Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sindorin 03-16-05, 02:31 PM	The editing deadline is in an hour and a half, or ein Stunde und Halb for Beldin. I hope that's right. Anyway, remember to BE NICE.
Jindl 03-16-05, 02:44 PM	I know, I know... it says "fight" again. I don't care, I don't see how it can be confusing. Because people think that this is the thread where they can "fight" with their pitlord? Dalton is gone now and he was the one who always complained about it. Why should he have any legacy at all here? Hrm, that's not a very NICE thing to say...
Sindorin 03-16-05, 03:12 PM	I know I know. I just feel a bit insulted by things he said about us and this place, especially when I tried to help his case out and he still felt the need to continue bashing us. I'll keep my comments to myself from now on. :rolleyes:
Caterane 03-16-05, 03:57 PM	Alright, everyone ready? Jindl, done your last minute edit? :D Good, pairing time; I'll be only available per Y! and Pitlord PM in the next hours.
Sindorin 03-16-05, 04:00 PM	ding!
Jindl 03-16-05, 04:09 PM	Alright, everyone ready? Jindl, done your last minute edit? :D Good, pairing time; I'll be only available per Y! and Pitlord PM in the next hours. Bah, I'm still trying to find out exactly how much gold/xp JotHF was supposed to get for that quest. (Please check your personal PM after pairings for my reply on the gp issue.) Well, I set him ready with the amounts I think are correct... and with about an hour to spare :P -Jindl
OdinTheReaper 03-16-05, 05:08 PM	Please note that my two fighters are finished and late. I will not be readying my fighters for this week. I will also not be pitlording for a while (i posted about this in last weeks thread about 15 minutes ago). Sindorin suggested this to give me a break and im taking the oppurtunity to settle down a bit and just chill. Thanks.
Pitlords 03-16-05, 06:16 PM	Pairings Done CREDITS: Credits for running fights: +2: Caterane, Jindl, T'Var, Pittbull, Beldin, Kaigan, Spasheridan +1: Sindorin, Huan, OWA, TaggIIV Credits for running quests: +4: Huan +2: T'Var Credits for being on a quest: -1: Caterane, Kaigan, TaggIIV Credits for active PCs: -2: Caterane, Kaigan Special credits: +1: Caterane (admin) Credit Changes: +5: Huan +4: T'Var +2: Jindl, Pittbull, Beldin, Spasheridan +1: Sindorin, OWA +0: TaggIIV, Caterane -2: Kaigan Again, we had just enough pitlords to support all the fights. Pitlords are especially welcomed these days. Please note that there is a new cap on 1-shot items: the gladiator's ECL+2 for scrolls and powerstones, and minimum level for potions, oils, and tattoos (stayed the same). However, you may pay credits to buy higher 1-shot items. Please check the FAQ: The Credit System (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5660602) for Guidelines. Note that this may not be the final version but for now this is in place. I will soon open a special thread that governs the purchase of custom items along with an explanation. EDIT: There are two new Questlord offers, one of which hosts 2 players. If you're interested in going on a quest, post it in the Tavern, or write a PM to the Questlord. EDIT2: Ligaya Yap (Kaigan) vs Finael Owlguide (Spasheridan) [ECL3]: Ayatoshi has been added to the Roster. Kaigan -1, Ayatoshi+1
Megrim_Lord 03-16-05, 06:47 PM	Gurfnerfurker's tactics vs. Solmund sent to OWA via PM (sorry again)
TaggIIV 03-16-05, 07:08 PM	Tactics for Nyphanalith PMd to Beldin
Megrim_Lord 03-16-05, 07:16 PM	tactics for trokk sent to sindorin via pm
Kaigan 03-16-05, 07:36 PM	@Cat: Please explain why I have -2 total credits this week: I'm Pitlording 2 fights, so +2 I have one character on a quest: -1 I have two more characters active: -2 so in total I have -1 credits. I don't know if you added in another -1 for having Ligaya paired with Fineal, but I shouldn't have a -1. She is already active so it's like your penalizing me twice. Also in the Pitlord list on the Gladiator page I'm set as having -3 credits, which is also incorrect. I spent 8 this week on characters, and I had 8 before, so I have a total of 0, then I should only have -1 credit this week, so a -1 total. Where is my math wrong?
Caterane 03-16-05, 07:44 PM	Pitlording fights: +2 Being On Quest: -1 5 active Chars: -3 -------------------------- Total Credits Altogether -2 Inherent Kaigan penalty -1 -------------------------- Total account balance -3 Kaigan is my pitlord bribe +1 -------------------------- Final balance -2 :P
Kaigan 03-16-05, 07:46 PM	I have 5 characters active? I thought only 4? Which ones? I have Ligaya, Felix, Rayos, and Aeiou. edit: I guess I accidently set Telnith active, oh well, that's my fault, but I also said in my PM to the Pitlords account that he was going to be inactivel, oh well, bring it.
Huan 03-16-05, 11:23 PM	@Spasheridan Tactics recieved for Fyhir, thank you.
One_Winged_Angel 03-16-05, 11:34 PM	Got tactics from the Lord Megrim. Awaiting the other. Note to Poe the Great: Urm, your character has a couple problems. 1) 2 of his 3 feats are in violation. Psionic Meditation: Prereques: Wis 13, Concentration 7 ranks. You lack both. Power Specialization: Prereques: Weapon focus (ray), Manifester Level: 4th. Also, I'd be greatful if you figured out your PP for the fight. Personally, its no big deal to me if you pick new feats. Just post them here in advance. @Tagg: You vs. Me, eh? Looks like I may regret bouncing ideas off you. :D Now I have to pull something random out of thin air. Lets see... :confused: :plotting: :lightbulb :plotting: :nonono: :plotting: :lightbulb :plotting: :noway: :tantrum: :banghead: :surrender :zzz:
Sindorin 03-17-05, 12:51 AM	HoLy PoO. Megrim_Lord and Iced must really want their fight to be run. They both sent their tactics to me. If I really wanted to (and had lost my mind) I could probably post the fastest fight ever, posting on a wednesday night, but that would be suicide. I have a history test tomorrow. Thanks guys for getting them in so speedily. Your fight will be run after I get back from Community College classes. Tactics for my characters will be sent during my break up there (yeah, commuting to school when you are a college kid sucks).
Pittbull 03-17-05, 03:35 AM	@T'Var: Would you roll for initiative please, will be a great help! Thanks! EDIT: @Kaigan: Tactic for Boraxx has been sent.
Pitlords 03-17-05, 04:21 AM	Emad Chagar (MysticMonk2005) vs Don Quixote (Snommelp): Arstimis has been added to the Roster. Arti +1
T'Var 03-17-05, 06:55 AM	@T'Var: Would you roll for initiative please, will be a great help! Thanks! EDIT: @Kaigan: Tactic for Boraxx has been sent. Init Laph 10+7=17 Jindl 13+1=14
Pittbull 03-17-05, 08:09 AM	Thanks, that'll save us a lot of time!
cellardweller 03-17-05, 08:39 AM	Damon's tactics sent via email
Pittbull 03-17-05, 09:01 AM	@Cellar: Tactic received! @T'Var: Laph's tactic has been sent.
Snommelp 03-17-05, 10:17 AM	Tactics for the great knighht-errant Don Quixote have been sent speedily by courier pigeon. Twenty-six hours, and I will begin Spring Break! San Diego, here I come!
Huan 03-17-05, 10:30 AM	@Pittbull Tactics for Nell and Rook have been sent. @Caterane and Kaigan The next combat or map-required area won't be here until Saturday I'm afraid. I will be able to post, but not with any maps (I will be away from my computer for the next few days and will only be able to work with text). So, I will take this time and do some more RP for you guys. @Sindorin Yeah, commuting daily as a college student sucks; I share your pain.
Iced 03-17-05, 10:30 AM	All tactics sent to Catherane and Sindorin ACTIVE: Griff Mythal(extended), Crask Mindwhip, Borrix
Pittbull 03-17-05, 12:12 PM	@Huan: Got it!
Megrim_Lord 03-17-05, 04:56 PM	Sindorin, my disarm shouldn't have failed, I had the higher modifier
Sindorin 03-17-05, 05:06 PM	oh my gosh, you are right. i'll take a look at it.
Megrim_Lord 03-17-05, 05:07 PM	oh my gosh, you are right. i'll take a look at it. also, just another comment, by reach length I meant the standard 10ft, therefore by that measure even biggie Crask shouldn't have been able to hit me I don't think (don't quote me on that)
Sindorin 03-17-05, 05:12 PM	The way I saw it, he doubles in size, and so does his weapon. So he is at least 10 feet tall, holding a weapon that is definitely longer than 5 feet. I had you at 15 feet when you came at him, so I figured you were within range. If you had gotten a chance I probably would have had you get out of range, but with Trokk going down in two hits, the hit he gave in his turn and then the AoO from moving away would have knocked you out. It doesn't really matter now since i need to go back to where he should be disarmed,.
Megrim_Lord 03-17-05, 05:19 PM	well, I checked expansion, he does get 10ft reach, and his weapon does increase in size, however the weapon does not gain extra reach, so I think we were dead even in the reach department
Kaigan 03-17-05, 05:22 PM	I have received all tactics, thanks for sending them quickly. I should have a fight up tonight, and one tomorrow. My tactics will be sent out tonight as well. Good luck.
Jindl 03-17-05, 05:38 PM	If you had gotten a chance I probably would have had you get out of range, but with Trokk going down in two hits, the hit he gave in his turn and then the AoO from moving away would have knocked you out. It doesn't really matter now since i need to go back to where he should be disarmed,. Wouldn't Trokk had withdrawn upwards (he was flying after all), and thus not recieved an AoO? I know you're rerunning, but I had to ask anyway ;)
Sindorin 03-17-05, 05:39 PM	rerun of Trokk vs. Crask from the disarm attempt is finished. Here's a spoiler: Both gladiators died.
Megrim_Lord 03-17-05, 05:39 PM	Wouldn't Trokk had withdrawn upwards (he was flying after all), and thus not recieved an AoO? I know you're rerunning, but I had to ask anyway ;) hey, good point...
