Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Caterane 07-06-04, 10:00 PM	Hi all, you surely agree that the druid is the most powerful class: wildshape into Direbear (or any other big strong thing) and cast animal growth to get a grapple modifier of around +35 in only one and a half rounds. Tell me, which fighter can beat this? Tell me! Let's take our strongest melee character: Zedarak. Even this large str37 creature (grapple +23) would not have A SINGLE CHANCE against a wildshaped druid. And did I mention that he is still able to cast all of his spells? His full spell progression spells! Even the companion - always a Direbat - is animalgrowthed better than anything a fighter can bring up. Though the druid is the worst case, other spellcasters are a no-contest when set against a fighter. A mage can easily pick the weakest save and cast a save or die spell on the fighter from long range. No chance. He can counter nearly every tactic a melee gladiator might come up with. The mage can even polymorph into something big and swallow the fighter whole, or grapple him to the ground (with an through the roof save). Did you notice that almost every spellcaster polymorphs into something? And why not? This gives him a tremendous match-deciding advantage that cannot be countered. But it gets even worse! Spellcasters can fly. Fighters might drink a potion of fly (for 750 gold pieces, btw), but since it is CL 5 it has no chance to resist dispelling at higher levels. So you will soon realize that the fighter will NEVER reach the wizard. And even if he somehow (don't ask my how) reaches him, he can just dimension door away. Now cast a wind wall and the fighter can do NOTHING! Absolutely nothing. And for all druids who are surely going to complain now: Winged boots have CL 5 too. So the point is that it is not balanced as it is now. No sane wizard would spend all his daily spells in a single battle. The fighter's strength is his endurance and that he'll never run out of ammo. Many of the cleric's spells are supposed to be converted into healing spells for party members. And so on. One suggestion - though I might get mobbed now - is to forbid ANY kind of changing shape. I don't want Ebelin to polymorph into a hag or a tree but I have to! In my group Ebelin wields two elven thinblades but I can't do nearly half the damage I can do as a treant or a hag. Asides from the fact that my DM would never allow a LG elf to poly into a hag, this is absolutely crap. So with this rule a wizard cannot compete in melee but still has his spells. A druid cannot grapple a titan to death with one spell but he may still have his animal growthed huge Direbat. Or what about spellcasters gaining only half of their spells for the fight? That would better resemble the reality during a campaign. These are just a thought; perhaps you have something better but something has to be done! The fact that we have only few pure meleers and that their record sucks is proove enough. And don't come up with Aemon or Rhoar. Aemon will fight Dr.Dre and we'll see how this fight goes. And Rhoar is out with a single Willsave (he has +5 vs Dc~25). But now I want to hear your suggestions. Cat
TaggIIV 07-06-04, 10:22 PM	Wild shape is a pretty big chunk of the druid's abilities. I'd rather we don't ban ]all shifts, but rather restrict. Like,for example, you cannot wildshape bigger than your size category. For example, a human druid couldn't wildshape into more than a medium creature. Or expand to 'more than one size category bigger' rather than 'equal to size category.' Same for non-druid casters - put a restriction rather than a ban. Liiike effects such as fly and invisibility last only X rounds. That way they can't be untouchable, but they still gain a small refuge. And maybe you can only use such an effect once per battle. Also, if you go with the half-spells, at least make it from a certain level on, since low-level casters will get burned so horribly. Like level 5 or 6 and up.
Magagumo 07-06-04, 10:32 PM	Moon-moon is a fighter, and he has won vs. casters. Ixidor wins against casters. Zorander has won. I think you take things out of proportion, Cat; I think you remmber all the ways in which a caster has won, but neglect to recall the times they have not. Yes, Will saves can kill, but those who implement such tricks are rarely the same ones that have been polymorphing. Everyone has a different style- Donkey rarely casts spells, but he demonstrates enormous success. As for druids, I think you need to get over it and yourself- they aren't the end all be all. Yes, Animal Growth is powerful, but unless a character is a "rock" (and I believe that Grimlock, Zedarak, and Rhoar are the only such qualifying characters at high levels) they should not be standing toe to toe with a Huge Dire Bear. I agree, casters have the full opportunity to burn themselves out of every spell available to them in thiese single fights, but I have seen clever meleers (Kage Highwind for example) pull off excellent wins, despite the odds. We all know that casters have more options than fighters, and more options means that clever players can trick and defeat their opponents. So perhaps the caster can more reliably win than a fighter, because frankly, it takes less effort to win with spells than pure physical prowess (Remember, I love Bruno, but I recognize how much easier it is to pull off a victory with him than Zorander). If this makes the caster better in your mind, then so be it, but I believe it is a mark of honor to be playing a straight non-caster and win against a wizard, or cleric, or druid, or psion, or whatever. Edit: I'm sorry, Tagg, but if we take such drastic efforts to shape our arena, then we have no right to call ourselves Core. And if we aren't staying true to our philosophy, then I cannot remain a part of this organization. Play smart, and you can win any battle- I've suffered more trauma and worry over Zedarak's power, than any caster in this arena.
MotherBast 07-06-04, 10:45 PM	house ruleling a class ability out of use is out of the question. I will agree that Druids are probably the strongest class, as I have said before, with the possible exception of the well built cleric. A good cleric is better than a great wizard. But even a bad wizard is better than the best fighter.... But if you outright ban wildshape and pollymorph, now who can beat the cleric? No one. So, to balance that, you remove the clerics Domain powers and Spontanious heal abilitys. Now the wizard dominates..... So you nerff him... etc etc etc.... Fact is, in one on one combat, it will never be possible to "balance" the classes withen the core rules, because they are created for a party dinamic, with an average of 13.3 fights per level instead of 1 or 2. But the point of this thread is to test build usable in ANY campagin. Restricting a class ability seriously hinders a players ability to test his build. Not allowing Druids to wildshape to there fullest capasity is like not allowing a mounted charge build to have a mount. Wildshape is THE Druid ability. It is what makes the class unique. Pollymorp is less ingrained into the wizard, but to be honest, I have never played a wizard in any real campagin who was not under the effects of either pollymorph or alter self at all times, nor have I ever seen a player in any game I have DMed who did not pollymorp his wizzy before battle. This is a tactic the nearly every wizard will use in game, so why ban it from the Arena? That is exactly what the arena is for, to test stratiges that will be used in game. While I agree with the theory that melees are outgunned at high levels in the arena, nurffing the casters is just not an option, as that dosen't allow you to test their builds. If it can be done in a campagin, it should be allowed here. If you really wanted to shift balance more twords melee, a better fix is to require ALL spells to be prememed, so that the casters can't gear their spells specificly to destroy melees after parings. Second would be to disallow Prebuffs all together, so that the caster dosen't begin with an edge. Lastly, make the starting positions closer together, so the melee has a better chance of reaching the caster early. This one also means the caster who forgoes buffing can unload his offence eairler though.... The bottom line is, every class should get to use its abilitys to the fullest.
TaggIIV 07-06-04, 10:58 PM	Edit: I'm sorry, Tagg, but if we take such drastic efforts to shape our arena, then we have no right to call ourselves Core. And if we aren't staying true to our philosophy, then I cannot remain a part of this organization. Play smart, and you can win any battle- I've suffered more trauma and worry over Zedarak's power, than any caster in this arena. Hey, I'm just trying to compromise. ;) I'd just as soon have no restriction, since my PC is a druid, but I figure limited ability is better than no ability like Caterane was suggesting.
Caterane 07-06-04, 11:03 PM	Mag, so you are basically saying "Play a fighter if you want a challenge and play against the odds". If you don't come up with brilliant genius tactics you lose. You said that almost literally. But this is supposed to be balanced, and not a "Play vs the rest of the world" option for those brave (or foolish) enough to play a fighter. And Donkey, tremendous success?? 6 wins, 8 lost, 1 bump. Btw, good advice not to go into melee against a huge dire bear. Unfortunately shooting arrows at the bear that replies with flamestrikes and fireseeds isn't a good idea either. Mag, turn it as you wish: the fighter has NO CHANCE. Ixidor is escpecially build to combat casters, and Zedarak costs 27 credits. We are core, but more importantly, we are here to test builds (as MB just confirmed). This is the very reason the CoCo exists! If Bruno can blast 20 spells into one fight, is this a real test of the build? You might have terminated the charging hillgiants but what about the dragon that comes after them? Or even a regular band of brigands would beat you! This has nothing to do with testing a build. Ok, forget about the polymorph thing then. But what about cutting spells by half? THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS IN A CAMPAIGN!! And it is still much to have half of your spells expended into a single fight. Let us play this scenario: The cleric casts divine power and righteous might. Though he will beat most of the fighters now, 1 minute later the world looks differently again, and there won't be a second casting of these spells. The druid might wildshape and animal growth into a direbear but then he hasn't enough spells left to flamestrike and fireseed the fighter that is forced to keep distance. And the wizards save-or-die spells get more interesting because if they fail, then the wizard is left with his quarterstaff and some ray of frosts. I think this is a HUGE step towards more balance in the arena and we will finally see more fighter types. As it is now, from level 10 on a spellcaster wins 29 out of 30 battles. And this time, I bet BOTH Euros. Edit: Oh Oh, muchos importante! PLEASE don't base your opinion on the fact that you play a spellcaster! We are here to improve the CoCo for all, and not trying to get the best out for one's own gladiator. Edit2: With the spells cut by half we can even drop the prememorizing of spells!
Druid Roxors 07-06-04, 11:26 PM	NO
Druid Roxors 07-06-04, 11:27 PM	Perhaps the post above looked quite biased. I did expect that.
Caterane 07-06-04, 11:44 PM	And rule 3: If you can't counter my arguments with anything else than "No" then better say nothing at all. We are here to discuss, Druid Roxors, and when I said that this is for the benefit of the CoCo and not personal gain I wasn't kidding.
SnarkHunter 07-06-04, 11:47 PM	It wouldn't be as much fun if we did that. I'd stop playing spell casters. Heck I might stop playing all together. Edit:And Cat I don't appreciate you misrepresenting my character's abilities. Donkey has lost 6 fights this is true. 3 of those were as a pure Ogre vs. full fledged 6th level characters (CR 3 vs. CR6+ if you want to use an apt comparison). Of his last 5 fights he's lost 1. 2 of those wins were against a finely made shapeshifting druid.
kattattack22 07-07-04, 12:03 AM	Well, back when I played Ony I was very determined to make a straight fighter work. I even gave him good wisdom score with Iron Will to combat the save or die spells. My main problem there was Ony's ability to counter spellcaster tactics. Ony could hardly afford the potions or items he needed to fight them (potions of fly, brooch of shielding, Hand of Glory). Ony spent all his money on potions to win while his weapons remained unenchanted and necessary items lacking. A wizard gets scribe scroll for free and can easily spend a couple thousand gp in scrolls to cover all contingencies and still have some left over for the easily crafted items. We could award more money to non-spellcasters or less to spellcasters, but then would that really fix anything? People then could complain that non-spellcasters only win because they get more money to spend. So far, the only option (that I sudder to think about) is having all spells memorized on the character sheet. I think this would reflect a campagin becasue a spellcaster doesn't know what he will have to face each day and be judicious in his choices. Besides with the teirs it still limits their possible opponents to let them decide what to prepare for a limited number of situations. I think we could handle this much at least to give non-spellcasters a better idea of what to expect and force prepartory spellcasters to be flexible and creative with what they have. It would also benefit sorcerers whose main attraction is spontaneous casting and bards, clerics and druids to a lesser extent.
TaggIIV 07-07-04, 12:13 AM	Originally posted by Caterane Edit: Oh Oh, muchos importante! PLEASE don't base your opinion on the fact that you play a spellcaster! We are here to improve the CoCo for all, and not trying to get the best out for one's own gladiator. If that was directed at me, which I think it was, you might have misinterpreted me. I said I'd prefer not to have any restrictions because of that, but I put out what I thought was a pretty reasonable compromise (which btw seems to have been completely overlooked :p) that would help balance things without totally neutering casters. THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT IS IN A CAMPAIGN!! And it is still much to have half of your spells expended into a single fight. Let us play this scenario: At low levels, it is quite reasonable to use up the whole maybe 5 spells you have in 1 encounter. Its unreasonable to suggest just outright butchering spell use regardless of circumstance. Think of a level 2 wizard vs. a level 2 barbarian, with the restrictions you're suggesting. Round 1: wizard casts mage armor, barbarian enters rage and starts running. Round 2: wizard casts magic missile, dents barbarian a little, and is now out of spells because of the restriction. Barbarian closes in. Round 3+: Wizard is stranded and forced to try and combat the tank outright. See my point now? At higher levels, I agree, though, but a level line/divider is extremely crucial, at the least. The cleric casts divine power and righteous might. Though he will beat most of the fighters now, 1 minute later the world looks differently again, and there won't be a second casting of these spells. A MINUTE? That's 10 whole rounds, a huge chunk of a battle if not all of it in most cases. It's ridiculous of you to try and pass that off as small potatoes.
Jindl 07-07-04, 12:28 AM	Originally posted by kattattack22 So far, the only option (that I sudder to think about) is having all spells memorized on the character sheet. I think this would reflect a campagin becasue a spellcaster doesn't know what he will have to face each day and be judicious in his choices. Besides with the teirs it still limits their possible opponents to let them decide what to prepare for a limited number of situations. I think we could handle this much at least to give non-spellcasters a better idea of what to expect and force prepartory spellcasters to be flexible and creative with what they have. It would also benefit sorcerers whose main attraction is spontaneous casting and bards, clerics and druids to a lesser extent. Katt - As you make this statement, I am reminded of when MO first suggested that we premem half of the spells. People went nutz (Caterane most of all!). Eventually MO made the decision, since he was the only GM at the time. It was his thread and he had the right to make that call himself. Since then it has worked pretty well I think. On to why I think half is the correct number, and not all. How many times in a real campaign does a wizard face an opponent who already knows what and how many of each spells that a wizard has memorized? Never. It simply is not appropriate for the opponent to know all of the spells the spellcaster has memorized. Also, the intelligent player has an idea what sort of situations his character will face the next day. Going into a volcano? Better memorize resist fire and some cold-based attack spells. Going to rescue the princess from trolls? Better memorize Melf's. Etc. Etc. I think this is adequately represented by the ability to memorize half your spells after pairings. On to the issue at hand: Namely, how to compensate for spellcasters being more powerful at higher levels. My answer: Don't. There is noone saying that all character classes are supposed to be equal at all levels in the Core Rules. You know going into it, that if you make a Ftr/Barb, then you will be powerful at the low levels and weaker at the high levels. The simple fact is, there is no real way to balance the strength of the individual classes at higher levels. I don't understand why we are even trying. What we should be doing is learning from the game. If the CoCo teaches us that a single classed fighter is weak compared to the cleric at higher levels, then take that knowledge to your pen+paper game. I'll reserve space for my additional comments later, I think I've said plenty for everyone to hopefully consider for now. -Jindl
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 12:50 AM	Originally posted by Caterane And rule 3: If you can't counter my arguments with anything else than "No" then better say nothing at all. We are here to discuss, Druid Roxors, and when I said that this is for the benefit of the CoCo and not personal gain I wasn't kidding. Sorry Cat, But I had to respond and outstash an old game. I think you know what im talking about (check the rp thread). AAAAANNYWAYS.... I believe that Druids are powerful, but do not get me started on Cleric Vs Druid. The only reason I decided to create an account on the WOTC boards was to fight back some guy who said Druids sucked horribly. And I tried to look as biased as I could. This was on the old 3.5 Beta boards, perhaps some of you remember it. Clerics are at least as powerful as druids when built correctly and his spells are far more powerful/useful. But, this is not the matter at hand. Spelcasters are powerful at high levels and weak at low levels. This is an intended feature, as others have already explained. The main problem I find is the ammount of flexibility available to spellcasters. What I propose is this: All spellcasters are required to point out all their spells of their 3 highest levels. Thats right. All of them. EXCEPT for Bonus spells from high Stats. Spells from level 3 or below are an exception. The rest of them are handled with the actual rules of the CoCo. Most high level surprise tactics use their higher level spells, no surprise tactic using low level spells will be as tide-changing. In my opinion, this would be a sutile but effective change.
Jindl 07-07-04, 12:51 AM	Um, there is one more thing. I'm not so sure that stating that Zedarak is the most powerful melee'r is accurate. I would bet that Aemon, Brock, Angosh, or Rhoar could take him at the same level. I also think Skymoon and Brackin would both have an excellent chance of beating him (especially Skymoon - gotta respect the pegasus charger). I just don't think its all to appropriate to draw too many conclusions for a 6-7 HD melee'r facing 11-12th level opponents. -Jindl
Pittbull 07-07-04, 04:28 AM	I don't understand the problems, you have. I think, there no reason to change anything. Isn't more challanging to win with a meleer due to great tactics or more fun to win with incredible luck. For me it's less entertaining to play an caster or exspecially a druid, because it's too easy. And when Angosh will Reach Zederak's level he will be almost as strong as he is. Another point, the next thing Angosh will buy is wand of dispell magic level 10 for 22500 gp. I want to see the fully buffed caster who is not afraid of this option. I understand, that this not a general option for all the meleers, because you need a casterlevel, but there a lots of different ways to be dangerous. P.S.: I will bet on our Big Z when it comes to a grapple contest with a Direbear, to give him no chance buy the gloves of titans grap (or however they are called).
Hatzinger 07-07-04, 05:26 AM	The problem i see with the fixed memorized spells is that suddenly the sorcerer shines while the wizard whines. Usually, to take down casters, i (the DM) occupy the tank-PCs while other warriors (about half a dozen of them, with little equipment and a few levels less than the PCs) try to get to the mage from the sides. This not only gives the tanks/Clerics a challenge, but also the mage, who cannot focus on a single opponent and cannot help his friends with artillery-support/buffs. We could incorporate this idea with the rule to have two non-spellcasters fight against one spellcaster. (at ECL 8+, so that the mage can get this high.) We could even use my new map and have the characters use the four random startin positions. That way, the characters do not know whom the´ll meet first or if they run around aimlessly while their enemies team up/buff up. In this scenario, movement/scouting-tactics are more important than brute spellpower. What do you think?
kedi 07-07-04, 09:30 AM	I am not going to propose a rule differency. 1st: This is Core Coliseum, place where you try-out your builds. If you’re stupid to make a cha-wis based fighter and fight with tough-barbarians, your loss is expected. The thing is that you’re going to prove yourself and your ability to create characters by making builds and writing tactics which are destructive. If a fighter has troubles with spellcasters, for he has a ENOURMOUS progress of bonus feats, he coulld spend his 1st, 3rd level feats to iron will, lightning reflexes. If a problem with druids shaping into great animals, he could either multiclass or specialize on ranged attacks thus he could finish the +1982 grapple animal/druid with weapon specialization (longbow) and STR 4 mighty longbow. (5-13 damage), this works for flewn spellcasters too. Bout Improved Invisibility? You could hide and seek if you weren’t wearing that full plate. Alternate answer always exists. 2nd: This is Core Coliseum. Even, though they are official D&D 3.5 Products many stuff are forbidden, actually ALL BUT PHB, DMG and MM. This is because a)not every D&D stuff are balanced, and b)it’s hard to follow other races, prcs and thus for pitlords. Understandable, loud and clear. Despite the fact, we’re discussin on a house-rule, without any idea of what we create would be balanced or not –Can anyone see the irony here? Discussin on an uncertain rule is ok. Discussin on allowing an official wotc product is ok. But making up rules… So let’s ban spells cause they are too powerful. Ban the wildshape. Ban anything. Just roll for initiative. Wait…. This is the slogan of miniatures… I am too sarcastic, be it forgiven, but it’s my 2cp.
Caterane 07-07-04, 10:29 AM	Thanks for your participation, especially to those that try to find a solution to the problem. I want to adress some point of the spellcaster faction. Argument 1: At low levels, wizards are weaker, and at high levels they are stronger. That's the way it is. First of all, wizards are not weaker at lowlevels. Sleep spells and colorsprays are as dangerous as the barbarian's sword, and if you want to assure victory (I said MAKE SURE) then just buy a CL 7 magic missile or fireball scroll. We've seen that in action. Then a very important point: The classes SHOULD be equal in power. If you want a challenge play an expert or a commoner, but the classes are supposed to be equal. But it isn't. Not only is the wizard a bit stronger, it will be a no contest at high levels to the point where it is just frustrating to play a fighter-type. Originally posted by Jindl: Also, the intelligent player has an idea what sort of situations his character will face the next day. Going into a volcano? Better memorize resist fire and some cold-based attack spells. Going to rescue the princess from trolls? Better memorize Melf's. And as it is now in the CoCo, you are going to spend all your spells on the first troll you meet. Does this reflect a campaign IN ANY WAY? No. And I think this is the main problem. Not the prememorizing. Not the gold. Not anything else but only the fact that you can spend all your spells in one fight. D&D IS balanced ...with a campaign in mind. The Core Coliseum however creates a completely different scenario that eliminates the spellcaster's need to household with his spells, and in turn eliminates the fighter's advantage of unlimited ammunition. This creates a differential between the classes. Solution: What about the spellcasters keeping their spells until they level? Or can memorize only once every two fights? Spellcasters can still use scrolls and potions to make up for the lack of spells but they have to pay for them like every fighter has. We would stay core and don't have to come up with house rules, for it is a house rule to rememorize after 1 fight. The more I think about it the more I like this idea.
