Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Hatzinger 03-10-04, 11:50 AM	hey, who forgot my credits? i had two fights last week. gimme that ECL creature! :D
xeno_eleusis 03-10-04, 03:41 PM	Not that this matters but compare our two builds? I'm not going to say that Smergel copied my build, because I don't belive that anyone can copy a build, all builds are original. But I do want to point out the differeneces in our builds, strictly from a Character Optimization point of view. My first build idea was human. With the extra feat you get to take Greater Spell Focus and get a DC 17 for first level spells (Int 18). I scrapped that idea beause, Humans, so boring. Next I looked at Gray Elf: Immune to sleep, +2 Int (+2 Int makes up for the lack of Greater Spell Focus lost for not being human and the +1 DC applies to Illusions as well when vs Elf rely on Illusion spells). Considering that I am a fan of Aku, I desided to go Tiefling (Outsider): +2 Int, +2 Dex, LA+1, so that I can Alter Self and Fly sooner than most people. To coin a phrase, "The sleepmaster" build should always be Elf for the legistics reason that I now have to deal with someone trying to put the sleep on me.
kattattack22 03-10-04, 04:23 PM	Forgive my bluntness, but who cares? Lots of people have gladiators with similar goals but take different routes to reaching it. In fact, all gladiators have one goal in common. Kill or defeat your oppoent. It is also hard to tell whether you will be the same 2, 3, or 4 levels down the road. Besides, isn't imitation the highest form of flatterly? Anyway, my point is don't worry about it. Not many ideas here are original. They have been done before somewhere, sometime.
xeno_eleusis 03-10-04, 04:30 PM	@kattattack22 No, I agree with you. It's flattering, but a little anoying that we got paired together. My aim was not to say that it matters one way or the other, but was to ask for additional insights into maximizing this build, "sleepmaster" because I think that a Tiefling SM is not optimal, and human SM is not either, maybe a Gray Elf SM or another creature who is racially immune to sleep to begin with. Ideas, comments, that's what I am looking for, who has some insight into this build and the two versions of it that we will see in this fight.
Jindl 03-10-04, 04:47 PM	Originally posted by xeno_eleusis Not that this matters but compare our two builds? I'm not going to say that Smergel copied my build, because I don't belive that anyone can copy a build, all builds are original. But I do want to point out the differeneces in our builds, strictly from a Character Optimization point of view. My first build idea was human. With the extra feat you get to take Greater Spell Focus and get a DC 17 for first level spells (Int 18). I scrapped that idea beause, Humans, so boring. Next I looked at Gray Elf: Immune to sleep, +2 Int (+2 Int makes up for the lack of Greater Spell Focus lost for not being human and the +1 DC applies to Illusions as well when vs Elf rely on Illusion spells). Considering that I am a fan of Aku, I desided to go Tiefling (Outsider): +2 Int, +2 Dex, LA+1, so that I can Alter Self and Fly sooner than most people. To coin a phrase, "The sleepmaster" build should always be Elf for the legistics reason that I now have to deal with someone trying to put the sleep on me. Interesting comparison between a human sorceror and a tielfling wizard. I don't think you can really say that Smergel copied your build, what with it being a different race and a different class. I don't mind when others get "inspiration" about a new character from looking at one of mine, like the way you got the tiefling+alter self idea from Aku. Of course, there is a limit to when inspiration becomes plaigarism, but nobody has come close to that in a very long time. FYI: On the tiefling wizard theme, its not worth sacrificing the caster level unless you plan to make heavy use of eldritch knight or of polymorph/alter self. In my case, Aku will eventually be a Wiz6/EK10/Acm3 - and use mastery of shaping combined with anitmagic field (to make a hole in the middle) while he is polymorphed/shapechanged into outsider forms. He'll have extreme buffs, be immune to magic from sources outside of his space, and be melee-dominant. Of course, he's pretty fragile until about level 9. -Jindl
Jindl 03-10-04, 04:49 PM	BTW: If you want info on the ideal sleepmaster build, have a look at the Elder (check the fights thread from 6 weeks ago, and you should find him). He was an old character of mine that had a sleep DC of about 24... -Jindl
kattattack22 03-10-04, 04:50 PM	Depends on what you mean by optimal. Every build is going to have a weakness somewhere. The sleepmaster has one inheirtantly and that is against creature that immune to sleep or has a high will save. I don't think it matters much that you are vulenerable to another sleepmaster. Some builds are going to vulenerable to different things. See the fights where gladiators that sunder their opponent's weapons and non-spellcasters have to resort to fighting unarmed or grappling. Its a matter how versatile your build is in dealing with all sorts of opponents. Like if run across a elven gladiator, how are you going to deal with them since you can't put them to sleep? Magic Missle them to death? Try casting Hold Person and then CDG with a dagger? I think a fight with a similar build is the least of your worries. My first fight with Ony was against Aiki Auk who also fights two weapon style and it was close because we were so similar. It always seems the major problem is when someone has a strong defense against your best offense. I still worry about ever having to fight Donkey because his high AC will very hard to hit with TWF.
SnarkHunter 03-10-04, 05:34 PM	And with barkskin its only going to get higher...
kattattack22 03-10-04, 06:07 PM	Originally posted by SnarkHunter And with barkskin its only going to get higher... Curses. I will need my Ony Anti-Ogre spray to defeat such a foe. (if anyone gets that allusion, you get a :cookie: ).
Druid Roxors 03-10-04, 06:30 PM	Color Spray!!! Anyways, - Tactics Sent to Battousai for Corinthus - Tactics Recieved from Bishop the Bardician for Fargus.* Edit: I thought this was the Tavern... *sighs*
Druid Roxors 03-10-04, 06:33 PM	Grr, stop posting stuff that has nothing to do with this thread! I thought this was the tavern, if we get off topic it will be difficult to address concerns and problems for this weeks fights!
xeno_eleusis 03-10-04, 08:22 PM	I am moding a ECL2 fight and I've found errors that are pivital to the fight. Human base speed 30 ft +10 fast movement barabrian with a medium load puts him at 20 ft +10 fm, gives him a +3 max Dex and -3 acp. Since he is carrying a medium load, shouldn't he mark all that on the character sheet. Lastly, I don't think he would actually carry all that gear into a match with him. It would "get in the way" and encumber him and cause him to have 30 ft of movement with penalties instead of his 40 ft of movement that is marked on his sheet.
SnarkHunter 03-10-04, 10:37 PM	Not really a problem, but Ethendril; I'll be leaving my ccomputer for a week early Sunday, so if you could run the Donkey Ilene fight/marital difficulty on Saturday, that would be super awesome. Super Duper awesome. @Xeno: If 40ft speed is absolutely necessary for the tactics to work you should E-mail him and say that his tactics are in error. Then he can either revise them or send you a listing of what he'll be shedding.
xeno_eleusis 03-11-04, 01:11 AM	@SnarkHunter He hasn't sent tactics yet, so I was hoping that he would read this. I guess it's not a big of a deal. Mostly I was conserned because someone went over all the ECL2 characters just recently and somehow missed this error. From a mod point of view, if he doesn't say anything about leaving his backpack behind in his tactics but then his tactics include moves of 40 ft, can I assume that he meant not to bring the pack into the arena?
Smergel 03-11-04, 04:05 AM	Originally posted by xeno_eleusis Not that this matters but compare our two builds? I'm not going to say that Smergel copied my build, because I don't belive that anyone can copy a build, all builds are original. But I do want to point out the differeneces in our builds, strictly from a Character Optimization point of view. Acutally my build is based on a character I'm playing in a campaign, so he is not strictly optimized. BTW where are the pairings posted? I know I've seen them before but can't find them now :P -Smergel
xeno_eleusis 03-11-04, 04:22 AM	Originally posted by Smergel Acutally my build is based on a character I'm playing in a campaign, so he is not strictly optimized. BTW where are the pairings posted? I know I've seen them before but can't find them now :P -Smergel I like the Human Sleepmaster build you got. I just posted my Tiefling Sleepmaster a few hours before you posted yours, then we got paired together. And I'm struggling with tactics. But really I was just posting for other ideas. I was thinking Gray Elf myself, 20 Int and immune to sleep for starters. I think it'll be an interesting fight so good luck to you. here is that link to the pairings (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=190985&perpage=1&pagenumber=4) you were looking for.
Mercy 03-11-04, 06:14 PM	@Bishop the Bardican - Nice fight, went as I expected. For future fights I believe that if scroll's spell requires a somatic component then the user of the scroll needs one free hand in order to cast the spell. Both Invis and See Invis require a somatic component so Zephin should have started with only one scroll in hand.
Druid Roxors 03-11-04, 06:16 PM	I believe that is correct, that wouldn't have changed anything within the fight tho.
sshuit 03-11-04, 08:31 PM	Question for all Mods : How do I deal with someone who wishes to Sunder a Quiver of Eholana? Is it possible? What are its stats? What happens to the items inside if it is destroyed. sshuit:confused: :confused:
kattattack22 03-11-04, 08:53 PM	Here are its stats From SRD (same thing just no copyright material in SRD so it was renamed) Efficient Quiver: This appears to be a typical arrow container capable of holding about twenty arrows. It has three distinct portions, each with a nondimensional space allowing it to store far more than would normally be possible. The first and smallest one can contain up to sixty objects of the same general size and shape as an arrow. The second slightly longer compartment holds up to eighteen objects of the same general size and shape as a javelin. The third and longest portion of the case contains as many as six objects of the same general size and shape as a bow (spears, staffs, or the like). Once the owner has filled it, the quiver can produce any item she wishes, as if from a regular quiver or scabbard. The efficient quiver weighs the same no matter what’s placed inside it. Here is how it could go about being sundered. From the SRD Sundering a Carried or Worn Object: You don’t use an opposed attack roll to damage a carried or worn object. Instead, just make an attack roll against the object’s AC. A carried or worn object’s AC is equal to 10 + its size modifier + the Dexterity modifier of the carrying or wearing character. Attacking a carried or worn object provokes an attack of opportunity just as attacking a held object does. To attempt to snatch away an item worn by a defender rather than damage it, see Disarm. You can’t sunder armor worn by another character. I don't know what the size of the quiver would be, but I am guessing those would be steps necessary. The weapon would also have to have at least some magical enhancement since you can't damage magic weapons unless the weapon used is also magical. As for the stuff inside, I guess its a question of if the quiver is just a portal to an extradimensional space that things are stored in or the space inside of it has been altered to hold more volume than it normally would. If its a gate then sundering it would lose access to those things. If its just an altered space then all those things would still be there, just the container would no longer be able to hold them. On a more personal note, HOLY S***!
Jindl 03-11-04, 09:12 PM	You don't need a magic weapon, because the quiver is not a magic weapon. Otherwise, the sundering rules above are correct. I would estimate its size as Tiny. Since it is like a normal quiver, it is leather or hide (hardness 2, 5hps/inch - I would give it 5 hps.) If it is sundered, then you cannot access the items within, as it does create an extradimensional space. -Jindl
JonahBlack 03-11-04, 09:16 PM	Hmm... now who would do that ; ) As a note, the quiver of Ehlonna uses the term 'non-dimensional space', as does the bad of holding. The bag and quiver also both require secret chest. When the bag is ruptured, it "is ruined. All contents are lost forever". Just my (completely impartial) 2cp.
kattattack22 03-11-04, 09:29 PM	Originally posted by Jindl You don't need a magic weapon, because the quiver is not a magic weapon. But the quiver is magical... Anyway, I don't think it makes a difference I do believe the person in question has a magical weapon. When the bag is ruptured, it "is ruined. All contents are lost forever". I just hope the person who has the quiver didn't put a lot of expense items in it.
Jindl 03-11-04, 09:30 PM	The items and the quiver would be restored after the fight, as part of the arena rules. -Jindl
sshuit 03-11-04, 10:33 PM	And we have agreed that sundering worn/carried non-weapon objects in melee is legit Riiiiight?..... sshuit
Battousai2005 03-11-04, 10:38 PM	delete
kattattack22 03-11-04, 11:16 PM	And we have agreed that sundering worn/carried non-weapon objects in melee is legit Riiiiight?..... It's core (unfortunately). I don't any reason why it wouldn't be.
Druid Roxors 03-11-04, 11:27 PM	@ Tellish of Ket: Please answer the E-mail I sent you, I cannot start the fight without your response. (or will, tomorrow).
Tellish_of_Ket 03-12-04, 12:03 AM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors @ Tellish of Ket: Please answer the E-mail I sent you, I cannot start the fight without your response. (or will, tomorrow). I have replied and hope you find the answers satisfactory. -ToK
Bishop the Bardican 03-12-04, 09:44 AM	Originally posted by Mercy @Bishop the Bardican - Nice fight, went as I expected. For future fights I believe that if scroll's spell requires a somatic component then the user of the scroll needs one free hand in order to cast the spell. Both Invis and See Invis require a somatic component so Zephin should have started with only one scroll in hand. I know that arcane scrolls incur arcane spell failure if the caster is wearing armor, but is Mercy right about requiring a free hand to activate the scroll? I can not name them off the top of my head, but I seem to remember some fights with scroll-users that either had a scroll in each hand or activated the scroll while they wore a heavy or tower shield. Please, Jindl, drop the knowledge on us.
Jindl 03-12-04, 09:59 AM	Casting a spell requires that you complete any necessary verbal or somatic components. Some spells (like True strike) have no somatic components, and you could use a scroll of true strike with your other hand holding a shield. Other spells (like cure light wounds) do have somatic components and would require one hand to hold the scroll and another free hand to complete the somatic components. This means that you need a hand free and a hand to hold the scroll in order to cast a somatic spell. Some types of shields allow the wielder to hold stuff in their shield hand (small shields and bucklers), so a caster with one of these shields could hold the scroll in the shield hand and complete the somatic with the free hand. But for the most part, this has been run incorrectly in a lot of fights. Clerics are probably the biggest culprits, since they often have shields or weapons drawn. Sometimes other casters make this mistake as well, either holding two scrolls or a scroll and a weapon. We, as Pitlords, really need to crack down on this. It is giving scroll users an unfair advantage. -Jindl
Bishop the Bardican 03-12-04, 10:12 AM	@Jindl Thank you for the quick answer. I will begin using the correct method. Have the elder mods addressed the question of copying from another wizard's spellbook? I only ask because it could effect the updating of my character for next week. @Mercy In your fight I doubt that this mistake will make much of a difference as your opponent has some unused move actions. However, Jo'Li is finished as soon as you start grappling. Tough call. I have some time on Saturday to work on the fight if you think another round would make a difference.
Jindl 03-12-04, 11:44 AM	@Myrridin - Some minor errors on the Silencius vs Enialis fight. (Nothing that would change the outcome). 1. Silencius has uncanny dodge, so his AC during Enialis's first attacks should be 15 (+1 size, +4 dex). 2. Silencius should have cover from that vantage (cover granted by the column at 0,0). So, his AC for the rapid shot should have been 15 +4 cover. Enialis could easily have moved 5-10 more feet to the side and negated this cover (not that the cover mattered anyway.) His mount could move 50 feet and him still fire without penalties. 3. In the future, list the rider's position as (mounted), and list the mount as a seperate creature with its position listed on the map. For large mounts/creatures list the position as (bottom left xx,yy). So, here is how Enialis and his mount should have been listed: Enialis, (mounted), 25/25 hp Red, (bottom left 20,0), 30/30 hp Otherwise good work on such a short fight. -Jindl
Myrridin 03-12-04, 12:17 PM	Jindl: Thanks. I didn't know how to put the mount's place on the grid. 2. I was trying to manuever him to get a clear shot at his target, so I would've done that had I noticed the pillar in the way. Thanks for the tips. Yeah, short fight. I hate crits for longbows at lowish levels.