Sindorin 03-17-05, 05:41 PM	Wouldn't Trokk had withdrawn upwards (he was flying after all), and thus not recieved an AoO? I know you're rerunning, but I had to ask anyway ;) True, I tend to forget about the withdraw action... He did have something in his tactics that sort of said to go ahead and attack if it would win the fight, so I think it worked out just fine in the re-run.
Megrim_Lord 03-17-05, 05:43 PM	one more miniscule tidbit, though it doesn't matter, you forgot that I had 38 hp during rage, not 32
Jindl 03-17-05, 05:43 PM	one more miniscule tidbit, though it doesn't matter, you forgot that I had 38 hp during rage, not 32 So when his rage ends, Trokk is left with 1 hp (as opposed to -6 hps). -Jindl
Sindorin 03-17-05, 05:45 PM	D'oh! You're right again. And you're also right that it doesn't matter. it would have made a cool little story.
michael_noah 03-18-05, 09:22 AM	I bring this up because I was the one that noticed the grapple check for whip vs. horse last week. In a tied grapple check, the grappler with the higher mod wins. When I saw the disarm attempt this week, I initially thought the same thing was true (as did some of you). However, there is no entry about ties in the Disarm action wording. In fact, it says, "Step Three: Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed." This would imply to me that it is only if your check is greater than the defender's is he disarmed. Now, the definition for opposed checks says that the higher mod wins in a tie, which would initially seem to apply to disarms. But, "opposed checks" are defined as "A method of determining the result when a character attempts an action (other than an attack or a saving throw) that has a chance of failure. " (wizards online glosary) And, Disarm is an "opposed attack roll", so it doesn't seem to qualify.
One_Winged_Angel 03-18-05, 09:51 AM	Tactics for Roy sent. Tactics for Kailia sent. All tactics recieved. I'll run the fight at some point this weekend.
Iced 03-18-05, 10:22 AM	General Tactics: If Trokk takes 10 or more hp damage, he will RUN to the center structure for cover and heal as necessary, dropping from flight if he has to (but first flying out of AoO range). If he does the above, he will drop a tanglefoot bag in front of the path he took to get inside the structure to help safeguard him. If Trokk ever finds himself without his spiked chain, he will attempt to recover it if possible, or if that is not possible, draw his bow and take flight, firing from above as his main form of attack. If Crask attacks Trokk's horse, Trokk will take the opportunity to attack him if it is possible. Why did you deviate from his tactics? Him knowing my hp count is meta, he should of flown to the center structure to heal granting me time to put up my buffs. Also, why did I move forward? Crask moves to (24,13), drawing his greatsword. He readies his action to attack Trokk. Also, when I get my 1 attack of the battle, why didn't Crask Rage? With rage he could of dealt two more damage. Also the extra hit points generated from raging would of kept me on my feet and allowed me to attack Trokk again! Crask vs Trokk Buff in order of: Vigor, Blur, Inertial Armor, Force Screen, Expansion, and Biofeedback He’s going to fly and then come for me with that spiked chain of his. Get as many buffs up and running as possible and then ready actions to attack with greatsword using the psionic Weapon feat. If you can also do this and use cover by all means do so. Rage at your digression. Feel free to use any item on my list including my healing potions. If there’s any special situation where you feel that it would be more advantageous to deviate from these tactics you may do so. Thanks for running the fight! A wonderful time to start raging for a barbarian is when he gets his only melee attack of the match...;) Edit-Rage: With Rage I would of Dealt 33 damage. At this point Trokk should of fled to the central obstacle to heal as stated in his tactics. Even with Trokk's attack I would be down to 4 hp and get 1 more attack. If he had backed off 30' after attacking, then I would of used powerstone of vigor and gained the hps nessecary to take another hit from him and defeat him(allowing that nothing untoward happened). Also It was discussed in the tavern: While attacking using the psionic weapon feat, you can be in a rage because it doesn't take any sort of concentration check. Losing psionic focus is losing concentration.
Kaigan 03-18-05, 12:25 PM	Alright I've sent tactics for Telnith to Huan via PM. Others will be sent later today as I get to them, but class is first priority.
Kaigan 03-18-05, 12:35 PM	Alrighty sent tacitcs for Ligaya to Ayatoshi via PM.
Jindl 03-18-05, 12:35 PM	I bring this up because I was the one that noticed the grapple check for whip vs. horse last week. In a tied grapple check, the grappler with the higher mod wins. When I saw the disarm attempt this week, I initially thought the same thing was true (as did some of you). However, there is no entry about ties in the Disarm action wording. In fact, it says, "Step Three: Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed." This would imply to me that it is only if your check is greater than the defender's is he disarmed. Now, the definition for opposed checks says that the higher mod wins in a tie, which would initially seem to apply to disarms. But, "opposed checks" are defined as "A method of determining the result when a character attempts an action (other than an attack or a saving throw) that has a chance of failure. " (wizards online glosary) And, Disarm is an "opposed attack roll", so it doesn't seem to qualify. While I think you make a pretty good point, I would counter it with this answer. When making an attack roll, you pass or fail depending on whether you equal or exceed the target number (the defender's AC). Since a disarm check is an attack roll, you succeed or fail based upon whether you meet or exceed the target number (the result of the defender's check). Effectively, the defender is setting the DC of the check by his roll, and the attacker is rolling to see if he meets the DC or not. Whether you use this interpretation or the standard one for opposed rolls is irrelevent to the outcome. Both yeild the same result in this case (the defender is disarmed). In the Core rules, there is only one example of a roll contest being "rerolled" if the result is a tie, and that is spelled out specifically in the grapple section. I don't believe it also would apply to disarm checks, or that deviation from the standard method of attack rolls or opposed checks would have been noted in the disarm section. -Jindl
spasheridan 03-18-05, 01:42 PM	Hakatri Abendstern (Beldin) vs Ceres Solus the Vagabond (Sindorin): Spasheridan Felix Orion (Kaigan) vs Necavi Omnes (Xanadu): Spasheridan @-Xanadu, Sindorin: Got yer tactics! @-Kaigan, Beldin: Still waiting. Hope you all had a fine St Patty's Day!
michael_noah 03-18-05, 02:08 PM	While I think you make a pretty good point, I would counter it with this answer. When making an attack roll, you pass or fail depending on whether you equal or exceed the target number (the defender's AC). Since a disarm check is an attack roll, you succeed or fail based upon whether you meet or exceed the target number (the result of the defender's check). Effectively, the defender is setting the DC of the check by his roll, and the attacker is rolling to see if he meets the DC or not. Whether you use this interpretation or the standard one for opposed rolls is irrelevent to the outcome. Both yeild the same result in this case (the defender is disarmed). In the Core rules, there is only one example of a roll contest being "rerolled" if the result is a tie, and that is spelled out specifically in the grapple section. I don't believe it also would apply to disarm checks, or that deviation from the standard method of attack rolls or opposed checks would have been noted in the disarm section. -Jindl I think that's a reasonable conclusion.
Arstimis 03-18-05, 05:12 PM	Tactics for the great knighht-errant Don Quixote have been sent speedily by courier pigeon. Twenty-six hours, and I will begin Spring Break! San Diego, here I come! Tactics recieved. I see you spent a lot of time on them :P Yes, San Diego is a great place. I came from there, but no im at a school in Athens Georgia
Arstimis 03-18-05, 06:14 PM	@Caterane: Tactics for Arthemus sent via email. @Jindl: Tactics for En'Sidious sent via email.
Huan 03-18-05, 07:08 PM	@Kaigan Tactics for Telnith recieved, thank you. I find I can resume my COCO activities tomorrow, so I will be done then.
Kaigan 03-18-05, 07:10 PM	@Spash tactics for Felix have been sent via PM @Beldin: I will sent tactics for AEIOU later tonight. @All expect a fight to be up tonight, at some time.
TaggIIV 03-18-05, 07:17 PM	Tactics recieved for Kailia. Tactics have not been recieved for Zwahiku.
Arstimis 03-18-05, 08:53 PM	Tactics recieved from both sets of gladiators
Kaigan 03-18-05, 08:55 PM	@Beldin: Sent tactics for Aeiou via PM.
Jindl 03-18-05, 11:11 PM	@T'Var - Tactics sent for JotHF. Sorry for the delay (but pixies require special tactics...) @Pittbull - Working on the Elder's tactics now. Also - I have recieved all tactics for my 2 fights to run.
spasheridan 03-19-05, 12:12 AM	@Beldin- heya! Send me some tactics!
Sindorin 03-19-05, 03:25 AM	Why did you deviate from his tactics? Him knowing my hp count is meta, he should of flown to the center structure to heal granting me time to put up my buffs. Well, I guess when you really think about it, I deviated from BOTH of your tactics because I skipped several buffs in favor of Expansion, which gave you the only chance that you had. I didn't even give him the benefit of a psicraft check to know what that smell is when you grew. If you would like me to be a jerk and not help your character, I could have him run around trying to avoid the flying guy that he can't reach - in your tactics it does say to buff in order as much as possible until he gets close - once he gets close, you don't have much of a chance since you can't reach him.
Caterane 03-19-05, 07:33 AM	Arthemus vs Borrix is up. @Stinkygoblin: Please send me your tactic!
Iced 03-19-05, 10:38 AM	Well, I guess when you really think about it, I deviated from BOTH of your tactics because I skipped several buffs in favor of Expansion, which gave you the only chance that you had. I didn't even give him the benefit of a psicraft check to know what that smell is when you grew. If you would like me to be a jerk and not help your character, I could have him run around trying to avoid the flying guy that he can't reach - in your tactics it does say to buff in order as much as possible until he gets close - once he gets close, you don't have much of a chance since you can't reach him. True that... :thinks: But why not rage? Sorry if i've offended you or anything, not intended, just trying to preserve my character repoutation...;) After that fight vs Arthemis... I could use an ego boost... :weep:
Sindorin 03-19-05, 12:24 PM	True that... :thinks: But why not rage? Sorry if i've offended you or anything, not intended, just trying to preserve my character repoutation...;) After that fight vs Arthemis... I could use an ego boost... :weep: None taken! In CoCo, metagaming is inevitable. It starts immediately when you analyze your opponent's sheet and write tactics accordingly. Heck, it starts when you post your character on the Characters thread. Everyone can buy stuff catered to their opponents' builds. If you play this to your advantage and be more specific in your tactics, things will work out better for your characters. "Use rage at your disgression (discretion or digression :confused: )" is a bit too vague for my tastes, and it was not specific at all, so I probably did not take it as seriously as I could have. Being more specific and more elaborate in your tactics will help. Good luck!
