Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Huan 09-14-05, 04:33 PM	This thread is for Comments and Concerns regarding this week's Battles of Gladius. For more information and rules with the Core Coliseum, read the Rules of Gladius (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448520&origin=) or ask in the Tavern. Have fun ... Be nice ... RP always.
King Uther 09-14-05, 04:47 PM	I have it in my heading for Balbanes, but I just wanted to make sure the other two parties are okay with it. Balbanes vs The First Horseman vs Greevus [EL4 Assassin Game]
NiQil 09-14-05, 04:49 PM	@ all Be aware that the arena map has finally changed, so it is different from what it used to be. So all pitlords will need to make sure and get current copies of the map for fights.
Cerebus13 09-14-05, 04:49 PM	I have it in my heading for Balbanes, but I just wanted to make sure the other two parties are okay with it. Balbanes vs The First Horseman vs Greevus [EL4 Assassin Game]Yes that is fine with me.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 04:50 PM	@ all Be aware that the arena map has finally changed, so it is different from what it used to be. So all pitlords will need to make sure and get current copies of the map for fights. Is has? Would you be so kind as to link it here, since you notified us? I don't recall seeing an official announcement though.
NiQil 09-14-05, 04:57 PM	Is has? Would you be so kind as to link it here, since you notified us? I don't recall seeing an official announcement though. As requested
TelinArtho 09-14-05, 05:06 PM	As much as the original map coordinates and starting locations didn't make much sense to me - I got used to them... Now I have to change everything... Oh bother... (think Winnie the Pooh). On another note, Kraegin needs a win this week - so bear that in mind if you are paired up with him that you'll have to surrender to his mercy...
Altaris13 09-14-05, 05:14 PM	So what changed about it? NiQil, is that the map that your wife did?
King Uther 09-14-05, 05:15 PM	There has been as new map posted for the group fights, but think it will ultimately prove very flawed. I don't know if it is being used yet, but I would like to know before I write my tactics.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 05:18 PM	Dammit. I cannot get the coding to work on this new map. I had the original map set up in a Word.doc for easy printing & use. I cannot get the format correct for this one. Does anyone have this already? If so, please PM me.
Emrys Donovan 09-14-05, 05:29 PM	Yes, I need the correct format for the new map for a wrod.doc as well.
Mind Rogue 09-14-05, 06:08 PM	Tick-tock. Time's been up for over an hour now kiddies, so make sure that you haven't saved anything recently and pass your homework up to Professor Caterane.
Sindorin 09-14-05, 06:19 PM	Mein Hund hat meine Hausaufgabe gegessen!
Emrys Donovan 09-14-05, 06:47 PM	:uh-huh: Say what now?
Snommelp 09-14-05, 06:55 PM	His dog ate his homework
Emrys Donovan 09-14-05, 07:06 PM	:embarrass Ah. Sorry about that.
Pitlords 09-14-05, 07:07 PM	Pairings Done CREDIT CHANGES: +11: Tellish +8: Huan +4: Luni +3: Kaigan +2: Mindrogue, NBG, Shaken, King +1: TelinArtho, Xanadu, Aramil, Cerebus, Funk, Emrys, Iced, Malither, McJarvis, Michael, Pittbull, Magister, Vathelokai, LLMadCow +0: Ellorien, Soullord, Gonbow, NiQil, -1: Usurpator, Altaris, Sindorin, Caterane Credits for Pitlords: +3: Luni +2: Mindrogue, NBG, NiQil, TelinArtho, Tellish, Xanadu +1: Altaris, Aramil, Cerebus, Funk, Ellorien, Emrys, Gonbow, Iced, Kaigan, King, Malither, McJarvis, Michael, Pittbull, Sindorin, Soullord, Magister, Usurpator Credits for Questers: -1: Altaris, Caterane, Ellorien, Kaigan, Soullord, TelinArtho, Vathelokai, Snommelp Credits for Questlords: +2: Huan, King, Luni, TelinArtho, Tellish, Vathelokai, Shaken -1: Huan (late) Credits for Campaignlords: +6: Huan +3: Kaigan, King, Tellish Credits for Active PCs: -1: Altaris, Caterane, Gonbow, King, Xanadu -2: Luni, NiQil, Sindorin, TelinArtho, Usurpator Special Credits: +4: Tellish (maps) +1: Caterane (admin), LLMadCow (admin), Luni (map), -3: King (challenge) Please note that we have a new arena map. It's basically the old one but the coordinates have changed. Please print out the code map anew and throw away the old copy. @Sindorin: That wouldn't work in my class. My school guild grants me +1/ECL to sense motive vs pupils :D
Sindorin 09-14-05, 07:13 PM	How come Ceres counted as active this week? As far as I know, I haven't reactivated him... I didn't want to go down a credit. :embarrass I guess I will be writing a story for the fight that I am running this week... :cool:
Sindorin 09-14-05, 07:15 PM	@Sindorin: That wouldn't work in my class. My school guild grants me +1/ECL to sense motive vs pupils :D All the more reason why the guild token "benefits" would not be fair!!!
Pitlords 09-14-05, 07:16 PM	Isn't Ceres on a Campaign?
Sindorin 09-14-05, 07:20 PM	Well, King Uther PM'd me asking if I wanted to reactivate Ceres, and I told him that I did not want to have two pc's on a campaign, as the system now would make those my two free active slots... I want to try other builds besides those two, and I told him that since his story kind of fits with Ceres being kidnapped, that I would wait to reactivate him. If I'm not allowed to have him do that, let me know and I will make arrangements for both Ceres and Sokai to continue campaigning :). Otherwise I should be down like 6 credits for the time I was gone from both campaigns...
xanadu 09-14-05, 07:52 PM	Cool, I get to Pitlord my own gladiator! Might I suggest switching me with Mindrogue else I might hear complaints when the Pulverizer scores some critical hits :D Also, Xanadu should receive one more credit for picking up the Luni vs. Wood elfves fight from McJarvis from last week [I mentioned this before but it might have gotten buried].
Mind Rogue 09-14-05, 07:56 PM	Sure. I'll swap you my All vs All for your team fight. So, Balbanes (King Uther) vs Greevus (Cerebus13) vs First Horseman (NBG): MindRogue Xanadu Milo (SodaGuy) & Pulverizer (Xanadu) vs Dameon (Huan) & Dalamar (NBG): Xanadu Mind Rogue Also, I think Cat forgot to count up my characters for negative credits.
Snommelp 09-14-05, 08:04 PM	Tactics for Grik have been sent.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 08:11 PM	Tactics sent to SoulLord for Aeryn vs Juntar. Good luck Kerlan. May the best tripper win. :P
michael_noah 09-14-05, 08:11 PM	If my gladiator doesn't get paired - can I have him do something else, such as craft items?
Luni 09-14-05, 08:19 PM	@ToK: Tactics for Talari sent. Should be a simple fight. Edit: Are there any pure spellcasters left in ECL 3? This is the 5th week that Shakari gets to face Fighter types.
Altaris13 09-14-05, 08:23 PM	I think all the pure casters in ECL 3 have already retired or have passed on to ECL 4.
Gonbow 09-14-05, 08:32 PM	@ToK: Tactics for Talari sent. Should be a simple fight. Edit: Are there any pure spellcasters left in ECL 3? This is the 5th week that Shakari gets to face Fighter types. There are at least two. Tatyana and Perius. (Psioniscist and Egoist) and of course, we are fighting eachother. Consider yourself fortunate you do not have to face the Energy Missile of Doom. Instead it gets to pelt someone who has no important equipment to destroy. Heh.
Huan 09-14-05, 08:38 PM	If my gladiator doesn't get paired - can I have him do something else, such as craft items? Yes, just make sure to put that in your header.
Huan 09-14-05, 08:41 PM	There are at least two. Tatyana and Perius. (Psioniscist and Egoist) and of course, we are fighting eachother. Consider yourself fortunate you do not have to face the Energy Missile of Doom. Instead it gets to pelt someone who has no important equipment to destroy. Heh. Haven't we already decided that attack, and all others except for Shatter, cannot be used in that fashion (to destroy items)?
Huan 09-14-05, 08:47 PM	Wow, 101 credits... what a nice number. :cloud9: ... I guess its high time I spend them... or something...
Snommelp 09-14-05, 08:54 PM	Haven't we already decided that attack, and all others except for Shatter, cannot be used in that fashion (to destroy items)? I don't think that was ever decided. It was definitely argued that it was too powerful, until Grik went and proved that false.
Mind Rogue 09-14-05, 08:59 PM	@ToK: Tactics for Talari sent. Should be a simple fight. Edit: Are there any pure spellcasters left in ECL 3? This is the 5th week that Shakari gets to face Fighter types. Anya is also a Wilder 3.
Gonbow 09-14-05, 09:02 PM	Haven't we already decided that attack, and all others except for Shatter, cannot be used in that fashion (to destroy items)? Several people stated it was too powerful, which was generally agreed upon; However, by the same logic, Hold Person is too powerful. The similarities: Both are very good against fighter-types, becoming slightly less effective at high levels. Both are level 2 spells. The difference: Energy missile CAN still mess you up even with a successful saving throw. (See: Grik for an example of when a saving throw makes all the difference in the world) Energy missile is also rather effective against low-level caster-types. It was also agreed that RAW, it works as it did in that particular fight. As there have been no annoucements of a house-rule considering it (Or all the OTHER energy powers that are worded the exact same away), it continues to function RAW.
Emrys Donovan 09-14-05, 09:16 PM	@ Ribking and TheMagister I need your tactics by Friday night. Thanks guys.
Luni 09-14-05, 09:19 PM	Wow, 101 credits... what a nice number. :cloud9: ... I guess its high time I spend them... or something... Send some my way. Thanks. :D
Maraxus 09-14-05, 09:36 PM	Several people stated it was too powerful, which was generally agreed upon; However, by the same logic, Hold Person is too powerful. The similarities: Both are very good against fighter-types, becoming slightly less effective at high levels. Both are level 2 spells. The difference: Energy missile CAN still mess you up even with a successful saving throw. (See: Grik for an example of when a saving throw makes all the difference in the world) Energy missile is also rather effective against low-level caster-types. It was also agreed that RAW, it works as it did in that particular fight. As there have been no annoucements of a house-rule considering it (Or all the OTHER energy powers that are worded the exact same away), it continues to function RAW. You mean "By the same logic hold person would be to powerful, if there wasn't the diffrence you state". Also I have seen succesful hold persons, that did not win the fight because of this additional saving throws in the next turns. Also, why is energy missles good against fighter types? It is equally as good against casters, because they often depend on useable items. And there was no agrement on this RAW. As I see it this is a mistake in printing that was only not eratered for the cause, that no game designer ever thought somebody could (intentionally) missinterpret it that way. Luni: Yes, there are still pure 3rd level casters, and today, they don't try to team work, but fight each other (or: @Kaigan: Tactics sent)
xanadu 09-14-05, 09:44 PM	Energy Missile is infinately superior to hold person in the arena setting if you allow it to destroy an opponents entire inventory.
Sindorin 09-14-05, 09:47 PM	Tactics for Mokoridos sent to TheMagister.
nightbanegod 09-14-05, 10:00 PM	*eidt* my bad i found him... but on a side note you might want to edit the character roster to reflect that the horseman is infact an ECL 4 dude now
Luni 09-14-05, 10:03 PM	WAIT A SECOND?!?!?!?! isnt dalamar getting any love this week.. he is listed under his title as being ready for 9/14 ... anything? Milo (SodaGuy) & Pulverizer (Xanadu) vs Dameon (Huan) & Dalamar (NBG): Xanadu Looks like he is in trouble.
Aramil Dunskar 09-14-05, 10:05 PM	@Pitlords: Due to Grakk's resent win in the 1v1v1 match, and winning 3000 xp, that bumped him up to level 6. So you might want to change the pairings a bit. -Aramil
Luni 09-14-05, 10:10 PM	There's no one even doing anythign at level 6. If KerlanRayne & LLMadcow think they can beat a level 6 and a level 5, I'd leave the fight alone.
Iced 09-14-05, 10:12 PM	I AM STARTING MY CAMPAIGN NEXT PAIRINGS IF EVERYTHING GOES ACCORDING TO PLAN. ALL INTERESTED PARTIES PLEASE CONTACT ME VIA PM. THE CAMPAIGN TITLE IS "MISSIONS ABROAD". EL 3-4 You want to be a member of the E.H.T.C. Non-good alignment
xanadu 09-14-05, 10:49 PM	tactics for Elliak sent to Ellorion Saenelle
Ravashack 09-14-05, 10:50 PM	Tactics for Perius sent in. Let's see how he does in the Arena Gonbow :)
King Uther 09-15-05, 12:38 AM	@Gonbow Energy Missile cannot target equipment. Plain and simple. In fact, just to make sure I was right, I asked Cat, as well as a few higher ups about it, and they all concurred that Energy Missile cannot target your equipment. @michael_noah I can run a miniquest for your character if you'd like. I'll post a thread for you tomorrow and we'll go from there. PM me some story details about your character and I'll work from there. Obviously, the more you tell me, the better it will be
Gonbow 09-15-05, 12:40 AM	@King Uther Sure. Post a rule in the FAQ about it. I said I wouldn't mind if it was house-ruled and I still wont. I'd appreciate it if you do that soon though, because I do need to send tactics, and there is nothing outside of such a house rule to say it doesn't destroy equipment. EDIT: I would appreciate a description other than 'equipment' though. I.E: Attended Object vrs Unattended Object is much more clear within the rules, whereas 'equipment' could be almost anything, including yon random boulder. (To a stone giant, random boulders are most certainly equipment)
NiQil 09-15-05, 12:58 AM	@ TelinArtho Tactics for Methos sent via PM Tactics for Silas sent via PM @ Nightbanegod Tactics for Kronos in team fight forthcoming pending partner conference @ Iced Tactics for Quentus Doomshadow received @ Snommelp Tactics for Grik received
King Uther 09-15-05, 01:28 AM	@Gonbow That's fair. Basically, the Energy Missile power cannot target anything on the person. If they were disarmed, or they dropped a weapon to change for another, then all's fair. Or if they had equipment that started off to the side.
Ellorion Saenelle 09-15-05, 01:45 AM	@xanadu Tactics received.
Luni 09-15-05, 02:41 AM	@ToK: Thanks for running the easiest fight ever! :D
King Uther 09-15-05, 03:32 AM	@Xanadu Tactics for Balbanes sent via 2 PMs. It had more than 5000 characters, as this is a more complicated fight. It is based on the assumption we are using the new map. @Cerebus13 and NBG Have fun with yours. The quicker the better, that way if anything is disputed we can set it straight quickly.
NiQil 09-15-05, 10:05 AM	@Xanadu Tactics for Balbanes sent via 2 PMs. It had more than 5000 characters, as this is a more complicated fight. It is based on the assumption we are using the new map. @Cerebus13 and NBG Have fun with yours. The quicker the better, that way if anything is disputed we can set it straight quickly. @ King Uther As far as I know, the only new map is the new arena map. If you are referring to the map discussed for FFA's in the council thread, you may want to get clarification if that is to be used, since it was never made official.
Mind Rogue 09-15-05, 10:09 AM	Nightbanegod's tactics for the First Horseman of the Apocalypse have been forwarded to Xanandu by PM. I've also sent tactics for each of three of my characters to Pittbull, Cerebus, and Aramil. Further note, those of you in the 4th level FFA, send your tactics over to Xanandu not me, and those of you int the 4th level Team Fight, send me your tactics rather than him. Otherwise, Xanandu would be sending himself tactics.
Sunwolf 09-15-05, 10:53 AM	@Luni Tactics for Brilf sent by PM.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 10:58 AM	@Niqil - tactics received for Silas and Methos (2) @Altaris: Paging Zamier - you are needed on an urgent matter in your quest (that is - lets get going: Ode to a Pearl (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=502157)
Pittbull 09-15-05, 11:17 AM	@Luni Tactics for Brilf sent by PM. @Luni: Sorry, I won't be able to send you the tactics today (too busy in work!), just expect them tomorrow. EDIT: My last patient didn't come, so the tactics have been written and sent via E-Mail.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 11:32 AM	@Cerebus13 - tactics sent for Daeren vs Yoriko via PM @Sindorin - tactics sent for Kraegin vs Lothan Laurel via PM
Pitlords 09-15-05, 11:35 AM	Due to a mistake with Grakk, the following pairings have changed to: Goran (KerlanRayne) vs Xyanthraxia (Xanadu): Luni Omo-Na (LLMadCow) vs 1 Rust Monster [Monster]: Caterane Grakk (Aramil Dunskar) vs 1 Displacer Beast [Monster]: Caterane Mrs. Buttmunch (Sloisel) vs 1 Barghest [Monster]: Emrys Donovan
King Uther 09-15-05, 12:02 PM	@xanadu Tactics addendum has been sent in case the new FFA map isn't being used.
Sindorin 09-15-05, 12:11 PM	@Sindorin - tactics sent for Kraegin vs Lothan Laurel via PM Received, thank you. I still need tactics for Faroth's character, then I will be good to go. There is a chance that I may be kidnapped this weekend (not serious, just a girlfriend who misses me), so if I don't get the fight finished early, don't worry, because I will definitely have it finished Monday.
sloisel 09-15-05, 12:27 PM	Due to a mistake with Grakk, the following pairings have changed to: Goran (KerlanRayne) vs Xyanthraxia (Xanadu): Luni Omo-Na (LLMadCow) vs 1 Rust Monster [Monster]: Caterane Grakk (Aramil Dunskar) vs 1 Displacer Beast [Monster]: Caterane Mrs. Buttmunch (Sloisel) vs 1 Barghest [Monster]: Emrys Donovan Thanks! I get to know what the Barghest's gear is, right? Sébastien Loisel
Luni 09-15-05, 12:46 PM	Thanks! I get to know what the Barghest's gear is, right? Sébastien Loisel It'll only need toothpicks! Just Kidding. @Iced Tactics Sent for Ariel.
NiQil 09-15-05, 12:50 PM	Thanks! I get to know what the Barghest's gear is, right? Sébastien Loisel It will be armed with a big shovel, a chicken, some clover, a wagon wheel, and bat guano.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 12:51 PM	@TelinArtho & xanadu Sent tactics for Pirotess and Greevus, respectively. @TelinArtho & Mind Rogue Received tactics for gladiators.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 01:01 PM	@Cerebus - tactics received for Pirotess - I can start running that fight when I get a chance.
waywreth 09-15-05, 01:05 PM	@Usurpator - Tactics for Casgish Darath (Waywreth) sent. @Gonbow - Tactics for Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth) sent.
xanadu 09-15-05, 01:08 PM	@ Luni, Xyanthraxia tactics sent.
xanadu 09-15-05, 01:09 PM	@ Cerebus, tactics NOT received.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 01:12 PM	@Pitlords - according to the coloration of the new map, (0,21) is now a valid starting spot - is this correct? (it seems the starting areas have all been extended by one row/column)
michael_noah 09-15-05, 01:21 PM	@michael_noah I can run a miniquest for your character if you'd like. I'll post a thread for you tomorrow and we'll go from there. PM me some story details about your character and I'll work from there. Obviously, the more you tell me, the better it will be I might rather craft than get only 300xp, since I was going to craft next week anyway. This is really a general question about deadlines, etc. Am I allowed to, once I see that I have not been paired for the week, change my headline from "ready for..." to "crafting ..."?
Delusional Illusion 09-15-05, 01:21 PM	Tactics for Wlandra sent to Altaris by PM.
NiQil 09-15-05, 01:21 PM	@Pitlords - according to the coloration of the new map, (0,21) is now a valid starting spot - is this correct? (it seems the starting areas have all been extended by one row/column) Wow...yer right....I did inadvertantly color in an extra row on each starting box. And neither Cat or I caught it. @ Cat/Pitlords I will alter the coloring of the map I put into the map thread ASAP so that you can adjust the Character thread accordingly. Edit: Map has been corrected in the Maps thread....update the Character thread ASAP so that the incorrect coloring is removed.
Luni 09-15-05, 01:38 PM	Quick Question: Does an OPPOSED attack roll always fail on a 1, and always succeed on a 20?
xanadu 09-15-05, 01:40 PM	I might rather craft than get only 300xp, since I was going to craft next week anyway. This is really a general question about deadlines, etc. Am I allowed to, once I see that I have not been paired for the week, change my headline from "ready for..." to "crafting ..."? I really dont see why not. If your not paired, you should be allowed to spend the week doing something. Just let Pitlords know.
NiQil 09-15-05, 01:43 PM	Quick Question: Does an OPPOSED attack roll always fail on a 1, and always succeed on a 20? To the best of my knowledge, no....what if both parties rolled 1's on the same roll? Then who wins if they both autofail?
Luni 09-15-05, 01:46 PM	To the best of my knowledge, no....what if both parties rolled 1's on the same roll? Then who wins if they both autofail? Thats the problem. Both of them rolled 1's... Well, if they both Autofail, that's a tie, which goes to the higher mod.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 01:47 PM	@xanadu I sent tactics again through email and through PM (2 of them), let me know if they don't get through.
waywreth 09-15-05, 01:49 PM	I have always given ties to the person with the higher bonus.
NiQil 09-15-05, 01:52 PM	Thats the problem. Both of them rolled 1's... Well, if they both Autofail, that's a tie, which goes to the higher mod. LOL you missed my point. I was using that as an example to show that they do *not autofail. But it should still be calculated normally, meaning that any modifiers the character would normally have to the roll would still add in....so the highest mod might not always be the correct answer, if there are situational modifiers at play. For instance, if this was a grapple roll, and both parties rolled 1's, and one party had a +5 mod and the other a +6 mod, but the one with the +6 mod was taking a situational penalty of some kind that would subtract 2, then the result would be in favor of the +5 mod person...whereas if you just use whoever has the higher mod, that would favor the +6 person. Since you can't crit on an opposed check, I see no way you can autofail either.
Altaris13 09-15-05, 01:53 PM	Tactics for Wlandra sent to Altaris by PM. Received.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 01:55 PM	Wow...yer right....I did inadvertantly color in an extra row on each starting box. And neither Cat or I caught it. @ Cat/Pitlords I will alter the coloring of the map I put into the map thread ASAP so that you can adjust the Character thread accordingly. Edit: Map has been corrected in the Maps thread....update the Character thread ASAP so that the incorrect coloring is removed. I figured that was the case. I wasn't going to change it unless I saw a post from Cat/Pit anyway to confirm - not that 1 square is going to make a huge difference, but you never know...
NiQil 09-15-05, 02:44 PM	I figured that was the case. I wasn't going to change it unless I saw a post from Cat/Pit anyway to confirm - not that 1 square is going to make a huge difference, but you never know... @ all As Telin pointed out, there is an error in the code map for the arena. Until Cat can get the Character thread fixed, a corrected coded map can be seen here. My apologies for the hassle...it's a small coloring error for the starting blocks that slipped past both Cat and I. Feel free to beat me over the head with a wet noodle at your convenience.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 02:56 PM	The next time it is decided to change the map used for a fight type, can someone make everyone in the community aware of this and possibly change the Rules of Gladius thread (and the maps in the Character Thread) before pairings? It likely won't affect my tactics too much but it is irritating to find out about this after I had already written them. :ahem:
NiQil 09-15-05, 02:58 PM	The next time it is decided to change the map used for a fight type, can someone make everyone in the community aware of this and possibly change the Rules of Gladius thread (and the maps in the Character Thread) before pairings? It likely won't affect my tactics too much but it is irritating to find out about this after I had already written them. :ahem: To my knowledge, there was no official change to the FFA map yet. The only change was the arena map, which wasn't changed so much as modified slightly for ease of use. The FFA map that was discussed was never made official as far as I know. Maybe Cat can clarify for us.
xanadu 09-15-05, 03:05 PM	Well, if it aint official, then I guess the Balbanes FFA will use the standard map. If it aint official, why is Vathelokai making coding changes to the alternate map? And what was that flurry of discussion all about then? It wont make a squat of difference for the fight so I guess I'll just use the standard map. edit: Just looked at the rules of the game. Still using the standard map.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 03:07 PM	Methos vs Pirotess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7259006) The fight title might later be changed to the Circus of Grappling Horses...
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 03:07 PM	Well, if it aint official, then I guess the Balbanes FFA will use the standard map. If it aint official, why is Vathelokai making coding changes to the alternate map? And what was that flurry of discussion all about then? It wont make a squat of difference for the fight so I guess I'll just use the standard map.It makes no difference to my tactics really as long as you give consideration to me using the stairs down into the lower part when appropriate. Go ahead and use the new map, I'm just frustrated that changes are made so often lately that some people are not aware of because they are not well documented.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 03:15 PM	Methos vs Pirotess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7259006) The fight title might later be changed to the Circus of Grappling Horses...TelinArtho, rounds 7 and on should have taken longer to play out because the horse can only perform a single "Damage Your Opponent" action while grappling because its Base Attack Bonus is not high enough to grant it iterative attacks. I had the horse use this course of action to attack with because his attack bonus is dismal, so using the "Attack Your Opponent" option would have dismal results. Thus to fix this fight it must be extended 2 more rounds due to the horse being able to only take one "Damage Your Opponent" action per turn. Round 7: fail Round 8: success, horse hits for 9 Round 9: fail Round 10: success, horse hits for 13 and kills Methos Methos will get actions in Rounds 9 and 10 which may change the battle in his favor.
michael_noah 09-15-05, 03:16 PM	Methos vs Pirotess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7259006) The fight title might later be changed to the Circus of Grappling Horses... Improved Grapple [General] Prerequisites Dex 13, Improved Unarmed Strike. The horse does not meet the prerequisites for improved grapple.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 03:17 PM	The horse does not meet the prerequisites for improved grapple.CoCo has house ruled it (or clairified it I guess) that beings with natural attacks are considered to have Improved Unarmed Strike for purposes of passing pre-requisites for feats and such.
michael_noah 09-15-05, 03:17 PM	TelinArtho, rounds 7 and on should have taken longer to play out because the horse can only perform a single "Damage Your Opponent" action while grappling because its Base Attack Bonus is not high enough to grant it iterative attacks. This is only mention in RotG as an optional, alternate rule, I believe. Does CoCo use it, or not? CoCo has house ruled it (or clairified it I guess) that beings with natural attacks are considered to have Improved Unarmed Strike for purposes of passing pre-requisites for feats and such. What!? That's a house rule, not a clarification.
Pitlords 09-15-05, 03:19 PM	Let me clarify this. The old All vs All fights have been renamed to "Hunter Fight" (if you have a better name, tell me). That clearly shows that you have to kill your target and not Grick or the rock next to you. These fights will stay part of the CoCo. The real FFA fights will start as soon as I have a colored code map for Vath's dungeon with the lava in the center, and one stair instead of two on each side. @Michael: Some monsters like the Bebilith have Impr.Grapple and no IUS so it seems that natural weapons count as substitute.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 03:20 PM	This is only mention in RotG as an optional, alternate rule, I believe. Does CoCo use it, or not?It isn't optional in this case, it is mentioned specifically in the grapple rules: If You’re Grappling When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.What!? That's a house rule, not a clarification.Well whatever it is, I'm simply following the crowd here.
michael_noah 09-15-05, 03:30 PM	It isn't optional in this case, it is mentioned specifically in the grapple rules: If You’re Grappling When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.Well whatever it is, I'm simply following the crowd here. You're quoting the grapple rules. However, the RotG, which are used in general in the CoCo, state that monsters can make one grapple check for each natural weapon, and say that an option would be to limit this to BAB uses.
NiQil 09-15-05, 03:30 PM	It isn't optional in this case, it is mentioned specifically in the grapple rules: If You’re Grappling When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses.Well whatever it is, I'm simply following the crowd here. I have another issue with this. Since the horse is not a familiar or an animal companion, they are limited in what they can do in battle due to their intelligence. I am wondering how the horse is able to grapple at all, since there is no grapple trick. You have one listed on your sheet, but no such trick exists in the SRD.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 03:31 PM	So the horse would be able to start a grapple with all three of its attacks - but would only be able to grapple for damage once per round after the grapple has been started? Have I metioned that I hate grapplers...? Okay - I'll go in and fix it when I get a chance. Maybe Methos has a chance after all. As to whether the horse can grapple due to its intelligence - I think that's the wrong way to go about it NiQil - there are plenty of creatures that attempt to start grapples with a low intelligence (some animals included - Apes and some Bears come to mind). While it may not be a standard action for a regular horse, I think this falls under the attack trick. As a pitlord, I'm going to make that call. If you wish to dispute it - feel free and I will use Pitlords's ruling from now on. Unfortunately, I don't know that it would be resolved before the week is up.
NiQil 09-15-05, 03:36 PM	So the horse would be able to start a grapple with all three of its attacks - but would only be able to grapple for damage once per round after the grapple has been started? Have I metioned that I hate grapplers...? Okay - I'll go in and fix it when I get a chance. Maybe Methos has a chance after all. Again....I ask how a horse can be commanded to grapple with no grapple trick and a 2 intelligence. It is not trained for this. No grapple trick exists. Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks. Come (DC 15): The animal comes to you, even if it normally would not do so. Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend a specific other character. Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated. Fetch (DC 15): The animal goes and gets something. If you do not point out a specific item, the animal fetches some random object. Guard (DC 20): The animal stays in place and prevents others from approaching. Heel (DC 15): The animal follows you closely, even to places where it normally wouldn’t go. Perform (DC 15): The animal performs a variety of simple tricks, such as sitting up, rolling over, roaring or barking, and so on. Seek (DC 15): The animal moves into an area and looks around for anything that is obviously alive or animate. Stay (DC 15): The animal stays in place, waiting for you to return. It does not challenge other creatures that come by, though it still defends itself if it needs to. Track (DC 20): The animal tracks the scent presented to it. (This requires the animal to have the scent ability) Work (DC 15): The animal pulls or pushes a medium or heavy load.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 03:37 PM	See my edits above.
waywreth 09-15-05, 03:38 PM	I have another issue with this. Since the horse is not a familiar or an animal companion, they are limited in what they can do in battle due to their intelligence. I am wondering how the horse is able to grapple at all, since there is no grapple trick. You have one listed on your sheet, but no such trick exists in the SRD. I'm going to have to agree here. Horses are not smart - even an animal companion probably wouldn't be smart enough. If anything the horse can be given the "attack" command if it has the trick (and has learned how to attack). It's not going to grapple.