Mercy 03-12-04, 12:30 PM	Originally posted by Bishop the Bardican @Mercy In your fight I doubt that this mistake will make much of a difference as your opponent has some unused move actions. However, Jo'Li is finished as soon as you start grappling. Tough call. I have some time on Saturday to work on the fight if you think another round would make a difference. I don't think it made a difference in the outcome in the fight, so don't worry about it.
Mercy 03-12-04, 12:34 PM	@Jindl and Myrridin - Rapid Shot is a full round action, can you use Rapid Shot if you move your mount or yourself more then 5'? I thought directing a mount was a move action. Nevermind I just read up on the difference between ranged and melee combat while mounted. It appears the fight was ran correctly in regards to my confused Rapid Shot issue above.
sshuit 03-12-04, 05:33 PM	In Roger's Fight it was pointed out that Zippy is not eligible for Horsehoes of Speed since he is a magical beast. 1. Is this the current ruling? 2. Can I have a full refund on the horsehoes if it is? 3. Also Snark pointed out that the extra 2 HD increase BAB by +1, shouldn't it be +2 as Magical beasts advance as fighters?... 4. Can I choose any feat that Zippy qualifies for including monster manual feats? Zippy and Roger. (A very confused Unicorn that can't understand why it can't wear horseshoes.....)
Jindl 03-12-04, 06:19 PM	Originally posted by sshuit In Roger's Fight it was pointed out that Zippy is not eligible for Horsehoes of Speed since he is a magical beast. 1. Is this the current ruling? 2. Can I have a full refund on the horsehoes if it is? 3. Also Snark pointed out that the extra 2 HD increase BAB by +1, shouldn't it be +2 as Magical beasts advance as fighters?... 4. Can I choose any feat that Zippy qualifies for including monster manual feats? Zippy and Roger. (A very confused Unicorn that can't understand why it can't wear horseshoes.....) 1. Yes, you must have hooves to wear the horseshoes and must be of the Animal type to activate them. So, Zippy cannot use the horseshoes of speed. 2. Since you never used the horseshoes for any mount other than the unicorn, yes you may refund them at full value. 3. Yes, because Zippy is a magical beast (not an augmented animal like most special mounts), his additional HD grant the standard bonuses for magical beast HD. Base your bab and saves off of the total # of magical beast HD. 4. Yes, monster manual feats are available to all gladiators who qualify. (Take a look at Improved Natural Armor. It even refers to humans taking it to improve their natural armor from +0 to +1.) -Jindl
SnarkHunter 03-12-04, 07:14 PM	3. But it lists the extra HD of Paladin mounts as only giving a clerics BAB bonus. Trust me I would prefer it the other way. @Ethendril: The chainmail armor is mithral, counts as light. Bull's strength, Aid, and Bears endurance each last 30 rounds not 10. You didn't list any heights, but with my correct move speed I hope you would at least grant the possibility. My tactics listed using the protection from good spell after fly so it ould have lasted an additional round. The qualifier on healing was assuming melee combat. Please revise the fight with at least some of these in mind. Edit: Oh also the minimum extra hp’s Aid could have granted were 4 (it looks like you had the caster level of each at 1. The caster level of scrolls is determined by the spell level, in this case 3). Sorry if this seems like a lot. Fights are complicated.
Ethendril 03-12-04, 08:11 PM	I knew there would be errors, which I will fix (although I won't be able to today). I'll probably end up re-running the fight from the point errors started. I wish I'd caught that mithral chainmail thing, Snark. That would have changed quite a bit. I'll rework it with that in (and the bad spell durations) and see how fast you can climb that tree (I was calculating height, but when I thought you could only climb at 40' she was always faster). My revisions may not be up for a while, so no one hold their breath. -Ethendril
Jindl 03-12-04, 08:22 PM	Originally posted by SnarkHunter 3. But it lists the extra HD of Paladin mounts as only giving a clerics BAB bonus. Trust me I would prefer it the other way. Actually, it says "A paladin's mount is treated as a magical beast, not an animal, for the purpose of all effects that depend on type (though it retains an animal's HD, base attack bonus, saves, skill points, and feats)." Which tells us that the entry is written assuming that the base creature was an animal. Since your base creature was a magical beast, then you would replace "animal's HD" with "magical beast's HD". The "Bonus HD" section below this quote makes the same assumption, that the base form was an animal. That's why they talk about it having character levels equal to the animal's HD. If your base creature was magical beast, you would again substitute "magical beast" for the word "animal" and it would be clear that it's base attack, saves, skills, and feats are all based upon magical beast HD. Zippy and Monk-bane both should be basing their bab, saves, and skills off of magical beast HD, not animal HD. This is balanced by the slower improvment of the alternate special mounts, and the fact that according to the DMG, if you have an alternate special mount, you use the higher value for natural armor (between the standard for the creature and the table on pg. 205). If you had a normal special mount (ie. heavy warhorse) then you would add the two natural armor values together. So basically, a magical beast special mount will have a better BAB and saves than a normal one, but its abilities will not improve as fast, nor will its natural armor improve as much. -Jindl
Rosella 03-12-04, 08:38 PM	My additions that might be pointed out; Shooting at full cover isn't any use offcourse, and Ilene does know this. If she can't move around the total cover, she will offcourse ready an action. She's intelligent enough for that. Cat's grace indeed gives only 1 ac bonus to Ilene, but that does make it 22, instead of the original 21. I missed the description of Donkey's AC after he came out to fight, I'd like to know how high it was and how he got that. (makes it easier to read and needed for tactics study) p.s; I'm still in favor of not editing fights after they're posted. Mod's should be respected and allowing changes could result in quite a lot of begging, crying and shouting about match outcomes. I think this issue should be addressed more strictly and as such there should be a fixed rule on this.
kattattack22 03-13-04, 01:39 AM	p.s; I'm still in favor of not editing fights after they're posted. Mod's should be respected and allowing changes could result in quite a lot of begging, crying and shouting about match outcomes. I think this issue should be addressed more strictly and as such there should be a fixed rule on this. There is a fixed rule on this. Pitlords do not have to rerun fights. People can point out mistakes and such to remind the Pitlords for future fights. Which is what this thread should be about. Maybe putting a summary of issues and final rulings discussed here at the end might be helpful to the Pitlords?
Arstimis 03-13-04, 04:00 AM	Just a few questions about Kiowen's fight vs. Roger Round 4: Why did my eagle stay there and attack. My tactics stated that the eagle would perform fly by attacks. The main reason being that Zippy could demolish it.**After the first rounds of buffing get into melee with Roger. Have Swifter do fly by attacks on Zippy.** Round 5: Why did Kiowen do nothing in this round? Round 6: *Zippy hopes to have more success (Horn 19+12=31 vs 20, Hoof1: 3+4=7, Hoof 2: 18+4=22 dmg: 7+2+10=19)* What happened to my images? Round 7: *Roger tries to bind his wounds (lay on hands 21pts) to some relief.* Wouldnt he have to make an opposed grapple check to do this? Round 8: *Hoof1: 13+4=17 vs 17, * My Ac should actually be 18 (10+3wis+1(monk)+4 mage armor+1 dodge(read what my tactics said about this) -1 size) **Once i grapple Roger i will switch Zippy as my dodge** That last mistake in round 8 would have kept me alive and allow me to finish off Roger...so..it was a small error, that could make a big difference. If i am incorrect with any of my assumptions, please explain why **= quote from my tactics *= quote from the fight
Rosella 03-13-04, 04:27 AM	Katattack, I'm aware of that, but it's do not HAVE TO part that's bugging me. Enforcing the law of never rerunning would forever get rid of those begs for rerun. Somebody else thought of this, but I think I should repeat it (for the sake of Ilene): for the duration of spells, Donkey is threated as a character level 1 character.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-13-04, 06:10 AM	Originally posted by Arstimis Just a few questions about Kiowen's fight vs. Roger Round 4: Why did my eagle stay there and attack. My tactics stated that the eagle would perform fly by attacks. The main reason being that Zippy could demolish it.**After the first rounds of buffing get into melee with Roger. Have Swifter do fly by attacks on Zippy.** Round 5: Why did Kiowen do nothing in this round? Round 6: *Zippy hopes to have more success (Horn 19+12=31 vs 20, Hoof1: 3+4=7, Hoof 2: 18+4=22 dmg: 7+2+10=19)* What happened to my images? Round 7: *Roger tries to bind his wounds (lay on hands 21pts) to some relief.* Wouldnt he have to make an opposed grapple check to do this? Round 8: *Hoof1: 13+4=17 vs 17, * My Ac should actually be 18 (10+3wis+1(monk)+4 mage armor+1 dodge(read what my tactics said about this) -1 size) **Once i grapple Roger i will switch Zippy as my dodge** That last mistake in round 8 would have kept me alive and allow me to finish off Roger...so..it was a small error, that could make a big difference. If i am incorrect with any of my assumptions, please explain why **= quote from my tactics *= quote from the fight I haven't read the fight yet, but i wanna comment a second on some of Kiowens statements and maybe can help shed a bit of light initially. Round 7 concerns: Nope. He would not. It is a supernatural ability that does not provoke an attack of opportunity. Being a supernatural ability it has no verbal/somatic/material components and he can use it freely. Round 8 concerns: If you were grappling Roger then you lose all dodge bonuses (including the dodge feat) against Zippy. Zippy is free to pummel you into oblivion. So declaring your dodge against Zippy would have been futile. Hope that helps explains a few things for ya. -ToK
SnarkHunter 03-13-04, 08:09 AM	Thanks Tok, Round 4, this was a judgement call on my point, but since your tactics read After the first rounds of buffing get into melee with Roger. Have Swifter do fly by attacks on Zippy. and you were not yet in melee with Roger, I presumed the previous condition-Swifter protecting you bodily-still applied. Round 5: Activating the feather token (like any other magic device) is a standard action Round 6: Since the attacking shield managed to presumably find the correct image and you can't shift images till your round, zippy focused on the correct image (1!). I'm sorry if the fight didn't go as you liked, really, not getting the Mirror image first round was the biggist thing.
Bishop the Bardican 03-13-04, 10:08 AM	@Druid_Roxors Thanks for running the fight, but I do have a couple of questions. In rounds 11 and 12, how does Dominicus maintain his cover from Fargus. Dominicus ends round 10 adjacent to Fargus. Fargus has a 10' speed advantage over Dominicus. How would it be possible for Dominicus to take cover and have Fargus be able to maneuver to a square that would not give cover to his opponent? Why did he throw his sword? Dominicus can not put any distance between us once he is seen. Fargus should be able to maneuver for another melee attack. Please explain how improved or advanced cover can not be out-manuevered. EDIT: Varying Degrees of Cover (from PHB p. 152) "In some cases, cover may provide a greater bonus to AC and Reflex saves. For instance, a character peering around a corner or through an arrow slit has even better cover than a character standing behind a low wall or an obstacle." Would you consider the obstacles in the Colisseum to be obstacles or arrow slits. Dominicus was always attacking Fargus while claiming improved cover so he can not be said to be, "peering around a corner."
MotherBast 03-13-04, 10:54 AM	The arena rules state that the rocks and colums can be use to provide "up to" total cover. How much cover they provide depends on where you are standing relative to the obsitcal. For instance: 000 1R2 000 In this example, the 0s are empty spaces, the 1 is you, the 2 is your target, and R is the rock. In this case, the target has total cover, and you can not attack him at all. Now.... 000 0R2 010 In this example, the target now has only normal cover from you, so +4 AC. In the last example... 000 0R2 100 In this example, it might be possible to rule the target has greater cover from your reach weapon (from this position, you could not attack him with a non-reach weapon), and get +8 AC. In the case of greater cover though, it is always the DMs discression as to what degree of cover is provided. In the last example, if 1 took a 5' step forward and attacked with a normal weapon, it would be pretty hard fot the DM to justify giving 2 greater cover in my opinion. I would only ever grant greater cover under extream conditions, such as when attacking through a hole in an otherwise solid wall, or when only one corner of the attackers square can be connected with the defender's square by a stright line not passing through an obstical. In the second two examples above the attacker can allways connect with the defender's bottom corners unobstructed. So, greater cover in the arena, while possible by the rules, would be extreamly diffacult to obtain, and easly negated even if it was obtained. As for how even the normal cover could not be negated, I belive Tellish was readying actions to step behind the cover with a 5' step as you attacked, so once your attack begain, you could no longer move to negate the cover. That was how I read it anyway, I could be mistaken.
Battousai2005 03-13-04, 10:54 AM	@Kaigan: Need to say this. When a mount is hit in combat while the character is mounted, the rider must make a Ride check.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 11:29 AM	Originally posted by Bishop the Bardican @Druid_Roxors Thanks for running the fight, but I do have a couple of questions. In rounds 11 and 12, how does Dominicus maintain his cover from Fargus. Dominicus ends round 10 adjacent to Fargus. Fargus has a 10' speed advantage over Dominicus. How would it be possible for Dominicus to take cover and have Fargus be able to maneuver to a square that would not give cover to his opponent? Why did he throw his sword? Dominicus can not put any distance between us once he is seen. Fargus should be able to maneuver for another melee attack. Please explain how improved or advanced cover can not be out-manuevered. When Tellish sent his tactics to me, I asked him about cover and improved cover. I told him I wouldn't give him improved cover except under extreme circumstances. He assured me (as arena "lawyer") that it has been done that way before and it is perfectly legal. It seems that as long as you have cover you can use it as you please (if you are adjacent, that is) Ill paste a copy of his mail to clarify some stuff. Originally Sent by Druid Roxors Remember Snipe reduces your hide by -20 and the fact that a column isn't necesarily improved cover. Ill let you use advanced cover when you are not attacking. Once you begin tossing Alchy Fire your cover will be standard cover. (no hide bonus) Originally Sent by Tellish of Ket And as for the cover being used as advanced cover, please review the cover rules. It's is absolutely possible and the arena map also states that we can use pillars and the 5' blocks for anything up to full cover if needed. So since advanced is less than full, i'm chosing advanced. maybe i'm not clear on my positioning. xxA xCB xxx This area represents us fighting by a piece of rock. I am A, he is B, and C is the cover. From that vantage point, there is no cover. When i ready and take a 5' back toward the cover, it now looks like this. xAx xCB xxx As you can see, i didn't turn any corner and i gain stated cover bonus. He may 5' up after his attack unless he previously moved to get there. If he previously moved, then he doesn't have any 5' adjusts and cannot move after his attack. Basically what ends up happening is if he (on his next action) takes a 5' up to deny me my cover, my ready kicks in and i take another 5' back and now the diagram looks like this. AxB xCx xxx Now i'm out of his melee reach (unless he has a reach weapon of course) and his attack fails, SINCE he already took a 5' step and can no longer move. Remember, the only time you can take a 5' is if you haven't already moved during that round. Now, i stay where i am, with my readied action again...and again he has to 5' to attack me. Now the diagram looks like this. xBx ACx xxx So as you can see, my tactics are PERFECTLY legal. Sorry if the way i described them to you made them sound more difficult than it really is. I invented this "pillar dance" in the arena and i'm wagering he can't defeat it. Hope this clears things up. I haven't read your other e-mail yet. So, i'll go read that right now. -ToK Ok, maybe this can clear a few things up, If changes need be, Ill re-run the fight.
Kaigan 03-13-04, 11:34 AM	@Bat: In the PHB it says nothing under the ride skill that you have to make a ride check when your mount takes damage.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 11:36 AM	About Improved cover on round 11: A reduction in AC by 4 would mean that you miss anyways, I do not think improved cover is an issue there, except on the fact that it granted him +10 hide on his sniping. If any definitive call shall be made about cover, the Elders should decide. If so, I shall rerun the fight with the appropriate changes.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 11:38 AM	Originally posted by Kaigan @Bat: In the PHB it says nothing under the ride skill that you have to make a ride check when your mount takes damage. Maybe he is refering to this: (havn't read the fight tho) 3.5 SRD: Feats MOUNTED COMBAT [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Ride 1 rank. Benefit: Once per round when your mount is hit in combat, you may attempt a Ride check (as a reaction) to negate the hit. The hit is negated if your Ride check result is greater than the opponent's attack roll. (Essentially, the Ride check result becomes the mount's Armor Class if it's higher than the mount's regular AC.) Special: A fighter may select Mounted Combat as one of his fighter bonus feats.