Jindl 03-19-05, 01:17 PM	@Pittbull - Tactics sent for the Elder. He really got a tough match ahead of him this week. I really hate fighting opponents with virtually the same build :(
Kaigan 03-19-05, 02:25 PM	Alexis vs. Boraxx is up. Pretty straightforward, but I think one of the gladiators misjudged the other one. Next time look closely at the character sheets.
Nanaleigh 03-19-05, 06:25 PM	Alexis vs. Boraxx is up. Pretty straightforward, but I think one of the gladiators misjudged the other one. Next time look closely at the character sheets. Oh my, yes... I guess I just figured it was a normal warhorse. Oh well...
Jindl 03-19-05, 07:06 PM	Oh my, yes... I guess I just figured it was a normal warhorse. Oh well... Despite his RP as a "giant pig", it is a normal heavy warhorse for all intents and purposes. The reason it has a speed of 80 ft is because he is wearing Horseshoes of Speed. You might want to consider getting some for your mount :D {Forgive me if you already knew this, but it was hard to tell from your post if you thought it was some kind of special warhorse, or just a well-equipped one.}
spasheridan 03-19-05, 08:30 PM	Felix vs Necavi is up CHeck it out folks! Beldin, still not tactics from you for Hakatri....
Aramil Dunskar 03-19-05, 08:30 PM	@T'Var: Tatics for Grakk sent :D
xanadu 03-19-05, 09:21 PM	Felix vs Necavi is up CHeck it out folks! Beldin, still not tactics from you for Hakatri.... Sorry to bore you there spasheridan, Necavi's not meant for archery duals. I'll take the lucky crit though :embarrass
Arstimis 03-19-05, 09:48 PM	Felix vs Necavi is up CHeck it out folks! First, a trip can be made as an AoO. It is only a standard action...at least that's how i see it. I thought the Manifester Level check is always has a DC of ML+1 . If so, he wouldnt have passed in round 2 Felix's first few attacks, before the horse is taken out, should be +15 (because of higher ground) So he would have hit AC1 in round 5 Felix gets 10+12, AC 2 gets 8+5. AoO on the way down 1!, miss) so the construct trips in square (-6,4) AC 2 stands up. Huh? He tripped the AC, thats then end. there is no AoO for on the way down and the AC cant stand up in the same round. Next round it will incure an AoO for trying to stand up Just as I look at the rest of the rounds. It looks to me like you did tripping incorrectly. Giving Felix an extra attack everytime he tripped something Just a few things I was wondering. Hey, I might be wrong and learn something new
xanadu 03-19-05, 10:44 PM	Well if you are going to be re-running things: Neither Felix nor his horse can crit a construct, so my first one does not die so soon. I dont see how my 2nd construct incurs an AOO in the first place, so it should not have been tripped. Neither Felix nor his horse have reach. You cant trip on an AOO if someone attempts to stand and intiate the never ending tripping cycle. His tactics do not specify tripping the ACs. With the possiblity of losing his weapon/being re-trip surrounded by enemies it's not a tactic I'd want a pitlord to run my gladiator unless I sepcifically say so.
Arstimis 03-19-05, 11:41 PM	You cant trip on an AOO if someone attempts to stand and intiate the never ending tripping cycle. Could you please show me where it says it in the books. I see where it says how if you have a +1 bab it can be used with a move action. like all other standard actions, which would seem it can be done during an AoO. I dont see any rule or anything stating otherwise. I wanna know for my sake, because someone did that to me in the past
xanadu 03-20-05, 12:27 AM	Could you please show me where it says it in the books. I see where it says how if you have a +1 bab it can be used with a move action. like all other standard actions, which would seem it can be done during an AoO. I dont see any rule or anything stating otherwise. I wanna know for my sake, because someone did that to me in the past Search is down, but I know a sage specifically addressed this issue on a very long "tripping is overpowered" thread. IIRC, the logic was: the AOO is taken in reposnse to an attempt to stand. because the target is attempting (i.e. action is not completed until AOO is resolved) to stand and thus technically still prone, you can't make a trip attack since the target is already tripped. Of course, the logic is not important. The sage wanted to remove the mechanics and legality of the never-ending trip cycle and I think he was correct to do so.
One_Winged_Angel 03-20-05, 01:23 AM	Could you please show me where it says it in the books. I see where it says how if you have a +1 bab it can be used with a move action. like all other standard actions, which would seem it can be done during an AoO. I dont see any rule or anything stating otherwise. I wanna know for my sake, because someone did that to me in the past Here goes (Deep breath) Ok, so Character A Trips character B. Character B is lying prone. Character B stands up. The movement provokes an attack of opportunity from character A. Character A hits character B, however, Character B is already prone as he has not yet stood up. Ergo, Character A cannot trip character B. So, character B gets up, and combat resumes. (Deep breath, catches breath again.) Anyway, I think we had this discussion before. AoOs take place during something. That's why you hit a character just before they move rather than after they are 20 ft away from you on normal AoOs.
cellardweller 03-20-05, 01:27 AM	When a character gets up from prone, when does the attack of opportunity take place? When he is still prone? When he is standing? Can the attacker choose when to attack? In one case, the attacker can get a +4 bonus to hit. In the other, he can make another trip attack. All attacks of opportunity happen before the actions that trigger them (see Chapter 8 in the Player’s Handbook). When you make an attack of opportunity against someone who’s D&D FAQ v.3.5 25 Update Version: 01/28/05 getting up, your target is effectively prone, and therefore cannot be tripped. You could ready an action to trip a prone foe after he gets up, however. ...
One_Winged_Angel 03-20-05, 01:29 AM	Yay! I was right! :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :pint:
Megrim_Lord 03-20-05, 08:55 AM	Yay! I was right! :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :pint: OWA, has solmund sent you his tactics yet? because if not his time is up, and I would like to request that you run our fight w/o his tactics, because updating gladiators last minute really sucks bigtime
Arstimis 03-20-05, 09:02 AM	Ok, cool. thanks for clearifying that for me. I got to learn something new
spasheridan 03-20-05, 12:31 PM	I thought the Manifester Level check is always has a DC of ML+1 . If so, he wouldnt have passed in round 2 Anyone, help me out with this? I was always under the impression that ML / CL checks were DC = ML, Felix's first few attacks, before the horse is taken out, should be +15 (because of higher ground) So he would have hit AC1 in round 5 Checking the math... BAB + 3, Str + 7, MW + 1, HG + 1, Reckless O +2, WF + 1 = +15. Hrm, I must have missed something in there!. I took the original numbers on his sheet (+9 w/halberd, +10 mounted) and added +2 str & +2 reckless O for the 14. It could be that he wrote +9(+10) Halberd [+1 mounted] meaning that the (+10) is because of the MW weapon??? I declare it confusing! Huh? He tripped the AC, thats then end. there is no AoO for on the way down and the AC cant stand up in the same round. Next round it will incure an AoO for trying to stand up I think this is well covered already Just as I look at the rest of the rounds. It looks to me like you did tripping incorrectly. Giving Felix an extra attack everytime he tripped something You are correct, it is not an AoO on the way down. It is the extra attack allowed by the Improved Trip Feat. Check it ou! Note how I didn't give the extra attack to AC2 when it tripped Felix. Just a few things I was wondering. Hey, I might be wrong and learn something new Looks like you were absolutely correct about the attack bonus. Let me apply my attack bonus math to the match real quick... OK, if Felix takes out AC1 1 round earlier Pike still dies at the same time. AC2 might go down faster BUT the archery match is a forgone conlusion, Felix needed a 20 to hit and Necavi needed a 16. So the only change in the outcome is the # of arrows fired. IF the DC for manifesting powers is ML / CL + 1 then there is a small problem. First there's the Int check to keep the stone, 14 + 2 = pass. So with the failed attempt Necavi pulls out the 2nd stone in his off hand. Next round he attempts to manifest again, 17 + 2 = pass. So AC 1 appears 1 round later but AC 2 appears at the same time. Well if you are going to be re-running things: Neither Felix nor his horse can crit a construct, so my first one does not die so soon. OOPS! I missed that. I dont see how my 2nd construct incurs an AOO in the first place, so it should not have been tripped. Neither Felix nor his horse have reach. Yeah, you were just a little out of range for the attack position.. I wanted to get flanking in so I had the AC move for flanking. Not the smartest move ever but I was trying to follow your "box him in" tactics. You cant trip on an AOO if someone attempts to stand and intiate the never ending tripping cycle. His tactics do not specify tripping the ACs. With the possiblity of losing his weapon/being re-trip surrounded by enemies it's not a tactic I'd want a pitlord to run my gladiator unless I sepcifically say so. Tough call on that. They way i see it, a tripper should just about always trip. He was what, + 12 to trip? Then the target incurs an AoO standing up at -4 AC that you and your mount can take? It was a new target, so I would try and debuff / delay the new target while I was killing the 1st target. IMO, looks like the outcome of the fight is fairly set in stone. Kaigain moved for cover and wound up getting pinned by the constructs. His tactics where to fight the constructs, so he got swarmed. Once Pike is dead Felix is too slow to avoid the archery match.... game over. With the crit coming out of the damage on AC1 and the 1st halberd swing hitting AC1 I think the timeline should be about even, no matter what, even if the stone gets used a round later. Sound good??
