Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Moherajikuyx 08-06-04, 04:45 PM	I create this thread in the hope that the cocoers (argh what a term) come here to discuss about balance... And that they stop using a single thread to discuss things... The full mature proposal is here with the discussion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4194207#post4194207) Uhm, uhm... I was wondering about a thing that I don't think is in the SRD: how many encounters does the DMG forecasts for parties? Wasn't it something like 13.33 any level, of the appropriate CR. Can anybody do some research? I don't have the books with me here at Florence. If that's it, why don't we do.. let's see... 13.33/4 (number of average members) =3.3 encounters/day in average? It's easy: at the end of any week, the gms roll a "wait dice" that decides if the next pairing is to be considered during the same day: we find a formula to make it keep that average. So, we know what buffs wear off and we finally throw away the 16 hours rule, which I never liked because it feels so authoritatively imposed and so little core (and it was decided by me! :embarass: ), and the mages could make use also of littler buffs but less times a day. Isn't this more like your campaign...? Of course, from 24:00 to 8:00 should be devoted to rest & prayers, so we might also say that from 21 to 24 it gets darker and we finally make use of darkvision... Mhh... Other discussion ;) This would give a sense to having more than a single level of barbarian or bard. (More variety!) And fighters, since they don't have x uses/day abilities. I feel that this helps the weakest classes! Now this would be a serious reform, but.. It could have some sense. And if I'm correct about the rules (not sure), it would be core! And balancing! And if I don't miss the sense of Motherbast's suggestion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4116038#post4116038), it's within the same line of reasoning. Of course, it's to be talked about. A lot! Opinions?
SnarkHunter 08-06-04, 09:58 PM	I have only one suggestion: Ban Phantom Steed. I've seen more specific complaints about this (as opposed to rambling beligerent incoherent rants about spellcasting) item then anything else. That's all I have to say other then I've said before.
Market_Share 08-06-04, 11:55 PM	Originally posted by SnarkHunter I have only one suggestion: Ban Phantom Steed. I've seen more specific complaints about this (as opposed to rambling beligerent incoherent rants about spellcasting) item then anything else. That's all I have to say other then I've said before. Thank you, thank you very much. I'll take that as a compliment. I remember when i first incorporated the "phantom strike" and listed it in my pre-buffs i had a lot of laughs. Weak, poor hp, die fast. LOL LOL now people are calling for it's banning. oooooooh, i love being a trend setter. lol I like MO's idea. I know i once thought about bringing up the topic of a "clock" for the arena. This could be the same thing really. All pairings are announced in a "clock" schedule. If there are more fights than slots in a day, then bonus to them. Otherwise ya gotta wait until the next day. Let me cut/past the current fighting schedule and make it "clock style" Level 2 [Raven Spark (Tellish of Ket) out for # of PCs] 06:00 Pyre the Red vs Visciocelis Tharkan 06:15 Vanndameer Black vs Parable 06:30 Akrep vs Moksha Jehannum 06:45 Jaguar hunts a polar bear Level 3 07:00 Sildaris vs Mr.Big Level 4 [Sunshine (Hatzinger) out for # of PCs] 07:15 Cuul the Cruel vs Domai Level 5 07:30 Cyric Tor vs Ildechai Hazeweaver Level 6 07:45 Death Dealer vs Pard Longfellow Level 7 08:00 Tair Malek vs Evram the Soulless Level 8 08:15 Bloodmaiden Shiaan vs Ernie the Great Level 9 08:30 Vaarkalikax the Lichking vs Brock Granitehand Level 10 [Hurtz (Tellish of Ket) out for # of PCs] 08:45 Sven Enno vs Delayar Level 11 09:00 Aemon vs Dusk 09:15 Lillith vs Enilias Surion 09:30 Rhoar vs Zephin Telloran Level 12 09:45 Angosh vs Prof. Vandaeris Dre'Dandrahl 10:00 SPIKE! hunts the Roc Level 13!! 10:15 The Harvester (1st avatar) vs Arkin Jozil 10:30 Bruno Wilikens chllg Johan Talyana 10:45 Jindl of the High Forest vs Candessa Rain 11:00 Brackin Bonesnapper vs The Harvester (2nd avatar) 11:15 Aku vs Corinthus Avius 11:30 Ebelin Barnahdy vs Heinrich 11:45 Donkey vs Kiri'endelas 12:00 Kelek vs Drak'something 12:15Clìodhna d'Elrich vs Zedarak Combats on the following week would commence at 12:30. This way, Gladius is alive 24/7. Non-stop blood and guts...oooh yeah. Time is used. Buffs, even small ones can be carried through to the next fight, but obviously, pre-buffs would need to be eliminated for this to work. Or the Colliseum closes so the sanitation crew can pick up the strewn body parts and soak up some of the blood. Say, between 2am-6am. So, since you need 8hrs of rest before you can get your spell selection back, you may actually need to take a day off to re-coup. Otherwise, you could end up with 3 or 4 fights all in a row before you get your spells back. Warriors could pay the NPC healer to heal them etc... Or even take this a step further. I know I'm going to be fighting Delayar at 8:45 and Vaarkalikax just made luncheon meat out of Brock. I could buy my spells from Vaar if he thinks he can spare it and guesses on a long list of gladiators so that he may only have to fight twice in a day. Bang....Vaark gives me fly and a bear's endurance. I pay him the npc casting rate, he makes a few bucks and i get a few buffs. This would really represent a true working economy to Gladius. And hey, London has Big Ben for the clock right? Well, now we got BIG SPIKE! for ours. lol. With this we can institute crafting. Since i'm a master smith, and Mr. Big can't even weave simple baskets, i can craft it for him. Of course, since we are in a clock, that means i need to take the time off splitting skulls in the arena...most likely two weeks or could even be three. But it would be truely representative. Now Mr. Big is walking around with his Adamantine Greatsword with a SPIKE! ensignia on it. Of course on your character sheet you would have to show "crafted by Spike" of course. But whaddya think? Cool? I think it's really cool. SPIKE!
Druid Roxors 08-07-04, 12:16 AM	Cool indeed, but far too complicated. Specially for the newcomers.
MotherBast 08-07-04, 12:26 AM	not to mention is throws off the welth by level charts by allowing spellcasters and crafters to have more money at any given level.
Moherajikuyx 08-08-04, 12:13 PM	MB, I wanted to ask you - do you think that my idea more or less equates to yours in terms of spell hurlers balancing? you suggested max 2 spells, I suggest replenish abilities after more or less 3.33 fights. Sounds quite the same numerically, but if I'm right my suggestion comes straight from the DMG. Could anyone find the passage from the DMG I'm talking about and summarize it pls? It isn't in the SRD and I don't have the books here in Florence.
MotherBast 08-08-04, 12:25 PM	To be honest MO, I have never head that bit about 3.3 fights a day. I know its 13.3 fights a level. I usually have 12 to 15 encounters (including traps/puzzles) in a dungon, and my players usually gain 1 level per dungon, and they usually do the whole dungon in 1 or two days. But your suggestion does sound similar to mine, except in mine, the Caster would be able to have a full set of spells memed every fight, and pick which ones he wanted. In yours, he would have "used" spells he did not have access to any longer.
Tellish_of_Ket 08-08-04, 12:59 PM	I thought i remembered reading 4 encounters per day. I know that's what we simulate in Living Greyhawk. 3 encounters before rememing spells doesn't sound too bad. -ToK
Caterane 08-08-04, 05:18 PM	I agree. It's a great idea! Not only does it bring us closer to the much sought after campaign simulation, it also helps us balance the spellcaster vs melee problem. Of course, there are still those who are convinced that a campaign character memorizes anew after every fight... :rolleyes:
KerlanRayne 08-08-04, 08:42 PM	I have a problem with the 3 fights a day proposal. Those three fights a day are for a spellcaster in a party of four characters. Therefore they won't use as many spells since they have more support. I'm not a DM so the following may be incorrect. From what I know, each of those 3 fights a day is, for example, a 5th level party against a 5th level enemy. You want to carry this over into a 5th level vs 5th level fight? Seems off to me. If you went with the fights per day proposal, I wouldn't go over 2 at most. KerlanRayne
Druid Roxors 08-08-04, 08:50 PM	What you are saying is this: 4 level 10 pc equipped adventurers face 4 level 10 pc equipped adventurers 3 times a day. That is NUTS! You are facing something you have 50% chance to defeat 3 times a day!? What the hell!?!? and after the first, you got even less resources! So its like 50% - 40% - 20%... This idea is wrong, very wrong, Wrong.