MotherBast 03-13-04, 11:41 AM	Tellish's pillar dance is completly legal, and has been used quite succesfully by him in the past, and copied by others as well. But, though I don't think he ment to, he did mislead you about the cover. The player can not 'choose" to use cover as "greater cover." If you will cross refrence the PHB rules, the degree is always assigned by the DM. In this case, the Pitloard. So, while he may choose to use cover, he may never choose what degree of cover is provided. During the pillar dance, at no point would he have had sufficent cover to gain +8 AC. Still, as far as the fight goes, by that point I belive you were only giving standard cover bonus anyway, and the readied actions to move are what really made the difference. I would say you ran it correctly.
Arstimis 03-13-04, 11:46 AM	Thanks TOK for answering my questions @Snark: I still think Swifter should not have stayed in melee. I never said swifter should attack. I said fly by attacks. and i was in melee with Roger. He attacked me, and Swifter attacked him. Oh..and he can attack with his shield while being grappled? But oh well....Death is pretty common for Monk's around here
Jindl 03-13-04, 11:50 AM	On the topic of advanced cover, MotherBast is correct. It can only be granted by the Pitlord, and it should exist only in extreme cicurmstances. My general feeling is that we should disallow advanced cover, as it is a totally vague thing which has to be granted by the Pitlord. There is no way to ensure that it is uniformly or appropriately granted, as different Pitlord's will have different feelings on what is necessary to get it. And, since it only applies in extreme circumstances, it should never happen in the arena (due to the the colissuem's enviroment being geared towards no extreme enviromental effects - I'm referring to the lighting conditions, grass for entangles, that whole thing.) @Cat - Please submit this to the Elder Forum, for us to vote on whether to allow advanced cover in the arena. -Jindl
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 11:51 AM	Yes MotherBast, I believe he should have taken normal cover instead, not that it would have made a difference.
Bishop the Bardican 03-13-04, 12:12 PM	The pillar dance is a beautiful thing, when Dominicus is on the corner he can always get away from melee. However, when he is lined up with the rock Fargus can move like this. xFx F=Fargus xDx D=Dominicus xRx R=Rock In this case, D can not round the corner or 5' step out of F's reach. A 2nd level warrior with superior movement is supposed to fall for the same positioning trick multiple times. Fargus should at least get to attack in melee every other round, whenever Dominicus is on one of the rock's faces. General argument against the pillar dance: The readied action is activated by your opponent threatening you. It occurs before the attack in the middle of his turn. The opponent should be able to continue moving towards your character as long as he has the necessary speed(40', 30'). Then, the opponent attacks. If situations change in the middle of his turn the opponent should be able to react to them. The opponent is in the middle of his turn and should be able to extend this move if he has the speed. In the classic example of the readied action, a character readies an action to shoot any monster that comes through the door. What happens? The monster starts its move. The attack occurs. Then, if alive, the monster continues its move into the room. Elder Pitlords, am I crazy or is this not the order of events in the round?
MotherBast 03-13-04, 12:21 PM	You could have done the moves around to base him directly opposit of the rock, had that been in your tactics.... that is defanitly what I would call a tactic, and unless you outlined carrying it out in your tactics, you can't expect your pitlord to do it for you. Second, Tellish's readied action was triggered by your actual attack, so he moved after you already started your attack... so, first you move, taking your move action, then you begin your attack, which he interupts with his readied action and moves. Now its back to you, but as you already ended your movement to begin your attack, you can not begin your movement again. Your attack finishes from the position you started it in. If you had spring attack, you could then move.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 12:38 PM	Fist of all, I forgot to switch arround the x and y axis notation on the fight, ill do that now... (only on half of the fight) Originally posted by Bishop the Bardican The pillar dance is a beautiful thing, when Dominicus is on the corner he can always get away from melee. However, when he is lined up with the rock Fargus can move like this. xFx F=Fargus xDx D=Dominicus xRx R=Rock In this case, D can not round the corner or 5' step out of F's reach. A 2nd level warrior with superior movement is supposed to fall for the same positioning trick multiple times. Fargus should at least get to attack in melee every other round, whenever Dominicus is on one of the rock's faces.This position never comes to be. According the the map and battle positions this is the way in which you found Dominicus: 000 DX0 F00 Precisely, he does get to attack every other round, when he has cover from you. The first round you fought him in melee (round 10) is described above, and Dominicus moved north to avoid an attack of oportunity for shooting with a ranged weapon. If you review the fight, you did hit him this first time. He moved backwards and next round took cover from your attack. Never did you enter the real "Dance of Death" because you were downed before. You might want to be moe specific on your tactics about what to do in each circumstance. I was definately not going to let you die after 15 rounds running arround a rock. Of course I would have used some judgement. In the last round you were about to throw your sword in the point of the dance where he is unable to get cover but you are unable to move, so that would have been the best tactic-less desition and goes with your rage. after throwing your sword you would make a 5ft step and pick it up. So actually you are "defeating" the technique. Too bad you never got to use my brilliant countertactic ( ;) )since you were dead already... General argument against the pillar dance: The readied action is activated by your opponent threatening you. It occurs before the attack in the middle of his turn. The opponent should be able to continue moving towards your character as long as he has the necessary speed(40', 30'). Then, the opponent attacks. If situations change in the middle of his turn the opponent should be able to react to them. The opponent is in the middle of his turn and should be able to extend this move if he has the speed. But you never get the chance to do any of this because you are not charging on the first round because you were knocked prone (trying to put out the flames) and you must be 10ft away to charge. In any case, you did get to attack every single round, I cannot see the problem here. In the classic example of the readied action, a character readies an action to shoot any monster that comes through the door. What happens? The monster starts its move. The attack occurs. Then, if alive, the monster continues its move into the room. Elder Pitlords, am I crazy or is this not the order of events in the round? Yes, this is the way ready works, he readied on your attack, I did let you move 5ft forward and hit him. The only thing the "Dance" did for him in this fight is grant him +4 cover bonus on round 11.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-13-04, 12:42 PM	Actually, the biggest reason why the pillar dance works is because the opposing gladiator has already used his 5' step to get to me, that's when i move really. Him attacking me or not doesn't matter that much because once you've moved 5'-step, that's all the movement you can do in a round, peroid. I guess advanced cover is subjective and i replied to roxor based on how silencius was doing it and also how by literal interpretations of the rule, it was perfectly feasible. I'm willing to discuss it's future use further though. -Tok
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 02:45 PM	Battousai, Thanks for running the fight, It came out as expected. So much for my countless contingiencies ;). Just for future reference: - Call lightning should have been cast safely inside the mists (as a full round action) and then moved to the edge. - I need not concentrate on the spell "call lightning" after its being cast. Shooting the bolts is a standard action, its not a concentration action. - Remember I had partial concealment from his bow. - Entangle provokes Double concentration checks, the first DC 15 + spell level the second dc 15. - You didn't make sure he was crispy Other than that, Thanks alot for running the fight!
SnarkHunter 03-13-04, 03:07 PM	Hey MB, I know Mag should be doing this but just in case he's lying, bleeding to death somewhere on the pennsylvania turnpike slowly whispering, "cooooooore..." I might as well. Considering that he had bought the cold iron arrows specificly for this fight and that their very cheep, you porlly could of used them. But i understand why you wouldn't. Zorander has uncanny dodge so can't be sneak attacked. Thas about it!
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 03:33 PM	Harvester Loses Match verses Dragon! Why you ask? Here is why he should lose... Meld into Stone Meld into stone enables you to meld your body and possessions into a single block of stone. The stone must be large enough to accomodate your body in all three dimensions. When the casting is complete, you and not more than 100 pounds of nonliving gear merge with the stone. If either condition is violated, the spell fails and is wasted. If you look at how much the Harvester was carrying 143 lbs of gear the spell fizzles and is wasted! That means his PC can't meld into stone and this spell is what saved this PC. This is a HUGE MISTAKE! It should be fixed and the fight should be given to the correct winner!
MotherBast 03-13-04, 03:42 PM	Your right Snark. I didn't pay that much attention to Zorander's sheet. I can see where the cold iron arrows might have made a difference, in prolonging the fight. After the 22 damage, Kiri would have flown away and healed to full before starting over again. The uncanny dodge thing would have made the fight longer too. The end result would have been the same I think.
SnarkHunter 03-13-04, 04:05 PM	Aye most likely. Without a crit he didn't have much hope.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 04:08 PM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ Harvester Loses Match verses Dragon! Why you ask? Here is why he should lose... If you look at how much the Harvester was carrying 143 lbs of gear the spell fizzles and is wasted! That means his PC can't meld into stone and this spell is what saved this PC. This is a HUGE MISTAKE! It should be fixed and the fight should be given to the correct winner! You are absolutely right, but I wonder, is there anything about his gear that can be dropped and does not impose a limitation for his current tactics? That could save him, I would have repplied to his tactics about him and either surrender or think of another thing.
Caterane 03-13-04, 04:08 PM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ Harvester Loses Match verses Dragon! Why you ask? Here is why he should lose... If you look at how much the Harvester was carrying 143 lbs of gear the spell fizzles and is wasted! That means his PC can't meld into stone and this spell is what saved this PC. This is a HUGE MISTAKE! It should be fixed and the fight should be given to the correct winner! The sundered Towershield weighed 40 lb, so I was at 103 lb. I don`t know why you make that much wind because of 3 lb but I could`ve just dropped the flail (which I didn`t need anyway) to get the last 3 lb.
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 04:22 PM	You didn't drop it though or specify to and as I said the spell fizzles. Also I might mention that none of your weights for any of your items are actually shown on the table. That still needs to be audited as well. 3lbs is still 3lbs over too much and the spell fizzles. You didn't mention it in your tactics but since this spell makes or breaks your tactics it is very important and would cost you the fight. Apparently your PC wasn't aware they were over the weight since you weren't aware of it either. The spell would have fizzled and that means the dragon would have finished the Harvester off. This is why it is soooooo important to list weights exactly. I started doing a more careful audit of your PC's weight before I found it listed but this information should be clear and easy to add up and check. We went through all this last week with your PC Ixidor and I think you should be listing this information. The only reason not to is to try to sneak some amounts in your favor. I'm not trying to say you are doing anything wrong but it is starting to feel like you are purposely not listing important weight features of your PCs.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by Caterane The sundered Towershield weighed 40 lb, so I was at 103 lb. I don`t know why you make that much wind because of 3 lb but I could`ve just dropped the flail (which I didn`t need anyway) to get the last 3 lb. Actually, a tower shield is 45 lb...
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 04:27 PM	If that takes you under then fine, but as I said above your PC's total weight should be audited now to determine if you are really under 100lbs. This makes or breaks your spell and it is important to know if it succeeds or not. The weight should be looked over carefully by Jindl. In your defense the shield does weight 45 lbs and if your weight is correct then your spell works, but I believe it is too important to not check this out first. Jindl should check into it carefully to make sure your PC is in compliance for the spell's success.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 04:29 PM	I wonder if casting the spell "Enlarge Person" would disrupt the spell? Since his equpment now weights twice as much...
Caterane 03-13-04, 04:34 PM	Originally posted by Rayne: You didn't drop it though or specify to and as I said the spell fizzles. Excerpt from Caterane's tactics: drop towershield, cast Meld into stone at once and "descend into the deths of the earth" Yo, and since the shield weighs 45 lb I was below 100 pounds. Anyway, I`m eager to analyse your next fight...
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 04:36 PM	In fact it would probably directly affect the spell. It might make his body too big to fit in the rock to and that also would make the spell fail. I hadn't thought about this but it seems like this whole thing smells a bit wrong to me. I think Jindl should look over this whole section of the fight very carefully since success henges on its success.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 04:41 PM	Actually, after having just checked the Size and space limitations rules, I found that even if he squeezes, he wouldn't fit because large creatures occupy 2 squares instead of 4 when doing so.
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 04:42 PM	Quote by Caterane Anyway, I`m eager to analyse your next fight... Analyze my fights anytime you want to. My PC's lose most of the time so maybe you can help them win more? I could care less about winning or losing but what does matter to me is that fights are run fairly for people here in the arena. My PC's are both in compliance and I try hard to show everything about them in detail. I show weights for all their items carefully and I add them carefully. If I've made any mistakes calculating their weights, costs, or any other part of their sheet I welcome the information. Audit away Caterane, I want to have my PC's be as accurate and fair as they can be. I like reading the fights you run as well and I like you but sometimes I feel like you are so interested in winning that you are willing to break a few 'minor' (or what you believer is minor) rules to get a victory. Please check all my PC's and their fights. If they ever win unfairly or lose unfairly I hope you are there to catch the mistake. It doesn't offend me and I wouldn't want it any other way. Rayne
Caterane 03-13-04, 04:47 PM	...and then, there`s the "no rerun" rule. Rayne, I don´t know why you are picking my fight, jumping up and down with shaking fist while there is hardly a single error-free fight in a week but I have the impression that there`s more behind this. You are checking the fight up and down and insist on giving me a retroactive loss when there could be an easy fixing ...IF there is a mistake at all. And you accused me twice now of propable cheating. I don`t like that. In fact I just don`t want to count every single potion and recalculate the weigh every time anew. There are more important things to attend to, and many other players who don`t want to invest time in every detail may be scarred away if we force them to nitpick with every potion and scroll. An approximate weight has to suffice in this case. Third point: if the weight is off and something in the tactic isn`t going to function, then the Pitlord should point this out. The Harvester has his dragon now and that fact WILL NOT BE CHANGED!
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 05:08 PM	I read your fight but after finishing it there was something off about the way he won. I checked out the spell and I knew that your PC wasn't in compliance to meet the requirements because I've seen what your PC's carry. I checked it out and sure enough it looked a bit off. The more I look at it the more I think your PC got away with a spell that wouldn't work for it. You keep saying that weights are not important and saying the fight is final and can't be changed. You act like a person who is worried their victory will be taken from their PC and not like a person interested in a fair fight. You say people shouldn't have to worry so much about calculating their weights right? What is this bull crap? This is a part of the rules and fair fights is what we want to have here. You may not be concerned about this but I am! You excuse weight amounts waaaaaaay toooooo easily. They are very very important for lots of things and in an arena where we are testing builds we should attempt to test them FAIRLY! My issue with you is you don't seem to care about fairness. You seem concerned with your PC's winning? You are screaming at me that you have your victory and your dragon and not that you want to make sure a clean fight was won. This is disturbing to me. As a CO Elder your primary concern should be that everyone enjoys clean fights! What is going on here? I feel like I'm being attacked for pointing out a MAJOR flaw in your win. What motivates me is a FAIR fight. If you believe most of the victories here are done incorrectly then you of all people should set an example and make sure your PC's are very accurate and that everyone elses PC's are to. Jindl does have final athority on your battle and if he thinks that he made a major mistake he has the right and the say on whether your PC won or not. I am more than willing to have all of my fights checked over as I already said. Tellish is currently auditing PC's as we speak to make sure that they are in compliance. If weights are not important then why is he doing this audit? It is very important as this fight has shown. I see you are not happy with me and my quest for fair fights. I am interested in fairness and that is why I have made the comments I have made. As a Elder you should be concerned about fairness as well. You say people will be more fearful of the fights if their PC's have be perfect and accurate but I think they will be more likely to leave if they feel things are unfair. We are trying to make the arena a place people want to come to and use PC's in. If they start seeing that fairness is thrown out the window and they are loseing fights because of it they are likely to leave. In fact I would say this is a bigger deal than the calculations of weight. You are being uncompromising about your victory and you haven't even addressed the rules about being too big for the rock you were in. Are you here to run a fair fight or to win?
