| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Pitlords03-16-04, 11:01 AM | Please discuss fights of the week 3/17/04 below. |
| xeno_eleusis03-18-04, 08:13 AM | ** bump ** |
| Hatzinger03-18-04, 07:32 PM | @Arstimis: Also I think kage or the horse could get far enough away and behind enough pillars to not allow all those many bow shots, because there wouldn't be a line of sight Kage was "temporarily not available" at that point. was the horse able to see again? if not, how would it know from where the arrows were coming exactly? it must know the location of the bowman to calculate a line-of-sight in order to take concealment. (and that with int 2.) Also, I didn't know it was possible to use a longbow while climbing, how would he hold on while using two hands for his bow Heinrich had spiderclimb cast on him at that time. @Myrridin: I just noticed something completely new to me: an unconscious character probably (and a stunned character definitively) lets anything it holds in his hands fall down. So Kage would have lost his katana at my starting position and later would have charged me bare-handed. :angel: |
| Rosella03-18-04, 08:08 PM | The description of spiderclimb notes that both hands and feet are needed to be able to spiderclimb. it is not possible to fire a bow and climb at the same time. |
| Arstimis03-18-04, 08:50 PM | @ Rose: exactly @ Hat and Myr: colorspray didn't last long enough for the horse and/or rider to be able to get out of bow range. There was like 10 rounds kage shouldn't have been able to be shot at if he would have moved, logically, away |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-19-04, 01:32 AM | @rose: true. You need both feet and at least one hand to spiderclimb. Another note, you cannot reach your opponent the first round by running your mount. That requires a straight line, and the best you can do is run to X-3. The only way to get into melee from the start is to have horseshoes of speed on a light warhorse, successfully spur (DC 15) your mount, double move and with a reach weapon strike him/her. Also you can't attack after your mount "runs" because you are aslo considered running, which doesn't allow you a melee attack. You also lose your dex and any dodge bonuses to ac. And after the 1st color spray worked, i don't know why he didn't just CdG him right there and then, would have saved a lot of time and trouble. -ToK |
| cellardweller03-19-04, 01:41 AM | Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket [BAlso you can't attack after your mount "runs" because you are aslo considered running, which doesn't allow you a melee attack. You also lose your dex and any dodge bonuses to ac. [/B] Rule reference? IMO The fact that it specifically says that you can cast spells and fire ranged weapons while your mount is running (Srd CombatII)would imply that the rider is not running and therefore retains dex + dodge. |
| cellardweller03-19-04, 01:49 AM | Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket [BAnother note, you cannot reach your opponent the first round by running your mount. That requires a straight line, and the best you can do is run to X-3. [/B] You can do a bit better than this: Assuming that the horse starts with its bottom right corniner in (-20,0) a straight line (vector (20,0)+(10,-1)t) can be drawn to (9,-3) |
| Hatzinger03-19-04, 04:15 AM | Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket And after the 1st color spray worked, i don't know why he didn't just CdG him right there and then, would have saved a lot of time and trouble. Because i am an evil bastard, as Myrridin put it. Read my tactics. :D |
| xeno_eleusis03-19-04, 04:58 AM | Correct me if I'm wrong, here is the closes that a large creature can get starting from A and trying to get to B. X|2.........1...................1....... ..2 X|09876543210987654321.12345678901234567 890 ------------------------------------------- 4|...........................44...55.... ... 3|......@...........33.......44...55@... ... 2|.........22.......33.................. ... 1|11.......22........................... ... 0|11.........@........@........@........ ..B A Large creature starting at A is 1 and ending at 5. I think it's 33.24-1 squares and about 161 ft. |
| xeno_eleusis03-19-04, 05:14 AM | Originally posted by cellardweller Rule reference? IMO The fact that it specifically says that you can cast spells and fire ranged weapons while your mount is running (Srd CombatII)would imply that the rider is not running and therefore retains dex + dodge. Combat while Mounted: With a DC 5 Ride check, you can guide your mount with your knees so as to use both hands to attack or defend yourself. This is a free action. When you attack a creature smaller than your mount that is on foot, you get the +1 bonus on melee attacks for being on higher ground. If your mount moves more than 5 feet, you can only make a single melee attack. Essentially, you have to wait until the mount gets to your enemy before attacking, so you can’t make a full attack. Even at your mount’s full speed, you don’t take any penalty on melee attacks while mounted. If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. When charging on horseback, you deal double damage with a lance (see Charge). You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a –4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a –8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally Casting Spells while Mounted: You can cast a spell normally if your mount moves up to a normal move (its speed) either before or after you cast. If you have your mount move both before and after you cast a spell, then you’re casting the spell while the mount is moving, and you have to make a Concentration check due to the vigorous motion (DC 10 + spell level) or lose the spell. If the mount is running (quadruple speed), you can cast a spell when your mount has moved up to twice its speed, but your Concentration check is more difficult due to the violent motion (DC 15 + spell level).Looks like ranged attacks while the mount is running is at a -8 to hit and casting spells while the mount is running requires a (DC 15 + spell level) concentration check. |
| Myrridin03-19-04, 08:07 AM | Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket And after the 1st color spray worked, i don't know why he didn't just CdG him right there and then, would have saved a lot of time and trouble. -ToK I would've liked that a LOT if he'd said that in his tactics...instead I ran a long fight, with probably a few too many errors. As to why the horse didn't move, it has Int 2, and Kage was still very out of it. I figured having it move to some cover was better than nothing, and maybe more than it would've done with Kage unconscious on the mount. If you want, I'll have you guys move far out of range of the bow, that's fine, it'll pick up from where Heinrich climbs down. He'll cast Color Spray, then CDG the horse, and then Kage. I'm willing to run that, but it seems to me that the end result will be the same. |
| Myrridin03-19-04, 08:09 AM | Originally posted by Arstimis @ Hat and Myr: colorspray didn't last long enough for the horse and/or rider to be able to get out of bow range. There was like 10 rounds kage shouldn't have been able to be shot at if he would have moved, logically, away [/B] As to the no shooting while spider climbing, that's my fault, I figured it would work. If it doesn't, I'm guessing that Heinrich would know what his spell would do, and he'd do what Tellish suggested, which was CDG the horse, then the rider after the first Color Spray. There were no tactics as far as where to move, so I had Kage take cover and whether out the storm of arrows, thinking that he could charge Heinrich when he came down. I know it was a long shot, but if he saved vs Color Spray, then he could get a melee attack. If he hit, it could've been over. |
| Hatzinger03-19-04, 09:06 AM | honestly, i didn´t know that spider climb doesn´t give you two free hands to use a bow with. I didn´t look it up because one player of mine does this for years and i thoughed this would be ok. This player is ripe for some heavy DM abuse now!!! (and i am convinced he KNEW what he was doing!):nonono: To the fight: yes, a few mistakes, but i think no matter what the characters would have done else, at this ECL a mage wins always over a pure melee fighter. If Heinrich has to CDG at the second round, ok, so be it...:) |
| Rosella03-19-04, 09:11 AM | Don't worry, I think it's one of the most popular mistakes in DnD I think :D It's only since last year that I'm aware of this exact problem and we adjusted accordingly in our playgroup. Our group has ruled that upon sitting still, it is still possible to use a bow, but not while moving. I tend to disagree though. |
| Myrridin03-19-04, 09:35 AM | It's funny you should mention that, as my group has done the same thing. You can shoot a bow while spider climbing, as long as you're not moving. I didn't look it up, as we've done this for years, and I thought it was the actualy ruling. I hate that I made mistakes, but in this fight, I don't think it had a bearing on the outcome. The first Color Spray, then CDG with the Longbow...which is a nasty Fort save versus death most times. |
| Arstimis03-19-04, 10:19 AM | Ok, a question for the Elder Mods.. Can you attack after your mount quad moves? @Myrridin: Exactly, the horse only has a Int of 2, he wouldnt think to take cover, he would think to run away from the arrows Also...can Hatzinger cast from a scroll while on the pillar? Wouldnt the scroll requre two hands, one to hold it, and one to cast it. -Shadowbane should have been able to move by Round 5 -Kage being Unconcious, Blinded, and Stunned, should have been over by Round 9, so that might have finished his blinding a round earlier, and also his stun. -Why would Kage stay in the range of the bow for all those rounds, so he could be shot at? -Why did Kage never drink any potions to cure himself? His tactics said if HP below 10, then drink potions of CLW -Why did Kage do absolutely nothing from Round 24 to Round 27? |
| Hatzinger03-19-04, 12:09 PM | @Arstimis calm thy heart, oh holy inquisition. Battousai, what do you say? Wanna ask for a refight? It´s up to you and Myrridin... |
| Myrridin03-19-04, 01:02 PM | Originally posted by Arstimis Ok, a question for the Elder Mods.. Can you attack after your mount quad moves? @Myrridin: Exactly, the horse only has a Int of 2, he wouldnt think to take cover, he would think to run away from the arrows Also...can Hatzinger cast from a scroll while on the pillar? Wouldnt the scroll requre two hands, one to hold it, and one to cast it. -Shadowbane should have been able to move by Round 5 -Kage being Unconcious, Blinded, and Stunned, should have been over by Round 9, so that might have finished his blinding a round earlier, and also his stun. -Why would Kage stay in the range of the bow for all those rounds, so he could be shot at? -Why did Kage never drink any potions to cure himself? His tactics said if HP below 10, then drink potions of CLW -Why did Kage do absolutely nothing from Round 24 to Round 27? Kage stayed in range so that he'd have a chance to charge Heinrich when he came down. Reread the fight, he drank the CLW potion at 9 HP. What's Kage going to do besides hunker down with cover and wait to charge? Kage didn't really have contingencies for what to do if Heinrich was that far up. I used my judgment to have him take cover and stay close enough to charge and hopefully end things in one stroke of his sword. You can't attack after your horse quad moves, given that he missed, it's not really an issue. I could use grenade rules to determine where the horse ran to. But since Heinrich couldn't shoot his bow while spider climbing, he'd CDG after the first Color Spray. I'm fine with running it from there. |
| Arstimis03-19-04, 01:42 PM | @Hat: sorry I was kinda acting as the mediator, because battousai's internet was out yesterday, and right now we are in school. I'm doing this from my phone. @Myr: Battousai said he would like if you could rereun it, and he has to say a couple things. I don't think anything can be coup de graced if it is only stunned, so the horse will have to be killed the long way. And Hat's tactics said to kill the horse first, so that should be done. Also, any somewhat intelligent creature would have gotten out of bow range, and waited for him to get down, but since that isn't an issue anymore its ok |
| Myrridin03-19-04, 02:01 PM | Art: I'm going to pick up Heinrich's tactics from here then, as the sniping at the horse was contingent on him being able to spider climb and snipe. I reran the fight, and heck, I should've done this the first time. It was a LOT shorter, with the same outcome. Sorry for the errors, I thought that it was clean. You should remember the "No re-running the fight" policy as well. |
| Myrridin03-19-04, 02:52 PM | Originally posted by Arstimis @Hat: sorry I was kinda acting as the mediator, because battousai's internet was out yesterday, and right now we are in school. I'm doing this from my phone. @Myr: Battousai said he would like if you could rereun it, and he has to say a couple things. @Arstimis: Reread the fight now. I've reran it, and it should be clean now. You should read Color Spray, unconscious, blind, stunned for 2d4 rounds, then stunned and blinded for 1d4 rounds, then stunned for 1 round. I took all of that into account this time. Sorry for the first fight, but the end result was the same. I try to be fair, and act in a manner that I think makes sense if there's no tactics for a situation. |
| ^Rayne^03-19-04, 03:06 PM | Myrridin, I just want to say that I applaud your decisions to be as fair as possible and I also thought you did an excellent job following the tactics as closely as possible. We all make mistakes, I know I've made plenty of rules blunders in the fights I ran even when I was trying to do the best job I could. You've done well and have even helped point out a way that Spider Climb is being abused in the arena by your willingness to have your fight looked at. Anyway the Pitlord job isn't an easy one and I think your extra efforts to get it perfect show you to be a great Pitlord. Good Job! |
| Myrridin03-19-04, 03:15 PM | Thanks Rayne. Sorry to everyone for being a bit of a bastard today. Craptastic day at work...still there, means I don't have as much patience as I usually do. The fight should be corrected, and I believe it's fine as is now. |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-19-04, 03:28 PM | Originally posted by cellardweller You can do a bit better than this: Assuming that the horse starts with its bottom right corniner in (-20,0) a straight line (vector (20,0)+(10,-1)t) can be drawn to (9,-3) Not possible Cellar. You can't start ahead of the A or B. You must start on it and behind it for large creatures, which means you can't draw a straight line from Any point to Any point (as it states) to anything closer than X-3. I have this all drawn out and have gone over it many times. It's not possible. For all you newer Pitlords out there, i will repeat NOT POSSIBLE. -ToK |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-19-04, 04:01 PM | Originally posted by Hatzinger @Arstimis calm thy heart, oh holy inquisition. Battousai, what do you say? Wanna ask for a refight? It´s up to you and Myrridin... Can i say something? Please let's cut down on the re-runs. People need to understand that mistakes are gonna happen. I don't see any of the mistakes made as altering the outcome of the fight, but if you re-run, newer and luckier rolls could change that, and the re-run wasn't about that, it was about mechanics. I think we need to cut back on the amount of re-runs. A lot of effort and time goes into running these things and re-running them time and again, time and again, for even the simplest errors is very time-consuming. I would instead put the onus on the pitlord to maybe take a few extra minutes to double check and verify the rules (even if you THINK) you know them to run a clean fight the first time. It will save you a TON of headaches in the future. -ToK |
| MotherBast03-19-04, 04:04 PM | I agree Tellish. In the past, the no-rerun pollicy was not a suggestion, but a rule, and one we enforced venomatly. Lately, that rule has fadded away, and I hear "I want a re-run" every other fight. This is a bad trend that will only get worse. |
| Ethendril03-19-04, 04:46 PM | I agree with both Tellish and MB. I think that if the error is not great, the fight should not be rerun, especially when it appears the outcome would not have changed (like this one). However, I have made some mistakes in some of my fights, and I WANTED to fix them. I hate having big mistakes in the fight, especially if it affected the outcome significantly. I think that the pitlord should continue to have the OPTION to rerun the fight. I think that we should keep the rule as is, that the pitlord may rerun the fight if they desire. But we should remind everyone that it is totally up to the pitlord, and that demanding that things change is not the way to go. |