Arstimis 03-20-05, 12:56 PM	Yes, I do not disagree that the outcome with the fight would be any different. Just hoping to show you some mistakes, so in future fights you wont make any of the same ones. Also I guess I learned something new. Oh, and here is the ML check thing from the SRD If she meets both requirements but her own level is lower than the power stone’s manifester level, she has to make a manifester level check (1d20 + user’s level), against a DC equal to the power stone’s manifester level +1, to manifest the power successfully. On a failure, the user must succeed on a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid brainburn (see below). A natural roll of 1 on this check is always a failure. Brainburn: When something goes awry, the user of a power stone improperly manifests the stored power. The resultant psionic surge persists for 1d4 rounds, unless the power stone is flung farther than 100 feet away or is destroyed. This surge deals 1d6 points of damage per power stored per round and arcs across multiple targets, similar to energy current, except the damage type isn’t specified. The user is the primary target, and one nearby ally is the secondary target (chosen at random). Could be pretty bad if he fails the Wis check. but like even if he doesnt have Vigor during the fight it wont matter, because He wasnt hit at all anyways, so that is just fyi in later fights
xanadu 03-20-05, 01:31 PM	Yeah, you were just a little out of range for the attack position.. I wanted to get flanking in so I had the AC move for flanking. Not the smartest move ever but I was trying to follow your "box him in" tactics. Against a non-tripper with lousy BAB that might be a good idea. I'd take a charge and +2 to hit (simulating a flank) if perfect positioning is impossible. Tough call on that. They way i see it, a tripper should just about always trip. He was what, + 12 to trip? Then the target incurs an AoO standing up at -4 AC that you and your mount can take? It was a new target, so I would try and debuff / delay the new target while I was killing the 1st target. +10 (feat + str + weapon Vs +5) not a foregone conclusion. Agree is a tough call, your the pitlord so its yours to make. One reason I am hesitant to pitlord is if a gladiator loses his most effective weapon then I know the person would scream, "I never said trip the ACs!" IMO, looks like the outcome of the fight is fairly set in stone. Kaigain moved for cover and wound up getting pinned by the constructs. His tactics where to fight the constructs, so he got swarmed. Once Pike is dead Felix is too slow to avoid the archery match.... game over. With the crit coming out of the damage on AC1 and the 1st halberd swing hitting AC1 I think the timeline should be about even, no matter what, even if the stone gets used a round later. Sound good?? I think you are right here, especially with the crit Necavi scored.
Kaigan 03-20-05, 04:44 PM	Yup, no complain from me. I should have just taken the AC's into greater consideration, and I didn't think you would target my mount. I should have fought defensively with combat expertise. Lol, Oh well...
spasheridan 03-20-05, 05:06 PM	I should have fought defensively with combat expertise. Lol, Oh well... LOL! So, since you already needed 20's to hit, raise your AC to max. Now you both need 20's and the archery match is determined by the # of arrows you have. Then I'm rolling how many missed arrows didn't break so you can pick them up and shoot them again.... AHHH!!! Anywho, sorry for the slop! My future In-Laws were visiting this weekend and it was a bit hectic.
xanadu 03-20-05, 05:19 PM	Anywho, sorry for the slop! My future In-Laws were visiting this weekend and it was a bit hectic. In-Laws tend to have that effect on people :P
One_Winged_Angel 03-20-05, 07:31 PM	OWA, has solmund sent you his tactics yet? because if not his time is up, and I would like to request that you run our fight w/o his tactics, because updating gladiators last minute really sucks bigtime Yah, I got them. Don't worry. I'll start the fight now. It might take a while though. I didn't have a horrible amount of time yesterday. EDIT: Said fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5723929&postcount=1394) is up. Sorry for lack of story, but nothing really struck me here...
spasheridan 03-20-05, 11:05 PM	Ceres vs Hakatri is up.
Arstimis 03-20-05, 11:18 PM	Emad vs Don Quixote (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5725294&postcount=1396) is done Don Quixote's attack on the fire breathing dragon of Gladius
Beldin 03-21-05, 05:33 AM	Sokai vs Aeluath is posted. Someone really needs to clear up what a feathertokenwhip does. @Spasheridan: Why did I use the tatoo on my horse? And how can I use a tatoo on my horse?
spasheridan 03-21-05, 11:06 AM	@Spasheridan: Why did I use the tatoo on my horse? And how can I use a tatoo on my horse? Your tactics: keep distance, and rapidkill his horse, use tatoo of force screen ond then kill him Use tatoo of force screen ond I read that as ON D, or On Dunk. As far as how, you make it a crawling tatoo or something, I saw that you had a tatoo of forcescreen and figured it was a legal use. Looking back that OND may have been meant as AND, but I didn't have time to check with you on the typo so, and with you're relying on Dunk as the way you would avoid his attacks it made sense to me that you would spend some time / energy keeping dunk alive so your tactics would work.
T'Var 03-21-05, 11:19 AM	Your tactics: Use tatoo of force screen ond I read that as ON D, or On Dunk. As far as how, you make it a crawling tatoo or something, I saw that you had a tatoo of forcescreen and figured it was a legal use. Looking back that OND may have been meant as AND, but I didn't have time to check with you on the typo so, and with you're relying on Dunk as the way you would avoid his attacks it made sense to me that you would spend some time / energy keeping dunk alive so your tactics would work. firstly that is a weak version that an obvious typo could be on D...personal thought though as for the tattoo use on the mount at all, it is a full round action to take a tattoo off your own body and place it on another, then it is another full round action to activate a tattoo on another body so that would be 2 full rounds to accomplish a single tattoo use
spasheridan 03-21-05, 01:10 PM	firstly that is a weak version that an obvious typo could be on D...personal thought though Yeah, on a closer look I can see that and makes more sense, but the OTHER player was using a tatoo on his horse and that was on my mind when I read it. Weak or not, it's the players responsibility to send tactics in a timely manner (these were sent at 11:00 am saturday) and it's the players responsibility to make sure the tactics are legible. When i recieve tactics early I read them and email back questions to clarify unclear sections or check about illegal combo's (say Kaigans wish to trip his opponent when his opponent stands up this week). In any case, I'll try and use better judgement on typos in the future, but the best way for players to avoid them is to send their tactics in early so I can double check them before I start the fights. keep distance, and rapidkill his horse, use tatoo of force screen ond then kill him No one mentions the good catch I made translating rapidkill into rapid shot? I guess it's all about the bads the pitlord made and none about the bads the player made writing the tactics? If the player makes mistakes the pitlord is supposed to... magicly infer their true meaning somehow? as for the tattoo use on the mount at all, it is a full round action to take a tattoo off your own body and place it on another, then it is another full round action to activate a tattoo on another body so that would be 2 full rounds to accomplish a single tattoo use Well, if the plan was to use the tat on the horse then the tat would have been moved to the horse prior to the match, don't you think? And a crawling tat of force screen is an even easier (and cheaper) solution to the problem. Anyways, he had a full round action because he was riding the horse and passed his ride check, no problemo.
Pittbull 03-21-05, 01:10 PM	Here are my fights of the week: Elder vs. Rook (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5729021&postcount=1398) Damon vs. Nell (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5729068&postcount=1399) If there are any concerns, please tell me!
T'Var 03-21-05, 01:19 PM	Well, if the plan was to use the tat on the horse then the tat would have been moved to the horse prior to the match, don't you think? And a crawling tat of force screen is an even easier (and cheaper) solution to the problem. Anyways, he had a full round action because he was riding the horse and passed his ride check, no problemo. if it was to be placed on the horse before the fight it would be a PreBuff that must be listed on the sheet...No PreBuff No tattoo the crawling tattoo version would also work but I think they are more expencive than the normal versions (not 100% as i dont have time to look the details up atm) as to the 'rapidkill' portion come on...do you really want me to debate the merits of simple typo's and modified languages?? rapidkill is just as easily understood as rapid shot if he has the feat as ond is to and if you keep trying to nitpick the smallest bit of wording I mean lets face it every set of tactics have some small bit wrong with them from a typo to small error in movement abilitys. you cant micromanage every bit, just take the obvious meanings (dont try to read into the tactics to much) and go with the flow
spasheridan 03-21-05, 01:49 PM	as to the 'rapidkill' portion come on...do you really want me to debate the merits of simple typo's and modified languages?? rapidkill is just as easily understood as rapid shot if he has the feat as ond is to and if you keep trying to nitpick the smallest bit of wording Am I saying that people should send tactics that are clear and easy to read? YEs, yes I am. Tactics should reference skills and feats by their names or abbreivations. Using slang is a good way to be misunderstood. And, most mail editors have spell check functions that can be applied automaticly... Am I saying that people should send their tactics in early in case of any miscommunication? Yes, yes I am. In case the pitlord doesn't understand your tactics you should leave some time for them to read the tactics and respond if anything is unclear. I mean lets face it every set of tactics have some small bit wrong with them from a typo to small error in movement abilitys. you cant micromanage every bit, just take the obvious meanings (dont try to read into the tactics to much) and go with the flow Go with the flow, yeah I get it. But When the player says On Round 2 I will do X, Y, and Z then on round 2 I will have the player do X, Y, and Z unless there is no way for them to accomplish it. IF the player writes On Round 2 I want to X but they mean that On Round 2 I want to do Y, I will almost always have the player do X. If they give me their tactics early and X seems very strange I may email then to clarify, but you get what your write. Like I said, if you send tactics LATE and with TYPOS in them, expect the fight to have problems in it. if it was to be placed on the horse before the fight it would be a PreBuff that must be listed on the sheet...No PreBuff No tattoo Ok T'var, you can't have it both ways. In one case I'm supposed to to magicly interpert their typos and rules errors to their benefit, BUT if they miss THIS rule I have to stick to the letter.. SO, either I read their tactics verbatim and use NO judgement, therefore the tat stays on themselves and using forcescreen ond means nothing because OND is not a word and rapidkill means kill quickly not rapidshot. OR I read their tactics with an eye for correction of tactics and OND might mean On D and forgetting to explicitly move the tat before the fight is OK I'll just move it myself and rapidkill probably means rapidshot so I'll use rapidshot. Which one did you want it to be?
Kaigan 03-21-05, 02:08 PM	Alright, Indri vs. Ripper is up. A very annoying and hard fight to run, so there are bound to be errors in it. Please check for them. I don't know if I'll have time to do a rerun, so please, hopefully there isn't anything too drastic. Thanks.