Caterane 03-13-04, 05:14 PM	I read your fight but after finishing it there was something off about the way he won. I checked out the spell and I knew that your PC wasn't in compliance to meet the requirements because I've seen what your PC's carry. I checked it out and sure enough it looked a bit off. The more I look at it the more I think your PC got away with a spell that wouldn't work for it. Uhm, what was off again?
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 05:21 PM	Caterane, stop acting like a child ranting and making up excuses and accept your mistakes (If there are any, and I believe so). A point you are trying to dismiss without even thinking about it is the fact that: A. You cannot meld into stone and then become too large for the stone to hold you. B. You cannot drink potions while melded into stone or do anything else but cast spells on yourself. (As I would see it) C. Aproximation will NEVER suffice. (yes, im in revision of my character, as soon as my victory is confirmed) Address this points like a grown up and for once, act like a real "Elder", just like our last discussion about a fight against Jindl, Familiars, and spectral hands... Edit: Thought you might need some mind refreshment if you are going to say im insulting you, then judge for yourself. Start of the discussion, check all subsequent posts (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=2716865#post2716865) The Harvester has his dragon now and that fact WILL NOT BE CHANGED! Uhm, what was off again?
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 05:30 PM	As I mentioned before what I saw was all the stuff your PC was carrying and I thought to myself, all of this gear and under 100 lbs? How can that be? So I checked the weight and that is when I believed I found a major error. I notice you still haven't addressed the size factor or my question above about fairness. Are you only trying to address issues that will make your PC come out with a victory. You are an elder with a lot of responsibilities here. You get to decide the fate of a lot of rules around here (that most of us don't get a say in). You do a lot of things around here and I commend you on your efforts, but I believe you can't lose sight to what this arena is about. We are trying to make a fair environment for fights! That is priority number 1 isn't it? I thought that is why we were all here. So if that is what this place is about and you are one of a small number of people running the show here, then one of your major responsibilities to all of us is to make sure that you make sure that this place runs fairly. How can I say this any more clearly? I feel bad for stating my feelings about your PC's possibly hedging the rules, but this is how I am beginning to feel. I'm not going to appologize for telling the truth about how I feel. You are very smart and very knowledgable about D&D and I find it very suspicious that you constantly seem to ignore weight concerns for your PCs. Last week I found your PC couldn't fly with his current weight and we had to work to change this just so I could run your tactics with flying as you described them. You catch every detail but when it comes to violating rules because of weight you just don't list weights and put estimates of weight totals. This kind of behavior being repeated week after week is starting to make me think that a smart and knowledgable player is purposely trying to sneak past some rules. If you think that this assumption is an error then prove to me I'm wrong and say you are interested in fairness and willing to have your match audited. Wait till Jindl looks over the match again and lets see what he thinks.
Caterane 03-13-04, 06:07 PM	I am not the one ranting. Rayne made an insurrection about my weight being off which wasn`t the case because I dropped the towershield. I admit that I didn`t think of the weight limitation when I wrote the tactic ...but neither did anyone else who used this spell before. Jindl even animal growthed into a HUGE animal, and there were others. No one complained back then. I am glad that you, Rayne, brought up something new (so much for my interest in smooth fights) but I don`t like being set as an example. Which isn`t happening for the first time, btw. There are REALLY huge mistakes from week to week, the mistakes are brought up, heard, acknowledged and that`s it. Normally I don`t make many mistakes but when I made a big mistake ONCE (Bruno vs Jindl) I had to do something that no one had to do before me: rerun the fight. Now again. There were a dozen melders before me but I should be set as an example. Sure. Some time ago we decided that things that don`t work should be pointed out by the moderator. Jindl is an Elder Mod too and he didn`t know this too. But that´s not important because my weight was ok. Enlarged: As for being enlarged my first tactic said meld into the ground but Jindl said this is not possible. I have no idea why this was ruled that way. We decided that the ground, the pillars, the rocks, the lighting conditions, etc are everything you just need: vines and bushes for entangle, trees to climb up, everything. But the sole exception is Meld into stone. Then the ground is miracilously made from ...wood? Ice-cream? So I said he should go to the next valid meding point --> that means Jindl chose the stone, and not I. Here`s the proof from my tactic: Excerpt from Caterane's tactic: I have no idea why the ground is no valid target. We ruled that it is everything you just need: mud, sand, forest ground, etc. Same goes for everything else. Why should this be any different??? Very inconsequent. Anyway, if you still decide it is not possible, then it is not possible and I will adept. Start with Towershield in hand only. If I win ini, double move to the next possible melting spot Next point: drink potions while melted. I didn`t know this, Jindl didn`t know this, and I bet a good portion here didn`t know this too. I am glad you told us this so that we don`t make this mistake again but since the dragon did hit me anyway the +6 natural armor didn`t play a role. So much for the huge mistakes in my fight. In any case: IF the fight is that way off then it is just rerun. But we normally don`t rerun fights. I don`t know why I am always the exception to this rule. That`s the reason why I posted "WILL NOT BE CHANGED", and not because I fear something. But now I come to a point that anoys me a bit: accusation. Rayne, you now wrote half a page that I am UNFAIR (not fair = unfair). Can you please explain me why you think that way??? I just said that I just don`t recalculate my weight every time but it is approximately correct and you write a book about me being unfair, trying to cheat, and get easy victories with rule-breaking!! Then druidroxor continues that I don`t live up to my responsabilities as an Elder Mod, and that I should act like a REAL Elder ...who knows with what the next one is coming up?! Hey, what`s the problem? What happened? Ok, just to make that clear: I am NOT unfair. I am NOT breaking rules. I am NOT trying to cheat. Ok? Got this? Good. All I did was just not updating my weight because I had other more important things to attend to and didn`t think this a big thing to do. I just don`t cared. I`ll do it from now on. Promised. But don`t accuse me of cheating on purpose again! Cat Edit: Oh and btw, I spend half of my free time trying to balance the arena out and keep everything running so that was apparently a joke when you were teaching me about my responsibilities here, eh?
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 06:17 PM	Thats exactly what I (personally) have been trying to hear, if you havn't noticed, you tend to never accept being wrong. You just dance arround the issue and let it fade away. I am glad that you take this posture and accept your mistakes. If the mod should deem it unfair and want to run the fight again, so be it, otherwise I do not care spat. But, If this were to happen against a pc I would jump to his defense right away. This is not the first time that rules are used this (wrongfully) way, that is true, but had I noticed before I would have promplty pointed it out. I am not saying you are not a real elder, but the world elder means (at least to me) wisdom and knowledge. And in my book a wise man should allways strive to grow both mentally and spiritually through experience. You, and everyone else in this boards, should learn from the mistakes of others and strive for a fairer arena. Meditate for a while about what I said, and you'll see what I meant by your attitude. Edit: I never said you were "Completely Irresponsible" but I did say that you didn't take responsability for your actions (mistakes). Yes, you strive for balance in the arena... but have you ever responded to any of my points on the same matter? I've also strived to maintain balance and order here and im sure most people here are willing to help with this issue, but people like yourself tend to ignore all arguments not comming from a "Respected Elder"
Caterane 03-13-04, 06:36 PM	Roxor, I perfectly understood your point and realized the XPs I got in learning something new. Now let me show you my side. Many of my PCs losed to REALLY huge mistakes, just a few examples: Harvester vs Bruno, lvl 3: Bruno had 3 hp and CDG a nonhelpless Harvester. That cost me my entry in the Best starters section where he will never appear now. Was the fight rerun? No. Ebelin vs Bilo, lvl 4: Mag mixed my tactics completely up, asides from some smaller mistakes. This cost Ebelin the entry in the Best starters section. Was the fight rerun? No. Every week, there are hundreds of mistakes. There`s not a single word about a retroactive change, or a rerun, but when it comes to my fights examples are being set. That`s the reason why I stood up and said "No!". We didn`t do this in the past, and we surely don`t begin with it now. Be assured that the new information about Meld into stone was a valuable one and it will affect future fights, but the Harvester vs Dragon fight lies in the past. If Jindl wants to rerun it, I will accept the rerun - just that no one complains and tells me I am unfair, rulesbreaking, and cheating and "act like a person who is worried their victory will be taken from their PC". I would even save a potion of alter self...
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 06:39 PM	But now I come to a point that anoys me a bit: accusation. Rayne, you now wrote half a page that I am UNFAIR (not fair = unfair). Can you please explain me why you think that way??? I just said that I just don`t recalculate my weight every time but it is approximately correct and you write a book about me being unfair, trying to cheat, and get easy victories with rule-breaking!! Then druidroxor continues that I don`t live up to my responsabilities as an Elder Mod, and that I should act like a REAL Elder ...who knows with what the next one is coming up?! Hey, what`s the problem? What happened? Ok, just to make that clear: I am NOT unfair. I am NOT breaking rules. I am NOT trying to cheat. Ok? Got this? Good. All I did was just not updating my weight because I had other more important things to attend to and didn`t think this a big thing to do. I just don`t cared. I`ll do it from now on. Promised. But don`t accuse me of cheating on purpose again! Cat I'm not trying to make an example of you but I feel in your position you are supposed to set an example for everyone. In my own post I never accused you, in fact I said this is my oppinion... I feel bad for stating my feelings about your PC's possibly hedging the rules, but this is how I am beginning to feel. I'm not going to appologize for telling the truth about how I feel. I am allowed to post my oppinion and I excersised that right. You say above that your weight is 'approximately' right, but that isn't good enough here. Approximate is the difference between your PC gettting the spell off or not. It is a huge deal when affected by a Ray of Enfeeblement or trying to fly or any number of other possibilities. I am happy to see you will be doing this accurately from now on but that doesn't change the fact that you haven't so far. You are saying you don't cheat and you don't break rules. That is fine. So then you don't mind having your fight run fairly then? This is what you wrote earlier... The Harvester has his dragon now and that fact WILL NOT BE CHANGED! That comment along with others rubbed me the wrong way. It said to me that you were more intested in your PC's 7th win in a row and the chance to have a Dragon skeletal cohort than a fair fight. I wasn't here for all the fights in the past but if I was I would have called attention to any fights I thought were unfair. I feel terrible for the players who lost because of serious mistakes but I can't change everything myself. I don't read all of the fights around here but I wasn't going to miss a battle between a Dragon and the undefeated Harvester 2! So I read it and I noticed serious problems. I am very sorry if you feel your PC is being used as an example but that is not my intention. I think you do a great job as a player and a Pitlord but I also am very aware of how interested you are in winning fights (Just look at all of your comments about Harvester 2 being added to the all time winners list for evidence there). Sometimes you seem more interested in winning than a fair fight. Your comments earlier were all very defensive and not showing any interest in getting the fight done right. You even said that you were going to... Anyway, I`m eager to analyse your next fight... Is that a threat? I mean I come here and point out a serious problem and suddenly all of my fights are going to be eager analyzed for errors. Wow, so I make a comment you don't like and suddenly I'm out of line, picking on you, threatened, and generally ignored as jumping the gun. My insights should be respected because they are here in the interest of promoting fair fights. As for your PC melding into the ground, I agree with Jindl on this one. The ground is made of dirt not stone. The spell is meld into stone not meld into dirt or meld into ground! That is why (if you read farther into the spell's description) you see that Change stone to Mud seriously hurts the person in the large rock. If the ground does have rocks in it they are tons of little ones and the spell isn't meld into lots of small rocks and gravel either. If I could analyze every fight and had that much time my only goal would be to make sure they are fair. In the past I've had to redo sections of fights I ran because of errors I made. I made those changes and in the interest of fairness I believed it was my responsibilty. You have my sympathy and I'm sorry I've stated feelings I have about your PC's being unfair publically. I applaud the fact that our look into Meld into Stone will lead to future changes into ways this spell is being abused. I didn't write all this to pick on you. You will notice that the causes I pick to fight around here have to do with balance. I am the first one to admit that I make mistakes and I'm not always right but when possible I want things to run smoothly here on the COCO threads and that is my #1 goal.
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 07:06 PM	With all of those examples of unfairness against your characters, then you mean to say that you think that there shouldn't be so much freedom in the hands of the Pitlords in letting the fight stay Illegal? The rulles themselves state that all fights can be definitive, if you are not happy with that rule you can allways try to change it. And personally, I would think it is wise to do so. And don't think we started all of this because of our own and personal hatred for Caterane. That, is nonexistant, It was but a mere coincidence that Rayne noticed something odd and the problems started to build up like a snowball down a hill. And don't think that you are the only victim on this manner, remember last week? Im pretty sure I should have won, and I did complain, perhaps for too long.
Caterane 03-13-04, 07:33 PM	Originally posted by Druid Roxors: but people like yourself tend to ignore all arguments not comming from a "Respected Elder" I have to admit that I would value an Elders voice a bit higher because of the experience he has with the arena but that doesn`t mean I completely ignore your statements. Originally posted by Druid Roxors: you think that there shouldn't be so much freedom in the hands of the Pitlords in letting the fight stay Illegal? And personally, I would think it is wise to do so. See, this is one example. We experienced it before how it is WITH reruns. It was terrible. Everyone cried for a rerun if there was only the slightest of errors. You just proposed it. You might have good intentions but you didn`t see it in action. That`s the reason why there is a council of Elders. Originally posted by Druid Roxors: It was but a mere coincidence that Rayne noticed something odd and the problems started to build up like a snowball down a hill. Rayne requested on two different boards in colored and oversized letters that the Harvester's victory should be taken away and he should be declared the loser retroactively. Then he began to express his feelings that I cheat on purpose, and informed me about what the Arena is about and what my responsibilities are. I wouldn`t say this began with a small snowball. Now my weight was correct, neither enlarge person nor alter self did play a role but I am still standing on the plank, and the rerun request hangs heavily in the air. An Elder Mod would have never reacted that way, because he knew these were a) minor mistakes b) done that way for months now c) the moderator itself didn`t see it d) my tactics said "use the next meltable spot" e) no rerun policy. Here`s the opinion of the first Elder who responded to the topic: Originally posted by SnarkHunter: @Rayne. I don't think the wieght discrepancy sig. affected the fight. Nor do I think Harv would not have killed the dragon without being enlarged. If there is a problem with the character or tactics then for that fight it is the responsibility of the Pit lord to address it. Afterwards only need the player address it. In my opinion Rayne makes much noise over a minor issue.
Kaigan 03-13-04, 07:36 PM	Originally posted by Battousai2005 @Kaigan: Need to say this. When a mount is hit in combat while the character is mounted, the rider must make a Ride check. All right, you were right. I correct this tiny bit even though it didn't matter. @Druid_Roxers: thanks for the clarification
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 07:38 PM	Originally posted by Kaigan All right, you were right. I correct this tiny bit even though it didn't matter. @Druid_Roxers: thanks for the clarification np
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 07:41 PM	Originally posted by Caterane Rayne requested on two different boards in colored and oversized letters that the Harvester's victory should be taken away and he should be declared the loser retroactively. Then he began to express his feelings that I cheat on purpose, and informed me about what the Arena is and what my responsibilities are. I wouldn`t say this was "mere coincidence". Ah yes, but I didnt mean that it was a coincidence that he posted that, It was a coincidence that I took the time to re-read the fight because of that post. If I haddnt re-read the fight, I wouldn't have brought the Meld into stone issue. And to set things right, I am not against you. In fact, it was me who tried to justify your ability to meld into stone because the shield weighted 45 and not 40.