TaggIIV 07-07-04, 11:48 AM	Spellcasters can still use scrolls and potions to make up for the lack of spells but they have to pay for them like every fighter has Spellcasters get less HD, less BAB, worse weapons. Spells is what makes up for this. By forcing them to buy their magic the same way fighters, with higher HD, better BAB, and better weapons, do, the situation will just be flipped. We shouldn't punish the casters without giving them a bonus in return, or it isn't really 'balanced.' Like 'argument 1' says. We shouldn't neuter spellcasters unless we neuter fighters, too. Because then at low levels, its a hands-down blowout as the wizard is killed with the same against-the-odds situation you are speaking of about fighters against wizards at higher levels. If you're going to change one side of the scale, you need to change both. Then a very important point: The classes SHOULD be equal in power. If you want a challenge play an expert or a commoner, but the classes are supposed to be equal. But it isn't. Not only is the wizard a bit stronger, it will be a no contest at high levels to the point where it is just frustrating to play a fighter-type. And guess what? At lower levels it can be just frustrating to be caster-type as it is to be a fighter at higher levels, because you're getting knocked on your ass without a chance by tanks. Because, with the changes you suggest, at low levels where the wizard only gets like 5 spells normally, and now 2 or 3 per day, and of fairly weak spells. So you have caster that can cast prestidigitation and mage armor in one corner, against a raging barbarian with a big axe in the other. Mage uses the Mage Armor quickly, which only balances the fact the barb has a chainshirt on. And now, you have the aforementioned lower HD, lower BAB, and crappier weapons mage going toe-to-toe with the tank. And, like you say, the classes should be equal. And if you make a change that 1) weakens casters across the board; 2) strengthens fighters across the board, what kind of equality are you making? We have the 10-round countout rule, so mages already can't be untouchable. And hey, 10 rounds is 'just a minute,' which according to you in the post about clerics, is not a big deal. First of all, wizards are not weaker at lowlevels. Okay, then maybe wizards aren't, but what about the other casters you plan to disable? Particularly the divine casters whose first level spells are almost all defensive or passive, and the offensive ones do almost nothing. Sleep spells and colorsprays are as dangerous as the barbarian's sword Sleep is a full round spell; there is an excellent chance the barbarian can either get to and hack the mage before spell completes, or can find cover. Color spray... that's a close range, which means normally casting it when it's effective provokes an AoO which has a decent chance of stifling the spell (and even if that doesn't happen there's a Will save) edit: Alternate Solution: Have modified gold for each class. The PHB awards more gp to tanks and less to casters, because tanks need more equipment (weapons and armor etc) than mages; this way, low level casters can't be firing off level 9 spells against a level 2 fighter, simply because he can't afford them, which might even things. Also, with the extra gold the fighter gets, he can spend on scrolls and potions to counter some of the mage's magic. edit two: I think I rather like the gold difference theory. Fleshed out, it could be something like: A starting character gets 1000gp, regardless of class. Each level he gains afterward, he gains gold as follows: Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger 5/4 of standard; Bard, Rogue, Cleric 4/4 of standard; Druid, Monk, Sorceror, Wizard 3/4 standard. Or something similar. Just an idea.
Aramil Dunskar 07-07-04, 12:36 PM	All I am saying is that I agree with Cat, in my last battle I had absolutly no change one Sven ploy'd into a dragon, which I still didnt' know you could do that..... Anyways, even Druid pointed that out, he even stated that I had no chance in the battle when Sven polly'd. Plus if you guys reduce the amount of spells that we can cast then my guy is screwed since he is a Fighter/Cleric. So I don't know what you can do to even out the field, just try and find something that won't screw my guy over, and other people who are like my guy. -AD
Caterane 07-07-04, 12:54 PM	Then what about this: Same solution as above but only for characters with at least Casterlevel 8. That way low-level wizards are still fully capable of casting spells, aswell as multiclass characters with only some levels in a spellcasting class, and it targets the real problem without nerving Aramil's guy :)
Jindl 07-07-04, 01:30 PM	Originally posted by Aramil Dunskar All I am saying is that I agree with Cat, in my last battle I had absolutly no change one Sven ploy'd into a dragon, which I still didnt' know you could do that..... Anyways, even Druid pointed that out, he even stated that I had no chance in the battle when Sven polly'd. Plus if you guys reduce the amount of spells that we can cast then my guy is screwed since he is a Fighter/Cleric. So I don't know what you can do to even out the field, just try and find something that won't screw my guy over, and other people who are like my guy. -AD No offense intended Aramil, but you lost that fight because you didn't buy any ranged weapons for your PC. You would have lost just as bad to an archer with a potion: fly. You cannot expect to win at 8th level without any means of either ranged attack or flight. If Ernie had a Mighty (+2) composite longbow and some arrows, you would have had an excellent chance to defeat Sven. -Jindl
Magagumo 07-07-04, 01:39 PM	I'll just say, Aramil, that in all fairness it wasn't the fact that eh could polymoprh that killed you- a ranged fighter with flight could have repeated the same trick. I think Grimlock once suffered a similar problem vs. the Elder, when he only have javelins and no bow. I should point out one other thing that poeple are missing- all classes may be equal in power, but that doesn't mean they are equally effective against one another. We keep bring up the "poor fighter". but I think people have made excellent comments on feat selection. Also, people seem to be disregarding the fact that there are several classes involved here- not just fighters. You've all heard my spiel regarding the rick-paper-scissors nature of the arnea, but it is true- Monks crush arcane casters if given half a chance, their excellent saves, high AC, and eventual spell resistance (not to mention ability to capitilize on poor Fort saves) makes them well-suited for this task. Arcane casters tend to be decent vs. druids and divine casters (depending on the build) , etc. Ironically, I've never heard about nerfing barbarians, sicne they clearly prevent rogues form sneak attacking (ever notice the incredible amount of 2nd lvl barbarians in this arena (I own 1 going on 3)? I swear, Gladius is truly uncivilized ;). But yes, I think bemonaing how one class can beat another is frutitless- the arcane casters might dominate the fighter, but the monk or rogue that have climbed the ranks can certainly give them hell in their own special way ;)
kattattack22 07-07-04, 03:00 PM	Originally posted by Caterane Then what about this: Same solution as above but only for characters with at least Casterlevel 8. That way low-level wizards are still fully capable of casting spells, aswell as multiclass characters with only some levels in a spellcasting class, and it targets the real problem without nerving Aramil's guy :) 1 problem Mystic Theuges and other multiclass casters Arkin is ECL 11 with caster levels 6 and 7.
Jindl 07-07-04, 03:04 PM	Good points, Mag. (And it was Lothar who was defeated by the Elder.) For some examples of monks/rogues defeating casters: Rito Maya defeats Gage. Rito Maya defeats Octavian. Kiowen defeats Grym Mordib. Kelek defeats Pale-Rider, twice! Kelek defeats Johan. Kelek defeats Curungur. Voliana defeats Grym Mordib. For examples of melee/archer types defeating casters: Donkey defeats Dra'kel, twice! Donkey defeats Grym Mordib. Spike defeats Peter. Aemon defeats Heinrich. Kage defeats Zephin. Kage defeats Sven Enno. Kage defeats Clio. Rhoar defeats Heinrich. Zorander defeats Ocatavian. Zorander defeats Candy. Jagath defeats Herrix. All of the above fights were at ECL >= 8. This info was pulled from the fight records at the end of the character sheets. I think it proves pretty clearly that it's anybody's fight. The casters who are losing are considered to be quite powerful (Grym Mordrib is the only character to ever beat Aku; Dra'kel is a very powerful druid - or at least Cat seems afraid of him; Peter is one of the few Level 13's, Heinrich is your stereotypical Grey Elf Wiz, Pale-Rider was "unstoppable", Johan is a Level 13, Herrix was "unstoppable", etc.) yet they all lost to the "weak fighters and rogues and monks". I think this list proves what Magagumo was saying in his post above. As for the strength of melee'rs at low levels, consider this. Our "Unscathed winners" have been Alathar Vierce (pure melee), Iron the Panza (barb/cleric melee), Aemon (non-caster), and almost Rhoar (non-caster). How many wizards or druids do you see? -Jindl
Beldin 07-07-04, 03:22 PM	At level 8 Aemon defeated Heinrich with the only tactic i could think of: interupt his spellcasting. With the new central pillar that isn't an option anymore. But after looking at the professors prebuffs i do not think that this tactic would help Aemon...:rolleyes:
Battousai2005 07-07-04, 03:33 PM	Ok, this is getting stupid. As you may note, Kage is non-caster and I intend to keep him as such. You want to see a fighter beat casters? Look at Kage: Win vs: Zephin (wiz) Clio (Mystic T) Sven (Another Wiz) Now, granted, I lost twice vs. Heinrich, but I count that as two errors of judgement and good tactics on Hatzingers part. My only other loss was against Angosh, and that was me being stupid again. I don't count myself as overly arrogant, nor do I believe that I am any more intellegent than anyone in this forum. Kage is proof that a non-caster CAN win in the arena. I had to compensate for the casters, yes (hand of glory), but that was just one purchase. He still has two +2 equivelence weapons, a +3 equiv. Shield, and +1 armor. IMHO, I think he's done quite well. Kage is the furthest from a caster you can get in this game, and he has won despite this. So lets run a little comparison. I am using Kage as an example. Sorry, but he is my best character. Unless I very much overstep my bounds, he is also one of the highest non-casters in the COCO. Druid: The issue is wildshape. Good: yes. Unbeatable: no. Ok, druid wildshapes, has his companion fly around, blah blah blah. Ok, shoot the stupid companion with a bow, then shoot the druid. Failing that, Kage could simply close. He is a match for most animals of equal HD in sheer combat. Now, we get a grappler. Granted, Kage sucks in this situation. Lets have my ally mix it up a bit. Wind wall. Here is an idea: go through it. No, really. Try it. Wiz/Sorc: I'm gonna group these. Sorry. Well, as Kage has repeatedly proven, casters are suceptible to actions readied to interrupt casting. Its good, effective, and makes it so most gray elf wizards have to worry about it. The flying thing: Well, whoop de frickin do. Buy a potion of fly. Yay! Oh, not working for you? Fine, buy a giant eagle, griffon, hippogriff, or pegasus. I could afford one at, what, 5th lev? Nice, effective, and an ally. No ride? Thats the potion, pal. Ranged weapons also hurt here. Invisible: Yah, this is a pain in the butt. Invest in listen... No, seriously. No? Fine. Buy a hand of glory at higher levels. It works, as I have proven. Otherwise, sorry, this one goes by. You could do what I do and ready. Otherwise, this is something people need to work around. EDIT: Cat, seriously, Kage's win-loss ratio is nice. 8-3 and no bumps. Consider it.
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 03:39 PM	Originally posted by Caterane And as it is now in the CoCo, you are going to spend all your spells on the first troll you meet. Does this reflect a campaign IN ANY WAY? No. And I think this is the main problem. Not the prememorizing. Not the gold. Not anything else but only the fact that you can spend all your spells in one fight. D&D IS balanced ...with a campaign in mind. The Core Coliseum however creates a completely different scenario that eliminates the spellcaster's need to household with his spells, and in turn eliminates the fighter's advantage of unlimited ammunition. This creates a differential between the classes. Think about what you just said... Unless this troll has the same ECL than the whole party combined... It is justified to spend all your spells on it. Its pretty much the Boss Battle. The fights on the CoCo involve characters who's ECL is the same, which means, they should have a 50% chance of success. This is a very difficult battle and could pretty much the the final boss of a campaign. You would, of course, store your best spells for him.
Battousai2005 07-07-04, 03:41 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Think about what you just said... Unless this troll has the same ECL than the whole party combined... It is justified to spend all your spells on it. Its pretty much the Boss Battle. The fights on the CoCo involve characters who's ECL is the same, which means, they should have a 50% chance of success. This is a very difficult battle and could pretty much the the final boss of a campaign. You would, of course, store your best spells for him. Something to add: PC's, in camps, are considered CR=Character level. Think about it.
Caterane 07-07-04, 04:21 PM	For some examples of monks/rogues defeating casters: You're talking about monks (we have quite a few) but I am talking about fighters and straight barbarians. Where are they? Kage is the only one. We even had more kobolds than fighters! As I said: 29 out of 30 fights at that level will go to the wizard. Rhoar just fought meleers so far and when you had to battle Heinrich ...well, we all know what happened there. I also don't see a fighter here, and half of the fights are due to luck (like "zorandered") Btw Jindl, you - as a GM - should be more concerned with the balance of the CoCo and not your characters. Or do you want to tell me that fighter vs wizard is balanced??? If you think so then say "Yes, I think fighter is equal to a wizard/druid/cleric in a duel"; I just want to hear it here infront of everyone. And why not accept Dr.Dre's challenge and I show you how effective Rhoar is. We can make this fight a hundred times; if you win once I bow my head. So lets run a little comparison. I am using Kage as an example. Sorry, but he is my best character. Unless I very much overstep my bounds, he is also one of the highest non-casters in the COCO. Ok, Kage himself spoke so let's compare them indeed: Druid: The issue is wildshape. Good: yes. Unbeatable: no. Ok, druid wildshapes, has his companion fly around, blah blah blah. Ok, shoot the stupid companion with a bow, then shoot the druid. Failing that, Kage could simply close. He is a match for most animals of equal HD in sheer combat. Now, we get a grappler. Granted, Kage sucks in this situation. Lets have my ally mix it up a bit. Huge animalgrowthed Direbear: Kage in melee = dead. Flamestrikes and fireseeds vs Kage's arrows: Kage in ranged = dead Shoot the 120hp animal companion? Kage does about 10 damage on average if he hits. How long does it take? And how many rounds can the druid now either close in, or kill you with elemental damage while you shoot the bat? Your ally? The one you get with Cha 8? Or the one that you bought for a lot of money with its 40 hp? Man, you would have no chance. And let's keep in mind: the melee fighter cannot close to melee against the druid, else he's dead. Kage suggested ranged. Wiz/Sorc: I'm gonna group these. Sorry. Well, as Kage has repeatedly proven, casters are suceptible to actions readied to interrupt casting. Its good, effective, and makes it so most gray elf wizards have to worry about it. The flying thing: Well, whoop de frickin do. Buy a potion of fly. Yay! Oh, not working for you? Fine, buy a giant eagle, griffon, hippogriff, or pegasus. I could afford one at, what, 5th lev? Nice, effective, and an ally. No ride? Thats the potion, pal. Ranged weapons also hurt here. Invisible: Yah, this is a pain in the butt. Invest in listen... No, seriously. No? Fine. Buy a hand of glory at higher levels. It works, as I have proven. Otherwise, sorry, this one goes by. You could do what I do and ready. Otherwise, this is something people need to work around. Ready action? Mislead, programmed image, contingency Mirror images, all on round 1. Now many targets (~20) to ready an action, eh? And I still have a quickened spell left! You have bought a 750 gp potion of fly? Dispel magic, almost autosuccess. You will never reach the wizard. Hand of glory with CL 5, useable once per day? Dispel magic, or greater dispel magic, while greater invisibility is running. Good bye. Try to listen to me when I'm 155ft above you and shooting empowered fireballs on you. Oh, you have lightning reflexes. Sorry :rolleyes: So you shoot arrows at an mirror imaged invisible far away mage that leaves a barrage of spells on your head? NO CHANCE! And let's keep in mind that here too, Kage's suggestion is to use ranged combat. So why go melee in the first place? You can tell me what you want: the wizard will always roast the fighter. If anyone doesn't agree, make a fighter now! Level 13. I will make a wizard, or use Dr.Dre advanced to 13, and I promise you that this will be a 10-0 record. Or 20-0. Or 30-0. Whatever number of fights you want to do. So we have a problem here. This is no rick-paper-scissor but spellcaster vs non-spellcaster, and one of them always gets the short stick. I am here to balance this, and I would like to hear suggestions on this. I guess it will eventually come down to a vote, and the more suggestions you add the better a solution we might find in the end. Mystic theurges MT are the least affected with my proposed rule. They have more spells than every other spellcaster and can still use all of them long before the regular spellcaster has to household. We can also raise the rule to high-level and pre-epic levels. That way you can still rememorize until level 11. At 12th you have to make a second fight before you can memorize again.
Jindl 07-07-04, 04:27 PM	Originally posted by Beldin At level 8 Aemon defeated Heinrich with the only tactic i could think of: interupt his spellcasting. With the new central pillar that isn't an option anymore. But after looking at the professors prebuffs i do not think that this tactic would help Aemon...:rolleyes: He can't kill you if he can't see you. Buy an elixer: hiding and use that +24 Hide skill vs his +10 Spot. Better yet, use an elixer and a tatoo: chameleon (100 gp) and use your +34 Hide vs his +10 Spot. Snipe at will (don't forget that distance makes it even harder for him to spot you). If he is invis, then use some of the methods Kage suggests. Go and read how Kelek defeated Pale-Rider twice for more ideas. -Jindl
Jindl 07-07-04, 04:36 PM	Cat - I just gave you like 15 examples of non-casters defeating casters at levels higher than 8. You suggest that I had to really search for the exceptions, but the simple truth is there aren't that many non-casters at these levels. So I had to use the ones that are there. And all of the high level non-casters have been succesful against spellcasters. It's not a fluke. You talk about Rhoar vs Dr. Dre. Well, wait a level and let Rhoar get Dimension Door from Horizon Walker. We'll see how Dre likes an archer firing 4 arrows per round that deal 2d6+16 each and that can dimension door almost at will as a supernatural ability. Watch as Rhoar interrupts Dre's action to dimension door right next to him. Then, since his initiative is now higher than Dre's, he unloads a full attack with his greatclub (you know, the one that does 4d6+30 per hit). Dre has like 73 hps. I doubt he would survive two hits from Rhoar's club, or four from his arrows. And believe me, 2d6+16 will disrupt your spellcasting. Or maybe he grabs Dre and grapples him to death with his +26 grapple check and armor spikes. Ever think about readying an action to deal damage with a grapple check when the wizard tries to cast teleport/dimension door? As for the fear of dispel magic, the nice thing about a hand of glory is that in addition to casting see invisibility, it can also hold another ring of counterspells. -Jindl
Caterane 07-07-04, 04:44 PM	Ahem, perhaps you didn't read the whole description, or perhaps you didn't know that the CoCo is located on the Material Plane, but Dimension door at will is only possible on shifting planes like Limbo or Shadowplane.
Magagumo 07-07-04, 04:44 PM	One ntoe, Jindl (sorry to interrupt) but the Dimension Door power only works in shifiting planes like Shadow and Limbo, not the material. I've seen numerous discussion regarding this and all agree that this power is only usable there, not on Material (I'm afraid you aren't getting unlimited use of a 4th lvl spell from a non-epic class). However, this does not negate the possibility that Rhoar can defeat Dre.
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 04:45 PM	First of all Caterane, you have not responded to my last post. Second of all, your logic is Flawed. If you implement a nerf on pure spellcasters, those builds which have supernatural abilities (all but pure fighter/barb) are going to have an unfair advantage. Assasins, Rangers, Shadowdancers, Tricksters... there are many builds which are effective at higher levels and can compete with the pure casters. The way I see the Barb/Fighter classes is that they are not and are not ment to be effective at higher levels. This has been discussed alot in the past on other boards. The fact remains that these classes are still desireable. They are great to build your characters with rage, hp and extra feats. This classes cannot be effective at higher levels without proper crossclass/prestigeclass support. Any change to spellcasters will hinder them against supernatural/half casters inadequately.
Caterane 07-07-04, 04:51 PM	Ahem, perhaps you didn't read the whole description, or perhaps you didn't know that the CoCo is located on the Material Plane, but Dimension door at will is only possible on shifting planes like Limbo or Shadowplane.
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 04:56 PM	About the Shifting plane ability. I see no reason why it wouldn't work in the material plane. All planes are ever-changing and the material plane is no exception. If you are basing your conclusions on the fact that the power is granted by a Shifting (Planar) mastery then when you get the Cold (Planar) mastery your cold resist 20 will not work on the material plane. Ridiculous.
Jindl 07-07-04, 04:57 PM	Originally posted by Magagumo One ntoe, Jindl (sorry to interrupt) but the Dimension Door power only works in shifiting planes like Shadow and Limbo, not the material. I've seen numerous discussion regarding this and all agree that this power is only usable there, not on Material (I'm afraid you aren't getting unlimited use of a 4th lvl spell from a non-epic class). However, this does not negate the possibility that Rhoar can defeat Dre. We'll argue about the planar mastery later. I do have more than enough support in the rules to convince you otherwise. -Jindl
LLMadCow 07-07-04, 05:04 PM	Okay gang, I have read enough to know what I think about the whole situation. Want the arena to refelect the dynamics of a REAL LIFE CAMPAIGN? Try this on for size: From now on, when pairings are done, instead of posting who the characters are fighting against, simply post a Pitlord for them to e-mail tactics to. The tactics should be complete enough to go up against ANYONE in their bracket. Then, e-mail all of the Pitlords with who their fights are and ANY no fighters the have. ('No Fighter' would be for when one player is sending tactics and has no actual opponent, due to the rolled out aspect of pairings. Also, the no fighter would be sending an e-mail to one of the pitlords already running at that level!) Enforce the Tactics by Friday rule and also Enforce no posting of fights prior to Saturday. This way, people have no idea who they are fighting, and have no chance of knowing, Pitlords can still run the fights as soon as they have the tactics, but they cannot post until Saturday morning. (Thank God for Word Processors that let us save our fights!) There, my two cents.
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 05:10 PM	I wouldn't enjoy writing tactics 4 pages long for every single fight. Besides, in a real campaign, we do have an idea of who we are facing. Thats why we have the scrying characters, or the bard, or whatever.
LLMadCow 07-07-04, 05:23 PM	Okay, so if you have the ability to SCRY, you can know who you are fighting. Remember, this is 1-on-1 fighting, not party vs party. And, go ahead and SCRY yourself on over to the list of the other characters at your own level. It's not like you have to write tactics against any other levels.
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 05:28 PM	About the Shifting (planar) ability: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140889&highlight=Shifting+Planar That should settle it. No further discussion.