NiQil 09-15-05, 03:42 PM	So the horse would be able to start a grapple with all three of its attacks - but would only be able to grapple for damage once per round after the grapple has been started? Have I metioned that I hate grapplers...? Okay - I'll go in and fix it when I get a chance. Maybe Methos has a chance after all. As to whether the horse can grapple due to its intelligence - I think that's the wrong way to go about it NiQil - there are plenty of creatures that attempt to start grapples with a low intelligence (some animals included - Apes and some Bears come to mind). While it may not be a standard action for a regular horse, I think this falls under the attack trick. As a pitlord, I'm going to make that call. If you wish to dispute it - feel free and I will use Pitlords's ruling from now on. Unfortunately, I don't know that it would be resolved before the week is up. The animals that you mentioned do so because it is part of their natural being. Bears and apes grapple in the wild. When was the last time you saw a horse grapple in the wild? I definitely want a ruling from Cat on this issue. I don't think a horse with a 2 intelligence can be trained to grapple, especially since no grapple trick exists. The attack trick trains them to attack on command. It does not train them HOW to attack. They would do what is natural to them, which is to bite and kick. It's not a question of whether their intelligence would let them grapple. It's the fact that their intelligence would not let them be TRAINED to grapple. The Attack trick doesn't do this, and their is no grapple trick.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 03:44 PM	You're quoting the grapple rules. However, the RotG, which are used in general in the CoCo, state that monsters can make one grapple check for each natural weapon, and say that an option would be to limit this to BAB uses.Damn your right, TelinArtho's original result would stand then. Sorry for the mixup. Again....I ask how a horse can be commanded to grapple with no grapple trick and a 2 intelligence. It is not trained for this. No grapple trick exists.Please check Caterane's character Indri'ynar Per'Elereth. Deep within a few sblocks he has a Dire Bat ally Rodhrabraan with the tricks "Grapple" and "Perform (Tap)". If these tricks are not allowed we will both have to change them and I'll need a refund on the money spent so I can pick up other tricks. No one has ever raised the question before this so I merely followed precedent by looking at other characters. Edit: Also, the fight will need significant revisions because the trick needed to pursue my primary tactic would no longer exist. The horse would instead attack Methos normally and the fight would likely change drastically.
NiQil 09-15-05, 03:53 PM	Damn your right, TelinArtho's original result would stand then. Sorry for the mixup. Please check Caterane's character Indri'ynar Per'Elereth. Deep within a few sblocks he has a Dire Bat ally Rodhrabraan with the tricks "Grapple" and "Perform (Tap)". If these tricks are not allowed we will both have to change them and I'll need a refund on the money spent so I can pick up other tricks. No one has ever raised the question before this so I merely followed precedent by looking at other characters. Edit: Also, the fight will need significant revisions because the trick needed to pursue my primary tactic would no longer exist. The horse would instead attack Methos normally and the fight would likely change drastically. I see in the pairings post that he is training the dire bat, but he does not have the dire bat stats listed on his sheet. And if he does, then that also needs to be changed. By the RAW, you cannot train a trick that doesn't exist. This is RAW. If we are allowed custom tricks, then it needs to be written somewhere. Until such time, RAW should be followed.
Altaris13 09-15-05, 03:57 PM	Just to wade in here and probably get my head chopped off, :D , I have RL experience with Horses and Cattle. Horses can and will step on things and hold them down with a hoof, or bite and hold on to something with their teeth. This is common knowledge & common sense, which I know is not so common, and which I know most people say has no place in DnD. But still. Just because something does not have hands/paws does not mean it cannot/will not be able to grapple. Just my two cents.
NiQil 09-15-05, 03:59 PM	Just to wade in here and probably get my head chopped off, :D , I have RL experience with Horses and Cattle. Horses can and will step on things and hold them down with a hoof, or bite and hold on to something with their teeth. This is common knowledge & common sense, which I know is not so common, and which I know most people say has no place in DnD. But still. Just because something does have hands/paws does not mean it cannot/will not be able to grapple. Just my two cents. Alright, I'll grant you that. Now, by the RAW, can a horse be trained in a specific style of fighting? If yes, direct me to the place in a book or SRD that says this.
King Uther 09-15-05, 04:00 PM	So, we're using the Standard Map? I got a PM saying otherwise. I need clarification on this.
michael_noah 09-15-05, 04:00 PM	It doesn't matter. If we're letting the horse learn improved grapple (the feat), it can certainly use it.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 04:03 PM	@NiQil - if you haven't already, send a PM to Pitlords/Cat and get him to post an official response, otherwise I'm going with my decision already. The argument has been made - but frankly, I think this kind of action is covered in the attack trick (and needs nothing more). If Cat rules otherwise (and only in that case), I'll change the fight accordingly.
Usurpator 09-15-05, 04:07 PM	If I see a character who commands his horse to grapple, I would ignore it. The horse can be commanded to attack, and it will attack according to its natural attack mode. Besides, Cat asked not to give your animals feats that are inappropriate, I would consider Improved Grapple to inappropriate for a horse. Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, fine with me, but I don't want to see horses with Deflect Arrows (or crocs with Deflect Arrows for that matter) or other weird feats.
NiQil 09-15-05, 04:15 PM	@NiQil - if you haven't already, send a PM to Pitlords/Cat and get him to post an official response, otherwise I'm going with my decision already. The argument has been made - but frankly, I think this kind of action is covered in the attack trick (and needs nothing more). If Cat rules otherwise (and only in that case), I'll change the fight accordingly. Let me put this to you in another way. If the attack trick covered this type of action, then why would there be a need for a seperate grapple trick? Apparantly the people running these characters themselves thought that this would not be covered by the attack trick. Now, by the prison thread, anything that is custom must be linked and the appropriate credits spent. I seen no link indicating credit expenditure. Therefore, per the prison thread, this trick does not belong to this creature. If Cat has this on his dire bat, then it needs to be linked as well. Any way you slice it, this horse cannot grapple.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 04:21 PM	Well, as far as the tricks and the feats go - he paid for them - which is an option for purchased animals.
Enterik 09-15-05, 04:23 PM	...such as they are. Do I have to make this kind of declarative post? If not, then why is everyone else seem to be doing it?
waywreth 09-15-05, 04:26 PM	...such as they are. Do I have to make this kind of declarative post? If not, then why is everyone else seem to be doing it? I post more so the Pitlord knows I sent them. The PM system is sketchy at days so I want the Pitlord to know I've sent tactics rather than having not completed and sent them.
NiQil 09-15-05, 04:27 PM	Well, as far as the tricks and the feats go - he paid for them - which is an option for purchased animals. I see no link indicating the purchase of a custom trick. Grapple is not a trick. No link from anywhere indicating the credit expenditure for a custom trick. So again, he does not have this trick. No grapple trick exist. And this is what Attack covers... Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks. If this was an appropriate set if skills for a warhorse, why is it not listed that way in the MM? Nothing I have seen ANYWHERE says that horses can grapple by the RAW. This is NOT covered by the attack trick as listed above. This is a custom trick, and if it is allowed, still requires a link to show that it was paid for with credits. Therefore, this trick does not exist on this horse, and again, he cannot grapple.
NiQil 09-15-05, 04:28 PM	...such as they are. Do I have to make this kind of declarative post? If not, then why is everyone else seem to be doing it? I have your tactics....just haven't had a chance to read them yet, which is why I haven't posted that I received them.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 04:32 PM	He paid for the tricks and the feats in his expenditures. I agree that Grapple is not a listed trick and should be clarified, but I also think (it is my opinion therefore) that the horse can grapple with the attack trick. In the case of purchased allies, he doesn't have to link the changed feat - so that's why you don't see it. Another thing - pending Cat's response to the matter (did you send him a PM like I asked?) - Cat has approved the Improved Grapple feat on at least one other creature (King Uther's Dire Bat) - so it would seem to be at least a viable option (a bat has no harder a time grappling than a horse anyway). Anyway - all of this is moot. If you want a different ruling, talk to Cat. I have already stated my opinion on the matter, plus my ruling on the questionable parts of it. If it is to be changed at this point, you'll have to get something out of him. /d
NiQil 09-15-05, 04:34 PM	He paid for the tricks and the feats in his expenditures. I agree that Grapple is not a listed trick and should be clarified, but I also think (it is my opinion therefore) that the horse can grapple with the attack trick. In the case of purchased allies, he doesn't have to link the changed feat - so that's why you don't see it. Another thing - pending Cat's response to the matter (did you send him a PM like I asked?) - Cat has approved the Improved Grapple feat on at least one other creature (King Uther's Dire Bat) - so it would seem to be at least a viable option (a bat has no harder a time grappling than a horse anyway). Anyway - all of this is moot. If you want a different ruling, talk to Cat. I have already stated my opinion on the matter, plus my ruling on the questionable parts of it. If it is to be changed at this point, you'll have to get something out of him. /d Per the Prison thread If you have crafted for more than 1000 gp marketprice, taught a trick to an animal, or similar things that need tracking, you must link the item/trick/etc to the Pitlords Post on the Fights thread! If you have bought something that costs credits, you must link the Response from Pitlords in the Blackmarket where he quoted your purchase. Failure to do so means you do not possess this item/trick/etc for that fight until it is linked. Show me the link that indicates this CUSTOM trick was purchased, please?
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 04:40 PM	You seem to be mistaking my point that I think this is covered in the attack trick for the grapple trick. I know there is no grapple trick - I've even said as much. I know he has not linked the "custom trick" - but regardless - I think it is covered in the attack trick. He purchased an ally (a light warhorse) with no tricks. He then paid to have the horse trained in 6 tricks - 5 of which were valid tricks. I am happy to ignore the 6th one - because it is invalid and because it is not linked. However, since the grapple action is merely an attack option - I have the opinion that this is covered under attack. Have you sent the PM to Cat yet?
King Uther 09-15-05, 04:40 PM	@Enterik You post it so that the Pitlord knows and your opponent knows. If I see my opponent has his tactics sent, I usually get mine done as soon as possible so the fight can begin.
NiQil 09-15-05, 04:45 PM	You seem to be mistaking my point that I think this is covered in the attack trick for the grapple trick. I know there is no grapple trick - I've even said as much. I know he has not linked the "custom trick" - but regardless - I think it is covered in the attack trick. He purchased an ally (a light warhorse) with no tricks. He then paid to have the horse trained in 6 tricks - 5 of which were valid tricks. I am happy to ignore the 6th one - because it is invalid and because it is not linked. However, since the grapple action is merely an attack option - I have the opinion that this is covered under attack. Have you sent the PM to Cat yet? Yes, a PM was sent to Cat. But again, I ask you...if the fighter himself felt that grappling was *not covered under the attack trick and needed a seperate trick for it, then how is it justified that this is changed?
Usurpator 09-15-05, 04:45 PM	However, since the grapple action is merely an attack option - I have the opinion that this is covered under attack. Suppose this is included in the attack option, how does the horse decide when to grapple and when to use regular attacks? Or does it always try to grapple from now on. If a horse gets Improved Sunder, will it use it all the time? (BTW, I thought Improved Attack meant you used two tricks for the horse to be able to attack unnatural creatures as well with the attack command)
Usurpator 09-15-05, 04:49 PM	Telin, another thing about the grappling horse: Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) Since horses are not proficient with armor spikes....... And can the horse decide when and when not to use the armor spikes, or does it use them always by default (or not)?
michael_noah 09-15-05, 04:53 PM	The horse decides the same way that it decides whether to charge, whether to withraw, whether to power attack (if it has the feat), or even whether to make a full attack instead of just one; it does what it's master wants it to, because thats the easiest.
Maraxus 09-15-05, 04:57 PM	My take on grappling horses: Probably anything can grapple. But how do you tell the horse to grapple? A custom trick may be one idea. Else, under what circumstances will a horse grapple on it's own? I think it will do so, when it does not want to kill the opponent (and don't think it is a threat). It probably won't grapple armed opponents (=with melee weapons), and opponents that have shown that they have improved unarmed strike. Why? Allthrough horses can grapple, there is no reason why they should suffer no AoO on attacking. ...Oh, I'm just seeing that Hrólf has the Improved Grapple feat. But it does not meet the requirement (Improved unarmed strike). Another thing, that demands more an in-game answer: How do you put armor spikes on a leather armor? I also wanted to ask that when I saw spiked chain shirts.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 05:03 PM	Telin, another thing about the grappling horse: Armor Spikes: You can have spikes added to your armor, which allow you to deal extra piercing damage (see Table: Weapons) on a successful grapple attack. The spikes count as a martial weapon. If you are not proficient with them, you take a –4 penalty on grapple checks when you try to use them. You can also make a regular melee attack (or off-hand attack) with the spikes, and they count as a light weapon in this case. (You can’t also make an attack with armor spikes if you have already made an attack with another off-hand weapon, and vice versa.) Since horses are not proficient with armor spikes....... And can the horse decide when and when not to use the armor spikes, or does it use them always by default (or not)? I'll take into account the -4 penalty when I go back in to edit the fight.
Usurpator 09-15-05, 05:04 PM	The horse decides the same way that it decides whether to charge, whether to withraw, whether to power attack (if it has the feat), or even whether to make a full attack instead of just one; it does what it's master wants it to, because thats the easiest. But since is the fight where the horse's master was about half a football field away, how does the horse decide such things without his master being present?
NiQil 09-15-05, 05:18 PM	Alright...putting the grapple issue aside for the moment until Cat chimes in and looking at the fight as is, I have another question: Was the -4 penalty for grappling with a non-proficient weapon taken into account? If not, then the grapple check in round 6 fails completely, and that's going to change the rest of the fight along with it. Edit: Just saw your post above this one that it wasn't. I'll hold any other questions until that is changed, since that may change other things as well.
Snommelp 09-15-05, 05:31 PM	...Oh, I'm just seeing that Hrólf has the Improved Grapple feat. But it does not meet the requirement (Improved unarmed strike).This has already been answered by Cat. Look back a page or two. Another thing, that demands more an in-game answer: How do you put armor spikes on a leather armor? I also wanted to ask that when I saw spiked chain shirts.Um... very carefully? Seriously, though, there's nothing in the PHB that says that armor spikes are restricted to certain kinds of armor, so this is one of those instances where common sense has no influence on the rules.
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 05:36 PM	At this point I'm about ready to give up. Pirotess will likely be remade because rules have not be clairified on animals and what tricks are available to them, so I don't even care about the result of this fight. I'm tired of spending 2, 3 or 4 pages of threads clairifying or fighting over rules...it's getting old.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 05:54 PM	The fight has been updated with the -4 penalty for non-proficiency on grapple checks where the horse is trying to deal damage. It prolonged it a little - but ultimately the result hasn't changed.
LongArcher 09-15-05, 06:02 PM	@Gonbow: Tactics sent for Archie Longbow. /amz
NiQil 09-15-05, 06:05 PM	The fight has been updated with the -4 penalty for non-proficiency on grapple checks where the horse is trying to deal damage. It prolonged it a little - but ultimately the result hasn't changed. Now that that is fixed, I have some other questions. First off....why am I attacking with a flurry in a grapple, since in every circumstance I mention grappling in my tactics I say to use the damage an opponent maneuver? Since I never imagined that grappling from a horse would be allowed to begin with, I am guessing that you defaulted to what I wanted to do to the horse if I was in melee, instead of doing what I stated to do in a grapple to my other opponent. I am wondering why you chose this way instead of damaging the horse directly with the damage an opponent action, or even trying to break away. Secondly, since it is outlined in my tactics, when I am dropped to 4 HP, there should be a potion drank there. Even though this is just wasted resources at this point, it still needs to be done, so that my tactics are followed.
Caterane 09-15-05, 06:37 PM	First of all, anything that costs credits and is not linked is not available. It's in the Rules, it's in the Blackmarket, it's in the Prison, and I've recently posted that in the Tavern because I heard of many customized creatures when I can only remember one being posted in the Blackmarket. Now the Grapple trick. Fact is that any creature can grapple. That's a regular attack option that is not restricted to any type, intelligence, or requirement. Normally you just tell your ally in common or elven or whatever that he should perform <xxx> action. Animals don't understand a language but they understand "Handle Animal" commands. These commands come in two ways: those with which it is familiar (called Trick), and those with which it is not familiar (no Trick). The first one requires a DC 10 Handle Animal check, the latter a DC 25 Handle Animal check. Independent from wether it knows the trick or not, the action itself is performable if you pass the Dc. That means, if my horse knows the "attack" trick, the HA DC is 10. If it doesn't know the trick, it's Dc25. In any case, it can attack if I pass the DC. Same for grapple. It can grapple in any case (see purple section). The question is wether it is a Dc10 or Dc25 check for me, i.e. wether it knows the trick or not. Now the Handle Animal section in the PHB explicitely says "Possible tricks include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following". That indicates that the mentioned tricks are just examples, and that you can teach an animal anything of what it is capable to do in order to decrease the DC from 25 to 10. That's the whole secret behind it. There might be of course very stupid tricks that won't work, or not work on certain animals. I'd say if you want to teach a trick that is not listed, you need to get approval either from me or an Elder. I hope that helps. And yes, the Grapple Trick is ok.
NiQil 09-15-05, 06:43 PM	Alright, so based on Cat's post, the horse can grapple with the grapple trick. But since the grapple trick is custom and has not been linked from the blackmarket, it does not know this trick, and therefore requires a DC 25 Handle Animal check in order to not attack normally. Grapple is a seperate trick from Attack, so the fight needs to be edited with a DC 25 Handle Animal check for it to initiate a grapple instead of attacking normally. Edit: And since Pirotess cannot succeed in a DC 25 Handle Animal check with no ranks in Handle Animal and Handle Animal is a trained only skill, the horse cannot grapple.
Caterane 09-15-05, 07:01 PM	No. The Grapple trick is not custom and does not cost credits. It's a trick that can be taught normally like any other trick too. With Customizing I meant the Impr.grapple feat I read about earlier, or skill point relocations.
NiQil 09-15-05, 07:04 PM	No. The Grapple trick is not custom. It's a trick that can be taught normally like any other trick too. With Customizing I meant the Impr.grapple feat I read about earlier, or skill point relocations. Ahh...I'm glad you clarified. I totally did not get that from your previous post. Thank you for your clarification of your clarification LOL. It still requires a DC 10 Handle Animal check to direct the animal to attack and/or grapple. With no ranks in Handle Animal, and Handle Animal being a trained only skill, no check is allowed, which means the horse cannot even attack Methos. If I fire arrows at it, it will flee, since it cannot be given the command to attack. The only thing it can do is defend it's rider/owner, since this can be done without a command. Untrained Skill Checks Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. The skill modifier doesn’t have a skill rank added in because the character has no ranks in the skill. Any other applicable modifiers, such as the modifier for the skill’s key ability, are applied to the check. Many skills can be used only by someone who is trained in them. HANDLE ANIMAL (CHA; TRAINED ONLY) Check: The DC depends on what you are trying to do. Task Handle Animal DC Handle an animal 10 “Push” an animal 25 Teach an animal a trick 15 or 201 Train an animal for a general purpose 15 or 201 Rear a wild animal 15 + HD of animal 1See the specific trick or purpose below. General Purpose DC General Purpose DC Combat riding 20 Hunting 20 Fighting 20 Performance 15 Guarding 20 Riding 15 Heavy labor 15 Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action. “Push” an Animal: To push an animal means to get it to perform a task or trick that it doesn’t know but is physically capable of performing. This category also covers making an animal perform a forced march or forcing it to hustle for more than 1 hour between sleep cycles. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action. Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick with one week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks. Come (DC 15): The animal comes to you, even if it normally would not do so. Defend (DC 20): The animal defends you (or is ready to defend you if no threat is present), even without any command being given. Alternatively, you can command the animal to defend a specific other character. Down (DC 15): The animal breaks off from combat or otherwise backs down. An animal that doesn’t know this trick continues to fight until it must flee (due to injury, a fear effect, or the like) or its opponent is defeated. Fetch (DC 15): The animal goes and gets something. If you do not point out a specific item, the animal fetches some random object. Guard (DC 20): The animal stays in place and prevents others from approaching. Heel (DC 15): The animal follows you closely, even to places where it normally wouldn’t go. Perform (DC 15): The animal performs a variety of simple tricks, such as sitting up, rolling over, roaring or barking, and so on. Seek (DC 15): The animal moves into an area and looks around for anything that is obviously alive or animate. Stay (DC 15): The animal stays in place, waiting for you to return. It does not challenge other creatures that come by, though it still defends itself if it needs to. Track (DC 20): The animal tracks the scent presented to it. (This requires the animal to have the scent ability) Work (DC 15): The animal pulls or pushes a medium or heavy load. Train an Animal for a Purpose: Rather than teaching an animal individual tricks, you can simply train it for a general purpose. Essentially, an animal’s purpose represents a preselected set of known tricks that fit into a common scheme, such as guarding or heavy labor. The animal must meet all the normal prerequisites for all tricks included in the training package. If the package includes more than three tricks, the animal must have an Intelligence score of 2. An animal can be trained for only one general purpose, though if the creature is capable of learning additional tricks (above and beyond those included in its general purpose), it may do so. Training an animal for a purpose requires fewer checks than teaching individual tricks does, but no less time. Combat Riding (DC 20): An animal trained to bear a rider into combat knows the tricks attack, come, defend, down, guard, and heel. Training an animal for combat riding takes six weeks. You may also “upgrade” an animal trained for riding to one trained for combat riding by spending three weeks and making a successful DC 20 Handle Animal check. The new general purpose and tricks completely replace the animal’s previous purpose and any tricks it once knew. Warhorses and riding dogs are already trained to bear riders into combat, and they don’t require any additional training for this purpose. Fighting (DC 20): An animal trained to engage in combat knows the tricks attack, down, and stay. Training an animal for fighting takes three weeks. Guarding (DC 20): An animal trained to guard knows the tricks attack, defend, down, and guard. Training an animal for guarding takes four weeks. Heavy Labor (DC 15): An animal trained for heavy labor knows the tricks come and work. Training an animal for heavy labor takes two weeks. Hunting (DC 20): An animal trained for hunting knows the tricks attack, down, fetch, heel, seek, and track. Training an animal for hunting takes six weeks. Performance (DC 15): An animal trained for performance knows the tricks come, fetch, heel, perform, and stay. Training an animal for performance takes five weeks. Riding (DC 15): An animal trained to bear a rider knows the tricks come, heel, and stay. Training an animal for riding takes three weeks. Rear a Wild Animal: To rear an animal means to raise a wild creature from infancy so that it becomes domesticated. A handler can rear as many as three creatures of the same kind at once. A successfully domesticated animal can be taught tricks at the same time it’s being raised, or it can be taught as a domesticated animal later. Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action, while pushing an animal is a full-round action. (A druid or ranger can handle her animal companion as a free action or push it as a move action.) For tasks with specific time frames noted above, you must spend half this time (at the rate of 3 hours per day per animal being handled) working toward completion of the task before you attempt the Handle Animal check. If the check fails, your attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal fails and you need not complete the teaching, rearing, or training time. If the check succeeds, you must invest the remainder of the time to complete the teaching, rearing, or training. If the time is interrupted or the task is not followed through to completion, the attempt to teach, rear, or train the animal automatically fails. Try Again: Yes, except for rearing an animal. Special: You can use this skill on a creature with an Intelligence score of 1 or 2 that is not an animal, but the DC of any such check increases by 5. Such creatures have the same limit on tricks known as animals do. A druid or ranger gains a +4 circumstance bonus on Handle Animal checks involving her animal companion. In addition, a druid’s or ranger’s animal companion knows one or more bonus tricks, which don’t count against the normal limit on tricks known and don’t require any training time or Handle Animal checks to teach. If you have the Animal Affinity feat, you get a +2 bonus on Handle Animal checks. Synergy: If you have 5 or more ranks in Handle Animal, you get a +2 bonus on Ride checks and wild empathy checks. Untrained: If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can use a Charisma check to handle and push domestic animals, but you can’t teach, rear, or train animals. A druid or ranger with no ranks in Handle Animal can use a Charisma check to handle and push her animal companion, but she can’t teach, rear, or train other nondomestic animals.
Shaken, not Stunned 09-15-05, 07:14 PM	Um... very carefully? Seriously, though, there's nothing in the PHB that says that armor spikes are restricted to certain kinds of armor, so this is one of those instances where common sense has no influence on the rules. Easy. Spiked leather armor has small plates of metal on the interior, each of which fits through a small hole and tapers off to a point. Similar to studded leather, but only a few, long studs with a more solid anchor point. A chain shirt likely includes metal plating at the elbows, forearms, knees, shoulders, and shins. From these plates, short knives extend. There. Simple answer. Of course the armor is no longer really the same, but basically it isn't all that different.
xanadu 09-15-05, 07:35 PM	Cat is right. There is no reason that a creature cannot be taught the grapple trick. However, this does not give said creature the Improved Grapple feat! With no feat, it will incur AOOs and does not get bonuses. Absolutely a horse can have the improved grapple feat. It is custom though. Micheal - In savage species somewhere it specifically says creatures with nautral weapon attacks qualify as a prerequisite for improved grapple. This is not a house rule or a CoCo rule. It is D & D. Now, I have a question regarding web. Lets say you fail a save, are you still only entangled so you can still attack?
xanadu 09-15-05, 07:37 PM	Improved Bull Rush, Improved Overrun, fine with me, but I don't want to see horses with Deflect Arrows (or crocs with Deflect Arrows for that matter) or other weird feats. Too late :rofl: :rofl:
Sindorin 09-15-05, 07:38 PM	I guess Mokoridos gets to teach his croc how to grapple next week... The croc already has improved grapple, but not the grapple trick... yahaha
Sindorin 09-15-05, 07:40 PM	Is there something wrong with ElidocorC having Deflect Arrows? He meets all of the prerequisites, and I was made aware when I created Ceres that I was allowed to change the feats of his pegasus... is everything kosher with taking those feats?
xanadu 09-15-05, 07:43 PM	Is there something wrong with ElidocorC having Deflect Arrows? He meets all of the prerequisites, and I was made aware when I created Ceres that I was allowed to change the feats of his pegasus... is everything kosher with taking those feats? As long as the croc meets the pre-reqs it can take the feat. Simple as that. You must admit it is a funny visual :D though.
Altaris13 09-15-05, 07:59 PM	ElidocorC Don't you mean Crocodile? :P ;)
NiQil 09-15-05, 08:00 PM	As long as the croc meets the pre-reqs it can take the feat. Simple as that. You must admit it is a funny visual :D though. I have this image in my mind of the croc whipping around and tail-slapping the arrows away LOL
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 08:16 PM	Untrained If you have no ranks in Handle Animal, you can use a Charisma check to handle and push domestic animals, but you can’t teach, rear, or train animals. A druid or ranger with no ranks in Handle Animal can use a Charisma check to handle and push her animal companion, but she can’t teach, rear, or train other nondomestic animals. This is the reason I did not purchase ranks in Handle Animal. I forgot to buy a whistle to improve my ability however, which I plan to do later. Customizing creatures: How can I do that? The creature versions from the Monster Manual are the standard versions but surely not the only ones. You can customize these creatures by changing their printed feats and skills. For feats, you just exchange one or more existing ones with new ones. Skills need more attention because you have to recalculate a creatures skill points and then assign them anew, taking into consideration class/cross-class skills, and common sense (no spellcraft animals, for example). You may only customize a creature when you acquire it; once you've made your decision, there will be no further customization! Bonus feats may never be customized! All purchased creatures may be customized at no credit cost albeit at a higher market price which reflects the special training you request. All allies attained by either handle animal or diplomacy cost credits to customize: you have to pay 1° per changed feat, and a flat 1° if you want to relocate skill points. Post your request in the Blackmarket and link the Pitlords answer. See FAQ: Allies II for increased prices.According to the bolded section from Allies I this says that it costs no credits to customize purchased creatures. Does this apply to the feat Improved Grapple?
Sindorin 09-15-05, 08:26 PM	It addresses purchased creatures, but what about a druid's animal companion?
Sindorin 09-15-05, 08:27 PM	Don't you mean Crocodile? :P ;) That's his name! :D
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 08:31 PM	It addresses purchased creatures, but what about a druid's animal companion?I asked this question earlier and Caterane responded saying that druid companions and familiars cannot use these customizing rules. This could be up for debate if you went out and captured/trained your own animal I guess, but that is another can of worms to get into.
NiQil 09-15-05, 08:58 PM	This is the reason I did not purchase ranks in Handle Animal. I forgot to buy a whistle to improve my ability however, which I plan to do later. According to the bolded section from Allies I this says that it costs no credits to customize purchased creatures. Does this apply to the feat Improved Grapple? With regard to the handle animal check, you are correct, I was wrong. So we need a DC 10 check with your Cha mod as the only adder to see if the horse can grapple. With regard to Improved Grapple, they way I understood what Cat said is that since it is custom, even though it does not cost credits, it still has to be linked from somewhere (probably the Blackmarket or a Pairings post). Someone please correct me if I am wrong, since Cat's post was kind of vague on this to me. If I am correct, with no link, that means it does not have the feat, since it is custom, and would therefore take AoO on it's grapple attempts.
NiQil 09-15-05, 09:00 PM	I asked this question earlier and Caterane responded saying that druid companions and familiars cannot use these customizing rules. This could be up for debate if you went out and captured/trained your own animal I guess, but that is another can of worms to get into. A druid's animal companion is not captured...it is called from the wild in a ceremony lasting 24 hours. You can train it once you get it, just like any druid can, but it would not be open for customization because you can't purchase an untrained animal companion. Familiars operate under the same principle.
xanadu 09-15-05, 09:00 PM	If someone fails a caster level check on a scroll, but makes the wisdom check, is the scroll ruined or can they try again next round?
Sindorin 09-15-05, 09:06 PM	Ah, so Mokoridos can't have his animal companion have improved grapple or deflect arrows... I'm sad now. For the purposes of the fight this week, I suppose ElidocorC should have Alertness and Skill Focus (Hide).
Maraxus 09-15-05, 09:15 PM	Cat is right. There is no reason that a creature cannot be taught the grapple trick. However, this does not give said creature the Improved Grapple feat! With no feat, it will incur AOOs and does not get bonuses. Absolutely a horse can have the improved grapple feat. It is custom though. Micheal - In savage species somewhere it specifically says creatures with nautral weapon attacks qualify as a prerequisite for improved grapple. This is not a house rule or a CoCo rule. It is D & D. Now, I have a question regarding web. Lets say you fail a save, are you still only entangled so you can still attack? Thanks for pointing that natural attacks=improved unarmed strike out. I don't have that book, so I didn't know. :) About the web I can help: You can still attack, you are just entangled as normal, plus unable to move from the spot you are standing. When attacking with ranged weapons, you have that -4 dex of cause and you can't grapple or attack with reach 0 weapons of cause (as this requires you to be able to step in your opponents square.).
Cerebus13 09-15-05, 09:26 PM	With regard to the handle animal check, you are correct, I was wrong. So we need a DC 10 check with your Cha mod as the only adder to see if the horse can grapple. With regard to Improved Grapple, they way I understood what Cat said is that since it is custom, even though it does not cost credits, it still has to be linked from somewhere (probably the Blackmarket or a Pairings post). Someone please correct me if I am wrong, since Cat's post was kind of vague on this to me. If I am correct, with no link, that means it does not have the feat, since it is custom, and would therefore take AoO on it's grapple attempts.Caterane needs to be more clear on this then and please write it in the Allies I thread. Other people are likely going to run into this in the future and we could spare everyone a lot of headache if we clairify this ALL now.
TelinArtho 09-15-05, 09:28 PM	Alright, now that everything's been clarified (with the exception of whether the feat change needs to be linked) - the fight is correct as listed. If you notice, I've had the HA check in there since the first version of the fight... Okay - now NiQil - you had some other tactics to address: First off....why am I attacking with a flurry in a grapple, since in every circumstance I mention grappling in my tactics I say to use the damage an opponent maneuver? Since I never imagined that grappling from a horse would be allowed to begin with, I am guessing that you defaulted to what I wanted to do to the horse if I was in melee, instead of doing what I stated to do in a grapple to my other opponent. I am wondering why you chose this way instead of damaging the horse directly with the damage an opponent action, or even trying to break away. Secondly, since it is outlined in my tactics, when I am dropped to 4 HP, there should be a potion drank there. Even though this is just wasted resources at this point, it still needs to be done, so that my tactics are followed. I was using the damage an opponent option - to which you can apply your flurry. In these cases, you made two attacks with a +8 grapple modifier versus the +13 of the horse. Since this was the only option you had presented in your tactics its the one I went with. Breaking away didn't offer much chance for success, since the horse got 3 attempts to restart each round. You could try to attack while in a grapple, with a -4 on each of your attacks - in which case you would have 2 attacks each round at +0 vs AC16. However, neither of these actions were listed in your tactics - so I saw no reason to go to them since you had about as much a chance of success using the tactics you had listed. As to trying to heal - you'd have to escape, draw the potion and drink it. Since you'd have to break away - which is listed above as a not too likely scenario - I didn't have you try. However, if you really want me to substitute the break away in order to heal starting in round 10 (when you had your next action after being dropped to 4 hp), you'll see that you made 2 unsuccessful grapple checks - and then got mauled by the horse.
xanadu 09-15-05, 09:36 PM	help! Does anyone know whether or not a scroll is ruined after a failed caster check. it doesn't say so in the DMG but I dont feel like redoing the fight if it is.