Caterane 03-13-04, 07:51 PM	Yeah, right. I already edited my post. I`m really tired now at 2 AM. Well, the shield didn`t play a role but even if the Harvester would`ve been at 103 lb it wouldn`t matter because it is such a minor thing. Granted, if you are going to be absolutely correct then the Meld would have failed and the Harvester would have been killed but this would`ve also been really bad moderating. Example: you`re the moderator. One of your players sends you tactics, 5 pages long, and they focus completely on ...let`s say a wand with a spell not on your spell list. What do you do? According to Rayne, you run the fight and add a comment to round 1: "Sorry pal but your wand is illegal. Your tactic just broke down." I assure you, such a behaviour will only create hard feelings. Or imagine what if the player was right and the wand WAS legal? Ouch. No. You write that to the player before the fight starts and discuss it with him. Rayne did this with me in the Ixidor fight ( :thumbsup: ) and the same goes for the Harvester fight and Jindl. A simple "Ok, leave the flail at home then" would`ve fixed the problem and had absolutely NO impact on the fight. And I strongly recommend to do it that way when you moderate...
Druid Roxors 03-13-04, 07:58 PM	That is correct Caterane, My first moderated fight came with tactics which needed some clarification. That I got from the players themselves. This should be what Pitlords do instead of just making you notice when you loose the fight and its highlighted red in your tactics.
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 08:01 PM	^Everything you just said in your last post is why I have stated my "feelings" about your ethics. In my opinion Rayne makes much noise over a minor issue. You end by saying that I made a lot of noise over a 'minor' issue. If it is so 'minor' then why start a whole new thread about the spell "Meld into Stone" on the main boards? Also why go to such lengths to attack me instead of properly defending fairness and asking Jindl to make the changes? You sure don't sound interested in fairness to me. Like I said before you said you were going to analyse my PC's and their fights more closely, and you have said your weights were 'approximates'. If they are not an issue then why bother to change them? All of this is why I'm starting to have some reservations about the ethics you use to create PCs. I'm not the only one that feels this way. Look at some of the comments by Tellish of Ket for examples... One thing i really don't like is to always recalculate character equipment and character weight. I see an increasing amount of red-ink that mods are making to character sheets due to encumberance. ANd some things that should be flagged that aren't. PHB p.109 has the table for height/weight. Anyone under the influence of permanent enlarge spells have their character weight x8 and equipment x2. ANY human weighing 120lbs is not possible. Cat and MO, you guys are the largest offenders of this. Originally posted by Jindl Speaking of Ixidor - sadly he is in violation. It takes a DC 20 craft check to make masterwork items. Ixidor cannot make his: masterwork longsword or his masterwork glaive. Also, his flat-footed AC should be 18 (only his armor, shield, and natural armor applies), not 20 as it is listed. Cat - will you please notify Market Share of these changes as part of your tactics, and then edit the sheet after the fight. -Jindl -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No offfense to cat, but ixidor and harvester2nd have been in violation since creation. And to be even more honest, it's the reason i volunteered to do massive audits. I just saw so much cheating going on, with illegal kit and crafting and stuff. Things were getting out of hand and needed to be brought back in line for fairness for the others. -ToK *EDIT* i don't mean to imply the cheating was intentional. It's very easy to make many of the oversights that were made. Sorry if i gave the wrong impression. One of the interesting things about the last post is that even after I went through a long process of explaining to you the rules of crafting and that your PC couldn't do it you convieniently "Forgot" about it right after and kept it the same. Your PC's seem to 'overlook' rules often and as I said earlier you are too smart to be doing this over and over again by accident. This is especially glarring when I just sat there and spent a lot of my own time making sure your PC met the proper requirements with you. So you wonder why I am beginning to feel a little bit like you are being dishonest. Maybe the Elders won't come out and say it but I have and I feel strongly this is what is going on with your PCs. If you want respect here then get all your PC's straightened out and prove me wrong. So far you've shown me that you don't value my insights and you will attack me for making them. I may not have been posting here on the COCO games but I have been active in the Real D&D forum for over two years now. I've been around and I'm not new to D&D. Just because I haven't been in the COCO since the beginning doesn't mean that my opinion doesn't mean anything. If you don't want me to be suspicious then show me you are going to be fair here.
Caterane 03-13-04, 08:23 PM	What should I do to convince you? I said I`ll recalculate my weight. I said I didn`t do this on purpose but just forgot about the crafting and was too lazy to update my equipment because it changes from fight to fight. Well, you already have your opinion on that, I fear. One thing I want to make clear: In all future fights I would`ve made sure that my equipment is below 100 lb because you pointed this out. I would`ve done this without any further discussion. I just didn`t know it. Same with Ixidor: I just didn`t calculate the weight and didn`t think of the encumberance. That`s all. No more, no less. The reason for this lengthy campaign is the way you approached this matter (I described it a few posts above). A simple "Hey Cat, meld into stone has a 100 lb gear limitation" would`ve done the job. But now this discussion has turned into an inquisition against my ethics. I can even give you a convincing proof about my non-biasness (though I don`t feel any need to do this) : There is not a single being in the arena that benefits more from the current ally situation than the Harvester. But I was the one who started the discussion to balance the ally thing. Ask LLMadCow with whom I had long discussions about that. Now, why should I do such a thing if I am only interested in personal gain? Edit: Also why go to such lengths to attack me instead of properly defending fairness and asking Jindl to make the changes Defend fairness? Could you please stop accusing me of being unfair? The only person being unfair is you with your theory about me cheating, completely based on your "feelings". Attack you? And I just thought it the other way arround!? And can you tell me what exactly you want me to do? Which changes should Jindl fix?
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 08:50 PM	^Look I want to believe you but then you spent over a page + pounding on my decision to post on this meld into stone issue. First you made it out to be a minor thing, then you say that I've been picking on you and you are going to be watching my PC's closely in the future. If anything I was biased in your favor when you helped me in the past with running an Arena Contest I didn't have time to run. I already posted in the tavern and earlier in this discussion that the reason I posted in both places was so that Jindl and the player of the dragon wouldn't miss the discussion. It also got your attention which is part of the point of posting it in both locations. As you pointed out I was very fair with your PC Ixidor and spent a lot of time with you to make sure your tactics worked and weight wouldn't be an issue. If anything I wanted to be on your side. However when I make comments about running things fairly and you come back with... ...and then, there`s the "no rerun" rule. Rayne, I don´t know why you are picking my fight, jumping up and down with shaking fist while there is hardly a single error-free fight in a week but I have the impression that there`s more behind this. You are checking the fight up and down and insist on giving me a retroactive loss when there could be an easy fixing ...IF there is a mistake at all. And you accused me twice now of propable cheating. I don`t like that. In fact I just don`t want to count every single potion and recalculate the weigh every time anew. There are more important things to attend to, and many other players who don`t want to invest time in every detail may be scarred away if we force them to nitpick with every potion and scroll. An approximate weight has to suffice in this case. Third point: if the weight is off and something in the tactic isn`t going to function, then the Pitlord should point this out. The Harvester has his dragon now and that fact WILL NOT BE CHANGED! What am I supposed to think about comments like that? Especially that last part? In the past when mistakes have been called up about my PC's fights Here as an example of a fight my PC Vryk won but was challenged as incorrect and what I said about it... I believe Druid Roxors is correct under the circumstances... I should have noticed that myself. This might affect the outcome as the attack can be used on his move but that would mean that Mishka should get to hit first before my PC's attack using those rolls. That might affect the outcome and should be done to be fair. My remarks were to let a fair decision to be made. That decision could have costed my PC the victory but I was interested in fairness and didn't say... Hey the fight is over! It can't be redone and the decision is final! Vryk wins now give him his gold and his level!" Your responses are just the opposite as mine. I always try to be fair and I don't want other players to feel they were cheated out of victories. It isn't fun to lose when your PC should have won because of a Serious Error (not a 'minor' one). Everyone here makes mistakes but you don't take our arguements very seriously without first trying to erode the foundation of us personally to discredit us. I wasn't motivated to slam you or your PC's when I made my initial comments. That doesn't mean I didn't want them to go unnoticed. I want discussion about what is going on. If no one knows what is going on then they are ill informed about how decisions are being made around here. I don't have any stakes in this fight personally and my comments shouldn't be dismissed as a personal vandetta against you Caterane. Rayne
Caterane 03-13-04, 08:58 PM	Nothing personal, but please answer my question; the one I`m asking for the third time now: And can you tell me what exactly you want me to do? Which changes should Jindl fix?
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 09:03 PM	? Who is this comment directed to and what question hasn't been answered? Sorry I'm a bit confused about your last post and it seems to be directed at me, but I could be wrong about that.
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 09:13 PM	Jindl should recalculate your PC's weight going into the situation. Your PC should drop whatever needs to be dropped (if the tower shield isn't enough) to meld into stone. Your PC shouldn't get to enlarge which changes a lot about how much damage your PC will do when it comes out. Also your PC couldn't drink the potion of alter self and all of this could affect what your AC is and what your attacks do to the dragon. This could mean that some of the dragon's attacks hit that had missed and also the damage you did might not have been enough to take it down. This is what I'm talking about when I say Jindl should look into the matter and make up his mind on if everything is okay. As for what I want from you Caterane... I want you to be proactive about this. I think that I've stated already that you should want fairness and that means you should want the fight to be run fairly and not be satisfied with the outcome untill you believe that has occured. You are an Elder here and it matters when you start hiding behind the no-rerun ruling. I appreciate that you are now going to make sure all of your weight totals are accurate and this is goes a long way to establishing your credibility. I also want you to stop calling these rules 'minor'... If they are minor then why have such a long discussion about them? If they are minor issues then they wouldn't affect the outcome of this battle and so many other ones. Nothing is minor when it comes to following the rules to the best of your abilities. What I would consider Minor (Being 1gp off on your gold total) that is pretty minor and probably won't affect much. Weight issues are not minor and I would hope that all of this leads you to believe the same thing.
SnarkHunter 03-13-04, 09:16 PM	@Rayne as far as large size not making a difference I should have clarified; In most cases it is very important in this specific instance it is not. The difference between the attacks is this 6d6 damage from a normal size greatsword vs. 9d6. 30 Extra damage from strength bonus instead 36 Power attack damage is the same A difference (assuming average roles) of ~16 hps. Since after that round the dragon was at -26 then an extra 16 hps would not have contributed to its survival. Also what did you mean by "The player of the Dragon"? Edit: As for the potions-this may be correct (That it says, 'you may cast spells on yourself within the stone' does not meant he same thing as 'you may only cast spells on yourself within the stone) and would have resulted in one more claw and a tail hitting. Not for an appreciable amount of damage as far as I can see.
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 09:22 PM	(player of the dragon) is for the Very Young Dragon (for some reason I thought someone made this PC) but now I see it was Jindl running it for a monster fight. I really thought this was a normal Arena battle. Anyway one other major thing that affects the outcome is the Alter Self Potion which alters many other aspects of the Harvester and affects how many hits of the Dragon land and also how many other aspects of the Harvester. As I said there is enough going on that Jindl should review it and decide for himself if the Harvester wins or not. There is a lot more going on here than just being able to Meld into Stone. Enough that I think this should be audited.
SnarkHunter 03-13-04, 09:32 PM	A dragon PC would certainly be a sight to see. Would take a great many credits though. Anyway as I said the alter self potion seems to be useful only for the laudable goal of gaining the +6 natural armor. This only applies for one round of the fight and without it he would have sufferd a hit of 1 additional claw (2d6+2 dmg) and a tail slap (1d8+7) even on max damage (29) he would have still gotten his full attack and remained healthy and whole at 16hps. A fairly comfortable margin of safty in my opin.
Caterane 03-13-04, 09:36 PM	Alter self: After I drank the potion the dragon had ONE attack which HIT! Then it was my turn and I did 121 damage in one round, killing him. Even without enlarge it would`ve been over 100 damage, and I had enough hp left to survive another round (not so the dragon; I only missed on a nat 1). That is a minor mistake. If the Harvester drops the flail instead of storing it to get under 100 lb, it won`t have ANY effect on the outcome. That`s a minor mistake. Minor mistakes are good to be made know but that`s it. Rayne, I AM for fairness... what you mean is a correctly ran fight. You want moderators to go back and edit every single mistake, perhaps even change the outcome if necessary. We didn`t do this until now. If you want to see this enacted then open a new thread where you say that every single mistake has to be corrected retroactively. But don`t come to me and pick my fight in particular when there are dozens of others out there. It worked that way until now and it is unfair to come to me and say I am not caring about the correctness. @Snarky: Moon1 (http://home.arcor.de/caterane/Moon1.jpg) Moon2 (http://home.arcor.de/caterane/Moon2.jpg)
^Rayne^ 03-13-04, 09:40 PM	^You may be right. I haven't looked at all the specifics just yet. However that is for Jindl to look over. If Harvester won then I say good for Caterane and excellent victory. I have already sent an apology to Caterane for being overly harsh but I think if anything this discussion has brought many important issues into light (like the spell Meld into Stone and weight concerns). If it even accomplishes these tasks then I am happy that I helped to raise the bar in favor of balance and fairness in the Arena. Mission accomplished as far as how I see it. Again Jindl may find the Harvester accomplished the win and got himself a dragon to use for the future but I my concerns are that this happened fairly. Caterane knows that I don't want this argument to become personal (at least I hope so), but more importantly everyone knows that I am here to have clean fights run at all times.
SnarkHunter 03-13-04, 10:04 PM	Thanks Cat if that's not an adrogynous, anorexic battle crazed king of mounted warfare I don't know what is ;). I do hope to find a higher quality pic at some point and you can expect to be abused at some future point for that :D. @Rayne: Its up to Jindl of course but if the last edition's roles are used then as far as I can see Harvester has won.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-13-04, 10:29 PM	Please Cat and ^Rayne^ end it. It's done. A lesson was learned, and we move on. Any kind of re-run, which by the way i'm against as well, would be solely decided by Jindl and Jindl alone. An error was made, a lesson was learned, and we live and move on. No need for lengthy retorts. 1. Did we learn something? [yes] 2. Was the fight reasonably and accurately run according to the knowledge of the Pitlord? [yes] 3. are both parties satisfied (pitlord and cat) that if the errors were retroactively fixed the outcome of the fight would result in the same decision? [yes] 'Nuff Said! -ToK
Arstimis 03-13-04, 10:50 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket 3. are both parties satisfied (pitlord and cat) that if the errors were retroactively fixed the outcome of the fight would result in the same decision? [yes] -ToK Ok..i just got home from a busy day..and dont really know much about the arguements, but i wanted to say something about this comment on monster fights. I dont think that having only pitlord and player satisfied with results is good enough. The player gains something that will affect everyone in the Arena. Everyone should be satisfied with the results
Jindl 03-14-04, 01:35 AM	Whew, a lot has been said here. Please allow me to voice a few opinions and then state some facts: Opinion#1 - Everyone who feels that emotion may be playing a part in their posts should step away from the computer, take a few deep breathes, have a beer, and remember why we play this game ... to have fun. Opinion#2 - Nobody should be creating posts intended to insult others. If you think something you wrote may have been insulting, an apology is in order. Opinion#3 - Now play nice. Fact#1 - With the Tower Shield destroyed, the Harvester was carrying less than 100 lbs, and was able to enter the stone. Fact#2 - Nothing in the Meld into Stone spell says that you cannot drink potions, so I was not going to restrict this activity. In general, I do not restrict the player unless the rules say to. Fact#3+4 - We (the Elder Mods) need to discuss the meld spell. If the true nature of the arena is to be used, then the spell could meld anywhere, including the floor. This would allow nearly any size to be within the stone. The current restriction seems to limit size to meduim or smaller, by limiting the melding choices to things that are 5x5. I am not in favor of this, indeed the only characters who have ever melded into stone have all been large size or larger (Jindl, Iron, Harvester). So, I had no problem assuming that the rock was large enough to hold him. Perhaps the rock extends underground and is merely the tip of a huge boulder. Whatever. The point is, the arena is supposed to allow you to use your spells. And I ruled that there was enough material for him to use meld into stone, even if he grew to large size (or larger). Given the above Facts, I ran the fight. While you may have different opinions about my rulings, the fight is error free (within the scope of the above facts). -Jindl PS: On a side note, I do appreciate active participation by the audience in finding errors in fights. I hate making errors when moderating, and attempt my best to never make the same error twice (you'll notice that no other stunned characters have been CDG'd.) Please continue to search for and point out mistakes, but try to do so in a friendlier tone. And to the recepients of such "pointers", please take it in stride and try not to get defensive. PSS: The Harvester#2's win vs the dragon doesn't count for win/loss record or any of the FUS's (including best start or unstoppable). Monster fights do not factor into your character's Win/Loss record. -Jindl
MotherBast 03-14-04, 07:38 AM	About the Meld to Stone thing, I thought we agreed long ago that the rocks and pillars were the only places one could meld into stone, but once one reached those places they were assumed to meet the minimum conditions for melding. It was a compromis to give melees a chance to attack something to forcably exect the melder, but it was decided it would not restrect the person melding. I belive Jindl ran this correctly. Arti: In your sleeploards fight when Smergel atempts his CDG, you do not only roll once dice and double it. You roll the die twice, and add the results. So, he would probably not have done only 2 damage. If he had rolled a 4 or better on his second die, he would have won the fight that round.