| Arstimis03-19-04, 05:23 PM | @Myrridan: As Tellish stated in the Tavern, a warhorses instinct to defend his rider overrides his instinct to run. So the horse would have instead went and attacked the wizard, rather than run aimlessly around. This could change the outcome of the fight, and it is an error with game mechanics. I agree with you Tellish, a Pitlord should take more time to reread fights, and make sure everything is correct by the rules. I think making the Pitlord rerun the fight if there are errors, would make him look over it all in the first place before he posted it. It would get them to look over the rules before they post a careless fight. If they dont have to rerun it they could become lazy with small things that could alter the fight I think a Pitlord should have to rerun the fight, if an Elder mod sees any errors that could change the outcome of the fight |
| Jindl03-19-04, 05:39 PM | Re: Re-runs. Please look at the arena rules, which I am currently revising for clarity. I've already covered the rule on re-runs. Simply put: A re-run is at the discretion of the Pitlord, to correct major mistakes. Re-runs are generally discouraged, but may be done in the interests of fairness. Now, as Tellish mentioned, this has been taken too far. We, the Elder's, discourage re-runs. Only in instances where MAJOR mistakes happened and the Pitlord wants to fix the fight should they occur, and then only to be fair to the players. Please, let's limit the re-runs to when they are really warranted. -Jindl |
| Jindl03-19-04, 11:14 PM | Re: Anna vs Spike MotherBast - there are some things I dont understand. 1. How did Spike have a +19 on the attack roll with the arrow? 2. Why was Spike 90 out of 90, when Anna located him to within 10 feet and she was using a 5' burst attack. At most she would have had 8 potential areas to aim at, not 90? This happens a couple of times in the fight. 3. Why didn't Anna end every turn in total cover like I asked? Please re-read Step 1, when I talk about using fly-by attack. -Jindl |
| MotherBast03-19-04, 11:31 PM | 1- I will repet here what I told you in PM. Spike has +9 BAB, +5 str, and +2 from charge. The arrow was +1, and I added +2 str to spike for rage. As you pointed out to me, he is lawful, so the rage shouldn't have been allowed. Also, Spike should have had +2 from invis, and +1 hight, and -4 from improvised weapons, for a total of +16, and +15 on the roll =31, hits AC 28. 2- According to the spot/listen FAQ, posted on the Rules thread, when making listen checks vs. flying targets, the listen check must incorprate all 3 dimentions. On just two dimentions you must hear withen 5' to narrow it down to 8 targets. 10' means 20 targets on 2d, and 90 targest in 3d. Your first couple of attempts were on the 20 target grid, but once he went virtical, you were using the 90 target grid. Personaly, that isen't how I run listen checks in my game, and its a little complacated if you ask me, but I ran it the way the FAQ says it sould be done. 3- This is what your tactics say: Sink partway into the ground (cover) as I move stealtily away from him (but where I can see him). As I move, use my wand of faerie fire to illuminate Spike (using Listen/Spot to locate him and using flyby attack to move before and after). Remember that faerie fire is a burst, so I just need to get it close to Spike. Finish by hiding partway in the ground, where I can see him. Repeat until he is faerie fired, and repeat if the faerie fire ever goes away. You say to finish by hiding "partway" in the ground, repeating untill he is faerie fired. That is exatly what you did. You do say to move to total cover "after" he is faerie fired, but not before. |
| barrel_master03-19-04, 11:32 PM | Originally posted by Jindl Re: Anna vs Spike 2. Why was Spike 90 out of 90, when Anna located him to within 10 feet and she was using a 5' burst attack. At most she would have had 8 potential areas to aim at, not 90? This happens a couple of times in the fight. -Jindl I think it may have been because of the 3D nature of the area the sound could have come from. |
| Jindl03-19-04, 11:45 PM | 1. I think your number is right. Which means that if Anna had used her shield wand, her AC would have been 32, and Spike would have missed :( 2. If Anna locates him to within 10 feet (she does this several times during the fight) and she is using a 5' radius burst attack, there are only 4 potential attack points when Spike is grounded, or 8 when he is in the air. I'll try to explain: When Spike is grounded, and Anna knows he is within 10 feet of a point in space, it means there are 4 x 10ft cubes surrounding that point in space, and he is within at least one of them. She is attacking with a weapon that fills a 10 ft cube (its a 5' radius burst). So, that would give her a 1/4 chance to hit him. When Spike is in the air, then there are 4 x 10 ft cubes above the point of sound, and 4 x 10 ft cubes below the point of sound. In this case, she would have a 1/8 chance of hitting Spike. Anna narrows it down to 10 feet 4 times in the fight, so who knows, had the proper odds had been used, she may have illuminated him. Now, you may ask why that is important. Well, if Anna ever succeeded in faerie firing him, the next step in her tactics would have been to use the wand of shield. Suddenly she would have an AC of 32 (and Spike would lose his +2 for invisible) and he would miss his attack. If he misses his attack, it spoils the Hide from Undead effect, and its a whole new fight. 3. Okay, you're right. I never mentioned Total cover until she was trying to use the shield wand. 4. I just noticed in Round 7, Anna had a readied action to use the wand. Spike dropped the scroll (which instantly became visible). If Anna spotted it, wouldn't she then trigger her readied action and illuminate Spike with the faerie fire (she would know where he is because he just dropped the scroll)? I appreciate you taking the time to answer all my questions. -Jindl |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 12:02 AM | 1- yeah, with shield he would have missed. 2- Well, the faerie fire doesn't fill a cube. You target a square, and it hits it, and the sqares that base it. In total, it hits 5 squares, the one you target, and the 4 around it. It hits 7 squares once 3d is taken into account, because it also hits the squares directly above and below the target square. You could say to target an intersection, and then the spell would have a cubed shaped burst, but since that wasen't mentioned in your tactics, I didn't think about it. Still, you would have to pick an intersection to target, and it would have been determined randomly. You couldn't, for instance, only limit yourself to targeting the innner most 4 intersections, because of course that is where Spike is. He is always at the center of the area. The point of it being a random roll is that you don't know that. It is supposed to represent you having a "general idea" where Spike is, but he disen't necessaraly have to be there. On the random roll, every square on the grid is to be concidered just as likely a target as any other, so you should have an equal chance to target the squares on the edge of the grid as the ones in the center. So, even though some of the burst from your faerie fire would then eminate outside the grid, you still have just as much chance to target that area as any other. So, even if you used the cube approch, your target area was much bigger, as you would also have had to account for every target that would have been inside the area you narrowed him down to, but would have put the blast radius of the faerie fire outside that radius. In the simplest way, you simply target a square. You had 20 possible targets, and I rolled randomly to determin which one you targeted. in both cases where spike was on the ground you targeted a square on the outside edge of the area. 3- NP. 4- Humm.... that never even occured to me. I would have to go back and check line of sight and all, and a spot check might have been needed to notice it. Either way, I don't think it would have pinpointed him, but it might have allowed you to expend one more charge off of the wand, with the luck you were having, LOL. And its no prob answering the questions. Your one of the few who still post there questions politely. Hope I have helped ya better understand my thought proccess while I was running this one. Now, I have a question for you. Did you read my and Cat's conversation about Hide from Undead? According to Cat, once he had it up, you should not have been able to hear him. I'm not sure though. Take a look at hide from undead and tell me what you think. If you think you shouldn't have been able to hear him, then you would have failed all those listen checks and never used your wand of faerie fire. If you think thats what should have happend, I have no problem with giving you the 4 charges back you used after the first round, if you shouldn't have used them. [edit]And btw, I'm going to bed now, so I'll check in again tomarrow morning. |
| Jindl03-20-04, 12:10 AM | 2. Well, I guess what I am asking is, if I know Spike is within 10 feet of a point in space, wouldn't I target my faerie fire within 5 feet of that point? I think you had Anna targetting the faerie fire 10 feet away, which doesn't make sense. The burst extends 5 feet in every direction, so you wouldn't aim it more than 5 feet from the point of sound, because you know the area would extend to the 10 feet from the point of sound. 4. Please do. If it turns out that Anna would have faerie fired him, it dramatically changes the fight (because of the shield spell.) 5. I also noticed that Spike was moving 60 feet a round and concentrating / taking a standard action. So, he was moving at full speed, which should have been a -5 to all his move silently checks. Wouldn't that mean that when Anna located him to 10 feet, she actually would have beaten his Move Silently by 5 more points (due to the speed penalty) and located him within 5 feet? And of course, if she locates him within 5 feet, then the faerie fire is automatic (a 5 foot burst can't miss if you're within 5 feet). Re: Hide from undead - Like you said, it is written "cannot see the target". It would seem that Intelligent undead are affected differently. -Jindl Good night. We can discuss this more tomorrow. I look forward to hearing your answers to 2,4, and 5. Thanks again! @All - Please feel free to join the conversation. If MotherBast and I wanted it to be a private discussion, we would have keep it to PM... |
| cellardweller03-20-04, 02:07 AM | Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket Not possible Cellar. You can't start ahead of the A or B. You must start on it and behind it for large creatures, which means you can't draw a straight line from Any point to Any point (as it states) to anything closer than X-3. I have this all drawn out and have gone over it many times. It's not possible. For all you newer Pitlords out there, i will repeat NOT POSSIBLE. -ToK The horse is [b]not[b] starting agead of the A or B. Hopefully the following diagram will illustrate why I beleive you are mistaken. x 3 2 1 - + 1 2 3 y 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 4 O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O -1 O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A O § O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O +1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 5 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O Hence it is possible to get to x=+-13 |
| Caterane03-20-04, 02:13 AM | Hide from undead - Like you said, it is written "cannot see the target". It would seem that Intelligent undead are affected differently. If they meant "See" ONLY then they would`ve clearly written it and added a line where they said "this overrides the text at the beginning". Or they would`ve said "Unintelligent undead cannot see, hear, or smell the warded..." Why should they express it in this confusing way if they distinguis between intelligent and unintelligent. Again (like with INA) you´re basing your arguments solely on a single word, turn it, bend it and break it until it suits your purposes. Come on guys! What`s up!? I`m really sorry to say such things but your reasonings - especially when your own character is involved - always let`s me shake my head. Hide from undead: Undead cannot see, hear, or smell the warded creatures. Even extraordinary or supernatural sensory capabilities, such as blindsense, blindsight, scent, and tremorsense, cannot detect or locate warded creatures. Nonintelligent undead creatures are automatically affected and act as though the warded creatures are not there. An intelligent undead creature gets a single Will saving throw. If it fails, the subject can’t see any of the warded creatures. However, if it has reason to believe unseen opponents are present, it can attempt to find or strike them. |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-20-04, 03:34 AM | Title says it all. Re-runs because a scroll was dropped and wanted a spot check? C'mon, that is really really a shameful act. Which is why i'm growing more in support of no re-runs. I just read hide from undead, and Anna shouldn't have gotten ANY listen checks whatsoever. Please please ppl, try to and manipulate things to this degree (a scroll dropping? oh my lord) is a sad day for the arena. If an error was made, and MB realizes it and learns from it fine. That is all and dandy and we live another day. But to re-run based on that? I think i'd puke if it actually was. Truely saddened and disillusioned at the length this is being taken to, -ToK |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-20-04, 04:06 AM | Originally posted by cellardweller The horse is not starting agead of the A or B. Hopefully the following diagram will illustrate why I beleive you are mistaken. x 3 2 1 - + 1 2 3 y 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 5 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 4 O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A § O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O -1 O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O O O A A A A A A A A A A A O § O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O B O O O O O O O O O O +1 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 2 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 3 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 4 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O § O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 5 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O @ O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O Hence it is possible to get to x=+-13 Now that i can agree with. It's possible to get to x-+13, but not base the opponent at the other end with a run action. To accomplish that a gladiator would need a light horse, horseshoes of speed, a reach weapon and successfully spur his mount. Or at least that's one way, and probably the quickest way for any gladiator to achieve this at lower levels. Thx for drawing that out Cellar. -ToK |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 07:13 AM | Tellish: Actually, Jindl has not once asked that this fight be reran. He is simply asking a few questions. Also, he has not once posted in an angry or upset manner. All in all, I belive he has conducted himself exactly as someone who has concerns about a fight should. Jindl: On to your points. 2- Yes, if you knew he was withen 10' of a certan point. That isen't how the listen checks work. You don't narrow it down to 10' from a certan point in your mind. On a grid you do, but in your head, you just narrow it down to a small list of targets, and each is as likely as the rest. As I said, you can't just target the inttermost area, knowing you burst will hit the outer edges. Each possible target must be just as likely as all the others, so you have just as large a chance to target the outside edge as the inside area. You narrowed it down to 20 targets, and I rolled a d20, exatly as the FAQ suggests. To have allowed Anna to target only the inner area would have been like allowing her to "know" that Spike is not on the outside edge, but will of course be at the center of the area. 4- Actually, as I pointed out at the end of the fight, even if Anna has sucessfuly faerie fired, the outcome of the fight would have been the same, all rolls being equal. Since Anna would have been unable to target Spikes Arrow with her TK, she would have then moved on the the melee stage of her tactics. She would have moved to attack him, and then his AoO for reach would have killed her, as (again, all rolls being the same) his attack would still be +14 without the charge, for a total of 29, which would hit your AC, witch would be 29 at that point. Actually, unable to see you to use his Spiritual weapons, he would probably have been reading the arrow, so he would have gotten 2 chances to hit you. Since he was at least 30' from the nearest cover, and his spell told him exactly where you were, the second you moved he would have seen you, so sneaking up on him was impossible at that point. 5- Your right, the listen checks should have been at -5. However, I have had a night to sleep on it, and I belive Cat and Tellish are correct. I was mistaken in my interpration of Hide from Undead, and there should have been no listen checks allowed at all. As such, the only attempt you should have made to use the wand was on the first round. The rest of the time you would just be ready for any sound or sight of him, since Anna had no idea why she couldn't see or hear him. In light of this error on my part, I belive you should recive all but one charge from the wand back. Cat: I wasen't trying to twist or bend any rules based on one word. You have to admit, just reading over the spell, at a glance it looks as though it works the way I ran it. Now that I studdy it closer I realize your right, but I had to study the spell for a few minutes to see the truth of it. This is the first time I have ever seen hide from undead used, in any game, and its the first time I read it in the PHB. At a glance, I belive anyone could have made the same mistake, because the spell isen't 100% clear. Now that I think about it now, I realize the part at the end is exclusive to intelegent udead because they would have means to locate a target even if it was hidden from them, through magical means, for instance, or having a non-undead point to it for them.... |