Battousai2005 07-07-04, 05:30 PM	Ok, lets see... Kage vs. Big bear. What do we know about bears? They are big, ugly, and they smell. Kage alone=dead. Kage w/ ally=possible win. There is a reason for allies. Yah. Fire seeds. Ouch. Thats one spell. We can't base whole arguments on one or two spells. Animal companions? Yah, they hurt. However, look at Lillith vs. Paul. One severly hurt Dire bat in that match. As to readied actions, Cat, LOOK at Kage's last few fights. He won them on that tactic. So lets assume the ugly wizard does x number of images. Well, yah, that hurts. Still, Kage has more than one attack. Oh, and I never said anything about range in my tactic. Melee. Lets see, 2 attacks at 1d8 apiece or 3 attacks, 2 at 1d10 and one at 1d6. Yah, melee is the option here. Oh, readied: 1d10 vs. 1d8. Yah, same choice. I'll take that bet. Tell you what: I'll use a special build I've been saving a while. You would appreciate it: mounted charger. Or, better yet, Olinad! Yes, Olinad. Him, he can work on casters. Granted, he is a paladin, but if I turned him into a fighter, I bet I can use it.
Magagumo 07-07-04, 05:38 PM	@Druid Not to completely revive the DD debate re: Horizon Walker, but your link is fairly convincing.. better is the additional link to an email from the class's creator, who confirms its ability to sue it anywhere. That sold me... I'll go weep over Shadowdancer's "weak, useless" shadow jump and blatantly ignore their powerful companion and rogue abilites now ;) :P.
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 05:52 PM	ok :angel:
Caterane 07-07-04, 06:16 PM	There are a lot of "hurts" in it. And see: you need a special build from the Master of the CO board while every idiot can make a wizard, and still be better. Guys, can't you see the differential???
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 06:52 PM	Originally posted by Caterane There are a lot of "hurts" in it. And see: you need a special build from the Master of the CO board while every idiot can make a wizard, and still be better. Guys, can't you see the differential??? Hey cat I hope you are not calling all players of spellcasting characters (who are not elder mods) Idiots. Because I am one myself. And I believe that it has been a challenge as it is for many to use a spellcaster (I have NEVER wildshaped offensively) against a well built non-spelcaster. If you want to have all clases balanced AND as easy to use, why not change all clases to "Commoner" and hack away with our pickaxes... If you choose to be a warrior class its your choice. A perfectly viable choice at that. But be adviced that effective meleers are more difficult to build than pure casters. Thats why I liked this CoCo being part of the Character optimization board and why I like the whole theme of it. You are trying to build optimal characters. Do not expect a poorly built character to succeed. And yes, I do see the Difference
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 06:54 PM	BTW, you can use hearing to get past mirror image. Never had time to discuss it tho. If you want to start just say the word.
Tellish_of_Ket 07-07-04, 07:50 PM	Kelek defeats Pale-Rider, twice! Kelek defeats Johan. Kelek defeats Curungur. I think Jindl forgot (or wants to forget), in my opinion the most exciting fighter-type vs pure wizard match and that's Hurtz vs Eniolisaryn :) :) There are more. There's also, Kelek vs Buttmunch, druid 4th. :) I agree with the HW, DD ability useable everywhere. Maybe make two arena's? One for meleers, and one for spellcasters? <shrugs> Yes, Spike was a great example of an absolutely devastating meleer. Why M_S retired him, i have no idea. That guy split skulls like it was nobody's business. I have to agree spellcasters are more dominant and on average more apt to win. I have MANY counters to this as you will see once the 13's get unfrozen. Wish i could say my plan. The only thing i could suggest changing, or nerfing, would be in increase the pre-mem'd spells from 1/2 round down, to 1/2 rounded up. That's about the limit of my opinion on this. I think people who've been here long enough, know that instead of nerfing something i find solutions to defeat it. I have authored many such tactics: - the anti-charger, - the pillar dancer - the super-stealth - the animal affinity/focus (to counter other "pets") - the anti-ready ...and others. My answer is simple, find a way first before changing the rules. -ToK
Jindl 07-07-04, 07:58 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors BTW, you can use hearing to get past mirror image. Never had time to discuss it tho. If you want to start just say the word. That depends on whether you believe the images are sharing the same space or not. Or perhaps you're referring to the eyes closed strategy (sometimes a 50% miss chance is better than trying to hit the right image. Specifically when there is more than one image, you're better off with your eyes closed.) Oh, and thanks for posting the DD ability threads. You may even notice that I had the 2nd post on the big thread... :D -Jindl @Tellish - Sorry, I didn't mean to exclude Hurtz. Actually, he is a great example (although I am still somewhat ashamed of that defeat...) Hurtz was a non-caster specialized at fighting casters. And he was quite good at that!
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 08:11 PM	No prob Jindl. In fact I just went into the "Classes" thread and searched for "Shifting (planar)" knowing that if they are quoting from the class itself, it must be the discussion im looking for. Yep, I saw your post there. [edit]Eyes closed works, but opening them just before hitting (free action) gets you the right square and 0% miss chance. Also, the spell says that you cannot detect the caster by hearing "While splitting". Meaning that when he casts the spell and every time he wants to switch places, Only.
Magagumo 07-07-04, 08:39 PM	Except they aren't in different squares, Druid, they all share the same one, practically overlapping one another. I'm curious, where has this misconception originated? (you are not the first one I've heard who mistakes the mirror images for occupying surrounding squares). I think Jindl is right, in that you're better off closing your eyes if you ahev few atatcks. However, if you can lay down 4 or 5 attacks (Hasted, Rapid sShooting archer with BA +11), you can easily devestate their easy-to-hit images in one round. That way, your miss chance vanishes very quickly, and won't continue to plague you. Also, Cleave is a fine tool for shredding images, it's simply a shame that Great Cleave is nigh useless in one on one fights (unless you're fighting v. weak summons).
Druid Roxors 07-07-04, 08:55 PM	Mirror image works in both ways. Although I agree most would prefer to have their mirror images on the same square.
Caterane 07-08-04, 09:56 AM	No of course I'm not saying you are all idiots. I just didn't expect that unanimous reaction. What about Tellish's idea to prememorize half spells rounded up, not down?
LLMadCow 07-08-04, 10:24 AM	@ALL - I may have forgotten to mention this before, but to all of you TOUTING A WIN AGAINST CLIO... SHAME ON YOU! I mean, c'mon! First off, she is a spellcaster. Secondly, she is a solid 3 levels behind almost EVERY OTHER spellcaster in the arena. Third, she has TWO casting stats to try to keep high (Wis and Int)! And now, the fourth thing is that she has a template that makes her life hell, in so many respects; Toe to toe with another caster, she is now 7 levels behind the curve ... time to get real creative. Her new favorite spell may be Bestow Curse. I am hoping that the equipment I have purchased for her makes life liveable and she does't lose every fight, but who knows? Edit: And praise be to the powers that some people were missing the proper equipment and/or the proper tactics. (I know someone who probably went right out and bought a brooch of shielding!)
Jindl 07-08-04, 11:05 AM	@LL - I think it is a high compliment to Clio that people feel a victory against her is a win that is significant enough to discuss. -Jindl
Druid Roxors 07-08-04, 11:18 AM	Originally posted by Caterane No of course I'm not saying you are all idiots. I just didn't expect that unanimous reaction. What about Tellish's idea to prememorize half spells rounded up, not down? Although my proposal is more severe than this one, I agree with Tellish.
amalcon 07-08-04, 06:22 PM	I don't know if people will like this suggestion at all, but I figure I'll throw it out there: What if, when you cast a spell (using up a slot) that slot is not available in the next battle (though slots used two battles or more ago are available again). This does a fair job of simulating the resources you have available at any given time in a real campaign. This would have the effect of cutting your spells in half; however, it gives the caster the option of conserving them in one battle so that more remain to be used in the next, or to blow their entire spell list on a single opponent when they know they're in trouble.
Magagumo 07-08-04, 06:36 PM	I have to say if any change must be made, then rounding up seems fairly innocuous as a whole (the others flat-out cripple casters). If it helps to know one more of my spells per level (and I'm forced to use a more generic spell, rather than one that could specifically hurt my opponent, which seems to be the aim of the proposal) then so be it.
SnarkHunter 07-08-04, 07:37 PM	I could live with that as well. The problem I see with saying that spells can't be used in more then one battle in a row (aside from being hard to keep track of) is that it reminds me too much of my hardcore arena. Something I'd still like to see happen by the by :).
MysticMonk2005 07-08-04, 09:08 PM	The thing is your standard fighter IS weak at the high levels. I was in an epic campain, and the fighter was the weakest one in the party. His FullPlate+5 did not keep him from being hit, almost any thing could hit him. The only thing he had going for him was his mass HP. Most of the time he was rendered useless. I think the point of the generic fighter is to keep the wizard alive untill he becomes strong. And while I may not being saying much, Sarah(my only non-psionic/non-fighter) while being my most succesful character( which I believe is due more to luck) stands almost no chance against mounted people. Regardless of how good a build is or how good tactics are, it all mostly boils down to rolls. I think that Pard should of won some fights that he has last due to the rolls.
Dawnlord 07-09-04, 04:42 AM	As I don't have an overlook about the situation here in the CoCo I would say also that a spellcaster who knows everything of his opponent (feats, skills, equipment) is at great advantage. Here is my suggestion: After edit time elapsed, spellcasters have to send their whole spells memorized to the pitlord. After receiving them the Pitlord sends them to the opponents. So the combatants can adjust their tactics to the spells but can't buy specific equipment.
Magagumo 07-09-04, 08:42 AM	Hmm, I see where you're coming from, Dawnlord, btu I believe that takes all the fun out of the arena (and I'm speaking from the non-caster prospective at the moment). Honestly, druids and clerics give me conniptions at times, since they have enormous spell lists, but I've always enjoyed needing to guess the other half of their spells; attempting to predict their strategy and outdo it. I suppose that's the other reason why I think these debates are a bit silly, is because, sure, your build is very important, but it's also how you utilize it. More experienced players have begun to develop trickier characters (often going the ECL route as a result). I love Ban'zanifal b/c his psi-like abillties give him some versatility- Cat has wisely chosen not to make Zedarak pure barbarian or fighter, but is instead exploring the psionics route in order to give himself "options". I have said this to Jindl, but "options" help you win, because it prevents your opponent (be they spellcasters) from completely railroading your only method of fighting: Zorander needs a few more options, as WInd Wall and Death Ward shut him down nicely, but that's still 2 there. Jonah's Grimlock made a wise decision in his purchases: that statuette gives him an edge. So yes, I think cunning and good strategies play a big role in making non-spellcasters work- the better players will often find ways to win, despite their opponent's class.
Jindl 07-09-04, 09:37 AM	It's not only making wise choices in equipment (as Mag was saying). Good tactics are probably the most important thing. Tactics are probably the most important thing in a battle. Although the CoCo has taught me much about rules, builds, and stuff - probably the best thing I have learned is how to make effective tactics. Everytime I build a new PC, I use a different class. I do this so I can learn how to play that class effectively. We've had plenty of non-caster players invent new and powerful anti-caster tactics. Battousai and Hatzinger really showed how effective the ready-shoot-interrupt method is against casters. MotherBast and Moherajikuyx taught us the ready-fly up suddenly-grapple method can be for Monks. And Tellish has really shown in Kelek how effective Stealth and Poison can be against casters. The simple answer is a non-caster must use a different attack style against a caster than he would against another non-caster. I see many players don't do this, and that's a large reason why their non-casters lose. But when a character uses good tactics, their ability to cast spells has a much smaller influence on who wins the fight. -Jindl
Caterane 07-09-04, 12:49 PM	Mag, Jindl, the problem is that a fighter or barbarian doesn't have many options. His option is his endurance to never run out of ammunition over many fights which is non-existent here. Mag said it: I've wisely chosen not to make Zedarak a barbarian because he wouldn't be competitive. This lack of options is the reason why no one plays one. Spellcasters however, can adept on the fly which doesn't reflect a campaign, and breaks the balance here. If casters would have to prememorize all of their spells, or most of them (all except for bonus spells, for example) then this would prevent them from specifically targeting the enemies weak spot. In a campaign, you may face some trolls in the first battle, but the next battle involves some demons with acid/fire resistance and then you cannot change spells to adept to them on the fly. And on top of that you have already expanded some of your spells on the trolls so you don't have all of them. Another example: how often does it happen that you encounter the endboss with all your spells left. In 99% you have to deal with his minions and traps first which costs ressources for this day. So facing the endboss with all your spells left and on top of that perfectly adepted to the creature is almost never going to happen thus in no way reflects a campaign. And it doesn't balance the classes in the CoCo.
Hatzinger 07-09-04, 02:12 PM	Cat, the main point about wizards IS their flexibility. If you take that from them, you reduce them to sorcerers with #spells/day of wizards; thus crippling the whole class. I say: don´t houserule, use the wizards flexibility to your advantage: have the wizard prepare ALL of their spells as they wish, but let them fight against TWO opponents at the same time. =>The wizards have more fun, because they have more options. =>The fighters have more fun, because they can gang up on the wizard. Might i even point to the four-startin-positions-map that would make such an approach unproblematic?
Battousai2005 07-09-04, 03:22 PM	Ok, while I disagree with this whole thing, Cat raised a point. Wizard: Designed to be flexible with the idea of being able to cast a wide veriety of spells. Sorcerer: Designed to be flexible by casting a large number of spells per day. Wizards in a camp are supposed to be thus: Gods as long as they know their opponents. Way to kill: Catch them off guard. As a DM, I have memorized this fact, right Arti, Kaigan? :angel: Sorcerers are made for this: know lots of spells that are repetedly brutal and effective and cast them over and over (and over) again. Wizards, in my opinion, have a great advantage over sorcerers and other non-prepared casters in COCO. Now, this isn't as big of a deal for Clerics and Druids as they have other abilities that make up for it (wildshape and weapon/armor pros), but the wizard? Gimme a break! They customize to whatever battle they have. The poor sorcerer and bard are a bit screwed because they display all their spells. Granted, that is not where their strength lies, but still, a wizard just goes "oh, protection from fire, spell immunity vs whatever, and dispel magic to counterspell." This is my proposal. Wizards and other memorizeing spellcasters have to memorize ALL thier spells before a fight every week. However, they display their spellbook. I think we could set up a way for each caster to do this without displaying all his/her spells. None too sure how, but I think we could do something like this: set up a job to recieve all these spells. He simply forewards these to the pitlord of the caster. None to difficult. I'd even be willing to take the job if no one likes it. EDIT: Before all the casters start hating me too bad, think about this: you can see all the opponents and modify your spells to fit the majority of your foes.
Hatzinger 07-09-04, 03:45 PM	forget it, Batt. Your suggestion makes the wizard class unplayable. We want to increase fairness, not destroy one class.
Battousai2005 07-09-04, 03:51 PM	Originally posted by Hatzinger Cat, the main point about wizards IS their flexibility. If you take that from them, you reduce them to sorcerers with #spells/day of wizards; thus crippling the whole class. I say: don´t houserule, use the wizards flexibility to your advantage: have the wizard prepare ALL of their spells as they wish, but let them fight against TWO opponents at the same time. =>The wizards have more fun, because they have more options. =>The fighters have more fun, because they can gang up on the wizard. Might i even point to the four-startin-positions-map that would make such an approach unproblematic? 1 area of effect spell=2 dead fighters. Nope, won't work. I don't see how my suggestion makes it unplayable. Have you ever played an offline campaign? You have to do that in the campaign, or else a wizard just is a sorcerer with more versitility, thus becoming broken. I personally have nothing against what we do right now, except what I said above. I dunno. We need to work something out to make everyone happy though.
Hatzinger 07-09-04, 04:01 PM	Yes, Batt. I have played in a pen&paper campaign.:rolleyes: Did you?
Battousai2005 07-09-04, 04:09 PM	Originally posted by Hatzinger Yes, Batt. I have played in a pen&paper campaign.:rolleyes: Did you? Yes, and I've been an arcane spellcaster for most of them. (stupid people. Never wanna be the caster.) Let me tell you, my DMs have been p****d if I don't make a note of what spells I have memorized. I myself follow those rules. In the arena, because this does not happen, prepared casters can use whatever spells are needed. Let me just say this: I didn't start this, nor do I like it. I have no arcane casters because its almost always what I play offline. As I said, I don't have much of an issue with the way things go right now. I have been winning despite any supposed unbalance, and the times I've lost (to you, mostly ;) ) have been errors of judgement or bad luck. I know how to beat casters with fighters (unlike Mystic up there. I was DMing that camp. It wasn't casters that killed him. It was those dragons) and I can use that here. Cat, what are the odds of us dropping this argument. My bet is 1/1000000000 with a few extra zeros tagged on there, but still...
Druid Roxors 07-09-04, 05:08 PM	Well, I still stand by my proposal. Although a bit harsh, I think it should prove effective. Summarizing: 3 highest level spells must be completely prememorized. Except for bonus spells and spells levels 1-3. check full description on my previous posts.
MysticMonk2005 07-09-04, 05:23 PM	Originally posted by Battousai2005 (unlike Mystic up there. I was DMing that camp. It wasn't casters that killed him. It was those dragons) The point wasn't WHAT killed him, it was the fact that he was kinda usless. We didn't even fight any epic casters cause Batt. didn't want us to die horribly.
Battousai2005 07-09-04, 05:25 PM	Originally posted by MysticMonk2005 The point wasn't WHAT killed him, it was the fact that he was kinda usless. We didn't even fight any epic casters cause Batt. didn't want us to die horribly. :angel: :devil: :angel:
Tellish_of_Ket 07-09-04, 06:25 PM	spellcasters i fear the most are druids and clerics, not wizards. So for be me to approve (or give a yes vote) to any changes in the wizard class would have to be a very miniscule change. Like the one i previously suggested...use half rounded up. Even that i would have to think about seriously. Like really seriously. -ToK
^Rayne^ 07-09-04, 07:36 PM	Not that my opinion on this matters much but I know exactly where Caterane is coming from and I agree with him that something does need to be done to add balance to the current system. I loved playing Aiki Auk in the arena but even though the fighter build was solid he got his butt kicked in every direction possible. His few victories were often attributable to luck as much as anything else. The arena isn't the best place to show off his skills unfortunately. I guarantee that many of his losses would have been victories if his opponent had met him in a narrow cave though. The sad thing is that many of you are requiring PC's that go the pure melee route to purchase many expensive one use items to compete. I tried that route with Aiki and Vryk and quickly found I had spent a 1000 + gold and still wasn't winning with any reliability and I hadn't even gotten them to 4th level yet. By this time I realized if this kept up I wouldn't be able to afford the permanent gear they would need in the future to even survive. Pitlords and DM's kept saying, "buy a Potion of Fly" and crap like that. Meanwhile I'm thinking, I can waste 750gp on a potion that won't guarantee success possibly 3 times or more before I get to the next level wasting upwards of 2250gp or more before the next level. Conversely I could have been spending that money making my weapons adamantine so stoneskin and DR weren't overly affective in the future. I quickly decided wasting tons of my PC's funds to buy potions to heal, fly, climb, swim, hide, whatever were a waste of money if I couldn't get them back. Still even with that knowledge my PC's lost week after week. Now granted a kobold isn't really an equal to the other standard races but they are pretty close. Maybe I didn't write the best tactics although I thought I did the best with what I had. Some of you may be saying to yourself or out loud that my builds stunk, but I thought they were okay for the most part. The problem is as Caterane pointed out that the arena's open space favors the caster and not the feat and skilled based PC's. Sure there are ways to take a caster down but a Pure Melee PC isn't going to be the one to do it. I also hated how I had to be forced to buy weapons that could shoot over 50' to reach an opponent. I still remember facing Aku for the first time and his tactics were, poloymorph to Ice Mephit, fly to the ceiling and shoot arrows at Aiki (Aiki didn't have bow yet) till he collapses. Aiki was meant to use his daggers as ranged weapons but I was forced to get a bow because in an arena with a super high ceiling and open space he could never survive without it. Vryk suffered the same fate and I had Pitlords who wanted to penalize my PC for using Obscuring Mist to bring the opponent to him. I was going to be penalized for delaying because there was no physical way for Vryk to attack his long distance flying opponent but I was supposed to have my PC run around with his hands in the air running around wildly as a moving target for him to avoid delaying the game. It really stinks being forced to play in an arena that doesn't exercise the versatility of the real dynamics in D&D and then say we are affectively testing builds. No caster is going to know their opponent every time and have all of their spells available and geared to that one foe every time. Still that is pretty much what we get around here. It never fails that the second someone realized they were facing my PC they had the Fly spell ready, Protection from missiles/arrows and invisibility and other tricks ready to go. My PC was out in the arena doing what a Gladiator was supposed to do, FIGHT. His opponents were up in the air avoiding actual combat and an actual fight with Aiki. If Aiki was a combatant boss in a campaign does anyone honestly think he would hang out in the open and let opponents shoot spells off at him with impunity from 200' above? In a campaign he would use his knowledge and make sure his fights took place in close quarters because that is what he is good at. Sure he wasn't a grappler but against most spellcasters in a small room I guarantee he would be the one walking out alive more often, especially if they couldn't prepare for the fight a week in advance. At the very least Tellish's suggestion is needed. I actually believe that spellcasters should have to show all of their spells ahead of time before the pairings (unless they are spontaneous casters). It would reflect the D&D system better if they didn't always know what they were up against. A good DM has surprises in their campaign. Even when the party knows they are going to fight a dragon they don't necessarily know who the dragon hired to watch his lair or all the traps he had kobolds design for it. By the time a wizard, cleric, or druid even got to the dragon most of their spells are used and gone. They still have spells to use on the dragon but the Fighters and Barbarians have been along all the way because they were good at surviving and staying powerful over time. In the movie, Gladiator, Crow's character didn't know what he would face when he walked into the Arena. He had to improvise tactics on the fly. I've seen people write, that you would know who you were going to face, but I challenge that notion. In an arena such as ours all pairings could be unknown to gladiators till the last moment. The only certain knowledges they might have is that it is someone of their level. That is balance in the most fair sense. In the end I think two changes are needed, first all spells for casters who can't cast spontaneously have to be 100% memorized before the fight and second, an arena that is smaller and more combat oriented is needed. The arena shouldn't be so big that it is impossible for two gladiator's to actually fight against one another. This flying to the ceiling BS while being invisible casting fireballs down onto a melee combatant isn't testing builds. It would be the equivalent of Crow's character from Gladiator standing in a small pit while and archery squad stood 100' above him and fired arrows at him from an unclimbable wall. The current arena is designed, not to promote fair fights but one sided firing squads like this. No one is making a pure Fighter, Ranger, or Barbarian because no one wants to lose all the time. It is very very difficult to avoid this fate if you choose these classes especially against some of the builds I've seen. There are expensive ways to try and counter this fate but none of them are really great solutions and most are easily trumped. If you all think the system is so fair then try building 100% fighters or Barbarians or a mix of the two and show a winning record with them. That is a true challenge, I want to see those tactics because I guarantee you it won't be easy if possible at all.