Luni 09-15-05, 10:07 PM	help! Does anyone know whether or not a scroll is ruined after a failed caster check. it doesn't say so in the DMG but I dont feel like redoing the fight if it is. It shouldn't be ruined. It says the spell disappears only after it has been activated, and a miscast spell doesn't activate it.
Ribking 09-15-05, 10:16 PM	@ Emrys Donovan Tactics sent for Greefe.
Faroth 09-15-05, 10:58 PM	@Sindorin: Tactis sent (twice xD) Isnt' going to be easy for Kraigan xD EDIT: Only once lol
Sindorin 09-15-05, 11:17 PM	Tactics have been received, thank you. I will commence moderation.
Sindorin 09-16-05, 02:17 AM	On that note, Kraegin vs. Lothan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7264558&postcount=382) is up. Summoners don't do very well when their concept is completely ruined by an easily obtainable consumable/level 1 spell on pratically any of the caster spell lists... I absolutely promise I will make a good story for it this weekend, as I learned that I won't be being kidnapped.
King Uther 09-16-05, 02:37 AM	When Greevus is in the Web and considered entangled, his AC would be lower and thus the Scorching Ray would hit. And even so, I never used my Luck Domain, which I listed as using it on important rolls. I did list Saves and CL checks, but since those have already been done, I would've used it anyways. It would then force Greevus to use a healing strategy contingency, or face a quick death.
NiQil 09-16-05, 02:49 AM	Grik vs Devolved Sleestak is up. I would appreciate it greatly if everyone would take a look at it and let me know where I screwed things up, as this is my first time running.
Snommelp 09-16-05, 02:56 AM	Grik vs Devolved Sleestak is up. I would appreciate it greatly if everyone would take a look at it and let me know where I screwed things up, as this is my first time running. You forgot the arrow Grik used, but I don't think there was anything else wrong. All I can say is... good thing I triggered the ready action, otherwise Grik would've been fatigued!
Vathelokai 09-16-05, 07:03 AM	help! Does anyone know whether or not a scroll is ruined after a failed caster check. it doesn't say so in the DMG but I dont feel like redoing the fight if it is. It's in the scrolls section of the SRD. If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell’s caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps, below). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Scroll Mishaps: When a mishap occurs, the spell on the scroll has a reversed or harmful effect. Possible mishaps are given below. *A surge of uncontrolled magical energy deals 1d6 points of damage per spell level to the scroll user. *Spell strikes the scroll user or an ally instead of the intended target, or a random target nearby if the scroll user was the intended recipient. *Spell takes effect at some random location within spell range. *Spell’s effect on the target is contrary to the spell’s normal effect. *The scroll user suffers some minor but bizarre effect related to the spell in some way. Most such effects should last only as long as the original spell’s duration, or 2d10 minutes for instantaneous spells. *Some innocuous item or items appear in the spell’s area. *Spell has delayed effect. Sometime within the next 1d12 hours, the spell activates. If the scroll user was the intended recipient, the spell takes effect normally. If the user was not the intended recipient, the spell goes off in the general direction of the original recipient or target, up to the spell’s maximum range, if the target has moved away.
Caterane 09-16-05, 07:29 AM	I forgot that customized purchased allies cost no credits. In that case, you can have your improved grapple feat if you have payed the proper price.
Cerebus13 09-16-05, 07:37 AM	When Greevus is in the Web and considered entangled, his AC would be lower and thus the Scorching Ray would hit. And even so, I never used my Luck Domain, which I listed as using it on important rolls. I did list Saves and CL checks, but since those have already been done, I would've used it anyways. It would then force Greevus to use a healing strategy contingency, or face a quick death.However this is from the SRD: If you have at least 5 feet of web between you and an opponent, it provides cover. If you have at least 20 feet of web between you, it provides total cover. This means Greevus' AC is very likely 4 higher and possibly he is untargetable (if he is in the direct center of the web). I doubt the second part is likely however due to my typical bad luck, but Greevus' Touch AC should be: 16 base - 2 entangle Dex penalty + 4 cover = 18. So it is actually even higher than the listed value. I read the spell listing incorrectly for Divine Favor, so I'll be sure to repurchase level 1 versions of it because the higher level versions are kinda expensive for an additional +1.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-16-05, 08:03 AM	On that note, Kraegin vs. Lothan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7264558&postcount=382) is up. Summoners don't do very well when their concept is completely ruined by an easily obtainable consumable/level 1 spell on pratically any of the caster spell lists... I absolutely promise I will make a good story for it this weekend, as I learned that I won't be being kidnapped. The only thing that are affected by ALL pro alignemtn spells are summoned animals. Otherwise, the alignment of the protection needs to be noted. Not all summons are stopped by ANY pro alignment potion. It worked out ok for the fight, but just in case you are saying that All can be stopped by ANY, that would be untrue. -ToK
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 08:43 AM	@Sindorin - about the Kraegin vs Lothan fight. The middle rounds have issues: Round 4: Lothan casts Shield from memory (ASF vs 10: “7”, fails, spell lost, Kraegin Listen: “2”+5 vs. DC 11, does not hear) but the spell fails as his armor is constricting his gesturing. He moves to (-5,-8), drawing a scroll of scorching ray. Kraegin continues moving to (13,-6). Lothan has LoS, (Kraegin Spot Check: “4”+10= 14 vs. 20) does not feel any invisible presence. Lothan (-5,-8): 20/20, Invisible (31), Expeditious Retreat (12), Protection from Evil (13), ½ Spell levels left Kraegin (13,-6): 29/29 Round 5: Lothan seizes this opportunity to cast Scorching Ray from the scroll at Kraegin (ASF vs 10: “46”, safe, CL vs. 4: “12” passes, Ranged Touch: “8”+7= 15 vs. touch AC 10, succeeds, 4d6 fire damge: 16), and the ray of fire scorches Kraegin as the spell’s name implies. Lothan becomes visible again as he is dashing away from the surprised Kraegin, and he draws a second scroll of Invisibility, moving to (-6,-11). Kraegin begins summoning, using his rod in conjunction with the spell’s gestures… Lothan (-6,-11) 20/20 Expeditious Retreat (12), Protection from Evil (13) Kraegin (13,-6) 13/29, Summoning Round 6: Lothan casts from the scroll of Invisibility (ASF vs 10: “66”, safe, CL vs 4: “1!”+2= auto fail, Wisdom Check vs. DC 5: “6”, saves the scroll). Lothan then moves away from Kraegin to (-12,-15). Kraegin finishes summoning a Large Fiendish Centipede. It appears at (6,-7) and moves to (-10,-10). Kraegin now runs to close the distance between him and Lothan, going to (- 3,-10). Lothan (-12,-15) 20/20 Expeditious Retreat (12), Protection from Evil (13) 1 spell level Kraegin (-3,-10) 13/29 3 spell levels -Fiendish Centipede (-10,-10) 1/10 rounds In round 4, Lothan ends his turn at -5,-8 and I end my turn at 13,-6. The distance between these two spots is 100ft - MUCH father than the range of scorching ray (in this case 30ft...). Assuming he needs to close in the round that he casts, or he waits a round - he'll still either be 30ft away from me or 90ft away from me when I am able to act. When he moves away, he is not able to draw a scroll during his move action (it is not a weapon-like object). As such, he can choose to move away or draw the scroll - not both. Since he draws scrolls while moving in several instances - this likely changes how his rounds will go. This means that the centipede would have no problem basing him before he is able to cast the scroll. After that, when I have already done my summons, it is very clear that Lothan is trying to retreat. At this point, my "trying to keep distance" tactics go into effect - Doom and Hold Person. He'd still be in range at 90ft at most - so there's no reason why I wouldn't go with these tactics. Also, since I am only disabled after the second scorching ray - the fight is not over. Either I should draw a scroll of healing (move action) and then cast it on the following, or, since I didn't specifically list it in my tactics - unable to do anything else, I should wait until he actually does kill me (taking move actions to move away from him) - hoping that the centipede will do the job.
Caterane 09-16-05, 09:18 AM	@Pittbull: Taktik für den Harvester gesendet!
NiQil 09-16-05, 10:04 AM	You forgot the arrow Grik used, but I don't think there was anything else wrong. All I can say is... good thing I triggered the ready action, otherwise Grik would've been fatigued! I remembered that after I had posted it, but was headed to bed. I'll edit it in momentarily.
Sindorin 09-16-05, 10:23 AM	@Sindorin - about the Kraegin vs Lothan fight. The middle rounds have issues: In round 4, Lothan ends his turn at -5,-8 and I end my turn at 13,-6. The distance between these two spots is 100ft - MUCH father than the range of scorching ray (in this case 30ft...). Assuming he needs to close in the round that he casts, or he waits a round - he'll still either be 30ft away from me or 90ft away from me when I am able to act. When he moves away, he is not able to draw a scroll during his move action (it is not a weapon-like object). As such, he can choose to move away or draw the scroll - not both. Since he draws scrolls while moving in several instances - this likely changes how his rounds will go. This means that the centipede would have no problem basing him before he is able to cast the scroll. After that, when I have already done my summons, it is very clear that Lothan is trying to retreat. At this point, my "trying to keep distance" tactics go into effect - Doom and Hold Person. He'd still be in range at 90ft at most - so there's no reason why I wouldn't go with these tactics. Also, since I am only disabled after the second scorching ray - the fight is not over. Either I should draw a scroll of healing (move action) and then cast it on the following, or, since I didn't specifically list it in my tactics - unable to do anything else, I should wait until he actually does kill me (taking move actions to move away from him) - hoping that the centipede will do the job. Hmm... I calculated range both times when I had him cast those Scorching Rays... maybe I typed numbers in wrong or something. You do have a valid point about the scrolls - that's somethng I forgot about, as well as the 0hp thing. I will take a look at it after classes today if I have time, or definitely this weekend. Thank you for pointing these things out! Keep in mind though that he has Protection of Evil up, which basically invalidates your Centipede's attacks. It does end at Round 12 though, and the way things look may have that wearing off eventually. Like I said, I'll definitely take a look at it when I find time!!!
Faroth 09-16-05, 10:30 AM	Scrolls are not wepons, but are lighter objects, and I think I can draw them while I move (in the real world would be easier to draw a scroll than draw a weapon) And about the 0hp, just in case, remember I have Point Blank Shot, adding +1 damage to every arrow, ray and ranged touch attack i could do in 30ft range. Thanks, I'm waiting for the end onf this battle.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-16-05, 10:33 AM	Scrolls are not wepons, but are lighter objects, and I think I can draw them while I move (in the real world would be easier to draw a scroll than draw a weapon) And about the 0hp, just in case, remember I have Point Blank Shot, adding +1 damage to every arrow, ray and ranged touch attack i could do in 30ft range. Thanks, I'm waiting for the end onf this battle. No, i don't think they would be easier to draw than weapons. They are fastened or tied onto your belt/harness or what have you, and you have to untie them to get hem out. But either way, the semantics aren't important, only the rules. Only weapons or weapon-like objects can be drawn on the move. -ToK
Faroth 09-16-05, 10:35 AM	Ok, then it's going to last longer than before =/
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 10:59 AM	@Sindorin: While he does have Protection from Evil up, it is a CL1 item, and the creatures I summon have SR - which grants them the chance to break through on their attacks. Granted it isn't a good chance (about 20-40% right now with the creatures I can summon), but it is a chance. Kraegin almost persevered because on this in his fight with Czernobog a few weeks ago. As he is able to summon more powerful creatures - a CL1 item is not going to be as much of a problem. /d
Pittbull 09-16-05, 11:01 AM	@ Mindrogue/Cat: Tactics received!
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 11:02 AM	Silas vs Gang Lion (The Greatest Swordfight of All Time) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7266718) I had to write a story for this one because it was such a fun fight to run - both players tactics worked well together. Be sure to read to the end though - because it is a CLOSE fight...
NiQil 09-16-05, 11:37 AM	Silas vs Gang Lion (The Greatest Swordfight of All Time) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7266718) I had to write a story for this one because it was such a fun fight to run - both players tactics worked well together. Be sure to read to the end though - because it is a CLOSE fight... <setting out to pick a fight with the online dice roller Telin uses, since it seems to like to tease me by getting me just close enough to win that I gain hope and then crushing those hopes under the weight of a giant d20>
sloisel 09-16-05, 11:42 AM	Silas vs Gang Lion (The Greatest Swordfight of All Time) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7266718) I had to write a story for this one because it was such a fun fight to run - both players tactics worked well together. Be sure to read to the end though - because it is a CLOSE fight... W00t! Thanks for running this fight. @Emrys Donovan: I just sent you tactics for my monster fight vs the Barghest of Horrible Death. I'm flying to southern italy for a couple of weeks on Sunday, but I'll see you all again in a couple of pairings. Sébastien Loisel
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 11:51 AM	Story added to Methos vs Pirotess - hope it is to everyone's liking: Methos vs Pirotess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7259006)
Cerebus13 09-16-05, 12:25 PM	Story added to Methos vs Pirotess - hope it is to everyone's liking: Methos vs Pirotess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7259006)Thank you for the effort put into editting this fight and for adding a story on top of that! I have had some time to further reflect on Pirotess and I may reset her to adjust her horse slightly and to redo her skills to allow her to join the guild "the Arcane Order". I had not given any thought to joining a guild initially but when the requirements were posted for this particular one (a few days after I made Pirotess :P) I decided it would be a perfect fit for this character. However these changes require swapping a feat on the horse which was used in this battle, and for adjusting my skills of which one of them (Woodcarving) was also used in this match.
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 12:29 PM	I have no problem taking back the money used from woodcarving (in which case it wouldn't have been used) - if it helps. Technically since you didn't have it on your sheet, but rather in your tactics, I didn't have to let you anyway. Let me know if you want to change this part.
NiQil 09-16-05, 12:30 PM	Thank you for the effort put into editting this fight and for adding a story on top of that! I have had some time to further reflect on Pirotess and I may reset her to adjust her horse slightly and to redo her skills to allow her to join the guild "the Arcane Order". I had not given any thought to joining a guild initially but when the requirements were posted for this particular one (a few days after I made Pirotess :P) I decided it would be a perfect fit for this character. However these changes require swapping a feat on the horse which was used in this battle, and for adjusting my skills of which one of them (Woodcarving) was also used in this match. Cat and ToK have already stated that you are allowed to move things around to fit into a guild, you just have to PM one of them to get approval, I believe.
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 12:33 PM	<setting out to pick a fight with the online dice roller Telin uses, since it seems to like to tease me by getting me just close enough to win that I gain hope and then crushing those hopes under the weight of a giant d20> I'm really amazed at how that fight turned on you - but there really wasn't anything that could be done - between missing for 6+ rounds and then rolling a 3 on a 1d8+1 - its just rough. And just remember the dice roller I use for you is the same I use for everyone else...
NiQil 09-16-05, 12:40 PM	I'm really amazed at how that fight turned on you - but there really wasn't anything that could be done - between missing for 6+ rounds and then rolling a 3 on a 1d8+1 - its just rough. And just remember the dice roller I use for you is the same I use for everyone else... No worries....I just really despise online dice rollers. I never use them if I can help it. They take away the aspect of the "lucky bounce" that dice have that make them so much more fun. Even with the fight I ran for Enterik and Snommelp....when using my own dice, there were a couple of times that Snommelp could have ended that fight a lot sooner...but Enterik benefited from some bad rolls for Snommelp. Just gives a better feel to the fight, I think. Heck, one of these times I am going to set the necessary dice down in front of my cats and let *them do the rolling for me by batting the dice around. They friggin love dice. In my gaming group (which finally started to go back to D&D last week after 6 mo of World of Darkness stuff yea!), we have a rule that if they don't put their dice away before they leave, we are not responsible for missing dice because the cats will jump on tables to play with them. We've lost 17 different dice to my cats LOL. And Snommelp lost 3 rolls last night to them...had to reroll the results because they kept jumping up on my desk and batting the dice onto the floor before I saw what it was LOL
Altaris13 09-16-05, 01:22 PM	At my fighters, I have both sets of tactics. Your fight will be up tomorrow.
Enterik 09-16-05, 02:00 PM	@NiQil: I'm satisfied with the results of the match even if DS look more cowardly than clever. At least in this instance, I agree that doubling up on the magic fangs was a waste, since I never even got a full attack due to my tactics. it would have been better to serially apply it to one claw. Having said that, if I had rolled a 10 instead of an 18 on my charge, I think the magic fang made a difference in that first rage-inducing hit. What is also clear, is that I need to refine my tactics for certain contingencies, for example, in the above match, I would have held off on the readied action and taken a full attack on my turn. Had I worded my 'trigger' more precisely perhaps I could have. Also, I wasn't sure how precisely I was allowed to word my rage-avoidance, he makes it close by having a 9 round rage, if blatant metagaming is allowed I would have said "avoid for 9 rounds then engage". As for this being you first match, had you said nothing, I would have never known. @Snommelp: Sure you may have been fatigued had you not triggered the readied action, but I still wouldn't have won, it just would have been a almost even match :-P I'm glad you leveled up on DS, hopefully we'll have a rematch when DS reaches ECL4, but no sooner :-P
xanadu 09-16-05, 02:04 PM	Hmm, I did forget about the penalties for entanglement. My original logic for not providing Greevus with cover is that scorching ray just simply burns through the web unlike projectiles which would get caught in the web. It's sort of like standing behind a large sheet of paper, I see no reason why it should provide any cover bonus. I think its clear that total cover would equate into full concealment in the case, however. So Balbanes's scorching ray attack would hit, but the 20 feet of web between Greevus and Balbanes would force concealment rolls. Conceal=58% pass, damage: 5+3+5+1!=14. Grevuus has 8 HPs. Greeves still goes for the magic missile. If we say that in round #12, Balbanes disregards his tactics to put up shield and goes for the quick kill, the best damage spell he has is flaming sphere (roughly 25 % chance of success) or he can use his bow and try a luck reroll if he misses (roughly 10 % chance of success). Flaming sphere would be he choice: Greevus reflex save: 19+3=22 pass. The fight outcome would be unaffected. I update the used equipment, there were a couple things I forgot.
Sindorin 09-16-05, 02:12 PM	@Sindorin: While he does have Protection from Evil up, it is a CL1 item, and the creatures I summon have SR - which grants them the chance to break through on their attacks. Granted it isn't a good chance (about 20-40% right now with the creatures I can summon), but it is a chance. Kraegin almost persevered because on this in his fight with Czernobog a few weeks ago. As he is able to summon more powerful creatures - a CL1 item is not going to be as much of a problem. /d Jigga what? What does Spell Resistance have to do with the fact that Protection From Evil says blatantly that a creature summoned in the manner that your character intends CAN NOT touch the protected creature? If anything, all spell resistance would do is prevent the centipede from being repelled because it is fiendish and evil. It would instead simply not be able to hurt him. Please show me the rules for what you mean by this, so to help my understanding of it.
Cerebus13 09-16-05, 02:13 PM	Hmm, I did forget about the penalties for entanglement. My original logic for not providing Greevus with cover is that scorching ray just simply burns through the web unlike projectiles which would get caught in the web. It's sort of like standing behind a large sheet of paper, I see no reason why it should provide any cover bonus. I think its clear that total cover would equate into full concealment in the case, however. So Balbanes's scorching ray attack would hit, but the 20 feet of web between Greevus and Balbanes would force concealment rolls. Conceal=58% pass, damage: 5+3+5+1!=14. Grevuus has 8 HPs. Greeves still goes for the magic missile. If we say that in round #12, Balbanes disregards his tactics to put up shield and goes for the quick kill, the best damage spell he has is flaming sphere (roughly 25 % chance of success) or he can use his bow and try a luck reroll if he misses (roughly 10 % chance of success). Flaming sphere would be he choice: Greevus reflex save: 19+3=22 pass. The fight outcome would be unaffected. I update the used equipment, there were a couple things I forgot.The cover granted by Web is not such that it hinders projects and attacks thrown at it (although it could be theorized that it would, the RAW does not indicate as such) but that it makes the affected characters a lot harder to target within the mass of sticky goo. In my opinion the cover/total cover granted by Web should be concealment/total concealment instead, because that makes more sense. In any event the end result is basically the same so I won't argue one way or the other about it.
Cerebus13 09-16-05, 02:15 PM	Jigga what? What does Spell Resistance have to do with the fact that Protection From Evil says blatantly that a creature summoned in the manner that your character intends CAN NOT touch the protected creature? If anything, all spell resistance would do is prevent the centipede from being repelled because it is fiendish and evil. Please show me the rules for what you mean by this, so to help my understanding of it.From the description for Protection from Evil: Third, the spell prevents bodily contact by summoned creatures. This causes the natural weapon attacks of such creatures to fail and the creatures to recoil if such attacks require touching the warded creature. Good summoned creatures are immune to this effect. The protection against contact by summoned creatures ends if the warded creature makes an attack against or tries to force the barrier against the blocked creature. Spell resistance can allow a creature to overcome this protection and touch the warded creature.So creatures with the Celestial/Fiendish templates that are granted a token amount of Spell Resistance may have a chance to overcome the warding from a Protection spell.
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 02:17 PM	Cerberus has already posted the response I would've put in. Thanks Cerberus.
Cerebus13 09-16-05, 02:23 PM	@TelinArtho Please read my post in the tavern here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7268407&postcount=3055). It seems Armor Spikes do not work as we had all expected them to work in a grapple, so this may influence the result of the Methos vs. Pirotess fight (again! :(). The horse will now merely grapple and deal damage with its hooves and bite attacks, avoiding the -4 penalty from using a weapon without proficiency but also dealing less damage.
Sindorin 09-16-05, 02:27 PM	Ah, okay. Would exactly would the SR check be made against? 11 (10+CL of the potion)? I haven't time as of yet to look at it, I am simply asking in advance.
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 02:32 PM	It would be a roll against the SR using the CL of the potion/scroll - so for CL1, it would be 1d20+1 vs SR 8 (for the large centipede). Any value less than 8 means the centipede can attack.
Sindorin 09-16-05, 02:34 PM	Oh ok, thanks for showing me that!
TelinArtho 09-16-05, 02:39 PM	@TelinArtho Please read my post in the tavern here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7268407&postcount=3055). It seems Armor Spikes do not work as we had all expected them to work in a grapple, so this may influence the result of the Methos vs. Pirotess fight (again! :(). The horse will now merely grapple and deal damage with its hooves and bite attacks, avoiding the -4 penalty from using a weapon without proficiency but also dealing less damage. Well, since I've seen it used throughout the way that I did it during the fight - I'd like to hear an elder's point of view on whether CoCo will be using this now and in the future. Since it is pretty widespread used as I had it written in the fight between you and Methos - it would seem prudent to wait a little before making rash changes.
NiQil 09-16-05, 02:46 PM	Well, since I've seen it used throughout the way that I did it during the fight - I'd like to hear an elder's point of view on whether CoCo will be using this now and in the future. Since it is pretty widespread used as I had it written in the fight between you and Methos - it would seem prudent to wait a little before making rash changes. I was always under the impression that the FAQ was treated as RAW here. At least, that is how it has been done in the past. So apparantly we have two things that have been done here for a long time in the past. I can understand wanting to get another ruling...but if FAQ is looked on as RAW, that means that we have just been doing it wrong for a really long time. I thought it worked the way you did it in the battle as well....but apparantly we are all wrong, according to the FAQ.
Cerebus13 09-16-05, 02:47 PM	Well, since I've seen it used throughout the way that I did it during the fight - I'd like to hear an elder's point of view on whether CoCo will be using this now and in the future. Since it is pretty widespread used as I had it written in the fight between you and Methos - it would seem prudent to wait a little before making rash changes.It would probably be a good idea to hold off until we get some official ruling from Caterane or any of the other elders.
NiQil 09-16-05, 04:11 PM	It would probably be a good idea to hold off until we get some official ruling from Caterane or any of the other elders. @ TelinArtho & Cerberus13 ToK posted on this in the Tavern.... @ nightbanegod Tactics for Kronos sent via pm
nightbanegod 09-16-05, 04:14 PM	ive got a beef with the HORSEMAN fight xanadu, mostly due to the fact that i didnt actually die when i died in the fight. in the rounds up to 10 i took 24 damage and healed 13 from my potion thus i should be at 21 HP when i got hit from the magic missle ... I AM STILL in this fight!!!
King Uther 09-16-05, 04:24 PM	@Xanadu Yeah....that may change some things. Who knows where this tangled Web will go? @Nightbanegod Good call. You now definitely have a legitimate chance to last longer.
Pittbull 09-16-05, 04:53 PM	I didn't read the fight, but I'll give you my version of how armor-spikes work. You grapple somebody and you are successful, you decide to give him damage by squeezing, then you deal damage [subdual] depending on your size (1d3 for medium, and so on, plus strength) and you add additional damage from the armor-spikes. If you aren't proficient with the spikes your grapple-check is modified with -4.
NiQil 09-16-05, 05:01 PM	I didn't read the fight, but I'll give you my version of how armor-spikes work. You grapple somebody and you are successful, you decide to give him damage by squeezing, then you deal damage [subdual] depending on your size (1d3 for medium, and so on, plus strength) and you add additional damage from the armor-spikes. If you aren't proficient with the spikes your grapple-check is modified with -4. Check out Cerebus13's post in the Tavern....according to the FAQ, you don't add additional damage from the armor-spikes....that's what we are trying to get clarified.
TheMagister 09-16-05, 05:01 PM	Tactics for Sdentch sent. TM
TheMagister 09-16-05, 05:02 PM	Tactics for Torgirr sent. TM
Cerebus13 09-16-05, 05:03 PM	I didn't read the fight, but I'll give you my version of how armor-spikes work. You grapple somebody and you are successful, you decide to give him damage by squeezing, then you deal damage [subdual] depending on your size (1d3 for medium, and so on, plus strength) and you add additional damage from the armor-spikes. If you aren't proficient with the spikes your grapple-check is modified with -4.This is basically what we have been doing within the CoCo in the past correct? i.e. "Whenever you use a grapple check to deal damage to your opponent in a grapple you add additional damage from Armor Spikes if you are wearing them. Your resulting damage would be: Unarmed Strike damage + Armor Spikes + Strength Modifier." So we already have one elder type person disagreeing with how we should treat this ruling within the FAQ. Gonbow made a good point in the Tavern thread that we should be careful about house ruling alternative rules pulled from Rules of the Game articles or the D&D FAQ. So all of the elders need to chime in on this one!
Luni 09-16-05, 05:08 PM	@Nightbanegod: Tactics are sent in 2 PMs Things are getting alittle busy for me today. @Telinartho: I'll post an action tomorrow. Sorry for the delay.
xanadu 09-16-05, 07:18 PM	ive got a beef with the HORSEMAN fight xanadu, mostly due to the fact that i didnt actually die when i died in the fight. in the rounds up to 10 i took 24 damage and healed 13 from my potion thus i should be at 21 HP when i got hit from the magic missle ... I AM STILL in this fight!!! I forgot to list the burn damage you took in round #10. What is listed there is the damage from the web going up in flames. The actual achemist's fire damage needs to be included from the carry over from the previous round. I'm 99% positive it was 11 to make up for the discrepency in HPs listed (10), than the 21 which is accounted for in the fight. I will use the online die roller to roll them anew and pick up the fight from there as I'm not 100% sure.
NiQil 09-16-05, 07:31 PM	@ Telin Based on the feedback in the Tavern thread from both ToK and Pittbull, I think we are looking at revising the Methos/Pirotess fight again. In case you haven't already read it, they have both indicated that the FAQ should be considered correct. @ Magister & Iced Tactics received from you both...fight will be done sometime this weekend.
xanadu 09-16-05, 07:50 PM	Ok, fight is edited. What I did with the scorching ray is go by the rules and grant Greevus cover even though I think it's ridiculous. I used Balbanes's luck re-roll but he got another 9. The Horseman's burn damage was snake-eyes, so he was able to get some more shots at Balbanes in and do some damage. Greevus threw his acid at the Horseman and still killed him. The only difference was Greevus used 2 more acid flasks and the Horseman actually drew some of Balbanes's blood [he had a flawless victory before].
nightbanegod 09-16-05, 09:01 PM	my only issue with the fight xanandu is why does the horseman completely disregard Greevus when he is clearly the more real threat, since hes the only one who damaged me and i actually took NO attack against him
xanadu 09-16-05, 10:41 PM	Greevus was invisible the whole time until he hit you with a magic missile. Greevus was not your target and would have gotten the same amount of XP even if you had killed him. Greevus would be practically impoosible to hit with a 26 AC (with cover) where your attack bonus was only +4. You did wipe out his monkey brigade. I really dont think I could have played The First Horseman better than I did.
Huan 09-16-05, 10:44 PM	@Mind Rogue Tactics for Team Dameon/Dalamar have been sent via PM.
nightbanegod 09-16-05, 10:49 PM	Greevus was invisible the whole time until he hit you with a magic missile. Greevus was not your target and would have gotten the same amount of XP even if you had killed him. Greevus would be practically impoosible to hit with a 26 AC (with cover) where your attack bonus was only +4. You did wipe out his monkey brigade. I really dont think I could have played The First Horseman better than I did. no problem man/woman, chill. i was mostly just lamenting, after looking over the fight, yeah those monkeys didn't do me any good, and i really do appreciate how he was ran. so its all good man/woman. trying to avoid more flaming since quite frankly im sick of seeing it
Tellish_of_Ket 09-16-05, 11:17 PM	no problem man/woman, chill. i was mostly just lamenting, after looking over the fight, yeah those monkeys didn't do me any good, and i really do appreciate how he was ran. so its all good man/woman. trying to avoid more flaming since quite frankly im sick of seeing it Personally, i didn't notice any flaming, or anyone even getting excited. Concerns were brought forth, opinions expressed, problems resolved, all quite amicably i might add. As it should be. That's how most disputes should be resolved. You guys did well. :D -ToK
Dr. Funk 09-16-05, 11:23 PM	Shazzelin the Gray VS Felix Drake (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7272611#post7272611) this is my first fight and its hard when one guy doesnt send tactics after talking about where he should send them to.
King Uther 09-17-05, 12:12 AM	@ Anyone concerning Armor Spikes: You add them to damage, but if you take non-lethal damage they add to the lethal damage collumn. I have played a grappler here since the beginning, and he has ALWAYS added spikes to damage, even versus Cat, and never got told it was the wrong thing to do.
Cerebus13 09-17-05, 12:38 AM	@ Anyone concerning Armor Spikes: You add them to damage, but if you take non-lethal damage they add to the lethal damage collumn. I have played a grappler here since the beginning, and he has ALWAYS added spikes to damage, even versus Cat, and never got told it was the wrong thing to do.That's because no one has mentioned the FAQ before...