Jindl 03-21-05, 02:10 PM	@T'Var + Spasheridan - Re: Typos and Timely Tactics - You both make good points. Players should make an effort to get their tactics submitted in a timely manner, even though it doesn't always happen. I have submitted "late" tactics before, and I'm sure it will happen again, and I appreciate when the pitlord gives me some flexibility with this. But I do agree that if my tactics are both late and full of errors, then I shouldn't complain if the pitlord tries to do what he thinks I meant in my tactics. So, if theres time and a typo really doesn't make sense, then try contacting the player. Most of the time a typo should make sense however. Keep in mind that many of our players do not have english as a first language, and may say things like "rapidkill" when they mean "rapid shot". A good pitlord will interpret this, or clarify as needed and if there is time. Re: Prebuffed tattoo locations - Tattoo's are equipment, not prebuffs. If a tattoo is to be worn by the mount, it should be listed as worn by the mount in the equipment section (just like the barding is listed). If its not specified, then assume the tattoo is worn by the PC. This is not a "prebuff" it is simple listing of equipment. Re: Crawling tattoos - They cost the same as a normal tattoo, which is one reason why nobody should ever take Scribe Tattoo, when they can simply use Craft Universal Item to make a crawling tattoo that does the same thing. -Jindl
Jindl 03-21-05, 02:14 PM	Here are my fights of the week: Elder vs. Rook (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5729021&postcount=1398) If there are any concerns, please tell me! @Pittbull - In all fairness, I do have to ask if you rolled the CL check for the Elder to cast the magic missile (CL9) from the scroll both times. He only needs an 8 or higher on a d20, but since it wasn't listed in the fight, I did want to make sure he passed them both. -Jindl
T'Var 03-21-05, 02:14 PM	Ok T'var, you can't have it both ways. well first off, yes i can :P In one case I'm supposed to to magicly interpert their typos and rules errors to their benefit, BUT if they miss THIS rule I have to stick to the letter.. SO, either I read their tactics verbatim and use NO judgement, therefore the tat stays on themselves and using forcescreen ond means nothing because OND is not a word and rapidkill means kill quickly not rapidshot. OR I read their tactics with an eye for correction of tactics and OND might mean On D and forgetting to explicitly move the tat before the fight is OK I'll just move it myself and rapidkill probably means rapidshot so I'll use rapidshot. Which one did you want it to be? simply put, if it is not on the sheet it is not available. so even if his tactics said to use the tattoo on the mount, if it was not on the sheet as a prebuff it would require the multi-turn action. Come on now....how many times have you seen someone misspell 'and', or 'the' or any other countless words where you still knew what the heck they were talking about. It took some serious 'reading behind the lines' to even come up with 'ond' to mean On Duck or maybe 'th ecar' might mean 'this electrionic car' or 'that evil cartoon' All im saying is (And this is going to earn my a flaming from here to there i know) is use some common sence when reading tactics. yes if they sent them in fast that would be good. yes if they spell checked it would be good, but many dont so you have to deal with that. you have to be able to over look typos and come up with what is ment to be. Try to stick to there tactics as close as possable but reading into things like ond as anything more than a typo or rapidkill as something other than rapid shot is a weak defence. Im not trying to attack or berate anyone Im just saying that Pitlording is a big job you have to roll with the punchs and interpret when the tactics are not crystal clear but when interpreting dont try to cross the whole field. use Arcoms Razor. the Simplest answer is often the most accurate.
spasheridan 03-21-05, 02:28 PM	All im saying is (And this is going to earn my a flaming from here to there i know) is use some common sence when reading tactics. Flame Flame Flame Flame Flame :D Um.. yeah, like I said, looking back OND is much more likely AND then ON D, but it made sense to me and Ceres was activating a force screen tatoO on HIS horse so it was already in my mind. But seriously, O is across the Keyboard from A. If I see snd then that could be and. If I see xast then it could be cast. But ond... come on, that's not a finger slip it's across the keyboard.. so I see ond as someone WANTING that O in there.... Anywho, I tried to PM Beldin back after he PMd me his tactics because I had some questions but his box was full ... I could have moved on to email but I decided it was time to start running the fight. After all is said and done, Beldin, do you want me to re-run it putting the forcescreen on Hakatri instead of Dunk? I think it will extend the match 1 more round because of that crit at the end.
Caterane 03-21-05, 02:36 PM	Speaking of late tactics... I still haven't received tactics from Stinkygoblin. I have waited until now but since I don't want to get my very first [late] penalty I am going to run it now. Default tactics. @Huan: Ixenthor :allalone:
Pittbull 03-21-05, 02:59 PM	@Pittbull - In all fairness, I do have to ask if you rolled the CL check for the Elder to cast the magic missile (CL9) from the scroll both times. He only needs an 8 or higher on a d20, but since it wasn't listed in the fight, I did want to make sure he passed them both. -Jindl Didn't I put them in? - Let's see, ...., oh, you're right, .... where is this paper ( I ran that fight on a paper on sunday and wrote it today during work), ah, there are the rolls (13, 18). Every was OK, I just forgot to write the rolls. Sorry, for this!
Jindl 03-21-05, 03:06 PM	Thanks, I was just making sure :D
spasheridan 03-21-05, 03:44 PM	Re: Prebuffed tattoo locations - Tattoo's are equipment, not prebuffs. If a tattoo is to be worn by the mount, it should be listed as worn by the mount in the equipment section (just like the barding is listed). If its not specified, then assume the tattoo is worn by the PC. This is not a "prebuff" it is simple listing of equipment. Just to clarify, T'Var points out that a willing creature can transfer a tatoo from themselves to another willing creature. If someone had written in their tactics that they intend to use a tatoo on their mount, but the tatoo appears to be listed as the PC's gear, pitlords should force the player to spend 2 rounds working out this tactic instead of having the player move the tatoo pre-fight? This seems extreme, to the point of saying "If you don't explicily say to fire a ranged weapon vs a flying opponent you will continue to attempt to stick him with your sword untul you die". Re: Crawling tattoos - They cost the same as a normal tattoo, which is one reason why nobody should ever take Scribe Tattoo, when they can simply use Craft Universal Item to make a crawling tattoo that does the same thing. -Jindl Not only are the crawling tatoo's the same price, but for personel only tatoo's they'e cheaper. A tato of forcescreen is 100 gp, a crawling tatoo of forcescreen is 50gp.
xanadu 03-21-05, 03:44 PM	Alright, Indri vs. Ripper is up. A very annoying and hard fight to run, so there are bound to be errors in it. Please check for them. I don't know if I'll have time to do a rerun, so please, hopefully there isn't anything too drastic. Thanks. Kaigan - entangle has a 40 foot radius, even if I dont see him I can still target his general vincinity and it will likely engulf him. Surely that is a better option than having it sizzle and me lose the scroll, yes?
Jindl 03-21-05, 03:52 PM	Just to clarify, T'Var points out that a willing creature can transfer a tatoo from themselves to another willing creature. If someone had written in their tactics that they intend to use a tatoo on their mount, but the tatoo appears to be listed as the PC's gear, pitlords should force the player to spend 2 rounds working out this tactic instead of having the player move the tatoo pre-fight? This seems extreme, to the point of saying "If you don't explicily say to fire a ranged weapon vs a flying opponent you will continue to attempt to stick him with your sword untul you die". There's a difference between adapting tactics that have broken down, and changing equipment locations to fit tactics. You are suggesting that a tattoo worn by the PC should be moved before the fight by the pitlord to be worn by the mount. I think that is too much. So yes, I would have it take 2 rounds to do. Maybe if the other player was notified that the equipment would be changed and given a chance to modify his tactics as necessary (such as deciding not to shoot the mount because it would have a much higher ac, or something to that effect), then maybe you could consider making such a change. But I definately wouldn't allow that change without talking to both players first. And I think that is what T'Var was saying. That without talking to both players first, you shouldn't change the way the equipment was set up before the fight, even if you are doing it to try and follow one PC's tactics. Not only are the crawling tatoo's the same price, but for personel only tatoo's they'e cheaper. A tato of forcescreen is 100 gp, a crawling tatoo of forcescreen is 50gp. The 2x cost for personal powers applies equally to regular tattoos and to crawling tattoos. So a crawling tattoo of forcescreen does cost 100 gp.
spasheridan 03-21-05, 04:07 PM	I think that is too much. So yes, I would have it take 2 rounds to do. Maybe if the other player was notified that the equipment would be changed and given a chance to modify his tactics as necessary (such as deciding not to shoot the mount because it would have a much higher ac, or something to that effect), then maybe you could consider making such a change. But I definately wouldn't allow that change without talking to both players first. That makes a lot of sense. I didn't realize that little bit. Does this rule apply to pre-buffs as well? If I can cast a 16 hour long Mage Armor spell it must be noted on my sheet as cast or does the opponent just need to be aware of the possibility of me casting the 16 hour long mage armor? If the opponent just has to be aware of the possibility of casting a 16 hour buff then they should be aware of the possibility of moving tattoos around. If the buff has to be declared on the character sheet before the match is assigned then the tatoo should be moved to the ally before the match is assigned. The 2x cost for personal powers applies equally to regular tattoos and to crawling tattoos. So a crawling tattoo of forcescreen does cost 100 gp. I learn something new every day! I think I need to fix something on Finael's character sheet now.
Kaigan 03-21-05, 04:35 PM	@Xanadu, you woulnd't have hit him at all, he had the whole central pillars between you and him. It was not possible to hit him at all. If anything, the entangle would have gone off, in the middle of the pillars, but not enough to do anything signficant.
spasheridan 03-21-05, 04:44 PM	@cat: I've never seen someone survive 2, count them 2! CDG's in a single match. That was a funny fight!
Caterane 03-21-05, 04:47 PM	@cat: I've never seen someone survive 2, count them 2! CDG's in a single match. That was a funny fight! I've seen 3 once. Was one of the older fights.