| Caterane03-20-04, 07:21 AM | @MB: :eek: You admit? Well, was the same with the mobility issue. If you`re going to take everything by the word and completely ignore common sense then you can interpret every spell one way or the other because any language isn`t perfect and neither are WotC. They can`t think of every possibility when writing their books. There`s one easy solution though: Just concur with me :D ...same goes for Jindl |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 07:38 AM | Lol. I concured with you about Mobility before I even ran the fights. Your conclusion was right, even if your reasons for drawing it were wrong. It was actually Jindl who pointed out the piece of evidence we were both missing that proved your conclusion. As far as for common sense, actually, it has been repeated over and over on these boards that common senee is the worst possible thing to apply to the D&D rules. After all, using common sense, a wizard would scribe his scrolls using all of his intelegence and feats, so the DCs wouldn't be at the minimum for every scroll he scribes. Using common sense, a barbarian with 40' movement should beat a rogue in a 100' race, but the rogue will win 20% more often due to having Improved Initative. As a matter of fact, Common Sense should be tossed completly out the window when dealing with any WotC product, because nothing about any of them makes any real sense at all. Reguardless, in any home game, the DM will always use "common sense" to adjucate any unclear area. When it comes to "offical" rule interpratation though, the prited word is supperior to all the common sense in the world. Litteral interpration is king, and common sense is a lowly pesent. |
| Battousai200503-20-04, 11:03 AM | Well, i don't suppose this makes much of a difference anymore. In my fight, something to note would be that a Warhorse has run as a feat. Meaning that it would be more likely for it to use its 5x move to get away rather then a standard move. Also, a retreat from combat requires the character use a double move, not a single. Again, as I saw that Heinrich was able to move 30 ft and attack with a bow without penalties. Thats a mistake. Even with a feat such as shot on the run, you incure a -2 penalty. The normal is -4 i believe. Otherwise, it was a well run fight. (sigh) I always seem to get to these discussions late. |
| Jindl03-20-04, 11:27 AM | @MB - 2. This point is irrelevant, since (if you guys are right) Anna should never had made listen checks. We can discuss using faerie fire later, to deal with invisible targets. 4. Please see below (#5) 5. So no listen checks. That means Anna continues to ready her faerie fire, until Spike drops the scroll. Then, if there is line of sight, she automatically spots the scroll as soon as it leaves his possession, and it triggers her readied action, which automatically hits him with the faerie fire (there is no way it could miss). Now, one of two things would happen: Either Anna can see Spike because of the faerie fire, or faerie fire doesn't overcome the hide from undead effect, and Anna cannot see Spike. If Anna see's the faerie fire on Spike, then she would buff with shield, then use Haste to fly at him and attack (it is a single move + attack, not a charge). So, her AC would be 29. And she would tumble past his reach (automatic), so no AoO. That means, she gets a hit (can only miss on a natural 1), then Spike would get a full attack. His first attack would be 15 +9 bab +5 str +1 magic -4 improvised = 26, a miss. Note: he lost his height bonus because both are flying at the same height, he lost his invis bonus because he is faerie fired, and he lost his charging bonus because he is not charging. After Spike misses his first attack, he gets another but only at a +6, which means he needs a natural 20 to hit. Then, Anna gets a hasted/two-weapon fighting full attack at +11/+11/+11 (can only miss on a natural 1). So, Spike ends up taking 4d4 Charisma damage before he gets a second attack at full Bab. If faerie fire illuminates him, there is no question it changes the outcome of the fight. If Hide from Undead overrides faerie fire, then Anna knows she hit the right target, but her tactic is nullified. Then she would proceed with the next tactic, casting sheild, and readying within cover to attack when she can find him. So, when Spike charges, Anna has a shield running and is AC 32, so he misses his charge attack (see previous posts). Anna's readied attack goes off, and since it only misses on a 1, Spike takes 1d4 Charisma damage. Then Anna is reset to be before Spike in intitiative. So she gets a a hasted full attack +11/+11/+11 and can only miss on a natural 1. Spike takes another 3d4 Charisma damage and likely loses before he gets another attack. If the faerie fire tactic is nullified, then casting shield changes the outcome of the fight. All in all, I think that if Anna has line of sight to the scroll when it leaves Spikes possession, then the fight would not have ended on Spike's first attack. So, that is my question, which I am asking MotherBast to consider. @Tellish - You're scoffing at what you think is a simple mistake. And while it is an easy mistake to have made, it is obviously fight altering. It's up to MotherBast whether he wants to correct this. Personally, I think Pitlords should have the option to correct fights where an error changed the outcome. I don't like seeing re-runs for minor stuff, but it is better than not being able to fix the outcome altering stuff. I think back to the old times, when no re-runs ever happened. It was bad. Remember how upset Cat was when I allowed a CDG against a stunned Harvester? That was his first loss and I couldn't fix it because there were no re-runs. Or how about when Mo messed up Jindl's first match against Skymoon? That was Jindl's first loss and it wasn't fixed despite having major errors, because of the no rerun policy. Allowing the Pitlord the descretion to fix major mistakes is important to fairness. And fairness keeps the arena fun, and keeps players interested. I will strongly support the Pitlords final decision in these matters. They have the descretion to fix mistakes and I think our Pitlords are good enough to know whether something needs to be fixed. I also think players should be polite and courteous when exploring these things with their Pitlords. I see too much frustration and anger in these discussions. Hopefully others can take the example that MotherBast and I are trying to set, and hold civil and polite conversations to explore these kind of things. I think Pitlords should have the power and right to fix things. But I encourage them to only spend the time doing this when it is a major / fight altering error. -Jindl |
| Caterane03-20-04, 11:45 AM | Reguardless, in any home game, the DM will always use "common sense" to adjucate any unclear area. When it comes to "offical" rule interpratation though, the prited word is supperior to all the common sense in the world. Litteral interpration is king, and common sense is a lowly pesent. Yeah, and that`s the way you make your votes. Pick one word in the text and interpret it in a slightly different way, just a small turn and the meaning changes - now that`s easy isn`t it? I tell you what the king is: Balance! And cheesy munchkinism is the terror organization, the mafia, the thiefs guild, trying to destroy the arena just to pull out advantages left and right until we have to firm the fourth approach on an arena thread. But I assure you this is not going to happen. You cheesed your way through in the INA debate and I hoped that was the last time we`ve seen this but no: scroll reading dire bears, arrow deflecting ghosts, feats becoming effects, the list goes on and on and everything is of course in the name of litteral interpretation. I tell you that: if there weren`t those who oppose such behaviour then the CoCo would soon face the same fates as its predecessors faced because everyone would just bend and break the words to power up his character, and everytime another portion of the CoCo dies. |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 12:04 PM | Cat: Your exagerating. Plus, your exagerations are based on your belief that your oppinion was correct in every example given. Honestly, what are the odds that you are always right? I mean, just think about that for a second. As far as finding ways to bend/brake the rules, that isen't the purpose. But, the arena is to test Min/Maxed builds. The number one way to Maxamize a build is to make it as strong as the rules will possably alow. That dosen't mean breaking the rules. To use one of your examples. Anna has a weakness. Undead Slaying Arrows. To effectivaly Maxamize his character, Jindl must find a way to minimize this weakness. deflect arrows is an exelent counter. So, he must find a way to be able to deflect arrows withen the core rules. With that in mind, he decides to combine a level of monk to get the feat with the purchase of an etheral weapon he can use on his hand to deflect arrows. That is in no way bending or breaking any rules. It is simply good Min/Maxing, and the very thing the arena was orrigonaly created to promote. Try to remember that this orrignated on the MIN/MAX thread, and the character are supposed to be as Maxamized as we can make them. As far as INA goes, its not just the people on the CoCo, but most of the people on the MIN/MAX and Feats threads also belive this works. Monk builds with INA have been around since INA was created. It isen't something a contengent of us decided "hey, lets vote this through so we can use it." The vast majority of people on the threads belive that "by the rules", INA works. Thats what matters, what the rules support. In the arena, we must always use the interpration that the rules most strongly support. In the case of INA, the vast majority belive the rules most strongly support its use. And I do make my votes based on "litteral interpration." If you are not doing so, then all of your votes thus far have been influenced by opinion, and I would strongly suggest to you to reconcider them. Again I remind you, Logic, and Opinion have absolutly NO place in a descussion about what the rules alow. Only the rules themselves can dictate what they do and do not allow. Applying any outside force, such as logic, or oppinion, changes the product. You must instead attempt to study the problem as if it is in a void. It should be complete in and of itself, without any outside influence. That is the way I looked at the INA issue, and that is the reason I cast my vote the way I did. Above, you stated that you don't think "litteral interpration" should be king, but that it should be Balance. That leads me to belive you cast your vote based not on an examination of just exatly what the letter of the rules stated, but more on your own oppinion of what is balenced. That alone makes your entire argument flawed. No rules interpration should ever, ever, and I repeat ever be made based on what someone belives is "balanced." That is opinion. That would fall under the heading of a "House rule", which is when you "fix" something to be balenced in your own game. Your own opinion should never even be a concederation when your discussing what the rules themselves do and do not actually allow. |
| Caterane03-20-04, 12:36 PM | I see two problems: 1. You assume that the litteral interpretion is always clear and obvious which isn`t always the case. 2. You assume that WotC made sure every word is perfectly written but that isnt the case either. They didn`t doublecheck every single word jsut to make sure there`s no way of optional interpretation. They assumed that it is clear and understandable enough so that no one comes along and "interpretes" it another way; see Hide from undead "Oh they wrote 'see' instead of 'preceive' so 90% of the spell description is null and void but hey: litteral interpretation is the king!" Sure. |
| Magagumo03-20-04, 12:37 PM | Jeez, Death Ward is ridiculous... but I do have a slight problem with sending me charging into combat.... I guess it's all sour grapes, but having the archer hide patiently in the shadows until his opponent is forced to emerge is far more along my tactics then charging into combat where I am automatically spotted, ne? *Sighs* I hold it to you how you want to handle this, but honestly, sending me into atatck with my Falchion is foolish, even if I can't strike Johan. After all, I had time till his spiders found me, and Umbra was quite successfully draining them without being hurt... I hate to force things, but would you mind re-running this? Also, if you think I'm just stalling, then have Zorander start to shoot the minions after 10 rounds of waiting, eh can mvoe and shoto and they will have dififculty staying close. Mobility makes my AC pleasant, and being that they all have Magic DR, I can hurt them easily enough. Eventually, Johan is going to have to leave his WInd Wall, because he'll need to kill me somehow, and his summons are going to be dead... Edit 2: Alright, so I noted to not attack the summons ever, I guess I'll stop complaining, but please do not send an archer into melee when he can clearly hide. If my tactics were so broken down, then keep him to what he's good at (hold action to attack Johan when winds die down), don't make him fight in melee... I'm disappointed in myself for not predicting tactics better.... I withdraw a "demand" for re-run, and wish to hear sshuit's take on his fight, I still believe that Zorander could have better success if he remains hidden, but I'm willing to hear other arguements, etc. |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 12:39 PM | Now for Jindl and Tellish. Orrigonaly, we lifted the NO Rerun ban only for fights where the error made would have resulted in a different winner in the fight almost certanly. Minor errors, which probably would not have effected the outcome of the fight were never even concidered. The reruns stuff came about after the "error point" idea was kicked around. Then someone decided that "hey, I can just fix my fight." And so they did. Then, it got more and more prevalent untill people begain to expect fights to be reran if an error was made. This is the thing that needs to be stoped. The expectation of a rerun. As a matter of fact, a simple way to stop it would be to completly forbid anyone from asking for a rerun, or even mentioning a rerun. Errors could be pointed out, and if the Pitloard feels the fights end result would have been different, then its up to him wether or not to do a rerun, but it should still be strongly discouraged. I have already resolved that I will not ask for a rerun again. The only time I ever mentioned rerun was the bag of choaking a sneezing issue with Brackin, and in that post I specificly said I did not demand a rerun, but that I wanted the issue noted for any future fight Brackin was involved in. Now, on to Jindls points. 2- Ok, moving on then. 4- Ok, moving on then. 5- Humm... I have concidered it. First, Spike would have retained the hight bonus, no matter what, as you would have been approching from below him, you would have made your attack from directly below him. Second, I belive the light from Faerie fire could be seen, even with his hide from Undead. It isen't part of him, and under invis it states that invisable objects that shed light still shed light, and the effect is light with no visable sorce. That is what I belive Anna would see, were she to have successfuly faerie fired Spike. Looking at the map, Anna would have had line of sight to the scroll as it droped. She could have targeted it, and might have sucessfully faerie fired Spike. (I say might because she could have failed her activation of the wand, as she did 2 other times in that fight. It was being quite tricky that day.) That having been done, she would have cast shield and then moved through the ground to get close to spike. Spike would know where Anna was, but would not be able to see her. He would have readied the arrow and waited. Anna would have made her approch, and as you pointed out, avoid any AoO due to tumble. Spike would have made his Readied attack. 15 + 9 + 5 + 1 + 1 - 4 = 27 vs. AC 29, and missed. You would make your touch attack, and then he would full attack you. I do not know how his full attack would have resolved. Then you, if still alive, would make your full attack, and probably render him Cha 0, and go on to kill him. Still, I don't know if you would automaticly spot the scroll the second it left Spike's hand, or while it was on its way to the ground. The rules don't really cover this. It seems to me to spot it the second it left his hand you would have to be already looking in that spot. As the listen checks you made before were all in error, you really had no idea where Spike was at all, and would not have been focused on that spot. Then, there is the 10% chance the wand dosen't activate. And then there is the chance that Spike kills you with his full attack, even if he is faerie fired. All in all, I don't thing the visable scroll was a big enough certantly in effecting the outcome of the fight that it bears rerunning. |
| barrel_master03-20-04, 12:45 PM | Originally posted by Caterane Yeah, and that`s the way you make your votes. Pick one word in the text and interpret it in a slightly different way, ... And cheesy munchkinism is the terror organization, the mafia, the thiefs guild, trying to destroy the arena ... You cheesed your way through in the INA debate and I hoped that was the last time we`ve seen this but no: scroll reading dire bears, arrow deflecting ghosts, feats becoming effects, the list goes on and on Stop flaming people. |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 12:46 PM | Cat: No doubt WotC didn't check the books well enough. But again, if they made an error, then that error becomes part of the rules untill it is fixed. So if they wrote in the books that halflings have a 90' fly speed, untill that gets errataed, by the rules halflings have a 90' fly speed. I, of course, would house rule this right out in my games, in the intrest of balance of corse, but the "official ruling" would be they had the fly speed untill it was corrected. And yes, of course the book isen't 100% clear, thats why we have rules discussions and votes. But you assume that if someone doesn't see it your way, they are trying to bend or break the rules. I am only trying to point out that you based your past votes on "opinion." Others based theres entirely on the letter of the rules. I'm not saying everyone does, I'm just trying to help you see that just because someone doesn't agree with you dosen't mean that they are cheating, or bending any rules. Strictly by the rules, they could be correct, even if in your "opinion", that isen't what the rules ment to confer. Edit: And as for saying that I "cheesed" my way through the INA debate... That, Cat, was a personal attack. At least I took it as such. I did not "cheese" my way through anything. Heck, I was not even the main proponet of INA... and I was on the side of not only 3 other elders, but the majoraty of the CoCo, and the majority of the boards in general. To say I "cheesed" my way through leads me to think you are suggesting that I didn't really think that INA worked, and only voted that way so I could use it in the CoCo. That is completly untrue. As I said before, I DM, and in my games, I have always alowed INA. I firmly belive that the letter of the rules supports INA, and my oppinion had nothing to do with the way I interprated those rules. I don't care if INA is balanced, I only cared what the rules supported. That is how I voted. I have no problem with continuing this discussion with you. Discussion is healthy, and I enjoy debate, but far to often you resort to assumptions about the person you debate with, and more rarely personal affronts aginst them Cat. I will not continue this discussion if you make one more of either twords me. If you do, I will withdraw from the conversation all together rather than say something that could upset you, or others on the CoCo, and possably sour our relationship in the future. |
| sshuit03-20-04, 12:50 PM | @mag : I'm just curious what your preferred strategy would have been if you had not charged into combat. I would prefer not to do a re-run mainly because I do not think the outcome would realistically change. The way I see it he would have had time to summon 3 spiders, 3 griffons, d3 lantern archons, d3 more griffons, d3 wolves, 3 spiritual weapons and then sent them en masse to find and kill you. I really doubt that you could have taken them all on if you had adopted a hide and wait tactic. You need a way to kill him. Otherwise its just delaying the inevitable. sshuit |
| Caterane03-20-04, 12:54 PM | @Barrel: No problem, MB likes to chat, right MB :) Back to the flaming... @MB: I never said that I base my decisions on opinion, nor was that the case at any one time. But if there are two ways on how to interpret it I use the most balanced one and not the one that best suits my character. And about word bending: you told us that EVERY creature has natural weapons and then I read throughout the whole books things like Monster Manual, p167 A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack or its natural weapons (if it has any) "If it has any". Why did they write that when every creature has Natural weapons anyway? Throughout the whole book are examples and mentionings like that. Just one example. And WotC also wrote crafting is half price and not 7/10, just one of many houserules. Like with a campaign, if there´s something not working, not balanced then we houserule it. It`s not any different here. |
| Magagumo03-20-04, 12:59 PM | @sshuit Have to agree with the fact that I couldn't hide forever, but I was well-entrenched at that point. As they were disregarding Umbra, he was starting to pick them off with his draining touch, leaving many corpses in his wake, potentially. I suppose the thing that would make the difference is if I attacked his summons, but I understand that I foolishly said not to, so I don't blame you for saying I shouldn't (should have drawn a difference between attacking an animal and attacking an angel/outsider ;)). I wondered if taking to the air would help, but I realize that Johan created a square Wind wall... so there are no good avenues for attack. If given the opportunity to shoot the summons, I have a feeling that Umbra and I could pick them off before I am completely swarmed, and taking to the air means I only have to deal with griffons that get one attack per round, and which I can begin to kill... as could Umbra.. However, in fairness to cellardweller and his strong character, I would accede to the original running, as I declined to attack the summons. I will accept my loss, and the use of one arrow, and will be less idiotic in the future (or will attempt to be in any case). Congrats, cellar, I'm glad I had a chance to fight a new build, even if it reamed me horribly... ;) Edit: Actually, Cat, the 7/10s rule comes from NPCs who can craft items. Since they wouldn't be spending exp, they isntead pay 5 gp for every exp, whic means they end up paying 7/10s of the market price. |
| sshuit03-20-04, 01:02 PM | @mag. Thanks for understanding. I'm pretty sure a rerun would not have changed the outcome, just taken a lot of time! Start plotting for the rematch! sshuit |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 01:04 PM | Cat, read what I have edited my above post to say. Now, as far as for this most recent post, I do indeed like to chat, and you are one of my favorite people to debate with. As for your second point, I never said every creature has natural attacks. I said the the PHB says that an unarmed strike is a natural attack, so any creature that can make an unarmed strike has a natural attack. Still, lets move this away fromt he closed INA issue, and back to the issue we were really discussing.... which was.... Humm.... I seem to have forgotten..... Oh yes... wether or not the letter of the rules is more important than balance... In my own games, I would vote balance, but for the purpose of "offical rulings." the letter of the rules is the most important thing. I don't see how that is even negotiable. You say that when a rule can be interprated in two different ways, you go with whichever one is more balanced. That is a mistake.... the one you go with should be the one that is "most strongly" supported by the rules. In the case were either interpration could be equaly supported, then I would seek a few other opinions, and see what light they could shed on the problem. We do that with the polls. After all that, if the rules still show that either interpration is equaly supported, then you can pick which one suits you for your game. That is also done with polls here. In the INA example we have been using, I saw a strong case for why INA should not be allowed. On the other hand, I saw a stronger case for why it should, so I voted in favor, because the rules supporting it made a stronger case. Others did the same. Some probably voted opinion. People will do that. I didn't. So just because it isn't balanced, dosen't mean it isen't right. |
| Druid Roxors03-20-04, 01:52 PM | @ Motherbast: When Aiki tried to escape the vines, he rolled for Escape artist and succeeded, then moved. An escape artist roll to escape is a Rull round action, as per the spell description. The wording might be confusing about the "Move at half speed" but Clearly, It wouldn't require a full round action. They would have placed escaping as a standard action. Also, Why didn't he have to escape both entangle spells? Being entangled by a spell and a net requires 2 saves, being entangled by 2 spells should also require 2 saves. (Unless there is an obscure rule im missing) In any case, Thanks for running the fight! |
| ^Rayne^03-20-04, 01:57 PM | MotherBast, Thanks for running the fight. Sorry about my confusing tactics. After I sent them to you I knew there was som conflicting stuff, but I thought, oh well. The tactics to shoot the hippogriff should have been erased but I had forgotten to go back and delete that section. As for fighting the the wolf and the summons at the same time I thought I made it clear that Aiki would use full defense till the summons were gone. I guess with all the things left to interpret this is my fault. Sorry again about my tactics. As for healing you were right to guess I didn't want to do that. I didn't have Aiki holding any potions to heal if I remember right and I didn't want him to heal so this was intentional on my part. One thing I don't get is how that hippogriff managed to get in charge distance? I didn't ever want Aiki to be in range for this sort of thing to happen which was why I stressed always having him as far away as possible. He had plenty of time after escaping the vines to move as far away from the caster as possible. I stressed 215' as the distance I wanted to maintain. Still my tactics were a little messed up. Sorry again. |
| Druid Roxors03-20-04, 02:21 PM | @ Rayne: Hyppogriphs charge 200ft + the range of the Summon spell. Which is probably what happened. |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-20-04, 03:41 PM | @Tellish - You're scoffing at what you think is a simple mistake. And while it is an easy mistake to have made, it is obviously fight altering. It's up to MotherBast whether he wants to correct this. Personally, I think Pitlords should have the option to correct fights where an error changed the outcome. I don't like seeing re-runs for minor stuff, but it is better than not being able to fix the outcome altering stuff. I think back to the old times, when no re-runs ever happened. It was bad. Remember how upset Cat was when I allowed a CDG against a stunned Harvester? That was his first loss and I couldn't fix it because there were no re-runs. Or how about when Mo messed up Jindl's first match against Skymoon? That was Jindl's first loss and it wasn't fixed despite having major errors, because of the no rerun policy. Allowing the Pitlord the descretion to fix major mistakes is important to fairness. And fairness keeps the arena fun, and keeps players interested. I will strongly support the Pitlords final decision in these matters. They have the descretion to fix mistakes and I think our Pitlords are good enough to know whether something needs to be fixed. I also think players should be polite and courteous when exploring these things with their Pitlords. I see too much frustration and anger in these discussions. Hopefully others can take the example that MotherBast and I are trying to set, and hold civil and polite conversations to explore these kind of things. I think Pitlords should have the power and right to fix things. But I encourage them to only spend the time doing this when it is a major / fight altering error. @Jindl: of course Jindl any error can be potentially "fight altering" and i'm not scoffing. But what i'm talking about is deliberate manipulation to be favorable to you. Since when in all the fights anyone has ever run, where an invisible opponent cast a scroll and was automatically pin-pointed for discarding it? C'mon really? And i'm not upset, i'm just being passionate. hehe And what i've been saying all along is almost exactly what you just said so that reinforces it, cool. But the trend i'm seeing is that any little error, or a "new-error-found-through-loop-hole-where-none-existed-before" is grounds for re-runs. No one likes losing, especially when an error is involved, but we've all been there and taken our lumps. You've been in since the beginning and have both won and lost from errors. It's never pretty. What i'm also wanting to mention is that this cycle we are engaging is never ending. It's extremely tough to run a perfectly clean fight. We've all made fight altering mistakes, and i don't think anyone feels good about them. But we try to learn and not repeat them. On the "setting an example and being civil", i totally agree. It's not about the being civil though. You guys are being more than civil, that's not in dispute. A devil will look you straight in the eye and be civil while barganing for your soul, and other than many months ago, i'm generally always civil. I don't think you meant it to say that i wasn't, but just wanted to make sure. Kudos for civility. :) -ToK |
| sshuit03-20-04, 04:38 PM | Just reading the Kiowen vs Grym fight and I had a question. When you are grappling and have multiple attacks due to high BAB you get to make grapple checks at sucessively lower bonuses to damage your opponent. so for example I might have +15 on my 1st check +10 on my second and +5 on my 3rd (just an example) If I'm grappling a crappy wizards with no multiple attacks (Say his grapple check modifier is a pathetic +8 or so.....) Do the checks go +15 vs +8, +10 vs +8, +5 vs +8 or +15 vs +8, +10 vs +3, +5 vs -2 I suspect its the former but I'd love to hear from the rules experts. sshuit |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 05:55 PM | sshuit: its the former. Rayne: After you escaped the grapple you double moved away both times, along the edge of the arena. Still, his position in the arena ment that you could not get out of his range untill you were to the very top of the arena, which took you a few rounds. Enven then, he was able to easly cut you off. The hippo charged you because after it appeared 35' from him, it was less than 100' from you, so it was withen charge range. You would have needed at least 3 more double moves to have been out of the hippo's charge range when it was summoned. I realize your tactics stressed keeping distance, but when he was halfway to across your side of the arena, you would have needed to move all the way to the other side to get away. The entangles just slowed you down to much. Druid: First, it was a full round action to make the escape artist check, but the entangle spell says he may move half his speed if the check is successful, as part of that same full round action. He "breaks free and moves half his speed." Thats why he was able to move away. The reason he only made one save is because the effects don't stack. I pointed that out in red on your tactis. If they stacked, then two entangels would be fight ending, as he would make a full round action aginst the first, but still be entangled by the second, and so couldn't move. Next round, he escapes the second, but now hes entangled by the first again..... that would be a great combo, but unfortunatly, it dosen't work. If he makes one check, that check is to "break entangle." If he succeeds, he is no longer entangled, no matter how many entangels were on him. He would still need to make two saves the following round to avoid being entangled, but luckly for Aiki, he did. |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 05:55 PM | sshuit: its the former. Rayne: After you escaped the grapple you double moved away both times, along the edge of the arena. Still, his position in the arena ment that you could not get out of his range untill you were to the very top of the arena, which took you a few rounds. Enven then, he was able to easly cut you off. The hippo charged you because after it appeared 35' from him, it was less than 100' from you, so it was withen charge range. You would have needed at least 3 more double moves to have been out of the hippo's charge range when it was summoned. I realize your tactics stressed keeping distance, but when he was halfway to across your side of the arena, you would have needed to move all the way to the other side to get away. The entangles just slowed you down to much. Druid: First, it was a full round action to make the escape artist check, but the entangle spell says he may move half his speed if the check is successful, as part of that same full round action. He "breaks free and moves half his speed." Thats why he was able to move away. The reason he only made one save is because the effects don't stack. I pointed that out in red on your tactis. If they stacked, then two entangels would be fight ending, as he would make a full round action aginst the first, but still be entangled by the second, and so couldn't move. Next round, he escapes the second, but now hes entangled by the first again..... that would be a great combo, but unfortunatly, it dosen't work. If he makes one check, that check is to "break entangle." If he succeeds, he is no longer entangled, no matter how many entangels were on him. He would still need to make two saves the following round to avoid being entangled, but luckly for Aiki, he did. |
| ^Rayne^03-20-04, 06:05 PM | Motherbast, thanks for taking the time to explain everything. I should have been better in my tactics but I wanted to use run actions when necessary to get the appropriate distance away which would have given Aiki the space he needed in time. However this is something that you couldn't have guessed and I didn't make my tactics clear enough. When I sat down to write them I started to change my mind on what to do as I was writing them and I forgot to go back and delete some of the stuff that I didn't want to use. It is my fault that you didn't know to use run actions, also one other thing I definitely didn't want to do was ever drop my bow. I should have written this too because the last thing I would want is to have tactics using a ranged weapon and then have no range weapon to use. Still you did the best you could interpretting my fangled up mess. I will try in the future not to make so many blunders without fixing the errors first. Again I appreciate you taking the time to explain things to me. I look forward to having you run some of my PC's fights in the future. I think Aiki is cursed to have himself smashed over and over again on the arena. I bet the second the audience realizes who is about to fight they are betting on how long he will last before he dies and not if he will actually win or not. LOL oh well, maybe I'll come up with some more clever tactics in the future. Rayne |
| MotherBast03-20-04, 06:15 PM | Rayne: NP, and don't worry about loosing. Rito looses more than anyone else, but is still everyone's favorit gladiator, including mine. I created Brackin's storyline around him, and have mentioned Rito in more fights than any other gladiator. |
| honeynuggets03-20-04, 06:42 PM | While using the ground for cover (and remaining hidden) use my TK to try and violently throw 12 of Spike's arrows. My target will be a high section on a column (preferably a column on my side of Spike, and a section at least 100 feet up.) As the arrows are possessions of Spike, he gets a single Will Save (remember he has a +13 and the DC is 21). If he fails the save, then the arrows would be destroyed if they hit the column (per the SRD: An arrow that hits its target is destroyed), or take >10d6 from falling if it misses. The falling damage should be enough to break the arrows (Hardness 5 or 7 for the magic one, HitPoints 1 or 11 for the magic one). This tactic wasn't used in the fight but I don't think it would work. The DMG text implies that only creatures take damage from falls not durable objects. The Telekinesis spell description also says that hurled objects deal damage but it doesn't mention them taking damage. And specifically mentions that "if a telekinesed creature is hurled against a solid surface it takes damage as if it had fallen 10 ft (1d6 points). It would say "if a telekinesed object or creature is hurled...." if Telekinesis hurled forcefully enough to damage durable objects. In the DMG it also says that "Objects weighing less than 1 pound do not deal damage to those they land upon no matter how far they have fallen." If they don't deal damage then they can't be damaged. So an arrow would not take damage from a fall. As for the Faerie Fire...a 5 ft burst affects four 5 ft sqaures (P. 307 DMG) so in three dimensions that would be twelve 5 ft squares. I'm not familiar with any partial Listen success rules...I thought you had to beat the Move Silent or Listen DC by 20 to pinpoint otherwise you have no clue. |
| honeynuggets03-20-04, 08:24 PM | Round 5 Core moves through the mist, to near the other edge. He sees Aiki, who he knows can not see him. Aiki continues to cautiously circle the arena. Again, if you can see out of the fog then others can see you too. In fog you have total concealment when there is 10 ft of fog between you and the target. If you are on the edge of fog and able to see outside of it then you are only 5 ft within the fog and only have partial concealment. |
| Druid Roxors03-20-04, 09:38 PM | Originally posted by honeynuggets Again, if you can see out of the fog then others can see you too. In fog you have total concealment when there is 10 ft of fog between you and the target. If you are on the edge of fog and able to see outside of it then you are only 5 ft within the fog and only have partial concealment. Ill refer you to the Answer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=2805156#post2805156) to the same question but asked 2 weeks ago. |
| KerlanRayne03-20-04, 10:41 PM | Originally posted by Druid Roxors Ill refer you to the Answer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=2805156#post2805156) to the same question but asked 2 weeks ago. I remember this answer but am unable to find it in the rules. I can't find anywhere that you draw the line to the center of the square, only the corners. Where did you find this? KerlanRayne |
| sshuit03-21-04, 12:06 AM | @kerlan. I don't think Motherbast's interpretation is exactly right actually. The rules for cover state PHB Pg.150 "To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to ANY CORNER of your target's square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, the target has cover." So it seems that you measure from any corner to any corner to determine if cover is available. The rules for obscuring mist are different though. If you are anywhere in the mist then all opponents even 5' away from you have a 20%miss chance. (per the spell description) any opponents further away than 5' suffer as if you had total concealment. So the way I would say it works is. If you are in the mist. If your opponent is within 5' of you then you have 20% concealment and 20% miss chance. You can see them normally and have no miss chance unless they too are in the mist. If your opponent is >5' from you then you have total concealment and 50% miss chance. You can only see them if you are at the edge squares and not looking through another square of mist. Does this sound right or totally wrong? |
| Jindl03-21-04, 01:18 AM | Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket @Jindl: of course Jindl any error can be potentially "fight altering" and i'm not scoffing. But what i'm talking about is deliberate manipulation to be favorable to you. Since when in all the fights anyone has ever run, where an invisible opponent cast a scroll and was automatically pin-pointed for discarding it? C'mon really? And i'm not upset, i'm just being passionate. hehe Just to be clear, it wasn't that he cast from a scroll and discarded it. He cast a silence spell on a scroll, then 2 rounds later, he discarded it intentionally. A scroll is an item that is about the size of an Owl. According to the rules, you would automatically spot it when it became visible, if you had line of sight (just like you would spot Bubo as he flew more than 5 ft away from an invisible Elder). It becomes visible as soon as it leaves his possession (which I think means as soon as he drops it). This is no small matter, and is something that invisible characters should be aware of. Locating you by the litter you drop is a legitimate tactic. @MB - You mentally went through the same scenario I did. I don't understand why Spike retains his height bonus? Since I am moving and attacking, why do I have to attack from below? It's not a charge - so it doesn't have to be a straight line. Couldn't Anna fly up to his level and then tumble within his reach to attack from the same altitude? Also, he can't ready an action to attack me, when he is concentrating to maintain his detect undead used up his standard action. So, those minor parts of the mental run-through are off. But, regarding the percentages, you're right. There is a 10% chance Anna fails to activate the wand. Although in the fight, she succeeded in activating it after her ready, and I assumed you would use the same rolls if you did re-run it. So I thought that would mean the roll already indicated it would activate. There is no question that she would get Spike in the faerie fire. The targetting is simple and automatic because she sees the scroll as soon as it leaves his possessionm triggering her readied action. Her tumble check is also automatic. She can only miss her attack on a natural 1, and then Spike makes his first attack (missing by 2) and he gets his second attack (can only hit on a natural 20). Then Anna full attacks (+11/+11/+11) and can only miss on a natural 1. While there are some small miss chances, or a very small chance Spike hits with his iterative attack (natural 20), I think the odds very strongly favor Anna in this situation. If you don't think so, I can respect that. But this is a significant issue, and one which I think would have changed the outcome. It also brings into play some game mechanics which we often ignore ... namely on the invisibility issue I responded to Tellish about. Gladiators need to be aware that discarded items can give away your position. Sure its nice to use a free action to drop the used scroll, but that is something which can give away your location. In Spike's case, he did it deliberately to escape his own silence effect. He gained a benefit from holding the scroll (he could move in utter silence) and yet was not penalized when he dropped it. Well, that's about it for my arguments and discussion. I think I made a pretty good case regarding this issue. If you don't think it warrants a correction, then I'll respect that. But I think it does. -Jindl |
| MotherBast03-21-04, 08:54 AM | Ok, my previous explanation of the concealment bonus was a little off. You do not draw the line to the center of your targets square, only a corner. However, I will direct everyone to page 152 in the PHB. When determining if your target has concealment, follow this guideline. “….choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment. ….your target has concealment if his space is entirely withen an effect that grants concealment…” So, your standing 10’ in mist. You target someone outside the mist, and draw the line. It passes through the space right in front of you, and then doesn’t pass through any more mist. So, your target has one space of cover between you and him. He has 20% concealment. Now, said target draws the same line back to you, and passes through the same space that grants concealment. But this time, he draw the line to a space that is also in concelment. Since he passes through one space of concelment, and the target is in a square that is “entirely withen an effect that grants concealment” he now has 2 concealment effects. According to the spell description, 1 space = 20%, 2 spaces = total. So targeting outside of the mist your target has 20% concealment, but targeting inside, the target has total concealment, as long as he is 10’ in the mist. Hope that helps. Jindl: It would have had a huge impact on the fight, that dropping of the scroll. To me, it really just dosen't seem fair to penalize Market for it, since invisable wizards have been droping used scrolls since the begining of the arena. If that were going to give him away, his character should have known about it. A precident should have been set long ago. It wouldn't be fair to punish him for doing what others have done all along. If he had known the scroll would give him away, I a sure he would have cast the silence on an area of space instead. If I had known the scroll would give him away, I would have told him that when he said to do it in his tactics and I'm sure he would have changed it. I do agree though that droped scrolls should give away the invisable creature. In the future, now that the error is known, I belive wizards should be unable to drop scrolls while invis, and the scroll not be seen. Still, it would be unfair to "make an example" out of Market. In the future, however, if anyone sends me a tactic to drop scrolls, or any gear, while invisable, I will alert them to the concequences and give them a chance to change the tactic. |
| honeynuggets03-21-04, 06:34 PM | To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment. PHB p. 152 I think I have found the source of the confusion. The rules for choosing corners and drawing lines are designed to determine if concealment exists "at all." In your examples the line drawing merely confirms that they have concealment. The spell however specifies varying degrees of concealment. Situation 1: Druid is 5 ft inside the fog and the Foe is adjacent to him. Druid is "entirely within an effect that grants concealment" PHB so he gets some type of concealment against the foe. The Foe is not entirely within an effect that grants concealment so he doesn't get concealment vs the Druid. The spell further specifies that the amount of concealment granted to someone adjacent and within obscuring mist is 20%. Situation 2: Druid is 10 ft inside the fog and the Foe is adjacent to the fog in the same spot. Druid chooses one of the front corners of his square. All the lines to the foe's corners cross through a single square of fog. This rule simply confirms that both of them have concealment against each other. The spell however clearly states that "The vapor obscures all sight beyond 5 feet." It doesn't matter that the foe is not in the fog. They both have total concealment when there is a single square of fog between them. In fact, if they were both in clear air separated only by a 5 foot square of Obscuring Mist they would still have total concealment against each other since it "obscures all vision beyond 5 feet." You simply can't see through a whole square of Obscuring Mist. Situation 1 remains a good tactic since you keep 20% concealment while he gets none. PS. If any rule experts want to weight in on my nice jpg picture of Darkvision vs Hide check question then thanks. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2917702#post2917702 |
| MotherBast03-21-04, 09:10 PM | Honey: The spell does say it obscures all sight beyond 5'. By that it means if you are looking through only 5' of mist, you can still see beyond. But, if 6' of mist is between what you and what your looking at you can't see it. It does not meen that if 5' of mist is in front of you, you can't see whats behind it. The "obscures beyond 5'" is refering to someone looking into the mist. As long as you don't try to look through more than 5' of mist, you can see out of the mist. If your 10' in the mist, and looking out, you can use on of your corners that is only 5' from the edge of the mist, so when you look, your not looking "beyond 5' into mist." your looking exactly 5' into mist, and then there is no more mist. Since you do not look "beyond 5'" into mist, your fine. I do see now where you were drawing your conclusion from. The spell is not clear. I just never looked at it the way you did before. I'm sure, though, if you will ask the rules experts, (Jindl and Tellish) they will tell you exactly the same thing I outlined above. |
| cellardweller03-21-04, 09:15 PM | Shiaan vs Ilmanur spoilers . . . . . . Originally posted by Druid Roxors Round 2: Flamestrike picks the bard's scent. Knowing that her lance will be useless within the mists (Reach weapons are treated as ranged weapons for purposes of concealment effects, you will have to attack at 10ft, with 50% concealment chance and without your horse), Shiaan draws her Great sword. The tactics submitted were based around using the lance's reach, by dropping it, you have effectively thrown them in the bin. Flamestrike would have gotten a full attack and Shiaan would have gotten two attacks (1 readied + 1 AoO from movement/casting) making it statistically better than a single strike with the greatsword and potentially disruptping spellcasting. With Lance/Towershield in hand, all but one of Ilmanur's attacks would have missed. Unless tactics have been negated, you should stick to them. As far as rule errors, there was a missed full attack from flamestrike on round 9 and a tumble check is required for each opponent (with a +2 DC for each opponent after the first). Nothing major. |
| Rozman03-21-04, 11:48 PM | Shiaan vs Ilmanur spoilers * * * * * * Originally posted by cellardweller Flamestrike would have gotten a full attack and Shiaan would have gotten two attacks (1 readied + 1 AoO from movement/casting) making it statistically better than a single strike with the greatsword and potentially disruptping spellcasting. Opponents with full concealment do not provoke AoO, even if you know where they are (PHB. pg. 152) so you would have netted the same number of attacks, and Shiaan's would have had a 50% miss chance instead of 20%. Mechanics & tactics: My UMD check for reading scrolls is +15; this was left at +11 throughout the match, but never led to a failure. Scent was handled well; it can really be a pain in the arse :) Several of my scrolls were Caster Level 2 and therefore should have had longer durations, not that most of them ran out. Tumbling away from 2 opponents should have been a bit more difficult, assuming you treat the mount & rider as seperate opponents. From the SRD: Check separately for each opponent you move past, in the order in which you pass them (player’s choice of order in case of a tie). Each additional enemy after the first adds +2 to the Tumble DC. Does this make 2 DC 17 Tumble checks, or a 15 followed by a 17 against the 2nd "target?" Round 1) No posted UMD check for me reading the scroll of Obscuring Mist. Round 3) Should have had a 5' step to prevent the AoO when reading the scroll; they missed anyway. Round 8) Not sure what AoO is listed on my line; it looks like I successfully Tumbled away and then missed my AoO on them when they moved through my threatened space? No Tumble check was listed, so I'm going off the quantity of attacks to infer it. The readied action was however smoothly avoided by Shiaan. (I had to try it just in case :) Everything else looks good. What happens if both combatants die? Or if they both end up stable but unconscious? With all these cohorts/animal companions/trained animals running around, I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet. Someone out there ought to recognize the "turtle" song; I don't think it's that well known, but it's not overly obscure. Ilmanur vs. Shiaan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2916890#post2916890) |
| cellardweller03-22-04, 12:26 AM | Originally posted by Rozman Opponents with full concealment do not provoke AoO, even if you know where they are (PHB. pg. 152) so you would have netted the same number of attacks, and Shiaan's would have had a 50% miss chance instead of 20%. <points up at MB's post above> total concealment didn't exist as there is exactly 5' worth of mist between shiaan and ilmanur, at least thats how I understood it (but then I have only read the spell in passing and am too lazy to open it now). Does this make 2 DC 17 Tumble checks, or a 15 followed by a 17 against the 2nd "target?" the former. |
| Druid Roxors03-22-04, 01:06 AM | Good points, I guess. Ill have to check on them later since its pretty late down here. Tomorrow ill check all rolls and tumbles, your superior AC would probably negate those, but since lady-luck sux ill have to check on that. UMD not listed and succeeded were successes, they were probably lost when transcribing. If you moved and recieved attack without tumbling its because tumble failed. Ill check my notes and transcribe all information. |
| cellardweller03-22-04, 02:12 AM | Originally posted by Druid Roxors Good points, I guess. Ill have to check on them later since its pretty late down here. Tomorrow ill check all rolls and tumbles, your superior AC would probably negate those, but since lady-luck sux ill have to check on that. UMD not listed and succeeded were successes, they were probably lost when transcribing. If you moved and recieved attack without tumbling its because tumble failed. Ill check my notes and transcribe all information. Just so we're clear, I'm not requesting any changes. A Lvl 2 fight where the loser didn't use any resources just isn't worth your time adjusting. |
| Smergel03-22-04, 03:55 AM | I've been paired with this guy at ECL2: Brock Granitehand (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=2788260#post2788260) However, he seems to have LA +1 (deep dwarf) and 2 character levels (ftr1/rgr1)? Also, in my previous fight a pretty serious error was pointed out. When I CdGed my opponent, the pitlord rolled one die and doubled it instead of rolling two dice. This would probably have reversed the outcome. I'm perfectly happy that you don't do reruns, but would have expected a reply from the pitlord..? -Smergel |
| xeno_eleusis03-22-04, 04:01 AM | spoiler Boafer Stonewill, xeno_eleusis vs Zephin Telloran, Myrridin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=69954&perpage=1&pagenumber=465) * * * * * * First, I don't want a re-run of the fight. I think that there is a rule against re-runs because one of the reasons that this board is here is to teach people about the rules. If we don't make any mistakes then we don't learn as much. I wanted to address some of the mistakes I saw in this last match. Please feel free to argue or disagree. Pregame) You can shoot but not load a light crossbow from one hand at a -2 penalty. I don't think that this makes it a light weapon, as "light weapon" refers to melee weapons only. In the SRD under the definition of light weapon it says a) you can use it while grappling b) light weapon is used in one hand. ** This is really not a big deal but I would challenge someone to make a ruling, "Can you fire a light crossbow with one hand while being grappled if the bolt is already loaded?" Round 1) I've made this mistake before as well. I don't think you can cast a scroll with a Somatic component without a free hand. Scrolls don't need Material or Focus Components but do need Somatic. Zephin comes into the arena with both hands full and does not have a free hand to wave around. Round 1) Consentration vs Vigorous movement is for casting spells from a mount and so on. I don't think that you have to make a consentration check for a 30 ft move. Round 1) Caster lev Check. The only scroll that Zephin had of EBT was caster level 7 which has a DC of 8. Round 1) EBT has a grapple of Caster level (for BAB) + 4 (Str 19) + 4 (Large). Since the scroll is Caster level 7 then the grapple should have been 15. For EBT to have a Grapple of +11 means that the caster level was 3 and minimum caster level for EBT is 7. This also means that it lasts for 7 rounds. Round 2) Line of Sight from pg21 DMG, "If line of sight is completely blocked, a character can't cast spells or use ranged weapons against the target." I think that the exception to this rule is an area affect spell such as Evards Black Tenticles, where you are aiming at a grid and not a target. I do believe that Magic Missile requires a line of sights and there are three rocks between the two fighters and no LOS. Round 2) Magic Missile has medium range of 100 ft + 10 ft/level For a caster level 3, he would have to get a little closer (130 ft). This may not seem like a big deal but, he couldn't have moved 40 ft closer in one round and cast Magic Missile since he only has 30 ft of movement and was 170 ft away and without LOS. Round 2) Tactics Since I'm stuck and I said that I wanted to grab my wand (legal while grappled and only a move equivelant action) and cast True strike on myself, I think that's what I would have done by now at least before I raged. Round 2) This is more of a question as opposed to a mistake. Does the opposed grapple check count as a seperate grapple check from the one that EBT does each round to deal damage? In round 1 there were two checks, the EBT gets to grapple and Boafer gets to oppose. Each round EBT has to pass a grapple check to deal damage, then I think Boafer gets to make an opposed check to escape. I'm a little new to grapple rules but that's the way I read it. EBT makes a Grapple each round to deal damage. Boafer makes a second grapple, but opposed to escape. In other words there are two chances to get out in a single round, just like you did for round 1. Round 3) Tactics I could have made a Spellcraft check at anytime to see if I knew what spell was holding me. Knowing the spell I would also know that is has a rounds duration (Plus I have first hand knowlege of all his items). Being a wizard I would have a pretty good idea when the spell would end, and I think it's a bad choice to make a wizard rage when he thinks that the spell only has one more round to go and he still isn't at half his hitpoints. Round 4) EBT I've already addressed the fact that the minimum caster level for the scroll is 7 which means that EBT lasts 7 rounds. Round 4) Scorching Ray has close range of 25 ft + 5 ft/level For a caster level 3 this would be 40 ft. He is still 170 ft from me with no LOS. He needs to be at least 40 ft close to me with LOS to cast this spell, with or without True Strike. Round 5) Melf's acid arrow needs LOS like all ray spells. Total consealment means that when the ranged touch attack hits, if there is somehting in the way, it will hit the object first and not the target. Round 5) Boafer: 3/37 (9,0) There is a rock on that grid square. Plus when I moved I only moved 55 ft? if you wanted me to charge why not move me my full double speed 60 ft. Those were the main problems that I wanted to address. Honestly, Zephin is a good build (Spelled with an "i" not an "e"), ranged spells paired with True Strike. You got to be mindful of the range of those spells and LOS. My suggestion with this build is rely only on long range spells, like Melf's acid arrow and Fireball. With 400 ft range, cast Expeditious Retreat and keep away from the enemy, while casting True Strike (from a wand, you'll need it) every other turn, and hitting up to 400 ft away with high damage spells. Really neat idea. |
| xeno_eleusis03-22-04, 04:09 AM | Originally posted by Smergel Also, in my previous fight a pretty serious error was pointed out. When I CdGed my opponent, the pitlord rolled one die and doubled it instead of rolling two dice. This would probably have reversed the outcome. I'm perfectly happy that you don't do reruns, but would have expected a reply from the pitlord..? He did reply, and said that he rolled a 2 on the second dice. Pretty slim chances of rolling 1 and then a 2 with 2d10 bolt damage, but that's what he said. It was a crazy fight, your build is better because you are at caster level 2 when I am still caster level 1. I think that a Gray Elf with 20 Int would be optimal for a "sleeplord". That way when he goes around to take Greater Spell focus Enchantment, he has a DC 18 for the level 1 sleep spell and possibly higher like 19 when he gets a headband of intellect +2. Also Elves are immune to sleep and that always helps when you are a "sleeplord". |
| xeno_eleusis03-22-04, 04:22 AM | Originally posted by Smergel I've been paired with this guy at ECL2: Brock Granitehand (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=2788260#post2788260) However, he seems to have LA +1 (deep dwarf) and 2 character levels (ftr1/rgr1)? Deep dwarves only get three things that regular Hill dwarfs don't get. Benifits: +3 vs spells (+2 Hill +1) +3 vs poison (+2 Hill +1) Darkvision 90 ft (60 ft Hill +30 ft) With one extremely limiting drawback: Drawback: Light sensitivity: dazzled when in bright light or area of daylight spell Deep Dwarfs are very different from the Duergar which is the subrace of Dwarves that get the LA+1 because they get spell-like affects once per day, enlarge and invisibility. and some other stuff that's really cool. Daylight is a 3rd level spell that costs 375 gp as a 5th level caster. You can target an object that you hold, like a bolt and fire it at him. If you miss, the Pitlord should roll for what square it lands in so that the 60 ft radius effect can incapacitate the dwarf reguardless of a miss. This is the tactics of a "sleeplord" is it not, draw on the weak will of your opponent one way or another. |
| Smergel03-22-04, 04:38 AM | Thanks, Xeno, for clearing up my misunderstandings. -Magnus |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-22-04, 06:12 AM | Originally posted by Smergel I've been paired with this guy at ECL2: Brock Granitehand (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&perpage=1&postid=2788260#post2788260) However, he seems to have LA +1 (deep dwarf) and 2 character levels (ftr1/rgr1)? -Smergel As i posted this i saw it's already been cleared. Deep dwarves are sames a regular dwarves with a couple of changes. They get an extra +1 saves, and light sensitivity. He's ranger/cleric btw. -ToK |
| honeynuggets03-22-04, 07:24 AM | As long as you don't try to look through more than 5' of mist, you can see out of the mist. If your 10' in the mist, and looking out, you can use on of your corners that is only 5' from the edge of the mist, so when you look, your not looking "beyond 5' into mist." your looking exactly 5' into mist, and then there is no more mist. Since you do not look "beyond 5'" into mist, your fine. You seem to be suggesting that your eyeballs are right on the line separating your square from the unoccupied 5 ft square of obscuring mist thereby enabling you to have to only look through 5 ft of mist. The problem with that logic is that the "lines" separating squares occupies no space. It is infinitesimally small. Therefore, even if you put your eyeballs right up to the line the eyeballs would still be about 1/2 inch within your space. This means you would be looking through 5 ft and 1/2 inch of mist which is not possible. The spell is very clear. You can see targets within an adjacent square of obscuring mist. You can't see targets within a square beyond a single square of obscuring mist. I doubt you will agree though so maybe it is time for some other people to pipe in. Sshuit agrees that your interpretation is mistaken though. |
| MotherBast03-22-04, 07:29 AM | Honny: Your logic is sound. Still, D&D is not a logical game at all. If your on one square, and your target is on a square 10' away, only 5' of space sepperates you and him. In D&D, space is messured in 5' increments, with nothing in between. The amount of distance between you and a target can be 5', 10', 15', 20', so forth and so on. It is impossible to be 34' feet from a target. it is impossible to be 22' feet from a target, and it is impossible to be 5' 1/2 inches from a target. Yes, I think the others should pitch in a voice here. As the orriganator of the OM hide and shoot tactic, I suggest Tellish post a comment here. As the arena rules lawer, I think Jindl should also pipe in, if hes following the debat. |
| Rosella03-22-04, 09:38 AM | that level adjustment thingie is serious, a deep dwarf with lvl adjustment +1 and 2 character levels shouldn't be found at level 2. How in the world did that happen?? |
| Rozman03-22-04, 09:38 AM | The disputed text: From the SRD A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target).[/i] Another set of text using the same wording: From the SRD Reach Weapons: Most creatures of Medium or smaller size have a reach of only 5 feet. This means that they can make melee attacks only against creatures up to 5 feet (1 square) away Using the "at least 5'= 3 squares" interpretation, their own rule is inconsistent. Natural reach actually hits 2 squares away, since they're not further than 5' until they're in the 3rd square. Reach weapons would then hit the 3rd & 4th squares? Since they insist on turning this into a miniatures game, rephrase the rule using their "1 square = 5'" equivalency: Converted all appearances of 5' to squares A creature 1 square away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target). I think this makes it clear that 2 squares away= full concealment. |
| Myrridin03-22-04, 09:42 AM | Originally posted by xeno_eleusis spoiler Boafer Stonewill, xeno_eleusis vs Zephin Telloran, Myrridin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?threadid=69954&perpage=1&pagenumber=465) * * * * * * First, I don't want a re-run of the fight. I think that there is a rule against re-runs because one of the reasons that this board is here is to teach people about the rules. If we don't make any mistakes then we don't learn as much. I wanted to address some of the mistakes I saw in this last match. Please feel free to argue or disagree. Pregame) You can shoot but not load a light crossbow from one hand at a -2 penalty. I don't think that this makes it a light weapon, as "light weapon" refers to melee weapons only. In the SRD under the definition of light weapon it says a) you can use it while grappling b) light weapon is used in one hand. ** This is really not a big deal but I would challenge someone to make a ruling, "Can you fire a light crossbow with one hand while being grappled if the bolt is already loaded?" Round 1) I've made this mistake before as well. I don't think you can cast a scroll with a Somatic component without a free hand. Scrolls don't need Material or Focus Components but do need Somatic. Zephin comes into the arena with both hands full and does not have a free hand to wave around. Round 1) Consentration vs Vigorous movement is for casting spells from a mount and so on. I don't think that you have to make a consentration check for a 30 ft move. Round 1) Caster lev Check. The only scroll that Zephin had of EBT was caster level 7 which has a DC of 8. Round 1) EBT has a grapple of Caster level (for BAB) + 4 (Str 19) + 4 (Large). Since the scroll is Caster level 7 then the grapple should have been 15. For EBT to have a Grapple of +11 means that the caster level was 3 and minimum caster level for EBT is 7. This also means that it lasts for 7 rounds. Round 2) Line of Sight from pg21 DMG, "If line of sight is completely blocked, a character can't cast spells or use ranged weapons against the target." I think that the exception to this rule is an area affect spell such as Evards Black Tenticles, where you are aiming at a grid and not a target. I do believe that Magic Missile requires a line of sights and there are three rocks between the two fighters and no LOS. Round 2) Magic Missile has medium range of 100 ft + 10 ft/level For a caster level 3, he would have to get a little closer (130 ft). This may not seem like a big deal but, he couldn't have moved 40 ft closer in one round and cast Magic Missile since he only has 30 ft of movement and was 170 ft away and without LOS. Round 2) Tactics Since I'm stuck and I said that I wanted to grab my wand (legal while grappled and only a move equivelant action) and cast True strike on myself, I think that's what I would have done by now at least before I raged. Round 2) This is more of a question as opposed to a mistake. Does the opposed grapple check count as a seperate grapple check from the one that EBT does each round to deal damage? In round 1 there were two checks, the EBT gets to grapple and Boafer gets to oppose. Each round EBT has to pass a grapple check to deal damage, then I think Boafer gets to make an opposed check to escape. I'm a little new to grapple rules but that's the way I read it. EBT makes a Grapple each round to deal damage. Boafer makes a second grapple, but opposed to escape. In other words there are two chances to get out in a single round, just like you did for round 1. Round 3) Tactics I could have made a Spellcraft check at anytime to see if I knew what spell was holding me. Knowing the spell I would also know that is has a rounds duration (Plus I have first hand knowlege of all his items). Being a wizard I would have a pretty good idea when the spell would end, and I think it's a bad choice to make a wizard rage when he thinks that the spell only has one more round to go and he still isn't at half his hitpoints. Round 4) EBT I've already addressed the fact that the minimum caster level for the scroll is 7 which means that EBT lasts 7 rounds. Round 4) Scorching Ray has close range of 25 ft + 5 ft/level For a caster level 3 this would be 40 ft. He is still 170 ft from me with no LOS. He needs to be at least 40 ft close to me with LOS to cast this spell, with or without True Strike. Round 5) Melf's acid arrow needs LOS like all ray spells. Total consealment means that when the ranged touch attack hits, if there is somehting in the way, it will hit the object first and not the target. Round 5) Boafer: 3/37 (9,0) There is a rock on that grid square. Plus when I moved I only moved 55 ft? if you wanted me to charge why not move me my full double speed 60 ft. Those were the main problems that I wanted to address. Honestly, Zephin is a good build (Spelled with an "i" not an "e"), ranged spells paired with True Strike. You got to be mindful of the range of those spells and LOS. My suggestion with this build is rely only on long range spells, like Melf's acid arrow and Fireball. With 400 ft range, cast Expeditious Retreat and keep away from the enemy, while casting True Strike (from a wand, you'll need it) every other turn, and hitting up to 400 ft away with high damage spells. Really neat idea. Xeno - Thanks for listing that, as I was going to work it up this morning. I was a bit worried when I saw the reduced duration on EBT, as I was counting on that for the kill, and then moving in a little. The build is a variant of Aku, from Jindl. I don't have the ability to Alter Self into a Mephit at that level, so I have to adapt a little bit. I'm working on medium and long range spells with True Strike to kill things. :) |
| Druid Roxors03-22-04, 09:43 AM | Since concealment is meassured from any point on your square's limits to any point on your oponent's limits, you can start your LoS meassurement from the very edge of your square, not inside your square. |
| Myrridin03-22-04, 09:43 AM | Battousai: So you still want a rerun of your fight? I don't think it's necessary, as the outcome is more than likely the same. He'll climb the column, can't shoot, so he'll buff and then follow the end of his tactics, which is CDGing Kage from his horse. I don't want to take the time to do it, but I'd prefer to have all parties satisfied with the running of the fight. |
| Druid Roxors03-22-04, 09:44 AM | Originally posted by Rosella that level adjustment thingie is serious, a deep dwarf with lvl adjustment +1 and 2 character levels shouldn't be found at level 2. How in the world did that happen?? I wonder if you really read the replies... Check the dwarf entry on your monster's manual. Dwarf LA=0 Dueregar LA=1 Deep Dwarf LA=0 |
| Jindl03-22-04, 10:14 AM | Originally posted by Myrridin Battousai: So you still want a rerun of your fight? I don't think it's necessary, as the outcome is more than likely the same. He'll climb the column, can't shoot, so he'll buff and then follow the end of his tactics, which is CDGing Kage from his horse. I don't want to take the time to do it, but I'd prefer to have all parties satisfied with the running of the fight. IMO, Myrridin is correct. While there is an error (he can't shoot while spider climbing), the fight was won based upon a CDG while unconscious from color spray. I would say that the outcome would remain the same, though Kage would have retained his cure light potions (since they were used to counteract the arrows). Re-runs are reserved for mistakes which change the outcome of the fight. -Jindl |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-22-04, 10:16 AM | Originally posted by MotherBast Honny: Your logic is sound. Still, D&D is not a logical game at all. If your on one square, and your target is on a square 10' away, only 5' of space sepperates you and him. The opponent in your example MB is in fact 10' away as you state. The space he is in counts for distance as well, AFAIK. Ok, i'm piping in. :) I thought you guys were originally on the right track with this and wasn't any realy need to sound in, but here goes my view on OM. AxB the x represents the space between two gladiators within the mist itself. Both gladiators have full concealment (50% miss chance) from each other. No visual or line of sight to targets. xABx Still within the mist, both gladiators have partial concealment (20% miss chance). Both have LOS. ...xx A.Bxx ...xx A is outside the mist, B is at the edge and still within the mist. A will suffer a 20% miss chance to strike B. B will not suffer any penalties to strike A. Both have LOS A...xBxx Again, 50% miss chance from both gladiators. Neither have LOS. Hope you can draw inference from that and solve your debate. -ToK |
| Myrridin03-22-04, 10:19 AM | Battousai: Then take back your CLW potion, and we'll go from there. Sorry for the errors, but as it was said, the outcome was CDG from the unconsciousness from Color Spray. |
| Jindl03-22-04, 10:22 AM | Originally posted by MotherBast Jindl: It would have had a huge impact on the fight, that dropping of the scroll. To me, it really just dosen't seem fair to penalize Market for it, since invisable wizards have been droping used scrolls since the begining of the arena. If that were going to give him away, his character should have known about it. A precident should have been set long ago. It wouldn't be fair to punish him for doing what others have done all along. If he had known the scroll would give him away, I a sure he would have cast the silence on an area of space instead. If I had known the scroll would give him away, I would have told him that when he said to do it in his tactics and I'm sure he would have changed it. I do agree though that droped scrolls should give away the invisable creature. In the future, now that the error is known, I belive wizards should be unable to drop scrolls while invis, and the scroll not be seen. Still, it would be unfair to "make an example" out of Market. In the future, however, if anyone sends me a tactic to drop scrolls, or any gear, while invisable, I will alert them to the concequences and give them a chance to change the tactic. In trying to avoid being unfair to Market_Share, I think you are being unfair to me. You have clearly stated that Anna should have seen the scroll drop, and that this would change the outcome of the fight. The rules are quite clear about what happens when an invisible person drops an item. It is not fair to penalize me, just because other pitlords have neglected to pay attention to this in the past. I do not think Spike would have cast silence on a point in space, as his purpose was to travel with the silence effect to avoid being detected by Anna or her allies. His selection to cast it on an item and drop it was deliberate and intentional, in order to gain a mobile silence effect which he could discard later. It is the Pitlords job to run the fight with the tactics, and to apply all the rules to make it a fair contest. Pitlords should not be responding to players giving hints on tactics, unless the tactics are against the rules. But Market's tactics were well within the rules, and the rule on invisible creatures dropping litter is right there in the invisibility spell description. If you agree that Anna should have seen the scroll falling, and thus faerie fired Spike, then I think the fair thing to do is correct the mistake. -Jindl |
| Jindl03-22-04, 10:31 AM | Originally posted by MotherBast As the arena rules lawer, I think Jindl should also pipe in, if hes following the debat. For fogs and mists, the spell description tells how quickly concealment builds. To determine concealment (per the PHB rules), count the number of squares the line of sight passes through that contain an obstruction. Then apply the rules for the obstruction. So, a character looks through 1 square of obscurring mist, and he gets a 20% miss chance. A character looking though 2 or more squares cannot see the target because it has total concealment. When counting the squares, the square the target is in counts as well, if it contains an obstruction (as Tellish just pointed out). The square the attacker is in does not count regardless of whether it contains an obstruction. These three rules is what makes mist-sniping possible. The guy on the edge of the mist can look out of the mist with no concealment. His vision is unobstructed because he is on the edge of the mist looking out. He can easily get line of sight to a target with no concealment. His target is not so lucky. When the target looks into the mist, he has to count the attacker's square as containing an obstruction. This gives the attacker concealment, which allows him to hide and gives him a 20% miss chance. Hopefully this explains it well enough. -Jindl |
| honeynuggets03-22-04, 10:41 AM | Thanks for taking the time to post Tellish. A...xBxx Again, 50% miss chance from both gladiators. Neither have LOS. Hope you can draw inference from that and solve your debate. Another vote for the "10 ft inside Obscuring Mist tactic" being invalid. In the fight I originally mentioned there would have been only a slight advantage gained by this error since the foe was already tripped by a wolf (I believe) before the druid utilized this invalid tactic to target the foe with a flaming sphere (I think it was). So about one round of difference. But in the future move to 5 ft inside the fog or gain and grant total concealment. Since concealment is meassured from any point on your square's limits to any point on your oponent's limits, you can start your LoS meassurement from the very edge of your square, not inside your square. To determine concealment (per the PHB rules), count the number of squares the line of sight passes through that contain an obstruction. The lines determine if there is concealment. They aren't used to measure how many squares of concealment are counted. |
| Druid Roxors03-22-04, 12:16 PM | I believed that Tellish of Ket thinked like Jindl, perhaps he misstyped the last sentence.. In any case, if your square does not count towards concealment, being 10ft into the mist would only count the square in front of you towards concealment. Against your enemy, you would be able to have LOS, albeit 20% concealment, and remain "invisible" |
| Jindl03-22-04, 01:07 PM | Originally posted by Druid Roxors I believed that Tellish of Ket thinked like Jindl, perhaps he misstyped the last sentence.. In any case, if your square does not count towards concealment, being 10ft into the mist would only count the square in front of you towards concealment. Against your enemy, you would be able to have LOS, albeit 20% concealment, and remain "invisible" True. But I was talking more about the sneak attacking from the mist, which is what Tellish's characters used to do. And you know that you cannot sneak attack when your target has concealment. -Jindl |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-22-04, 02:04 PM | which is why i used true strike :D -ToK |
| MotherBast03-22-04, 04:23 PM | Jindl: What I am saying is that Market didn't know dropping the scroll would give him away, or he would not have used that tactic. I didn't know it would give him away either, or I would have warned him of this when I read it in his tactics. Just like when Bilo tried to use posion on Brackin, it is the job of the MOD to point out to a player when the tactics recived have an error of this sort. I have had Candy drop cast scrolls while invis many many times. To punish Market for something I melself, and many other gladiators, have done is simply not fair. I should have told him this would give him away, and allowed him to change that tactic. Since I did not realize that would give him away, I carried out the tactic. Just the same as Celler carried out the posion attack aginst Brackin. When it was pointed out afterward that wouldn't work, it was decided Bilo would never have used the posion, since he should have known it didn't work. The same principle is true here. Market should have gotten a chance to correct this error, since he didn't know about it. As such, it would be unfair to do a rerun based on that error. I really am trying to be as fair as I can be Jindl. I know it looks like your getting screwed, but if I had known dropping the scroll would give Market away, or he had known, I am positive he would not have used that tactic. While I'm talking to you Jindl: You put the mist argument as simply as I have been trying to do all along. Still, it seems the board is devided on how the mist Concealment actually works. Since this is a highly used spell, I think the arena should adopt an "offical" rule as to how to treat the mist concealment effects. A quick elder Mod vote should resolve the issue quickly. |