Druid Roxors 07-09-04, 08:05 PM	Although I believe Rayne does have excellent arguments for the matter, his proposal seems too radical. - Reducing the arena would not only limit powerful spellcasters but also many rogue (hiding) and archery builds. A smaller arena would harm those builds to unplayability. Melee fighters should ensure that they can make their build effective. Flight, speed, and all that included. - Costs. I believe a loosing character should not be penalized for using items to compensate against casters. In other words, Tatoos and Potions should be replaced free (or perhaps rebought with 50% discount) if you lose the fight. - Having ALL prepared slots pre-memorized is a huge hit to the caster clases. Fighter clases, although with little options, would have much more tactical options at the start of the battle because they do not list a set of "prememorized tactics" before the fight. I believe the higher level spells should remain more visible (as my proposal states) but limiting all elements of surprise is dreadful. BTW: Good to see you here Rayne
^Rayne^ 07-09-04, 08:09 PM	One other change which may be unpopular but might better balance the current system is no more temporary (one purchase items) may be purchased at higher caster levels than the PC's current level. Not too many DM's let their players get ahold of a CL 9 Magic Missile scroll or a a CL 20 Fireball scroll. Around here it is a common way to advance past that first level. It is bad enough to fight a gladiator with tons of options but now a melee fighter type has to contend with a High level caster giving up his scribed spells to a low level peons so he can blast his opponent out of the arena. I realize D&D provides this option but it isn't common for a DM to hand out high CL spells to low level PC's. Besides that it is even less common for these spells once given to be used with advance knowledge of who to use them on. Here it is a given that since the Wizard, Druid, or Cleric knows who they will face and only fear facing one opponent they purhase higher level versions of spells than they themselves could cast. In essence they are only proving that a Caster of said level could defeat their opponent but not actually them. This doesn't validate their build it shows munchkinism at its most purest. At the very least this abuse should be eliminated.
Druid Roxors 07-09-04, 08:34 PM	I believe that using scrolls of a CL higher than your own is a valid tactic. Although some limitation should be present. A "CL + 2" rule could be implemented. Although, this would hinder other builds like rangers and paladins who what to get to use their abilities at some point of their career. Perhaps a ECL + 2 = max CL ?
^Rayne^ 07-09-04, 08:35 PM	Although I believe Rayne does have excellent arguments for the matter, his proposal seems too radical. Too Radical? I would say they are exactly the action needed to maintain real balance around here. - Reducing the arena would not only limit powerful spellcasters but also many rogue (hiding) and archery builds. A smaller arena would harm those builds to unplayability. Melee fighters should ensure that they can make their build effective. Flight, speed, and all that included. I never said make it a 10' by 10' room. However reducing the ceiling height to say, 40' and providing more places to hide, climb, excetera is what is needed to make the environment fair for all builds. However everytime I suggest such a thing, SnarkHunter and MotherBast threaten to leave the CoCo for good. :p Personally it is unlikely that many fights are fought on open ground every single time. The current standard arena (and the past ones) only support flying attackers and mounted builds but not too much else. I don't want to take away the ability to fly (that is why they have 40' of vertical space to fly to) but I am trying to encourage them to actually mix it up a bit. Please don't mistake my calls for a smaller arena to mean I want a 15'x15' cage match (although sometimes that might be fun). - Costs. I believe a loosing character should not be penalized for using items to compensate against casters. In other words, Tatoos and Potions should be replaced free (or perhaps rebought with 50% discount) if you lose the fight. I agree with you here and have felt this way for some time. The monetary amount set for every level is supposed to be current for that level. If 8000gp have been spent to get there but the resources are no longer available it means the fighter at 12th level is actually fighting with an ECL penalty because they no longer have all the gear (of specified value) they should have. People should know that in D&D the gear does just as much to make the PC as their class levels. If a PC is handicapped because they can't recover the total cost of their gear then they actually are getting an ECL penalty as well. I think potions, scrolls, tatoos, arrows/ammo should be replaced after a fight. In fact I think the system should basically say that at every level the PC's current possessions equal the amount they are entitled to at that level. Honestly I don't know how this would be received but that is what I believe is most fair. - Having ALL prepared slots pre-memorized is a huge hit to the caster clases. Fighter clases, although with little options, would have much more tactical options at the start of the battle because they do not list a set of "prememorized tactics" before the fight. I believe the higher level spells should remain more visible (as my proposal states) but limiting all elements of surprise is dreadful. If I thought it was too big of a hit I wouldn't have suggested it. As I see it, that is the only fair thing to do though. They can look at the field of people and make pretty good decisions on what spells to memorize. Few people here choose the pure Sorcerer over the Wizard around here and part of that is because the Wizard is getting 10x the spell selection and all the versatility of a Sorcerer because they can plan so far in advance of their fights. I play a Wizard in a campaign on the D&D boards and it never fails that the spells I have memorized are not always the ones I need or wish I had readied. I plan and expect certain things to happen but in real campaigns no amount of planning will ever prepare a wizard for every contingency. Around here the wizard, cleric, and druid plan to such an extent that it is almost as if they could spontaneously cast their spells. This is toooooo much of an advantage. It is like a fighter getting to change all of their feats just before a match or a rogue switching all of their skill to gain a different advantage each fight. You wouldn't say either of those examples are fair but for the Magic user it is okay? The whole purpose of memorization times is to create balance in their magic system but that is lost when they know exactly who they will face and can change spells on the fly right before the match. If the day before a match a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid were told they will fight one of the combatants of their level and they had 5 different possible foes to challenge they would memorize spells that would best cover all their bases. They are still getting to prepare but they don't get insider knowledge on who. Then the day of they find out who and they hope they picked the right group of spells. (This is the situation player tactics should be written for). It isn't like the fighter can go an purchase a whole bunch of special potions at the last minute or a Sorcerer can go buy 5 last minute scrolls and wands so why is it okay for Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to recieve such a great advantage? Even stranger is how people can tell me it is fair around here and be serious about it? I find that very odd. BTW: Good to see you here Rayne Tis good to see you to. :)
Druid Roxors 07-09-04, 09:32 PM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ Too Radical? I would say they are exactly the action needed to maintain real balance around here.Precisely, Thats what You think is needed for real balance. I think that other things can be done to improve the state of balance and not destroy whats left of it. I never said make it a 10' by 10' room. However reducing the ceiling height to say, 40' and providing more places to hide, climb, excetera is what is needed to make the environment fair for all builds. However everytime I suggest such a thing, SnarkHunter and MotherBast threaten to leave the CoCo for good. :p Personally it is unlikely that many fights are fought on open ground every single time. The current standard arena (and the past ones) only support flying attackers and mounted builds but not too much else. I don't want to take away the ability to fly (that is why they have 40' of vertical space to fly to) but I am trying to encourage them to actually mix it up a bit. Please don't mistake my calls for a smaller arena to mean I want a 15'x15' cage match (although sometimes that might be fun). A smaller ceiling is an option. But 40ft seems too low for me. It would make feather fall quite useless. Naturally flying large + characters would be severely impaired on movement. Characters with telekinesis like Anna wouldn't be able to use their power to the fullest of its ability. Perhaps a 70~ ft ceiling would be much fairer. I agree with you here and have felt this way for some time. The monetary amount set for every level is supposed to be current for that level. If 8000gp have been spent to get there but the resources are no longer available it means the fighter at 12th level is actually fighting with an ECL penalty because they no longer have all the gear (of specified value) they should have. People should know that in D&D the gear does just as much to make the PC as their class levels. If a PC is handicapped because they can't recover the total cost of their gear then they actually are getting an ECL penalty as well. I think potions, scrolls, tatoos, arrows/ammo should be replaced after a fight. In fact I think the system should basically say that at every level the PC's current possessions equal the amount they are entitled to at that level. Honestly I don't know how this would be received but that is what I believe is most fair.Although the direction of this idea is good, its implementation is flawed. I do no think that buying temporary equipment at all levels would be fair at all because this is what would happen otherwise. You would see everyone with figurines, scrolls and potions running arround without them being expendable. I believe that the character who wins using expendable equipment is at an advantage against another character who doesn't. This is because equipment with the permanent 1/day descriptor are much more expensive. The correct way to handle it, in my opinion, would be to restore the goods spent to characters who lose ONLY. Winners have to take the penalty of lower gold total for an easier win. I do believe that Fighters and barbarians (pure) are Not viable on a normal campaign. This is a problem from WOTC and not from the COCO. If I thought it was too big of a hit I wouldn't have suggested it. As I see it, that is the only fair thing to do though. They can look at the field of people and make pretty good decisions on what spells to memorize. Few people here choose the pure Sorcerer over the Wizard around here and part of that is because the Wizard is getting 10x the spell selection and all the versatility of a Sorcerer because they can plan so far in advance of their fights. I play a Wizard in a campaign on the D&D boards and it never fails that the spells I have memorized are not always the ones I need or wish I had readied. I plan and expect certain things to happen but in real campaigns no amount of planning will ever prepare a wizard for every contingency. Around here the wizard, cleric, and druid plan to such an extent that it is almost as if they could spontaneously cast their spells. This is toooooo much of an advantage. It is like a fighter getting to change all of their feats just before a match or a rogue switching all of their skill to gain a different advantage each fight. You wouldn't say either of those examples are fair but for the Magic user it is okay? The whole purpose of memorization times is to create balance in their magic system but that is lost when they know exactly who they will face and can change spells on the fly right before the match.Agreed, which is why some of the spells you prepared are adequate for the fight. I believe most spells should be pre-memed but not all of them. The most powerful spells a caster can muster are the ones that decide the fate of the fight most of the time. My proposal deals with this perfectly. Edit: If the day before a match a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid were told they will fight one of the combatants of their level and they had 5 different possible foes to challenge they would memorize spells that would best cover all their bases. They are still getting to prepare but they don't get insider knowledge on who. Then the day of they find out who and they hope they picked the right group of spells. (This is the situation player tactics should be written for). It isn't like the fighter can go an purchase a whole bunch of special potions at the last minute or a Sorcerer can go buy 5 last minute scrolls and wands so why is it okay for Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to recieve such a great advantage? Even stranger is how people can tell me it is fair around here and be serious about it? I find that very oddToo bad wizards/clerics/druids recieve 1/3 the spells a sorcerer has and 1/~ of the effectiveness/time warriors have.
Caterane 07-09-04, 10:05 PM	Standing alone against the mob of villagers with torches and forks, Caterane fought on though his many wounds proved taxing on him. Too many they were, and just as he was about to retreat and regather his strength for a new attack, he got most unsuspected help: ^Rayne^, the exiled one, has returned and with him he brought the elixir that the village definately needed to throw of the shackles of the spellcasters tyranny... Hey Rayne! Glad to see you back, especially since you're supporting my idea :angel: Rayne has just exactly expressed what I was thinking all along. Let me add my mustard to it: All your great examples on how easily a fighter can defeat a spellcaster (e.g. buy a potion of see invisibility :uh-huh: ) fail against the FACT that we have only one straight fighter, and no straight barbarian. A wizard build is a nobrainer but if you want to play a melee character you have to come up with a dimension dooring dude, or something similar fantastic. Fact: No fighters. Period. Because they suck. Period. Because the CoCo is not balanced. Period. Rayne's idea is the perfect solution. You can still memorize ALL your spells (not half as I suggested) but you have to do so in advance, like in a campaign!. What are your points against it? Let's see: Having ALL prepared slots pre-memorized is a huge hit to the caster clases. Fighter clases, although with little options, would have much more tactical options at the start of the battle because they do not list a set of "prememorized tactics" before the fight. Fighters would have the same options as a caster: the ones openly displayed on their sheet. As it is now, only casters have an element of surprise. Btw, are you afraid that the wizards won't have a chance against fighters? This was a joke, wasn't it? Prememorizing all spells reduces the wizard to a bad version of the sorcerer No way. The wizard has a FAR FAR greater selection to choose from and can memorize anew from fight to fight while a sorcerer has to stick with his spells. Only heavy melee builds at your current level? Throw out blindness and memorize hold person. No sorcerer can do that. And with Boccobs book - which almost every wizard will eventually have - he can pick from almost the whole wizard spell list in the PHB. In a campaign I always know which monster my DM throws at me, including stats, equipment, and weaknesses Now this is one of the most ridiculous arguments I read. One said he can easily find out with the Scry spell (or 'Drop DM screen' as some call it :rolleyes: ). No way! But see it that way: How many possible gladiators are there at any given level? 3? 4? 6? Rarely more. Now your wizard still has an idea whom he will face but not EXACTLY whom. Some spells might be useful, some not; again: exactly like in a campaign! Rayne's proposal is the best that can happen to the CoCo! It IS unbalanced. That is a FACT, and I'd like to change that, so that we are going to see more straight melee builds; regular human fighters and barbarians! Next point, also made by Rayne: One-shot items should be refunded if the battle is lost. That's the best idea I read this year! It is easily trackable: the pitlord just writes 'nothing' at the bottom under 'Used items' of the loser. Absolutely easy! Look, a fighter has to spend 750 gp on a single potion of fly while the wizard pays nothing for it. The potion is easily dispellable at higher levels so even 3 potions (2225 gold!) are down in 3 rounds with 3 dispels. Ah yeah, buy 2 rings of counterspelling and a third one on the hand around your neck. That's still 1100 gp each time you load them with dispel magics, plus 2225 from potions = expensive fight JUST TO GET INTO THE AIR!!! You have still nothing accomplished at that point, and a greater dispel gets around your rings anyway! Reducing the arena would not only limit powerful spellcasters but also many rogue (hiding) and archery builds. A smaller arena would harm those builds to unplayability. Melee fighters should ensure that they can make their build effective. Flight, speed, and all that included. Not with the new Maps. We have a lot of great ideas. Rayne himself (the ONE :) ) provided us with 2 excellent maps, with obstacles and by his word they are as easy to use as any map. Now add SS Hatzinger's randomly starting positions idea and you have an easy map with a lot of options for ALL builds, eliminated the win ini = win match scenario, and provide us with entertaining fights due to new tactics that make use of the new playground. Yup, today is a good day. Thank you Rayne!
Druid Roxors 07-09-04, 11:03 PM	First of all Cat, u must recognize I am not one of the "Angry Mob". Even though I do not have a non-caster character in this board (And one is in construction), I do have melee characters in other campaigns. In my opinion, my view is as unbiased as it can be. Second, Cat and Rayne. There is something I want you to understand, something I have learned and discussed for Years now. This might leave you in some sort of shock so I'll let you have this extra line to prepare yourselves. THE FIGHTER AND BARBARIAN CLASSES ARE NOT SUITED FOR PLAY AT LEVEL 6+. NOT HERE AND NOT UNDER ANY CHALLENING CAMPAING SETTING. There is a problem with these core classes, and to a lesser extent, the ranger/rogue/paladin. They offer NO advancement at higher levels. A caster gets higher tier spells. A rogue gets better abilities and hiding ranks and sneak attack. A ranger gets Hide in plain sight, good spells, Animal companion. A Paladin gets a powerful mount, increasing class abilities (heal/smite), spells. What the hell does a fighter get?! WHAT!?!? Feats... Useless feats because you are already done with most feat trees by mid level. What the hell does a Barbarian get!? (almost) nothing. Punny DR contending with 40+ damage "Fighters" and a better rage. Although more playable than fighters, they are still not good enough. You know who is responsible for this problem? It is not the CoCo, of that you can be sure. The problem is WotC and their balance. Now, Yes, Casters get an easier time against non casters, this is a problem of the CoCo and one that my Suggestion (that even you liked, Cat) is capable of resolving. Having to pre-mem all high level spells and scramble arround with low level spells is IMHO the Best option. In my eyes, the only way to "Fix" pure Meleers would be to allow "Complete Warrior". But we know that is not going to happen. (and even then, pure fighters/barbs wouldn't be viable) In my eyes, devoting time to balancing a wizard with a pure fighter is a complete waste of time.
Druid Roxors 07-09-04, 11:10 PM	BTW Cat, you have a flashy new PM.
Caterane 07-09-04, 11:33 PM	Druid, I don't care if WotC did a good job or not, but I care about MY job and this is balancing the CoCo. And if this means modifying some things the end justifies the means. So why only prememorizing level 4+? Those 3 low levels don't make the dog fat. Easy rule: wizards have to mem all their spells in advance. Oh and druid... BTW Cat, you have a flashy new PM. ...I love you! :love: :bow: :cloud9: :D
Druid Roxors 07-09-04, 11:40 PM	Originally posted by Caterane Druid, I don't care if WotC did a good job or not, but I care about MY job and this is balancing the CoCo. And if this means modifying some things the end justifies the means. First of all, the degree of modifications required for this would mean the CoCo is no longer Core. Second, even if you did asked for half spells, even half spells all prememorized... Spell casters are still going to wipe the floor clean with pure fighters. I guarantee that. (On equal tactic quality). The only thing that this will do is that non-pure fighters are going to have a picnic with casters. SR, teleportation, crazy damage, Evasion, Great saves. You know, all those things fighters do not "get" (or want to get) are going to wipe casters out. So why only prememorizing level 4+? Those 3 low levels don't make the dog fat. Easy rule: wizards have to mem all their spells in advance. 1. Because that means the character has very little and not as flashy spells. 2. Because Fighters and Barbarians are not the only non-pure-caster classes/combinations on the PHB. Oh and druid... ...I love you! :love: :bow: :cloud9: :D Welcomed :)
Caterane 07-10-04, 12:11 AM	First of all, the degree of modifications required for this would mean the CoCo is no longer Core. Second, even if you did asked for half spells, even half spells all prememorized... Spell casters are still going to wipe the floor clean with pure fighters. I guarantee that. First of all, prememorizing all spells has nothing to do with being Core or not. Second, even if the still wipe the floor, it is a step into the right direction, and in all regards better than it is now.
Battousai2005 07-10-04, 12:11 AM	*sigh. Do me a favor. Anyone who reads this, don't get offended. And please don't come looking for me. I'm hard to find and have a black belt. Really. Ok, the way I'm looking at things, you all think that fighters and barbarians are useless past, what was it? 6? Well, I have some news. That all depends on the build. Yes, some fighters will be useless as they are geared toward one thing or another and this slowly becomes negligable. Yes, some fighters choose the wrong feats and get slammed for it. Barbarians loose their ability to be the most powerful in the party. But here are some things you need to keep in mind: 1) No class is useless at any level. Point of fighter: melee/ranged weapon combat. Typical point of cleric: heal. Role of arcane caster: damage. 2) I know, somehow, I am going to regret saying this. If you are losing an obscene amount of times and its not because of luck, its your own fault. Lets look at some examples. 2a. Artavian: Anyone remember him? He was an old monk build. Guess who whooped his *****? Vryk, Rayne's old Kobald. Reason? Flaws in Artavian's design. 2b. Sintius: Ahh, my first gladiator. Guess what his problem was? I was planning on using wild-shape and took useless feats (two weapon fighting, etc.) 2c. Kage: My only character I took the time to plan out. Ok, win-lose is 8-3, he lost because of luck, he is a PURE FIGHTER and has won against various characters, including many casters (yah, Jindl, what's up with that anyway?) 3) Ok, no one hurt me. Tactics against casters tend to suck. Sorry, I know. "I did this and that." Guess what? So did I. The thing is, if a caster does something you don't expect, you tend to get screwed. How to handle this? Know the spells, look at your foes spellbook, pray that he does something predictable. More examples. Kage, being my most well fought character, will be the example in these. 3a. Ok, Kage vs. Zephin: Ok, the tactic here was disrupt the casting. Lucky for me, it worked. I knew exactly what would happen, as this tactic is used by almost every wizard. Go invisible, fly, buff, buff some more, ..., attack. I wanted to get him before this happened. 3b. Kage vs. Angosh: This is what I mentioned above. My tactics counted for everything except his mist. And that cost me the match. I don't want to offend anyone, but this is how I see things. Builds need to be thought out in advance, as do tactics. No one get mad:( .