King Uther 09-17-05, 12:40 AM	Stupid FAQ...
Gonbow 09-17-05, 02:50 AM	@Michael Noah Tactics for Yasha (Yasha vrs Nexa) sent. @Malither76 Tactics for Tatyana (Tatyana vrs Perius) sent. @Long Archer, Waywreth Tactics recieved, nothing obviously mechanically glaring with the tactics, thus I shall be running the fight tomorrow, conditions permitting.
King Uther 09-17-05, 03:18 AM	THis is more for fun than anything, but I wish I could challenge all of Altaris 13's gladiators simultaneously. Look at his sig if you're curious why.
xanadu 09-17-05, 03:52 AM	THis is more for fun than anything, but I wish I could challenge all of Altaris 13's gladiators simultaneously. Look at his sig if you're curious why. LOL. Yeah, having a ECL 6th challenge a bunch of lesser ECLs I think would be fun.
Usurpator 09-17-05, 07:04 AM	Dr. Funk, First of all, thank you for running the battle. Unfortunately I have some serious issues with it: 1. You seem to disregard either Skate or fail to make double moves (Skate is not mentioned on the round-by-round status). With Skate and double moves Shazzelin would move 7 squares per round at half movement, not the 3 you gave him. That would speed up the fight because as it stands I make my first attack in round 11, which is technically a disqualification. 2. From round 9 to round 10 I move from -5,-3 to -4,-5, effectively leaving cover while I have a good idea where Felix is. Why? 3. In round 11 Shazzelin makes a 5 ft. step from (-4,-5) to (-2,-5) which is impossible. 4. In round 11 Shazzelin shoots at Felix from within 15 ft., while Felix has cover and after moving. With that you completely ignore all three main points of my tactic (see below): - Felix spotted: Move to a position where I can get a clear shot (= he has no cover) at him from a good distance, don’t shoot him from 15 ft. or closer! Don’t move and then shoot, use delay if necessary, but always retain a move action after shooting so I can move away if he spots me. Shoot and use power points to charge deep crystal bow and expend psionic shot, and use the Sniping option. The spot you placed Felix in does not have that many places from where meeting all three conditions is possible, but it does have them. Spot while meeting at least some of the conditions are even more plentiful. But to disregards all three is completely missing the point of my tactics and of the point of being a sniper. 5. In round 13 Felix apparently finds Shazzelin while he was hiding. I have no idea how he does that? (and see my pointers about hiding below). Pointers about Hiding - Hiding takes no action. You can thus double move and hide, or single move then hide and ready an attack action, etc. etc. - Hide checks are opposed by Spot checks. On CoCo opponents get one reactive roll on the opponents turn, but only if they have LOS. They have to spend a move action to spot in their own turn. - Hiding characters are not autospotted when opponents gain LOS (with or without cover or concealment). I think Shazzelin would do better if my tactics and the rules are followed, so I request I rerun.
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 07:23 AM	Pointers about Hiding - Hiding takes no action. You can thus double move and hide, or single move then hide and ready an attack action, etc. etc. - Hide checks are opposed by Spot checks. On CoCo opponents get one reactive roll on the opponents turn, but only if they have LOS. They have to spend a move action to spot in their own turn. - Hiding characters are not autospotted when opponents gain LOS (with or without cover or concealment). I think this need some clarification. - If a character takes a move action to spot, it means that they get their reactive spot, plus a 'move' spot. They can even spend their standard action to get 3 spots per round. - I you have cover or concealment, you are not autospotted. You must make checks. - If a character has hide ranks, then they can still hide if they are within (ranks = feet) of any cover. - If a character is out in the open, with Line of Sight, not near cover, then they are auto spotted.
TheMagister 09-17-05, 08:03 AM	I think this need some clarification. - If a character takes a move action to spot, it means that they get their reactive spot, plus a 'move' spot. They can even spend their standard action to get 3 spots per round. True, kind've. In case it would ever matter, spotting on a character's turn is always a move action, never a standard action. The only time I could think this would matter is if you are granted an extra move action in a round (such as from 3.0 haste or from the Marshal class's special ability). - I you have cover or concealment, you are not autospotted. You must make checks. True. Especially since it is clarified that a character should always be considered to be hiding/moving silently. - If a character has hide ranks, then they can still hide if they are within (ranks = feet) of any cover. TRUE, and so often overlooked. Eventually, a character with enough ranks in hide (8 minimum) could move across as much as a 15 ft. gap (16 ft., really) between cover-providing objects without being auto-spotted. - If a character is out in the open, with Line of Sight, not near cover, then they are auto spotted. Not necessarily true. A rogue could be hiding behind the corner of a wall from one spotter around the corner and be totally visible to another spotter looking from another direction because the wall would provide no cover from that angle. Be sure to use the "line" rule described in the PHB on pg. 150 under cover to determine if the object a character is using to make a hide check actually provides cover from the spotter's current position. Note: just because a spotter must spend a move action to make a spot check on his turn doesn't mean that if he moves from point A (which has no LOS) to point C (with no LOS) and along the way passes point B (which DOES have LOS) that the hiding character stays unspotted. When the hiding character loses his cover, he's auto-spotted unless he's a high level ranger in natural surroundings (Hide in Plain Sight). Personally, I think Cover is totally underused in the CoCo. It's just about the best physical defense out there. TM
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 08:09 AM	Every fight I ever ran made use of cover. I don't see it being under used. Then again, I don't read every fight. As for the 3 spots per round thing, you can always use your standard action to do a move action equivilent activity. That's technicly what a double move is.
Usurpator 09-17-05, 08:19 AM	I think this need some clarification. - If a character takes a move action to spot, it means that they get their reactive spot, plus a 'move' spot. They can even spend their standard action to get 3 spots per round. Also agreed. But only 2 on your own turn and 1 on the opponents turn. And 0 on the opponent's turn if there is no LOS. In this case there was no LOS, then Felix made a double move, which means 0 Spot checks. - If a character has hide ranks, then they can still hide if they are within (ranks = feet) of any cover. - If a character is out in the open, with Line of Sight, not near cover, then they are auto spotted. There is an essential difference between having cover and being near cover. You need cover or concealment to START hiding. But once you have hidden, it doesn't matter if someone gets clear (no cover) LOS on you, as long as you are within (ranks = feet) of any cover. Otherwise it would be impossible to move when hiding, let alone move across 'gaps' with enoug ranks in Hide as the Magister mentioned. I always image Shazzelin standing perfectly still with the Chameleon power matching the color of the pillars while his opponent passes within 10 ft. of him, not seeing anything, while Shazzeling quietly regains his Psionic Focus. His opponent moves on (possible breaking loss, but maybe establishing cover) and then Shazzelin starts sniping again.
Usurpator 09-17-05, 08:23 AM	@michael_noah & Ellorion I have send tactics for Nexa and Solon. Tactics for Shazzelin were obviously received :)
Tellish_of_Ket 09-17-05, 08:54 AM	Personally, I think Cover is totally underused in the CoCo. It's just about the best physical defense out there. TM It's been nerfed here in CoCo actually. Otherwise some stealth builds would be impossible to spot, even while sniping. I used to snipe people from 5' away, and never been seen or heard and that wasn't even fully optimized for stealth. It could have been more abusive...but the point was made very clear. -ToK
TheMagister 09-17-05, 09:37 AM	It's been nerfed here in CoCo actually. Otherwise some stealth builds would be impossible to spot, even while sniping. I used to snipe people from 5' away, and never been seen or heard and that wasn't even fully optimized for stealth. It could have been more abusive...but the point was made very clear. -ToK I recall several people saying that rogues just don't get a "fair shake" in the CoCo. If what you say is true, then the 'nerf' is the reason why... TM edit: IMHO, a stealthy rogue should be one of the most fearsome 1 vs. 1 combatants out there. I mean, there are magical defenses to protect from physical assaults, magical aids to spot and listen, all kinds of stuff out there, from spells to wondrous items. Why should a rogue's main defensive AND offensive tool be 'nerfed'? It's grossly unfair for a place that terms itself the "Core Coliseum"... tm
TheMagister 09-17-05, 09:43 AM	Tactics for Mokoridos received! No tactics for his opponent, tho, and I'd like to start the fight today... [Nudge, nudge @ Kaigan...] TM
Usurpator 09-17-05, 09:53 AM	edit: IMHO, a stealthy rogue should be one of the most fearsome 1 vs. 1 combatants out there. I mean, there are magical defenses to protect from physical assaults, magical aids to spot and listen, all kinds of stuff out there, from spells to wondrous items. Why should a rogue's main defensive AND offensive tool be 'nerfed'? It's grossly unfair for a place that terms itself the "Core Coliseum"... If it is somehow nerfed in CoCo because experience proved it to be too powerful, I have no problem with that. I do like to see it reflected in the rules, so that I can take it into account when I am making characters and writing tactics. I just think it's a sad day when a character optimized for sniping and with extensive tactics is unable to beat a Fighter with no Listen or Spot modifiers that has no tactics at all (if the dice are fair).
Altaris13 09-17-05, 10:00 AM	THis is more for fun than anything, but I wish I could challenge all of Altaris 13's gladiators simultaneously. Look at his sig if you're curious why. :heehee :bounce: :D :evillaugh :rofl: Unfortunately, I must decline. :surrender :noway:
Dr. Funk 09-17-05, 10:25 AM	1. You seem to disregard either Skate or fail to make double moves (Skate is not mentioned on the round-by-round status). With Skate and double moves Shazzelin would move 7 squares per round at half movement, not the 3 you gave him. That would speed up the fight because as it stands I make my first attack in round 11, which is technically a disqualification. 2. From round 9 to round 10 I move from -5,-3 to -4,-5, effectively leaving cover while I have a good idea where Felix is. Why? 3. In round 11 Shazzelin makes a 5 ft. step from (-4,-5) to (-2,-5) which is impossible. 4. In round 11 Shazzelin shoots at Felix from within 15 ft., while Felix has cover and after moving. With that you completely ignore all three main points of my tactic (see below): 5. In round 13 Felix apparently finds Shazzelin while he was hiding. I have no idea how he does that? (and see my pointers about hiding below). 1. I agree - I have misunderstood the half-movement thing (and so did TelinArtho...). When I modify the fight, this will be corrected. 2.This is because you have no indication that Felix is moving anymore. You moved to a spot where you still have cover from your opponent and then could take a step and snipe. 3. This is a mistype - in round 11, you moved from -5,-3 to -3,-5. 4. Hmmm - you are 35feet away - he doesn't have cover - but you did take a 5ft step. On that point I would agree - but on the others - it seems to have followed just fine. I guess you'll just take a 5ft step and end your turn then, firing on the following round. 5. In round 13, he is next to you and you have no cover in relation to him. Your nearest cover from him is two five foot squares away - and you have 4 ranks in hide - therefore he auto-spots you. I will edit the fight when I get a chance.
King Uther 09-17-05, 11:16 AM	Stealth builds can be awesome, but quick movement can often negate cover[as well as other things like Blindsight, Scent, etc...]. As a 3rd level forest gnome rogue with his feats spent on improving hide you could have: +7ranks +5Dex [Reduce person] +8size [reduce person] +4 racial [+8 in forest] +10 Chameleon power +10 Elixir of Hiding +5 feats = +49 bonus to Hide, +57 in Forest
Usurpator 09-17-05, 11:27 AM	1. I agree - I have misunderstood the half-movement thing (and so did TelinArtho...). When I modify the fight, this will be corrected. Thanks, that would be much appreciated! 2.This is because you have no indication that Felix is moving anymore. You moved to a spot where you still have cover from your opponent and then could take a step and snipe. I guess I am reading the map wrong, did you use the new map or the old one? Because by what you are saying you are correctly following the intention of my tactics. 3. This is a mistype - in round 11, you moved from -5,-3 to -3,-5. 4. Hmmm - you are 35feet away - he doesn't have cover - but you did take a 5ft step. On that point I would agree - but on the others - it seems to have followed just fine. I guess you'll just take a 5ft step and end your turn then, firing on the following round. Ok, guess I am going to take a good look at that map again, because it seems I am looking at the wrong coordinates/map. 5. In round 13, he is next to you and you have no cover in relation to him. Your nearest cover from him is two five foot squares away - and you have 4 ranks in hide - therefore he auto-spots you. Did I do a double move or a single move? I guess this is going to change when the skate is calculated in, so I'll wait and see the edited fight first without bothering you with more questions. I guess I don't correctly understand when someone is autospotted here in CoCo. Could somebody point me to the correct rules?
NiQil 09-17-05, 11:38 AM	Thanks, that would be much appreciated! I guess I am reading the map wrong, did you use the new map or the old one? Because by what you are saying you are correctly following the intention of my tactics. Ok, guess I am going to take a good look at that map again, because it seems I am looking at the wrong coordinates/map. Did I do a double move or a single move? I guess this is going to change when the skate is calculated in, so I'll wait and see the edited fight first without bothering you with more questions. I guess I don't correctly understand when someone is autospotted here in CoCo. Could somebody point me to the correct rules? They are in the Rules thread, listed under the Hide'Move Silently and Listen/Spot skills in the Skills section.
Mind Rogue 09-17-05, 11:46 AM	I've got the tactics for the 2v2, but it will be this afternoon at the earliest before I can run it.
Usurpator 09-17-05, 11:56 AM	They are in the Rules thread, listed under the Hide'Move Silently and Listen/Spot skills in the Skills section. Sorry NiQil, but there's nothing there about autospotting when you are hidden and he comes into LOS while you aren't within ranks feet from any place that could give you cover. All I could read from the SRD and the rules here is that you need cover or concealment to begin hiding. But nothing about autospotting. To me it seemed like once you are hidden you stay hidden unless spotted with an opposed Spot roll or doing something that conflicts with hiding (like moving or attacking), like a poor man's invisibility.
NiQil 09-17-05, 12:05 PM	Sorry NiQil, but there's nothing there about autospotting when you are hidden and he comes into LOS while you aren't within ranks feet from any place that could give you cover. All I could read from the SRD and the rules here is that you need cover or concealment to begin hiding. But nothing about autospotting. To me it seemed like once you are hidden you stay hidden unless spotted with an opposed Spot roll or doing something that conflicts with hiding (like moving or attacking), like a poor man's invisibility. You just said it yourself. If you are not within (Ranks) feet of something that will allow you to hide, that means you are out in the open and not hidden. If LOS is obtained by your opponent on you while you are out in the open like this, you are automatically spotted, since you are not hidden and can't hide without something close by that would allow a hide check. You can't be hidden if you don't have something to hide with.
Usurpator 09-17-05, 12:19 PM	You just said it yourself. If you are not within (Ranks) feet of something that will allow you to hide, that means you are out in the open and not hidden. If LOS is obtained by your opponent on you while you are out in the open like this, you are automatically spotted, since you are not hidden and can't hide without something close by that would allow a hide check. You can't be hidden if you don't have something to hide with. I know I said it, but where is it in the rules (CoCo or SRD)? There is a reference to the 'ranks = feet fenomenon' in the SRD description, but that is unrelated to autospotting, it talks about hiding when people are observing you (e.g. when you are already spotted), and in such a case you must move and get a -10 to your check. It is unrelated to the current question. If the CoCo rule is: - You are automatically spotted if an opponent has LOS and you don't have cover or concealment or are not within Hide ranks ft. of a spot that can give you cover or concealment. I would appreciate it being mentioned under the Hide and Spot skill descriptions in the rules section. That would be the logical place. But assuming that this rule is mentioned somewhere in an official source: does this means that if you have 5 ranks of Hide, you can always hide when standing near a rock or single pillar regardless of what direction your opponent is approaching from, and, if you have 10 ranks in Hide you can always hide when standing next to a 5 ft. thick 'wall' of pillars (because you can gain cover on the other side of the wall, and the other side is within 10 ft.?). Just trying to understand how the heck the Hiding skill works here, bear with me please...... :confused:
TheMagister 09-17-05, 12:30 PM	Stealth builds can be awesome, but quick movement can often negate cover[as well as other things like Blindsight, Scent, etc...]. As a 3rd level forest gnome rogue with his feats spent on improving hide you could have: +7ranks +5Dex [Reduce person] +8size [reduce person] +4 racial [+8 in forest] +10 Chameleon power +10 Elixir of Hiding +5 feats = +49 bonus to Hide, +57 in Forest Things to offset those bonuses: I'll try to stick to things possibly available to 3rd level characters... Skill Bonuses: Alertness (+2) Heroism (+2 morale to skill checks) Owl's Wisdom (+2) Guidance (+1 on skill check) the Alter Self spell (to a form with a racial bonus or spot/listen or with the scent/blindsight/tremorsense ability) (say a Grimlock, 40 ft. blindsight; or just an elf with +2 to spot) Eyes of the Eagle (+5 to spot) Dust of Illusion (see alter self) Dust of Appearance (-30 (!) to hide checks) Total bonuses: +14 Total Penalties: -30 To negate hiding: Summon monster 2 (1d3 spiders with tremorsense) the Alarm spell the Summon Swarm spell (see spiders above) the Glitterdust spell the Deathwatch spell the Detect Alignment spell the Faerie Fire spell the Detect Thoughts spell Bag of Tricks (gray) (up to 10 creatures with various detect abilities) And that's just for ECL 3 and under. TM
King Uther 09-17-05, 12:37 PM	Well, yes hiding can be taken out in many ways. But every build can be killed by one thing or another. Show me a build with no weaknesses, particularly at low levels.
TheMagister 09-17-05, 12:46 PM	Well, yes hiding can be taken out in many ways. But every build can be killed by one thing or another. Show me a build with no weaknesses, particularly at low levels. Well, that's my point exactly! Why take exception to the hiders and sneakers? Why 'nerf' their capabilities? (I was just playing your game until you came around to saying something like this. I'm a little ashamed of baiting you into it. A little satisfied, too, but ashamed. Heh. Ahem...) TM
NiQil 09-17-05, 01:03 PM	I know I said it, but where is it in the rules (CoCo or SRD)? There is a reference to the 'ranks = feet fenomenon' in the SRD description, but that is unrelated to autospotting, it talks about hiding when people are observing you (e.g. when you are already spotted), and in such a case you must move and get a -10 to your check. It is unrelated to the current question. If the CoCo rule is: - You are automatically spotted if an opponent has LOS and you don't have cover or concealment or are not within Hide ranks ft. of a spot that can give you cover or concealment. I would appreciate it being mentioned under the Hide and Spot skill descriptions in the rules section. That would be the logical place. But assuming that this rule is mentioned somewhere in an official source: does this means that if you have 5 ranks of Hide, you can always hide when standing near a rock or single pillar regardless of what direction your opponent is approaching from, and, if you have 10 ranks in Hide you can always hide when standing next to a 5 ft. thick 'wall' of pillars (because you can gain cover on the other side of the wall, and the other side is within 10 ft.?). Just trying to understand how the heck the Hiding skill works here, bear with me please...... :confused: Let me put it in these terms.......if you have nothing to hide behind or next to (no cover), how can you avoid being autospotted? If your opponent has LOS to your square, and you have nothing to use for cover to hide, how can you NOT be autospotted?
Usurpator 09-17-05, 01:11 PM	Let me put it in these terms.......if you have nothing to hide behind or next to (no cover), how can you avoid being autospotted? If your opponent has LOS to your square, and you have nothing to use for cover to hide, how can you NOT be autospotted? I don't know, maybe because your chameleon power matches your texture exactly to the wall or your fantastic elven cloak matches the texture of the scree on the hill around you? I have been startled myself by moving people or things that were clearly in my LOS because I failed to spot them. And they were not even hiding.... But let's not go there, this is no a discussion of common sense, but of the rules. I can accept the autospot with the ranks = feet rule, I am just asking someone to show me where it is.
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 01:12 PM	I know I said it, but where is it in the rules (CoCo or SRD)? There is a reference to the 'ranks = feet fenomenon' in the SRD description, but that is unrelated to autospotting, it talks about hiding when people are observing you (e.g. when you are already spotted), and in such a case you must move and get a -10 to your check. It is unrelated to the current question. If the CoCo rule is: - You are automatically spotted if an opponent has LOS and you don't have cover or concealment or are not within Hide ranks ft. of a spot that can give you cover or concealment. I would appreciate it being mentioned under the Hide and Spot skill descriptions in the rules section. That would be the logical place. But assuming that this rule is mentioned somewhere in an official source: does this means that if you have 5 ranks of Hide, you can always hide when standing near a rock or single pillar regardless of what direction your opponent is approaching from, and, if you have 10 ranks in Hide you can always hide when standing next to a 5 ft. thick 'wall' of pillars (because you can gain cover on the other side of the wall, and the other side is within 10 ft.?). Just trying to understand how the heck the Hiding skill works here, bear with me please...... :confused: It's easy to miss, since it's a one liner. Maybe Cat could add it to the skill description section Universal House Rules Caster level and crafting: the Caster level is not a prerequisite when crafting a magic item. Eversmoking Bottle: This item produces smoke. See DMG, p304 for Smoke effects. Gate: The Gate spell is banned in all its forms. Psychic Reformation: This power is banned. Grappling while mounted: If you grapple someone who is mounted, you join him on the mount, or - if the mount cannot carry both of you - you are grappling your opponent adjectent to it (the mount gets an AoO unless the attacker has the Improved Grapple feat). If the mount decides to move, the rider falls off unless he wins an opposed grapple check against the attacker in which case he drags him along. Sneaking: You are autospotted if you leave cover or concealment, and opponent has Line of Sight to you and you are more than 1 foot per rank in hide away from a cover. Augmented Powerstones/Tattoos: For every two manifester levels above the minimum, the power level increases by one. This directly affects the pricing of such items. It only applies to augmented stones and tattoos. Unaugmented ones use the normal formula. Example (augmented): VigorA [ML 5] = 25*5*3 = 375 gp [+25 hp] Example (unaugmented): Vigor [ML 5] = 25*5*1 = 125 gp [+5 hp] As for how it works, think of (ranks=ft.)as movement. If you have 10 ranks, you are allowed to hide if you could move 10 ft. and have cover. So if you are by a pillar, you would need 15 ranks before you could hide anywhere around it.
sloisel 09-17-05, 01:38 PM	It's been nerfed here in CoCo actually. Otherwise some stealth builds would be impossible to spot, even while sniping. I used to snipe people from 5' away, and never been seen or heard and that wasn't even fully optimized for stealth. It could have been more abusive...but the point was made very clear. -ToK How's hiding nerfed in CoCo? As far as I know, the only difference is that you can hide in plain sight without being a shadowdancer just by having lots of ranks. This removes a use of the bluff skill and possibly the main attraction of the shadowdancer class. Sébastien Loisel
Gonbow 09-17-05, 01:53 PM	How's hiding nerfed in CoCo? As far as I know, the only difference is that you can hide in plain sight without being a shadowdancer just by having lots of ranks. This removes a use of the bluff skill and possibly the main attraction of the shadowdancer class. Sébastien Loisel No no no. Hiding within X feet of cover != Hide in plain sight. Hide in plain sight is hiding WHILE BEING OBSERVED. I.E: They saw you, then you disappear because your that damn 1337. Anyone without hide in plain sight has to break LOS before they can hide again, no matter what.
xanadu 09-17-05, 02:06 PM	that damn 1337. I know since the advent of the internet and text messaging, certain new words are making their way into the lexicon of the Queen's english, but I'd have to say that is ridiculous. What could "1337" possibly mean?
Cerebus13 09-17-05, 02:28 PM	I know since the advent of the itnernet and text messaging, certain new wrods are making their way into the lexicon of the Queen's english, but I'd have to say that is ridiculous. What could "1337" possibly mean?It is short for the word "elite", i.e. "leet". The internet is a silly place with silly words.
xanadu 09-17-05, 02:38 PM	It is short for the word "elite", i.e. "leet". The internet is a silly place with silly words. OOOOOK :thinks:. So I am assuming the etymology dereives from drugs or someone who is dyslexic? You think if I introduce myself as a 1337 teaching assistant that will score me some instant credibility :plotting:
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 02:42 PM	nope. :D But if you figure out how to pronounce 'roxxors' I'll give you a cookie. Is there a story behind that one; roxxors, I mean?
xanadu 09-17-05, 02:53 PM	nope. :D But if you figure out how to pronounce 'roxxors' I'll give you a cookie. Is there a story behind that one; roxxors, I mean? ROCK-SOARS. I prefer oatmeal cookies myself.
Vathelokai 09-17-05, 03:02 PM	Will these do? http://silverlanddesserts.com/images/2003%20Pictures/Cookies,%20Large,%20Tin,4x3.jpg
Usurpator 09-17-05, 03:18 PM	@Vathelokai That was the piece I was looking for, thanks! I suggest adding the following under Hide and Spot in the Skill section of the Rules of Gladius: "You are automatically spotted by an opponent on any turn if that opponent has Line of Sight to you and you don't have cover or concealment against that opponent, unless you are within 1 foot of normal movement per rank of Hide from a place that would be able to afford you cover or concealment. In the last case you are assumed to make use of the cover or concealment nearby to Hide, even though you are not actually required to move to that spot." @ToK: is this the nerfing rule you mentioned?
TheMagister 09-17-05, 04:01 PM	@Kaigan I'ma run the fight betwixt Feradeth and Mokoridos tomorrow, probably in the morning. I still haven't received tactix from you, but I have seen Fera in action (this'll be my second time to P-lord him). I'll try to do you justice if I don't hear from you. TM
NiQil 09-17-05, 04:44 PM	Sdentch vs Quentus Doomshadow is up. Again, everyone please take a look and see where I screwed up. I'm still breaking my cherry here :D
Mind Rogue 09-17-05, 05:06 PM	The 4th Level Team Fight is up. Everyone should come see Milo and Pulverizer duel against Dalamar and Dameon! I'll also add in the money that Dalamar gets for bookbinding in the near future after looking up how much it is (and probably eating). It would be beneficial if in the future you listed this in the header like Huan did.
TheMagister 09-17-05, 05:21 PM	Sdentch vs Quentus Doomshadow is up. Again, everyone please take a look and see where I screwed up. I'm still breaking my cherry here :D Ready resets your initiative count. Quentus should go before Sdentch forevermore once she triggers his ready action. (see "Ready" pg. 160 of the PHB.) So, basically, you let Quentus go twice in round 9, it looks like. After (if, considering my previous point) Quentus casts Expeditious Retreat, his speed should be 50 ft. If all he does is withdraw, he moves 100 ft. per round. The first time Sdentch runs to base him, I can understand. However, you can only run in a straight line (diagonals are ok, but the general direction needs to be from point A to point B in a straight line) with no intervening obstacles. (see the Run action, pg. 144 in the PHB.) If Quentus had continually withdrawn from combat, he would have eventually moved out of Sdentch's melee reach as soon as he turned a corner. As a matter of fact, it would be unfair of me to NOT point this out...any sensible Wizzy facing the likes of Sdentch would do anything to get the heck out of melee with her. Sdentch (in response to the withdrawal) would have (common sense, not in my tactics...any fighter with a degree of cunning - read Wis 10) drawn her longspear as she ran to base Quentus the first time so that she could threaten out to 10' with it when he tries to run away. I can't say I don't like how the fight went (I finally got some decent rolls along with my normal compliment of 3-7 1!s) but I don't think Quentus got a fair shake. TM
Huan 09-17-05, 05:24 PM	Hmm, lucky nat 20 ... though I do find it amusing our opponents wrote the tactics for the wrong set of characters. And I am surprised there are still Pitlords who do not use the online roller. Despite ill-founded, psychological complaints that the roller "rolls badly", it is undeniably the only way to verify rolls.
NiQil 09-17-05, 05:40 PM	Ready resets your initiative count. Quentus should go before Sdentch forevermore once she triggers his ready action. (see "Ready" pg. 160 of the PHB.) So, basically, you let Quentus go twice in round 9, it looks like. Doh! I always harp on other pitlords for the ready action changes initiative bit, and then I go and forget it myself. Since it was your action that triggered the ready action, Quentus would still get his normal action in that same round before initiative resetting the following round. After (if, considering my previous point) Quentus casts Expeditious Retreat, his speed should be 50 ft. If all he does is withdraw, he moves 100 ft. per round. Since the Expeditious Retreat was cast from a scroll, in that round it would be drawing the scroll (move equivalent action), casting the spell (standard action) and then a 5 ft step. The speed wouldn't be usuable until the following round. The first time Sdentch runs to base him, I can understand. However, you can only run in a straight line (diagonals are ok, but the general direction needs to be from point A to point B in a straight line) with no intervening obstacles. (see the Run action, pg. 144 in the PHB.) Yer right...I forgot about the straight line part. That will significantly change the fight. If Quentus had continually withdrawn from combat, he would have eventually moved out of Sdentch's melee reach as soon as he turned a corner. As a matter of fact, it would be unfair of me to NOT point this out...any sensible Wizzy facing the likes of Sdentch would do anything to get the heck out of melee with her. You are correct, however Iced's tactics did not call for withdrawal beyond getting out of melee range to be able to fire his crossbow. Sdentch (in response to the withdrawal) would have (common sense, not in my tactics...any fighter with a degree of cunning - read Wis 10) drawn her longspear as she ran to base Quentus the first time so that she could threaten out to 10' with it when he tries to run away. I can't say I don't like how the fight went (I finally got some decent rolls along with my normal compliment of 3-7 1!s) but I don't think Quentus got a fair shake. TM As for the longspear, I am going to have to disagree there...since you are primarily a two-weapon fighter and you still have said two weapons in hand. Until two-weapon fighting had proved ineffective, I don't see a barbarian in rage making an intelligent call like that. I'm expecting guests, so I may not get it edited until tomorrow. But I will address these issues.
TheMagister 09-17-05, 05:53 PM	Doh! I always harp on other pitlords for the ready action changes initiative bit, and then I go and forget it myself. Since it was your action that triggered the ready action, Quentus would still get his normal action in that same round before initiative resetting the following round. Common misconception, and not true. I'll enbolden the relevant parts: Your initiative result becomes the count on which you took your 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 the 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. For the rest of it, I can wait. Enjoy your DnD game tonight. I've got "guests" too. Heh... TM
Tellish_of_Ket 09-17-05, 06:02 PM	Hmm, lucky nat 20 ... though I do find it amusing our opponents wrote the tactics for the wrong set of characters. And I am surprised there are still Pitlords who do not use the online roller. Despite ill-founded, psychological complaints that the roller "rolls badly", it is undeniably the only way to verify rolls. I'm behind you 100% on this one. There is NO reason not to use the online roller. I'm not making any attacks, or pointing any fingers here, but all i see, week after week are...crit-kills-win, crit-kill-win, crit-kill-win and fights are getting shorter and shorter. Either that or Max-dmg-win, etc.. I thought at one time it was MANDATORY to use the online roller, but i guess it's no longer the case. I would be in support of mandatory online roller useage for pitlords. It's only right and it's only fair. -ToK
Iced 09-17-05, 06:05 PM	Originally Posted by Iced Tactics for Quentus Doomshadow 1) Invisibility 2) Haste 3) Vigor 4) Locate – Sleep 5) CDG with X-Bow damage should kill her even if he has pro arrows. Use Psionic Shot/Deepcrystal I also get sneak attack damage and critical hit with my X-bow at point blank range (PB shot gives me another +1 Damage) *If she fails to succumb to sleep like a good orc then use powerstone of chameleon and snipe him using psionic shot and SA whenever possible. Maintain superior speed. If haste runs out use expeditious retreat to stay out of range. *Prevent charging and if he has pro arrows up then make sure to use psionic shot and SA whenever you can, but the main deal is to avoid melee at all times. ***AVOID MELEE!!!*** Thanks, ~Iced For one Quentus would have used deepcrystal and expended psionic focus for psionic shot at the first opportunity to shoot at Sdentch, but it would never have come to that point. Quentus would have stayed out of range and out of charging paths, hidden from the orc, and sniped from cover using sneak attack damage. Rage would end dropping the orc some hp. Quentus would use his superior speed and hiding/move silently skills to stay out of range and out of sight of the orc until he wore her down and took her out. He's a smart lil' halfling, he'd know how to stay away...:p
xanadu 09-17-05, 06:34 PM	I'm behind you 100% on this one. There is NO reason not to use the online roller. I'm not making any attacks, or pointing any fingers here, but all i see, week after week are...crit-kills-win, crit-kill-win, crit-kill-win and fights are getting shorter and shorter. Either that or Max-dmg-win, etc.. I thought at one time it was MANDATORY to use the online roller, but i guess it's no longer the case. I would be in support of mandatory online roller useage for pitlords. It's only right and it's only fair. -ToK Sure there is. 1) Crummy internet connection 2) Dislike of the online roller concept 3) Invisible Castle time out problems 4) The feel of rolling dice is part of D & D; it is after all D20 5) It takes twice as long and is unneccessary 6) Trust thy Pitlord. Everybody always remembers when the dice go against them, they never remember when the dice fall their way.