Magagumo 03-14-04, 08:46 AM	Well, I'm not lying alongside the highway, but I'm afraid I just never had time to send tactics this week :(. I'm currently still in the process of writing my paper. Honestly, I'm a little annoyed that I am being left dead, sneak attacked and what.... *Sighs* Suppose some pity can't be mustered for the poor college student and ask for a minor re-fight? In all honesty, here were my tactics: Find Kiri, shoot her with cold iron arrows (I never had a chance to see her sheet, and honestly didn't see the wand of scorching ray, so I really am not asking for resist fire or such). *Shrug* If you say I lost, then I lost, but the cold iron arrows were purchased for a logical reason, and I honestly can never be sneak-attacked... As for the Anna v. Candy fight, I should be able to post that tomorrow afternoon. As I said, I'm still recovering from the week of homework and pain, but it should still be on time *crosses fingers*
MotherBast 03-14-04, 08:50 AM	@Mag: If you wish it, I can re-do the fight using the cold Iron arrows. I realized they were probably purchased specificly for this fight, but without any tactics, I knew you were very likely to loose, and didn't want to use any of your resorces. Since I have at least a guidline to go by now, I wont mind running a real fight, but I wont be able to do it untill monday afternoon.
Magagumo 03-14-04, 08:52 AM	@MB I am most appreciative, I understand the unwillingness to anger a belated gladiator even more ;). Ethendril, I hope you don't mind MB running it again with the cold iron? I kow it'swinner's call in these cases... I leave that to you two, I'm going to go finish this paper and enjoy my Spring Break without guilt.
cellardweller 03-14-04, 09:44 AM	Some serious outcome altering errors. Round 7 Angosh strains his eyes and ears (Spot 20!) and is able to see the elf´s steps in the arena´s sand. He sends his towershield crashing to the ground, draws his big and nasty spiked chain and attacks Lance! You can't pinpoint with spot and 20 is not an automatic success on skill checks Round 7 Lance, lying on the ground and badly hurt, curses to himself and tries to stand up. (AoO: miss chance 70%.) No AoO's vs invisble opponents. Round 9 Angosh (Spot: 4+4-9distance vs. DC56. Listen: 5+7-9distance vs. DC0, success.) hears the faint whispering of Lance and decides to go for it again. He drops his shield and charges Lance! You have to make the check by 20 to pinpoint. Not asking for a re-run, just be aware for next time.
MotherBast 03-14-04, 09:47 AM	Also, its a standard action to use a tower shield as full cover, so every round the tower shild was being used, Ag could only move.
Bishop the Bardican 03-14-04, 11:01 AM	A rogue with speed 30' can outrun a barbarian with speed 40' through a clever use of readied action. The pillar dance is crap and you know it. I will let it go, because you guys know its crap and the rules don't have a way around it. Congratulations, you have found the perpetual motion machine of the pillar dance. You can not be attacked in melee. All hail the ghost, Dominicus.
MotherBast 03-14-04, 11:17 AM	Actually, the pillar dance can be countered by approching from the side of your target, forcing him between you and the pillar. The problem is, it is up to the player to list this counter tactic, and you seem to have expected your pitlord to do it for you. If the pitlord had done it for you, he would have been creating your tactics, which is very very strongly discouraged.
Jindl 03-14-04, 11:23 AM	There are a number of other ways to counter the pillar dance: 1. Ready an action to attack Dominicus when he moves. 2. Use a reach weapon 3. Potion of enlarge person. 4. Get an ally (he can't dance away from both of you) etc, etc. Also, I should point out that as long as he is readying actions to move away, he can't attack you. If he ever does attack, then he won't have a readied action to dodge. Eventually he'll have to stop dancing in order to win the fight. Of course dancing is futile if you use any of the counters listed above. -Jindl
Bishop the Bardican 03-14-04, 11:33 AM	EDIT: Can see no reason or find any desire to argue about it. I like losing. Give me more.
Arstimis 03-14-04, 01:09 PM	Originally posted by MotherBast Arti: In your sleeploards fight when Smergel atempts his CDG, you do not only roll once dice and double it. You roll the die twice, and add the results. So, he would probably not have done only 2 damage. If he had rolled a 4 or better on his second die, he would have won the fight that round. Ahh dang...i knew that too. I guess i just forgot about it. Ok..let me roll a d10.....2!...dang....so fort save dc 13...I think he still passed...so i wont change the fight..as it didnt matter
sshuit 03-14-04, 02:07 PM	I was looking to buy a potion of Alter self for Roger when I realized it is not listed in the DMG and therefore must be crafted. Not to pick on you right now Caterane but I seem to recall you using that item quite regularly for Harvy. (Who does not have the brew potion feat) I'm certain the core collesium rules do mention that only listed potions in the DMG may be purchased. sshuit PS. I think that the whole Harvy vs the Dragon thing contains enough errors to warrant a re-run but I agree that the final decision is Jindl's
Druid Roxors 03-14-04, 02:39 PM	@ Bishop: I insist, the pillar dance never made Dominicus Immune to your attacks. The only benefit it provided was a mere +4 by cover AC. I did develop a quick countertactic to his cowardly move, had you survived the Critical Hit, throwing your sword in that round would have been an adequate way of dealing with such a tactic. Review the fight for yourself, you were never denied a Melee attack in any of the rounds. I was not going to let you die in such a dance, and planned that your character would at least have a way of attacking, every even round, in which he is unable to get cover. I know its frustrating, and certainly you didn't expect anyone to use a tactic like that. But it is something that teaches us to be careful about ranged attackers and cover. I won't forget to include a countertactic for this in my upcoming fights, and I hope you do the same.
Druid Roxors 03-14-04, 03:45 PM	In fact, when I saw the fight vs Irene I noticed two things: 1. He coppied my pet cover idea :D 2. He used alter self I was thinking on getting for myself a few of those potions of alter self, +8 ac for 300gp! wow thats great! But after reading the post by sshuit and confirming it with your character sheet and SRD, I realized it is Illegal. Edit: Why didnt the dragon use its Wing Attacks?
honeynuggets 03-14-04, 08:46 PM	In my opinion Rayne makes much noise over a minor issue. I read these fights and the post-fight discussions to learn advanced tactics. I want details like weight inhibiting spells, etc. So, keep on analyzing everything but remember it's just a game. 8)
Jindl 03-14-04, 09:13 PM	Re: Alter Self potions - Ah, so there is an error in the fight. Namely, that alter self potions don't exist. Well, this would have the following repercussions: 1. The Harvester would have healed himself that round instead of drinking the potion, giving him on average around 9 more hps. 2. The dragon would have hit with a claw and his tail slap in round 17 for on average around 21 hps of damage. Even max damage would leave the Harvester with 20+ hps, and the Harvester would still win on his attacks. So, this error is not of consequence (though the Harvester is still out the 300 gp for the potion, and we are aware of this mistake now.) FYI: The dragon hovered in round 17 (hoping to disrupt more spellcasting) which is why it didn't make wing attacks. As of now, I have seen no errors that would warrant a re-run. Why is everyone so surprised that a 8th level Unbeaten gladiator won a fight against a CR 5 creature? -Jindl
Jindl 03-14-04, 09:16 PM	Originally posted by Arstimis Ok..i just got home from a busy day..and dont really know much about the arguements, but i wanted to say something about this comment on monster fights. I dont think that having only pitlord and player satisfied with results is good enough. The player gains something that will affect everyone in the Arena. Everyone should be satisfied with the results @Arstimis - What Tellish was saying is that the Pitlord (me) is satisfied that if the errors were fixed, the fight would have the same outcome. Currently, the only error I am aware of is the potion: alter self, which as I noted in my post above, would have negligible effects on the outcome. -Jindl
^Rayne^ 03-14-04, 09:23 PM	If it means anything to anyone, I am satisifed with Jindl's evaluation of the fight. I always said I would respect his decisions and this is exactly what I am doing. I said more than I should have about the whole mess yesterday and I've appologized (before being prompted to) to the appropriate player (Caterane). Hopefully we have brough issues that are important to light so this hasn't been all bad. I would hope every player respects Jindl's call on this because I am confident he has carefully checked everything out and if he says everything is square, then it is.
honeynuggets 03-14-04, 09:31 PM	The main problem I see with the so called "Pillar Dance" after reading the fight is that he takes too many actions. PHB p 160 "Readied Action" is a Standard Action, Move action, or free action. In the fight he readies a Move action (5 foot regular move) and also an Attack action (throwing a flask) So here, A is the rogue and he goes first. He uses up his 5 ft step to back up then can only ready a Standard, Move or free action. OOO ORA OOB OOA ORO OOB Next, B takes a 5 ft step forward. OOA ORB OOO This triggers the Readied action before B arrives to his next position. BUT A can't take another 5 ft step. He can take one Standard action, Move action, or free action. So he could Ready a Move action to move up to his Movement rate. He could move 20 feet around the column along the X path to avoid an AOO. OXO XOO ARB OOO Or he could attack B when he gets adjacent.
honeynuggets 03-14-04, 10:05 PM	Or if they start like this: OOO ORO OBA A takes a 5 ft step to avoid AOO OOO ORA OBO A has +4AC cover now and can Ready a Standard, Move, or free action. B can just attack him here eating the +4AC penalty. or B could take a 5ft step and trigger the Readied Standard, Move, or free action. "A" could have readied a 20 ft move (halfling) (or whatever his move rate is) and do something like: AOO ORO OOB Then Hide as a free action during the readied move action since he has total cover now. or "A" could have just readied a 5 ft move (not 5 ft step) but Not also attack: OOA ORO OOB
Tellish_of_Ket 03-14-04, 10:28 PM	Orignally posted by honeynuggets In the fight he readies a Move action (5 foot regular move) and also an Attack action (throwing a flask) Uh, honeynuggets, i'm not readying a move action. You can do a 5' step as part of your standard ready action. Perfectly legit. Orignally posted by honeynuggets This triggers the Readied action before B arrives to his next position. BUT A can't take another 5 ft step. He can take one Standard action, Move action, or free action. wrong again. Before i ready, i don't move. The only time i move during the pillar dance is my 5' step as part of the readied action. If i had moved before i readied, then i would not be able to pillar-dance. On my turn, i use a move-action to draw the alchemist fire, and use the standard to ready my 5'-step/attack. Again, perfectly legit. -ToK
honeynuggets 03-14-04, 10:34 PM	Hadrigan vs Corinthus Rnd 5-6 When Corinthus moves to the edge of the fog cloud he becomes visible to Hadrigan though he still has 20% concealment. 5 feet of fog cloud (the edge) equates to targets being visible but 20% partially concealed (spell description). So Hadrigan could have attacked with the flaming sphere.
honeynuggets 03-14-04, 10:40 PM	wrong again. Before i ready, i don't move. The only time i move during the pillar dance is my 5' step as part of the readied action. If i had moved before i readied, then i would not be able to pillar-dance. On my turn, i use a move-action to draw the alchemist fire, and use the standard to ready my 5'-step/attack. Again, perfectly legit. This particular tactic necessitates the use of graphics. I would love for you to show me step by step how you accomplish anything but defense from the following positions: A=Tellish B= foe OOO ORA OOB and OOO ORA OBO I think my diagrams above show that all this tactic does is either mandate both people attacking through +4AC cover or enabling "A" to run around and Hide behind total cover. Here is how I am working it out: OOO ORA OBO "A" move action to withdraw flask OOO ORA OBO "A" readies a 5 ft step and throw flask action if "B" moves around cover. "B" can just attack through +4AC cover. or "B" can take 5 ft step triggering the readied action to get to: OOA ORO OOB So yes. If the foe tries to get rid of the mutual cover then you can move away and attack. Clearly it is best to just attack through the +4AC cover.
honeynuggets 03-14-04, 11:03 PM	If the initial setup is: OOA ORO OBO Then "A" withdraws flask move action then readies throw flask action and 5 ft step if "B" moves. "B" tries to move 10 ft. The Ready action occurs "just before the action that triggers it" PHB so A must throw flask at B while he still has cover then take 5 ft step. "B" can then move his 10 ft and attack against +4 AC cover. OAO ORB OOO It's a good strategy against people with better Full attacks than you. It's good if you need cover to Hide too. It doesn't prevent people from hitting you though.
xeno_eleusis 03-14-04, 11:21 PM	pg160 PHB Readying an action pg140 PHB Fighting defensively. pg141 PHB Prepare to throw a splash weapon as a Full-Round-Action. Here are those exerpts from the SRD Rule I READY The ready action lets you prepare to take an action later, after your turn is over but before your next one has begun. Readying is a standard action. It does not provoke an attack of opportunity (though the action that you ready might do so). Readying an Action: You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. Then, any time before your next action, you may take the readied action in response to that condition. The action occurs just before the action that triggers it. If the triggered action is part of another character’s activities, you interrupt the other character. Assuming he is still capable of doing so, he continues his actions once you complete your readied action. Your initiative result changes. For the rest of the encounter, your initiative result is the count on which you took the readied action, and you act immediately ahead of the character whose action triggered your readied action. You can take a 5-foot step as part of your readied action, but only if you don’t otherwise move any distance during the round. Initiative Consequences of Readying: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took the readied action. If you come to your next action and have not yet performed your readied action, you don’t get to take the readied action (though you can ready the same action again). If you take your readied action in the next round, before your regular turn comes up, your initiative count rises to that new point in the order of battle, and you do not get your regular action that round. Distracting Spellcasters: You can ready an attack against a spellcaster with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell.” If you damage the spellcaster, she may lose the spell she was trying to cast (as determined by her Concentration check result). Readying to Counterspell: You may ready a counterspell against a spellcaster (often with the trigger “if she starts casting a spell”). In this case, when the spellcaster starts a spell, you get a chance to identify it with a Spellcraft check (DC 15 + spell level). If you do, and if you can cast that same spell (are able to cast it and have it prepared, if you prepare spells), you can cast the spell as a counterspell and automatically ruin the other spellcaster’s spell. Counterspelling works even if one spell is divine and the other arcane. A spellcaster can use dispel magic to counterspell another spellcaster, but it doesn’t always work. Readying a Weapon against a Charge: You can ready certain piercing weapons, setting them to receive charges. A readied weapon of this type deals double damage if you score a hit with it against a charging character. Rule II Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round. Rule III Full-Round Action Table 8-2 Prepare to throw splash weapon Yes
xeno_eleusis 03-14-04, 11:27 PM	Round 9: Now free from the burning flames, Fargus rights himself up and rushes towards the area from where he heard a falling flask. He promptly spots the hated rogue and runs towards him raging with delight. Dominicus curses loudly as he sees the enraged beast approach and decides to take evasive action. (ready on attack, move 5ft back, fighting defensively, use alchy fire)1.) Readying an action is your Standard Action for this round you also get a Move-Action. 2.) Fighting defensively this round is another Standard Action and you only get a Move-Action left this round. 3.) Not sure how to read this last rule, but it looks like it might be a full-round action to ready the Alchemist's fire before you throw it.