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 12:12 AM	THE FIGHTER AND BARBARIAN CLASSES ARE NOT SUITED FOR PLAY AT LEVEL 6+. NOT HERE AND NOT UNDER ANY CHALLENING CAMPAING SETTING. First off I have seen a high level 20+ Barbarian (epic levels) do a ton of damage to a party with my PC a 23 level Druid a 26th level wizard (and the star of our party), a 24th level Paladin, and a 24th level Ranger/(with some other Prestige Class I can't remember). That Barbarian was with a 20+ cleric, a 20+ rogue, and a 20+ Sorcerer if I remember right and that Barbarian was the only one that survived and thrived. He took out our Paladin and Ranger faster than a hot knife through butter. To make matters worse we took out the Cleric and Sorcerer but in the process they seriously deminished my Druid and our Wizards buff spells. That Barbarian was a killing machine and his DR could absorb so much damage often it felt like we weren't doing anything to her. I've seen first hand what a superbly built Barb or Fighter can do. Your point while maybe slightly true isn't universal here. Also I would like to point out that for a long time (and I'm talking the first 10+ levels) those two classes keep your weak Wizards and Druids alive. I know in the campaign I'm in right now, the Half-orc Barbarian is the only reason our party is still alive and my little wizard artificer has been almost useless so far. In the CoCo though a wizard, cleric, or druid still fairs far better than a vanilla fighter or barbarian right off the bat. Obviously something is wrong here but many people refuse to admit it. I have respect for Caterane because rather than accept the lack of balance off-hand he is trying to do something real about it. He is doing it against the grain of popularity because it is the right thing to do. Sure he could be looking out for Harvester 1 or 2 but that would be giving preference to his own creations. Yet he comes here and takes the opposite stance hoping people will come to terms with the CoCo's current flaw. Sure WotC messed up a bit in terms of play balance but their problems are not as big as you make them sound. However our system is so flawed that rather than making things more balanced we actually magnify the problem and say 'big deal the system was flawed anyway'. That isn't a solution that just makes things worse. Personally I would like there to be some real balance around here when it comes to builds. Sure it isn't 100% possible as you have pointed out but it can pull that line closer and that gives 'good tactics' for a fighter or barbarian a chance at success over the big bad Druid or Cleric. As it is now even great tactics and overspending one's budget won't get a win over a Wizard, Cleric, or Druid 9 times out of 10. For every instance you folks showed us a melee win over a caster I bet there are nine samples of the opposite or more at each level holding true. Players shouldn't come here afraid to test melee builds for fear of never advancing. The reason fighters like Ony Akerr are not around anymore is for this very reason. I suspect one of the reasons everyone like Aiki Auk so much is because they knew they could count on beating him for an easy win. However I doubt many of you would want your PC to challenge him in a match held in a 15x15 room!
Jindl 07-10-04, 12:29 AM	Originally posted by Battousai2005 2c. Kage: My only character I took the time to plan out. Ok, win-lose is 8-3, he lost because of luck, he is a PURE FIGHTER and has won against various characters, including many casters (yah, Jindl, what's up with that anyway?) Don't ask me, the pairings are random (it just so happens that many of the characters Kage was created and has advanced with were casters). I agree with Batt regarding the use of non-casters vs casters. I've already pointed out numerous examples of non-casters emerging triumphant, and all of my examples were Lvl 8 and higher. And contrary to what Rayne suggested, the effective non-casters usually have more wins than losses (Kage, Aemon, Rhoar, Skymoon, Brackin, Kelek, etc, etc.) The ratio seems to be much more favorable to the non-caster than the 1 out of 10 that Rayne suggests. Now, if your point is that the Pure Fighter or Pure Barbarian isn't effective, well then in most cases I would agree. However, tweaking the class is not Core nor is it something we will do. Weaking the casters will not make the pure fighter or pure barbarian more common, because the multiclassed or prestige classed fighters and barbs will still be better than the straight classed ones. Personally, I don't think we have much of a problem with the CoCo. Good builds survive. Weak builds don't. There are plenty of good non-caster builds. There are plenty of weak caster builds. Just look at the fight records and the unscathed winner / unstoppable lists. -Jindl
Caterane 07-10-04, 12:39 AM	Harvester 1 & 2, and don't forget Dr.Dre and Ebelin. I have 4 spellcasters so I know what I'm talking about. When writing tactics against meleers I just have to use some standard tactics (Hold person vs low will, blindness vs low fortitude, etc there are many more) which decides the outcome. If the first one fails, then the second or third one hits and the fight is won. Almost a no-brainer. No fighter can do that. But what if I have memorized 3 hold persons, 3 blindnesses, and some fireballs, and instead of the dumb fighter or the weak mage I get the monk paired!? Ooops. I tell you, there WILL be a difference if all spells are prememorized. But as it is now, I memorize special anti-monk spells, keep him down with 5 dispel magics, or 7 if need be, and am out of danger. Very balanced :/ @Jindl: Why don't you just make a human fighter (lvl 13) and fight me, eh?
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 12:55 AM	Originally posted by Caterane [B]Harvester 1 & 2, and don't forget Dr.Dre and Ebelin. I have 4 spellcasters so I know what I'm talking about. When writing tactics against meleers I just have to use some standard tactics (Hold person vs low will, blindness vs low fortitude, etc there are many more) which decides the outcome. If the first one fails, then the second or third one hits and the fight is won. Almost a no-brainer. No fighter can do that.So what if you get a hider? I don't think your spot modifier is enough to even remotely compete against a decent rogue or ranger. What happens when you get a paladin? But what if I have memorized 3 hold persons, 3 blindnesses, and some fireballs, and instead of the dumb fighter or the weak mage I get the monk paired!? Ooops. I tell you, there WILL be a difference if all spells are prememorized.Yes, the difference is that luck will get you killed and sorcerer's are still arround with their spontaneous casting and multiclassed characters are still around with their uuber abilities. @Jindl: Why don't you just make a human fighter (lvl 13) and fight me, eh? He wont because he would lose. He said it himself. A pure fighter is not competitive and will never be. (3.5)
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 12:57 AM	The ratio seems to be much more favorable to the non-caster than the 1 out of 10 that Rayne suggests. You are only seeing the fighters that tested well at that level and not showing us the huge majority that never made it that far because the players became frustrated from losing so much. Sure a few builds might be so powerful they advance and skew the win/loss curve making it look like they have favorable odds of success but I don't know that it really is. Now, if your point is that the Pure Fighter or Pure Barbarian isn't effective, well then in most cases I would agree. However, tweaking the class is not Core nor is it something we will do. Weaking the casters will not make the pure fighter or pure barbarian more common, because the multiclassed or prestige classed fighters and barbs will still be better than the straight classed ones. A fighter or barbarian shouldn't be forced to multi-class to become viable. What this shows is that the CoCo isn't providing a fair testing ground for those builds. Your stating that the classes aren't good enough and need other classes help to work, but what it tells me is that the environment we test these classes in is flawed and skewing things away from their success. These classes have worked in countless campaigns I have been involved in and in most cases faired far better than casters of any level. The reason is that they can keep on going and going and they thrive in close quarters and situations that are less predictable. Your solution to the problem? Don't do a damn thing. Wow that is a great solution. Don't bother making the arena designs more utilitarian for all builds and forget making casters have the same level of preparedness as a fighter gets. Also I never said anything about tweaking a class or doing anything that wasn't Core. What I did ask was that casters that have to memorize spells have to do so before knowing their opponent for all of their spells. Why do they get to make last minute adjustments but none of the other classes do? It gives them a decidedly powerful advantage that actually breaks the Core system under the current Arena rules. They are coming into their matches essentially Meta-gaming to a degree that is almost on par with cheating. I haven't asked for Core rules to be changes or dropped. I have asked that the casters stop being given the extraordinarily overpowering advantage, or at the very least curb it. How is it that you say I am "tweaking the Class" or "Weaking the casters"? I didn't take away any of their spells, their ability to cast them, or their choice on which ones to use. All I've asked is that they prepare them all ahead of time like every other gladiator. A non-caster doesn't get to add last minute potions to their inventory or make a last minute bow purchase to counter some flying gladiator. Yet somehow it is alright that the casters get to meta-game and tailor all their spells last minute to exactly who they are fighting? This is CoCo rules that is causing the imbalance and I'm not asking to change Core rules, I'm trying to fix CoCo arena rules. Personally, I don't think we have much of a problem with the CoCo. Good builds survive. Weak builds don't. There are plenty of good non-caster builds. There are plenty of weak caster builds. Just look at the fight records and the unscathed winner / unstoppable lists. Good builds my a**. Some of these builds wouldn't last two seconds in a real campaign because they are built for survivability in one situation and requires over dependence of all of their spells geared to one situation at one time. These wizards, clerics, and druids can't cast all their spells at one opponent and expect to get through the day. Barbarians, fighters, rogues, monks, and rangers have the power to keep trucking when a spellcasters spells are all gone. Blaming the problems on a 'weak build' is a cop-out and you of all people should know that. I wouldn't ever call Aiki Auk a weak build, but he doesn't win much in the current environment. Aku wouldn't have stood a chance against him if they had met in a small poorly lit dungeon yet this build went on to win a crazy number of fights. Some of these weak builds just are not given the proper situations to shine. Part of that is a bad arena design and part of that has to do with letting casters (who are already very powerful) get too many advantages to the amount of time they can make last second preparations.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 12:57 AM	Just add a little bit of "More pre-memorized Spells" to the soup and we will see how it handles.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 01:10 AM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ You are only seeing the fighters that tested well at that level and not showing us the huge majority that never made it that far because the players became frustrated from losing so much. Sure a few builds might be so powerful they advance and skew the win/loss curve making it look like they have favorable odds of success but I don't know that it really is.Yes, He is an exception. Kage's tactics/luck have won the battles for him. A fighter or barbarian shouldn't be forced to multi-class to become viable. What this shows is that the CoCo isn't providing a fair testing ground for those builds. Your stating that the classes aren't good enough and need other classes help to work, but what it tells me is that the environment we test these classes in is flawed and skewing things away from their success. These classes have worked in countless campaigns I have been involved in and in most cases faired far better than casters of any level. The reason is that they can keep on going and going and they thrive in close quarters and situations that are less predictable. Your solution to the problem? Don't do a damn thing. Wow that is a great solution. Don't bother making the arena designs more utilitarian for all builds and forget making casters have the same level of preparedness as a fighter gets.No, that tells me that the class design by WotC is FLAWED. That they can work with (and only with) the help of other classes show that they are wrong at the core. Unless we want to get UnCoCo then we can't do anything to help them, save from running a team campaign. Also I never said anything about tweaking a class or doing anything that wasn't Core. What I did ask was that casters that have to memorize spells have to do so before knowing their opponent for all of their spells. Why do they get to make last minute adjustments but none of the other classes do? It gives them a decidedly powerful advantage that actually breaks the Core system under the current Arena rules. They are coming into their matches essentially Meta-gaming to a degree that is almost on par with cheating. I haven't asked for Core rules to be changes or dropped. I have asked that the casters stop being given the extraordinarily overpowering advantage, or at the very least curb it. How is it that you say I am "tweaking the Class" or "Weaking the casters"? I didn't take away any of their spells, their ability to cast them, or their choice on which ones to use. All I've asked is that they prepare them all ahead of time like every other gladiator. A non-caster doesn't get to add last minute potions to their inventory or make a last minute bow purchase to counter some flying gladiator. Yet somehow it is alright that the casters get to meta-game and tailor all their spells last minute to exactly who they are fighting? This is CoCo rules that is causing the imbalance and I'm not asking to change Core rules, I'm trying to fix CoCo arena rules.A fighter's stregth is Inherent in the fighter. A multiclassed character's Strength is also Inherent in the Character. A Caster's Strength is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON SPELL SELECTION. If there is NO spell selection the casters are going to be useless if they run into anything other than expected. Any other class can be expected to fare well with most challenges, an unprepared caster will not. Also, a Multiclassed character's Strenght is higher than a Fighter/barbarian's. Think about that. Adding *some extra pre-memorization is acceptable. We cannot expect that the characters will know Everything about the challenge. But we expect the characters to know something about it. Good builds my a**. Some of these builds wouldn't last two seconds in a real campaign because they are built for survivability in one situation and requires over dependence of all of their spells geared to one situation at one time. These wizards, clerics, and druids can't cast all their spells at one opponent and expect to get through the day. Barbarians, fighters, rogues, monks, and rangers have the power to keep trucking when a spellcasters spells are all gone. Blaming the problems on a 'weak build' is a cop-out and you of all people should know that. I wouldn't ever call Aiki Auk a weak build, but he doesn't win much in the current environment. Aku wouldn't have stood a chance against him if they had met in a small poorly lit dungeon yet this build went on to win a crazy number of fights. Some of these weak builds just are not given the proper situations to shine. Part of that is a bad arena design and part of that has to do with letting casters (who are already very powerful) get too many advantages to the amount of time they can make last second preparations. I do mean no Disrespect. But the Kobold is not a decent race for a fighter. If at all, any other standard race in the phb will fare better than a kobold. More Damage, Better Stats, Feats?, Special Abilities?. Also, in campaigns. Casters tend to be helped by the rest of the party. They give them Scrolls or lend them money to buy them. Staves, wands, you name it. A spellcaster in a campaign will have lots of support from their party, all this to ensure that he will be effective in the important battle and in the minor ones. A caster will not use up their powerful spells on minions but they will try to help as best as they can. To say that casters are allways "running out of ammo" in a campaign is ridiculous.
Jindl 07-10-04, 01:25 AM	Originally posted by Caterane @Jindl: Why don't you just make a human fighter (lvl 13) and fight me, eh? Because a prestige classed or multiclassed fighter is better. Regardless of how the wizards mem their spells, the multiclassed fighter and multiclassed barb are better than the single classed versions. You will not see single classed fighters and barbs be successful, except in rare exceptions, because the multiclassed versions of these builds are more powerful. Originally posted by Rayne I wouldn't ever call Aiki Auk a weak build, but he doesn't win much in the current environment. Aku wouldn't have stood a chance against him if they had met in a small poorly lit dungeon yet this build went on to win a crazy number of fights. @Rayne - Don't kid yourself bud. As much as I liked Aiki Auk's style, he was not a strong build. A two weapon fighter who has no method of adding damage to his attacks, has a low Con and Str, is not a good build. Aku would have beaten him in melee, simply by casting alter self (ravid form) and shocking grasp or chill touch (if Aiki was protected from electricity), spells which he is guaranteed to always have memorized. And if Aiki decides to stay out of melee, then Aku can just use spectral hand to deliver those touch spells. Don't forget that Aku has darkvision as well (who cares if the small room is poorly lit) and has more hps than Aiki Auk after level 3. I don't mean any disrespect in this, I just always thought you made Aiki to have style and not necessarily be powerful. -Jindl
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 01:37 AM	No, that tells me that the class design by WotC is FLAWED. That they can work with (and only with) the help of other classes show that they are wrong at the core. Unless we want to get UnCoCo then we can't do anything to help them, save from running a team campaign. I think your arguement is flawed. Their design of classes went through far more scrutiny than our CoCo has and you come out with a whopper by flat out stating that their system is more screwed up than ours! I know from experience (I test PC and Xbox titles at Microsoft) that a game goes through tons and tons of playtesting and balancing before it get released. D&D is no different. The classes are not where the majority of the problem is here whether you are going to admit it or not. You seem to be satisfied with the Arena the way it is, flawed and all, but I prefer to make it an environment where our builds are on as equal of footing as possible. For some reason you and other individuals here don't want that to happen. It is easier to ignore a flaw than fix it and your reluctance is proof of this human condition. A fighter's stregth is Inherent in the fighter. A multiclassed character's Strength is also Inherent in the Character. A Caster's Strength is COMPLETELY DEPENDENT ON SPELL SELECTION. If there is NO spell selection the casters are going to be useless if they run into anything other than expected. Any other class can be expected to fare well with most challenges, an unprepared caster will not. Also, a Multiclassed character's Strenght is higher than a Fighter/barbarian's. Think about that. Adding *some extra pre-memorization is acceptable. We cannot expect that the characters will know Everything about the challenge. But we expect the characters to know something about it. I think you are over stating the burden of deciding spells here. A caster isn't nearly as ineffective having to memorize all of their spells in advance as you make it sound. In fact that is pretty much how it is in all campaigns but you make it sound like what I've suggested is something new and unheard of. To state that a character can't prepare for the possibility of two or three different foes is absurd. If you look over your possible competition at any given level you can come up with a good range of spells that would be useful given any of them. That is how a caster usually picks their spells. They are not going to be over whelmed. You make it seem as if they won't have a single spell to cast if they don't know exactly who and what they will face before their match. That arguement is laugable. Guess what coming up with a general list of spells when you have tons to choose from isn't as hard as you make it seem. I've done it for plenty of campaigns, sometimes with great success sometimes mediocre but that is what balance is. You can't have a win-win situation all the time but it seems like the Caster gang believes if they can't win 100% of their fight then somehow their casters aren't being treated fairly. I say keep it simple. Make casters write out what spells they are going to use and keep it set till their fight. They know who their three or four competitors are likely to be and chances are many of their strategies for dealing with one will work for the other ones also. They aren't losing anything but it does allow fighters and barbarians to stand on more equal ground with them and that equals balance. But we expect the characters to know something about it. Again, obviously they will know something about who they face off against, all they have to do is see who the two or three active PC's around them are. Not too hard and it certainly doesn't warrent them getting to tailor all of their spells to one person right before the fight. If you want this for casters then you should let everyone decide last second on what potions, scrolls, and tools they want to buy last second to counter their opposition. For every decision a wizard, cleric, or druid could make the night before the fight in their spell list a fighter or barbarian could go to a store to buy a solution as well. You can't have it both ways on this and right now everyone is essentially letting casters cheat.
Caterane 07-10-04, 01:43 AM	Guys, Rayne expresses it so clearly and understandably. Why don't you give him some credits for it! I still cannot believe that you are all so adamant about keeping the current situation - and that for different reasons. Druid, you think that the fighter classes are flawed by WotC and never meant to be equal to a spellcaster. So why not throw them out? Asides from the fact that this isn't true in a campaign, we CAN shift the balance in the right direction and even if the casters are still more powerful, we have at least done something to better it. You seem to be aware that there is an imbalance so why do you lay down in resignation instead of assisting us find a solution? Jindl, your attitude of "It's all nice. Everything is fine. I see no problems so let's lean back and do nothing" combined with you ignoring all FACTS and only bringing up a handful of old fights fought back in the 1920s as a meager example gives me more the impression that you are more concerned with your characters than helping us to do something. At least propose SOMETHING! And stop telling me that a fighter is equal to a caster just because Rhoar and Aemon got sick because of the amount of luck they had against casters. SICK LUCK! Battousai, I don't know why you've won against Zephin (can't remember) but I promise you that this will end as soon as you enter the highlevels. Kage will either bump his way up to 20, or retire because you will get bored of always losing. Your companion will get killed by a death spell, your flights dispelled by greater dispel magic, windwall vs arrows, and now good luck against Dc30 saves. It's been said before and I will say it again. It is unfair - UNFAIR - that prepared casters can prepare spells on the fly. That was NEVER intended to happen. It is a simple step to prememorize all spells. Plus we make one-shot items refundable in case of a loss. This will be an easy and elegant step into the right direction. The alternative is a spellcaster dominated arena at highlevels, with fighters being no more than peasants.
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 01:52 AM	@Rayne - Don't kid yourself bud. As much as I liked Aiki Auk's style, he was not a strong build. A two weapon fighter who has no method of adding damage to his attacks, has a low Con and Str, is not a good build. Aku would have beaten him in melee, simply by casting alter self (ravid form) and shocking grasp or chill touch (if Aiki was protected from electricity), spells which he is guaranteed to always have memorized. And if Aiki decides to stay out of melee, then Aku can just use spectral hand to deliver those touch spells. Don't forget that Aku has darkvision as well (who cares if the small room is poorly lit) and has more hps than Aiki Auk after level 3. I don't mean any disrespect in this, I just always thought you made Aiki to have style and not necessarily be powerful. -Jindl He was designed with style in mind, but I should remind you about Aku at that level. Your PC couldn't compete in melee at that level with Aiki. I remember this all too well. Your PC depended strongly on stealth and in that fight, flight to avoid losing. If Aku had been in a small room with Aiki at that level there is almost no way he would have won. He was barely able to hit Aiki with a bow at that level and he was worse with a melee weapon. Even changing forms it is likely Aiki would have sliced him up a number of times before he could even prepare a counterattack. Sure Aiki's build if advanced to your PC's current level would be desperately in trouble but at the level they met it was a different story if they had met in a different environment. Aside from that I knew that with a -4 str and a -2 con going in that the best pure Fighter build for a kobold was to try to make him a dexterity character. There was nothing wrong with the method and I still don't believe Aiki was a weak character no matter what you say. I've seen fights that came down to final blows and Aiki was very close to succeeding only to lose by a poor roll in the end. Luck with rolls has always been the bane of all of my characters but I do the best I can with what I've got. If Aiki hadn't spent so much of his money wasting it on potions and purchased the bow instead I guarentee that flying to ceiling business Aku used would have sent him to an early grave. Unfortunately for my PC the Arena lets PC's fly to extremely high locations to fight their foes like cowards.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:05 AM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ I think your arguement is flawed. Their design of classes went through far more scrutiny than our CoCo has and you come out with a whopper by flat out stating that their system is more screwed up than ours! I know from experience (I test PC and Xbox titles at Microsoft) that a game goes through tons and tons of playtesting and balancing before it get released. D&D is no different. The classes are not where the majority of the problem is here whether you are going to admit it or not.HAHAHAHAHAHA. Do not make me laugh please. You are saying that playtesting works!? You must be kidding me man. Ill ignore that. I can think of TWO and only 2 games that are balanced in the most part. Counterstrike (before condition zero) and Starcraft. They both took YEARS to balance. In the whole year I've been here at the boards, optimization and classes boards included, NO figher build has been remotely impressive. All other builds smash them to the floor. Fighter/barbarian seems not to be designed for Pure play. Only when combined do they shine. You seem to be satisfied with the Arena the way it is, flawed and all, but I prefer to make it an environment where our builds are on as equal of footing as possible. For some reason you and other individuals here don't want that to happen. It is easier to ignore a flaw than fix it and your reluctance is proof of this human condition.And im taking that YOU meaning ME. I am so frustrated by the fact that you (and Cat at some point) stopped realizing that I was the first of Cat's Supporters. I am in favor of Aiding the "Fighter Types" but I will certainly not lower Casters to the Unplayable level of pure Fighters. My human condition of Thinker tells me that this is too radical and I propose something a little Lighter. You still get to restrinct about 80% of a wizard's flexibility but you are just putting me out in a drawer with all the "Others" and saying im Evil. I think you are over stating the burden of deciding spells here. A caster isn't nearly as ineffective having to memorize all of their spells in advance as you make it sound. In fact that is pretty much how it is in all campaigns but you make it sound like what I've suggested is something new and unheard of. To state that a character can't prepare for the possibility of two or three different foes is absurd. If you look over your possible competition at any given level you can come up with a good range of spells that would be useful given any of them. That is how a caster usually picks their spells. They are not going to be over whelmed. You make it seem as if they won't have a single spell to cast if they don't know exactly who and what they will face before their match. That arguement is laugable. Guess what coming up with a general list of spells when you have tons to choose from isn't as hard as you make it seem. I've done it for plenty of campaigns, sometimes with great success sometimes mediocre but that is what balance is. You can't have a win-win situation all the time but it seems like the Caster gang believes if they can't win 100% of their fight then somehow their casters aren't being treated fairly.This is not an acceptable system by the fact that you can have 1-20 possible oponents. Also, Any strategy a caster can come up with depends almost exclusively on spells. A fighter's tactics depend on Feats, Special abilities (not fighters), Spells (not fighers), Companions (not *most fighters), and Equipment. Nerfing Casters without considering the impact of the other Efficient non-pure-fighter classes is what I call being treated unfairy. I say keep it simple. Make casters write out what spells they are going to use and keep it set till their fight. They know who their three or four competitors are likely to be and chances are many of their strategies for dealing with one will work for the other ones also. They aren't losing anything but it does allow fighters and barbarians to stand on more equal ground with them and that equals balance. Again, obviously they will know something about who they face off against, all they have to do is see who the two or three active PC's around them are. Not too hard and it certainly doesn't warrent them getting to tailor all of their spells to one person right before the fight. If you want this for casters then you should let everyone decide last second on what potions, scrolls, and tools they want to buy last second to counter their opposition. For every decision a wizard, cleric, or druid could make the night before the fight in their spell list a fighter or barbarian could go to a store to buy a solution as well. You can't have it both ways on this and right now everyone is essentially letting casters cheat. Balancing something against a pure fighter is making them underpowered. Nothing more.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:12 AM	Originally posted by Caterane Guys, Rayne expresses it so clearly and understandably. Why don't you give him some credits for it! I still cannot believe that you are all so adamant about keeping the current situation - and that for different reasons. I give you both credit to your argument. You completely discualify mine. I am not adamant of keeping with the current situation. As I have already Explained perhaps too many tmes. Druid, you think that the fighter classes are flawed by WotC and never meant to be equal to a spellcaster. So why not throw them out? Asides from the fact that this isn't true in a campaign, we CAN shift the balance in the right direction and even if the casters are still more powerful, we have at least done something to better it. You seem to be aware that there is an imbalance so why do you lay down in resignation instead of assisting us find a solution?Nerfing *some classes will help fighters, no doubt, and all others who do NOT need help. You do not seem to like the Assistance I throw at you. It's been said before and I will say it again. It is unfair - UNFAIR - that prepared casters can prepare spells on the fly. That was NEVER intended to happen. It is a simple step to prememorize all spells. Plus we make one-shot items refundable in case of a loss. This will be an easy and elegant step into the right direction. The alternative is a spellcaster dominated arena at highlevels, with fighters being no more than peasants. Casters should have some "Idea" of what they are facing, thats why having most of your spells prememorized is a Good idea. Having ALL your spells prememorized is NOT. Fighers are better than peasants, think of them as The "Warrior" class for npcs but with feats.