Mind Rogue 09-17-05, 06:34 PM	Hmm, lucky nat 20 ... though I do find it amusing our opponents wrote the tactics for the wrong set of characters. And I am surprised there are still Pitlords who do not use the online roller. Despite ill-founded, psychological complaints that the roller "rolls badly", it is undeniably the only way to verify rolls. Hey now, I truely did roll that natural 20. Personally, I find it easier to roll dice then to open yet another window to manage all of the rolls for the match, it is easier to adjust the scores if I forget something like a dwarf's +1 bonus on attack rolls against orcs. I don't play favorites with the dice rolls. I use them as they are supposed to be rolled. The only exception is that I usually roll attacks and damage at the same time, and I discard the damage roll from a miss regardless of whether it is high or low. I also once lost a fight because the Pitlord was using an online roller, rolled one attack for me, then revised the fight later and replaced it with a completely new roll because he wouldn't simply replace the modifiers when he switched it for a trip attack (or maybe it was the other way around). This gave me some stigma against it because of people not being flexible when using it. Also, would you feel better if I put the d?: before each of the non-d20 rolls? On a side note, Dalamar's income has been added.
xanadu 09-17-05, 06:39 PM	Hmm, lucky nat 20 ... though I do find it amusing our opponents wrote the tactics for the wrong set of characters. LOL so I did :embarrass Why do you all have to pick names that sound so damn similar? So I wasted all that inventory expecting to fight an expanded and raging dwarven barbarian. Oh well.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-17-05, 06:41 PM	Hey now, I truely did roll that natural 20. Personally, I find it easier to roll dice then to open yet another window to manage all of the rolls for the match, it is easier to adjust the scores if I forget something like a dwarf's +1 bonus on attack rolls against orcs. I don't play favorites with the dice rolls. I use them as they are supposed to be rolled. The only exception is that I usually roll attacks and damage at the same time, and I discard the damage roll from a miss regardless of whether it is high or low. I also once lost a fight because the Pitlord was using an online roller, rolled one attack for me, then revised the fight later and replaced it with a completely new roll because he wouldn't simply replace the modifiers when he switched it for a trip attack (or maybe it was the other way around). This gave me some stigma against it because of people not being flexible when using it. Also, would you feel better if I put the d?: before each of the non-d20 rolls? On a side note, Dalamar's income has been added. Ok, jab well taken, but there was more to it than that. We used to have a system, for those that didn't like the constant online rolling, is to just make one set of rolls. Roll something like forty d20's and just cut/paste the results into notepad. Whenever you need to roll a d20, just take the next one in line. I've tried it myself and it works very efficiently. I would roll twenty of each die-type and cut/paste it into notepad, where i ran my fights. As i needed them, i'd just use it and removed it from my list of rolls. That's pretty fast, simple and verifyable, without consuming a lot of time with the roller on/off againness. -ToK
NiQil 09-17-05, 06:52 PM	For one Quentus would have used deepcrystal and expended psionic focus for psionic shot at the first opportunity to shoot at Sdentch, but it would never have come to that point. Quentus would have stayed out of range and out of charging paths, hidden from the orc, and sniped from cover using sneak attack damage. Rage would end dropping the orc some hp. Quentus would use his superior speed and hiding/move silently skills to stay out of range and out of sight of the orc until he wore her down and took her out. He's a smart lil' halfling, he'd know how to stay away...:p That part of your tactic is where I was going when the original fight ended...it did not come into play before then because of the inability of the two of you to find each other initially. Once that happened, you were in melee range for that one round before withdrawing. When I edit to account for my error in the running action of Sdentch, your range tactics will come in to play...they just never had a chance before because of my error.
NiQil 09-17-05, 06:57 PM	Ok, jab well taken, but there was more to it than that. We used to have a system, for those that didn't like the constant online rolling, is to just make one set of rolls. Roll something like forty d20's and just cut/paste the results into notepad. Whenever you need to roll a d20, just take the next one in line. I've tried it myself and it works very efficiently. I would roll twenty of each die-type and cut/paste it into notepad, where i ran my fights. As i needed them, i'd just use it and removed it from my list of rolls. That's pretty fast, simple and verifyable, without consuming a lot of time with the roller on/off againness. -ToK I've got to disagree with you here....making that many rolls that I will never use will just waste more time. 40 d20 rolls, maybe. But rolling each die type that many times is just pointless. Personally, I think it is very poor form to inply any type of impartiality on the part of a pitlord just because a die roll didn't go your way. Now, before everyone gets their panties in a bunch....I am NOT saying that anyone implied this. But die rolling is D&D. To force people to use online die rolling would most likely result in a severe loss of pitlords for various reasons (xanadu listed many of them). If we can't trust our pitlords, then why are we even participating in this board to begin with?
Shaken, not Stunned 09-17-05, 07:29 PM	Shan's tactics have been sent.
nightbanegod 09-17-05, 07:39 PM	well this is the first week both Dalamar and the horseman have lost fights, it is a sad week :raincloud :weep: :raincloud
xanadu 09-17-05, 08:21 PM	Ok, jab well taken, but there was more to it than that. We used to have a system, for those that didn't like the constant online rolling, is to just make one set of rolls. Roll something like forty d20's and just cut/paste the results into notepad. Whenever you need to roll a d20, just take the next one in line. I've tried it myself and it works very efficiently. I would roll twenty of each die-type and cut/paste it into notepad, where i ran my fights. As i needed them, i'd just use it and removed it from my list of rolls. That's pretty fast, simple and verifyable, without consuming a lot of time with the roller on/off againness. -ToK NO! I did this once because it works great in theory. Trust me, there are problems. Even if you go through the trouble of not looking at the next rolls and biasing yourself - something I did trouble myself with - if a mistake was made or a re-run needs to be done it is a whole can of worms because all participants know the rolls. If I am not mistaken, I believe you were one who agreed with me that the idea works fine in theory but is something which should not be repeated :)
NiQil 09-17-05, 09:39 PM	@ TheMagister and Iced Rewrite of Sdentch vs Quentus Doomshadow is up. The result did not change, but most of the old battle went by the wayside because the fight changed rather drastically from it's old version. In the end, Sdentch's plethora of weapons is what won it. Again, if you find any problems, please don't hesitate to point them out. The sooner, the better, as I will have very little time to edit anything on Monday or Tuesday.
Huan 09-17-05, 10:44 PM	Hey now, I am NOT starting a useless flame war here. Nor am I IMPLYING any foul play (so yes, I will counter-Imply your implications :P ) I am saying I believed it was (or at least should be) a standard to use online roller, as such devices are fair and irrefutable, and personally find no logical reason why anyone does NOT use it in such a place like this where we want everything clear-cut and hard-referenced. I have heard the same whiny excuses time and time again, like laziness, superstition in luck, blaming technology, or multitasking, but those are hardly valid (its says more about the person rolling than the system itself) ... and since I have yet to hear a good reason NOT to use an online roller ... I mean, WHAT is there to hide? Is it THAT hard to open a second window and flip to it? Look at my sig. I know how the dice fall sometimes (and I keep that sig there to remind everyone else, online roller or not) ... but I wish to actually SEE that dice (c'mon, its a simple request). @xanadu (on similiar names) Someone show him the Boraxx/Boriux/Borrix trio from a while back ;)
NiQil 09-17-05, 11:21 PM	Hey now, I am NOT starting a useless flame war here. Nor am I IMPLYING any foul play (so yes, I will counter-Imply your implications :P ) I am saying I believed it was (or at least should be) a standard to use online roller, as such devices are fair and irrefutable, and personally find no logical reason why anyone does NOT use it in such a place like this where we want everything clear-cut and hard-referenced. I have heard the same whiny excuses time and time again, like laziness, superstition in luck, blaming technology, or multitasking, but those are hardly valid (its says more about the person rolling than the system itself) ... and since I have yet to hear a good reason NOT to use an online roller ... I mean, WHAT is there to hide? Is it THAT hard to open a second window and flip to it? Look at my sig. I know how the dice fall sometimes (and I keep that sig there to remind everyone else, online roller or not) ... but I wish to actually SEE that dice (c'mon, its a simple request). @xanadu (on similiar names) Someone show him the Boraxx/Boriux/Borrix trio from a while back ;) To start with, the Rules thread says that while online rollers are preferred, using normal dice is definitely allowed. Secondly, you would be surprise, Huan. For instance, my computer has issues with bad RAM sectors. I can't even defrag the thing anymore. It almost chokes opening the Battles thread between my puter problems and my dial-up connection. Using an online dice roller is just not going to happen from my home computer, because it is just not capable of doing that and still showing me everything else I need for a battle (SRD, character sheets, etc), and there is no way I could run a battle at work. Do I have anything to hide? Hell no. But, if forced to use an online die roller, I would have to quit pitlording, because my computer simply won't handle it. And if you think that my system not being able to handle it says something about me and makes me sound whiny (what happened to no flames?), as you indicated, then you are free to fly here and try it out for yourself. You can PM me and I'll give you my address. Bottom line....not everyone can use an online die roller. Nor does everyone want to. If it becomes mandatory, I would venture to say CoCo would lose several pitlords as a result. I can say with absolute certainty that it will lose at least one.
King Uther 09-18-05, 12:42 AM	@Usurpator If Nexa wins her fight vs Yasha Tankou, consider this a formal challenge. @Xanadu Draconis better escape from prison in the near future. She's the only undefeated gladiator above EL 4. She better keep that streak going.
xanadu 09-18-05, 02:28 AM	Well, I dont think Draconis did anything wrong. A Hippogryff handle check is DC 10 and provided I pay a trainer to train it, which I am doing since is unqualified to train it herself, I see nothing wrong. Should she be found guilty, she'll hire a lawyer and appeal :)
TelinArtho 09-18-05, 09:08 AM	Draconis got a hippogriff with an insufficient Handle Animal bonus. You can disagree with the rule if you like - but in order to even get a hippogriff, you must have a handle animal bonus of +13 or higher.
Usurpator 09-18-05, 10:15 AM	Kristina vs. Casgish (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7282534&postcount=390) is up. My briefest fight as Pitlord yet.
waywreth 09-18-05, 11:03 AM	Kristina vs. Casgish (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7282534&postcount=390) is up. My briefest fight as Pitlord yet. I honestly figured that would happen. I knew I'd only win if she missed that first shot... Ah well. Time to stock up on invisibility potions/scrolls.
Altaris13 09-18-05, 11:38 AM	Using an online dice roller is just not going to happen from my home computer, because it is just not capable of doing that and still showing me everything else I need for a battle (SRD, character sheets, etc), and there is no way I could run a battle at work. A couple of suggestions: 1) print hard copies of tactics & sheets 2) cut & paste tactics & sheets into sblocks in the battles thread where your post will be --- follow this with the "preview post" option. I can run a fight with 4 windows open, and one I will only rarely have to look at. #1 - Battles Thread with pending post (rarely looked at during the fight) #2 - SRD (Which I use since it is easily searched) #3 - Notepad #4 - Invisible Castle. Basically, I'll be flipping between 2 windows for the majority of the fight. And with making multiple rolls at once, it further minimizes the need to flip screens. Ex: Lox is sneaking around, Xol is looking for Lox. Rolls: Lox hide, move silent & Xol's spot - each roll is integral to the others, and so can easily be lumped together for a single "roll" of the on-line roller. In case it wasn't clear, I prefer the on-line die roller too, and without rolling fourty billion rolls in advance.
McJarvis 09-18-05, 11:47 AM	... personally find no logical reason why anyone does NOT use it in such a place like this where we want everything clear-cut and hard-referenced. It's about half the work not to use one. That's enough for me.(especially when you catch your own mistakes and have to go back and change rolls)
Cerebus13 09-18-05, 01:14 PM	Yoriko vs. Daeren (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7283719&postcount=391) is up. Please let me know if there are any questions or problems.
Mind Rogue 09-18-05, 01:46 PM	All I have to say is that the -1 penalty on attack rolls is a size penalty. Thus it actually transforms into a +4 bonus on grapple checks. However, as you commented in the fight, we both used Enlarge Person so this is irrelevent since our respective bonuses cancel each other out. However, the -1 penalty also applies to our AC, although this also doesn't affect the match any. I see that our mage armor and shield spells did a whole lot of help in the battle (not really). And Telin, I actually learned from our previous fights and remembered not to trip the dwarf.
Luni 09-18-05, 02:15 PM	Goran vs Xyanthraxia is up. Find it Here. (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7284117&postcount=392) I'll post my other fight tonight or tomorrow morning.
Luni 09-18-05, 02:17 PM	I wonder what Mer-Man thinks about his dead cousin? Hehehehe. Death to all Sahaugin!
Sindorin 09-18-05, 02:20 PM	Poor fishmen... On that note, revisions/conclusion to Lothan vs. Kraegin are complete.
nightbanegod 09-18-05, 02:32 PM	A couple of suggestions: 1) print hard copies of tactics & sheets 2) cut & paste tactics & sheets into sblocks in the battles thread where your post will be --- follow this with the "preview post" option. I can run a fight with 4 windows open, and one I will only rarely have to look at. #1 - Battles Thread with pending post (rarely looked at during the fight) #2 - SRD (Which I use since it is easily searched) #3 - Notepad #4 - Invisible Castle. Basically, I'll be flipping between 2 windows for the majority of the fight. And with making multiple rolls at once, it further minimizes the need to flip screens. Ex: Lox is sneaking around, Xol is looking for Lox. Rolls: Lox hide, move silent & Xol's spot - each roll is integral to the others, and so can easily be lumped together for a single "roll" of the on-line roller. In case it wasn't clear, I prefer the on-line die roller too, and without rolling fourty billion rolls in advance. thats almost exactly what i do as well, hence my fights nowadays say "fight coming soon =====>HERE<=====" its just me setting up the battles thread so i can view all character sheets and tactics in one window. except i tend to not have the SRD up since i have the books and if something comes up i can always bring up the srd since its on my favorites list.. and with my P.O.S. comp and dialup i dont really EVER have any problems running a fight. D Do you use the coded version of the battle map in the notepad to mark peoples positions Altaris. thats what i use it for. and if your typing up the fight in the note pad in the first place you can see what your typing alot better in a full screen notepad with no restrictions on dimensions VS this lovely tiny box for the reply window text... if that makes sense. i just type up the fight in note pad and also makes it easier to save and continue the fight where i left off since i dont have to worry about the internet going down on me and having to start from square one...
Luni 09-18-05, 02:41 PM	@Iced: Can you edit Ariels fight to have the Desecrate being used from a scroll, and the Animate Dead from Memory?
TheMagister 09-18-05, 05:03 PM	Mokoridos vs. Feradeth (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7281893&postcount=389) Is up. Good fight, good ending. Check my work. TM
Mind Rogue 09-18-05, 05:07 PM	Hey Pittbull, you forgot to link to the fight. I would think that if Anya could here the Harvester casting his spell, but sees him pop up behind her, she should know that something is amiss, which should probably trigger the Mirror Image contingency, since she knows absolutely nothing about the Silent Image spell. You also forgot to tack on psionic shot to the frost ray in round 10. Also, offensive precognition was from her powers known, not the powerstone.
Caterane 09-18-05, 06:05 PM	@Luni: Ariel's big sister is next @MindRogue: I wanted to have the image appear near me of course so that it isn't obvious. Anything else would be stupid. Anya has no spellcraft. I would've preferred to use the image as long as Anya doesn't recognize it (ie uses her cognize crystal on it). Also, using the crystal is a standard action plus the move to draw it so Anya couldn't manifest the second ray anyway.
Altaris13 09-18-05, 06:29 PM	Do you use the coded version of the battle map in the notepad to mark peoples positions Altaris. thats what i use it for. Nope. I use a hard copy of the map generally. My last two fights were done with the regular map opened up in photoshop where I used plain black lines to mark position (it sucked, took forever and was annoying.)
Iced 09-18-05, 07:02 PM	@Iced: Can you edit Ariels fight to have the Desecrate being used from a scroll, and the Animate Dead from Memory? @Luni - You don't have enough spell levels; 8 -3 Deeper Darkness, -4 2x spiritual weapon, -1 inflict light wounds = 0 spell levels. You also don't have desecrate prepared as a spell, so you have to use a scroll. You used Sof, Desecrate, and Animate Dead scrolls. You gained 900xp/900gp, two half-giant and a sahuagin mutant as undead skeletons.
Aramil Dunskar 09-18-05, 07:14 PM	@Cat: Tatics for Grakk sent. -Aramil
Mind Rogue 09-18-05, 07:56 PM	@Luni: Ariel's big sister is next @MindRogue: I wanted to have the image appear near me of course so that it isn't obvious. Anything else would be stupid. Anya has no spellcraft. I would've preferred to use the image as long as Anya doesn't recognize it (ie uses her cognize crystal on it). Also, using the crystal is a standard action plus the move to draw it so Anya couldn't manifest the second ray anyway. No, but she had an exact pinpoint, so it should have at least confused her why the sound wasn't coming from where the image was. That should make her strike at either the sound or the image randomly and use the crossbow rather than the energy ray since she would probably think it was a minor image which I had a contingency for. Also, I just have to have the cognizance crystal on my person to use it and activating it is part of manifesting my power.
Luni 09-18-05, 08:47 PM	@Luni - You don't have enough spell levels; 8 -3 Deeper Darkness, -4 2x spiritual weapon, -1 inflict light wounds = 0 spell levels. You also don't have desecrate prepared as a spell, so you have to use a scroll. You used Sof, Desecrate, and Animate Dead scrolls. You gained 900xp/900gp, two half-giant and a sahuagin mutant as undead skeletons. Deeper Darkness was a prebuff. Therefore it doesn't count towards my daily limit. Deeper Darkness Evocation [Darkness] Level: Clr 3 Duration: One day/level (D)
Emrys Donovan 09-18-05, 08:56 PM	The Torgirr vs. Greefe (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7287079#post7287079) fight is up.
Ribking 09-18-05, 11:03 PM	Bad rolls + no 2WFighting = dead Greefe. I was hoping to play the odds of landing more attacks with 2WFighting. And no force screen either? Though your suggestion of a 2HWeapon is appealing, I am kinda trying to stick with my, er "shtick". Even the crossbow is a temporary thing....just for pesky flying casters (evil look towards Archie Longbow). I'll update my weight also, thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for running the fight. @TheMagister Can you PM me a description of Sdentch? Greefe has found inspiration for his first painting. ;)
Emrys Donovan 09-18-05, 11:44 PM	Bad rolls + no 2WFighting = dead Greefe. I was hoping to play the odds of landing more attacks with 2WFighting. And no force screen either? Though your suggestion of a 2HWeapon is appealing, I am kinda trying to stick with my, er "shtick". Even the crossbow is a temporary thing....just for pesky flying casters (evil look towards Archie Longbow). I'll update my weight also, thanks for pointing that out. And thanks for running the fight. @TheMagister Can you PM me a description of Sdentch? Greefe has found inspiration for his first painting. ;) D'oh! I knew I was missing something...Would you like me to re-run the fight with force screen? As for TWF, you said "if he got to within 50'," Greefe was to "drop the xbow, draw a mw throwing axe, move back and then charge," which is what I had him do.
McJarvis 09-18-05, 11:49 PM	I can't run my fight tonight, and tomorrow doesn't look good either. I actually thought my status as Pittlord was inactive until this morning.... If someone could pick mine up that'd be nice :)
Emrys Donovan 09-18-05, 11:57 PM	I can't run my fight tonight, and tomorrow doesn't look good either. I actually thought my status as Pittlord was inactive until this morning.... If someone could pick mine up that'd be nice :) I could probably do it if I can have a couple days extension on the deadline...I'll have a definite "Yes, I can do it," or "No, I can't" by tomorrow. Edit: Nevermind, I know I won't be able to do it.
Luni 09-19-05, 02:37 AM	A very one-sided fight is up here. (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7289226&postcount=396) Feel free to tell me everything I did wrong.
King Uther 09-19-05, 02:51 AM	@MCJarvis, or the gladiators in the fight: I can run the fight, but it won't be up for another 24 hours. PM me some tactics ASAP.
Pittbull 09-19-05, 02:57 AM	@Pitbull: Your dissoloving weapon links don't seem to tell me why they have Dissolving weapon on them. Also, could you please list your Longspear underneath your attacks? Just take a look to the pre-buffs of the linked fights. BTW, thanks for runnning the fight! @Mindrogue: Would you give me a list of things you want me to change in the Harveter vs Anya-fight. I'm pretty busy today, but I want to fix everything, if I made mistakes. Edit: Psionic Shot can be aplied on a frost-ray? If yes, I roll the 2d6 psi-damage. If offensive precognition was manifested out of memory, you need to draw the cognize crystal to manifest the second frost-ray. But if the cognize crystal works as you metioned and you have luck, you still have a chance for the win, you just need to make 11points of damage with 2d6. BTW, but point blank shot isn't added too?
Caterane 09-19-05, 05:41 AM	@Pittbull: First of all, Anya cannot attack with her xbow in Round 8. She was flatfooted vs my attack and didn't pinpoint me, so the grapple occurs first and you cannot use a ranged weapon in a grapple. That's no damage for me in round 8. Then, you never substracted distance from her listen checks so she actually never pinpointed me. The Harvester has 60ft speed vs her 35ft and he is invisible. Silent Image has long range. There should be absolutely no problems keeping my distance to avoid a pinpoint. EDIT: I've checked the positions. The Harvester stands still in his box in straight line towards Anya, 15 meters away. I wanted to keep out of LOS and away. As I said, Silent Image has long range. If I stand 'next to her' it's clear that the Silent Image trick is spoiled when the sound comes from somewhere else. And not to forget to fully exploit the silent image. She failed her save so she still believes it's the Harvester. There's no word about silent image in her tactic, nor about me going invisible. Further attacks (ie the second energy ray) go onto the image too. Finally, Anya wanted to use her psionic shot on the first energy ray (which missed) so it will not be available later. I should come out with no damage at all.
Pittbull 09-19-05, 07:01 AM	Round 8: Why should she get an attack? She readied and then you grapple, you become visible when you intend to make an attack, this happens on the touch-attack of the grapple, so I see this like: The Harvester wants to grapple, makes his touch attack, in the same second he becomes visible and Anya shoots. Ok, but i forgot to roll for the mirror-images: She hit the Harvester (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=152811)! Lucky girl! On silent image topic, I must say: I support you Cat, because she has no spellcraft, she doesn't know what has happened and the voice she heared could have been a trick too. So she sees him and fires. And Yes, she should have used her psi-shot on this one too.
michael_noah 09-19-05, 08:51 AM	I've had work explode around me, and I haven't had any time this weekend. In fact, I won't have any time in the foreseeable future. Can anyone else take Yasha vs. Nexa?
michael_noah 09-19-05, 08:58 AM	Round 8: Why should she get an attack? She readied and then you grapple, you become visible when you intend to make an attack, this happens on the touch-attack of the grapple, so I see this like: This is incorrect. You become visible when you do attack. If it was merely intent that caused it, that would be stated in the rules. It would also make invisibility useless for rogues, etc.
TelinArtho 09-19-05, 10:16 AM	@Sindorin regarding the fight revisions. I still see that Lothan is able to draw a scroll as a free action during a move - and this is still against the rules. As such, he is not able to turn invisible as quickly and likely suffers AoO from the centipede when he doesn't move far enough away.
TelinArtho 09-19-05, 10:19 AM	@Cerebus13 regarding the Daeren vs Yoriko fight In round 3, just how far forward did you have me move? I wanted to get in at least one ray, but why would I close to within 10ft so Yoriko could just 5ft step and grapple (with a full attack no-less), completely negating any AoO I would get from being large? This also enables Daeren to perhaps make a second casting of Ray of Enfeeblement if Yoriko fails to start a grapple on a single touch. Daeren should have closed to 30ft, and then cast - that way Yoriko has to use up most of her movement to come in and I get an AoO on her (she can try to tumble of course). Also - as Mind Rogue already pointed out, the increase in size is not a penalty when grappling. I agree that it wouldn't have changed anything with regard to the fight though, since we were both enlarged.
Cerebus13 09-19-05, 10:28 AM	@Cerebus13 regarding the Daeren vs Yoriko fight In round 3, just how far forward did you have me move? I wanted to get in at least one ray, but why would I close to within 10ft so Yoriko could just 5ft step and grapple (with a full attack no-less), completely negating any AoO I would get from being large? This also enables Daeren to perhaps make a second casting of Ray of Enfeeblement if Yoriko fails to start a grapple on a single touch. Daeren should have closed to 30ft, and then cast - that way Yoriko has to use up most of her movement to come in and I get an AoO on her (she can try to tumble of course). Also - as Mind Rogue already pointed out, the increase in size is not a penalty when grappling. I agree that it wouldn't have changed anything with regard to the fight though, since we were both enlarged.Yoriko is Large sized as well so her reach negates your own...thus I had Daeren move closer to negate a charge attack from Yoriko. However she was still able to hit on her touch attack so that was moot.
TelinArtho 09-19-05, 10:32 AM	Hmmm - good point - apparently I forgot that part... Well, I almost didn't post it to begin with because I felt like I was trying to eke out a way to win - and for what its worth you followed everything that I explicitly stated. So instead of griping about a loss, how about I say: "Thanks for Pitlording!" Just to remind everyone that being a good loser is a better way of life than a sore one...
waywreth 09-19-05, 11:01 AM	Hmm anyone seen Gonbow? I got a 7-time losing streak on the line here! :D :weep: Also anyone have suggestions to help a charging build? Besides skipping the true strike (which was pointed out to me as only lasting one round), I need some way to setup a LOS and straight line to charge.
TelinArtho 09-19-05, 11:16 AM	@NiQil and Cerebus13 - I am in the process of editing the fight to take into account the recent change in rules that CoCo is going to use. Also, @Pitlords - a mention should be made about armor spikes in the Rules thread so that this does not come up again - because I'm sure it will... /d
Mind Rogue 09-19-05, 11:19 AM	@Pittbull: First of all, Anya cannot attack with her xbow in Round 8. She was flatfooted vs my attack and didn't pinpoint me, so the grapple occurs first and you cannot use a ranged weapon in a grapple. That's no damage for me in round 8. Then, you never substracted distance from her listen checks so she actually never pinpointed me. The Harvester has 60ft speed vs her 35ft and he is invisible. Silent Image has long range. There should be absolutely no problems keeping my distance to avoid a pinpoint. EDIT: I've checked the positions. The Harvester stands still in his box in straight line towards Anya, 15 meters away. I wanted to keep out of LOS and away. As I said, Silent Image has long range. If I stand 'next to her' it's clear that the Silent Image trick is spoiled when the sound comes from somewhere else. And not to forget to fully exploit the silent image. She failed her save so she still believes it's the Harvester. There's no word about silent image in her tactic, nor about me going invisible. Further attacks (ie the second energy ray) go onto the image too. Finally, Anya wanted to use her psionic shot on the first energy ray (which missed) so it will not be available later. I should come out with no damage at all. Actually, Pittbull added the range penalty in by increasing the DC rather than giving a penalty on my listen checks. Also, I explicitely say in my tactics to not use Psionic Shot on the first energy ray (although I accidentally called it psychic strike because I'm used to playing my soulknife) and I explicitly say to use it on the second one. So, my suggested edits: Round 2: Anya has to manifest Offensive Precognition from he powers know. It is not on a powerstone. This forces her to activate her Cognizance Crystal later. Rounds 5+6: Anya would be confused by the image of the Harvester being in one place but his voice being in the other. As far as she knows they are both spell effects, which should probably trigger the Mirror Image continency, causing her to shoot at one of them randomly with a normal crossbow bolt. The attack and damage rolls need benefits from Point Blank Shot, Offensive Precognition, and/or a masterwork property. Round 8: Anya's using the crossbow actually provokes an AoO, as sad to admit it as I am. However, this seems to be a really odd situation where my readied attack must somehow go before the harvesters attack where he is invisible, then he would get an AoO and I don't want to guess how it should be straightened out. Round 10: Anya should either use the wild surged 5d6 cold ray (based on not using pp in round 6) or else another 2d6 from psionic shot would be added. Also, you forgot about Offensive Precognition and Point Blank Shot again. If Anya used an energy ray earlier, this one will require tapping into her cognizance crystal, which just has to be on her person (although I think I'll call out to it being some piece of jewelry in the near future). Rounds 11+12: Anya's attempt to escape don't cause damage when she fails. Instead, the Harvester has to make another one afterwards, although this isn't very likely to change squat since there is a net 16 modifier between the two (although miracles do happen on occasion).
TelinArtho 09-19-05, 11:36 AM	Okay - I've edited the Methos vs Pirotess fight to take into account the "enlightened" rules on armor spikes that have come out in the last few days. The result has not changed, nor did it increase the length of the fight, because the horse is pretty effective even without the spikes. I did not change everything that could have changed in the fight - just noted where rolls would have been different and including a damage roll that would have been applied. If someone points out that not everything was modified I will beat them over the head with a heavy bludgeon... :)
NiQil 09-19-05, 11:38 AM	Okay - I've edited the Methos vs Pirotess fight to take into account the "enlightened" rules on armor spikes that have come out in the last few days. The result has not changed, nor did it increase the length of the fight, because the horse is pretty effective even without the spikes. I did not change everything that could have changed in the fight - just noted where rolls would have been different and including a damage roll that would have been applied. If someone points out that not everything was modified I will beat them over the head with a heavy bludgeon... :) You didn't modify everything. :D
Luni 09-19-05, 11:49 AM	I've had work explode around me, and I haven't had any time this weekend. In fact, I won't have any time in the foreseeable future. Can anyone else take Yasha vs. Nexa? You can send it my way.
michael_noah 09-19-05, 11:53 AM	You can send it my way. Tactics for Yasha vs. Nexa forwarded.
Luni 09-19-05, 11:54 AM	Tactics for Yasha vs. Nexa forwarded. Received.