Moherajikuyx 08-10-04, 07:41 AM	Well, kind of, but DR: after any fight characters and their allies are restored and healed and dispelled of negative effects, so most of their resources are given back, but spells (and x/day abilities). And we're trying to balance exactly that, right? (About x/day abilites: making poor third barbie level useful is a Good Thing tm!) Fighters would have a boost from this, since their resources - hps - would be all replanished, while casters would be somewhat weakened. Sorcs infinitely less than wizards (another Good Thing), given the number of spells that they can hurl. Originally posted by MotherBast I know its 13.3 fights a level. Doh, you're right. Is there anything about the fights/day? I fear there's not. This makes the proposal lose an aura of core-ness. Still, I think I like it. I quite like the random-wait thing: it's easy, just a roll by a gm after the pairings, which tells at what time will next fight be (it should return an average of (24-8)*60/(3/10)= 288 minutes of wait, have really low variation, and have possible return values from 0 to infinite: any mathematician around?) If the time results after 24 h, then it goes to next day. With this setup, we can begin talking about lighting and shadows, which is something that keeps returning from the first arena in the CO board :) Originally posted by MotherBast But your suggestion does sound similar to mine, except in mine, the Caster would be able to have a full set of spells memed every fight, and pick which ones he wanted. In yours, he would have "used" spells he did not have access to any longer. Well, isn't it what happens in encounters after the first on a given day? Usually casters memorize some spells and leave some slots open for later, while some others are already used that day. Usually there isn't an enormous time before the encounter so my proposal gets another detail: I think that casters should be able to leave as many slots open as they wish, but they should be permitted to mem only one spell after the pairings. Edit: about this idea, it owns much to Kerlan Rayne's, in the other thread, of one per level.
Druid Roxors 08-10-04, 11:59 PM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx Doh, you're right. Is there anything about the fights/day? I fear there's not. This makes the proposal lose an aura of core-ness. Still, I think I like it.Its on the DMG page 49. Paraphrasing: A party of 4 should be able to handle 4 encounters per day of the same CR as the average level of the party and spending 20% of their resources with it. It also says: Should a challenge be 1 or more CR's higher than the party level, They would be lucky to be able to handle 2 of them before having to rest. Well, kind of, but DR: after any fight characters and their allies are restored and healed and dispelled of negative effects, so most of their resources are given back, but spells (and x/day abilities). And we're trying to balance exactly that, right? (About x/day abilites: making poor third barbie level useful is a Good Thing tm!) Fighters would have a boost from this, since their resources - hps - would be all replanished, while casters would be somewhat weakened. Sorcs infinitely less than wizards (another Good Thing), given the number of spells that they can hurl.I fear that this would hurt certain types of casters more than others. "One trick ponies" would be severely hindered by this, fighters with 1 sorcerer level for true strike, people with few cleric levels just for the extra punch (Dusk), Warrior Mages like Aku and other such characters. Besides, It would be very unfair that if you faced a weak character last week or were very lucky (one hit win) you are at a horrible advantage against another caster that did met his match. I quite like the random-wait thing: it's easy, just a roll by a gm after the pairings, which tells at what time will next fight be (it should return an average of (24-8)*60/(3/10)= 288 minutes of wait, have really low variation, and have possible return values from 0 to infinite: any mathematician around?) If the time results after 24 h, then it goes to next day. With this setup, we can begin talking about lighting and shadows, which is something that keeps returning from the first arena in the CO board :)It would be incompatible with the facts I pointed above and far to complicated... IMHO Well, isn't it what happens in encounters after the first on a given day? Usually casters memorize some spells and leave some slots open for later, while some others are already used that day.Nop, only Wizards are able to do what you say. Clerics and Druids can only prepare spells once a Day. Although they can use emtpy slots to cast spontanious spells. Usually there isn't an enormous time before the encounter so my proposal gets another detail: I think that casters should be able to leave as many slots open as they wish, but they should be permitted to mem only one spell after the pairings.Hmmm, Tricky. A slight boost on the caster's side but at the cost of half of their power (or more?). I personally do not like it. It is, in any case, Just my opinion
KerlanRayne 08-11-04, 04:37 AM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx Edit: about this idea, it owns much to KerlanRayne's, in the other thread, of one per level. I think the full premem is too strict. It cuts into their benefit of flexability. Like I said before, I think prememorizing all but one spell per level strikes a good balance. KerlanRayne
Ashenai 08-11-04, 05:04 AM	I think the full premem is too strict. It cuts into their benefit of flexability. Like I said before, I think prememorizing all but one spell per level strikes a good balance. I do not agree that full premem makes full casters too inflexible; if you look at the roster, you'll find that a full caster generally knows that he'll be facing one of about 3-4 opponents. Even with the current full premem rules, that's not so many that he can't prepare for every opponent, at least somewhat. I think the current full premem system is better than the half premem system we had earlier, but it's probably not perfect. I think some "halfway" system, such as the one you propose, would be well worth considering... but only if and when we manage to make the arena less tilted towards spellcasters, particularly prepared spellcasters. If we ever get to a point where we can say "spellcasters aren't overpowered at medium levels"--and by that I mean that a well-prepared level 8 meleer should have at least a 50% chance of beating a well-prepared caster, and a level 13 meleer should still have at least a 25-30% chance against a level 13 caster--then I think giving prepared spellcasters a bit of their flexibility back might be a good idea. Until then, it's not something I'd support.
Moherajikuyx 08-11-04, 08:55 AM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Should a challenge be 1 or more CR's higher than the party level, They would be [b]lucky to be able to handle 2 of them before having to rest. As I said, the characters are fully restored, healed, de-poisoned, de-enchanted, etc, it's almost like having rest - but for spells, which we're trying to balance. Originally posted by Druid Roxors I fear that this would hurt certain types of casters more than others. "One trick ponies" would be severely hindered by this, fighters with 1 sorcerer level for true strike, people with few cleric levels just for the extra punch (Dusk), Warrior Mages like Aku and other such characters. It's fine with me: why do we have only level 1 barbarians? Because one single rage is enough in the CoCo. This is a plain and obvious distortion of a normal setting! The same goes for single-level casters: they can have all their buffs in all their encounters, even though in a normal campaign that would not be permitted. So I see them as a problem to solve: a wiz 1/fighter 3 should be more or less powerful as much as a fighter 4, not a lot more thanks to 100% buffing all the times which offsets the bab penalty, gives a lot more AC and damage and more stuff, plainly overwhelming that single feat the fighter has more than him. Originally posted by Druid Roxors Clerics and Druids can only prepare spells once a Day.Correct. That should be a peculiarity of wizards then, thanks. About luck: that would balance itself, once it happens to you and once to another one. About complication: which of the gms you don't think could handle rolling a dice once a week? :) If the complication is finding the formula, I will find it don't worry. Originally posted by Ashenai If we ever get to a point where we can say "spellcasters aren't overpowered at medium levels"--and by that I mean that a well-prepared level 8 meleer should have at least a 50% chance of beating a well-prepared caster, and a level 13 meleer should still have at least a 25-30% chance against a level 13 caster--then I think giving prepared spellcasters a bit of their flexibility back might be a good idea. Until then, it's not something I'd support. Correct, but the wizards should be allowed to use the spell slots left free rule. I think that one per encounter is ok. I just saw a problem in my proposal... It doesn't take into account levelling, which changes things between a fight and the other. Should we level only at the end of the days? No that doesn't sound fair... Probably, the best thing would be to carry on doing everything as usual, and consider the used slots used, nothing more. This happens in campaigns too. But this raises a question: dms, do you permit spellcasters to prepare as slots left free the new slots from levelling during the day? I think it should not be allowed, but I can't recall any rule about this.
