a few spells. Sadly, the spells do not do enough to kill the fighter, so the wizard is reduced to stabbing the fighter with a dagger. All he needs is a 19 or 20, and 2 hits x average damage, drops the fighter, since the fighter is out of CLWs. So, while the Wizard is very annoying and stabbing the fighter, the fighter hunts for the Rogue. Finally the rogue starts sniping the Wizard. Since the Wizard cannot help the fighter, and why would he want to, he cannot point and say - they rogue is over there. So, finally the Wizard rolls a crit and drops the fighter with a DAGGER! Then the rogue finishes off the Wizard who has no more spells left, so yippie! Rebuttal? Ask for a rerun on the grounds that the wizard killed the fighter with a dagger and a crit? Good luck on that one! LL
Caterane 07-17-05, 07:25 AM	Fighter ==> Rogue ==> Wizard ==> Fighter If there's no player D, then who is the second fighter? Ok, serious now. I am aware that there are problems with either system. Let me list them here again: A->B->C->D: Good thing is that you can easily tell who defeated how many gladiators, thus calculate the rewards easily. Also easiest way to write tactics on. Problem is that you cannot counterattack and seems a bit unfair but is necessary to prevent teams, and reward quick kills. A<->B<->C<->D: Also a good variant of the one above. While counterattacks are now possible, the problem of teams comes up again, and more than ever: A&C vs B&D comes naturally since neither A and C (or B and D) cannot attack each other. This however is no team fight but an All vs All and it should be clearly distinguishable. AvsBvsCvsD: That's free for all. Most interesting variant because everyone can attack you, and vice versa. Disadvantage is the problem of teaming up (let's say A is considered dangerous; might cause BCD to attack him together so he has no chance) and that sneakers can keep out of combat. Most importantly however is that we have no real and easy way to assign rewards. AvsB and CvsD: Easiest way to run such a fight but it has little difference to a regular arena fight. It'd be basically only 2 different fights in one arena. Rewards are easy to calculate and tactics can be written on it too. Still, that's not a real all vs all fight. We will go with variant 1 for now and learn from it. Nothing is set in stone yet. Anti-Size7-Reply: Ok, and now on to the 3 player scenario. You scenario is a weird one; artificially constructed to show the most flawed version of a fight, not the average fight. I can do the same with regular arena fights and use it to prove that arena fights don't work. If it turns out that every 3-player fight looks like your scenario, then we can discuss it again. And a mage out of ammo: can only be Rook :P There should also be no 2 different rules for the same fight type (one for 3 Players, one for 4).
Tellish_of_Ket 07-17-05, 11:28 AM	AvsBvsCvsD: That's free for all. Most interesting variant because everyone can attack you, and vice versa. Disadvantage is the problem of teaming up (let's say A is considered dangerous; might cause BCD to attack him together so he has no chance) and that sneakers can keep out of combat. Most importantly however is that we have no real and easy way to assign rewards. Because of teaming up? Part of life. If i get teamed up against, well, it sux to be me i guess. I still get loss xp from all 3. LL and I have developed a perfect way of doing exp. And your only argument? Someone casts hold person and the other guy CDG's him. Well, if you're dumb enough to hold person someone while he's fighting beside someone else, you deserve to lose the xp for him/her. And answer this. If you are in a home campaign, and two parties encounter a group of orcs. Your party leads off with an entangle and a hold person, the other party, whom are right beside them, one CDG's the orc at the edge of the entangle, and before your group can run up, the other parties wizard fireballs them and kills them. Does your group get any exp? Nope...not a single one. So why should you in the arena? Saying that the xp%/hp is flawed because of non-damaging spells in itself is flawed. Saying it's long, cumbersome and time-consuming to calculate is also wrong. It's super easy to calculate. Uhm, why is there no elder vote on which system we try out? Why do you get to arbitrarily chose which system we test? Not complaining, just curious. You know, asking before accusing? LOL LOL roflmao. -ToK
Caterane 07-17-05, 11:44 AM	Because of teaming up? Part of life. If i get teamed up against, well, it sux to be me i guess. I still get loss xp from all 3. That's not part of life. That does not reflect an equal fight and is unfair. I can remember a fight between two friends here where one was a wizard who cast expeditious retreat while flying and such crap only that his friend wins. Just write a PM to one of the others and the match has nothing to do with "All vs All" but "BC work together". And your answer is "Sure it sucks but that's life". And answer this. If you are in a home campaign, and two parties encounter a group of orcs. Your party leads off with an entangle and a hold person, the other party, whom are right beside them, one CDG's the orc at the edge of the entangle, and before your group can run up, the other parties wizard fireballs them and kills them. Does your group get any exp? Nope...not a single one. So why should you in the arena? Saying that the xp%/hp is flawed because of non-damaging spells in itself is flawed. Saying it's long, cumbersome and time-consuming to calculate is also wrong. It's super easy to calculate. Wrong, both parties would share the xp. Example: in the Arbiter Campaign, Ixenthor dealt 41 damage to the devil, two others 8 each, and two of them no damage at all. How do we distribute xp? Evenly. Even if a guy is just standing there, he poses a threat which the attacker needs to take into consideration thus has an impact on the outcome. That's how the system works. And hold person wasn't my only argument. Seems like I need to repeat myself several times these days. Arguments: - There are non-damaging spells that are not taken into consideration if you go for hp, ranging from hold person to ray of enfeeblement. - Every spell, power, even the mere prescence of a gladiator has an impact on the fight. Hp are only a small aspect of d20. - Your system is way too complicated. Some Pitlords don't even get the xp for regular arena fights right.