Jindl 07-10-04, 02:15 AM	@Rayne - Surely you don't expect a 2nd level wizard to stand toe-to-toe with a 3rd level fighter and attack him with melee weapons? However, Aku could simply cast the scroll: alter self (succeeding on anythin other than a natural 1) and assume the form of a Ravid, with an AC of 28. Add to that a simple scroll: mage armor, and his AC becomes an untouchable 32, which requires a natural 20 for Aiki to hit him. Aku could then just accept the AoO while casting sleep or color spray on Aiki (Will +3 vs DC 15) until he failed, then CDG. Note that Aku won by using very low level scrolls which cost only 175 gp total and his own memorized spells, which a mage at that level will always have memorized. This would work whether they are in melee or not, as Aku can simply 5' step out of Aiki's reach before casting Alter Self, after which he doesn't need to fear Aiki's attacks. But enough of discussing our character's previous encounter. Back to the topic at hand.
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 02:18 AM	Jindl, On a side note I had been working on ways to improve Aiki because like you I know how important damage is to attacks to get him when he doesn't have great Strength or Constituition. I was actually investing a lot of time on figuring out how to drive up his weapon damage and more importantly his AC and saves. With the plan I was working toward (I planned him all the way to 20) I had him with two +5 weapons (both enchanted to +10 with the extra magic bonuses added) doing tons of damage quickly with his two-handed barrage. In addition with an AC just over 50 he was looking to be very hard to hit. I also had been working on tons of ways to get him super saves and added versatility. Sure your PC may have a counter but I had a direction for Aiki even if you thought he was just for flavor. My goal when I create Kobolds is to try and make them work in a lot of different classes. Granted sometimes that isn't easy but to say my build is weak because I don't rely on min/max, race, class munchkinism to get there is a bit short sited. All I was looking for was an arena that was more equal for all of the gladiators. What is wrong with wanting that?
Caterane 07-10-04, 02:21 AM	Casters should have some "Idea" of what they are facing, thats why having most of your spells prememorized is a Good idea. Having ALL your spells prememorized is NOT. And this "some idea" are the 1 to 3 other gladiators at that level. What do you say now?
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:24 AM	Originally posted by Caterane And this "some idea" are the 1 to 3 other gladiators at that level. What do you say now? I say what I said before. And please try to answer to all my post instead of cutpaste noisy arguments ok?
Jindl 07-10-04, 02:25 AM	Originally posted by Caterane And this "some idea" are the 1 to 3 other gladiators at that level. What do you say now? Sometimes there aren't 1-3 others. Look at Lvl 13. There are 18 gladiators. That's no idea, not some idea. Or it could be like Lvl 6. Only one possible opponent. Full premem is a variable limitation. As for freely replacing expendables: 1. The Elders voted against it a long time ago, 2. It is a really bad idea, unless you want to see everyone using Whip feather tokens, and high level scrolls. Free replacement of one-shots makes the casters even tougher, because the best one-shots are caster items. -Jindl
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:30 AM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors I say what I said before. Ill answer for good measure. 1-3 is not allways true. Luck interveens too much with this system. It is Not Fair. Lets say you have 3 oponents. One has high will save, one has high fort and one has good reflex. You choose 1/3 for each and end up being 1/3 as powerful. Where as a non-caster will be just as effective. Balance eh? How about if you use my idea. 2/3 memorized and I still get that 1/3 of punch when I need it. Thats 4/9ths of power, Thats what I seek.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:31 AM	Originally posted by Jindl As for freely replacing expendables: 1. The Elders voted against it a long time ago, 2. It is a really bad idea, unless you want to see everyone using Whip feather tokens, and high level scrolls. Free replacement of one-shots makes the casters even tougher, because the best one-shots are caster items. -Jindl Thats Only when losing. That isnt that bad because if he wins, he still gets penalized for what he used.
Caterane 07-10-04, 02:31 AM	Sometimes there aren't 1-3 others. Look at Lvl 13. There are 18 gladiators. That's no idea, not some idea. LOL Thats because we froze them since FEBRUARY when my windows were frozen too! Come on Jindl! Or it could be like Lvl 6. Only one possible opponent. Yeah, good for the caster. That day he got a good advice from a wandering sage the party met on their way to the next adventure. Next time it will be more vague. Sounds like in a campaign, eh? As for freely replacing expendables: 1. The Elders voted against it a long time ago, 2. It is a really bad idea, unless you want to see everyone using Whip feather tokens, and high level scrolls. Free replacement in case of a loss only (except when you bump)! That means you can drink two potions of fly and one displacement but if you win they're gone. If not, then you keep them. I've explained it in detail several posts above.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:33 AM	Originally posted by Caterane Yeah, good for the caster. That day he got a good advice from a wandering sage the party met on their way to the next adventure. Next time it will be more vague. Sounds like in a campaign, eh? Ok, I freeze my Caster Character until there are 1-2 oponents, meanwhile I use my Non-caster Non-Pure-Fighter can of whoop-ass. Doesn't look like a solution to me.
Caterane 07-10-04, 02:39 AM	1-3 is not allways true. Luck interveens too much with this system. It is Not Fair. Lets say you have 3 oponents. One has high will save, one has high fort and one has good reflex. You choose 1/3 for each and end up being 1/3 as powerful. Where as a non-caster will be just as effective. Balance eh? Uhm Druid, if each one has one good save, then the wizards ends up with 2/3 power, not 1/3. And yes, that is balanced opposed to casters completely specialized to combat that single one character. How about if you use my idea. 2/3 memorized and I still get that 1/3 of punch when I need it. Thats 4/9ths of power, Thats what I seek. Mine was 2/3 (see quote above) so how can yours be worse for the caster? Ah, maths :) J/K Edit: I better explain it :D If one has a good fortitude save then I still have all reflex and will spells, and even the fortitude ones may have a chance of success. Druids and Clerics can even convert useless spells. And if you tell me that some spells are useless, then I want to remind you of the fact that the fighters main strength - melee - is mostly useless as it is now.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:46 AM	Originally posted by Caterane [B]Uhm Druid, if each one has one good save, then the wizards ends up with 2/3 power, not 1/3. And yes, that is balanced opposed to casters completely specialized to combat that single one character. Oops, I meant BAD saves. Mine was 2/3 (see quote above) so how can yours be worse for the caster? Ah, maths :) J/KYours is NO flexibility, I want to keep some of it. Edit: I better explain it :D If one has a good fortitude save then I still have all reflex and will spells, and even the fortitude ones may have a chance of success. Druids and Clerics can even convert useless spells. And if you tell me that some spells are useless, then I want to remind you of the fact that the fighters main strength - melee - is mostly useless as it is now. Remember Druids and clerics (specially druids) do not have one of each flavor.
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 02:48 AM	Jindl Surely you don't expect a 2nd level wizard to stand toe-to-toe with a 3rd level fighter and attack him with melee weapons? Come on man give your PC credit he was an ECL build and his race added enough bonus to give hims some more power than the standard 2nd level fighter. To say your PC wasn't a fair fight against mine when they were listed as the same level is weak on your part as an arguement. I like how you convieniently left that part out though. Also your arguement about casting spells from scrolls. I would love to see you try that in a tight quarter match-up with my PC. Your PC would never manage to get the spell read before it was interrupted, sundered and so much waste paper on the ground. However onto the topics at hand as you said... DruidRoxors, This is not an acceptable system by the fact that you can have 1-20 possible oponents. Also, Any strategy a caster can come up with depends almost exclusively on spells. A fighter's tactics depend on Feats, Special abilities (not fighters), Spells (not fighers), Companions (not *most fighters), and Equipment. Nerfing Casters without considering the impact of the other Efficient non-pure-fighter classes is what I call being treated unfairy. 1- 20 ??? Where in the world did you come up with that number. Ohhh I get it you arbitrarily choose a super high number to make it seem like it was actually really tough to pick spells against 2 - 4 opponents.... Here let me show you the current line-up of active fighters this week and what a contender would face at each level.... Please note that all numbers are assuming that your PC was moved into one of the open slots currently filled by an active gladiator Level 2 League wait Sildaris, Myrridin: 0 won, 0 lost wait Stormrider Valentine LLMadCow: 0 won, 0 lost [psi] wait BrittleBear, rich2939: 0 won, 0 lost wait Ildechai Hazeweaver, Ashenai: 0 won, 0 lost What do ya know at 2nd level a wizard only has to prepare spells against 3 possible builds. Level 3 League wait Jensun Amalcon, Amalcon: 1 won, 2 lost wait Rose, Snarkhunter: 1 won, 0 lost [psi] wait Ivan, Irien: 1 won, 0 lost wait Veloment, Magagumo: 1 won, 2 lost [psi] Hmm, interesting at 3rd level they only have to prepare spells against... 3 possible builds. Level 4 League wait Ban'zanifal, Magagumo: 1 won, 1 lost [1°/psi] waitPard, MysticMonk2005: 0 won, 8 lost [2b] Guess what, on this tier only have to worry about one opponent! Wow that was tough. Level 5 League waitDeath Dealer, Ethendril: 1 won, 0 lost [2°] wait Evram the Soulless, SnarkHunter: 3 won, 0 lost [psi] wait Dart, Mercy: 3 won, 1 lost wait Armanithil, Battousai2005: 2 won, 0 lost [1°] Here is the lucky number 3 again. Level 6 League wait Tair Malek, Sindorin: 4 won, 2 lost wait Bubo, Jindl: 0 won, 0 lost [4°] This level is another tough one, you would actually have to prepare for one possible foe. Level 7 League NONE No one to worry about here. Level 8 League [wait] Brock Granitehand, Tellish_of_Ket: 6 won, 2 lost [wait] Vaarkalikax the Lichking, Ethendril: 6 won, 1 lost [wait] Sven Enno, Market_Share: 6 won, 4 lost [wait] Jo'Li, Mercy: 6 won, 6 lost [psi] Three possible foes again. Level 9 League NONE No one to battle here but you said somewhere there were 20 possible combatants to choose from. Where are they? Level 10 League wait Rhoar, Jindl: 8 won, 1 lost [1m] wait Zephin Telloran, Myrridin: 8 won, 6 lost wait Enilias Surion, Kaigan: 7 won, 4 lost [1b] wait Toreilison Wevlun, Magagumo: 3 won, 6 lost [4°/1b] The trend continues, only 3 possible fighters to worry about. Level 11 League waitProf. Vandaeris Dre'Dandrahl, Caterane: 8 won, 3 lost [1b] wait Grym Mordib, KerlanRayne: 9 won, 10 lost wait Angosh, Pittbull: 7 won, 8 lost [2b] wait Aemon, Beldin: 9 won, 1 lost wait Arkin Jozil, kattattack22: 9 won, 2 lost wait Heinrich, Hatzinger: 8 won, 6 lost [1b] Five possible foes this time. Funny enough some of this had to do with the level freeze at level 9 that happened for quite awhile but still 5 is far closer to 3 than 20. Level 12 League wait Archangel Ixidor, Caterane: 7 won, 3 lost [3°/3m] wait Corinthus Avius, Druid Roxors: 10 won, 4 lost Well we end here with a PC you built and guess what, you only had to worry about one opponent! Was it really that tough to decide ahead of time what your spells were going to be against that one combatant? I think I've proven my point quite well. You over exagerated your point to make it but clearly the facts do not support your statement of fact. Sometimes there aren't 1-3 others. Look at Lvl 13. There are 18 gladiators. That's no idea, not some idea. Jindl you are doing what Druid just did only worse. The only reason their are so many gladiators at that level is they are all frozen there. If it ever becomes active I wonder how many will actually activate their character to fight and isn't this case also the exception not the rule? I've shown the facts, they are clear and quoted above. It doesn't take too long to examine character sheets of opponents and see their PC's are listed ready to go or ready for some later date. As you can see it is common that there will be no more than 3 to 5 PC's active at a time anyway at any given level. This doesn't even get into how many of those PC's are identical or similar builds and can be countered the same way. For the sake of arguement and conservative estimates I assumed the worse that they were all polar opposites which is likely not the case.
SnarkHunter 07-10-04, 02:56 AM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ Jindl, On a side note I had been working on ways to improve Aiki because like you I know how important damage is to attacks to get him when he doesn't have great Strength or Constituition. I was actually investing a lot of time on figuring out how to drive up his weapon damage and more importantly his AC and saves. With the plan I was working toward (I planned him all the way to 20) I had him with two +5 weapons (both enchanted to +10 with the extra magic bonuses added) doing tons of damage quickly with his two-handed barrage. In addition with an AC just over 50 he was looking to be very hard to hit. I also had been working on tons of ways to get him super saves and added versatility. Sure your PC may have a counter but I had a direction for Aiki even if you thought he was just for flavor. My goal when I create Kobolds is to try and make them work in a lot of different classes. Granted sometimes that isn't easy but to say my build is weak because I don't rely on min/max, race, class munchkinism to get there is a bit short sited. All I was looking for was an arena that was more equal for all of the gladiators. What is wrong with wanting that? Rayne, I know you've left and all, but if you'd like to see how that build would fare against others half way through its progression I have one spot currently open in the 10th ECL Iron Man competition.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 02:57 AM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ Jindl DruidRoxors, Well we end here with a PC you built and guess what, you only had to worry about one opponent! Was it really that tough to decide ahead of time what your spells were going to be against that one combatant? I think I've proven my point quite well. You over exagerated your point to make it but clearly the facts do not support your statement of [b]fact. The FACT is that Zedarak Retired his "active" position after 9pm. If you check my spell list, My character was prepared for a Fire immune and a fire vulnerable oponent. You cannot have randomness determine the outcome of the fight. Although I believe some has to exist, an ounce of "on the spot memorization" must exist in order for the characters to remain viable against Sorcerers/rangers/paladins/assasins/etc. (I did exclude Fighters/barbs) Staying at 1/3 of your effectiveness against anything else but an underpowred Fighter/barb is going to get you killed.
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 03:09 AM	HAHAHAHAHAHA. Do not make me laugh please. You are saying that playtesting works!? You must be kidding me man. Ill ignore that. I can think of TWO and only 2 games that are balanced in the most part. Counterstrike (before condition zero) and Starcraft. They both took YEARS to balance. In the whole year I've been here at the boards, optimization and classes boards included, NO figher build has been remotely impressive. All other builds smash them to the floor. Fighter/barbarian seems not to be designed for Pure play. Only when combined do they shine. I know there are tons of games that are not perfect but there are also tons and tons of games that got it pretty darn close. I have litterally played so many I've lost count. I've been working on the game I'm currently on for four months now and I'm the tip of the iceburg on this project on the number of people who have worked on it. To laugh at playtesting and skoff at it is to show your ignorance. The more playtesting there is the better the end product is. The reason why so many Blizzard games come out right is because they know this and they spend literally years testing them. To sit here and tell me that the Fighter build hasn't been remotely impressive to you because of what you've seen here is a pointless arguement. As Caterane and I have been trying to explain to everyone here (I wasn't trying to single you out or say you were evil by the way) is that fighters and barbarians are put in situations where the deck is already stacked against them because of how the CoCo rules currently work. To look at results from fights here at the CoCo is to read from a biased experiment that was predetermined. "I can think of TWO and only 2 games that are balanced in the most part." I can think of tons more but then I've played far more games then almost anyone here probably. When I was doing certification testing I easily saw a new Xbox title once every week for over a year and a half not to mention all of the titles I've played on my own or all the PC games I've worked on in a more direct way at Microsoft. There is extraordinary effort and money put into playtesting. The reason is obvious, so the games are not horribly unbalanced by the time they get to the shelves and they aren't impossible to play due to excessive bug counts. These large corporations are not in the business of testing products if it is a waste of time and money. Playtesting creates a polished product that is successful in the market and in the end makes companies money. That is why they do it, to make more money. Not only am I saying Playtesting works, the business community as a whole supports this since they fund it for all of their products and even design specific departments who do nothing but playtest. Before you tread farther down the path of laughing at it you should know a bit more about it. I for one have first hand experience with testing games and have been doing it for years. Insulting the work we testers do is foolish at the very least.
^Rayne^ 07-10-04, 03:22 AM	Snarkhunter, Rayne, I know you've left and all, but if you'd like to see how that build would fare against others half way through its progression I have one spot currently open in the 10th ECL Iron Man competition. I fear that at 10th level many of the things I was attempting to do with Aiki would not be advanced as I would like. Also there is the problem with lost items... Past Expenditures (tot. 1263gp 5sp): - Wakizashi (masterwork short sword) 155gp (sold at half price) - Katana (masterwork bastard sword) 167gp 5sp (sold at half price) - Potion of Aid CL3 (belt, - wt) 300gp - Potion of Cat’s Grace 300gp - Potion of Protection from Law 50gp - Two Flasks of Alchemist’s Fire 40gp - 2x Potions of Shield of Faith +2 100gp - 2x Potions of Protection from Evil 100gp - Potion of Cure Light Wounds 50gp - 21 arrows 1gp That was the list last time I updated it but I believe a couple more arrows were supposed to be added, I could be wrong. Only one itme in that list actually led to a victory, one of the two Flasks of Alchemist's Fire. It would be nice to have all those resources back as Aiki could really use 1,200 + gold. As it is just trying to keep up with the big dogs cost him a fair penny and didn't get him anywhere. I also wonder if Aiki would be the first one picked off simply because I'm such and A-hole that many of you would want to take my PC out first just to prove a point. ;) I don't know the offer is tempting but I actually was thinking about arranging a different series of CoCo battles where gladiators worked in pairs and had matches hosted in an ongoing game by an impartial Pitlord. Your idea has merit SnarkHunter but I don't think Aiki is good for much but support at this point. Maybe at level 15 or 20 and in the right environment things might go a bit better but I sort of doubt it. I'll think about your idea and who knows maybe I'll give Aiki a spin there.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 03:40 AM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ [B]I know there are tons of games that are not perfect but there are also tons and tons of games that got it pretty darn close. I have litterally played so many I've lost count. I've been working on the game I'm currently on for four months now and I'm the tip of the iceburg on this project on the number of people who have worked on it. To laugh at playtesting and skoff at it is to show your ignorance. The more playtesting there is the better the end product is. The reason why so many Blizzard games come out right is because they know this and they spend literally years testing them. Hold it right there. NO game that I know of Ever produced by Blizzard entertainment has been balanced NOT a single one of them. (not that they have many) Balancing Starcraft took FOUR (thats 4) years AFTER RELEASE. If you even played the game at the state it was released it was a joke. But yes, many games are balanced to some extent. D&D isnt. To sit here and tell me that the Fighter build hasn't been remotely impressive to you because of what you've seen here is a pointless arguement. As Caterane and I have been trying to explain to everyone here (I wasn't trying to single you out or say you were evil by the way) is that fighters and barbarians are put in situations where the deck is already stacked against them because of how the CoCo rules currently work. To look at results from fights here at the CoCo is to read from a biased experiment that was predetermined.What I've Seen in the boards has been enough to tell me that. Not accounting for all the time I have played this game and the other boards and offline discussions Ive had. I can think of tons more but then I've played far more games then almost anyone here probably. When I was doing certification testing I easily saw a new Xbox title once every week for over a year and a half not to mention all of the titles I've played on my own or all the PC games I've worked on in a more direct way at Microsoft. There is extraordinary effort and money put into playtesting. The reason is obvious, so the games are not horribly unbalanced by the time they get to the shelves and they aren't impossible to play due to excessive bug counts. These large corporations are not in the business of testing products if it is a waste of time and money. Playtesting creates a polished product that is successful in the market and in the end makes companies money. That is why they do it, to make more money. Not only am I saying Playtesting works, the business community as a whole supports this since they fund it for all of their products and even design specific departments who do nothing but playtest. Before you tread farther down the path of laughing at it you should know a bit more about it. I for one have first hand experience with testing games and have been doing it for years. Insulting the work we testers do is foolish at the very least. I am sorry if I have insulted your work, for I am sure there are games that come out fairly balanced. Nevertheless, Playtesting One game for 2 weeks is not going to reveal all imbalances into the game. Yes you will find ALOT of stuff wrong, I do not deny that, but you won't catch it all. WotC "Balanced" this classes in some strange universe where everyone else who didn't play those two classes was impaired somehow and they had a chance to shine. I have been in MANY offline campaigns and all I have seen is that the most unsuccessful builds are pure fighters and barbarians. That I see from my own Playtesting.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 03:42 AM	@ Rayne's Response to Snarkhunter You create a totally new character. It doesn't have to be Aki. Just create a new Aki, with 49k gold in his pocket. Thats the way this competition is supposed to work. I am currently creating a level 10 non-pure-caster non-pure-fighter character for it.