Druid Roxors 08-11-04, 10:26 AM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx As I said, the characters are fully restored, healed, de-poisoned, de-enchanted, etc, it's almost like having rest - but for spells, which we're trying to balance. Considering a caster's hp (healing), and etc (spells) are about 90% of their resources, I feel this is a bit too extreme. It's fine with me: why do we have only level 1 barbarians? Because one single rage is enough in the CoCo. This is a plain and obvious distortion of a normal setting! The same goes for single-level casters: they can have all their buffs in all their encounters, even though in a normal campaign that would not be permitted. So I see them as a problem to solve: a wiz 1/fighter 3 should be more or less powerful as much as a fighter 4, not a lot more thanks to 100% buffing all the times which offsets the bab penalty, gives a lot more AC and damage and more stuff, plainly overwhelming that single feat the fighter has more than him. Correct. That should be a peculiarity of wizards then, thanks.Nevertheless, the builds are already in the CoCo and you would be surprised that they are not rare in a campaign. One-trick-ponies are popular because they can deal a great ammount of damage at certain times, which is most of the time when the BBG appears. Furthermore, this characters are as effective as pure fighters the rest of the time. The problem that we have is that the fighter class is not powerful enough to take more than 1-4 levels. It is a waste of time, here, and in a RL Campagin. About luck: that would balance itself, once it happens to you and once to another one.I believe we were supposed to be testing a build's Strenght, not its luck. I don't want to see what happens to casters who loose and are still with 1/10th of their spells left. Should this be the case, we would be better off by simply limiting a caster's slots by 2/3. (Which I am not in favor either, btw) About complication: which of the gms you don't think could handle rolling a dice once a week? :) If the complication is finding the formula, I will find it don't worry.By complication I mean having to meassure spell timers and substract the ammount the DM rolls, then having them spread out on the character sheets. Also, monitoring the last fight to make sure the caster did take out the right spells and left the slots and... I feel it is not worth the effort. Correct, but the wizards should be allowed to use the spell slots left free rule. I think that one per encounter is ok.I believe, and perhaps many others, that wizards are at par with Divine casters. Particularily at higher levels. I do not see why we should make this change. I just saw a problem in my proposal... It doesn't take into account levelling, which changes things between a fight and the other. Should we level only at the end of the days? No that doesn't sound fair... Probably, the best thing would be to carry on doing everything as usual, and consider the used slots used, nothing more. This happens in campaigns too. But this raises a question: dms, do you permit spellcasters to prepare as slots left free the new slots from levelling during the day? I think it should not be allowed, but I can't recall any rule about this. I would obviously let them prepare the extra spells. A level 11 wizard with no level 6 spells is NOT a CR 11 Encounter!
roll8dn 08-11-04, 01:51 PM	As far as the proposed rule of more than one fight a day, I see no problem with it. That, however, is just my opinion. As far as the arcane versus divine magic debate, well: From the SRD: "Spell Selection and Preparation: ...When preparing spells for the day, a wizard can leave some of these spell slots open. Later during the day, she can repeat the preparation process as often as she likes, time and circumstances permitting...She cannot, however, abadon a previously prepared spell to replace it with another one or fill a slot that is empty because she has cast a spell in the meantime. That sort of preparation requires a mind fresh from rest. Like the first session of the day, this preparation takes at least 15 minutes, and it takes longer if the wizard prepares more than one quarter of her spells." "Time of Day: A divine spellcaster chooses and prepares spells ahead of time, just like a wizard does. However, a divine spellcaster does not require a period of rest to prepare spells. Instead, the character chooses a particular part of the day to pray and recieve spells." So, this means that divine casters would be somewhat less effective in their spell selection than arcane casters. However, the divine casters have several fetures to offset this: casting in armor, better BAB, better HP, alternate forms (if one is a Druid), spontaneus casting, better skill selection (in the case of the Ranger), better saves, etc. I honestly think that this would balance the classes in the arena. Remember, the classes that WOTC put together are supposed to work together. That means that each of them is good a things that the others are not. Hence, all of the "Fighters are weak", "Clerics are broken", arguments, etc. So, since fighting more than one battle is what the Fighter, Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger, and Monk classes are good at, this would help balance things in their favor. Since the Wizard class gets to choose which spells they want for each fight, then they get to balance out their lower BAB and smaller list of class features. Since Sorcerers get to be able to choose which spells they want on the fly, this helps balance out their set spell selection and their slower access to spells. Since Clerics and Druids get a set selection of spells a day, this helps balance out their better BAB and class features. Hence, I believe it would be a good idea. The only problem that I really see is the complexities of timekeeping. If anyone knows of a good way to do this, I would be very glad to hear it. I still think that we should implement this idea and test it out to see whether it works or not, whether or not someone comes up with a non-labor intensive way of keeping track of time. Just my opinion...
Ashenai 08-11-04, 01:58 PM	I proposed a similar scheme a short while back; it's buried somewhere amongst the Tavern posts. Unfortunately, my proposal is far too complicated, and I'm not sure it can be easily simplified. One of the great things about the CoCo, IMO, is that you don't have to learn a lot of niggling little things to join. You just create (or update) your character, maybe send a PM if needed, and bam, it gets paired, and it fights. I think having to use a complicated system just to figure out how many spells your spellcaster can memorize is liable to scare away newbies. And I don't think that's what we want to do at all.
Ender the Xenocide 08-11-04, 02:45 PM	I don't think we should try to change classes, spells, ect. just because they are powerful. Isn't the purpose of the CoCo to find these things? If you say warriors are weaker than casters, then don't play one. If you ask me, I'd say that the CoCo is accomplishing what it set out to do. Is anyone going to play a mage in a campaign that doesn't use phantom steed? Or a druid that doesn't change into a creature that can grapple? People lately have been backing up most of their proposed changes by saying that it would make the game more "core". If I understand correctly, the CoCo wasn't made as a game, but to test builds. The impression I get from a few people is that they want it to be more of a game. I think a second CoCo should be made, one that is more of a game, where things could be balanced out so that the best strategist wins, not the one with the best class. I for one would take part in both. As for this CoCo, I think things should stay the same, exept for minor things, like random starting positions, ect. Obvously the CoCo is getting things done, so if it aint broke, don't fix it.
Ashenai 08-11-04, 02:55 PM	I think a second CoCo should be made, one that is more of a game, where things could be balanced out so that the best strategist wins, not the one with the best class. No!!! At least, not for a good while yet. I've seen this happen before, in other communities. Bifurcation kills. If a community is not exceptionally stable and operating near (or even over) maximum load, then splitting it into two separate but similar components will wither and quite possibly kill it. I think the CoCo is doing very well right now. Compromises are being made (and more will have to be made) on both sides, and the game will end up being fun for everyone. And when we don't know what to do with the huge influx of people, maybe we can get back to this. Right now, I think we need to make things better. Make things more Core, more "realistic", more balanced, and more fun. This is really why I think we should at least try random arenas for a while. Variety is fun! Happily, it's also more "realistic" and more balanced, and doesn't affect the Core aspect.
Pitlords 08-11-04, 03:15 PM	Sorry to post with p/l account, but Ash, i was thinking instead of random arena, howabout "rotating" arenas? use a different arena each week. If we have 4 different arena's, that would help spice things up, without totally confusing people. That way it would give a gladiator a few days (almost a week) to study the arena and be a little more prepared when it comes to tactics time. Just a thought though. -ToK
Ashenai 08-11-04, 03:23 PM	I think that would be good. Better than the single arena we have now. The reason I believe random arenas would be ideal, though, is exactly because it adds unpredictability, which helps both "realism" (in real campaigns, you don't usually know exactly where you're going to fight) and balance (it hoses prepared casters slightly, which I'm in favour of). On the other hand, I understand that random arenas might be asking too much from the pitlords. It does up the difficulty of modding a fight considerably. So yes, I'd definitely support your suggestion, as a good compromise. If we find that it makes things too difficult for the Pitlords, we can always go back to how things are now. If, on the other hand, we find that it's really not that hard, and we decide that the benefits are worth it, we can choose to stay with rotating arenas or try the next step, random arenas. In any case, the worst thing that could happen is that we find out that the idea is unworkable in practice, and possibly have a messed-up week with lots of late fights. The best thing that could happen is that the CoCo gains a fun, colourful new feature. I think the potential gains far outweigh the risks. So, yes. I'd certainly be in favour of rotating arenas.