T'Var 03-21-05, 04:54 PM	CDG is a full round action(like a full attack) NOT a 1 round action(like summoning or sleep)
Jindl 03-21-05, 05:59 PM	That makes a lot of sense. I didn't realize that little bit. Does this rule apply to pre-buffs as well? If I can cast a 16 hour long Mage Armor spell it must be noted on my sheet as cast or does the opponent just need to be aware of the possibility of me casting the 16 hour long mage armor? If the opponent just has to be aware of the possibility of casting a 16 hour buff then they should be aware of the possibility of moving tattoos around. If the buff has to be declared on the character sheet before the match is assigned then the tatoo should be moved to the ally before the match is assigned. Its not a "possibility" issue. It either "is" or it "isn't". The information is supposed to be listed on the sheet (in the prebuff section for the mage armor, or in the equipment/allies sections for the tattoo) prior to pairings. However, if your opponent agrees, we usually allow minor changes after pairings. So if you neglected to mention the 16 hour mage armor prebuff, but your opponent agreed after pairings, then it would be put into effect. That's why I said you should talk to his opponent before allowing the tattoo to be moved onto the horse before the fight. Because that is a change in equipment worn. Note: There is one exception to the rule. Players are allowed to list items as "left at home" and then decide to bring them with their character. The reason we allow this, is that those items are typically weapons and ammo made of special materials (silver or cold iron). There's little point in having the player calculate their pc's encumbrance including the weights of these items, if the pc is going to leave the item behind in most of the fights. So, we allow the pc to list the item as "left at home" so that they can calculate their encumbrance without the item. The pc can bring the item with them as part of tactics (if they are paired with a creature with DR/special material, for example) and then its simple for the pitlord to make the small adjustment to encumbrance/weight carried. So if you see that someone has left their quiver of 60 silver arrows at home, realize that they could still bring/use them if they are paired against a lycanthrope... -Jindl
xanadu 03-21-05, 06:15 PM	@Xanadu, you woulnd't have hit him at all, he had the whole central pillars between you and him. It was not possible to hit him at all. If anything, the entangle would have gone off, in the middle of the pillars, but not enough to do anything signficant. Kaigan, I understand that very well might be the case. Still it is something that any gladiator should do (there is absolutely nothing to lose) on the chance that an 80 diameter a plants might encompass a hidden foe. Even on the chance the entangle would miss, the next time he has much less hiding places as much of the central pillar area is full of vines. If I have to make a decision on whether or not I should have a wizard lose a fireball spell because his opponent ran behind a rock, what should I do? Should I really say "Galdiator X curses as he loses a spell" or aim behind the rock? Maybe I still would probably lose the fight - if my opponent is free to run around, there is nothing I can do to prevent him from foiling the warp wood tactic and his archery is good without being entangled. That being said, there is really no reason not to create a huge swath of entangling plants in the general direction he moved off to. If I miss, I lose nothing, the scroll would be lost anyway. Plus, the residual plants would help limit his evasive tactics.
Kaigan 03-21-05, 07:30 PM	Okay, look, if you really want me to I can figure in the plants. If anything, all the plants would do, as you said limit which direction he would go in, but, still, none the less, he would be unaffected by the entangle. The first one would have gone off, on your side of the central pillars, so in no way, would it even be able to get near him. Basically what would happen is that the central pillars would be covered as follows: | | |3|3|3| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |3|3|3|3|Y| | | | | | | | | | | | |3|@|3|3|3|3| | | | |1| | | | | | |3|3|3|3|3|3|2|3| | | |1| | | | | | |3|3|3|I|@|@|2|3|3|@|@|1| | | | | | |3|3|3|3|@|2|2|3|3|3|@|1| | | | | |3|3|3|x|2|2|2|@|3|3|3|1| | | | | | | | |2|2|2|2|@|@|@| | |1| | | | | | | |2|2|2|2|2|2|@| | | |1| | | | | | |2|2|2|2|@|2|2| | | |@|1| | | | | | |2|2|2|2|@|@|1|1|1|@|@|x|1|1|1|1|1| |2|2|2|2|2|2|x|2|2|2|2|2|2|2| | | | | | | | | | |2| | | | |1|@| | | | | | | | | | | |2| | | | |1| | | | | | | | | | | | |2| | | | |1| | | | | | | | | | | | |2| | | | |1| | | | | | | | | | | | |2| | | | |1| | | | | | This is just for you... x is the origin of the entangle. 1 is the area of your first entangle. 2 is the area of your second entangle. 3 is the area of your third entangle, the one from memory. I is Indri after the second entangle. Y is Indri after the third entangle. Sorry that's its messy, but it's the best I can do, for trying to explain that the entangles did nothing. As you can see, Indri is right on the outside of your third entangle.
Huan 03-21-05, 09:45 PM	Bare-bones of Telnith vs Fyhir (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5733560) is up. Short version: Another range shoot-out... Good lord, I still feel like crap... I caught something terrible last friday, and have been bedridden all weekend... I apologize to Caterane and Kaigan in their quests for the days of inactivity. Since I am still staying at home all day for the next few days, I will be online on any of the three IMs (pretty much all the time), so please contact me, so we may hasten your adventures (I'd rather not rush with online posts). ...Story forthcoming...
spasheridan 03-21-05, 10:11 PM	Thanks Huan! It's strange that I went through ALL of my arrows. .. but I had the perfect amount! Is this the longest battle in this incarnation of the Arena so far? PS - You forgot I used a potion of protection from chaos in the fight as well.
Huan 03-21-05, 10:16 PM	Thanks Huan! It's strange that I went through ALL of my arrows. .. but I had the perfect amount! Is this the longest battle in this incarnation of the Arena so far? For this arena, I don't know, but it is nowhere close to the one in record (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4037301).
Jindl 03-21-05, 10:17 PM	For this arena, I don;t know, but it is nowhere close to the one in record (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=4037301). It's about half of the record, which is 58, since we only count the moderated rounds. But that was a pretty tedious fight for Tellish...
One_Winged_Angel 03-21-05, 11:17 PM	@Tagg: Not that it matters all that much, but in Kailia's fight, you have me criting with a staff on a 19. I don't have imp crit or keen staff (even possible?), so I didn't crit. No big since it didn't conferm at any rate. *Sigh* I'm noticing she didn't come out very well as far as GP goes. Oh, well. Time to power shop...
Jindl 03-22-05, 12:39 AM	En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Zeem Z’ayn (Vivat Grendel)
T'Var 03-22-05, 12:45 AM	woohoo both fights up with 15 minutes before deadline
Jindl 03-22-05, 01:43 AM	Gabriel (Evadyn the second) vs Suggang Krum'shul (Khaz_Gu) Check for the pitlord notes at the end of the fight, and please correct the violations on both character sheets.
Pittbull 03-22-05, 02:19 AM	Round 3 Laph rapid shoots which lets Jindl get his spot and listens in [Spot 15+13-13=15 vs Hide +20-20=0 (since he is not actively hiding other than the spell there is no roll] letting Jindl pinpoint and casts his fairy fire covering the pixie in a visible outline Why didn't you roll for hide? It's very important for this build to hide everytime? It's was also written in my tactic: - Always sneak and stay hidden. Round 4 Init swaps and Jindl is first out of the blocks and with a clearly visible Laph draws and casts Ice Storm [CL check 9+5=14 vs DC 8 success] 5d6=16dmg and the pixie comes crashing to the ground frozen in a block of snow and ice No check for spell-resistance has been made and you forgot the shield of heartening which gives him +5HPs at any time, even when it's not his turn. Laph used a potion of hide from animals +500gp +500xp Losing a ECL5-Fight, you get 533gp. There's no need for a re-run, but there have been a major mistakes, I got to point out!
Sindorin 03-22-05, 02:24 AM	Gabriel (Evadyn the second) vs Suggang Krum'shul (Khaz_Gu) Check for the pitlord notes at the end of the fight, and please correct the violations on both character sheets. Wasn't that an ECL 4 fight? The characters are rewarded only ECL 3 worth of winnings...
Beldin 03-22-05, 04:31 AM	My second fight will be posted in afew hours. Sorry that it is late.
KerlanRayne 03-22-05, 06:04 AM	@T'Var: Deep crystal costs 2 pp per use so I can only use it once, but it doesn't change the outcome. Also, I used two arrows. KerlanRayne
Arstimis 03-22-05, 06:22 AM	En'Sidious Nyte (Arstimis) vs Zeem Z’ayn (Vivat Grendel) How come I always seem to have horrible luck.... Why didnt I get my spot check somewhere in here? Zeem reloads his crossbow, moving north within the central obstacle so that he can see Nyte, and hiding. (Hide 5 +14 -5 speed = 14.) Nyte (mounted), 3/20 hp, protection from good [12], running Deth (bottom left 6, -28), 22/22 hp, running Zeem (3, -1), 10/19 hp Round 6 Nyte dismounts quickly, drawing and drinking his elixer of hiding. (Ride 13 +9 vs DC 20, pass.) Zeem knows its a far shot, but he wants to keep the pressure on, so he fires again, aiming pretty high to account for the distance. (Crossbow 16 +7 -2 range vs FF AC 14 +2 deflection +4 cover, hits. Damage = 1d6 = 4 pts. Hide 12 +14 -20 sniping = 6.) I have a little more than a 50% chance to pass it...which would mean the shot didnt hit, and I wont die....but of course I will probably fail it...
T'Var 03-22-05, 08:15 AM	Losing a ECL5-Fight, you get 533gp. There's no need for a re-run, but there have been a major mistakes, I got to point out! no these are big enough that I will re-run it, sorry for the bads
T'Var 03-22-05, 08:49 AM	same outcome but took longer and more items from both Pitbull if you could, increase the size on the pixie traits its kinda hard to see what his powers are and current SR ect
Evadyn the second 03-22-05, 09:16 AM	Gabriel (Evadyn the second) vs Suggang Krum'shul (Khaz_Gu) Check for the pitlord notes at the end of the fight, and please correct the violations on both character sheets. I will corect my violations. BUT! Pleas show me where it says that Gabriel should ready Enatangle and wait 4 rounds before he stops readying and draws a scroll! Do my tactics say this?! Tactics recieved by PM Thanks for pitlording this fight. Round 1: Cast entangle(centerd 5 ft in front of him) Round 2: Use Scroll of SNA IV to summon 1d4+1 Hippogrifs(they will land in the entangeld area and flank him, acepting the entangled state) Round 3: Use Ye old masterwork sling. If he frees him self cast entangle again. If I go below 19 HP use scroll of CLW I have only 7 bullets so if I run out use the remaining spell levels on produce flame (1d6+4, touch attack). Quick silver allways defends me and I use him for cover while casting. That should be all. I think not! I demand a rematch.