Pittbull 09-19-05, 12:56 PM	@Mindrogue: If Cat, has nothing more to say I'll edit the fight tomorrow as you suggested, I'll use the attack-rolls of the first version and new ones if they are necessary. @Cat: Any more concerns, I need to fix? I leave now and will coem back tomorrow.
Caterane 09-19-05, 01:33 PM	@Pittbull: No, invisibility is spoiled on the attack, not before. I am invisible and attack (= I touch her). The moment I touch her she is in the grapple and cannot use her xbow. Also note Michael Noah's comment: Round 8: Why should she get an attack? She readied and then you grapple, you become visible when you intend to make an attack, this happens on the touch-attack of the grapple, so I see this like: This is incorrect. You become visible when you do attack. If it was merely intent that caused it, that would be stated in the rules. It would also make invisibility useless for rogues, etc. The rules are very clear here. Please delete the damage I got that round because it is wrong and not subject to interpretation. And again: I don't know why you want to correct the fight on the silent image issue. She has not mentioned it with any word. She has not mentioned invisibility with any word. Instead, it is clear that if the Harvester is within 30ft, she wants to use her energy ray. Ok, different scenario: let's assume the Harvester used ventroliquism to throw his voice somewhere else which Anya pinpointed. Now a big dangerous (real) Harvester appears 30ft infront of her! Would Anya now use her xbow to shoot the empty air where the sound came from or attack the big threat infront of her? Would Anya use her weak xbow for a 'test shot' on the Harvester who is standing a few meters away just to find out if it is an illusion or would she try to kill him with her powerray before he can grapple her? I am sure Mindrogue would've complained if you had her shoot empty air or use the xbow for a test shot, had I used ventroliquism instead because there's nothing in her tactic that says so. Also, I want to remind you of my earlier statement that 15 meters is not the distance I wanted to be. I cast expeditious retreat for a reason, Peter. Standing in my box is a waste of that spell. Silent Image has long range, not close, so please make use of that. In no way should there be a pinpoint! Finally, Anya won't win in any case because the Harvester will just retreat with 120ft and heal + vigor if below 18, as stated in my tactic. And when I come back, Anya has no PP left.
Mind Rogue 09-19-05, 01:45 PM	Actually, I did contingency for you to turn invisible. In fact, it was the 1st and primary contingency. Actually, based off of that, I'd be tempted to say to follow that rather than the Mirror Image one. So, yes, if you where to decide to use Ventriloquism rather than Silent Image, I would say he would be very justified in shooting at the disembodied voice with a test crossbow bolt rather than at the real body. Thanks for reminding me about that. I retract my previous statement and say that my initial attack should have been a test bolt at a disembodied voice as per the Invisibility contingency.
Gonbow 09-19-05, 01:55 PM	Hmm anyone seen Gonbow? I got a 7-time losing streak on the line here! :D :weep: Also anyone have suggestions to help a charging build? Besides skipping the true strike (which was pointed out to me as only lasting one round), I need some way to setup a LOS and straight line to charge. I'm running the fight as we speak (type), fret not. Though who wins is still very much up to the fates.
SoulLord 09-19-05, 01:56 PM	Aeryn Valaer (Altaris13) vs Juntar Dunecrosser (KerlanRayne) is up fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7289013&postcount=395)
Caterane 09-19-05, 02:02 PM	Actually, I did contingency for you to turn invisible. In fact, it was the 1st and primary contingency. Actually, based off of that, I'd be tempted to say to follow that rather than the Mirror Image one. So, yes, if you where to decide to use Ventriloquism rather than Silent Image, I would say he would be very justified in shooting at the disembodied voice with a test crossbow bolt rather than at the real body. Thanks for reminding me about that. I retract my previous statement and say that my initial attack should have been a test bolt at a disembodied voice as per the Invisibility contingency. You wrote "vanish before my eyes" which means that you know that he went invisible. You don't know that in this fight. Even then, the Harvester stays invisible and you still don't know more so you attack the image next, and another time because you failed your save. You just lose a round.
xanadu 09-19-05, 02:25 PM	I looked at the Harvy-Anya fight, so I'll offer a neutral opinion. Silent image is concentration. In theory the Harvester can continue to try and fool Anya in round 7 rather than speed up the attack process. But Cat did say in his tactics he wanted to use up the super ray and Anya did, so I guess what Pitbull did was ok in the spirit of tactics. I do think Harvy should be further away than 15 feet though. Since I see no pinpoint in the fight, I guess this point is moot. In round 8, Anya's readied condition cannot trigger because she is engaged in grapple. Also, Harvy's damage should be lethal because he has improved grapple. In round 9, according to Anya's tactics, she should tumble away and use her x-bow because Harvy has mirror images. She need not load the x-bow at this point because she hasn't fired it yet [see round 8]. In round 11, Anya does not take damage for failed escape check. Harvy needs a grapple check to do damage [pershaps you meant to write the damage on harvy's line, but the way it is presented is wrong]. Round 12 has a similar problem EDIT: Round 5 where Anya pinpoints the Harvester with listen check but sees Harvy somewhere else. Should this be a pinpoint? According to the coordinates given, Anya is 55 feet away I dont see any minuses on the listen check? Even if it is not a pinpoint, there is no reason why the Harvester need create the image so far away from him. In fact, the damn thing probably should be 20 feet in front of him. In this case, Anya would "swore" she heard something 20 feet behind the image, but being that the sound orginiated from that very same direction, I see no reason why she wouldn't zap the image.
Pittbull 09-19-05, 02:45 PM	@Cat: The reason why Anya was so close, was because you wrote "when she is in LOS", and that happened in this point. You haven't written something about a distance. I was thinking the whole time about this silent image issue and one important question arose. Does it trigger Anya mirror image tactic. Since the Harvester is invisible, she doens't know that mirror image is on. She only knew that he's invisible, but then she saw him (the mirror image) and fired her ray. Is the silent image also mirror imaged or not, I would say no, I could be wrong too. If the silent image isn't under the effect of mirror image, she uses her ray, if it is, she uses her x-bow. There have a lot of errors in this fight, I apologize for that and what to fix the mistake. Ok, shooting with the x-bow, before the grapple is impossible. Please tell how this silent image looks alike, that'll have have major consequences.
Mind Rogue 09-19-05, 02:45 PM	You wrote "vanish before my eyes" which means that you know that he went invisible. You don't know that in this fight. Even then, the Harvester stays invisible and you still don't know more so you attack the image next, and another time because you failed your save. You just lose a round. I was being verbose. I expected you to disappear and buff or come after me while invisable, but that just doesn't sound as cool.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 03:05 PM	Please tell how this silent image looks alike, that'll have have major consequences. The silent image is simply a representation of what the caster wishes. See figments and spell description. So if Cat wanted a four-armed mutant sahuagin, he could do so. If he wanted huge gold dragon, he could aslo do so. It's whatever the image Cat wishes visualize. Baring any description of what visual effect he wanted upon the silent image i guess that would be left up to your interpretation. But a listen check should aslo be made by MR, and there is also the ever powerful "sense motive - gut feeling" that can be used to fall back upon. Also, you asked for him to describe how the image will look like, i truely believe that you now have to make that decision, since i don't think Cat specified how the image will look and this would all be in hindsight. -ToK
Caterane 09-19-05, 03:12 PM	@Pittbull: The Silent Image has of course no Mirror images on it. I wanted her to use the super ray. She wouldn't do that if I have mirror images on it! Look: The Silent Image is in my tactic so that she uses her superray. She wrote to use it if I am within 30ft. She did not know that it wasn't me! Anything else is metagaming. And again: why did I cast expeditious retreat when I don't want to make use of it?? I wrote stay away out of LOS in the first sentence! I should be on the other end rather than next to her!!! @Xanadu: I also wrote "Anything used on the image counts." which pretty clearly says I want to exploit it as much as possible, ie until Anya recognizes it as fake. @Tok: I DID describe the image: Harvester seemingly hidden behind a cover double moves towards Anya within 30ft. I want her to use that power-energy ray. If she doesn't use it immideately, have Harvester image seem to manifest something without display or attack and miss. Anything used on the image counts.
McJarvis 09-19-05, 03:16 PM	@MCJarvis, or the gladiators in the fight: I can run the fight, but it won't be up for another 24 hours. PM me some tactics ASAP. Tactics sent.
Pittbull 09-19-05, 03:29 PM	OK, then a summary for the rerun: - Anya will use her ray of frost on the image (wastes all her PPs on it+ her focus), because the mirror-image tactic isn't triggered. - She cannot use her x-bow in the readied action. - The Harvester has to do some more grapple-check to deal damage in the grapple. Anything else?
Caterane 09-19-05, 03:34 PM	Yep: - The Harvester actually makes use of his exp.retreat and the long spell range, and stays away from her so no pinpoint. - She uses her second ray from the crystal on the image too because she still thinks it's the Harvester (failed save). The focus should be spent on that follow-up second ray. - The Harvester deals lethal damage in a grapple. - When Anya escapes she tumbles away and uses her xbow to get rid of the mirror images first.
Altaris13 09-19-05, 03:35 PM	Somehow I knew I was going to lose that fight. :( A couple of things you should SoulLord: Potion of Enlarge Person is Caster Level 5 = 5 minute duration = 50 rounds. Aeryn's buckler is enchanted = Ma = 0 armor check penalty = no penalty to attacks About losing the buckler's AC bonus: Buckler This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a -1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. You can’t bash someone with a buckler. Emphasis mine. The sections about losing AC are quite specific. Using a weapon two handed is not the same as using a weapon in your off hand. If you can use a bow or crossbow (both 2 handed weapons,) then I disagree with Kerlan Rayne's interpretation of this section. Unfortunately, it doesn't make a difference. It seems my enemy was exception lucky this fight. Every attack that hit must have been a roll of 17 or higher, including the Nat 20 followed by a 17 to confirm in that last round. Not including the fact that apparently I rolled a Nat 1 the same round to resist being tripped. SoulLord, did you use the on-line die roller? If so, you didn't link it. I certainly would have preferred it if you did.
SoulLord 09-19-05, 03:51 PM	yes just search aeryn or juntar as appropiate in the invisible castle dice roller.
Altaris13 09-19-05, 04:11 PM	yes just search aeryn or juntar as appropiate in the invisible castle dice roller. Ah, cool. Thanks for the head's up.
Mind Rogue 09-19-05, 04:36 PM	OK, then a summary for the rerun: - Anya will use her ray of frost on the image (wastes all her PPs on it+ her focus), because the mirror-image tactic isn't triggered. - She cannot use her x-bow in the readied action. - The Harvester has to do some more grapple-check to deal damage in the grapple. Anything else? Except I said not to use psionic shot on the first ray. The focus would be spent on the second ray, and the Harvester has no way of knowing whether or not I used psionic shot.
NiQil 09-19-05, 06:57 PM	@ all pitlords The time is now 10:57 GMT. Do you know where your battles are? LOL
LongArcher 09-19-05, 06:59 PM	@Tok: I DID describe the image: Well, then there you have it. Not much need for further arguments imho. /amz
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 07:08 PM	Hmmm...i was about to say the same. Suddenly there are mind-readers on this board. -ToK
LongArcher 09-19-05, 07:12 PM	Hmmm...i was about to say the same. Suddenly there are mind-readers on this board. -ToK :p :p :p /amz
NiQil 09-19-05, 07:13 PM	Hmmm...i was about to say the same. Suddenly there are mind-readers on this board. -ToK I knew you'd say that. :D
LongArcher 09-19-05, 07:17 PM	@ all pitlords The time is now 10:57 GMT. Do you know where your battles are? LOL Nope. Not a clue. But my PL said he'd be posting it shortly. So I sit here waiting before going to bed to see about any lucky criticals ending my life, or if I continue going on unabated. /amz
TheMagister 09-19-05, 07:40 PM	A few comments on the fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7281893&postcount=389) by Kaigan in a PM sent to me. Hey, just saw the fight. A few comments, 1) I don't think the croc can have deflect arrows. Deflect arrows feat needs Improved unarmed strike which he doesn't have. 2) So that means 1 more arrow would have hit. 3) I'm a phenric elf, therefore I have psionic resistance and magic resistance due to the psionic-magic transparency rule. So every time I was a target of a spell, you would need to roll a check for Moro to see if he passes my power resistance. Those are the main problems. Again, thanks for running the fight, and sorry for my limited tactics. P.S. If you feel these might change the battle, could you please post this pm in the fight's of the week thread, thank. Kaigan To answer your concerns: 1) I don't think he should have it either. However, I'm not the one that makes that call. According to Cat, creatures with natural weapons (like the bebilith demon/devil/whatever have improved grapple without having the improved unarmed strike, so that makes natural weapons qualify the creature as having IUS as a virtual feat. I saw some discussion on the croc in question somewhere, and apparently it CAN have deflect arrows even though its ludicrous. In short, take it higher than me if you have a problem with it. 2) Yeah, it means a lot of things, but not to this fight. Two arrows into the croc wouldn't have changed a thing. 3) As far as your power resistance, I rolled it every time it was applicable. The entangle spell is listed as Spell Resistance: No in its description, so I'm afraid it gets you as written. Note: I want an elephant with stunning fist. He qualifies. TM
TheMagister 09-19-05, 07:48 PM	@ Emrys Donovan Seems odd to have Torgirr open up at range with a throwing axe (range increment 10') rather than a throwing hammer (range increment 20'). Also, I don't "use" the throwing weapons; they aren't destroyed after use like bolts or arrows. Lastly, also seems strange to have Torgirr take a 5' step back and throw (And just once! Why not throw twice with TWF?!) another time rather than having him quickdraw his waraxe and a throwing axe and return melee. That move limited me to one attack that round (and a weak one, even though it hit) rather than a full round of TWF. Other than that: I got lucky. If he had had a two-handed weapon, I'd be toast. That's a good suggestion she gave you, bro. TM
Ribking 09-19-05, 08:58 PM	@ Emrys Donovan No need to rerun this fight. But if you wouldn't mind, could you comment on my tactics regarding 2WFighting? Was it was mistakenly overlooked or interpreted different than I had intended? Either way, could you help me avoid future misunderstandings by suggesting a different wording? @TheMagister Sdentch isn't a dwarven monk last time I checked. :P I'm looking for that fine (relative) female Orc warrior with the big stick.
TheMagister 09-19-05, 09:07 PM	Sdentch isn't a dwarven monk last time I checked. :P I'm looking for that fine (relative) female Orc warrior with the big stick. I PM'd you this: @TheMagister Can you PM me a description of Sdentch? Greefe has found inspiration for his first painting. I'll try. Let's see... Sdentch is fairly tall for a female, standing an intimidating 6' 3" off of the ground. At 196 lbs. she's also thick in the chest and arms; an axe-handle laid across her shoulders would not overhang on either side. Her hair is a lanky, snarled bluish-black grown long and kept out of her face by a dingy white do-rag. Her skin is nice, one might even say flawless. The absence of blemishes highlights her many ritual scars around her eyes and mouth. The scars have been colored in red and black ink, making grotesquely humped and twisted tattoos seem to crawl across her sea-green face. Her eyes are normally a yellowish orange color that deepen to a violent crimson when her natural temperment is loosed upon a foe. Her nose is truncated, a herald of her orcish lineage, and the thick yellow tusks under it seem to point at its dark recesses. She has large hands, calloused from swordwork, with jaggedly broken nails grimed with blood, sweat, and dirt. Coarse hair lines the backs of her hands and mats her arms and legs. The toes on her large feet are crimped from being shoved into steel boots. The uncut nails on these falanges seem wickedly sharp. Her demeanor is one of controlled bestiality. She prides herself on her personal carriage and manners, emulating what she thinks a proper female should act like and sound (think of the Prince in Beauty and the Beast gobbling his oatmeal and then being embarrased about it...that's about right). She not unpleasant company, and she's a good friend to have in a fight. She's not necessarily the best person to ask about a dilemma, or to ask about relationships. She does have an uncanny knack at nailing down a person's general weal after just a few minutes of conversation; she seem just as willing to spend time with the selfish as with the altrusitic. Being ugly and stupid has taught her the pain that comes from quick judgement. This acceptance of all outlooks keeps her steady in times of moral crisis. Will that about do ya? TM Did you not get it? TM
Ribking 09-19-05, 09:14 PM	Ha! I clicked on your name instead of your message. My Bad. Yeah, I got the PM..... [/feelingfoolish]
xanadu 09-19-05, 09:15 PM	1) I don't think he should have it either. However, I'm not the one that makes that call. According to Cat, creatures with natural weapons (like the bebilith demon/devil/whatever have improved grapple without having the improved unarmed strike, so that makes natural weapons qualify the creature as having IUS as a virtual feat. This isn't a CoCo house rule. In savage species it specifically mentions a creature whith natural attacks meets the pre-requisite for improved grapple. I dont have the book in front of me, whether or not natural attacks work for everyhting in which improved unamred strike is a prerequesite for is something I cannot answer now. The deflect arrows feat says "You must have one hand free...", so even if a croc can theoretically take it, mechanically it might be useless for a croc to have it. I did not read the fight, did the defelct arrows feat make or break the fight?
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 09:22 PM	This isn't a CoCo house rule. In savage species it specifically mentions a creature whith natural attacks meets the pre-requisite for improved grapple. I dont have the book in front of me, whether or not natural attacks work for everyhting in which improved unamred strike is a prerequesite for is something I cannot answer now. The deflect arrows feat says "You must have one hand free...", so even if a croc can theoretically take it, mechanically it might be useless for a croc to have it. I did not read the fight, did the defelct arrows feat make or break the fight? Either way, the feat specifically says, "YOU NEED A HAND FREE", last i checked crocs didn't have any hands. So please!!!! what is all the argument about? Crocs, though by the rule, CAN take the feat, they absolutely CANNOT make ues of it. -ToK
nightbanegod 09-19-05, 09:38 PM	WOW the boards are all pretty and stuff now... did WoTC update their boards or something?
nightbanegod 09-19-05, 09:52 PM	what happens when a person moves through a square on horseback where an invisible person is standing? how do i handle that?
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 09:55 PM	what happens when a person moves through a square on horseback where an invisible person is standing? how do i handle that? Same way as any other similar situation. The invisible person has the option of letting them pass unhindered. But don't forget the horses scent ability. Being right next to it, will allow the mount to pin-point the invisible foe with a move action. -ToK
TheMagister 09-19-05, 10:26 PM	The deflect arrows feat says "You must have one hand free...", so even if a croc can theoretically take it, mechanically it might be useless for a croc to have it. I did not read the fight, did the defelct arrows feat make or break the fight? Nope. Didn't influence it at all. The croc had 42 hp max, and 2 arrows would've just ticked it off. As far as the "crocs don't have hands" thing: it's not like they're trying to GRAB the arrows (ala the "snatch arrows" feat), they're just hitting them out of the air. Now, I don't want anyone to think that I *like a crocodile having deflect arrows...it just doesn't sit right with me. However, this *is a fantasy game with certain rules and such. A croc having deflect arrows is technically legal. Silly, but legal. TM
nightbanegod 09-19-05, 10:26 PM	Same way as any other similar situation. The invisible person has the option of letting them pass unhindered. But don't forget the horses scent ability. Being right next to it, will allow the mount to pin-point the invisible foe with a move action. -ToK ok but a horse isnt the most intelligent of creatures. does it actively let its rider know someone is right next to him?
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 10:28 PM	ok but a horse isnt the most intelligent of creatures. does it actively let its rider know someone is right next to him? Usually it's trained to attack, so since the invis creature is a threat, the horse will more than likely attack that square and that's the only hint the gladiator on horseback needs. The gladiator can attack that same square. Both suffer 50/50 miss chance still however. -ToK
NiQil 09-19-05, 10:29 PM	Same way as any other similar situation. The invisible person has the option of letting them pass unhindered. But don't forget the horses scent ability. Being right next to it, will allow the mount to pin-point the invisible foe with a move action. -ToK Actually, I am not sure if this is true, since a horse is large sized and I am assuming the person is medium.
nightbanegod 09-19-05, 10:30 PM	since the horse has scent does it have the 50/50 miss chance for an invisible target? and niquil is correct... for now seeing as the very next action the medium person takes is to make himself expanded per tactics treat as a bull rush attempt?
NiQil 09-19-05, 10:32 PM	since the horse has scent does it have the 50/50 miss chance for an invisible target? and niquil is correct... for now seeing as the very next action the medium person takes is to make himself expanded Yes...only blindsense would take that away...or the blind-fight feat would let him reroll it...to my knowledge anyway.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 10:34 PM	since the horse has scent does it have the 50/50 miss chance for an invisible target? and niquil is correct... for now seeing as the very next action the medium person takes is to make himself expanded No, NiQil isn't correct. Size has nothing to do with it. ANY creature has the option of letting someone else pass through their square unhindered. And yes NGB, though they know the square, they are still both visually hampered by the invisibility and folllow the same rules for striking an invisible creature. -ToK
nightbanegod 09-19-05, 10:35 PM	i just want to make sure i handle the situation correctly. medium person is 30 feet away. rider intends to move 60' first, how does horse handle the person who is invisible in his path? *edit* i ended up going with the person on horseback making another active listen check since they did indeed hear the invisible person nearby last time and only moving 20' forward since thats about how close the person on horseback thought the invisible person was... and wouldnt you know it. failed the active listen check too... so no dice on them bumping into eachother.. and on another note the horse isnt close enough to smell him any ways.. they ended up being 10' apart
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 10:35 PM	treat as a bull rush attempt? The person expanding from the enlarge, has the option of where to expand themselves in which direction. It would make sense that they would either 5' back and expand, or if they are based by the mount, then expand outward away from the mount. -ToK
NiQil 09-19-05, 10:36 PM	No, NiQil isn't correct. Size has nothing to do with it. ANY creature has the option of letting someone else pass through their square unhindered. And yes NGB, though they know the square, they are still both visually hampered by the invisibility and folllow the same rules for striking an invisible creature. -ToK I think he meant that I was correct in referring to a large creature and a medium creature......not that I was correct about size making a difference to the situation, which I already said I was not sure about.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-19-05, 10:37 PM	I think he meant that I was correct in referring to a large creature and a medium creature......not that I was correct about size making a difference to the situation, which I already said I was not sure about. My bad. :D -ToK
nightbanegod 09-19-05, 10:49 PM	edited last post right before you guys... see what you think about it... and yes i did mean that the horse was large and the person was medium but the person did infact expand away from the horse so as not to let the horse pinpoint anyways
King Uther 09-19-05, 11:07 PM	@The Magister The crocodile does not have Improved Grapple nor Deflect Arrows. Do you know why? Custom feats have to be paid for by credits. Not only that, but Cat asked that custom feats not be applied to animal companions nor familiars[need confirmation on this, because I am in violation as well].
TheMagister 09-19-05, 11:27 PM	@The Magister The crocodile does not have Improved Grapple nor Deflect Arrows. Do you know why? Custom feats have to be paid for by credits. Not only that, but Cat asked that custom feats not be applied to animal companions nor familiars[need confirmation on this, because I am in violation as well]. What are you telling *me for? Throw the bloke in prison! I'm just going by his character sheet. TM
nightbanegod 09-19-05, 11:52 PM	alright next question... stupid mages complicating things.... Invisible person attempting to grapple a caster that knows someone is there and the caster is readying to cast a spell, does the grappler become visible to be targeted by the spell on the readied action before attempting to make his touch attack?
Tellish_of_Ket 09-20-05, 12:12 AM	alright next question... stupid mages complicating things.... Invisible person attempting to grapple a caster that knows someone is there and the caster is readying to cast a spell, does the grappler become visible to be targeted by the spell on the readied action before attempting to make his touch attack? No, he makes his touch attack first. -ToK
King Uther 09-20-05, 01:02 AM	Tak the Hungry vs Auburn (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7298206&postcount=400) is up.
nightbanegod 09-20-05, 02:18 AM	Dial up sucks, it took me over half an hour to post Rebreg & Kronos vs Maeril & Shakari (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7298558&postcount=402) first i edited in the fight to my first post, then it turned out to be around 7000 characters too many. so i went and edited out some miscellaneous stuff from the character sheets, so if you look now there will be various things that arnt there but in the end they weretn that important. like the stats of a half giant. and what not. any backgrounds i could find. but i still ended up like 3000 character over. so i had to post a sperate post which takes me forever to load up a reply to the battles thread in the first place. let alone loading up the thread itsself which causes my computer grief... but its there
Gonbow 09-20-05, 02:25 AM	Amion vrs Archie is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7298582&postcount=403).
Pittbull 09-20-05, 04:10 AM	@Cat/Mindrogue: Sorry, the day is absolutely crazy. Haven't got so many emergency cases since months! I try to fix the fight today, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to. If it isn't up today, it'll be up tomorrow for sure, ways before pairings.
Delusional Illusion 09-20-05, 04:54 AM	Ummm, sorry for asking but has there been any word about the fight between Wlandra and Ariator run by Altaris? There's so many pages so I could have missed some announcement about it :embarrass
KerlanRayne 09-20-05, 05:48 AM	Emphasis mine. The sections about losing AC are quite specific. Using a weapon two handed is not the same as using a weapon in your off hand. If you can use a bow or crossbow (both 2 handed weapons,) then I disagree with Kerlan Rayne's interpretation of this section.I think you are looking at the wrong part. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon)This is the important part. KerlanRayne
Usurpator 09-20-05, 05:53 AM	Ellorion, First, thanks for running the fight of Solon vs. Elliak. I do have a few issues: 1. Elliak's first significant interaction only takes place at the end of round 12, technically she should have been disqualified in round 10. Or I am interpreting the 10-round rule incorrectly? 2. I specifically stated to stay out of Energy Stun range (if possible), yet you have Solon consciously make a double move to end within energy stun range, which Solon is aware of, and while he has absolutely no reason to do so. Why? 3. Even if Solon did wanted to do a double move just to get her in sight again, there were many options to do so without getting within Energy Stun range, why didn't Solon take these? There were even options to get LOS on Elliak within a single move, thus enabling a shot, although these were within her energy stun range and thus shouldn't be taken. 4. Minor issues, but maybe of concern in a rewrite: I have a +2 resistance bonus on my saves thanks to the scroll of protection from good (not a potion), but it only lasts 10 rounds, not 30. Same goes for most durations on some of the powerstones and potions of Elliak, since they are ML 1. How does she get 28 damage with one 3d6+3 energy ray? Solon has effective caster level 0 for divine scrolls that are on his ranger spell list. I can't do nothing about the poor save rolls and the fact that he rolled a 20 for that energy ray, but I think I shouldn't be in that position in the first place. My tactics were very clear about avoiding such a situation, and Elliak's continued evading and hiding would force him to forfeit the match. Everything was going as planned, as most of his buffs were running out and it would get easier and easier to get a few goods shots in, and without the skate it would get harder for him to evade me, I just can't believe you let Solon walk willingly into defeat. I'm a bit baffled.... :confused:
Vathelokai 09-20-05, 06:54 AM	Tak the Hungry vs Auburn (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7298206&postcount=400) is up. You'd think since I'm the guildmaster of TAO, I would know my spells a little better. Lucky for me the dice were on my side.
Maraxus 09-20-05, 07:24 AM	Oh, the tension ... Zassl's fight must be any hour now ... given that Kaigan still want's to run it. ;)
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 08:41 AM	Ummm, sorry for asking but has there been any word about the fight between Wlandra and Ariator run by Altaris? There's so many pages so I could have missed some announcement about it :embarrass I've already spoken with him about it and I'm taking the fight. On that note: @Altaris - tactics for Wlandra and Ariator received for the fight I am taking. @Pitlords: I am taking Altaris's fight (Wlandra vs Ariator) so that Altaris can focus on the impending hurricane in Florida.
waywreth 09-20-05, 08:43 AM	Amion vrs Archie is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7298582&postcount=403). Thanks for running the fight... the 5 mirror images really screwed me. I did have 2 questions though. 1. Doesn't the 10 round rule apply since he spent 11 rounds buffing? 2. Could you link the post in the prison thread so I can update, I can't find it.
Oldmangray 09-20-05, 08:50 AM	umm in my fight against auburn im not sure if she gets +4 vs giants as i am not a large creature but am considered large when it is advantageous to me
Altaris13 09-20-05, 08:51 AM	I've already spoken with him about it and I'm taking the fight. On that note: @Altaris - tactics for Wlandra and Ariator received for the fight I am taking. @Pitlords: I am taking Altaris's fight (Wlandra vs Ariator) so that Altaris can focus on the impending hurricane in Florida. Yeah, sorry about that guys. Thanks Telin. We seem to be lucky enough that the hurricane will pass us to the south, but the wind last night knocked out my power for a while AND my cable. :( I had power back this morning, but still no cable. But hey, things are good, I'm at work and all is well (so far.) :D
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 08:54 AM	umm in my fight against auburn im not sure if she gets +4 vs giants as i am not a large creature but am considered large when it is advantageous to me If you are a half-giant, you are a giant type. @Altaris - no problem - glad I could help. (Working on the fight now).
Altaris13 09-20-05, 09:02 AM	I think you are looking at the wrong part. This is the important part. KerlanRayne That just means that /can/ use a buckler when wielding a two-handed weapon and/or a weapon in your off hand. If you'll refer to the entire section, you'll see that the parts addressing the lack of AC bonus are quite specific to wielding a weapon in your off hand. If they intended to deprive you the buckler's AC bonus, why wouldn't they specify using a two handed weapon in that part, lilked they did in the part you quoted? This is both RAI and RAW, and I think your interpertation is incorrect. I have used buckler's like this since the inception of 3.5 and no one has ever challenged it before.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 10:04 AM	Wlandra vs Ariator Windhaven (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7300423) Close fight - though I imagine it was bound to work out this way...
NiQil 09-20-05, 10:08 AM	That just means that /can/ use a buckler when wielding a two-handed weapon and/or a weapon in your off hand. If you'll refer to the entire section, you'll see that the parts addressing the lack of AC bonus are quite specific to wielding a weapon in your off hand. If they intended to deprive you the buckler's AC bonus, why wouldn't they specify using a two handed weapon in that part, lilked they did in the part you quoted? This is both RAI and RAW, and I think your interpertation is incorrect. I have used buckler's like this since the inception of 3.5 and no one has ever challenged it before. I agree with Altaris here....why else even create a buckler in the game if you can't use it when you are doing something like firing a bow or wielding a quarterstaff? The way you are interpreting it, it looks identical to a light shield, which would be redundant.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 10:14 AM	As of right now, there are five fights outstanding as late. If anyone wants to send me the tactics for the gladiators in these fights, I will happily finish them on a first-come-first-served basis (I doubt I could do all 5, but I might be able to do 2-3 of them). Level 3 Tatyana (Gonbow) vs Perius (Ravashack): Malither Vivi (Dr.Funk) vs Zassl (Maraxus): Kaigan Level 4 Yasha Tankou (Gonbow) vs Nexa (Usurpator): Luni Alexi Wood (Mind Rogue) vs Shan (Shaken, not Stunned): Aramil Dunskar Mrs. Buttmunch (Sloisel) vs 1 Barghest [Monster]: Emrys Donovan
Mind Rogue 09-20-05, 10:24 AM	Alexi's tactics forwarded to TelinArtho (not that it does any good unless someone else responds too). I guess I might be able to do one of them, but don't necessarily count on it.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 10:25 AM	I'll shoot Shan a PM to see if he wants to send his tactics to me. Oh and tactics received. Well Shaken, not Stunned's PM box is full - so he'll have to check here for the update I guess.