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-17-05, 12:02 PM	That's not part of life. That does not reflect an equal fight and is unfair. I can remember a fight between two friends here where one was a wizard who cast expeditious retreat while flying and such crap only that his friend wins. Just write a PM to one of the others and the match has nothing to do with "All vs All" but "BC work together". And your answer is "Sure it sucks but that's life". Wrong, both parties would share the xp. Example: in the Arbiter Campaign, Ixenthor dealt 41 damage to the devil, two others 8 each, and two of them no damage at all. How do we distribute xp? Evenly. Even if a guy is just standing there, he poses a threat which the attacker needs to take into consideration thus has an impact on the outcome. That's how the system works. And hold person wasn't my only argument. Seems like I need to repeat myself several times these days. Arguments: - There are non-damaging spells that are not taken into consideration if you go for hp, ranging from hold person to ray of enfeeblement. - Every spell, power, even the mere prescence of a gladiator has an impact on the fight. Hp are only a small aspect of d20. - Your system is way too complicated. Some Pitlords don't even get the xp for regular arena fights right. You missed my point. I said two OPPOSING parties. Not people in the same party. Ixenthor was in the party with the players, you are all in the same party. Of course you share the exp. My example used two parties working independently of each other. -ToK
Caterane 07-17-05, 12:04 PM	I understood that. Still, same thing: xp will be shared among all combatants.
LLMadCow 07-25-05, 01:41 AM	After a lengthy rant, I must edit and rescind my post. The D&D FAQ address the use of Prot:G/E/L/C and mentions that Hold Person is not affected by the Protection From Spells. LL
Sindorin 07-27-05, 08:52 AM	My silence on the Council ends. I figure I must go on record with how I feel about this. I do not like the idea of an all vs. all fight. I do not like the "target - hunter" system. It complicates tactics to no end because people will make builds like Laph that are nearly impossible to see, and they will at the same time see everyone else. It could be like target practice... I just think that they will be the most unfair direction we could ever take a random pairing in. The reason is because there are builds that are simply not designed for this. If these are to be carried out, I want the 1/3 rule withdrawn and wizards to be able to memorize half their spells in their tactics, the way it was. None of this funny business. Not that it will impact me much, as I have two characters in campaigns and won't have any fightining in the arena, the place that has all the silly house rules that I don't like. If we do start having consistent all vs. all fights, I will make a gladiator to test it out though :) ~Sindorin
Tellish_of_Ket 07-27-05, 05:08 PM	Then why not a "Monster Mash"? Whoever is left over are 'teamed together' to fight a hoard of creatures equal to each of their ECL's? So four players leftover of ECL 3, means there are four critters at the opposite end of ECL 3. That way, in a victory OR defeat, everyone gets the same exp that they would get for a gladiator at their level. -ToK
Sindorin 08-08-05, 05:55 PM	I need clarification for a few fellows of ours who have an issue in a fight this week. Knockdown requires Improved Trip which grants a free attack after the successful trip check. There are they who say that Knockdown negates the free followup attack, whereas I believe that you still get the attack. The only way it would seem that this would not be allowed is if it has something to do with the character's Base Attack Bonus... Please state your opinion on whether or not Knockdown grants the prerequisite Improved Trip's effect of a free follow up attack. Thanks.
Caterane 08-08-05, 07:15 PM	The Improved trip feat gives you a free attack "if you trip an opponoment" which you do with knockdown. The second part of the sentence ("as if you hadn't used your attack for the trip attempt") might confuse people in that they assume that a trip attempt is no attack but that's no true. Trip attempts would even break invisibility. Also see quote below: KNOCK-DOWN [GENERAL] Prerequisites: Base attack bonus +2, Improved Trip, Str 15. Benefit: Whenever you deal 10 or more points of damage to your opponent in melee, you make a trip attack as a free action against the same target. Hope that helps.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-08-05, 09:23 PM	OK, i'm not sure what you are saying, but i let me understand something. If you knockdown someone, you also get a follow up attack? No, that is wrong. You do not. To get the follow up attack, you need to "improved trip" someone. Although it is a pre-requisite for the knockdown feat, the feat that is actually coming into play is "knockdown", not imporved trip. You just had your attack to knock the guy down, you do not get another attack. Improved Trip is specific in saying "as though you hadn't", and knockdown doesn't. Think of Knockdown as a reverse improved trip. You actually hit and dmg your opponent BEFORE you trip him. Improved trip is, you trip him first THEN dmg him. -ToK