Druid Roxors 03-14-04, 11:33 PM	Originally posted by honeynuggets Hadrigan vs Corinthus Rnd 5-6 When Corinthus moves to the edge of the fog cloud he becomes visible to Hadrigan though he still has 20% concealment. 5 feet of fog cloud (the edge) equates to targets being visible but 20% partially concealed (spell description). So Hadrigan could have attacked with the flaming sphere. In fact, acording to the official rullings, you can use the fog to gain full concealment while your target has 20% concealment against you. The only way he did know Where I was, and it was only work of the Pitlord, is to deduce that I was behind my wolf, which was not on the tactics.
Tellish_of_Ket 03-14-04, 11:34 PM	Originally posted by xeno_eleusis pg141 PHB Prepare to throw a splash weapon as a Full-Round-Action. Here are those exerpts from the SRD My spalsh weapons were prep'd ahead of time. Or at least they were supposed to be. I specified it in my tactics to prep them all before accomplishing this. -ToK
Druid Roxors 03-14-04, 11:43 PM	Originally posted by Tellish_of_Ket My spalsh weapons were prep'd ahead of time. Or at least they were supposed to be. I specified it in my tactics to prep them all before accomplishing this. -ToK I would have done it ahead of time if I could find the detailed entry within the SRD. The way I understood it was that the flasks are on your belt and need only to be thrown. As for the Attack of oportunity, thats why he moved 5ft back. Should someone explain where to find this information, I could make a re-run if it is that important to the outcome. Since Dominicus' hiding ability was way beyond Fargus' spot, I think he would have easily waited and strike with similar or even better results. (because he would have to re-run the failed Ms check that revealed his position.)
Smergel 03-15-04, 03:55 AM	Originally posted by MotherBast Arti: In your sleeploards fight when Smergel atempts his CDG, you do not only roll once dice and double it. You roll the die twice, and add the results. So, he would probably not have done only 2 damage. If he had rolled a 4 or better on his second die, he would have won the fight that round. Actually a 3 would have been sufficient to bring him to 0 hitpoints, which could also have affected the outcome. -Smergel
Hatzinger 03-15-04, 06:30 AM	Originally posted by cellardweller Some serious outcome altering errors. 1) You can't pinpoint with spot and 20 is not an automatic success on skill checks 2) No AoO's vs invisble opponents. 3) You have to make the check by 20 to pinpoint. Not asking for a re-run, just be aware for next time. 1) Awww... A natural 20 is always a success, i thoughed. Didn´t check if this was an actual rule... sorry. 2) I checked, while doing the fight, if he could threaten or not. And the only rule i found was that if you could make a melee attack into this field, you threaten it. Do you know of any other rules regarding this point? (I currently visit my mom and don´t have my books with me. I´ll check it as soon as i come home.) 3) Yes, that sounds familiar.... sorry.
cellardweller 03-15-04, 06:53 AM	Originally posted by Hatzinger 1) Awww... A natural 20 is always a success, i thoughed. Didn´t check if this was an actual rule... sorry. 2) I checked, while doing the fight, if he could threaten or not. And the only rule i found was that if you could make a melee attack into this field, you threaten it. Do you know of any other rules regarding this point? (I currently visit my mom and don´t have my books with me. I´ll check it as soon as i come home.) 3) Yes, that sounds familiar.... sorry. Srd Combat II, concealment section: You can’t execute an attack of opportunity against an opponent with total concealment, even if you know what square or squares the opponent occupies. No stress.
Hatzinger 03-15-04, 07:06 AM	Originally posted by cellardweller Srd Combat II, concealment section: Awwww.... I hate it when i miss a rule. I guess i´ll create some cards with all possible conditions on them and all possible rules that might be important for these conditions. When needed, i´d just pile the cards on top of the character sheets to quickly survey all potentially active rules in this or that combat situation. Hasn´t Mongoose publishing or some other company already made such cards?
Hatzinger 03-15-04, 07:34 AM	Sorry, if my tactics seemed imprecise. I wanted to: "If unable to discern his location, hide and move (silently) away." But the fight was what i expected. As a pure ranger, i have no chance if the enemy uses invisibility. Clearly a flaw in the character-concept. But i´d hate it to having to use a lvl of sor/wiz just to being able to use scrolls of see invisible. Thats just what everyone else does... Maybe my next char is just a plain wizard.
honeynuggets 03-15-04, 09:26 AM	Since Dominicus' hiding ability was way beyond Fargus' spot, I think he would have easily waited and strike with similar or even better results. (because he would have to re-run the failed Ms check that revealed his position The only thing that made Dominicus unable to be pinpointed via Spot is the +10 hide bonus from Advanced Cover. You can't "peer around a corner" (method of obtaining Advanced Cover) and also attack PHB diagrams clearly illustrate effect of cover in combat). When a foe starts his round he can move to where he last saw Dominicus and probably negate the +10 Hide bonus from Advanced Cover to oppose with a Spot check. Then, his Hide checks become: Dominicus' Hide d20 +13 (skills) + 10 (elixir) = 24 to 43 (not sure if "natural 1" autofail rule applies here) vs. Foes Spot d20 + Spot skill modifier Dominicus(D) can take Advanced Cover vs a Foe(F) like below but can't also attack from that cover. He could attack and then move to Advanced Cover. Attacking adds the -20 penalty to Hide checks. Any cover that can grant total cover can be "peered around." OOD ORO OFO As a pure ranger, i have no chance if the enemy uses invisibility. Clearly a flaw in the character-concept. But i´d hate it to having to use a lvl of sor/wiz just to being able to use scrolls of see invisible. Thats just what everyone else does... 1. The Listen skill is a must-max for Rangers. Invisible foes who cast verbal components have a Listen DC 0 + distance modifier. 2. Foes have to move at half speed to avoid a -5 Move Silent penalty. 3. If you beat the Move Silent check by 20 you pinpoint the 5 ft quare they are in and can attack at 50% chance to miss unless it's a grenade effect. 4. Always Ready attacks when fighting Hidden/Invisible foes so they can't use the Attack > Move and Hide tactic. 5. Entangle is decent against ground based Hiders/Invis 6. Don't forget two can play at this. Rangers should max out Hide and Move Silent. 7. Finally, there should be a mundane method to coat a 5 ft square with powder though I don't know what it is. The thunderstone, tanglefoot, etc. seem a lot more complex than a "powder explosion bag" would be to make.
Jindl 03-15-04, 09:31 AM	@Hatz - Oetzi is high enough level to afford to buy a hand of glory. The hand (in addition to granting another ring slot), also allows the wearer to use see invisibility 1/day. AFAIK - It is the cheapest see invisibility item available. -Jindl
Hatzinger 03-15-04, 09:54 AM	@Jindl Thanks, Jindl. Cellardwellar already pointed to this item. I can´t believe that i didn´t notice its full powers.:blush:
KerlanRayne 03-15-04, 11:41 AM	Originally posted by cellardweller Int 17 (+3 Mod) = 16 (10 pts) (-2 racial, +1 level, +2 Enh) Skills: (24 points Brb, 20 points Wiz, 4 points EK) /*(28 points Brb, 35 points Wiz, 5 points EK) 68 - adds up ok with changes outlined in tactics*/ /*there aren't any rocks behind you, I'll move you to the nearest*/ /* when facing an opponent with a companion, some tactics for how you are going to deal with it wouldn't go astray*/ #1 - As I've quoted, there is an enhancement bonus to INT because of headband, so the original skillpoints are correct. #2 - The rock i was talking about was ack and to the side, sorry abour that. #3 - Forgot to put that in there, indended to focus on opponent anyway. #4 - Some of the other Pitlords put changes in a different color. makes them a lot easier to spot. Thanks KerlanRayne
Druid Roxors 03-15-04, 12:21 PM	Originally posted by honeynuggets The only thing that made Dominicus unable to be pinpointed via Spot is the +10 hide bonus from Advanced Cover. You can't "peer around a corner" (method of obtaining Advanced Cover) and also attack PHB diagrams clearly illustrate effect of cover in combat). When a foe starts his round he can move to where he last saw Dominicus and probably negate the +10 Hide bonus from Advanced Cover to oppose with a Spot check. Then, his Hide checks become: Dominicus' Hide d20 +13 (skills) + 10 (elixir) = 24 to 43 (not sure if "natural 1" autofail rule applies here) vs. Foes Spot d20 + Spot skill modifierThat be the case, even if he cannot use improved cover (which I can't check for since I do not have my books with me) Fargus has a fabulous 4 in spot (if im not mistaken) and a natural 1 does not mean failure (either does a natural 20 means success). If he gets 20 + 4 = 24 - distance he has no chance of spotting him. Dominicus(D) can take Advanced Cover vs a Foe(F) like below but can't also attack from that cover. He could attack and then move to Advanced Cover. Attacking adds the -20 penalty to Hide checks. Any cover that can grant total cover can be "peered around." OOD ORO OFOThe -20 penalties were applied correctly, the only source of discussion would be the +10 for improved cover. Round 5: -10 would mean no change in result Round 6: Same for round 6 Round 7: This would have given him a succesful spot, Nevertheless, on round 8 Dominicuss was discovered and did no damage. If he would have been discovered on round 7 he would be in a more convinient position for his "Dance". The only reason why Fargus was able to land a successful hit without any bonuses to AC by Dominicus is the fact that he moved on round 8 and tripped.
Druid Roxors 03-15-04, 12:47 PM	Originally posted by KerlanRayne #1 - As I've quoted, there is an enhancement bonus to INT because of headband, so the original skillpoints are correct. KerlanRayne I believe that enhancement bonuses to INT do not provide any extra skillpoints. It must be arround there somewhere.. But I lack my books now.
Druid Roxors 03-15-04, 12:50 PM	Originally posted by Hatzinger Sorry, if my tactics seemed imprecise. I wanted to: "If unable to discern his location, hide and move (silently) away." But the fight was what i expected. As a pure ranger, i have no chance if the enemy uses invisibility. Clearly a flaw in the character-concept. But i´d hate it to having to use a lvl of sor/wiz just to being able to use scrolls of see invisible. Thats just what everyone else does... Maybe my next char is just a plain wizard. Rangers are great at spotting, use an Elixir of Vision and you can probably spot them every 1/3.
Hatzinger 03-15-04, 03:00 PM	Originally posted by MotherBast Also, its a standard action to use a tower shield as full cover, so every round the tower shild was being used, Ag could only move. Where did you find this rule? SRD, equipment, towershield: "This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a –2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance."
Druid Roxors 03-15-04, 03:02 PM	@ Hatzinger: Within the latest Faq, I cannot quote because im out of time, but check the faq or latest Sage responses. Its there
Magagumo 03-15-04, 03:06 PM	@Ethendril Minor Spoiler!! . . . . . .. As Mage Armor lasts hours, Artavian's AC should be 21 till the end of time (or the fight at least) Vyrk's attacks all were at least 21 until the last one, so you need to keep running the fight from there. I can't anticipate it will go much longer..
Arstimis 03-15-04, 03:11 PM	a better place to post my questions about the Artavian vs Vryk fight. 1. Mage armor lasts 1 hour/level, not 1 min/level 2. I dont think Vryk can double move and draw a weapon in one round 3. AC: 17 21 (+4dex, +1size, +1natural, +1shield, +4mage-armor): with dodge Vryk's AC should only be a max of 22, not how high it was I think mage armor made a pretty big difference in the fight, as alot of attacks wouldnt have hit.
Ethendril 03-15-04, 03:19 PM	Okay, I changed the mage armor duration (I must have only checked shield). It only affected one hit. Vryk's AC was that high for a few rounds while he had his shield spell (which gave him an additional +3 only because of his darkwood buckler.
MotherBast 03-15-04, 05:23 PM	@Hat: Its in the new FAQ. Jindl posted it on these very boards last week. And Druid is right, Ench bonuses do not incress skill points.
^Rayne^ 03-15-04, 08:56 PM	Ethendril, I would like to point out that the Shield spell Vryk used was cast from an Arcane Scroll which I stated in my tactics. So at the end of the fight he did use one Scroll. I am not sure why you had Vryk put away his spiked chain to cast this. It may be a two handed weapon but he can carry it in one hand if he isn't using it to do anything. A couple of my tactics I noticed you ignored? I realize the fight ended in a victory but I saw a couple missed attacks by Vryk that would have been hits if you had used the Magic Missiles scrolls as I had stated in my tactics. I also noticed you ignored my character drinking the Potion of Protection from Evil just before his Shield spell wore out. I realize close to death is subjective, but he still had a 1/3 of his hitpoints left and 3 potions of Cure Light Wounds and I prepared the tactics below to outlast his potions and keep Vryk's AC high. Once all of Vryk’s True Strike attacks are used up, then if close take 5’ step back if in melee, Draw Scroll (Move action) of Magic Missiles, and cast it against his PC (standard action). Do this till all scrolls of Magic Missiles are used up (Vryk has 4 of them). If Vryk’s Shield spell is about to wear off and Artavian is still alive and kicking (not too close to death) then have Vryk drink potion of Protection from Evil to keep Vryk’s AC boosted. Overall I am satisified with the match but I just want to make sure that my tactics are followed for good or bad. Maybe I would have ended up using scrolls and losing a little bit of extra money but that fight was down to one lucky hit by him and my PC would be dead. My tactics were the safe road to avoid this route as much as possible. The Magic Missiles hit no matter if his PC had full cover or Full Concealment and Vryk had the speed to keep the pressure on him. I also mentioned having Pip help make spot checks and use his link with Vryk to help locate Artavian but I didn't see any spot checks from Pip who has a +8 spot check which is much better than Vryks. One of the key reasons he was in this match was to help Vryk locate Artavian if he pulled hide-n-seek tactics. Again these are only my concerns. The reason I spent so much time on these tactics was to provide the clearest path to victory with the least amount of chances taken. I felt like you ran him a bit more wreckless than I would have liked. I know all of the stuff I've written up to this point sounds critical and I just want to say that I am happy with the outcome and I appreciate your work on the thread. Please take my criticism as feedback and nothing more. Thanks for running the fight Ethendril. Till next time! Rayne
Druid Roxors 03-15-04, 09:06 PM	The reason why he couldn't cast magic missiles is because That spell requires somantic components. If you grab your weapon with one hand and the scroll with the other, you have no free hands to make your spell happen. You would have had to drop the weapon as a free action take the scroll out (move action) and cast (Standard action) and left your weapon there and could't have done the running.
Rozman 03-16-04, 12:25 AM	Only the first item may have had an effect on the outcome: Last I knew, a Darkwood buckler still has a 5% Arcane Spell Failure chance. All of those spells & scrolls should have 5% failure chance. [EDIT: True Strike has no Somatic. My bad!] Not that they were failed, but why was Artavian making Tumble checks to avoid AoO's and keep up with Vryk's 5' steps? A 5' step in return would not provoke an AoO. Disarm modifiers: Artavian: +6 (attack bonus with the MW Sai) +4 (1 step size advantage) -4 (using light weapon) = +6 Vryk: +9 (attack bonus with MW spiked chain) +4 two-handed weapon) = +13 Presumably the True Strike is not expended on this roll, as it is an "opposed attack roll" and not an "attack roll" but it could be interpreted differently.