LLMadCow 07-10-04, 04:30 AM	Something to consider (But mind you, I do not have a current solution in mind, but I am mulling it over!): The Spellcasters DO have a huge advantage that should be remidied: Crafting items and not having to pay XP. See, normally the Wizard would be behind the curve in Levels because they have paid XP to craft their items. In this arena, they pay GP for the XP. So, what are they saying? Hey WIZARD A, I'll pay you for your XP in this project, and I will do the rest of the work? Not even! In some instances that extra Gold can be a hefty amount, but is it really even fair to the Fighters? I might go so far as to say that Fighters should get more gold for winning fights, but that does make for a lot of extra bookkeepping. (Although no more than keeping up with people's HP and such!) Or maybe force Spellcasters to pay XP for their projects, drop their Class Levels, but give them a LA+1 for crafting purposes and figure out just how much they have left. Confusing, but VERY fair. Another thought for you guys, is this: The CoCo favors spellcasters because the core rulebooks favor them. All of the good prestige classes for the Physical combatants happen to be in non-core books. Unearthed Arcana dn Complete Warrior are two awesome books! I would love to play a Kensai or an Invisible Blade!
Hatzinger 07-10-04, 05:33 AM	Wow, you guys have much time on your hands... Druid, in a current campaign i play a pure fighter (yes, i have a knack for pure characters). It´s the spiked-chain tripper who stands for battlefield control. I make even the barbarian weep with this build. And the wizard, well, he is too slow to react and memorizes utility spells, anyway. (because after the first round, his assistence is no longer needed. :D) My pure fighter IS playable, fun and powerful. And Magagumo, please don´t start the money-debate again. It´s not like casters have unlimited equipment. The 70% price of wondrous items, for example, still hasn´t made up for the losses Heinrich has had in order to buy all these scrolls and the costs of scribing them; which he needed in order to gain his main point - flexibility in the choosing of which spells to take. And Rayne, i don´t know what the other players do, but i never, even if i had the time, look up which other possible characters are there in order to determine the pre-memorized spells. I just set up a working compromise of flexibility and hope that the right spells were in it.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 05:54 AM	Originally posted by Hatzinger Wow, you guys have much time on your hands... Druid, in a current campaign i play a pure fighter (yes, i have a knack for pure characters). It´s the spiked-chain tripper who stands for battlefield control. I make even the barbarian weep with this build. And the wizard, well, he is too slow to react and memorizes utility spells, anyway. (because after the first round, his assistence is no longer needed. :D) My pure fighter IS playable, fun and powerful. Let me guess, your wizard is going Mystic Theurge or your campaign is level <10. In any case, A pure fighter build is effective on very specific builds and campaigns. It is strange for a tripper to be very effective specially if you consider the revised rules for trip (standing up provokes AoO BEFORE attempting to stand up, and so you cannot be tripped) and the fact that most monsters in campaigns are large+ or/and have several feet.
Magagumo 07-10-04, 10:57 AM	Zuh whuh? What money debate am I starting Hatzinger? Are you sure you're accussing the right guy? ;) Also, I think we have no juustification for stating how pure barbarians work.. because we have yet to have anyone make a pure version. I believe the main cause for this is that the multiple rages are useless in the arena. Don't change this, it was created for a reason. I wuill clarify that my "options" discussion was actually a combination of good purchases and good tactics,, so there :P But I fear this conversation is going nowhere, and that we may all have to agree to disagree. Perhaps implementation of the "round-up" rule would be good, and I also support the restoration of 1-shot items if and only if one loses. I remember Brackin's incredible stockpile of potions, and it is balance if he manages to win with all of them. Nevertheless, I couldn't help but feel pity when he would lose and also lose 2.2k or so. Tori's use of poison has also caused me to feel this crunch. So yea, I support the restoration of 1-shot upon loss.
LLMadCow 07-10-04, 11:16 AM	In all honesty, I think a solid solution owuld be what I mentioned earlier, but I will make sure this sticks out some... Charge EVERYONE ONLY half price for item creation, but any item requiring XP garners a one time LA+1, unless the character goes wild and creates a million items, which is very unlikely. This means that the Level 5 Wizard who has made a few items and saved a few gold is fighting against a level 6 fighter who hasn't been wasting his XP on item creation. In many instances, this would even the playing field. A LA+1 would mean, less spells, lower levels spells, less feats, less stat increases, less all the way around ... but ONLY by 1 level. Players big into item creation would be forced to keep track of XP costs and have them listed. A simple chart could be made to look at the level of the character and the amount of XP used to determine if the LA is +1 or higher.
Ashenai 07-10-04, 11:28 AM	Another thought for you guys, is this: The CoCo favors spellcasters because the core rulebooks favor them. All of the good prestige classes for the Physical combatants happen to be in non-core books. Unearthed Arcana dn Complete Warrior are two awesome books! I would love to play a Kensai or an Invisible Blade! I agree completely. I've read the argument that allowing non-core books raises the complexity for running fights by a lot, but I'm not sure I agree. There are very few new _rules_ introduced; the new mechanics in the various splatbooks are mostly self-contained. Have running combats become vastly more complicated now that the Expanded Psionics Handbook has been allowed, for instance? Then again, I haven't run any fights yet, so I could be way off.
Ethendril 07-10-04, 12:08 PM	I haven't really had time to follow this discussion, so hopefully this hasn't been covered. I think that the casters do have some advantage over non-casters. I also think that casters need to have some flexibility. One solution that seems like it would help the balance, but not hinder casters, is to change the memorization from 1/2 rounded down to 1/2 rounded up. Casters would still have flexibility, but non-casters could know what to expect. I don't think I support anything more drastic than this right now, but I would support this idea.
Battousai2005 07-10-04, 02:11 PM	Amazing really. Ok, you want everything to be fair? Remove all the weapons from the fighter and make it so the caster can't cast spells. Now make the wizard have the same BAB and damage. Hey, everything is fair! OK, seriously, I am getting a little tired of the same argument. 1) Casters can do this, that, and the other thing. Right. Well, sucks to tell everyone this, but unless you give the casters the weapons, armor, and Attack bonus of the fighter, then this is the ONLY WAY THEY CAN WIN! How do you expect a wizard to win if his spells are however tampered or forced. 2) Fighters and barbarians do not suck as much as everyone thinks. So far, I think Jindl is the only one who says so. It's not the class, its how you make it. Lets face it. I see casters who are demigods, and I see casters who would lose in a face to face conflict with a rabbit. Likewise, lets have a look at some good warrior builds. I'll use Mystics latest fighter. Full orc, averaging in at 28 STR with rage and enlarge, and guess what? Will saves don't totaly blow. OK, so maybe he can't win if the wizard casts fly. Big deal. Thats what he gets a potion for. 3) Fact is, we can't in good right do anything to the casters nor can we do anything for the fighters. BTW, just buy some, ah, anti-caster equipment. In general, this means a bow, some potions. For Kage, hand of glory, and a little purchase he'll make at some point. Really, why do we bother? This is a good system we have going. But, like Jindl says, laws of nature. The strong live, the weak die. Oh, and lady luck may treat a gladiator or two...
Magagumo 07-10-04, 02:54 PM	Too true, batt, and well said to boot. Let's also consider these last two points; One, we are testing builds here- classes were not balanced to perform equally in every fight they ever face. Proof: Let's take a page from CR here. A party of 4 ppl of X lvl can face CRs equal to that lvl and use approx. 20% of resources. To calculate more or less party emmebrs, you simply treat them as one level high or lower, respectively. In our situations, our chars are treated as 3 lvls lower for calculating CR. Also, an NPCs CR is equal to their character level (if we're talking base race), and our PCs actually have more money and better stats (not exactly +1 CR, but enough to gives us wiggle room in calulations). Thusly, if a 10th lvl barbarian and a 10th lvl wizard were to face one another, each is CR+3, so they are each expected to utilize 80% of their resources (hps/ rage use, spell per day, etc.) to defeat one another. Now, say that we take these two 10th level characters, and pit them vs CR 10 monsters (theoretically an equivalent match up), they're knowledgable of what they're fighting, and are expected to have made arrangements to avoid obvious flaws (snagging weapons to beat DR, for example). The fighter is well-trained in one weapon, and has made progress in at least two trees (Str, Dex, Int) with his 6 bonus feats and 4 normal ones. The wizard may have specialized, but has access to spells that incur Fort, Rex, and Will saves. So first off, each of these character is pitted against an advanced Greater Air Elemental (CR 10). While the fighter can easily deal otu lots of Damage vs. the creature, its DR and highly accurate atatcks are going to deal him tons of damage before he is finally (perhaps) able to put the creature down. Meanwhile, the wizard is likely to have an easier time, as it can capitilize on the elemental's poor Fort and Will saves, perhaps paralyzing it, cursing it, or just outright killing ti with Necromantic effects. (Summoners are a different style, one which I am not directly addressing here). Now place these two vs. a rakshasha: Obviously, the fighter must contend facing a caster, but the rakshasa's low HD and generally non aggressive spells are not going to cause him undue harm. Obviosuly, it willbe a tough fight, but with prper equipment, his ability to Power Attack through the creature's lowly 21 AC (and 52 hp) means he will find success, eventually. Meanwhile, the direct effect wizard must contend with the rakshasa's all-around good saves, and a SR of 27! (w/o Spell penetration,a rarely seen feat in the arena, he needs a 17 to even effect the outsider). With some major luck, and perhaps very clever tactics, the wizard could win- but hsi chances are not excellent. So you see in these examples, a well-rounded party was essential for true success, as certain monsters can hurt a wizard far more than a fighter. In the same way, the classes are not going to amtch up vs. one another. Remmeber, we're testing builds here- not promising that you'll ahve an equal chance of beating every single on of your oppoentns. Through our tests, we have already determined that "pure" melee (barbs/fighters) may suffer difficulties vs. arance casters, but they will have good success vs. those who attempt to be "weell-rounded characters". Ixidor and Tori are good examples of characters who have set out to wreak havoc with casters, but we've seen that their lower HD and AB make it tricky to go one-on-one with a pure meleer. (Toir had fits with Angosh, because he was an enlarged sunderer, something she can never attain. Likewise, if Aemon or Rhoar were to face Ixidor, their strength and high AB would make ti more difficult for him to grapple,a dn their accurate and powerful attacks could quickly diminsh his lower hp.) And so I beg you all- stop trying to perfectly balance every fight and every class- because its never going to work without house-ruling this place to death. I think people get "win-crazy" obsessing over perfect records and the like- it really shouldn't happen. I worry that this place was soon disappear, as everyone gets into fits to make sure they could always win. So what do you say? Why don't we just continue making well-crafted characters, develop tricky tactics, shrug when we lose, smile when we win, and enjoy the opportunity of testing dozens of builds in one of the best-run places on the Wizards Boards? :)
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 03:49 PM	Originally posted by Magagumo Too true, batt, and well said to boot. Let's also consider these last two points; One, we are testing builds here- classes were not balanced to perform equally in every fight they ever face. And so I beg you all- stop trying to perfectly balance every fight and every class- because its never going to work without house-ruling this place to death. I think people get "win-crazy" obsessing over perfect records and the like- it really shouldn't happen. I worry that this place was soon disappear, as everyone gets into fits to make sure they could always win. So what do you say? Why don't we just continue making well-crafted characters, develop tricky tactics, shrug when we lose, smile when we win, and enjoy the opportunity of testing dozens of builds in one of the best-run places on the Wizards Boards? :) :bow: - Add the item replacement policy and round-up (or my proposal) for good measure -
Battousai2005 07-10-04, 05:24 PM	Now we wait for Cat to shoot us all down... Aww well.
Druid Roxors 07-10-04, 07:18 PM	Perhaps he can shoot you down, but I will certainly not be shot down. Caterane has to understand that his proposal is far too much. If we are to take a step in the right direction, lets take it. But a step, not a leap. You don't know what results you might get with what you propose.
Ashenai 07-10-04, 07:54 PM	I agree that Cat's proposal is far too much, and would definitely be "houserule" as opposed to "core". On the other hand, I think rounding up instead of down for the number of pre-prepared spells is entirely reasonable, and tilts the balance back a bit towards both non-casters and Sorcerers (and both groups can use the boost).
amalcon 07-11-04, 05:51 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors Hold it right there. NO game that I know of Ever produced by Blizzard entertainment has been balanced NOT a single one of them. (not that they have many) Balancing Starcraft took FOUR (thats 4) years AFTER RELEASE. If you even played the game at the state it was released it was a joke. But yes, many games are balanced to some extent. D&D isnt. This is coming in the same sentence as the statement that Counter-Strike, an FPS with an inter-round positive feedback loop built in, and everyone uses one of four guns (out of a lot more than four), is balanced. I discounted that post as soon as I saw it. I think the problem we have here is that D&D is balanced like Team Fortress -- yes, there are classes which suck, but you see them all in games because each has a role to play in a normal campaign. In the CoCo, all you need is the guy who can end a tough fight quickly, not the guy who can slog along all day without pause.
Caterane 07-14-04, 10:17 AM	I have decided to use this thread as an ongoing documentation until everyone can undeniable see and is forced to admit that the current CoCo is far from unbalanced. Let me begin with something we've seen in the Ixidor vs Corinthus fight. The druid casts control weather, and denies the fighter ranged attacks and even has a good chance to keep him at bay because of the hurricane. No chance. IF the fighter now anyhow gets to the druid, he is surely wildshaped into a Dire bear (or something bigger later) and buffed to the roof, as well as his Companion who alone is now tougher than the fighter, and what follows is the most frustrating end of a gladiator ever. And even this is completely up to the druid who can just aswell cast Antilife shell and be completely untouchable for the fighter. HOW DO YOU JUSTIFY THIS??? Guys, if THAT is not unbalanced ...if THAT doesn't open your eyes and let you see that we have a huge problem, I don't know. Next point. Read Dr.Dre's tactics against Aemon? I post the important sections here: (1) Cast quickened spectral hand (out of LOS) and heightened bestow curse (Dc25) on him (Curse: -4 to saves, attacks, skills, ability checks). Then another curse (50% no action), followed by third curse (-6 to constitution). Since you heightened them to 5th level they can’t be delivered by the hand, which is limited to 4th. (2) Blindness if he isn't already blinded from glitterdust, else deafness. Recast if he saves, or drinks potion to remove it. (3) If he uses the bow, cast heightened grease on it (Reflex every round or drop it) (4) Enervation (5) Ray of exhaustion (6) Ray of enfeeblement (check his encumberance) (7) Now kill his horse if he brings it along with magic missiles (8) Cast solid fog on him (9) Cast cloudkill, and dismiss it after three rounds. At that point we should look at Aemon's condition, and how much chance he had against a wizard. And Aemon is the unscathed winner! (10) Cast evards tentacles and watch. If he anyhow gets out kill him with magic missiles or ghoultouch+CDG. I could have killed him ANY time with empowered MM, or 10 heightened ghoul touches until he fails while he tries to penetrate this defense: Defenses: Speed 440, 2 Illusions running around, each having mirror images ~ 20 targets. So much for ready actions. Read my tactic above. Instead of killing him, my greatest concern was not to kill him too quickly. I made a mistake in forgetting that heightened curses don't fit into the spectral hand, plus Aemon had incredible luck with his rolls. My point is that I could easily affort playing with him. AND NOW TELL ME: IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE THAT A GLADIATOR CAN PLAY AS HE WISHES WITH ANOTHER ONE? I want to thank Beldin for accepting my challenge. I have great respect for this, and I surely would have declined. Beldin himself said that he had no chance. Don't get me wrong: Aemon is a well build gladiator (before Jindl now comes up with his 'only the strong survive' talk; with strong he means 'spellcasters'); Aemon is well-build but with the current setting he has no chance. Originally posted by SnarkHunter: And closer then anyone had any right to expect. The loser could well have won if he had owned a single critical item. No way Snark. The fight was only so long because I wanted it to be so long. If I wanted to finish him, I could've done so any time, even if he had the Brooch of shielding. And with the three Dc25 vs Will+5 curses the fight would've been a bit more humilating too. Offer: Let's do 20 Dre vs Aemon fights, and if Aemon wins ONCE you get my credits, else I get yours. Well, I don't think you're that careless with your credits. @ALL: WAKE UP!!
Myrridin 07-14-04, 10:57 AM	Do you think that one of the problems here is the number of prebuffs? Spellcasters are the only ones who can do them now, and it does give that gladiator a fairly large advantage over their opponent. The professor effectively has 5 prebuffs in the fight versus Aemon. The three standard, Mage Armor, False Life, and Phantom Steed. Plus the Contingency and Programmed Image set to activate as soon as the fight starts. Wow, 5 prebuffs, no wonder it was impossible for Aemon.
Pittbull 07-14-04, 11:20 AM	:zzz: Please only 5 minutes more! :whatsthis After rethinking all arguments, I have to admit, that Cat is absolutely right. Still there is one point in my mind: the wand of dispel magic. But that's only one possibility to tease a caster. And don't forget, that caster can do the same, in most cases much more better. So that all buffs, from potions, scrolls and so on, can be dispelled with a single targeted spell. DC's of potions are always pretty low. The only way is to use psionic powers, or can they be dispelled too? Powerresistence works as spellresistence against spells too, so does spellresistnce works against psionic powers. But what to do is the main question!
Hatzinger 07-14-04, 11:27 AM	Originally posted by Caterane No way Snark. The fight was only so long because I wanted it to be so long. If I wanted to finish him, I could've done so any time, even if he had the Brooch of shielding. And with the three Dc25 vs Will+5 curses the fight would've been a bit more humilating too. ... so you are basically saying that you have been playing with the fire. And now you complain that you got burned. No pity from me...
Beldin 07-14-04, 11:44 AM	"Instead of killing him, my greatest concern was not to kill him too quickly. " I was really hoping that he wouldn't humilate Aemon that much. well...
SnarkHunter 07-14-04, 01:52 PM	Beldin just thought of another one: Dust of Appearance. It's 1800gp but that would have improved your odds a significant amount. At higher levels of course there's the Gem of Seeing. Then you just would have needed to kill the horse (not a difficult feat by any means). Another thought-would Mirror Image duplicate an image of a Phantom Steed? It hadn't crossed my mind before.
Beldin 07-14-04, 03:05 PM	if the mount wouldn't get mirror images then hitting the prof would have been easy, then i should have known that was the mounted person, and the other ones just images.
Ashenai 07-14-04, 03:28 PM	Yes, melee types are severely underpowered at high levels. This isn't the CoCo rules' fault. This is D&D 3.5's fault. The current situation models D&D rules well (which is, let's not forget, CoCo's primary goal, a more important one than providing a perfectly balanced combat environment). Realistically, if a caster has a spell with a duration of 16+ hours, you can realistically expect it to be active whenever you meet that caster. I'm actually in favour of weakening spellcasters. But only if it can be done in such a way as to keep the CoCo "core" D&D, as opposed to saddling it with unrealistic houserules.
MotherBast 07-14-04, 07:14 PM	As much as it scares me to do so, I'm afraid I have to agree with..... CAT..... I know, I know... no one ever expect me to say that.... just keep reading though, I'll take a shot at him later to make up for it. Anyway, MO long ago proposed making Casters Pre-mem ALL spells, and I supported that idea then.... as a matter of fact, I was the ONLY person to support the idea then. Now, I have a prepared caster, and I still fully support the idea. Personaly, I think if CAT hadn't been so forcefull in his arguments then aginst this very idea, we would have seen this change long ago. If I remember correctly, Cat lead the charge against the idea, stating that it would ruin Ebelin's build.... I remember a comment about someone "listening through the wall while Ebelin read from his spellbook." (ok, so theres my shot at CAT... everyone can rest assured that the world is still in proper order now.) So yeah, three cheers for full prememorazation!!!!!! On the other side of the coin, I would have to agree with Jindl that D&D creaters did not balance the classes aginst each other. Why? Well, because they said so. See, I was reading on the D&D mainpage a couple years back, before 3.5 came out. I was actually reading an interview with the 3.5 designers. In it they brought up the issue of "class-balance" and wether or not 3.5 would "fix" the balance between the pure fighter and the pure caster. The response to the question? It was basicly, and I paraphrase "No. The pure fighter is not supposed to have the same level of power as a 20th level wizard. We do not belive this is "broken", so we aren't planning to fix it." They went on to say that a 20th level pure melee should be treated as a CR 17 encounter, while a pure caster at 20th would probably be a CR 23 encounter. They also said the pure Druid would likely be a CR 24 encounter, but that was back when Druids got lots and lots of animal companions and were truely sick. Anyway, the point is, They said the powercurve is supposed to exist. Its is not a "mistake". They intentionaly made casters weaker at low levels, and dominate at high levels. So, to argue that the classes are "balanced" in a tabletop game of D&D is actually to state that the designers failed in their intent. In most tabletop games I have played, the pure melee really does shine, he scores kill after kill.... right up untill you get to the BBEG. Then he gets neutralized on round 1 so the big dogs can play, and the caster who has been biding his time and picking his spots shows why he deserves his nice safe spot in the back of the party by ending the boss fight with a few well placed spells. So, aginst the swarms of cannon fodder, the melee is the cannon, but when it comes the the power battle, you call on the caster. I have seen this senario played out time and time again, both in games I DM, and in games I play, both when I'm the melee, and when I'm the caster. Its all a matter of, to quote another famous gladiator "Knowing your role, candyass."