Usurpator 09-20-05, 10:29 AM	@TelinArtho Thanks for the offer, but Luni already said she would pickup Yasha Tankou (Gonbow) vs Nexa (Usurpator): Michael Noah.
NiQil 09-20-05, 10:29 AM	Grapple Checks: Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is: Base attack bonus + Strength modifier + special size modifier WEAPON FINESSE [GENERAL] Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1. Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls. Special: A fighter may select Weapon Finesse as one of his fighter bonus feats. Natural weapons are always considered light weapons. Based on the above passages, is someone with weapon finesse able to use ther Dex modifier in place of the Strength modifier on grapple checks? It seems to me that you can, but I want to be sure. And no, I am not talking about the initial touch attack to start a grapple, but rather the opposed checks while in a grapple.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 10:31 AM	@TelinArtho Thanks for the offer, but Luni already said she would pickup Yasha Tankou (Gonbow) vs Nexa (Usurpator): Michael Noah. Made the edit above.
Kaigan 09-20-05, 10:34 AM	Vivi vs. Zassl will be up in a couple of hours.
waywreth 09-20-05, 10:38 AM	Based on the above passages, is someone with weapon finesse able to use ther Dex modifier in place of the Strength modifier on grapple checks? It seems to me that you can, but I want to be sure. And no, I am not talking about the initial touch attack to start a grapple, but rather the opposed checks while in a grapple. I would say no you cannot, as it's making a grappple check not making an attack roll. You could however use escape artist which is a dex based skill (and can be useable untrained I believe).
NiQil 09-20-05, 11:01 AM	I would say no you cannot, as it's making a grappple check not making an attack roll. You could however use escape artist which is a dex based skill (and can be useable untrained I believe). See...the part that has me thinking you can is the part that says that a grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Weapon finesse is usable on any attacks. Anyone else with an opinion?
Altaris13 09-20-05, 11:09 AM	As much as I would like it if that were the case NiQil, maintaining a grapple is very much strength based, mechanically and RL-physics.
Usurpator 09-20-05, 11:16 AM	See...the part that has me thinking you can is the part that says that a grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Weapon finesse is usable on any attacks. Anyone else with an opinion? It is like a melee attack roll, meaning you roll a d20 and add a number of modifiers to the roll, amongst them your BAB. Actually, it's both like an opposed attack roll and an opposed skill check. I don't think weapon finesse (and other modifiers) would apply unless they specifically said it would, it wouldn't make sense as well for a highly agile character to keep a big strong guy pinned down.
Emrys Donovan 09-20-05, 11:45 AM	The Matron decapitates a barghest. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7301058&postcount=405)
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 11:54 AM	@Emrys - monster fights use a different map - which is probably why sloisel didn't have the matron move (the map is much smaller). Just so you know for the future.
xanadu 09-20-05, 12:56 PM	Ellorion, First, thanks for running the fight of Solon vs. Elliak. I do have a few issues: 1. Elliak's first significant interaction only takes place at the end of round 12, technically she should have been disqualified in round 10. Or I am interpreting the 10-round rule incorrectly? This is true, but Elliak can use his skate speed and energy stun Solon in round 9. 2. I specifically stated to stay out of Energy Stun range (if possible), yet you have Solon consciously make a double move to end within energy stun range, which Solon is aware of, and while he has absolutely no reason to do so. Why? Solon was not aware of it because he did not know Elliak was behind that particuar obstacle. Solon successully moved and aquired LOS and fire with the exact same movement pattern the 2 previous turns. Why would he all of a sudden not perfom these same movements which had been successful? Also, it is very difficult to keep range attacks if an opponent is dancing in the central obstacle 3. Even if Solon did wanted to do a double move just to get her in sight again, there were many options to do so without getting within Energy Stun range, why didn't Solon take these? There were even options to get LOS on Elliak within a single move, thus enabling a shot, although these were within her energy stun range and thus shouldn't be taken. See #2. The movement pattern worked fine before, the only reason Solon wouldn;t take that pattern is if the Pitlord metagamed and said, "well since Elliak moved behind this obstacle, he'll go here instead..." 4. Minor issues, but maybe of concern in a rewrite: I have a +2 resistance bonus on my saves thanks to the scroll of protection from good (not a potion), but it only lasts 10 rounds, not 30. Same goes for most durations on some of the powerstones and potions of Elliak, since they are ML 1. How does she get 28 damage with one 3d6+3 energy ray? Solon has effective caster level 0 for divine scrolls that are on his ranger spell list. You can't use scroll if you are a third level ranger. You can critical hit on an energy ray because it is an attack roll. I can't do nothing about the poor save rolls and the fact that he rolled a 20 for that energy ray, but I think I shouldn't be in that position in the first place. My tactics were very clear about avoiding such a situation, and Elliak's continued evading and hiding would force him to forfeit the match. Everything was going as planned, as most of his buffs were running out and it would get easier and easier to get a few goods shots in, and without the skate it would get harder for him to evade me, I just can't believe you let Solon walk willingly into defeat. I'm a bit baffled.... :confused: As stated before, Solon did not walk willingly into defeat. If Solon does not know where Elliak is, he cannot be 100% sure that a particular route in unsafe to traverse. If he suddenly breaks off a pattern which was successful only because Elliak happened to be someone else this time, that would be Pitlord metagaming. Regarding forfeit, Elliak can easily attack round 9. Also, if Elliak is unable to attack, he doesn't automatically lose. He has a longspear and short ranged powers. His opponent cant run around the outsdie of the arena on a light warhorse and after 10 rounds claim victory. Dont take this the wrong way, but I have found it helpful never to underestimate your opponent. In your tactics, the first thing you said was "This should be fairly easy," which tells me you did not take seriously the possibility of losing. The arena is very small and there are 2 ways I have learned (mostly because of my opponents doing them to me) to have short ranged fighters attack long ranged specialists. First, there are numerous obstacles that block LOS. Not only does the distance fighter have to look which invariably forces him to get closer, they also may happen to stumble into you because they lose track of where you went. Second, is simply readying a move. Let's say you are comfortably 150 feet away and I ready a move against an attack. When your attack comes, my readied action triggers and now I move 60 feet towards you. We are now 90 feet away. Initiative resets, I move another 60 feet away towards you. Now I'm 30 feet away and can cast or manifest any power I want even without using any enlarge metamagic or psionic feat. Provided I didn't get hit with a critical, I'd knew there would be somepoint in the fight I'd get the energy stun off and Solon would have to make a save. If we are on a flat plain, then Elliak will lose everytime vs. a Solon. But in an arena where you lose track of your opponent it is simply not possible to always stay 200 feet away without metagaming.
Kaigan 09-20-05, 01:02 PM	Vivi vs. Zassl is up. Please check for errors, thanks. Kaigan
Gonbow 09-20-05, 01:23 PM	Thanks for running the fight... the 5 mirror images really screwed me. I did have 2 questions though. 1. Doesn't the 10 round rule apply since he spent 11 rounds buffing? 2. Could you link the post in the prison thread so I can update, I can't find it. I considered it, but given that I had him flying out of cover every now and then when he stated he wanted to stay behind cover, no. And yes; I was in the middle of making the post last night when the lab was shut down, I'm finishing it now.
Luni 09-20-05, 02:06 PM	Yasha vs Nexa is up. Find it Here: (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7302028&postcount=407) Feel free to let me know how many errors there are.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 02:09 PM	Level 3 Tatyana (Gonbow) vs Perius (Ravashack): Malither Level 4 Alexi Wood (Mind Rogue) vs Shan (Shaken, not Stunned): Aramil Dunskar Two fights left. If Shaken, not Stunned sends me tactics for Shan - I will run the level 4 fight. If the two for Malither's fight send me tactics, I could run that one. /d
waywreth 09-20-05, 02:17 PM	I considered it, but given that I had him flying out of cover every now and then when he stated he wanted to stay behind cover, no. And yes; I was in the middle of making the post last night when the lab was shut down, I'm finishing it now. Argh. 7 losses in a row. I'm determined to win one eventually. Oh well. In an unrelated note I vote TelinArtho a bonus credit on top of those he's earned for running all those extra fights. I know I'd be upset if my gladiators didn't get to battle it out.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 02:22 PM	Although I appreciate that my work is appreciated Waywreth - the extra credit isn't something I care about. I am more doing these fights to ensure that no one has to have a fight holdover - so if one of my fights looks like it will be held over, someone else could step in for the pitlord who is behind. Essentially a "Do Unto Others" approach. And thank you. /d
KerlanRayne 09-20-05, 02:26 PM	That just means that /can/ use a buckler when wielding a two-handed weapon and/or a weapon in your off hand. If you'll refer to the entire section, you'll see that the parts addressing the lack of AC bonus are quite specific to wielding a weapon in your off hand. If they intended to deprive you the buckler's AC bonus, why wouldn't they specify using a two handed weapon in that part, lilked they did in the part you quoted? This is both RAI and RAW, and I think your interpertation is incorrect. I have used buckler's like this since the inception of 3.5 and no one has ever challenged it before.Because that's where they define what using a weapon in your off hand means. Since they have already defined it they don't need to do it again. It seems that you keep your shield bonus and don't get the penalty if you are wielding a bow however. I think that is the point of the Buckler. KerlanRayne
NiQil 09-20-05, 02:38 PM	Because that's where they define what using a weapon in your off hand means. Since they have already defined it they don't need to do it again. It seems that you keep your shield bonus and don't get the penalty if you are wielding a bow however. I think that is the point of the Buckler. KerlanRayne Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. You can’t bash someone with a buckler. Here's the way I read this. Bows and crossbows....keep the AC bonus. One handed weapons not in the hand with the buckler...keep the AC bonus. Two one-handed weapons...one in opposite hand and one in the offhand that the buckler is on.....no AC bonus (this is what Two Weapon Defense is designed for...hence the reason it gives the same bonus as a buckler). Double ended weapon (two bladed sword, orc double axe, quarterstaff, etc) wielded as two weapons...no AC bonus. Two handed weapons (greataxe, greatsword, etc)...since it says that it considers wielding off handed weapons (for two weapon fighting purposes) and helping to wield a two-handed weapon (regardless of whether it is a double weapon like a quarterstaff or a greataxe) to be the same as far as a buckler goes....no AC bonus. In my opinion, bucklers are there to boost ranged combatants only (or combatants that only use one weapon in their primary hand with nothing else in their off hand....like spellcasters). The feat two weapon fighting is there for dual-wielders. Combatants that use two-handed weapons like the greataxe get no such boost.
King Uther 09-20-05, 02:39 PM	@Usurpator Balbanes wishes to save the soul of Nexa. Therefore a challenge needs to be issued. Is she available for a match?
Aramil Dunskar 09-20-05, 03:11 PM	@Any Pitlord: I have some RL issues I need to take care of, so I need to give my fight to someone, please post soon, and I'll send you the tatics from both of them. Thanks -Aramil
Emrys Donovan 09-20-05, 03:13 PM	A huge orc, a scythe in hand and a greatsword on back, walked through the crowd and came up behind a smaller half-orc and thumped him on the head. Turning around, the half-orc looked at the bigger orc, who spoke. You...shorty...me fight you...you agree? Greefe, Tzur wants to challenge Greefe to a fight.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 03:19 PM	@Any Pitlord: I have some RL issues I need to take care of, so I need to give my fight to someone, please post soon, and I'll send you the tatics from both of them. Thanks -Aramil I've posted about this a couple of times today - I've already got Alexi's tactics - if you are unable to do the fight - just send me Shan's and I'll run it for you. /d
nightbanegod 09-20-05, 03:50 PM	can someone help me with the experince distribution, This fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7298558&postcount=402) any help would be good since ive got alot of animals to consider... does Shakari's Croc get figured in? and both shakari and Maeril have hteir mounts so how does the exp count since they are on the same team?
NiQil 09-20-05, 03:56 PM	can someone help me with the experince distribution, This fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7298558&postcount=402) any help would be good since ive got alot of animals to consider... does Shakari's Croc get figured in? and both shakari and Maeril have hteir mounts so how does the exp count since they are on the same team? Here's your formula. For the losers: (((300 x 2) x 1.25 for the first mount) x 1.25 for the second mount)/2 = 468.75 xp/gp each. Since both opponents had mounts, they get a bonus for each. For the winners: (((900 x 2)/2) x 0.75 = 675 xp/gp for each. Since they each have a mount, they each get the same penalty. That is how I would do it if I had run the fight.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 04:01 PM	Team fight: Team A wins, Team B loses: Team A gets winner XP from member B-1 + B-2 divided by 2 (if they are the same ECL - then you can just take the value from one of them). Team B gets loser XP from member A-1 + A-2 divided by 2. If member A-1 has an ally worth 25%, then this is adjusted for A-1: (B-1 + B-2)/2 - 25%. A-2 would get the full (B-1+B-2)/2 xp. Team B both get increased amounts (A-1+25% + A-2)/2 And so forth. Class allies, like a druid's animal companion do not get counted. So - onto the numbers that you actually care about: Maeril and Shakari both brought horses, which gives them a 25% penalty. Since all 4 characters are ECL3, this means they get 675xp/gp each [(900+900)/2 = 900 - 25% for each player = 675xp/gp each]. The other two, didn't bring allies, so they get a 25% bonus. [(300*1.25+300*1.25)/2 = 375xp/gp each]
NiQil 09-20-05, 04:14 PM	Team fight: Team A wins, Team B loses: Team A gets winner XP from member B-1 + B-2 divided by 2 (if they are the same ECL - then you can just take the value from one of them). Team B gets loser XP from member A-1 + A-2 divided by 2. If member A-1 has an ally worth 25%, then this is adjusted for A-1: (B-1 + B-2)/2 - 25%. A-2 would get the full (B-1+B-2)/2 xp. Team B both get increased amounts (A-1+25% + A-2)/2 And so forth. Class allies, like a druid's animal companion do not get counted. So - onto the numbers that you actually care about: Maeril and Shakari both brought horses, which gives them a 25% penalty. Since all 4 characters are ECL3, this means they get 675xp/gp each [(900+900)/2 = 900 - 25% for each player = 675xp/gp each]. The other two, didn't bring allies, so they get a 25% bonus. [(300*1.25+300*1.25)/2 = 375xp/gp each] I disagree...for this reason. When you calculate rewards, you combine both shares together before applying extra rewards. If there had only been one horse, the losers would still get (300 x 2) x 1.25 = 750 / 2 = 375. Since there are two horses, you need to multiply the bonus in twice...otherwise they are not getting a bonus for each horse. Hence 300 x 2 = 600 x 1.25 = 750 x 1.25 = 937.5 / 2 = 468.75. Your way, you are shorting the losers a bonus for the second horse.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 04:17 PM	I could be wrong - but I must say that this is the way it has been done before - so I'm assuming I'm right. Essentially if a team has one horse, this is not as significant of a benefit as having two horses. However, the benefit of one member having a horse in a team fight is not as great as having a horse against someone without one in a 1 on 1 fight. I'll have to call up the rules thread on this and see how it would work, though I don't remember a specific example on it.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 04:20 PM	The allies I thread doesn't have a specific example drawn out, but here's the text: Multiplayer Fights: If you face more than one gladiator, you calculate xp and gold for each opponent gladiator seperately, add the results together, and divide it by the number of allied gladiators you have. So my method presented above is the correct amount.
NiQil 09-20-05, 04:21 PM	I could be wrong - but I must say that this is the way it has been done before - so I'm assuming I'm right. Essentially if a team has one horse, this is not as significant of a benefit as having two horses. However, the benefit of one member having a horse in a team fight is not as great as having a horse against someone without one in a 1 on 1 fight. I'll have to call up the rules thread on this and see how it would work, though I don't remember a specific example on it. The losers definitely should get a bonus for each horse. There are two ways to account for this. 300 x 2 = 600 x 1.25 = 750 x 1.25 = 937.5 / 2 = 468.75 or 300 x 2 = 600 x 1.50 (adding the two 25% bonuses together) = 900 / 2 = 450 gp/xp. Now that I think about it, the bonuses probably should be added together, meaning my second formula would be the correct one...but either way...the bonus has to be for two horses, not one.
NiQil 09-20-05, 04:23 PM	The allies I thread doesn't have a specific example drawn out, but here's the text: So my method presented above is the correct amount. By what you posted, then what your method would be is ((300 + 25% + 25%) + (300 + 25% + 25%)) / 2 so that each loser gets a bonus from each horse...and then add them together and divide by two. So it would be the same as my second formula, which works out to 450 gp/xp apiece. Again...your version only gives a bonus for one horse, not two.
Luni 09-20-05, 04:24 PM	Here's your formula. For the losers: (((300 x 2) x 1.25 for the first mount) x 1.25 for the second mount)/2 = 468.75 xp/gp each. Since both opponents had mounts, they get a bonus for each. For the winners: (((900 x 2)/2) x 0.75 = 675 xp/gp for each. Since they each have a mount, they each get the same penalty. That is how I would do it if I had run the fight. Your being inconsistent NiQil. For consistencies sake: (((900 x 2) x0.75) x0.75)/2= 506.25 for the winners and 468.75 for the losers. Since that doesn't seem right, I'm going to say TelinArtho is right. And the crocodile doens't count.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 04:28 PM	No - you aren't reading the text right: you calculate xp and gold for each opponent gladiator seperately So, for Maeril - he gives a loser share to his opponents equal to 300+25% (375). The same goes for Shakari. add the results together 375+375=750 and divide it by the number of allied gladiators you have. 750/2 = 375xp/gp. By the same token, the two losers give 900xp/gp winners shares, which are added together (1800) and then divided by the number of winning gladiators (2) to give a total share of 900xp/gp. This is then modified by the allies they have, meaning they each get 675xp/gp. If only one of them had a horse, then one member would get 675 and the other would get 900.
NiQil 09-20-05, 04:29 PM	Your being inconsistent NiQil. For consistencies sake: (((900 x 2) x0.75) x0.75)/2= 506.25 for the winners and 468.75 for the losers. Since that doesn't seem right, I'm going to say TelinArtho is right. And the crocodile doens't count. I corrected myself. Besides.....you don't take a penalty for each mount...you only take a penalty for your own mount. Same with the other party. Winners should be getting (900 - 25%) + (900 - 25%) / 2 = 675 gp/xp for the winners...again...you don't take a penalty for the other person's mount. Losers should be getting (300 + 25% + 25%) + (300 + 25% + 25%) / 2 = 450 xp/gp because the losers get a bonus for each mount.
NiQil 09-20-05, 04:30 PM	No - you aren't reading the text right: So, for Maeril - he gives a loser share to his opponents equal to 300+25% (375). The same goes for Shakari. 375+375=750 750/2 = 375xp/gp. By the same token, the two losers give 900xp/gp winners shares, which are added together (1800) and then divided by the number of winning gladiators (2) to give a total share of 900xp/gp. This is then modified by the allies they have, meaning they each get 675xp/gp. If only one of them had a horse, then one member would get 675 and the other would get 900. We agree that the winner's (Shakari and Maeril) each get 675 xp/gp. We differ on the losers. You are saying they should only get credit for one mount each. I say they get credit for 2 mounts each. Thus, your formula gives them the same reward regardless of whether there was one mount or two involved. How does that seem right? The losers get a bonus for each mount. 300 + 25% + 25% for each loser.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 04:35 PM	The losers are getting a bonus for each mount, its just that an individual mount is worth less in a team fight than in a 1 on 1 fight. I know I am right on this matter NiQil. I'm sorry to be adamant on this - but I think the rules are quite clear: 1. You calculate each member of the fight separately. If A brings a mount (worth a 25% difference) and B doesn't and they are on the same team, A is worth 1.25 and B is worth 1. 2. Then you add them together 1.25+1=2.25 3. And divide them by the number of opposing gladiators 2.25/2 = 1.125
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 04:40 PM	We agree that the winner's (Shakari and Maeril) each get 675 xp/gp. We differ on the losers. You are saying they should only get credit for one mount each. I say they get credit for 2 mounts each. Thus, your formula gives them the same reward regardless of whether there was one mount or two involved. How does that seem right? The losers get a bonus for each mount. 300 + 25% + 25% for each loser. I see where your confusion is, I think. Let's use an example where one member of a team fight has a mount and the other doesn't - and the other team doesn't have anything. For simplicity, we'll use a ECL3 fight: Team 1 A has a horse (25% penalty) B does not Team 2 C and D do not Team 1 wins. They get (900+900)/2 = 900xp each. A gets a 25% penalty though, so he only gets 675xp/gp. Team 2 loses. They get ((300+25%)+300)/2=(375+300)/2 = 337.5xp/gp. Since neither of them have allies, they both get the same amount.
NiQil 09-20-05, 04:45 PM	The losers are getting a bonus for each mount, its just that an individual mount is worth less in a team fight than in a 1 on 1 fight. I know I am right on this matter NiQil. I'm sorry to be adamant on this - but I think the rules are quite clear: 1. You calculate each member of the fight separately. If A brings a mount (worth a 25% difference) and B doesn't and they are on the same team, A is worth 1.25 and B is worth 1. 2. Then you add them together 1.25+1=2.25 3. And divide them by the number of opposing gladiators 2.25/2 = 1.125 Your formula is correct. I won't dispute that. What I am disputing is that you are not giving EACH player credit for 2 mounts. Your results would be the same whether there had been one mount in the fight or two. That can't be correct, or fair.
NiQil 09-20-05, 04:48 PM	I see where your confusion is, I think. Let's use an example where one member of a team fight has a mount and the other doesn't - and the other team doesn't have anything. For simplicity, we'll use a ECL3 fight: Team 1 A has a horse (25% penalty) B does not Team 2 C and D do not Team 1 wins. They get (900+900)/2 = 900xp each. A gets a 25% penalty though, so he only gets 675xp/gp. Team 2 loses. They get ((300+25%)+300)/2=(375+300)/2 = 337.5xp/gp. Since neither of them have allies, they both get the same amount. Ok......now I see where you are coming from, and I see where my error is. You are right, I am wrong.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 04:53 PM	I'm sorry that we had to go back and forth on it - but it wasn't until that last post that it finally dawned on me where you were thinking I was making the mistake. I'm glad that we got it cleared up though. Anyway, Nightbanegod - if you haven't burst a gasket waiting: 675xp/gp for each winner, 375xp/gp for each loser. The math was done in my original response to you.
nightbanegod 09-20-05, 05:01 PM	heh and i thought i was just looking at something really complicated with the small army team A had vs team B.. ohh well it ended up alot easier than i thought. thanks guys im editing in the rewards now
Maraxus 09-20-05, 05:09 PM	Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. You can’t bash someone with a buckler. ... Bows and crossbows: keep the AC bonus. One handed weapons not in the hand with the buckler: keep the AC bonus. Two one-handed weapons: no AC bonus Double ended weapon: no AC bonus Two handed weapons: no AC bonus. ... Hey, we allready had this. I go even further. I say by RAW, you don't get the AC bonus, when using a bow or crossbow. By RAW! The text above sais: "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." Note, that not getting a bonus is no penalty. And then it sais: "In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round." If you use a weapon in your off hand - be it a two handed weapon and even a bow, you don't get the AC bonus. And not getting a bonus is no penalty. A good example what a penalty is, is given: you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. and obviously this is the penalty you don't take with a bow. Funny note at the side: Hey, by the litterally interpretation of "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." you only need to take a buckler and your bow and xbow attacks don't suffer from Dazzled, Entangled, Shaken or frightened or Squeezing through a space. Obviously, this interpretation is really stupid, but it is RAW (and I will make use of it, if no official statement is made against energy-missling vs equipment ;))
NiQil 09-20-05, 05:13 PM	Hey, we allready had this. I go even further. I say by RAW, you don't get the AC bonus, when using a bow or crossbow. By RAW! The text above sais: "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." Note, that not getting a bonus is no penalty. And then it sais: "In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round." If you use a weapon in your off hand - be it a two handed weapon and even a bow, you don't get the AC bonus. And not getting a bonus is no penalty. A good example what a penalty is, is given: you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. and obviously this is the penalty you don't take with a bow. Funny note at the side: Hey, by the litterally interpretation of "You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it." you only need to take a buckler and your bow and xbow attacks don't suffer from Dazzled, Entangled, Shaken or frightened or Squeezing through a space. Obviously, this interpretation is really stupid, but it is RAW (and I will make use of it, if no official statement is made against energy-missling vs equipment ;)) There already was....King Uther posted already that the use vs equipment bit was limited to unattended equipment....of which nothing on your person is unattended. As an aside...it's really not a good idea to say that you are going to use obviously incorrect interpretations of the rules until something else is changed. It decreases the integrity of all pitlords, in my opinion.
Altaris13 09-20-05, 05:28 PM	Wow. Bucklers are weak. What the hell is the point of them then?
Sindorin 09-20-05, 05:28 PM	The issue with drawing scrolls while moving not being allowed has been resolved in Kraegin vs. Lothan. I basically reran the entire fight, pasting the old rolls/results in. The fight went very much the same, except for longer, and different contingencies of tactics triggered, and I got a bit confused, but I think rule-wise it is legit now. I'm not touching it anymore.
Maraxus 09-20-05, 05:31 PM	There already was....King Uther posted already that the use vs equipment bit was limited to unattended equipment....of which nothing on your person is unattended. As an aside...it's really not a good idea to say that you are going to use obviously incorrect interpretations of the rules until something else is changed. It decreases the integrity of all pitlords, in my opinion. Cool, did not notice that ... only thing I saw is that a week after that happened the first time, it happened again. And the second part... Sorry, was not meant seriously. I should have used :rolleyes: instead of ;)? Altaris13: The point of bucklers? Well, vs. the light shield you trade the ability to use the hand and switch it on and of for using bows or X-Bows, at a cost of ... nothing. There is always something wrong if you get something for nothing but in this case, it is fine. PS: Okay, bucklers can't be spiked, so this is a good deal.
Emrys Donovan 09-20-05, 05:33 PM	Wow. Bucklers are weak. What the hell is the point of them then?Can you say wizards/sorcerers/other spellcasters that need an open hand to cast spells?
NiQil 09-20-05, 05:34 PM	Cool, did not notice that ... only thing I saw is that a week after that happened the first time, it happened again. And the second part... Sorry, was not meant seriously. I should have used :rolleyes: instead of ;)? No worries....I figured as much...just didn't want anyone to get the wrong impression if they happened to skim the posts.
Usurpator 09-20-05, 05:36 PM	@Xanadu I think adding a picture will help to illustrate my confusion about Solon's choice: http://www.greyhawk.nl/images/coc/solon_elliak1.jpg E to the left is Elliak on round 11, E to the right is Elliak on round 12, using coordinates from the fight. I have indicated Solon's LOS with orange lines, meaning that he cannot see the space between the orange lines and behind the pillars. Which means he would have seen Elliak move behind the pillar, and didn't see him exit at the other side. In other words, he would know with a fair amount of certainty where Elliak would be, and moving a few squares to the upper-right corner would have confirmed that, and would give Solon the chance for a shot. Alternately, he could move a lot to the left end of the map, creating an angle that way and take a shot. Taking a double move towards Elliak (violating my tactics) and not taking a shot seemed very strange in this setup. I hope that makes it clear why I have a big problem with Solon's choice of movement in round 12. EDIT: when I look at it, it even seem like Solon can see Elliak on the start of his turn, since you can take any corner of your square to any corner of an opponents square to determine LOS. Elliak does get a Hide check due to cover in that case.. You can critical hit on an energy ray because it is an attack roll. Sure, I know that, but I didn't see a roll to confirm. Regarding forfeit, Elliak can easily attack round 9. Also, if Elliak is unable to attack, he doesn't automatically lose. He has a longspear and short ranged powers. His opponent cant run around the outsdie of the arena on a light warhorse and after 10 rounds claim victory. Then Elliak should attack in round 9. He should move forward instead of hiding and readying. Solon was trying to get LOS and launch arrows, Elliak was retreating constantly. It was clear who was chasing who. Dont take this the wrong way, but I have found it helpful never to underestimate your opponent. In your tactics, the first thing you said was "This should be fairly easy," which tells me you did not take seriously the possibility of losing. The arena is very small and there are 2 ways I have learned (mostly because of my opponents doing them to me) to have short ranged fighters attack long ranged specialists. In comparison to most of my other fights, this seemed relatively easy. You admitted as much yourself in your own tactics, saying you had only one option to have a hope of winning. No problem with your comments. I, if anyone should apologize for my choice of words, because in hindsight its not a respectful thing to say that it will be 'an easy fight'.... Especially when you I get my butt kicked. :D First, there are numerous obstacles that block LOS. Not only does the distance fighter have to look which invariably forces him to get closer, they also may happen to stumble into you because they lose track of where you went. See the map. Solon has 18 Int, figure it out yourself. Even we can guess where Elliak went, and I sure don't have 18 Int. Second, is simply readying a move. Let's say you are comfortably 150 feet away and I ready a move against an attack. When your attack comes, my readied action triggers and now I move 60 feet towards you. We are now 90 feet away. Initiative resets, I move another 60 feet away towards you. Now I'm 30 feet away and can cast or manifest any power I want even without using any enlarge metamagic or psionic feat. No problem with that, but that's not what happened here. That's why I specified to shoot and then move whenever possible. Obviously with Elliak constantly hiding between the pillars, Solon has to take more risks or else risk being disqualified, risks Elliak didn't take. Provided I didn't get hit with a critical, I'd knew there would be somepoint in the fight I'd get the energy stun off and Solon would have to make a save. If we are on a flat plain, then Elliak will lose everytime vs. a Solon. But in an arena where you lose track of your opponent it is simply not possible to always stay 200 feet away without metagaming. I agree, Pitlords should have enoug leeway not to be bound by a literal interpretation fo the tacitcs, but it was strange in this particular instance, if you look at the map I provided. Keeping 75 ft. and shooting at you would be possible without problem. No metagaming required. I sent an e-mail to Ellorion explaining this and some other points.
NiQil 09-20-05, 05:36 PM	Can you say wizards/sorcerers/other spellcasters that need an open hand to cast spells? Wizards and sorcerers are not proficient with shields....and clerics and druids would take light shields since they can still cast with them (by switching weapons to that hand) and can attach armor spikes. Which is why I maintain my stance that bucklers are specifically for archers/bowman. I think that the entry is poorly worded...because by the RAW, Maraxus is technically correct.
Usurpator 09-20-05, 05:54 PM	@Usurpator Balbanes wishes to save the soul of Nexa. Therefore a challenge needs to be issued. Is she available for a match? "Balbanes you say? And you call yourself an Avatar of Life? From what I have heard your exploits are firmly rooted in death, not in life. And you wish to save my soul? From whom I wonder?" "I have watched you, watched you squander precious resources like no other gladiator I have seen. The branches and leaves of your exploits and victories are rooted in loose soil. It is only the plentiful golden rain that has kept you on a winning streak. I believe that people should be rooted firmly in solid ground, therefore I have saved most of my winnings where you have spent them." "I have watched other less wise gladiators accept your wild challenges, knowing you would spent your gold to acquire precisely those items needed to defeat your opponents. I am seriously contemplating if it is worth my reserves to put a stop to your wanton dominion here and now and for good. But I also know a forest is not grown in a day, and a religion not matured in a week. I am convinced we will meet some day in battle, but I am not yet convinced that that day should be now." Nexa of the Twin Paths
Altaris13 09-20-05, 05:57 PM	I'm leaning to agree with NiQil. Bucklers, traditionally, were used by duelists who kept a short blade in their off hand and by archers. It was an item that is designed to offer some protection with minimal hinderance.