Jindl 03-22-05, 09:25 AM	How come I always seem to have horrible luck.... Why didnt I get my spot check somewhere in here? I have a little more than a 50% chance to pass it...which would mean the shot didnt hit, and I wont die....but of course I will probably fail it... Much less than 50% actually (due to the distance). You'll need a 20. Spot: 16 +6 -12 distance vs DC 14, fail. :weep:
Jindl 03-22-05, 09:26 AM	Wasn't that an ECL 4 fight? The characters are rewarded only ECL 3 worth of winnings... Sorry. It has been corrected.
Jindl 03-22-05, 09:36 AM	Pleas show me where it says that Gabriel should ready Enatangle and wait 4 rounds before he stops readying and draws a scroll! Do my tactics say this?! Tactics recieved by PM Thanks for pitlording this fight. Round 1: Cast entangle(centerd 5 ft in front of him) Round 2: Use Scroll of SNA IV to summon 1d4+1 Hippogrifs(they will land in the entangeld area and flank him, acepting the entangled state) Round 3: Use Ye old masterwork sling. If he frees him self cast entangle again. If I go below 19 HP use scroll of CLW I have only 7 bullets so if I run out use the remaining spell levels on produce flame (1d6+4, touch attack). Quick silver allways defends me and I use him for cover while casting. That should be all. I think not! I demand a rematch. Your opponent was invisible. You had no way of knowing where he was, except for listening. So you readied to entangle him when you located him. The first 4 rounds pass and you finally locate him with your listen check to within 10 ft of his actual location, which is good enough to cast the 40 ft radius entangle and get him. Since you don't know his exact location, I randomly targeted the entangle to be somewhere within 10 ft of him. However, he is still invisible, so you can't see that he is not entangled (but you do know that he passed his save). Your tactics wanted to wait until he was entangled before casting the SNA4. So I had you ready another entangle to be sure that he was affected. So you waited until you heard him again, then you cast entangle again, interrupting his action. He made his save again, and had enough movement to still reach you and attack. The fight followed your tactics as they were written. I'm sorry if that's not what you wanted to do, but if that is the case, you need to try and write more detailed tactics. -Jindl
Jindl 03-22-05, 09:42 AM	same outcome but took longer and more items from both Pitbull if you could, increase the size on the pixie traits its kinda hard to see what his powers are and current SR ect Laph cannot draw and activate the powerstone in the same round. When he is staggered, he is limited to 1 move or standard action per round. Note that Ice Storm ignores SR (so that check was unneccesary). After he attacked in Rnd 3, Laph's hide from animals effect ended. Nox should have moved to attack him after that. Round 4 Init swaps and Jindl is first out of the blocks and with a clearly visible Laph draws and casts Ice Storm [CL check 9+5=14 vs DC 8 success][SR 12+5=17 vs DC 16 success] 5d6=16dmg as the pixie gets hit, he activates his shield of heartening gaining 5 temp hp bringing him to 0hp Laph (since you are only 1hd no creature has a higher con than you do, so if you were to polymorph you would gain 1 hp but loose at least 1 from the new con) so instead Laph grabs a Vigor stone [ML check 10+1=11 vs DC 7] and since temp hp overlaps Laph goes up to 30hp then flys up Laph (30/11hp)(10, -9, 30) Jindl (15/36hp)(-13, 7) Please adjust for these changes since it could save me a valuable scroll: dispel magic (CL7). Thanks! -Jindl
Evadyn the second 03-22-05, 09:51 AM	Your opponent was invisible. You had no way of knowing where he was, except for listening. So you readied to entangle him when you located him. The first 4 rounds pass and you finally locate him with your listen check to within 10 ft of his actual location, which is good enough to cast the 40 ft radius entangle and get him. Since you don't know his exact location, I randomly targeted the entangle to be somewhere within 10 ft of him. However, he is still invisible, so you can't see that he is not entangled (but you do know that he passed his save). Your tactics wanted to wait until he was entangled before casting the SNA4. So I had you ready another entangle to be sure that he was affected. So you waited until you heard him again, then you cast entangle again, interrupting his action. He made his save again, and had enough movement to still reach you and attack. The fight followed your tactics as they were written. I'm sorry if that's not what you wanted to do, but if that is the case, you need to try and write more detailed tactics. -Jindl He took the potion in round 3
T'Var 03-22-05, 09:51 AM	Laph cannot draw and activate the powerstone in the same round. When he is staggered, he is limited to 1 move or standard action per round. Note that Ice Storm ignores SR (so that check was unneccesary). After he attacked in Rnd 3, Laph's hide from animals effect ended. Nox should have moved to attack him after that. Round 4 Init swaps and Jindl is first out of the blocks and with a clearly visible Laph draws and casts Ice Storm [CL check 9+5=14 vs DC 8 success][SR 12+5=17 vs DC 16 success] 5d6=16dmg as the pixie gets hit, he activates his shield of heartening gaining 5 temp hp bringing him to 0hp Laph (since you are only 1hd no creature has a higher con than you do, so if you were to polymorph you would gain 1 hp but loose at least 1 from the new con) so instead Laph grabs a Vigor stone [ML check 10+1=11 vs DC 7] and since temp hp overlaps Laph goes up to 30hp then flys up Laph (30/11hp)(10, -9, 30) Jindl (15/36hp)(-13, 7) Please adjust for these changes since it could save me a valuable scroll: dispel magic (CL7). Thanks! -Jindl well....crap....heh Ok ill run thru it again, but it will take a few hours, im at work atm
Kaigan 03-22-05, 10:39 AM	Attention:!!! Very important Issue in the Roy vs. Nyphanalith fight. The produce flame should not have lasted that long. If you use the produce flame as a thrown weapon, it lowers the duration by a minute after each throw. So originally the duration would be 30 rds. then after the the first throw, it would be 20 rds. then after the second, 10 rds. Then it would be gone after the the third throw. So there is no way Nyphanalith could throw fire for rounds 6 through 16, unless of course he re-cast produce flame. This could very well change the outcome.
Arstimis 03-22-05, 11:18 AM	Much less than 50% actually (due to the distance). You'll need a 20. Spot: 16 +6 -12 distance vs DC 14, fail. :weep: oh ya...forgot about the distance...figures being my luck
Arstimis 03-22-05, 11:22 AM	I will corect my violations. BUT! Pleas show me where it says that Gabriel should ready Enatangle and wait 4 rounds before he stops readying and draws a scroll! Do my tactics say this?! I think not! I demand a rematch. First, you do not have the right to DEMAND a rematch. you can ask politely, but i guess that flew over your head. Second. If you took a look at what the arena looked like. There is a huge obstalce between you and your enemy, so you could not see him at all for the first few rounds untill one of you moved to see the other.
Pittbull 03-22-05, 11:55 AM	Note that Ice Storm ignores SR (so that check was unneccesary). -Jindl Please help me, why does it ignore SR. Ice Storm Evocation [Cold] Level: Drd 4, Sor/Wiz 4, Water 5 Components: V, S, M/DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Area: Cylinder (20-ft. radius, 40 ft. high) Duration: 1 full round Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes Great magical hailstones pound down for 1 full round, dealing 3d6 points of bludgeoning damage and 2d6 points of cold damage to every creature in the area. A –4 penalty applies to each Listen check made within the ice storm’s effect, and all land movement within its area is at half speed. At the end of the duration, the hail disappears, leaving no aftereffects (other than the damage dealt). Arcane Material Component: A pinch of dust and a few drops of water. It's a area-spell and can't be directed on one creature and there is a SR in the discription. So I don't understand, why SR shouldn't aply. @T'var: just to make it right: Round3: [Spot 15+13-13=15 vs Hide 12+11+20-20=23][listen 15+13=28 vs MS 10+7=17] Sorry you forgot he distance-mod of -13 on the listen-check 15 vs. 17 means it fails and no fairy-fire can be cast.
Evadyn the second 03-22-05, 11:57 AM	First, you do not have the right to DEMAND a rematch. you can ask politely, but i guess that flew over your head. Second. If you took a look at what the arena looked like. There is a huge obstalce between you and your enemy, so you could not see him at all for the first few rounds untill one of you moved to see the other. Got a bit caried away. Well that might explain it but it still is stupid
Jindl 03-22-05, 12:00 PM	Please help me, why does it ignore SR. It's a area-spell and can't be directed on one creature and there is a SR in the discription. So I don't understand, why SR shouldn't aply. Hrm. I could have sworn that Ice Storm wasn't affected by SR (that's the whole reason I bought the scrolls, was to deal with all of the high SR opponents at this level). Oh well.
Pittbull 03-22-05, 12:02 PM	@T'var: just to make it right: Round3: [Spot 15+13-13=15 vs Hide 12+11+20-20=23][listen 15+13=28 vs MS 10+7=17] Sorry you forgot he distance-mod of -13 on the listen-check 15 vs. 17 means it fails and no fairy-fire can be cast. Just in case.... :)
Jindl 03-22-05, 12:04 PM	see below.
Pittbull 03-22-05, 12:09 PM	Pixie-style :D EDIT: But if you check my tactic: ...,always keeping 200ft distance to Jindl. 130ft has been pretty close, regarding my tactic.
T'Var 03-22-05, 12:16 PM	Sorry you forgot he distance-mod of -13 on the listen-check 15 vs. 17 means it fails and no fairy-fire can be cast. How is he 130 ft away? see...THIS is why pixies should be banned....make me do extra thinking :weep: lol Ok Ok Ok...since i have obviously failed horrabily in my checking of this fight, I am going to re-run it entirly tonight when i get off work appx 6hrs
Jindl 03-22-05, 12:17 PM	In Rnd 1, he flies forward 60 ft and readies to fire, so his position should be (16, -9, 0 ft altitude). Note that T'Var forgot the -2 range penalty on the bow attack. And since he used a readied action, he doesn't have a move action available to snipe, so JotHF may well have seen him when he fired (since he doesn't get a hide check). Nox should double move 80 ft towards that sound. In Rnd 2, he draws/drinks a potion and should only have been able to move 5 ft. forward (15, -9, 0 ft altitude). Note that you cannot gain altitude with a 5 ft step. Nox doesn't hear anything, but he double moves again in the same direction. In Rnd 3, he fires again and snipes as a move action, so he only could move 5 ft forward (14, -8, 0 ft altitude). Note that the sound of an attack is DC 0 to hear, so JotHF's listen check should be against that DC, not against the Move Silently check of the pixie. Also note that the range penalty to the bow attack is missing again. And Nox can now sense the pixie with blindsense because the hide from animals is over and the pixie should be within 40 ft. JotHF passes the listen check by 15, because it should be against DC 0 <bow twang>, which is good enough to target with faerie fire. -Jindl
Pittbull 03-22-05, 12:25 PM	In Rnd 1, he flies forward 60 ft and readies to fire, so his position should be (16, -9, 0 ft altitude). Note that T'Var forgot the -2 range penalty on the bow attack. And since he used a readied action, he doesn't have a move action available to snipe, so JotHF may well have seen him when he fired (since he doesn't get a hide check). In Rnd 2, he draws/drinks a potion and should only have been able to move 5 ft. forward (15, -9, 0 ft altitude). Note that you cannot gain altitude with a 5 ft step. In Rnd 3, he fires again and snipes as a move action, so only have been able to move 5 ft forward (14, -8, 0 ft altitude). Note that the sound of an attack is DC 0 to hear, so JotHF's listen check should be against that DC, not against the Move Silently check of the pixie. Also note that the range penalty to the bow attack is missing again. JotHF passes the listen check by 15, because it should be against DC 0 <bow twang>, which is good enough to target with faerie fire. -Jindl Round1: You always can make a hide-check, if you have concealment, it's free-action. Round3: If the Dc is 0, he still gets the dis-mod on his listen-check. And don't forget this : If the Listen roll beats the Move Silently by 0-4, randomize within 20'; this is 61 possible positions in 2D, or a lot more in 3D: | | | |*|*|*| | | | | |*|*|*|*|*|*|*| | | |*|*|*|*|*|*|*| | |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*| |*|*|*|*|@|*|*|*|*| |*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*|*| | |*|*|*|*|*|*|*| | | |*|*|*|*|*|*|*| | | | | |*|*|*| | | | By 5-9: within 15'; randomize between 37 squares in 2d, 179 in 3d. | | |*|*|*| | | | |*|*|*|*|*| | |*|*|*|*|*|*|*| |*|*|*|@|*|*|*| |*|*|*|*|*|*|*| | |*|*|*|*|*| | | | |*|*|*| | | By 10-14: within 10'; randomize between 21 squares in 2d, 91 in 3d. | |*|*|*| | |*|*|*|*|*| |*|*|@|*|*| |*|*|*|*|*| | |*|*|*| | By 15-19: within 5'; randomize between 9 squares in 2d, 27 in 3d. |*|*|*| |*|@|*| |*|*|*| By 20 or more: pinpoint.
Jindl 03-22-05, 12:30 PM	Round1: You always can make a hide-check, if you have concealment, it's free-action. You can always hide as part of your movement as a free action. Hiding after making an attack (known as sniping) is a separate move action. See the Hide skill for more details. Round3: If the Dc is 0, he still gets the dis-mod on his listen-check. Sure. Listen 15 +13 -13 distance vs DC 0, passes by 15, locates to within 5 ft. Faerie fire is a 5 ft radius burst, so you can target it if you locate him within 5 ft.
Pittbull 03-22-05, 12:32 PM	OK, I believe you, but it was fun to dicuss it! :D @T'Var: Please, there's realy no need of a rerun, save your time! But thanks having this patience with my little pixie. EDIT: @Jindl: But don't forget big luck brought you this win,.... :D BTW, the tactic with the elementals is genius, I bow to you!
Jindl 03-22-05, 12:52 PM	OK, I believe you, but it was fun to dicuss it! :D Yes it was ;) @T'Var: Please, there's realy no need of a rerun, save your time! But thanks having this patience with my little pixie. If Pittbull is fine with the fight as is, then so am I (don't worry about rerunning to save the scroll: dispel magic). EDIT: @Jindl: But don't forget big luck brought you this win,.... :D BTW, the tactic with the elementals is genius, I bow to you! There was luck on both sides, don't you think (first round critical disrupting my obscurring mist ... grrr). I'm glad you liked the tactic with the elementals. I planned it a long time ago to deal with a Harvester riding a zombie dragon, but I figured it would work for a pixie too. -Jindl
Kaigan 03-22-05, 01:39 PM	Attention:!!! Very important Issue in the Roy vs. Nyphanalith fight. The produce flame should not have lasted that long. If you use the produce flame as a thrown weapon, it lowers the duration by a minute after each throw. So originally the duration would be 30 rds. then after the the first throw, it would be 20 rds. then after the second, 10 rds. Then it would be gone after the the third throw. So there is no way Nyphanalith could throw fire for rounds 6 through 16, unless of course he re-cast produce flame. This could very well change the outcome. I posted this earlier. Could someone look into it. I believe this is a major mistake.
Jindl 03-22-05, 01:55 PM	I posted this earlier. Could someone look into it. I believe this is a major mistake. You're correct. Its a legitimate mistake that significantly impacts the fight. Please wait and give Beldin a chance to respond. -Jindl
TaggIIV 03-22-05, 04:24 PM	First off, it is extended produce flame. So the original casting would be for 6 rounds, not the normal 3. Then it was stated in my tactics to use the scroll of produce flame if i ran out, so he gets 5 more tosses. So, it would not change the outcome I think, but it would cost Nyphanalith a scroll.
Kaigan 03-22-05, 04:59 PM	True, however, the fireballs would stop with the last one being thrown at rd 13. So the ones that hit after that, would not be there, and he would still be alive, and you would proceed to your summoned wolves i belive.
Beldin 03-22-05, 05:02 PM	@Kaigan: You are correct, that was a mistake. I will change that tommorow, but I truly doubt that the outcome will change.
One_Winged_Angel 03-22-05, 09:31 PM	How about this as an outcome changer: I stated in my tactics that I wanted to wait until the Kobald was within range and try to break out while I waited. Roy has a bow. He has the ability to use said bow. Why did Roy not use it?
TaggIIV 03-22-05, 09:33 PM	Well, tomorrow, is.. erm.. Wednesday.. Would pitlords mind if I just update my sheet with the current result and set for this week? If anything changes as a result of Beldins rerun I'll just change it when it happens, I dont plan on buying anything except restoring any expendables if they were used edit: i dont mean to hurt my chances, but crocodiles full attacks are still only bite OR tail slap. Improved grab was neglected also. Alright, its apparent there are several errors that are possibly game deciding. Ill just edit the title to ready for this week with a fight result of "pending."
Beldin 03-23-05, 03:16 AM	@Tagg: I missed that "or". But I did make grapple cheks for improoved grap. @OWA: Well, looks I read your tactics badly. I will change that now. But if I stick that close to your tactics I will have to remember "Ignore his animal companions", too. fight edited
One_Winged_Angel 03-23-05, 10:10 AM	-If entangled, life is gonna suck. Wait til' the kobald or his animal is in range, them manifest seperate energy rays at him. While waiting, try to get out. If I break free, run for it. I saw this in the original fight. The only reason I wanted to use the bow was to attack after my pp ran out.
Kaigan 03-23-05, 12:23 PM	You know, I'm really curious as to how the level 3 druid even has a croc animal companion. You have to be at least level 4 to have a croc. You can only have A druid may begin play with an animal companion selected from the following list: badger, camel, dire rat, dog, riding dog, eagle, hawk, horse (light or heavy), owl, pony, snake (Small or Medium viper), or wolf. So the croc should even be there.
T'Var 03-23-05, 12:28 PM	You know, I'm really curious as to how the level 3 druid even has a croc animal companion. You have to be at least level 4 to have a croc. You can only have So the croc should even be there. well if you would read a bit further in that same paragraph Animal Companion (Ex): A druid may begin play with an animal companion selected from the following list: badger, camel, dire rat, dog, riding dog, eagle, hawk, horse (light or heavy), owl, pony, snake (Small or Medium viper), or wolf. If the campaign takes place wholly or partly in an aquatic environment, the following creatures are also available: crocodile, porpoise, Medium shark, and squid. This animal is a loyal companion that accompanies the druid on her adventures as appropriate for its kind. The city of Gladius is partly aquatic, infact it is partly every form of enviroment
Kaigan 03-23-05, 12:38 PM	Yes, I see now, thanks. It's just weird that under the 4th level animal companions, it lists crocodile again.
T'Var 03-23-05, 01:35 PM	basicly its there because you wont find a croc in temprate plains so if said druid wanted to take it there it would have to be that 4th level version because of the extra stress on the companion due to the adverse enviroment
Jindl 03-23-05, 02:05 PM	basicly its there because you wont find a croc in temprate plains so if said druid wanted to take it there it would have to be that 4th level version because of the extra stress on the companion due to the adverse enviroment Either that, or there's an error in the table or the paragraph. If there is an error, I think the paragraph holds more weight than the table. -Jindl
Huan 03-23-05, 03:00 PM	@Kaigan/Spasheridan Sorry guys, but I was simly too sick to write a story for your fight... I owe you both an extra-good one later, okay?
spasheridan 03-23-05, 03:47 PM	What would 20 rounds of trading arrows be like anyways? "Dodgeing hails of arrows, each gladiator knew that this had to end soon..." ... ... ... "And as the reign of arrows continued to fall, the crowd began to yawn" ... ... .. "WHy would gladiators bring so many frickin arrows into the ring anyways? If their such bad shots they should stick to throwing harsh language!" .. .. ... "Finaly one of the gladiators stepped INTO an arrow and gurgled his last breath. He had a dentist apointment soon anyways" ... ... "And after the fight the cleanup crew spent hours searching for all the fletching and arrowheads before the match tomorrow"