Caterane 07-15-04, 11:44 AM	@all: Please let us stop discussing about the fault of D&D 3.5 or the designers because this doesn't bring us anywhere. We are here in the CoCo ...and in the CoCo, classes are supposed to be balanced so let us focus on a solution for this. Thanks. @Motherbast: I was young and foolish back then :D Seriously, I hadn't the insight into the Arena as I have it now ...and back then, we were all level 6 or 7 at best - a level where wizards don't outshine meleers as they do it now that we have high levels. Full prememorization however would be THE solution. 1) You cannot adept all your spells to a single specific opponoment (campaign: the same) 2) Not all of your spells will be usefull (campaign: that simulates the fact that a wizard doesn't spend all his spells in one encounter). This is an elegant and simple solution.
Druid Roxors 07-15-04, 02:02 PM	I am willing to support this idea if you include "Except Bonus spells" on that. It is, after all, almost the same as I proposed.
Druid Roxors 07-15-04, 02:52 PM	Oh, and add to that an exception to "Casters" like the Paladin/Ranger/Assasin. They should be exempt from this rulling, seeing as they are not noisy. (And perhaps a little something to the wizards who have their reduced spellbooks)
MotherBast 07-15-04, 03:52 PM	Druid: Why make those exemptions? I don't see the point. Just curious as to your reasoning... Cat: I disagree that in the CoCo all classes are supposed be be balanced. I belive the CoCo is supposed to mirror an actual D&D game as much as possible, and since they aren't balanced in 3.5, they should not be balanced here. I support the pre-mem thing though, because in my opinion it more closely resembles what I'm used to seeing in games. The caster ususally has a list of uniformly usefully spells geared twords a variety of threats much more often than he has a spell list set to destroy one specific target. Not always, but much more often. I think requiring pre-meming will mirror that facet of the game much better than our current system, so I support the idea.
Ashenai 07-15-04, 04:10 PM	I also like the full pre-mem idea. It's rather realistic: a wizard will know approximately who/what he might be facing (one of the characters in his ECL league), but not exactly. It will also close the current gap between Wizards and Sorcerers. Wizards will still be very worthwhile, but they won't completely overshadow Sorcerers. There shouldn't be any exception for Paladins and Rangers, though, IMO. If full pre-mem is used, it should be used for all casters using prepared spells.
Pittbull 07-15-04, 04:14 PM	Cat, I like your idea!:thumbsup: But no exeptions! One rule for all!
Battousai2005 07-16-04, 02:17 PM	:banghead: *sigh* Well, I agree with Cat (this may be a first). Of course, this is what I proposed on Page, what, 3? Preparing spells is all well and good, but the problem then becomes, (everyone wait for Hatzinger, he'll do this) "But now casters are crippled, the class is destoryed, etc, etc, and for good measure, etc." I think that my solution may work though. We set up a system where the spells are still displayed at half, but all spells are memorized beforehand. We send the full list to a willing pitlord/volunteer and they foreward these to the gladiators pitlord. Relatively little time and effort on both sides. It keeps the fighter guessing but still gives him a chance. @Hatzinger, whenever you read this: I know you think this will cripple the caster classes beyond imagining, but it is better than what is being proposed.
Moherajikuyx 07-16-04, 04:07 PM	Hi people! disclaimer: I read only this thread up to now, don't expect me to know about anything else... I'm trying to catch up, slowly. Having two girlfriends doesn't help :D One thing to consider... When I did the original sin, ;), to make spellcasters memorize half, I thought really hard about it: I wanted to make them memorize 100%, which is as is in the campaigns. The problem is that I - nor anyone else - couldn't find a way to hide the memmed spells. The unfair thing is that the others can see the memmed spells at tactics time. Thus, memmers got half their spells spontaneous, in change of letting half their spells be seen. If anyone finds an easy way to hide these spells, I'll support Cat. Note that in the rules there should still be other 2 options, one is to write all the spells in white and trust the opponents not to select the text to see them - which is prone to many Bad Things - and the other one is to use a cryptography software - which is not Idiot Proof (I'm talking about me). The problems in these two options didn't make the 100% memmed rule pass. The option to send the spells to an elder didn't make it to official rule because there were less elders, because fights between elders would have been messy, and because it created too much dependancy on players' dedication, having to send stuff twice, and finally because it was judged a difficult rule to understand for new - or little age - players: other Bad Things. The easiest way could be a crypto software which works on short strings with really little effort. I don't think hard cryptography should be implemented, anyone got the will to do that? A python script or java executable should do the trick, after all we're all computer guys more or less. Remember linuxers though: no VB masks. Another thing we thought about was to round up instead of down, but this has quite some bad influence on not-full spellcasterlevels and low-levels, and we decided to make it round down. Swooshh - the disappearing Moh as the Pointy-Haired-Boss passes by
Caterane 07-16-04, 06:49 PM	Wow, seems like the winds have changed. A few paychecks can do wonders :D Originally posted by Motherbast: I disagree that in the CoCo all classes are supposed be be balanced. I don't agree of course but ok, if you say that one class should be better than the other :rolleyes: then I tell you that casters will still be at an advantage, even after full prememming. Originally posted by Druid Roxors: I am willing to support this idea if you include "Except Bonus spells" on that. It is, after all, almost the same as I proposed. Oh, and add to that an exception to "Casters" like the Paladin/Ranger/Assasin. They should be exempt from this rulling, seeing as they are not noisy. Easier is 'all spells' for 'all classes' equally. I want as few rules as possible. Originally posted by Battousai: We set up a system where the spells are still displayed at half, but all spells are memorized beforehand. We send the full list to a willing pitlord/volunteer and they foreward these to the gladiators pitlord. It keeps the fighter guessing but still gives him a chance. This is too complicated and longwinded, involving three steps of mass email traffic, creating a new delay factor. On top of that it is still unfair. The wizard doesn't have to guess the fighters stuff. If the fighter for example buys an arrow of undead slaying the Harvester knows what the fighter is up to. I don't think the Harvester should have any secrets either. Originally posted by Moherajikuyx: ...one is to write all the spells in white and trust the opponents not to select the text to see them :rofl: Originally posted by Moherajikuyx: ...and the other one is to use a cryptography software - which is not Idiot Proof Same as above: too complicated and unfair. Friends, the easiest way is to make a full prememorization for casters. That's it. I am convinced that casters will still be at an advantage, but it is far better than it is now. An alterntive is getting rid of the prebuffs but I don't like that idea because it would just result in longer buffing time from both sides (thus creating more boring fights). And there are ways to buff savely. I sat long infront of Grym's long ottiluke buff list, thinking on how to incorporate 10 rounds of bufing into an interesting story. Anyway, it seems, the majority agrees with the balancing.
MotherBast 07-16-04, 07:05 PM	I agree with CAT. Even after listing ALL spells pre-memed, casters will still be big favorites over melees in combat. And aginst other casters, each has the ability to see what the other has memed, so neither side gains an edge. I also agree that it should be a single consistent rule for all prepared casters. And for the third time in the same post, I agree with CAT again that pre-buffs should not be removed. Again, the entire point of the CoCo is to test your build in situations that mirror a real D&D game. In a real game, if the caster has a 16 hour buff memed, its been cast long before any encounters take place. My 13th level wizard casts 7 buffs on himself before venturing to ANY locations where he might encounter combat. He basicly never steps out of his extradementional space without Alter Self, Mage Armor, Shield, Fire Shield, Stoneskin, Bear's Endurance, all extended, and a contengency spell active. If he knows he is going to fight, its an extended Pollymorph over top of the Alter Self, which he leaves on just in case it takes longer than an hour to clear the "dungon" and both his memed Pollymorph spells expire.... So really, in a real D&D game, the casters will be prebuffed, espically DM controled casters, so this rule should definatly be left in place. As a matter of fact, I don't understand why we use 16 hours instead of 8. But I'm not for bumping the Casters any higher up, they are all ready blessed.
Ashenai 07-16-04, 10:06 PM	My 13th level wizard casts 7 buffs on himself before venturing to ANY locations where he might encounter combat. He basicly never steps out of his extradementional space without Alter Self, Mage Armor, Shield, Fire Shield, Stoneskin, Bear's Endurance, all extended Er, Shield and Bear's Endurance are min/level, and Fire Shield is round/level... I really doubt your 13th level wizard can keep them up all day :)
^Rayne^ 07-16-04, 10:20 PM	Well everyone who's read my posts knows I fully support the rule changes that Caterane and MotherBast have just laid out. I'm againt not allowing pre-buffs as MotherBast and Caterane have laid out clear reasons why they should stay. I do agree that all spells for all non-spontaneous casters should be laid out before the fight. For anyone saying that will make a caster weak I say that with all non-spontaneous casters suffering the same fate things will be pretty fair on that end and for those who don't have spells like fighters and barbarians this will make fights more fair. To suggest that it doesn't allow wizards, clerics, and druids to make enough surprise attacks I say if that is so then why can't all purchases made by a fighter or barbarian be made right before the fight? I mean if the spellcasters know who they are up against then why can't the fighter's purchase last minute arrows of undead slaying and potions of fly? It really doesn't seem fair to me and the only fair solution that will balance the Arena better is to have all spells planned ahead of time. I still believe adding in a rule that lets PC's keep potions and one-use items if the lose is also needed. These items are just too expensive to justify without having someway to curb the cost a little. Right now people keep saying oh you could buy "Dust of Appearance. It's 1800gp". That is a drop in the bucket of what is needed to keep up with a spellcaster and it adds up in a hurry if you are not winning. Losing that kind of money in the early rounds of creation can severely hamper a fighter type build and they already are getting a butt whipping as it is. Across the board letting PC's keep more of their wealth will go a long way to keeping things balanced especially for classes that are getting beat up on more often as they won't be in such a large hole (money wise) before they get to the next tier.
SnarkHunter 07-16-04, 10:33 PM	Originally posted by Caterane @all: Please let us stop discussing about the fault of D&D 3.5 or the designers because this doesn't bring us anywhere. We are here in the CoCo ...and in the CoCo, classes are supposed to be balanced so let us focus on a solution for this. Thanks. Well, I suppose as the longest serving member in this league of villany...err... Arena, I'll only say that if you diverge to significantly from The 1st letter in the arena tital (The 'Core' part of the CoCo) expect an exodus. It's true that many are hear for the flavor of the fights and gladiators. However I suspect that just as many are here to see what's useful and what isn't. What class is the most fun to play. What tactics work and what do not. That is most of why I am here for instance. Diverge to much from that ideal and be prepared for the consequences. You're saying that the Arena isn't t fun when one group works the way its designed? Well I'll only say that I think you'd find it even less fun if half the people here were to leave. That said, I find your decision to abandon your previous requests in favor of full memorization to be a fractionally less noxious turn of events then what had transpired previously.
Caterane 07-16-04, 11:02 PM	Snark, I said it before: the classes ARE supposed to be balanced, and doing the same here is more Core than it is now. What I wanted to say in the section you quoted is that discussions held about our personal impression on wether the classes are supposed to be balanced or not - which is nowhere findable in the books - doesn't let us make any progress, and so I asked to focus on the actual problem. If you want to hear my personal opinion on that: the classes are balanced for a campaign enviroment so we have adept a bit. You cannot copy a campaign 100% else we would have to do several pairings before allowing to memorize anew, or make team fights, etc so since you're saying full memorization isn't Core because you don't have to do that in a campaign :confused: you're basically saying that we ain't Core either because we fight only 1 on 1 fights, or we fight only 1 monster a day. You see, it is not possible to copy a campaign 100%. Btw, a campaign has nothing to do with 'being core'. We are Core because we use only SRD rules. Since when is memorizing spells at the beginning of the day not Core? Or does your DM let you memorize as soon as you see the monster, freeze the time for an hour, memorize, then unfreeze the time again, and combat it spending every spell ...of course, with full knowledge of every item and weakness it has. Full memorization more than anything else reflect the situation as it is in a campaign. As for the portrayed mass exodus: I am sure not a single member will leave. And why should they? Let me quote you to find the reason you mentioned: You're saying that the Arena isn't t fun when one group works the way its designed? Well I'll only say that I think you'd find it even less fun if half the people here were to leave. You are saying "Spellcasters are supposed and designed to be much more powerful than non-spellcasters" and if we change that to balance it, half of the CoCo will leave. I don't think that WotC didn't try to balance it nor do I think that full premem will cause anyone to leave. Infact, I am convinced that this will rather attract more people; at least bring more fighters and other non straight spellcasters on the roster. And why? Because it will be fair for everyone. You just cannot say "Wizards should wipe the floor with a fighter and if this isn't the case anymore everyone will leave".
SnarkHunter 07-16-04, 11:32 PM	Cat I've noticed a disturbing quality on your part (common amongst politicans of all stripes of course) to misrepresent other's statements in just the manner required to put yourself in the best light. No matter, I'll continue. I was specficly saying that prememing all spells would not drive away me or others away. Perhaps I should not have waited till the last sentance to say that but oh well. What I was saying was that this was a slipery slope. A touch here a nudge there a creative edit of the rules on memorization here-all with the best of intentions-and sooner or later (by one opinion or another) this isn't what it's supposed to be. I look at is a model of competion in the best possible circumstances-The Barbarian with all his rage, the fighter with all his weapons, the wizard with all her spells. Limit or remove any of them and this becomes something all together different from the core arena I've come to enjoy significantly. Edit: Looking back I regre most of that 1st paragraph if only because its bordering on a personal attack. I'm not going to edit it, (I'm no Jindl ;)), but its worth mentioning that outside of the occasional rule disagreement I personally do like you Cat. And I've always greatly enjoyed your stories. Ok. That's all I wanted to add. Away!
Caterane 07-16-04, 11:50 PM	Perhaps I've misunderstood you, and if so, then I apologize but as I look again onto your post, it still seems to tell me the same. Well, a touch here, a nudge there is exactly what we continuously do with every new poll in the Senate. You see it as a slippery slope; I see it as pitons rammed into the stone to climb the moutain of perfection; step by step we're nearing the top. Instead of "becoming something which isn't supposed to be" we have improved the CoCo to a tremendous extend if compared to the original thread on the CO board. I look at is a model of competion in the best possible circumstances-The Barbarian with all his rage, the fighter with all his weapons, the wizard with all her spells. Limit or remove any of them and this becomes something all together different from the core arena I've come to enjoy significantly. The problem is that the best possible circumstance of one class is not necessarily the best possible circumstance of another class aswell. Put the wizard with all his spells into a 15x15 room together with the raging barbarian, or put the raging barbarian onto an open plain with no obstacles. You see, there is no universal "best circumstance for everyone". But what we can do is meeting in the middle, a compromise without straying away from Core (which full memorization doesn't do!)... ...and in doing so we've passed another piton. Edit: No problem bud! :)
KerlanRayne 07-17-04, 04:51 AM	While I can understand the movement towards full memorization, how about a slight alternative? A caster can have on spell per level that is not pre memorized. It let's the casters keep a little bit of flexability and is not too complicated. So what do you think? Premem all but one per level. KerlanRayne
Beldin 07-17-04, 05:52 AM	kerlan, thats a really good suggestion!! I'd vote for that
Battousai2005 07-18-04, 09:21 PM	Originally posted by Battousai2005 :banghead: *sigh* Well, I agree with Cat (this may be a first). Of course, this is what I proposed on Page, what, 3? Preparing spells is all well and good, but the problem then becomes, (everyone wait for Hatzinger, he'll do this) "But now casters are crippled, the class is destoryed, etc, etc, and for good measure, etc." I think that my solution may work though. We set up a system where the spells are still displayed at half, but all spells are memorized beforehand. We send the full list to a willing pitlord/volunteer and they foreward these to the gladiators pitlord. Relatively little time and effort on both sides. It keeps the fighter guessing but still gives him a chance. @Hatzinger, whenever you read this: I know you think this will cripple the caster classes beyond imagining, but it is better than what is being proposed. just to show you...
Myrridin 07-19-04, 03:08 PM	Originally posted by KerlanRayne While I can understand the movement towards full memorization, how about a slight alternative? A caster can have on spell per level that is not pre memorized. It let's the casters keep a little bit of flexability and is not too complicated. So what do you think? Premem all but one per level. KerlanRayne I like that one a lot!
Druid Roxors 08-03-04, 06:46 PM	The damned Return... Originally Posted by Motherbast on the Tavern Part of the problem is that in the Core game, Casters at high levels simply ARE more powerful. Another part of the problem is that casters in the CoCo can expend all of their spells on a single encounter, giving them practicly unlimited tactical options. The first problem can't be fixed. Acording to WotC, it isen't even a problem, since they designed the game with that intent in mind. I don't think they thought about Melee vs. Mage gladitorial matches when creating the core classes. So, with that issue beyond our control, we should focus on the second. The main advantage a caster has in the CoCo over one in a real campagin is the ability to use all his spells on a single encounter. How do you fix this problem? Well, some might suggest only allowing them a certain number of spells at each level for every fight. Another suggestion would be to make them have to fight x number of fights before re-meming spells. Then, do we make the fighters wait the same number of fights before re-buying arrows? Before recovering HP? The problem is, all classes have resources, and if we declare that one resorce can't be replenished between fights, then it wouldn't make any sense at all to alow other resorces to be replinshed. I mean, the caster wins a fight, and has time to go buy 3 new magic items, scribe 7 scrolls, and add 9 spells to his book, but never bothers to remem his spells? The only allowing x spells from each level is a more practical and realistic solution, but, I don't really see it making the casters any weaker vs. Melee, when they only need one or two spells to win. For instance, if we were to instatute a rule stating that each caster could only cast 2 spells per level in any given fight, that is a HUGE limitation on any caster. But, using the most recent fight for an example, Dr. Dre could have killed Ag using 2 spells if he had wanted. 2 of the 14 that new rule would have allowed. It would be a step, but not balance. It would make fights with other casters much more intresting. I would hate this rule for Bards though, who are already shortchanged on the number of spells they get do to only haveing 6 spell levels. It would suck for Rangers and Pallys too, with only 4 spell levels. But then, they get so few spells they might not even notice. Eliminating pre-buffs would be another step towords putting melee back twords even with casters. Pre-buffs allow casters to start the fight basicly with actions already preformed. The problem with this is that it in no way resembles the way an encouter between melee and mage would be in a real game. In a real game, you would never encounter the caster without a buff already in place if that buff could last 16 hours. No, none of this would balance melees to casters, because no matter what we do, we are still tied to the D&D core system. In that system, Casters are superior to melees at high levels. Anyone who has ever played a D&D game past level 12 knows this. Without deviating from the Core rules, I really don't see how we can balance them aginst one another, since they are not balanced in the core system. But, I've made a few suggestions, with both pros and cons listed. I'll give yall some time to mull them over. None of them are new, but maybe people are in the right frame of mind to think about them now.
Moherajikuyx 08-06-04, 03:40 PM	moved to apposite thread
roll8dn 08-07-04, 12:19 PM	Mind you, I'm relatively new here, but when I play in a campaign with my DM (or when I DM, for that matter), casters are expected to turn in a list of commonly memorized spells. Then, at the start of each day, they chose whether to stay with those spells or not. That is core. However, what I am proposing is along the same lines: have the casters (all casters) turn in a list of "commonly memorized spells", and when they get notice of who they are fighting, allow them to change a set amount of them, say 1/5th of their total spells. This reflects (somewhat) the fact that, in a campaign, a spellcaster is likely to prepare spells dependant upon where they are and what intelligence they have access to. Take a 'caster who is going to go dungeon-delving in a dungeon that is known to be haunted. He will likely stock up on spells that allow him to see incorporeal creatures (True Seeing comes to mind), as well as spells that will allow him to hit them (Magic Missle comes to mind). He will not prepare just those spells; he will keep a set of "general use" spells that are good in whatever situation is at hand. Since the CoCo is (pretty much) the same environment all of the time, it makes sense that the spellcasters would prepare pretty much the same spells for each fight. They wouldn't worry about utility spells as much, because they do not have to use them as much. They know that they are going to get into a fight, therefore they will prepare battle spells. So, in allowing the caster to change a set amount of spells (I think 1/5th represents a good portion of a prepared caster's spells, but I am just pretty much pulling that number out of the air) after they find out who they are fighting makes sense and does not completely nerf the 'casters. Perhaps this should change versus their familiarity with the gladiator: if they've fought before, increase the amount by a set amount for each fight. Or, you could use the Gather Information skill to get more information about your enemy; this would make non-combat skills more important in the CoCo (which they usually are in a RL campaign). Anyway, I just thought that I ought to share an idea. I haven't read the rest of this thread (I'm lazy, so sue me), so please don't kill me if this reiterates an earlier idea. P.S.: By the way, I don't mind if anyone doesn't like my idea, so feel free to pick away at it (I know that sounds like sarcasm; it's not). [edit: grammer]
Druid Roxors 08-07-04, 01:39 PM	Well... roll8dn, The whole point of this thread was to change it from "Memorize half of your spells before the parings and and half before the fight" to "All before pairings". The way we worked before was much as how you suggest. The problem was that casters were too flexible so it was changed to the way you see now.