NiQil 09-20-05, 06:00 PM	I'm leaning to agree with NiQil. Bucklers, traditionally, were used by duelists who kept a short blade in their off hand and by archers. It was an item that is designed to offer some protection with minimal hinderance. And since duelists have a feat to provide them with this bonus, we take them out of the equation, leaving archers/bowman with the bucklers.
Usurpator 09-20-05, 06:00 PM	Luni, thank you for taking over the fight between Nexa and Yasha! I know about the bow, but I made a bit of RP-ing decision to take mostly weapons that cost next to nothing. A good composite bow is rather expensive, I think, a sling will have to do for now. The fight seem good at a glance, when I have time to go over it with more attention and I find something, I will let you know. Gotta go and get some sleep now though.... :zzz:
Maraxus 09-20-05, 06:09 PM	Yes, and archers will take the buckler. - Mythos had none in the beginning, too. But the fact, that I get +1 AC unless I fire my bow for absolutely nothing but a few gp made me take one.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 06:14 PM	The issue with drawing scrolls while moving not being allowed has been resolved in Kraegin vs. Lothan. I basically reran the entire fight, pasting the old rolls/results in. The fight went very much the same, except for longer, and different contingencies of tactics triggered, and I got a bit confused, but I think rule-wise it is legit now. I'm not touching it anymore. Thank you for your dilligence on this matter - I realize it probably seemed like a waste of time since the result did not change - but if the rules of fights are cleaned up, then we will see less and less of people using the wrong rules in situations like this (such as drawing a scroll while moving). I truly appreciate it.
xanadu 09-20-05, 06:15 PM	@Xanadu I think adding a picture will help to illustrate my confusion about Solon's choice: http://www.greyhawk.nl/images/coc/solon_elliak1.jpg E to the left is Elliak on round 11, E to the right is Elliak on round 12, using coordinates from the fight. I have indicated Solon's LOS with orange lines, meaning that he cannot see the space between the orange lines and behind the pillars. Which means he would have seen Elliak move behind the pillar, and didn't see him exit at the other side. In other words, he would know with a fair amount of certainty where Elliak would be, and moving a few squares to the upper-right corner would have confirmed that, and would give Solon the chance for a shot. Alternately, he could move a lot to the left end of the map, creating an angle that way and take a shot. Taking a double move towards Elliak (violating my tactics) and not taking a shot seemed very strange in this setup. I hope that makes it clear why I have a big problem with Solon's choice of movement in round 12. You are assuming Elliak would move north and then to the right. If you can give me a convincing reason why anyone with over a 5 intelligence would move in such a way rather than Southeast then Northeast, I will grant you Solon would have known he was there. Until then, I believe it is a fair statement to say Solon completely lost track of where Elliak was. Then Elliak should attack in round 9. He should move forward instead of hiding and readying. Solon was trying to get LOS and launch arrows, Elliak was retreating constantly. It was clear who was chasing who. If that happens the same rolls are used and the results will be the same, so I would not have a problem with that. In comparison to most of my other fights, this seemed relatively easy. You admitted as much yourself in your own tactics, saying you had only one option to have a hope of winning. No problem with your comments. I, if anyone should apologize for my choice of words, because in hindsight its not a respectful thing to say that it will be 'an easy fight'.... Especially when you I get my butt kicked. :D Respect is not an issue here. I love it when my opponents dismiss my glaidators because they will not be as well prepared as they normally would be. By all means, please say similar things when fighting me in the future :) I knew full well that if you made the stun save, the chances of winning this fight were 1%; that's the reality of the situation. However, I also knew that the odds were fairly good that I'd get that stun off one way or another. I wouldn't say you got you butt kicked, you just happened to miss an important saving throww See the map. Solon has 18 Int, figure it out yourself. Even we can guess where Elliak went, and I sure don't have 18 Int. Addressed above. No, if he goes south and breaks LOS there is no way of knowing where he went. I agree, Pitlords should have enoug leeway not to be bound by a literal interpretation fo the tacitcs, but it was strange in this particular instance, if you look at the map I provided. Keeping 75 ft. and shooting at you would be possible without problem. No metagaming required. This is not good enough to prevent a stunning attack because Elliak can move 60 feet and still get a stun off 60 feet away (i.e. round 9).
Sindorin 09-20-05, 06:21 PM	Thank you for your dilligence on this matter - I realize it probably seemed like a waste of time since the result did not change - but if the rules of fights are cleaned up, then we will see less and less of people using the wrong rules in situations like this (such as drawing a scroll while moving). I truly appreciate it. In a way I am glad you brought the point up because now I won't be pitlording as wrongly. I'm sorry the results didn't change, though they did make the fight a bit more interesting.
Gonbow 09-20-05, 06:22 PM	Yasha vs Nexa is up. Find it Here: (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7302028&postcount=407) Feel free to let me know how many errors there are. Thanks for taking the fight and getting it up Luni. I don't see any mechanical problems for the majority of the fight; Your quite correct in that as I did not state any contingencies for spike stones/entagle it went rather badly for me. I certainly wouldn't have moved through 9 squares of spike stones and taken 22 damage =/ But that's my fault. In round 8, Yasha could/should have just stayed where she was/five-stepped and attacked Nexa with a 20' reach, rather than move close enough to get counter-attacked. And I should have tried to trip Nexa, which would have been against AC 19 instead of 27. (I got a 14 so this doesn't REALLY matter, but it's good to mention for future reference.)
Luni 09-20-05, 06:26 PM	Thanks for taking the fight and getting it up Luni. I don't see any mechanical problems for the majority of the fight; Your quite correct in that as I did not state any contingencies for spike stones/entagle it went rather badly for me. I certainly wouldn't have moved through 9 squares of spike stones and taken 22 damage =/ But that's my fault. In round 8, Yasha could/should have just stayed where she was/five-stepped and attacked Nexa with a 20' reach, rather than move close enough to get counter-attacked. And I should have tried to trip Nexa, which would have been against AC 19 instead of 27. (I got a 14 so this doesn't REALLY matter, but it's good to mention for future reference.) Yasha has zero ways of determing where the spikes stones are. Makes things really hard for me. I considered moving a little ways, and then drawing your bow, but I thought that melee was more for your preference. Well, I considered just having Yasha take a 5' step, but I think that getting out of the Entangle Field, vs her withdrawing, and you losing your rage, plus getting re-entangled would of been worse off for Yasha.
Maraxus 09-20-05, 06:41 PM	Thank you for your dilligence on this matter - I realize it probably seemed like a waste of time since the result did not change - but if the rules of fights are cleaned up, then we will see less and less of people using the wrong rules in situations like this (such as drawing a scroll while moving). I truly appreciate it. Hm, it's rule that you can only draw easily accesable items, like weapons while moving. This is a general question, no attempt to change anything at the rules! Why, can't one place a scroll somewhere easily accesable? Okay, the opponent would have the ability to snatch it from you, but if one wanted to anyway, why couldn't one? :)
Luni 09-20-05, 06:46 PM	Hm, it's rule that you can only draw easily accesable items, like weapons while moving. This is a general question, no attempt to change anything at the rules! Why, can't one place a scroll somewhere easily accesable? Okay, the opponent would have the ability to snatch it from you, but if one wanted to anyway, why couldn't one? :) Because the goal is to Keep IT Simple. If we start allowing people to list what is easily accessibility or not, we start making things more complicated. I don't think losing an action to draw a scroll is a big deal. You can always buy a wand, which can be drawn while moving.
NiQil 09-20-05, 06:48 PM	Hm, it's rule that you can only draw easily accesable items, like weapons while moving. This is a general question, no attempt to change anything at the rules! Why, can't one place a scroll somewhere easily accesable? Okay, the opponent would have the ability to snatch it from you, but if one wanted to anyway, why couldn't one? :) It would seem to me it is because scrolls are generally kept in scroll cases so as to not damage the scrolls....and the time needed to draw a scroll is a representation of taking that case out, opening it, and then taking the scroll out and unrolling it. That's how I always thought of it, anyway.
TelinArtho 09-20-05, 06:49 PM	From the SRD about drawing items as weapons: Drawing a weapon so that you can use it in combat, or putting it away so that you have a free hand, requires a move action. This action also applies to weapon-like objects carried in easy reach, such as wands. If your weapon or weapon-like object is stored in a pack or otherwise out of easy reach, treat this action as retrieving a stored item. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. The fact of the matter is that a scroll is not a "weapon-like object" - so no matter how easily it is tied to your belt, it will still be a move action.
King Uther 09-20-05, 09:12 PM	Balbanes, his wings cating a large shadow over Nexa. "So be it. Fear is surely a strange emotion, making one who is strong and confident doubt themselves. Perhaps you have made the right choice, but know now the Harvester can travel unabashed into your soul and rob it of its essence. You have made your choice." Note: In the scope of things my expenditures are pennies. Trust me.
NiQil 09-20-05, 09:25 PM	While rolling opposed attack rolls (such as in a grapple or in a disarm attempt), does a natural 1 mean automatic failure as it does for a normal attac roll? For the attacker (that is, the character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a grapple check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the defender rolls. Although the defender's roll is called an "opposed attack roll," the defender is really just setting the DC for the attacker: 1s and 20s aren't special for the defender. Just apply the defender's modifiers to set the DC for the attacker. If both the attacker and the defender roll a 1, the attacker fails. If both the attacker and the defender roll a 20, the attacker succeeds. Note that you cannot get a hold on a foe two or more sizes larger than you (see page 137 in the Player's Handbook). All of the foregoing assumes that you are indeed making an opposed attack roll, which is subject to automatic success or failure. Checks are not subject to automatic success or failure. For example, if you are making an opposed check (as you would when making a Hide check opposed by a foe's Spot check), a roll of 1 or 20 has no special significance. Alright...according to this, grapple checks are opposed attack rolls. If this is held true (i.e., the definition was not changed in 3.5, which as far as I know it was not), then Weapon Finesse *can allow Dexterity to be applied to an opposed grapple check in place of Strength, since Weapon Finesse applies to all attack rolls. Can I please get a ruling on this? This could mean a big difference for some characters (yes, mine is one of them LOL)
LongArcher 09-20-05, 11:32 PM	Alright...according to this, grapple checks are opposed attack rolls. If this is held true (i.e., the definition was not changed in 3.5, which as far as I know it was not), then Weapon Finesse *can allow Dexterity to be applied to an opposed grapple check in place of Strength, since Weapon Finesse applies to all attack rolls. Can I please get a ruling on this? This could mean a big difference for some characters (yes, mine is one of them LOL) Well, to be perfectly honest, I thought it was completely natural that it would be so. /amz
NiQil 09-20-05, 11:36 PM	Well, to be perfectly honest, I thought it was completely natural that it would be so. /amz I did as well....but I asked earlier today and got mostly no's...so I went digging to try and make a case for myself LOL
Tellish_of_Ket 09-21-05, 12:25 AM	Alright...according to this, grapple checks are opposed attack rolls. If this is held true (i.e., the definition was not changed in 3.5, which as far as I know it was not), then Weapon Finesse *can allow Dexterity to be applied to an opposed grapple check in place of Strength, since Weapon Finesse applies to all attack rolls. Can I please get a ruling on this? This could mean a big difference for some characters (yes, mine is one of them LOL) There isn't anything stating that in the 3.5 FAQ, but there shouldn't be. The 3.5 PHB made this issue clear by stating that it is "like an attack roll" and thus needs to follow the same rules. 1's auto-miss, 20's auto-success, and threaten to critical. However, your weapon finesse idea doesn't apply, because it is a GRAPPLE. Though it is "like an attack roll", it also has it's own structure to follow, Bab+Strength+Feats+Size....etc. -ToK
NiQil 09-21-05, 12:35 AM	There isn't anything stating that in the 3.5 FAQ, but there shouldn't be. The 3.5 PHB made this issue clear by stating that it is "like an attack roll" and thus needs to follow the same rules. 1's auto-miss, 20's auto-success, and threaten to critical. However, your weapon finesse idea doesn't apply, because it is a GRAPPLE. Though it is "like an attack roll", it also has it's own structure to follow, Bab+Strength+Feats+Size....etc. -ToK There is one problem with your logic, ToK....3.0 ALSO says it is "like an attack roll." So, by your own logic, my argument is the correct one, per the 3.0 FAQ. Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. A grapple check is something like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is:..... Check it out for yourself, if you have access to a 3.0 book. They use the same wording. Therefore, by your own logic, Weapon Finesse does apply. The 3.0 FAQ says that that wording constitutes a melee attack roll....and Weapon Finesse applies to all attack rolls.
NiQil 09-21-05, 01:06 AM	To be concise, here are all of the relevant quotes for my argument. The 3.0 PHB uses this language when talking about a grapple check: Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. A grapple check is something like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is:..... The 3.0 FAQ explains this language in this way: While rolling opposed attack rolls (such as in a grapple or in a disarm attempt), does a natural 1 mean automatic failure as it does for a normal attack roll? For the attacker (that is, the character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a grapple check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the defender rolls. Although the defender's roll is called an "opposed attack roll," the defender is really just setting the DC for the attacker: 1s and 20s aren't special for the defender. Just apply the defender's modifiers to set the DC for the attacker. If both the attacker and the defender roll a 1, the attacker fails. If both the attacker and the defender roll a 20, the attacker succeeds. Note that you cannot get a hold on a foe two or more sizes larger than you (see page 137 in the Player's Handbook). All of the foregoing assumes that you are indeed making an opposed attack roll, which is subject to automatic success or failure. Checks are not subject to automatic success or failure. For example, if you are making an opposed check (as you would when making a Hide check opposed by a foe's Spot check), a roll of 1 or 20 has no special significance. This defines grapple checks as opposed attack rolls. Now here is the same information from the 3.5 PHB: Repeatedly in a grapple, you need to make opposed grapple checks against an opponent. A grapple check is like a melee attack roll. Your attack bonus on a grapple check is:… This is virtually the same wording as the 3.0 book. Using these three quotes, it looks to me like grapples, as defined by the 3.0 FAQ, are opposed attack rolls. The reason this is important is: Weapon Finesse [General] You are especially skilled at using weapons that can benefit as much from Dexterity as from Strength. Prerequisite: Base attack bonus +1. Benefit: With a light weapon, rapier, whip, or spiked chain made for a creature of your size category, you may use your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier on attack rolls. If you carry a shield, its armor check penalty applies to your attack rolls. Special: A fighter may select Weapon Finesse as one of his fighter bonus feats (see page 38). Natural weapons are always considered light weapons. Unarmed Strike Damage: An unarmed strike from a Medium character deals 1d3 points of damage (plus your Strength modifier, as normal). A Small character’s unarmed strike deals 1d2 points of damage, while a Large character’s unarmed strike deals 1d4 points of damage. All damage from unarmed strikes is nonlethal damage. Unarmed strikes count as light weapons (for purposes of two-weapon attack penalties and so on). Since unarmed strikes can be used with weapon finesse, and grapple checks are unarmed opposed attack rolls, and weapon finesse applies to all attack rolls for eligible weapons, I see this as allowing Dexterity to be used in opposed grapple checks in place of Strength.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-21-05, 01:24 AM	If you were using your unarmed strikes to damage your foe, i would completely agree with you. But the specific, overrules the general. In this case, bab+strength+feats+size. -ToK
NiQil 09-21-05, 01:33 AM	If you were using your unarmed strikes to damage your foe, i would completely agree with you. But the specific, overrules the general. In this case, bab+strength+feats+size. -ToK I can go that route as well, and still make my case. In the glossary of the 3.5 PHB, page 305, a melee attack roll is defined as: 1d20 + base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier In the same glossary on page 309 a grapple check is defined as: 1d20 + base attack modifier + Strength modifier + special size modifier The only difference here is the size modifier. Everything else is the same. Since, on melee attack rolls, you can substitute Strength out and Dexterity in, once again, I believe Weapon Finesse would allow you to substitute out Strength and Dexterity in. Especially when you factor in all of the quotes I have presented.
Usurpator 09-21-05, 01:35 AM	You are assuming Elliak would move north and then to the right. If you can give me a convincing reason why anyone with over a 5 intelligence would move in such a way rather than Southeast then Northeast, I will grant you Solon would have known he was there. Until then, I believe it is a fair statement to say Solon completely lost track of where Elliak was. I had considered that: A. Because Solon can see Elliak can roughly estimate the distance that Elliak can move in one turn. B. Solon can see the first few squares, thus he can see if Elliak took the northern or southern route. C. If Elliak did take the southern route, it would make sense for Solon to go left and up, not right and down as he did in the battle, to get LOS, since Elliak might just have well moved further down instead of further right. However I look at it, Solon took a move a didn't expect, at all. There was no reason to go against my tactics and come so close to risk trigger a readied action. Even if it changes nothing in this fight, which it probably won't (see below), I like to know how Pitlords decide such things. If that happens the same rolls are used and the results will be the same, so I would not have a problem with that. I PM'ed this to Ellorion as well. However it plays out, my failed save and natural 20 for your first attack have to stand. I don't know how strict the rule about the 10-round delay is here, but had I been Pitlording I would have Elliak do a single move out and try to stun in round 9, and then follow up with an energy ray, rather than risking the 10 round limit. Oh, one last thing in case you didn't realize: stun lasts 1 round. In D&D 1 rond means 'to just before your next initiative' (like a monk's stunning blow), so Solon wouldn't be stunned when you launch that energy ray. It might not matter for the initial hit, but it surely would for the roll to confirm. And with 13.5 damage average on a roll, and with Solon at 13 hit points, there is a 30% chance he will not die immediately. Obviously, I would like to take that chance.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-21-05, 01:41 AM	I can go that route as well, and still make my case. In the glossary of the 3.5 PHB, page 305, a melee attack roll is defined as: 1d20 + base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier In the same glossary on page 309 a grapple check is defined as: 1d20 + base attack modifier + Strength modifier + special size modifier The only difference here is the size modifier. Everything else is the same. Since, on melee attack rolls, you can substitute Strength out and Dexterity in, once again, I believe Weapon Finesse would allow you to substitute out Strength and Dexterity in. Especially when you factor in all of the quotes I have presented. It makes perfect sense and logic how it could be applies. Except for that ONE overriding rule of them all...the specific overrides the general. At least, that's my opinion. But i'd welcome other view points though. Sorry if my mantra seems a little frustrating to you. I do know what you are saying, and why it should be allowed, but i don't think it is, based on the specific. I could still be wrong though. -ToK
KerlanRayne 09-21-05, 05:25 AM	Wizards and sorcerers are not proficient with shields.They don't have to be. A Masterwork buckler has no ACP. A Mithral one also has no ASF. KerlanRayne
Vathelokai 09-21-05, 06:46 AM	And that's why Auburn has a mithral +1 buckler :)
Pittbull 09-21-05, 07:06 AM	Rerun of Anya vs the Harvester has been made, just look here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7285097&postcount=393).
michael_noah 09-21-05, 08:54 AM	Since unarmed strikes can be used with weapon finesse, and grapple checks are unarmed opposed attack rolls, and weapon finesse applies to all attack rolls for eligible weapons, I see this as allowing Dexterity to be used in opposed grapple checks in place of Strength. Ah, but a grapple is not an attack with an unarmed strike. It is a grapple check. There is no unarmed strike involved.
Altaris13 09-21-05, 09:09 AM	Wizards and sorcerers are not proficient with shields. They don't have to be. A Masterwork buckler has no ACP. A Mithral one also has no ASF. KerlanRayne And that's why Auburn has a mithral +1 buckler I understand all this, and I definately agree with it. But a Mithral buckler used by a Wiz/Sorc really cannot be the only situation in which a buckler is worth using. If it were, then they would have just made it a "caster's sheild" special item.
Altaris13 09-21-05, 09:11 AM	I can go that route as well, and still make my case. In the glossary of the 3.5 PHB, page 305, a melee attack roll is defined as: 1d20 + base attack bonus + Strength modifier + size modifier In the same glossary on page 309 a grapple check is defined as: 1d20 + base attack modifier + Strength modifier + special size modifier The only difference here is the size modifier. Everything else is the same. Since, on melee attack rolls, you can substitute Strength out and Dexterity in, once again, I believe Weapon Finesse would allow you to substitute out Strength and Dexterity in. Especially when you factor in all of the quotes I have presented. NiQil, you almost have me convinced. But the fact is: a grapple is not an attack. I must say, I never realized that grapples Auto-failed or Auto-succeeded. So can you actually Crit with a grapple?
Vathelokai 09-21-05, 09:23 AM	I understand all this, and I definately agree with it. But a Mithral buckler used by a Wiz/Sorc really cannot be the only situation in which a buckler is worth using. If it were, then they would have just made it a "caster's sheild" special item. With a buckler, your shield arm can still be used for things like bows, twohanded weapons and casting. Great for pretty much anyone.
Altaris13 09-21-05, 09:37 AM	With a buckler, your shield arm can still be used for things like bows, twohanded weapons and casting. Great for pretty much anyone. That's what I thought too. Except that you lose the AC bonus and possibly take a penalty on attacks too.
Usurpator 09-21-05, 10:21 AM	Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. It is good for casters and for bow users, but also if you use a weapon like a sling. And for a -1 penalty you have a choice between attacking with two weapons or using it for defense.
Altaris13 09-21-05, 10:39 AM	Buckler: This small metal shield is worn strapped to your forearm. You can use a bow or crossbow without penalty while carrying it. You can also use your shield arm to wield a weapon (whether you are using an off-hand weapon or using your off hand to help wield a two-handed weapon), but you take a –1 penalty on attack rolls while doing so. This penalty stacks with those that may apply for fighting with your off hand and for fighting with two weapons. In any case, if you use a weapon in your off hand, you don’t get the buckler’s AC bonus for the rest of the round. As it says, according to the text that Kerlan Rayne has quoted repeatedly, if you use ANY weapon in your off hand, then you do not get the buckler's AC bonus. However, when using a bow or crossbow, you do not suffer a penalty (Ie: the ACP to attack.)
NiQil 09-21-05, 10:52 AM	NiQil, you almost have me convinced. But the fact is: a grapple is not an attack. I must say, I never realized that grapples Auto-failed or Auto-succeeded. So can you actually Crit with a grapple? According to the 3.0 FAQ, a grapple IS an attack roll. It is an opposed attack roll. Reread all of the quotes in my recent posts. I even have one where they are all together.
NiQil 09-21-05, 10:54 AM	Ah, but a grapple is not an attack with an unarmed strike. It is a grapple check. There is no unarmed strike involved. Again...according to the 3.0 FAQ a grapple check is an unarmed opposed attack roll. Reread the quotes I have provided.
Maraxus 09-21-05, 11:01 AM	As it says, according to the text that Kerlan Rayne has quoted repeatedly, if you use ANY weapon in your off hand, then you do not get the buckler's AC bonus. However, when using a bow or crossbow, you do not suffer a penalty (Ie: the ACP to attack.) Right, so an archer can run around with his bow and when suddenly he is attacked by the evil opponent, he has a higher armor class then he had without the buckler. Then he decides to 5 ft step back and attack - what would not be possible with a small shield in place of the buckler. Suddenly he finds himself back against the wall and drops the bow. He only draws his short sword and nevertheless his AC increases, because he can use that buckler again. Hey, it comes even better! Your opponent thinks: "Look an archer, I can thunder his bow or grapple him without having the feats" and then you give him a good shield bash. Buckler is good enough without giving AC when doing bow-attacks. PS: About the grapple thing: While a grapple is an unarmed (=without weapon) attack roll, it is not an attack with an unarmed strike. It is no attack with any weapon, not even the unarmed strike "weapon".
michael_noah 09-21-05, 11:30 AM	Again...according to the 3.0 FAQ a grapple check is an unarmed opposed attack roll. Reread the quotes I have provided. The 3.0 faq does say that a grapple check is an attack roll, correct. It does not say that it is an attack roll with an unarmed strike, because it's not.
NiQil 09-21-05, 11:34 AM	The 3.0 faq does say that a grapple check is an attack roll, correct. It does not say that it is an attack roll with an unarmed strike, because it's not. You are correct. It says nothing about unarmed strike. But a grapple check is an unarmed attack. A grapple check is also an opposed attack roll. Ergo, a grapple check is an unarmed opposed attack roll. Edit: I can't believe I just used the word ergo in relation to D&D LOL
michael_noah 09-21-05, 11:41 AM	You are correct. It says nothing about unarmed strike. But a grapple check is an unarmed attack. A grapple check is also an opposed attack roll. Ergo, a grapple check is an unarmed opposed attack roll. A grapple check is not an unarmed attack. It is a grapple check. It is also an attack (I disagree completely with this - but it is stated in the 3.0 faq, which is relatively good evidence. It may or may not involve some weapons (whip token, black tentacles, natural weapons with improved grab). Unless there's another quote from the faq, errata, whatever that says that a grapple check is an attack with an unarmed strike there's little reason to stray from the very clear rule in the PHB about what a grapple check is.
Altaris13 09-21-05, 11:59 AM	Right, so an archer can run around with his bow and when suddenly he is attacked by the evil opponent, he has a higher armor class then he had without the buckler. Then he decides to 5 ft step back and attack - what would not be possible with a small shield in place of the buckler. Suddenly he finds himself back against the wall and drops the bow. He only draws his short sword and nevertheless his AC increases, because he can use that buckler again. Hey, it comes even better! Your opponent thinks: "Look an archer, I can thunder his bow or grapple him without having the feats" and then you give him a good shield bash. Buckler is good enough without giving AC when doing bow-attacks. Not quite right there Maraxus. As soon as the Archer fires with the bow, he loses the AC Bonus, which means it becomes dead weight and a waste of money. And you cannot shield bash with the buckler, says so right in the description. Instead of clogging this thread further, please add comments here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7310371#post7310371)
Gonbow 09-21-05, 12:56 PM	Well, no sign of Malither... I guess I'll forward my tactics to TelinAnthro, unless someone else wants to claim Tatyana vrs Perius.
TelinArtho 09-21-05, 01:16 PM	Unfortunately, unless Shaken, not Stunned forwards me tactics for Shan or Perius's player sends me tactics - I think both of these fights will be held over. At this point, I could still do one of them, maybe both if they were easy fights - but without those tactics, I'm not allowed to take the fight over (hence the reason I start requesting them on Tuesdays). /d
Mind Rogue 09-21-05, 01:46 PM	That's odd, since I PMed Shaken last night and suggested that he send you his tactics. On the off chance that you get tactics for both groups, however, I suggest that you run the other fight, since I have class until about 10 minutes before match-ups.
NiQil 09-21-05, 01:53 PM	@ Telin Malither is on the boards as of this post....you should PM him if he doesn't respond in this thread in some way.
nightbanegod 09-21-05, 03:39 PM	first thing. for dalamar to lose an ECL 4 fight shouldnt he get 400 exp/gp and 2ndly does my familiar stay dead since it died in the arena? *edit* ohh and crovax (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7261208&postcount=468) should be good to go for questing today
Tellish_of_Ket 09-21-05, 03:46 PM	first thing. for dalamar to lose an ECL 4 fight shouldnt he get 400 exp/gp and 2ndly does my familiar stay dead since it died in the arena? *edit* ohh and crovax (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7261208&postcount=468) should be good to go for questing today No, you get your familiar back. -ToK
nightbanegod 09-21-05, 03:51 PM	No, you get your familiar back. -ToK YAY snowball LIVES!!!! :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :dancin:
Mind Rogue 09-21-05, 04:54 PM	However, I believe you still lose the Xp for your familiar dying. Try looking at the rules of the game regarding this.
NiQil 09-21-05, 05:02 PM	However, I believe you still lose the Xp for your familiar dying. Try looking at the rules of the game regarding this. In a campaign, yes...in the arena, no. The Nimbus resurrects it with no penalty.
Ravashack 09-21-05, 06:13 PM	Unfortunately, unless Shaken, not Stunned forwards me tactics for Shan or Perius's player sends me tactics - I think both of these fights will be held over. At this point, I could still do one of them, maybe both if they were easy fights - but without those tactics, I'm not allowed to take the fight over (hence the reason I start requesting them on Tuesdays). /d I'll send you tactics now TelinArtho. Sorry, was just waiting and waiting and didn't see anyone say anything about what to do if the Pitlord went MIA before I went to sleep.
TelinArtho 09-21-05, 06:16 PM	Wait until the pairings are up - I may not be assigned the fight for this week.
Ravashack 09-21-05, 06:26 PM	Bah, too late, already emailed to you.
TelinArtho 09-21-05, 06:30 PM	If I get assigned the fight - I'll run it with the tactics I have. Otherwise, you'll just need to send them to the appropriate pitlord when the postings are up. In the future, just so you know, I generally try to finish up the fights that are outstanding past the "soft" due date (Tuesday 9am GMT). I make a post about what fights are left and then say that I'll take all that I can do. So if your fight hasn't been posted by Tuesday and you aren't fighting one of my gladiators - I'll generally take the fight (or I'll take steps to get the fight done).
Ravashack 09-21-05, 06:40 PM	OK, thanks for the heads up. Where do you post it (your announcement that is) though?
TelinArtho 09-21-05, 06:43 PM	It'll be in the appropriate Fights of the Week thread. If you look back a few pages, you'd find the one for this week. If it helps - I'm in the eastern US, and I get to work about 8-10am (flex hours). On Tuesdays, its usually the first thing I do (while I'm getting work ready for the day).
Ravashack 09-21-05, 06:55 PM	I see. I missed that (very small) post in the middle of all those other ones =X
LordHell 09-21-05, 09:46 PM	Reasons against Grapple being at attack roll: Using Skills: To make a skill check, roll: 1d20 + skill modifier (Skill modifier = skill rank + ability modifier + miscellaneous modifiers) This roll works just like an attack roll or a saving throw — the higher the roll, the better. Either you’re trying to match or exceed a certain Difficulty Class (DC), or you’re trying to beat another character’s check result. Clearly the 'This roll works just like an attack roll' line doesnt mean it IS an attack roll. Because you cannot auto succeed on a 20 with a skill check. In case of a tie, the combatant with the higher grapple check modifier wins. If this is a tie, roll again to break the tie. How many attack rolls do you know of that if you tie - you revert to some other system? None. The rules are quite clear on this - it is an opposed check. I find the notion quite absurd; that a housecat from the MM has a 5% chance of being able to Grapple the Tarrasque.
Tellish_of_Ket 09-21-05, 10:36 PM	The rules are quite clear on this - it is an opposed check. I find the notion quite absurd; that a housecat from the MM has a 5% chance of being able to Grapple the Tarrasque. I'm afraid the odds are WAY smaller than that. The tarrasque has reach, and gets an AoO for the house cat trying to grapple. Not only that, but the tarrasque has DR 15/epic AND you cannot grapple something two size categories larger than you (i believe). So, the TINY house cat, is really SOL at that point. So i don't see the fuss of why that doesn't make sense. It is by the rules. What i've always disagreed with is the use of weapon finesse on the opposed check, because the "specific" overrides the "general". -ToK
Emrys Donovan 09-22-05, 11:34 PM	Did Dr. Funk ever post the fight between Shazzelin and Felix that was supposed to happen the week of the 14th?
TelinArtho 09-23-05, 08:27 AM	Yup... if you can't find it - check Shazzelin's character sheet - because it is linked in there.
Cerebus13 09-23-05, 08:50 AM	duh, wrong spot.