Moherajikuyx 08-11-04, 04:02 PM	I can't see the difficulty of my proposal for the players (I'm assuming you pals talk about this, the gms are all obviously able to handle it... Are they? :D). The only tasks it requires are handled by pitlords - when they write the fight, they have to write the spells used among the used resources with starting times - and by gms - they have to roll a dice once a week and when the day passes, they have to write it clear and big on the roster. I think that's about it. Druid R - checking is already more or less done, with equipment, and the spells would require practically no more time, the sheet to be checked being the same as the equipment. -- wizos vs. others -- Yes wizos should be given the chance to fill a slot per fight, but no more: I don't think I ever let it happen once, as a gm; I can see situations in which the wiz has 15' before fighting, so that's fine with me. But I can't absolutely say that more than 15' should be a common situation. This has the advantage to satisfy other members of the community at least a bit, like Kerlan Rayne who proposed more or less this proposal (this would be better until wiz 5, worst after for the wiz) Druid R - your last argument is enough to convince me that the casters should be allowed to prepare their new slots, but keeping the max 1/match rule active. About the others... I don't think so: they shouldn't be allowed during games either. -- balance -- This proposal has not balance as an aim, Snark & DR, but rather coreness and campaign usefulness: my aim is to more and more make the CoCo useful in campaigns. The more we are similar to campaigns, the better we can test our builds. If we manage to find a way to do it which enhances balance, we make it more useful for all the classes: the ones percieved as weak because more will want to use them and will find their strengths and weaknesses, and the ones thought strong because they will recieve more variegated challenges. But it is not the aim of the proposal, just a good side effect. Do you remember the first "unkillable foe"? It was a fighter.... :D
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 07:48 AM	:twitch: Oooooookkkkk, I'm done reading the last 15 pages of that darn tavern thread which resembles so much the old thread in the CO board, one of the main reasons for asking our boards... :rant: Given that, I decided to summarize my opinions here about the "to balance, or not to balance?" thing trying to take into account all the opinions. I did some slight changes in the proposal. I feel that now this proposal is quite mature and I'd like to hear opinions about it. I believe that it's compatible with many of the proposals already in place on the :banghead:tavern thread. If you already posted your agreement, pls do it again; and the same if you posted your disagreement, since I'd like to know the approval rate after the changes. My proposal: after the pairings, a gm should roll a dice which will tell after how many rounds next fights will be. Average: 10 fights every three days. (exact formula coming) When the clock gets to 24:00, rest time begins; next fights will start at 9 o clock. Ongoing fights don't suddenly end of course. x/day abilities, x/day spells, pps: replenishable only during rest time. spells: spells will keep going, spell durations will keep decaying. Bad effects will be dispelled, as it's now. memorizing: prepared spellcasters will have to deal with the spells they prepared for their first fight of the day and with the ones left. If the level, they might prepare the new spells. All casters (check the 3.5 FAQ) have the option to leave slots free: they may prepare the spells later during the day. All memorizations are to be written on the sheet before the pairings though, exactly as now. roleplay-wise: an enormous big-ben like tower appears in the middle of the CoCo, summoned by the discussion about the removal of the central obstacle ;) The reasons: I don't want to balance the classes better than Wizard did. I don't want to make the CoCo exactly the same as a campaign: various aspects are impossible and/or useless to simulate. I want to make it a better tool for campaigns, by fine-tuning its rules and mechanisms (staying core of course). Good effects: Gives less power to casters. This makes the CoCo more useful to campaigns by testing their strengths and weaknesses better. Isn't it true that the risk to be out of spells/not have their preferred spell is a weakness any caster has to face in dnd? Yes he might teleport away and sleep, but the time keeps ticking... That's often a serious drawback. And what if you are dispelled of your mage armor at 10 o'clock? Do you go to sleep until the day after just for that? Makes third level of barbarian useful. (Any >1/day ability as well). Gives spellcasters the chance to buff themselves even with less than 16hours: of course, the buffs might be over at their second or third fight. If a lvl 3 wiz wants to have 5 mage armors and to cast them repeatedly... Why not? It's compatible with other proposals, like random starting places/arenas It introduces time in the CoCo, a resource I always felt lacking. Introduces the empty slots rule for wizos, which is now forgotten It introduces a nice power-tuning mechanism of spells vs. might: the 10 fights/3 days is not a constant, but rather a variable that will need quite some assessment in future, I foresee. Questions: Do you think that 10 fights every three days on average is ok? How many would you rather do? Why? do you see any strange effect with the combination of these rules with the actual ones?
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 08:01 AM	complication for players Originally posted by Ashenai I think having to use a complicated system just to figure out how many spells your spellcaster can memorize is liable to scare away newbies. And I don't think that's what we want to do at all. With the last changes, newbie casters have to do the spell preparations exactly like now; at later levels (when they are not newbies anymore) the only thing that adds is that they have to read the pitlord's note of the spells used and spells active. I think it's not a high cost, expecially compared to the return value. complication for pitlords Originally posted by Druid Roxors It would be (...) far to complicated... IMHO The pitlords will have to check the spells (which they already do, in the buffs and in the prepared ones) and to write down the used slots and the active spells with the timings. It's a really little quantitative difference - no qualitative difference - in their work. luck Originally posted by Druid Roxors It would be very unfair that if you faced a weak character last week or were very lucky (one hit win) you are at a horrible advantage against another caster that did met his match. Perfect! It makes the CoCo a better tool for campaigns. What do you do if your Magical Armor gets dispelled at 10 am, you sleep for the night? This change will make casters need brains, which is exactly what they do in campaigns: else, why newbies are always give Joe the Sword? This new rules will make casters face the chance of running out of their favourite spell - something that happens in campaigns - and moreover, to make them think about what they would then do - something that brings a lot of added value to the CoCo as a tool to test builds! Originally posted by MotherBast Whats to stop someone from fighting a fight, and then sitting out the next two weeks untill the "new day" starts, and rememing spells for the next week? Or, what about someone who sits out the first two fights in a day, then jumps in on the last fight of the day, vs. opponits who have all fought twice already. First of all, the two problems mutually solve themselves: if one jumps back in, his opponent can jump out. Leaving the chance to jump out solves the "extreme bad luck" problem issued by Druid Roxors. Jumping in could be an issue, but there are various easy solutions: we might decide that if one jumps in, the pitlord should try to pair him with others who did the same; his opponents could decide not to fight with him with no penalties; and we could even decide that who jumps out, will have to wait till next day, same time, without regaining the spells, thus excluding any benefit. Originally posted by Ender the Xenocide I think 3 fights a day is too much, because it's one on one of equal ECL. To simulate a campaign, you would have to have 4 pcs of x ECL vs 1 npc of equal ECL. First of all, we're not simulating a campaign, but giving a useful tool for campaigns, which needs quite some differentiation (like the no-time strange things). If we're trying to build a useful tool, we have to make it useful for everyone: also casters. As of now, it's a lot more useful for fighters, given the higher degree of challenge that they face. Read also the reply to LL. Originally posted by LLMadCow Healing - How will this work in between fights? My idea was that it should work right as now. This solves the point raised first by Druid Roxors, then by Ender, about the even CR fight: resources are replenished by the CoCo itself, not by the gladiator. Originally posted by LLMadCow Let all crafting occur instantaneously. Yes, simpler, and more useful to campaigns. Originally posted by LLMadCow Purchases - Are we to assume that shopping can be done in between fights? Yes, for the same reasons as above and to keep the change to a minimum, not to change the "spirit" of the CoCo too much. Skippers problem I think the best course of action is: - let's test if this is actually a problem. Skipping means freezing for a whole week, this might be a punition enuogh by itself given that the skipper is not using the CoCo (a tool to test builds) at its fullest. - if it is an issue, because there are too many skippers and this lowers the CoCo value as a testing tool, we might use various approaches: giving some penalties, forcing skippers to start at the start of the day so being in the same condition as the others, or at the harshest, forcing skippers to wait until the same hour the next CoCo day, without gaining benefits from rest. [/QUOTE] Originally posted by Ashenai Implement it after the relevant parts of the FAQ are rewritten. We should also always have big obvious texts over any place where pairings are listed, saying something like: "It's currently 7:42 PM in Gladius. The last fight was today, at 12:13 PM; 7 hours and 29 minutes (4229 rounds) ago." Noted. I think also that all the spells used, expired and in course should be written by pitlords in the end-of-match used equipment section.
MotherBast 08-15-04, 08:31 AM	Whats to stop someone from fighting a fight, and then sitting out the next two weeks untill the "new day" starts, and rememing spells for the next week? Or, what about someone who sits out the first two fights in a day, then jumps in on the last fight of the day, vs. opponits who have all fought twice already. He now has all resorces available, against opponits who have used 2 fights worth of resorces. There are quite a few players in the CoCo who are "here to win." They will take any advantage available to them. This "time" system creates a lot of loopholes they could abuse to insure their characters are always in advantagous positions.
Sindorin 08-15-04, 09:32 AM	I agree, way too complicated and breakable. Leave it as it is, prememming the spells is already bad enough.
Ender the Xenocide 08-15-04, 10:25 AM	I think 3 fights a day is too much, because it's one on one of equal ECL. To simulate a campaign, you would have to have 4 pcs of x ECL vs 1 npc of equal ECL. I think things should be left as they are.
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 10:47 AM	Originally posted by Sindorin prememming the spells is already bad enough. May I remember that there are also sorcerers out there? Why no one uses them? Maybe people wants to have both the spell selection and the spontaneous casting...? Let's remember that we're trying to build a useful tool for the campaigns, not a place where casters slay the others hands-down. We're not "simulating a campaign" either, Ender. Cat, can you post the link to the fight where Dr. Vandaeris Dre purposedly delayed the ground-bounded fighter's death? I'll add it in a reply to this. Now.... Does anybody think that in that fight, Dr.Dre was seriously tested??? What good did that fight do to Cat's knowledge of his build's capabilities??? Now MB's got a better thing to consider. But I believe that to be a non-problem: if a player wants to delay two weeks every three, cool. After all in campaigns, when things get problematic, the group usually tries to find a way to pass the night: this would be a proper simulation of that. About the opposite problem, I see various solutions. - let people skip at no penalties fights with those who skipped - do the pairings with the objective of putting "skippers" together - decide that who skips will have to wait until the next CoCo day They're in a harshness-order.
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 11:01 AM	Originally posted by Ender the Xenocide I think 3 fights a day is too much, because it's one on one of equal ECL. To simulate a campaign, you would have to have 4 pcs of x ECL vs 1 npc of equal ECL. I think things should be left as they are. First of all, we're not simulating a campaign, so that point is quite moot; but I'll comment it anyways. If we're trying to build a useful tool, we have to make it useful for everyone: also casters. As of now, it's a lot more useful for fighters, given the higher degree of challenge that they face. That said, we can decide for lower numbers than 10 fights/3 days.
SnarkHunter 08-15-04, 11:13 AM	I'll post more later (I'm still a bit hungover :whatsthis ), but my primary complaint with more then one fight a level is that it could get a little dull. A lot dull even. One of the most addictive features of this little community is the instant reward of leveling up after only 1 week. Well in an ideal situation. But yeah. 1 fight win=superhappy.
Ender the Xenocide 08-15-04, 11:16 AM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx First of all, we're not simulating a campaign, so that point is quite moot; but I'll comment it anyways. If we're trying to build a useful tool, we have to make it useful for everyone: also casters. As of now, it's a lot more useful for fighters, given the higher degree of challenge that they face. That said, we can decide for lower numbers than 10 fights/3 days. Sorry, I wasn't explaining myself clearly. What I meant, is that the fights per day needs to take into account that the combatants are of equal ECL.
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 11:27 AM	AAHH!! Twins!!! :D Originally posted by SnarkHunter I'll post more later (I'm still a bit hungover :whatsthis ), but my primary complaint with more then one fight a level is that it could get a little dull. A lot dull even. One of the most addictive features of this little community is the instant reward of leveling up after only 1 week. Well in an ideal situation. But yeah. 1 fight win=superhappy. Hehe Snarky read it again after a good espresso! :D I didn't suggest more than a fight per level, but rather more than a fight per day. The only difference from before is that we're not going to regain 1/day abilities or used spells after every fight. (Any suggestions about how to make myself clearer, are as always very welcome...:blush: )
Caterane 08-15-04, 12:15 PM	:cloud9: I certainly love this idea. Mo, why can't you just usurp the CoCo and overrule us all again? :D As for Skippers, what about that: If you begin to fight this day your character MUST fight until the end of the day. No tactics, your problem. That prevents casters from always sitting out after 1 fight while there are only fighters left in the evening. That's easier than identifying and pairing skippers against each other (which will resulst in caster vs caster and melee vs melee matches). I like the instant rewards aswell so one win one level. It already took us a year just to get to lvl 13. Slowing it down will bring harm to the CoCo.
MotherBast 08-15-04, 12:22 PM	Cat: Forcing someone to play is certanly not an option. the CoCo shouldn't become a "job" for anyone. What if your going out of town one weekend? now you have to sit out 3 weeks instead of just one, because if you know you can't fight one week, you will have to sit out that entire "day" or take an auto-loss the week you have to go out of town. That will certanly be daunting, espically to newcommers. Second, people could always take a "monster fight", that they don't even care to win or loose simply to dodge a paring. Also, sitting out do to number of PCs or rollouts becomes much more important. forcing people to play should not even be concidered. for one, it just isen't player friendly, and two, it is still breakable by anyone who wants too. Not only does it not correct the orrigional problem, but it makes the CoCo a much more unfriendly place. Not good at all in any way that I can see.
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 12:25 PM	well, then simply, skippers will have to wait the same time the day after, thus gaining no bonus.
Caterane 08-15-04, 12:29 PM	...without memorizing anew. Easy and elegant.
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 01:00 PM	Still, it's a bit harsh because skipping would let one who had an extreme bad luck in a fight to pass the day, simulating the "go out and rest" thing of the campaigns. We might want to test if it really is an issue before: after all, one who skips loses a whole RL week, not a spit of second. It might be enough punishment by itself.
Ashenai 08-15-04, 02:30 PM	I rather like this idea... but if we're going to implement it, please only do so after the relevant parts of the FAQ are rewritten to reflect it. When we changed to full pre-mem, the FAQ remained unchanged for several weeks, and several people were confused about it and didn't prepare all their spells. We should also always have big obvious texts over any place where pairings are listed, saying something like: "It's currently 7:42 PM in Gladius. The last fight was today, at 12:13 PM; 7 hours and 29 minutes (4229 rounds) ago." I also think prepared spellcasters (and anyone else) should be able to skip a fight whenever they want, and still be able to prepare spells at midnight normally. Skipping a fight would, I think, be punishment enough, and anyway, there's no sensible way to punish them for it if we want to keep everyone on the same timeline (and I think that's definitely a good idea).
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 02:45 PM	Sound proposal indeed, Ashenai. A think about divine slot filling: in the FAQ it's pretty clear that clerics can fill slots afterwards too. So I'll change the proposal accordingly.
Ashenai 08-15-04, 03:06 PM	There's also another small issue; the time for the next fight has to be rolled well before pairings, as prepared casters have to know whether they can prepare spells or not. (Simple example: if we're rolling 2d8 to find out the number of hours until the next fight, and the last fight was at 4 PM, a mage has to know whether the fight that's coming up is that day or the day after, so when he's editing his character sheet, he can prepare his spells anew, or not). Ideally, the time for the _next_ fight should be rolled just after the deadline for tactics, so pitlords running fights can include something like this at the end of the fight: "Joe won and used a potion of CLW, a Phantasmal Killer spell, two Fireballs, and a Mage Armor. His active Mage Armor and False Life (+4 HP remaining) carry over to the next fight at 5:03 PM. Fred lost and used 12 PSPs." Or: "Joe won and used a potion of CLW. Since the next fight is at 10:12 AM the next day, he can prepare spells in all of his spell slots again. His Mage Armor carries over to the next fight." Which reminds me. What happens to the gladiator who loses the fight? Do the (beneficial) spells on him wink out, or are they still on him after the True Ressurrection? Is he allowed to regain PSPs, re-memorize spells, etc? Personally, I think the spells on the loser should vanish, but he should be able to fully memorize, regain PSPs, etc. The reason is that the winner of a fight is still at least somewhat capable of fighting, even if he used up all his spells, because he'll get new spell slots from the level-up that he can fill. The loser gets no such bonus, which means that if a mage loses his first fight in the morning, he'll almost certainly lose the next two fights as well, unless he gets to memorize again.
Moherajikuyx 08-15-04, 04:28 PM	About the small issue, I thought we can as well roll immediately after the pairings.
Ashenai 08-15-04, 05:36 PM	For the battle the pairing are for? That's not a good idea, because then a spellcaster won't know if he can prepare new spells for the battle or not (if he doesn't know whether the next battle will be that day or the next day). That means he can't edit his character sheet properly. For the battle after the one the pairings are for? Sure, that's workable.
Moherajikuyx 08-16-04, 03:46 AM	The second :)
LLMadCow 08-16-04, 01:56 PM	Can we get another follow up post that summarizes everything that has been proposed so far? Or better yet, can the initial post be turned into a changing and evolving post that has everything that has been proposed so we can just go back there for the current version? I have read through everything and may have missed some, but here are my questions: Healing - How will this work in between fights? Crafting - How will this work in between fights? I would recommend not putting a time cap on crafting. Let all crafting occur instantaneously. Purchases - Are we to assume that shopping can be done in between fights? The biggest change I see is a huge balancing issue with the Fighter/Mage debate. Gold vs XP has come up in the past, but the result of doing the fights this way is that Mages will use a LOT more scrolls to win their battles. More scrolls = less gold for other magical items. Sounds fair.
Ashenai 08-16-04, 02:02 PM	Healing - How will this work in between fights? I propose that everyone be healed to full. Mostly, this is just for simplicity. Beyond level 4 or so, no one really cares about the cost of a couple of Potions of CLW anyway, and it's just annoying to have to deal with it. I can just see newbies not knowing that they have to buy CLWs to heal between rounds. "Yay! I won with 2 hp to spare! Exciting battle, this place is great!" "What... why did I start my next fight with 2 hps? AARGH..." Crafting - How will this work in between fights? I would recommend not putting a time cap on crafting. Let all crafting occur instantaneously. Agreed, for obvious reasons. If this is not allowed, crafting becomes entirely useless. Also ignore all other time caps (familiar/mount loss, etc). Purchases - Are we to assume that shopping can be done in between fights? Yes please.
SnarkHunter 08-16-04, 07:35 PM	I must admit that with the above clarifications and the above suggestions, Mo's proposal is starting to grow on me.
Moherajikuyx 08-17-04, 05:53 AM	Snarky: great! :) Originally posted by LLMadCow Can we get another follow up post that summarizes everything that has been proposed so far? Yes, oh my pointy haired boss... *goes to work* Healing - How will this work in between fights? My idea was that it should work right as now. This solves the point raised first by Druid Roxors, about the even CR fight: resources are replenished by the CoCo itself, not by the gladiator. Let all crafting occur instantaneously. Yes, simpler, and more useful to campaigns. Purchases - Are we to assume that shopping can be done in between fights? Yes One of the main points of the proposal is to change as little as possible: I'd hate to change the soul of the CoCo, and if we change too many rules at once it's a risk. BTW any sound proposal for the number of average fights per day? I took 10 fights per 3 days from a rule that I misunderstood... If we find something better it would be fine :)
Moherajikuyx 08-17-04, 06:08 AM	Ash - about the proposal to let the losers remem, I think that losing is to be considered part of the arena. If one wants to remem, he could skip. After all a mage could be killed round one by an arrow... I don't like the idea to let him remem after that. And there are the free slots. We can always change that later; casters will appreciate the benefit. If we give it now and then remove it, it's going to be a pain again :rolleyes: edit LL, now I want a :cookie: Full details of the discussion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4194207#post4194207) ...I'm supposed to be working... :bored:
LLMadCow 08-17-04, 09:04 AM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx Ash - about the proposal to let the losers remem, I think that losing is to be considered part of the arena. If one wants to remem, he could skip. After all a mage could be killed round one by an arrow... I don't like the idea to let him remem after that. And there are the free slots. We can always change that later; casters will appreciate the benefit. If we give it now and then remove it, it's going to be a pain again :rolleyes: edit LL, now I want a :cookie: Full details of the discussion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=4194207#post4194207) ...I'm supposed to be working... :bored: The biggest issue I see at this point is the issue of skipping, just to get the benefit of rememorizing spells. This is a serious issue, as this is part of the reason this change would be made. There is nothing wrong with the use of scrolls and no real reason for people to skip, but we need some sort of system or level of commitment.... Could we ask people to look at their schedule and agree to 3 weeks of competition? (Barring unforseen events...) Could we offer some sort of aditional bonus reward for not intentionally skipping? (Impose a gold penalty, similar to the multiclass one, for those who skip?) The ten fights per day seems rather odd, but I will throw in my two more cents..... 2 fights per hour.... All long term effects are are calculated as if cast at the beginning of the half hour or the end; this makes for easier calculation of duration. No need to be exact to the round, it just makes for hectic paperwork.... Find some way to randomize the chronological order of the pairings. This way the duration issue is a little more interesting in that you could have any given character fight the last fight of the current pairings and then be the first or second fight of the enxt pairings ... or the exact opposite. Went from first one week to the last the next week. This eliminates the possibility of planning it out.... Lastly (The best for last!), I would love to see the fights chronologically listed in the fights thread. This might require a test thread, but it would be well worth it. Once all fights have been run, one could open a new thread and post them all in the proper order. Or we could develope some system where the Pitlords post in some order. Or reserving posts or some such. This requires some thought, but would be very entertaining, especially if done right. I have alot of ideas and think that I might volunteer to be the first to try this idea out..... @Mo - :cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie::cookie:
Moherajikuyx 08-17-04, 09:22 AM	Two things for the sake of clarity: in the proposal, it's 10 fights per 3 days (average, 3.33 fights a day) and the fights are all at the same time for simplicity. Of course both things can be discussed LL. About skipping I really think we should previously check if it's a problem: who skips, jumps a week and I feel this wait to be quite hindrance by itself. If too many do that trick, then we should find a solution; else it's not a problem.
Ashenai 08-17-04, 10:05 AM	I agree with MO. Punishing the more "casual" players--people who just want to play whenever they have some free time, not every week--is not something we should be doing, IMO. If it becomes a problem, I'm sure we can come up with something. Let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Regarding the chronological order of fights: I feel this would introduce a lot of complication without any real benefit whatsoever. It would also feel weird, because the pitlords wouldn't complete fights in the order they're "supposed" to be in. I think the times of the fights should be randomized, but all gladiators should fight at the same time. Finally, regarding losers being allowed to re-prepare spells: I think this is necessary if we don't want people to abandon their low-level characters willy-nilly. Otherwise, everyone would just abandon their level 2-4 casters if they lose, because losing and then being forced to skip one (or several!) fights is no fun at all. I realize the weirdness of the rule, but I feel rather strongly about this. If we don't allow rememorization after losing, it will seriously warp the CoCo, with spellcasters skipping a LOT of fights, and being abandoned all over the place.
Moherajikuyx 08-17-04, 11:05 AM	Isn't it the usual problem of mages? Of having to depend only from its spells? Consider it at high levels. Short matches, few used spells: that would mean allowing the spellcasters back to the actual condition. Consider it from the point of view of the divine casters, even at low level. The cleric can as well get his mace and bash... I would try it with a cleric, if I had just one spell (doom!), against a fighter, for example. Or with a druid, if I had just a spell - entangle for example. A druid has a companion to help with. And I can't but see in a positive light anything that causes druids to have more than 8 in str, dex and con :angel: because it's not really campaign-like, so it's not useful for testing them. Finally, in the extreme case of having no spells, I might skip or delete the pc. It already happens often, for first-time-losers after all, so it's got to be not a huge problem. I think that the problem you see - the hard life for the first level mage - is the faithful representation of the normal dnd situation, and I think that it proves the correctness of this proposal.
LLMadCow 08-17-04, 11:26 AM	I agree that regardless of win or lose, no rememorizing spells unless a day has passed. Go ahead and makes the spellcasters rely on scrolls. It migh make others consider taking scribe scroll. Fine, ignore skipping for now. Since the Arena is supposed to be one big event, give all the fights different times and announce them. Let me take care of what I described that sounds too much, I will show you how it would work. I'll talk to Cat and get his input, but let it be a little surprise.....
Ashenai 08-17-04, 11:28 AM	The low-level mage should (and will) have a hard life. But if they don't get to re-memorize after a loss, the system is skewed, because mages who lose their first fight will have a lot harder life than those who win. That isn't fair. Example: Bob the level 2 mage. He has 3 level 1 spells. Let's say he uses up two of them for his first fight. Now, if Bob loses, he has a single level 1 spell left, and two fights to look forward to in that day. He is, to put it simply, screwed. He has practically no hope of winning either of his next two battles. That's not a "hard life", it's simply suicide for the mage. On the other hand, if Bob wins, he gets a level 2 slot that he can fill, meaning he'll be effective for his next fight. And even if he uses up both if his spells in that next fight, if he wins, he'll get another level 1 and level 2 slot for the fight after that. This means he will at least have a chance. I don't see the fairness in punishing those who have lost even further, while letting those who have won regain some power. I would not like to see spellcasters made completely unviable after a loss. If full re-memorization after a loss seems too extreme, then how about allowing them to memorize one spell from each spell level after a loss? It would still at least allow them a fighting chance. For Psions, maybe they could regain up to 1/3 of their max PPs.
LLMadCow 08-17-04, 11:32 AM	Originally posted by Ashenai The low-level mage should (and will) have a hard life. But if they don't get to re-memorize after a loss, the system is skewed, because mages who lose their first fight will have a lot harder life than those who win. That isn't fair. Example: Bob the level 2 mage. He has 3 level 1 spells. Let's say he uses up two of them for his first fight. Now, if Bob loses, he has a single level 1 spell left, and two fights to look forward to in that day. He is, to put it simply, screwed. He has practically no hope of winning either of his next two battles. That's not a "hard life", it's simply suicide for the mage. On the other hand, if Bob wins, he gets a level 2 slot that he can fill, meaning he'll be effective for his next fight. And even if he uses up both if his spells in that next fight, if he wins, he'll get another level 1 and level 2 slot for the fight after that. This means he will at least have a chance. I don't see the fairness in punishing those who have lost even further, while letting those who have won regain some power. I would not like to see spellcasters made completely unviable after a loss. If full re-memorization after a loss seems too extreme, then how about allowing them to memorize one spell from each spell level after a loss? It would still at least allow them a fighting chance. For Psions, maybe they could regain up to 1/3 of their max PPs. SCROLLS! :ayyyy!:
Ashenai 08-17-04, 11:39 AM	Yeah, I started writing my post before you posted yours. I didn't think of scrolls :) I still say the system is not entirely fair: a level 4 mage with a 3-0 win/loss record will usually be more powerful than a level 4 mage who lost his last fight, which just seems weird to me. But scrolls do help; I suppose I can live with it. :cool:
Druid Roxors 08-17-04, 12:36 PM	Having lost means that you spent resources (probably scrolls, as most casters do at low levels). Now, having to buy more scrolls and having no spells of their own is a horrible hinderance. I have nothing against your idea's theme but I believe that it is not well implemented. Three fights a day is, imo, an atrocity. The DMG says that characters would be lucky to survive 2 fights against enemies with a CR 1 higher than their own. Spelcasters are being hit to hard in my opinion.
Druid Roxors 08-17-04, 12:36 PM	*Double Post*
Moherajikuyx 08-17-04, 12:46 PM	It's covered in the discussion thread that gave me a lot of :cookie:s - even with your name as quote already I think: I wonder, can I read the future, or can't you read the past? :D Ehm! Joking of course :pile: Originally posted by Druid Roxors Having lost means that you spent resources (probably scrolls, as most casters do at low levels). Now, having to buy more scrolls and having no spells of their own is a horrible hinderance. I have nothing against your idea's theme but I believe that it is not well implemented. Three fights a day is, imo, an atrocity. The DMG says that characters would be lucky to survive 2 fights against enemies with a CR 1 higher than their own. Spelcasters are being hit to hard in my opinion.
Druid Roxors 08-17-04, 12:57 PM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx Perfect! It makes the CoCo a better tool for campaigns. What do you do if your Magical Armor gets dispelled at 10 am, you sleep for the night? This change will make casters need brains, which is exactly what they do in campaigns: else, why newbies are always give Joe the Sword? This new rules will make casters face the chance of running out of their favourite spell - something that happens in campaigns - and moreover, to make them think about what they would then do - something that brings a lot of added value to the CoCo as a tool to test builds! [/B] Running out of their favorite spell is not the same as running out of all their spells! Check the caster duels and even some "mixed" duels. They spend their best spells and more merely to compete, to survive. Limiting the ammount of spells a caster can use per fight (although the player decides which spells to use and which to keep) will cut their effectiveness and does not reflect how a campaign works in the very least. It is obvious that you will use your best spells-combos against the BBG, not just any goon. If we had ECL 5 people facing 3 ECL 4 people per day I wouldn't be making much of an argument. If you think the solution for this problem is scrolls, think again. Unless you enable the crafting of custom staffs, the extremely low DC's and caster levels on scrolls make them useless at higher levels. (There are some notable exeptions, but what of druids or non-conjurers?) I am sorry that I havn't repplied in a while but I was trying to check where this was going. Seeing that you are reaching an agreement, I had to intervene.
Moherajikuyx 08-17-04, 01:03 PM	Actually, I think wizos are needed with hordes of low levels rather than BBEGs, who usually have tons of SR. About your point, I recall perfectly a bunch of fights with Iron where he almost didn't use a spell... Of course, wizards are the ones to rely heavily on spells, but isn't that a weakness? Jindl the druid using all his spells? When? If we want this tool - the CoCo - to be useful to wizards too, we can't just close our eyes and act as if the wizos didn't have that weakness. Of course, a lvl 1 druid with 8 in str, dex and con would have quite some difficulties at his second match. Well! I see it as a good point: he HAS to! About the numbers: 10 fights/3 days is a proposal, it's changeable. I wouldn't go below 5/2 though. I say 3/day as average is a good and simple number to start with. Of course, since we want to fine-tune the whole thing, we can modify the exact number again later on, just with a little change in the gms' formula and with no one else having to change anything: I think this is quite a good aspect of the proposal (the easiness of balance process).
Druid Roxors 08-17-04, 01:26 PM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx Actually, I think wizos are needed with hordes of low levels rather than BBEGs, who usually have tons of SR. Phantasmal Killer on the goons? Emp Magic Missiles? Finger of death? Destruction? Those are all trademark spells for hitting important targets. About your point, I recall perfectly a bunch of fights with Iron where he almost didn't use a spell... Of course, wizards are the ones to rely heavily on spells, but isn't that a weakness? Jindl the druid using all his spells? When?When one's build specializes on melee you do not use as much spells. Nevertheless, you are loosing on Saves (Jindl/Harv), Caster level (Harv/Kel/ETC). I agree fights against "easy" (or easy for that particular build) to defeat oponents will create a discrepancy. But Ebelin, for instance, used up his 2 highest level spells on the fight against Candy. Candy (and Sanzin) used up most of their high level slots. If Ebelin were to fight after losing that fight, he would only be a wizard without any intresting spells. Of course, a lvl 1 druid with 8 in str, dex and con would have quite some difficulties at his second match. Well! I see it as a good point: he HAS to! About the numbers: 10 fights/3 days is a proposal, it's changeable. I wouldn't go below 5/2 though. I say 3/day as average is a good and simple number to start with.A caster's behavior on the first levels is very different from the later levels. The DMG itself says that low level casters will require to rest after almost every fight. Well, that is true! I think from levels 2-6 Everyone should get 1 fight a day, since it is obvious meleers are not "underpowered" at this levels, and level 7+ 2 fights per day. Thats just in my experience, anyways..
Druid Roxors 08-17-04, 01:32 PM	And I do believe that losers should get half their slots back. Unless of course they lost with more spells available than those. (Example: Wizard uses phantom steed, moves close and BalefulPolymorphs the oposing wizard on round 1.)
Moherajikuyx 08-17-04, 03:05 PM	I hear you. But in examples like that one, of caster vs. caster, the problem is null: both will have the same problem, so the balance will be the same. In caster vs. fighter, the coco rules now favour the caster: so, weakining them is good - not for sad balance reasons, but rather to make this tool more useful to the casters! Originally posted by Druid Roxors The DMG itself says that low level casters will require to rest after almost every fight. Are you serious? If he was in my party, I'd leave him to rest and go adventuring without such a hindrance. Which is similar to skip the week, after all... So, if that's what the wiz has to suffer to be effective even though he put 8 to str, dex and con (or worst... Any elder out there? :smirk: ), then let him suffer! He will rejoice at higher levels, as is normal in dnd. Iron: "melee oriented" for a single level of barbarian? I recall a match vs. Ebhelin only made of spells. Or better: with counter-spells, or defensive spells a la spell immunity and counters. My proposal can take care of those things too, by the way: why should Iron have rage all the times, with a single lousy barbarian level? It's not right, if you tell me. I bet that if we apply this proposal, we'll see some effective monoclass barbarian in the arena! How can this be bad?
Druid Roxors 08-17-04, 03:22 PM	Originally posted by Moherajikuyx [B]I hear you. But in examples like that one, of caster vs. caster, the problem is null: both will have the same problem, so the balance will be the same. In caster vs. fighter, the coco rules now favour the caster: so, weakining them is good - not for sad balance reasons, but rather to make this tool more useful to the casters!Not unless the other caster is assured to have the same ammount of resources at the start. You know what would solve this? Cut spellcaster's spell reserves by 2/3 and prepare for each fight. This is more elegant and fair. About luck, we are supposed to be testing effective builds, not lucky builds (unless you count luck domain clerics ;)) Are you serious? If he was in my party, I'd leave him to rest and go adventuring without such a hindrance. Which is similar to skip the week, after all... So, if that's what the wiz has to suffer to be effective even though he put 8 to str, dex and con (or worst... Any elder out there? :smirk: ), then let him suffer! He will rejoice at higher levels, as is normal in dnd. Iron: "melee oriented" for a single level of barbarian? I recall a match vs. Ebhelin only made of spells. Or better: with counter-spells, or defensive spells a la spell immunity and counters.So what you are saying is: "Go and stock up with scrolls mage!" when they don't really serve their purpose. My proposal can take care of those things too, by the way: why should Iron have rage all the times, with a single lousy barbarian level? It's not right, if you tell me. I bet that if we apply this proposal, we'll see some effective monoclass barbarian in the arena!Have abilities be usable twice every 3 fights (distributed as you see fit) and you are set!
Caterane 08-17-04, 03:35 PM	Mo's idea is so great. He is 100% right on that it reflects a campaign far better than as it is now - something many want to deny by telling me that their characters in their campaigns rest after every fight which is far from reality of course. And it creates balance between caster/melee, which is a byproduct but that's what me interests the most. Mo has also very good answers to every upcoming question which shows that his idea is well thought out. It also shows that we can easily find solutions if problems arise. I wholeheartly support this idea, and it seems I'm not alone: even those who opposed the full memorization like Snarky :) find it appealing. Btw, the full mem eases up writing tactics. I don't have to cover every spell in the spellbook/list now but can focus on what is written on the sheet. PS: Ebelin will have 4 attacks from bab alone at lvl 20, more with TWF so he will be far from helpless when out of spells (which will be 8th level spells btw) and his saves and Ac speaks for itself
Moherajikuyx 08-18-04, 04:24 AM	Thanks Cat! :) I want to stress that campaign similarity is not the purpose, but rather the way to make the CoCo a more useful tool for optimization. DR: I do think that in order to make this tool more useful for campaigns, we have to consider also unlucky cases: after all, "sh1t happens" as told great ol' Duke Nukem. I'd like to know what happens to my perfectly balanced pc when he gets out of luck.
Zerone 09-01-04, 10:06 AM	After having read the 1st 3 pages of this thread, it seems that most of you feel that spellcasters are over powered. When talking about fights per day in the DMG, there is a party involved and the opposition is a DM who is not usually out to kill his party at all costs, but to propose a challenge for them. In the CoCo, as a combatant, there is one purpose - kill your opponent. Not only is this the opposite of a DM's purpose, but also the character in question does not have his buddies to heal, soak up damage, scout ahead, or cast buffer spells. Say your fighter has an Int of 8 and a Wis of 8. Are you going to role-play the lack of smarts and common sense that this character has, or are you going to act as yourself and your infinite knowledge of the SRD? Dugh, I'm a Barbarian who can't spell my name, but that wizard just cast his last 4th level spell and should be real low on hit points too. Perhaps I should just wait till his fly spell runs out so he is easier to hit, thus not wasting anything. And he is an Assimar, so I better not throw my vials of acid at him (acid resistance 5), what a waste that would be... I know that we are only responsible for tactics, but I am rather sure that none of you skimped on your tactics because you have an average Wis or Int on your character. So, you want to 'punish' spellcasters because they are more powerful by allowing more fights before they can rest? 1st, wizards should be able to memorize their spells individually to each fight, as you are able to wait to memorize you spells. 2nd, you want to stop all spellcasters from sleeping between matches while allowing others (melee characters) the option to be at full hit points. This is a double blow to spellcasters in itself. So the melee character gets full 100 HPs, the spellcaster gets full 30-50 HPs, and now they have to duke it out because the spellcasters are out of spells. Where is the fairness of that? Technically, WOTC believes that the classes are balanced at the same level with full abilities... So that is how the rules are written, otherwise there would be individual XP progressions, as there was in 2nd AD&D. Below as noted in the SRD under CR: Encounter Difficulty - An EL that equals that of the party is challenging and should use up about 20% of their resources. The key words here are 'the party' and 'their', as they refer to more than one, usually 4 to a party. Not 1 on 1. Difficulty Factors (main points) - Undead are much more difficult without a cleric. - Animals and plants are much more difficult without a druid. - Evil outsiders are much more difficult without a paladin or cleric (and possibly sorc/wiz). - Multiple combat encounters are more difficult to survive without a fighter, ranger, barbarian, paladin. - Multiple encounters are more difficult without a cleric.
Moherajikuyx 09-02-04, 03:44 AM	The point here is not to try to balance the classes in campaigns, this was done for the good or the bad by wotc. The aim of the proposal is completely different, it's to provide a useful tool for everyone. From the numbers of wins and losses, it looks like x/day abilities provide a higher chance of victory, and I'm not talking only about spells: there's rage, assassination... This lowers somewhat the need of a plan for those characters with x/day abilities: for an even time spent planning, they have somewhat higher chances. So, to provide to everyone the same need of thought and planning to everyone - to balance the CoCo, not the classes - I did my proposal. Of course the classes are balanced, from a campaign point of view where you need to kill monsters. Now let's balance the CoCo, which we built and which we're responsible for.
Moherajikuyx 09-02-04, 03:58 AM	7. I think Moh's heart is in the right place, but I can't come to terms with how to best align characters for each tier. After all, fighting an opponent who has fully rested (due to a loss, etc.) while you are weakened is certianly unfair. If we ensure that one cannot rest until one has fought 2-3x (and I believe 2 to be the magic number here), we find a greater difficulty in trying to align which characters casn fight whom (some may win both fights, others may flounder in the first and pick it up in the second, etc.). Without a massive pool of combatants to work with [perhaps when we have 30-40 active fighters a week ;)], we openly risk slowing growth further, causing some to quit out of frustration. Ehm, "to fight an opponent who has fully rested while you are weakened" is not within the possibilities given by my proposal. One can: - fight all the matches in the day, finding always pcs who fought the same number of matches - drop, for example, the third one and wait for the night. So you rest... As well as all the others. As I told in other posts, this could in theory be a problem, but I don't think so: after all, to wait a week slows down the pc and that's a hard punishment by itself. Let's wait and see if anyone finds it worthwhile, I bet it won't happen. The "rest after loss" proposal is by Ashenai, I'm against this variation because I don't think it's needed: if one loses it could be by a zorander, that could give him a way to get all his spells back say in the third match of the day, without any expenditure, which wouldn't be correct against a winner of the previous round. The "bad luck factor" is countered by the possibility of dropping out and waiting for the new day. Your idea of testing this at the high levels sounds good! Only, be it a week or two, not another year :)
KerlanRayne 10-03-04, 01:21 AM	OK, this multiple fights a day idea has dropped off, but I still see mentions of it. I think that Moh's Idea is overly complicated, so I will propose my own idea. Pick a number of fights to have per day. (Most likely 2 or 3) Decide on an amount of time to pass between the fights. (Like 1 minute, 5 minutes, or 1 hour) Add a new notation to the roster that shows which fight thaey are on, like this: (1/2) or (2/3) etc. Once thay finish their last fight of the day (2/2 or 3/3), then thay regain any per day resources like spells, x per day abilities, etc. BEtween each fight, they can still level, be fully healed, shop, etc. this way they can't skip a fight, they will have to finish the same number of fights whether it's next week or next month. Well, what do you think? Any questions, comments? KerlanRayne
Caterane 10-03-04, 02:11 AM	That´s a good idea Kerlan though I have to say that most ideas are an improvement when looking at our current system. :rolleyes: Another even simpler option would be to require 2 wins to level up, with the character being able to shop only if he levels OR if he loses. The disadvantage would be that it slows character progression down. On the other hand, I have heard that one fight is not sufficient to test a build on a certain level so this might even be seen beneficial.
Beldin 10-03-04, 04:12 AM	I think both suggestions are good. Especially having to win 2 fights at every level might kill the "powerful one shot item win" tactic at low levels. But you have to keep in mind that at higher levels the casters have enough spells to win 2 or 3 fights against a fighter, just memorise 3-save-or-die spells. But at lower levels they need every spell they have to win against a fighter... :rolleyes:
Caterane 10-03-04, 08:04 AM	Then, at lower levels they have to buy scrolls. And 2 fights per lvls is better than one. The problem is not the lack of good ideas but the resistance against fixing the CoCo setting and balance casters out.