| sshuit03-22-04, 05:06 PM | @cellardwellar. Re : Roger vs Octavian Fight looks clean to me. couple of non-critical things to note. 1. Greater Invis only lasts 1 round/ level not 1 min/level 2. Zippy has Improved Evasion. sshuit |
| cellardweller03-22-04, 08:17 PM | Originally posted by sshuit @cellardwellar. Re : Roger vs Octavian Fight looks clean to me. couple of non-critical things to note. 1. Greater Invis only lasts 1 round/ level not 1 min/level 2. Zippy has Improved Evasion. sshuit I believe both of the above points were handled correctly? |
| MotherBast03-22-04, 08:35 PM | Hey Cat: If you will check my sheet, each of my scrolls was 70gp, that makes them CL 4. I don't know why I wrote 3 in my tactics, but it should have been 4. I don't think the scrolls impacted the fight much. I ment to specify in my tactics to keep the pillar between me and him with 5' steps, but then I thought that the concealment would keep me from getting AoOs and left that out. I remember now that it is cover that prevents AoOs.... ah.... |
| Druid Roxors03-22-04, 09:40 PM | Acually, a CL 4 level 1 scroll is 100gp, a caster level 3 level 1 scroll is 75gp. how did you get 70? |
| sshuit03-22-04, 09:58 PM | Octavian seems to believe that Greater Invis has a duration of 90 rounds.... just wanted to make sure that he is aware that the duration is only 1 round per level sshuit Originally posted by cellardweller I believe both of the above points were handled correctly? |
| MotherBast03-22-04, 11:13 PM | Self Crafted Druid. First level spell = 17.5gp per level, times 4 levels = 70gp. |
| Druid Roxors03-22-04, 11:31 PM | Oh, I see, if it were 50% I would have catched it, but the 70% calculations are wierd. |
| Pittbull03-23-04, 03:27 AM | @ Cat: thank you, very nice fight. But why did Angosh use his poison? He left his poison chain at home and you never used in the fight. Sorry for being so greedy, but Angosh is a duergar, you know what i mean? |
| Smergel03-23-04, 06:43 AM | I forgot to give Smergel Read Magic. Would it be ok to replace another level 0 spell that I haven't used, so all my expensive scrolls aren't useless? -Magnus |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-23-04, 06:48 AM | Just a couple of points for reminders. Brock has favored enemy humans and smergel was human. He should have gotten +2 hit/dmg. Also when the horse charges, both mount and gladiator benefit from the +2 to charge, giving Brock +10 to hit and an extra +2 dmg and horse +8 hit, which should have hit. Had no effect, so no big deal just wanted to remind you for the future is all. -ToK |
| MotherBast03-23-04, 07:13 AM | Xeno: Monks can flurry during a grapple. During grapple you may use the full attack action to get all of your attacks in a round. That would include any additional attacks from flurry or haste. See Brackin vs. Skymoon to see just how effective a hasted flurry can be in a grapple. Hatzinger: I belive that a warhorse, trained to defend, does so automaticly. It does not have to be "set" to defend, as acording to the PHB, the defend action works automaticaly if the mounts rider is attacked. |
| Hatzinger03-23-04, 07:14 AM | @ToK: ah, yes. forgot them. @Smergel: ah, there you are. Why didn´t you send tactics? I emailed you. |
| Hatzinger03-23-04, 07:19 AM | i don´t know if the "...even without any command being given..." thing means that you don´t have to make a handle animal check or if it means that once set, it defends against foes without the handler having to handle the animal any further. Was there a decision on this topic already that i didn´t read? |
| Smergel03-23-04, 07:31 AM | Hi, Hatzinger. Don't think I got your email. Anyway, I've been up in the mountains so wasn't able to post a strategy. Thanks for noticing the errors/problems in my character! -Magnus |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-23-04, 07:41 AM | Oops, and forgot the +1 for height advantage Hatz, so make that +11 to hit. Hehe...good thing i hit with the +6 you gave me. That's a whole -5 missing. LOL. +6base+2chrg+1ht+2fv.enem=+11 -ToK |
| Hatzinger03-23-04, 07:51 AM | *sigh*. just ran the fight tuesday noon and was in a hurry. those were beginner-errors. damn!:( |
| Tellish_of_Ket03-23-04, 07:53 AM | Originally posted by Hatzinger *sigh*. just ran the fight tuesday noon and was in a hurry. those were beginner-errors. damn!:( No biggies, i've made worse. And i've also forgotten to give someone favored enemy dmg as well before. It happens. -ToK |
| Magagumo03-23-04, 09:14 AM | 1 note- Favored Enemy no longer aids in the hit, just damage. So no +2 to attack. I'm not sure the specific reasons for that change in 3.5, but I know it gives the archers an easier time on the kill ;) |
| xeno_eleusis03-23-04, 10:49 AM | Originally posted by MotherBast Xeno: Monks can flurry during a grapple. During grapple you may use the full attack action to get all of your attacks in a round. That would include any additional attacks from flurry or haste. See Brackin vs. Skymoon to see just how effective a hasted flurry can be in a grapple.I agree with you but I don't think that a Monk can do all of the following in one round 1) charge 2) grapple 3) flurry while grappling. This was what I meant to say. You can either charge or grapple but not both. On the round that you grapple, you can't flurry. He never grappled for more than one round at a time so it never came up in this fight. Please respond and let me know if I got it. |
| PostalBoy03-23-04, 11:36 AM | Originally posted by xeno_eleusis This was what I meant to say. You can either charge or grapple but not both. On the round that you grapple, you can't flurry. He never grappled for more than one round at a time so it never came up in this fight. When charging you are allowed one melee attack, albiet at a bonus. Flurry of blows cannot be used during a round that the monk charged. To start a grapple ou need only to succeed in making a touch attack to grap the opponent. After your touch succeeds you make opposed grapple checks, and deal damage in the form of a single unarmed strike if successful at starting the grapple. I do not see anything in the grapple rules that make initiating a grapple a full round action. So charging and starting a grapple would be a full round, not allowing further movement. A melee attack (a touch attack in this case) is a standard action. The actual charge is a move action. And this is the end of your combat round, unless you are hasted. The Haste spell description specifically states that you only gain a single extra attack when using the full attack option, so in the above example where a hasted creature charges and starts a grapple they would only benefit from the extra movement and the AC and Dodge bonuses from Haste. Furthermore the Flurry of Blows also states that it can be used only as a full round action. So a hasted monk using a full attack gets one extra attack to add to his/her flurry of blows. The next round however the Monks opponent will not be happy. Maintaining the grapple and moving into the opponents square is a free action (as I read the rules). This allows the hasted monk to utilize thier unarmed strike (using head, feet, or other appendages not used to maintain the grapple) and the full attack option to plant a picnic basket of knuckle sandwiches in their opponents, now toothless, maw. EDIT: To charge, grapple, and flurry while grappling would take at least two rounds. As long as the monk can maintain the grapple. EDIT: The monk could also take a 5 foot step, use a full attack Flurry, and use the first attack to initiate a grapple, and if successful, follow up with the remaining flurry strikes, plus the hasted strike. |
| Mercy03-23-04, 12:24 PM | @xeno - I should have been clearer in my tactics. What I meant by charge and grapple him was that I wanted to use a grapple as my attack at the conclusion of the charge instead of a melee attack. What I meant by flurry while grappling was that any time I could use the flurry I wanted to grapple. I believe there was a case where after my opponent escaped the grapple and took a 5' step away a monk should be able to use 1 of his flurry attacks to initate the grapple and if successful a grapple check could have been done to damage the opponent. The 2nd attack of his flurry could have been used as a grapple check to damage him again. |
| xeno_eleusis03-23-04, 12:33 PM | Originally posted by Mercy @xeno - I should have been clearer in my tactics. What I meant by charge and grapple him was that I wanted to use a grapple as my attack at the conclusion of the charge instead of a melee attack. What I meant by flurry while grappling was that any time I could use the flurry I wanted to grapple. I believe there was a case where after my opponent escaped the grapple and took a 5' step away a monk should be able to use 1 of his flurry attacks to initate the grapple and if successful a grapple check could have been done to damage the opponent. The 2nd attack of his flurry could have been used as a grapple check to damage him again. You're tactics were fine. We were just debating over the rules governing grapple in general. Now that I've looked at it more closely, I think that you could have charged and grapple in the same round. While maintaining a grapple (on the second round or later) you could have also used flurry of blows. You've got a mighty Duergar build there, look forward to seeing him fight some more. |
| Ethendril03-23-04, 04:29 PM | @Cat: Thanks for running the fight. I know it was hard. My only question is that it appears that Kiri did not use her buckler of arrow deflection, as specified in her tactics. This would have allowed me to negate more than half of his bow attacks, and I would have blocked one arrow each round with a reflex save of 8 or higher. That's after the concealment roll. I think this would have made a huge difference in this fight. Anyway, I'm not asking for a rerun. It's just that I purchased that item for this fight, specified it in tactics, and it was not used. Anyway, thanks for running the fight. -Ethendril |
| Caterane03-23-04, 04:31 PM | Originally posted by MotherBast Hey Cat: If you will check my sheet, each of my scrolls was 70gp, that makes them CL 4. I don't know why I wrote 3 in my tactics, but it should have been 4. I don't think the scrolls impacted the fight much. I ment to specify in my tactics to keep the pillar between me and him with 5' steps, but then I thought that the concealment would keep me from getting AoOs and left that out. I remember now that it is cover that prevents AoOs.... ah.... Your sheet listed: 4xCure light wounds (100gp) Since a scroll [CL1] costs 25 gp, it occured to me that you meant CL 1. In any case, there is no way that they can be CL 3. If don`t write a CL behind the entry then it is standard CL. And concealment doesn`t prevent AoO. I wondered why you didn`t write anything about him flying. He had 2 potions of fly and you always assumed to be save with spiderclimb. I didn`t let you climb up because THAT trip would`ve hurt... Originally posted by Pitbull: @ Cat: thank you, very nice fight. But why did Angosh use his poison? He left his poison chain at home and you never used in the fight. Sorry for being so greedy, but Angosh is a duergar, you know what i mean? I could swear that you had it listed as a prebuff, with a remark...something like Duergar are immune to poison, don´t know Originally posted by Ethendril: Thanks for running the fight. I know it was hard. My only question is that it appears that Kiri did not use her buckler of arrow deflection, as specified in her tactics. This would have allowed me to negate more than half of his bow attacks, and I would have blocked one arrow each round with a reflex save of 8 or higher. That's after the concealment roll. . The concealment was always negated by the seeking bow but you`re right about the arrow deflection. I was so occupied with doublechecking positions and reactive checks that I completely forgot the buckler. I played Kiri a bit smarter though. In your tactic you wanted to use the bow until this proves ineffective. You would`ve made less damage 1d3+2d6 instead of 6d6. Normally I should`ve said, hey, don`t waste recources but without the wand the fight would`ve been not so close. Thanks for not asking me for a rerun. I would jump out of the window |
| MotherBast03-23-04, 06:16 PM | Cat: The following is copy and pasted from the version of my character sheet you pasted when you posted the fight: 4 Scroll of Cure Light Wounds (70gp)* I don't know where you got that I had 4 Scrolls at 100gp, but it isen't on the character sheet you pasted on the fight. Like I said, I don't think it effects the fight much, but they were CL4 scrolls. I don't list the CLs of my scrolls on my sheets, just the prices. If the CL isen't standard, the price should tell its CL. For any scroll I know I will be using I always make sure the PL knows the CL of any self-crafted scroll in my tactics. For some reason I wrote CL3 in the tactics I sent to you. I wasn't paying much attention. I might just go back and change my sheet to reflect all the CLs on my scrolls. As for the trip off the column.... Actually, I didn't even notice the fly potions. I probably saw them, but since I wasen't concedering doing any flying meself, I just assumed they weren't an issue. This fight was a big learning experience for Dra'kel. |
| Caterane03-24-04, 03:24 AM | How do you get 4 scrolls of CL 4 for 70 gp? Did you have birthday!? spell-level 1 * CL 4 * 25 = 100 gp, scibed 70 = 1 scroll * 4 = 280 gp Listing the CL is essential, btw. |
| Alterlat03-24-04, 05:50 AM | Hey Cat, thanks for running the Jag vs. Kiri fight - I'm impressed with your endurance. I'd hoped the grapple attempt would avoid the worst of the spot/lis hell, but it wasn't to be. Btw, I think you and MotherBast are talking at cross-purposes. He seems to be saying his sheet indicates 4 CLW scrolls at 70gp EACH. It would help if he made that clear on the sheet though. |
| MotherBast03-24-04, 07:24 AM | I changed the sheet to say (CL4) behind the Cure light Scrolls. And yeah, if I have several of the same item, I just list the price of the item, not the total. The only total my sheet lists is total gold remaining. |
| honeynuggets03-24-04, 12:03 PM | Round 4: Jagath Kihr: draws and drinks potion of blur Kiri’endelas: checks for buffs [Kiri: spellcraft (4+5) = 9 vs Dc22, fails] but detects only blur. Draws wand of dispel magic and activates it [Kiri: DM vs owls (17+5) = 22 vs Dc14, success, owls wisdom is dispelled; DM vs blur (2+5) = 7 vs Dc14, fails]. Whisper waits for Kiri. [Jagath: Reflex (13+11) = 24 vs Dc18, success] [I decided that blur is a visual buff and clearly recognizable as such so she auto-succeeds on the check. Perhaps Donkey wouldn`t get the clue but Kiri, well…] Jag: (-20/3), 58/58 hp, blur (1/30) Kir: (-4/-3, 25ft), 44/44 hp, greater invisibility, ventriloquism (3/20) Wis: (-4/3, 25ft), 26/26 hp, greater invisibility Round 6: Jagath Kihr: draws and drinks potion of fly Kiri’endelas: activates wand of dispel magic [Kiri: DM vs blur (14+5) = 19 vs Dc14, success, blur is dispelled; DM vs fly (10+5) = 15 vs Dc16, fails]. Whisper creates an image of a tiny cloaked klingon ship (Vor’cha class) and concentrates on the illusion [Whisper: Move (4+13) = 17] Jag: (-21/9), 58/58 hp, fly (1/50) Kir: (-15/0, 25ft), 44/44 hp, greater invisibility, ventriloquism (5/20) Wis: (-14/7, 25ft), 26/26 hp, greater invisibility, major image, concentrating Spell Trigger devices like wands require speaking to activate Listen DC 0 check. In the above examples and in a couple other places during the fight you substitute Move Silent for Listen DC 0 when wands are used. Jagath would have likely pinpointed the wand user and maybe charged to grapple. |
| Jindl03-24-04, 03:13 PM | I have asked WizO_Shadow to close this thread. Further discussion should be directed to the Tavern thread. A new thread for Fights of the Week 3/24/2004 has been posted. Thanks! -Jindl |
| WizO_Shadow03-24-04, 06:35 PM | ::summons up the chains and lock swirling the combination:: Renee Shadow:angel: |