^Rayne^ 03-16-04, 12:28 AM	Actually I believe when casting from a scroll you don't need the components. The components needed for the scrolls production are included in the cost and stored in the magic of the scroll. For example look at the price of Identify in the price index of the scroll list on page 239 of the DM's handbook. The reason it costs 125gp is because the scroll includes the cost of the pearl used to cast it. Vryk only needs one hand free to hold the scroll and read from it clearly. He does not have to drop his weapon in his off-hand to cast the spell. As for casting Mage Armor it has a Verbal, Somatic, and Focus required all of which he can do with one free hand. Under the circumstances I believe my tactics are by the rules and sound, there is no need to drop or stow his weapon in any of these cases as far as I can tell. If I am incorrect please point me in the right direction for the information so I can study up a bit more. :)
^Rayne^ 03-16-04, 12:37 AM	Rozman The Darkwood Buckler has no arcane failure chance or armor check penalty. Thats why I chose it. Check page 221 of the DM manual for details. An item weighing in at 1.25 (for small PC) with no armor check penalty is hardly going to cause a 5% arcane spell failure. I have actually had this discussion before and it has been discussed with some of the Elders in the past who agreed that this shield is favored by wizards because it can be used without fear of spell failure. I wish I could reference the exact post but it has been awhile and I don't remember at what point to start looking for the discussion. Anyway I'm glad you are on your toes and checking my PC out. If I have made any mistakes I like to know about them so they can get fixed (the more people looking at my PC's the more likely all the mistakes will be caught if there are any). :)
Rozman 03-16-04, 12:39 AM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ Under the circumstances I believe my tactics are by the rules and sound, there is no need to drop or stow his weapon in any of these cases as far as I can tell. If I am incorrect please point me in the right direction for the information so I can study up a bit more. :) DMG pg. 213 under the Spell Completion section, and DMG pg. 238 under Activation. Scrolls include the material and focus. They do not include the Verbal or Somatic elements of the spell. If the spell has no Somatic element in the first place, then you're all set.
^Rayne^ 03-16-04, 12:50 AM	Rozman, Thanks for the info on spell scroll activation and completion. It does say what I said above about focus items and components and it seems to infer that the somatic components need to be performed (although it says the "Final Gestures"). I still wonder if after reading the scroll out loud, does it turns to dust (or magic)and if so does that hand becomes free to do these final gestures? It doesn't say both hands have to be free to do this but I believe you are correct in that it seems implied. In that case my PC should hang his chain on his shoulder or place it on his belt if he is casting spells from a scroll. In the case of casting Magic Missiles I would have him use a move action to put the weapon on his belt and his standard action to cast the spell. After all as long as the PC my character is trying to hit is in the area of affect it is a sure hit (unless they cast shield on themselves). Anyway thanks for the information Rozman, I appreciate you taking the time to point me in the right direction. Rayne
Rozman 03-16-04, 12:56 AM	Originally posted by ^Rayne^ I have actually had this discussion before and it has been discussed with some of the Elders in the past who agreed that this shield is favored by wizards because it can be used without fear of spell failure. Ahh, if they've house-ruled it that's different. They should just post it in the FAQ. I'd been under the impression that Mithril lessens Arcane Spell Failure Chance while Darkwood does not (per DMG Special Materials section pg. 283 & 284.) That would definitely influence my Bard build (slightly :). I'm curious if they extended the ruling it to some non-standard uses? *Contemplates a high-level Wizard, Druid cohort, Darkwood Full Plate + Ironwood :)*
^Rayne^ 03-16-04, 01:10 AM	I think it went beyond a 'house rule' because the item unlike most items not only had 0 Armor Check penalty but it also was very light. 2.5 pounds on a person's forearm or 1.25 on a smaller persons isn't enough to cause problems. It isn't restrictive as the size is fairly small and isn't held but rather strapped to the forearm. In the end all of this and the book's description of this item as being the favored choice of rogues and wizards also was a big hint. Rogues don't want the armor check penalty but wizards really are not affected by ACP's as much as they are affected by spell failure. If a 5lb buckler causes 5% failure and -1 acp then a darkwood variety which is designed to fix these issues has a weight of 2.5lbs has 0 acp and 0% spell failure. I guess you could view it as a house rule and maybe it should be printed somewhere. My PC only uses the shield bonus from it when he isn't using his spiked chain and is casting on the defensive or fighting with his spiked gauntlet. I guess maybe someone should post this item as not being in violation. I don't know that your ideas for armor are going to fly too far as armor covers the body and can restrict movement (look at padded armor as an example of this, even though it has 0acp it does cause 5% spell failure).
KerlanRayne 03-16-04, 01:41 AM	@Rayne: I have no Idea what you are talking about with the Buckler, you can't make them out of Darkwood because they are metal. AFAIK, You can't have an adamantine Tower Shield, and you can't have a Darkwood buckler. KerlanRayne
^Rayne^ 03-16-04, 01:55 AM	KerlanRayne, Acutally you can have a Darkwood Buckler, it exhists, is legal, and is listed in the DMG on page 221. I didn't make it up. Have a look and see it in print for yourself. ;)
Pittbull 03-16-04, 02:30 AM	[QUOTE]Originally posted by MotherBast [B]@Hat: Its in the new FAQ. Jindl posted it on these very boards last week. Oh, did'nt know that that either! Cool, that's what the arena is all about. Learning by doing!
Alterlat 03-16-04, 02:59 AM	Originally posted by cellardweller You can't pinpoint with spot and 20 is not an automatic success on skill checks [/B] I only just noticed this discussion, and I should point out that you can pinpoint an invisible opponent using spot. All you need to do is beat their hide check by 20, or 40 if they are perfectly motionless. Hatzinger, with that bow of seeking and maxed out spot/listen, a ranger really shouldn't have to worry much about invisible enemies. Your animal companion also helps (particularly with tracking, which you can do as well).
cellardweller 03-16-04, 03:35 AM	Originally posted by Alterlat I only just noticed this discussion, and I should point out that you can pinpoint an invisible opponent using spot. All you need to do is beat their hide check by 20, or 40 if they are perfectly motionless. That should have been he can't pinpoint with spot (because a 20 on a spot check wouldn't have been enough to beat a hide roll with a 1 on the check). Sorry for the confusion.
xeno_eleusis 03-16-04, 06:57 AM	pg283 DMG: SpecialMarerials.rtf SRD Darkwood: This rare magic wood is as hard as normal wood but very light. Any wooden or mostly wooden item (such as a bow, an arrow, or a spear) made from darkwood is considered a masterwork item and weighs only half as much as a normal wooden item of that type. Items not normally made of wood or only partially of wood (such as a battleaxe or a mace) either cannot be made from darkwood or do not gain any special benefit from being made of darkwood. The armor check penalty of a darkwood shield is lessened by 2 compared to an ordinary shield of its type. To determine the price of a darkwood item, use the original weight but add 10 gp per pound to the price of a masterwork version of that item. Darkwood has 10 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 5. Mithral: Mithral is a very rare silvery, glistening metal that is lighter than iron but just as hard. When worked like steel, it becomes a wonderful material from which to create armor and is occasionally used for other items as well. Most mithral armors are one category lighter than normal for purposes of movement and other limitations. Heavy armors are treated as medium, and medium armors are treated as light, but light armors are still treated as light. Spell failure chances for armors and shields made from mithral are decreased by 10%, maximum Dexterity bonus is increased by 2, and armor check penalties are lessened by 3 (to a minimum of 0). An item made from mithral weighs half as much as the same item made from other metals. In the case of weapons, this lighter weight does not change a weapon’s size category or the ease with which it can be wielded (whether it is light, one-handed, or two-handed). Items not primarily of metal are not meaningfully affected by being partially made of mithral. (A longsword can be a mithral weapon, while a scythe cannot be.) Weapons or armors fashioned from mithral are always masterwork items as well; the masterwork cost is included in the prices given below. Mithral has 30 hit points per inch of thickness and hardness 15. Darkwood 1.) 1/2 weight. 2.) acp lessened by 2 3.) 10 hitponts per inch and hardness of 5 4.) base prince + (weight * 10) + price for MW Mithral 1.) 1/2 weight. 2.) acp lessened by 3 3.) Max Dex increases by 2 4.) Arcane spell failure reduced by 10% 5.) 30 hitponts per inch and hardness of 15 6.) base prince + 1000 gp for sheilds (MW is included in price already) Darkwood buckler, +1 AC, 0 acp, 5% asf, 2.5 lb, 215 gp (15 + 50 + 150) or 205 gp from page 221 DMG Mithral buckler, +1 AC, 0 acp, 0% asf, 2.5 lb, 1015 gp Is this what you guys are talking about. I didn't know that you could have any kind of shield without arcane spell failure, cool.
Hatzinger 03-16-04, 07:02 AM	Ok, i have now found the "beat by 20" rule. (DMG/Conditions/Invisibility). Gotta print these condition pages into my own SRD-DMG. And my search provided two surprise, too: (I just post these because i didn´t know this and maybe some of you don´t, either.) SRD, DMG/Conditions/Invisibility: "Invisibility does not, by itself, make a creature immune to critical hits, but it does make the creature immune to extra damage from being a ranger’s favored enemy and from sneak attacks." SRD, DMG/Conditions/Invisibility: "Invisibility does not thwart detect spells." So, by using detect magic and concentrating for 3 rounds, you get the location of an invisible creature, if it´s inside the 60-ft. cone.
MotherBast 03-16-04, 07:05 AM	I do not belive darkwood reduces the Spell failure chance at all.
sshuit 03-16-04, 08:47 AM	Re : Darkwood Buckler. I'm in agreement with Motherbast. There is no modification to ASF chance by changing a buckler to darkwood. Still 5% sshuit
Rosella 03-16-04, 01:15 PM	Darkwood only affects weight, never anything else.
Magagumo 03-16-04, 02:30 PM	Aye, I'm not sure who said darkwood bucklers don't have ASF.... I'd go with the light mithral shield myself (if you've got the cash) no ACP and no ASF means you can use it even when you don't have proficiency with it, and it has no penalties. Best thing for rogues :) For wizards, the shield spell is definetely better.
^Rayne^ 03-16-04, 08:17 PM	I can't believe you guys think that a darkwood buckler with exactly the same specks as mithral buckler should have a 5% spell failure chance. The only real difference besides cost is that Mithral has a much better hardness so it is less likely to be sundered. In fact since they weigh the same, both have 0 armor check penalty, and have the same dimensions they should be treated the same when it comes to spell failure chances. It is absurd that the fact that one buckler is made of darkwood and the other is mithral that one affects spell casting and the other one doesn't! I have already had this debate before and the DM guide wouldn't have this shield listed as a Wizards favored shield if it did have 5% spell failure chance. It doesn't make a bit of since. Heck having bracers on each arm weighs almost as much but doesn't have a chance of spell failure. The cost for this item's special material not only makes it masterwork as any normal masterwork item but it costs an additional amount to reduce the weight and thus the spell failure chance. The mithral buckler is like the upgrade (to get better hardness), but really I don't see what all of the fuss is about here.
MotherBast 03-16-04, 08:31 PM	Rayne, the fuss is that items made out of darkwood have the same spell failure as items not made of darkwood, since the DMG does not list darkwood as reducing the ASF. If we allowed the darkwood buckler to have no ASF, it would be a house rule, and we try to avoid that. Above that, we try even harder to avoid knowingly and intentionaly changing a rule, as this would be.
^Rayne^ 03-16-04, 08:50 PM	Well as I have already said I had this discussion before and it was approved by some of the Elders here. At the time I had said if the item wasn't going to count then I wanted to have a refund on the money because I believe it should and does count. House rule or not I believe that it makes 100% sense that this item does in fact reduce the penalty and in many ways is a special circumstance. To stand around and tell me that two items identical in every way except hardness and one should have the penalty and the other should not is a bit rediculous. Still if this is such a big deal then why not take it up with the council of elders (seeing as you are one). I hardly use it and if it isn't going to be allowed then I do want that refund. I believe it was Jindl who ruled on this in the past but I can't remember. Since it seems to be a big deal to many of you then I suggest the Elder 8 vote on the matter now so there can be no doubt of whether this item can be used as I am currently using it.
Jindl 03-16-04, 10:53 PM	Darkwood doesn't reduce arcane spell failure. -Jindl
^Rayne^ 03-17-04, 03:14 AM	Well if it wasn't Jindl who said this was okay then my memory is playing tricks on me... I've searched for the original posting about this and I can't find it at all. Maybe I'm not looking in the right place but I remember somebody in the Elder 8 (maybe Mo or Tellish?), told me this was going to be okay and not to worry about changing it. In any case if the Arcane Spell Failure is going to be and issue then I want a refund on that item. It hasn't saved Vryk in any of his battles yet and up to now has been adding weight and that's about it. I still think it is a joke that two items that are the same size, weight, dimensions, and purpose and one gives 0 Arcane Spell Failure and the other -1. Basically we are saying these two things do exactly the same thing but one helps and the other doesn't? I see this point doesn't go anywhere with anyone around here. It is interesting the book says this shield is favored by wizards (Why would this be in written in the book if it didn't reduce the Arcane Spell Failure to 0%). Paying extra gold to get a shield that weighs 2.5 lbs to 1.25 lbs less than a masterwork version is hardly worth the difference in cost. Still I've said my piece and it seems I am the only one around here who sees it this way. I will make the change very soon and delete this item from Vryk's sheet. If it doesn't do me any good then why have it? One more point I would like to make... If this items has 0 armor check penalty and only weighs 2.5lbs affecting one hand (and it isn't held only strapped to arm) then almost every weapon held in one hand is more of a strain on a PC than this little feather weight shield. A handaxe weighs more but we don't have Arcane Spell Failure if a Wizard holds this in one hand. I know the latter isn't armor but the point is that this buckler weighs less, isn't even being held in the hand and has the same effective stats as the mithral variety but for some strange reason it has 5% failure rate? If people keep saying its "The Rules" as there only argument when it doesn't specifically state this precisely in the description then I find that argument weak at best.
Hatzinger 03-17-04, 03:35 AM	LOL!
MotherBast 03-17-04, 07:20 AM	Rayne: Your logic is sound. Unfortunatly for you, WotC isen't a very logical company, and 3.5 is not a very logical game. It is a very simple game, however. And quite simply, the rules state the shield has 5% ASF, regardless of logic.
honeynuggets 03-17-04, 02:27 PM	Jindl and I discussed this tactic, as Sanzin will actually be launched at a column section, as one must actually be able to reach the surface. Thusly, no ceiling throws until 15th caster.. for Bruno and Bilo I'm not so sure the decision to disallow Telekinesis Hurl 120 ft up into the air is just. 1. Spell description states that a creature can be hurled "toward any target(not surface) within" 120 ft (12th lvl). The "target" can easily be the 5 ft space 120 ft upwards. It is allowable to target a space such as when attacking concealed foes. 2. The damage of 1d6 when a creature is hurled against a wall 120 ft away suggests that even though 120ft of distance has been travelled in 6 seconds it is somehow slower than falling. Therefore, Sanzin should have started his next round 120 ft up in the air rather than falling during the same round he got hurled. This allows a character a full round of actions to try and save himself from the fall which at their level shouldn't be too hard.
Jindl 03-17-04, 02:31 PM	@honeynuggets - Yep. TK is one of those spells with lots of interpretations. To help clarify, I'll be posting a lengthy post on the Tavern thread, which should explain most of the nuances of these versatile and powerful spell. Expect the "TK seminar" to be posted soon. -Jindl
Magagumo 03-17-04, 02:34 PM	I will be interested in reading the post, Jindl, I have the feeling Complete Warriior will be referenced frequently :)
Jindl 03-17-04, 02:38 PM	BTW: I'm asking WizO_Shadow to close this thread and the "Fights of the Week 3/3" thread. Further discussion can continue on the Tavern thread. In the future, please allow Cat or I to start the "Fights of the Week" threads, so that we may close them when the week is over. Thanks! -Jindl
WizO_Shadow 03-17-04, 02:45 PM	::grabs the chains and swirls the lock:: As requested, it's locked. Discussions can continue in the tavern. Off... off to the tavern you go! Renee Shadow:angel: