Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Sindorin 05-11-05, 03:27 PM	Please remember to BE NICE!!! Editing deadline is in a half hour.
Pitlords 05-11-05, 03:58 PM	@King Uther: I thought you were going to run a regular Quest, not a Miniquest. I'll change it to Miniquest but if you want to do a regular quest instead just tell me.
King Uther 05-11-05, 04:32 PM	Yeah, my bad at not being specific. Sorry about that.
Pitlords 05-11-05, 04:50 PM	I still don't know wether you want to do a Quest or a Miniquest
Pitlords 05-11-05, 05:48 PM	PAIRINGS DONE for running fights: +3: Kaigan, Xanadu +2: Malither +1: Jindl, Cellar, Huan, Spash, Tagg, Zoro, Iced, Cerebus, Zyme, Jstorrie, Salrantol, King Uther, Megrim Lord for Quests: -1: Jindl, Spash, Sindorin +2: Iced, King Uther, Sindorin for active PCs: -1: Caterane, Kaigan for being supersmart: +1: Caterane Credit Changes: +3: Xanadu, Iced, King Uther +2: Malither, Kaigan +1: Cellar, Huan, Tagg, Zoro, Cerebus, Zyme, Jstorrie, Salrantol, Megrim Lord, Sindorin +0: Jindl, Spash, Caterane Good luck!
Megrim_Lord 05-11-05, 05:53 PM	Kaigan & Salrantol: I have a paper due friday, and D&D to prep for friday night, so I probablywon't get to your fight until saturday just FYI, but if I don't have your tactics by 5:00 EST saturday I'll run w/o
spasheridan 05-11-05, 05:54 PM	At first I was looking at the pairings.. where is my fight for the week? What battle do I run? Nope, not in level 3. Not in level 4 either. Nope, no level 5 fight. Hey.. not in level 6 either! Where could it be? There it is... Level 7 league is open for business!
Malither76 05-11-05, 05:57 PM	@salrontol, I got two of your gladiators one is an extended fight so just hit me up with some tactics. @Kaigan you too for the extended fight I will get the wrapped up for you guys. @Iced send your tactics here :) later guys and good luck
Malither76 05-11-05, 06:05 PM	quick question did Zyme get everything strait with Daka, his sheet doesn't seem to have been updated and Gareth is set to fight him I'm looking forward to fighting another melee type so yeah just wondering I don't know what feats he realy has, is he enlarged what so thanks.
spasheridan 05-11-05, 06:19 PM	He posted that he was retiring Daka the other day... check the tavern.
Snommelp 05-11-05, 06:33 PM	Tactics for Gablim and Don Quixote have been sent. I won't be able to see the results for a while, since I'm going to be away from my computer from tomorrow until around the 22nd or 23rd, so I trust that, if there are any mistakes, someone else will catch them, and that the pitlord responsible will fix them? Not that I expect mistakes, but it's best to be safe.
Zyme86 05-11-05, 06:53 PM	Daka should not be paired, he has retired
Zerone 05-11-05, 07:32 PM	PAIRINGS DONE for being supersmart: +1: Caterane Ha! :P
Salrantol 05-11-05, 08:06 PM	@Malither76: Tactics for Meinrad the Many-Fisted and Horthek Bolgimzak sent. @Megrim_Lord: Tactics for Barak Brigandslayer sent. @xanadu: Tactics and addendum received. @Sunwolf: If you can get me tactics soon, I should be able to run your fight by tomorrow night.
Megrim_Lord 05-11-05, 09:31 PM	@Malither76: Tactics for Meinrad the Many-Fisted and Horthek Bolgimzak sent. @Megrim_Lord: Tactics for Barak Brigandslayer sent. @xanadu: Tactics and addendum received. @Sunwolf: If you can get me tactics soon, I should be able to run your fight by tomorrow night. tactics recieved
King Uther 05-11-05, 11:28 PM	@Snommelp Tactics received @Kaigan Please get me tactics early and I'll have the fight done sometime tomorrow afternoon/evening @Pitlords I apologize for not being specific. I would like to run both a regular Quest and mini-quest each week, but this week I'll do a mini-quest because that's what I thought Arstimis wanted. Again, sorry.
Malither76 05-11-05, 11:56 PM	@salrontol tactics received for both, I pm'ed the pitlords but I wanted to get it out here too, Daka retired any chance Gareth can get a pairing or would somone want to run a mini quest, Huan is going to run a quest for him in like 2 weeks this could be a gather info type quest or something. thanks malither
King Uther 05-12-05, 12:05 AM	If it's okay with the Pitlords, I'll run a mini-quest for Gareth. Just PM me the details and I'll have it up tomorrow. What ECL would you like?
Zyme86 05-12-05, 01:59 AM	I will need someone to take over my fight, AP testing this week and next has me shot full of holes. I just dont have the time
Sindorin 05-12-05, 01:59 AM	Tactics for Va'ria have been sent. I hope that a tiny animal can carry a medium-sized longbow... :D not that he'll be able to use it, but it would be funny.
Pitlords 05-12-05, 03:19 AM	Daka should not be paired, he has retired That's the problem if you write "ready anytime" into the headline. I should have told you that weeks ago so it's part my fault. And if you want to change something on the Pitlord roster, you need to send me a PM so that I can change it. Do you want me to set you to <zero> for next week? PS: Please don't delete Daka. Use a new sheet if you make a new character. Thanks. Gareth Irontower (Malither76) vs Daka (Zyme86): TaggIIV has been dissolved. And new Pitlord for: Greevus (Cerebus13) vs Rin Szen, Mother of Jin (Zerone): Zyme86 TaggIIV Ok, that was the last pitlord for this week. Pittbull and I have an emergency <one> but try not to make use of it :) Credits: Zyme-1, King Uther +2
Caterane 05-12-05, 04:59 AM	Tactics for Uhmentarymster and Ixenthor sent :) @Pittbull: Can you ask Hatzinger if he still has the arena map in the format that can still be edited with the Dungeoncrafter? That would save us a lot of work.
Pittbull 05-12-05, 05:29 AM	@Cat: Hatze lives now in Berlin, but I'll meet him this weekend and ask him for the original file. @Cellar: Laph's tactic has been sent to you via PM.
cellardweller 05-12-05, 05:42 AM	Recieved both. Not looking forward to running it.
Cerebus13 05-12-05, 09:20 AM	@xanadu: Tactics for Guts have been sent via email. @TaggIIV: I'm working on Greevus' tactics right now...hopefully get them done before I get busy at work. Tactics sent via email! @spasheridan: Received tactics and addendum for Fineal. @King Uther: Still need tactics for Virgo. Tactics received for Virgo. Edit: Sent my other set of tactics and received tactics from King Uther. I'm all set for this week!
Huan 05-12-05, 10:14 AM	"Only in time does a raindrop carve a riverbed, until then it must flow on." ... Luken honorably forfeits his next match vs Elder.
Jindl 05-12-05, 11:47 AM	"Only in time does a raindrop carve a riverbed, until then it must flow on." ... Luken honorably forfeits his next match vs Elder. What? Why?
King Uther 05-12-05, 12:38 PM	@Cerebus 13 Tactics for Virgo have been sent via PM @Xanadu Tactics for Cyalin Orndrill have been sent as well
King Uther 05-12-05, 01:18 PM	@Snommelp Dude, I suck. I somehow through moronic activity deleted your tactics. I know basically what you wanted, but have no way to quote them for the fight when Kaigan sends his. I will still run the fight, but please re-send me the tactics just for thoroughness sake, and so if I mess up it will be for a good reason, not because I suck.
Megrim_Lord 05-12-05, 02:56 PM	Kaigan, if you can send me your tactics tonight, I may be able to begin running the fight tonight, so try if you can
Sunwolf 05-12-05, 10:45 PM	@Salrantol -- tactics for Brilf sent by PM @Kaigan -- Tactics for Telveran sent by PM
Zerone 05-13-05, 01:47 AM	Tactics Sent: The Battle Maiden, Saya to Iced Rin Szen to TagIIV Tactics Received: Rayos Atess from Kaigen Uhmentarymster the Old from Caterane *•. Z
King Uther 05-13-05, 01:51 AM	@ Kaigan Tactics Received Thank you for sending them early. It should be up tomorrow afternoon unless circumstances prevent it.
Salrantol 05-13-05, 07:55 AM	@Sunwolf: Tactics received.
Salrantol 05-13-05, 08:07 AM	By the way, just so I can be 100% sure, there is no Spellcraft/Psicraft transparency, right? I didn't think there was but I received tactics implying that there was, so I figured the best bet was to check. Thanks
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 08:11 AM	@Salrantol Actually UMD->UPD transparency was just voted as being okay with the elders last week or so. On the flip side everyone seems to be in agreement that Spellcraft/Psicraft shouldn't be shared...otherwise those skills may be a bit overpowered.
Caterane 05-13-05, 01:57 PM	"Only in time does a raindrop carve a riverbed, until then it must flow on." ... Luken honorably forfeits his next match vs Elder. Huan, that's the first time I read something like that. We have no rule for withdrawing from a match. It is also unfair to the character that has been paired and has to sit out now. Finally, if we would allow that, others would withdraw if they didn't get the opponoment they wanted to have. Sorry, but the match stands.
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 02:28 PM	@All Situation has come up with a mixture of Entangle and Invisibility. If a person is Entangled and drinks a potion of Invisibility...would their opponent be able to look in the square they USED to be in and see the plants grabbing an invisible body? If they didn't know where to look (but the invis guy was entangled somewhere) would this be some sort of Spot check....if so, what DC?
Jindl 05-13-05, 02:31 PM	@All Situation has come up with a mixture of Entangle and Invisibility. If a person is Entangled and drinks a potion of Invisibility...would their opponent be able to look in the square they USED to be in and see the plants grabbing an invisible body? If they didn't know where to look (but the invis guy was entangled somewhere) would this be some sort of Spot check....if so, what DC? Per the Core rules, entangle doesn't negate invisibility. And that's they way we've always played it in the CoCo. -Jindl
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 02:35 PM	Righto, I'll have to adjust accordingly...so many more listen checks.
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 03:41 PM	Virgo vs. Finael (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6172915&postcount=1541) is up. I basically had to start the fight over again reusing my rolls when I realized I screwed up the first round of it. After entangling Virgo Finael just continued to fire into the middle of the Entangle unless he heard something elsewhere...which never happened because Virgo could not get free. Please go over the fight and if you have any questions or issues let me know immediately. Posting it a bit earlier gives people more time to look it over, which is good :).
spasheridan 05-13-05, 04:15 PM	Hrm... So, I shoot him with an entangle and see him get caught by it. THen I watch him drink a potion of invsibility and he disapears... I'm way to biased to make an opinion on this, so I'll say nothing. Except that a wand of entangle is the best 750gp a ranger can spend! After that, Virgo did get a free pass on some concentration checks he should have been forced to make to use those stones, right? Or does using a stone allow you to ignore concentration checks? This wouldn't change the outcome of the fight though. Also, I believe Virgo would get a save vs the new entangle spell when it hits.. he wouldn't get auto-entangled by it... even unconsious he get's a reflex save. I'm sure it's moot though.
Malither76 05-13-05, 04:18 PM	Eiletha vs Horthek is up thanks.
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 04:21 PM	Hrm... So, I shoot him with an entangle and see him get caught by it. THen I watch him drink a potion of invsibility and he disapears... I'm way to biased to make an opinion on this, so I'll say nothing. Except that a wand of entangle is the best 750gp a ranger can spend! After that, Virgo did get a free pass on some concentration checks he should have been forced to make to use those stones, right? Or does using a stone allow you to ignore concentration checks? This wouldn't change the outcome of the fight though. Also, I believe Virgo would get a save vs the new entangle spell when it hits.. he wouldn't get auto-entangled by it... even unconsious he get's a reflex save. I'm sure it's moot though.Doh, totally forgot about concentration checks when entangled...I'll go and edit them in. Also didn't consider the reflex save for the second entangle, so I'll put that in too. Edit: Virgo passed both concentration checks, but failed his extra reflex save. No effect on the outcome of the match either way.
King Uther 05-13-05, 04:36 PM	A wand of Entangle is 750 gp. It shoots 440 feet. It has 50 charges. It singelhandedly can kill every fighter. Round 1 Ranger uses wand of entangle Round 2 Wand of Entangle Round 3 Wand of entangle When eventually entangled, shoot with arrows. Even if he expends 10 charges a fight, that's 75 gp spent. There needs to be something done to prevent LOE. Because without that first round entangle spell, I could've had my way with him. I have to accept defeat, but with a bitter taste in my mouth. And based on where you put us on the map, I don't see the line of effect anyways, but I trust you. If I'm wrong, please correct me.
Jindl 05-13-05, 04:41 PM	A wand of Entangle is 750 gp. It shoots 440 feet. It has 50 charges. It singelhandedly can kill every fighter. You do realize that it is DC11? Most ECL3 fighters have a better than 60% chance to pass that check, and try to move out of the area.
Caterane 05-13-05, 04:42 PM	A wand of entangle has a save Dc of 11. If you pass you are basically free to leave the area. That spell is okay. Of course, if you have Indri's rolls then you will be stuck forever. :rolleyes: Heya, that's a running gag eh eh?
spasheridan 05-13-05, 04:47 PM	I think that with a speed of 30 it's impossible to move to get LOE on rnd 1, but with speed 40 you can (19,8 can see -20,0). Is that were F moved to? Reflex 11 is fairly easy to roll, but for low dex people it approaches 50/50. Tack on the 2 saves per charge vs people with speed of less than 40 and it becomes brutal. Trust me... druid battles are generally decided by the entangle spell. As far as the math on the expense... yer right. I've contmplated using my entangle wand as a pure area denial weapon. The tactics seem complicated though and just targetting people or their starting zone seems to be more than enough for now.
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 04:48 PM	I use this (http://www.sebastian-sutor.de/coco/coco.html) tool for mapping out line of sight and line of effect between fighters. According to the SRD if any corner of the square you occupy can draw line to every corner of your opponent...without crossing over any obstacles that give cover or concealment...then you have a clear line of sight/effect. From square (16,8) Finael has a clear line of sight to Virgo at (-20,0) if you use the lower right hand corner of his square. I know its a bummer to have happen but there isn't much you can do if you fail the reflex save.
Jindl 05-13-05, 04:49 PM	Trust me... druid battles are generally decided by the entangle spell. Of course, when a druid casts entangle the DC is quite a bit more than 11. It's still a good spell for a wand, but its not as powerful as you imply (unless you're facing Indri). -Jindl
King Uther 05-13-05, 05:00 PM	Will you make your Entangle save say....10 times? Especially since you can only move half-speed through it. The spell can target anyone in the arena from anywhere with a flying mount. DC 11 doesn't matter if your stuck rolling it again and again.
spasheridan 05-13-05, 05:12 PM	Will you make your Entangle save say....10 times? Especially since you can only move half-speed through it. The spell can target anyone in the arena from anywhere with a flying mount. DC 11 doesn't matter if your stuck rolling it again and again.In a few more levels this an other factors will make boots of flying the default footwar of choice for most if not all PCs.
King Uther 05-13-05, 05:28 PM	How does pricing of powerstones scale now? A ML3 Expansion is 200? That sounds a little off...
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 05:31 PM	@King Uther Nevermind on the pricing for the Expansion stones. I was thinking that they were a level 2 power and thus cost a bit more to produce since you were a Psychic Warrior.
spasheridan 05-13-05, 05:37 PM	@King Uther Nevermind on the pricing for the Expansion stones. I was thinking that they were a level 2 power and thus cost a bit more to produce since you were a Psychic Warrior.It's a level 1 power manifested at level 3. So it's 75 gp.. unless you want to augment it by 2 PP so it has a duration of 30 minutes vs 3 rounds. Then it's a level 2 power. 3*2*25=150gp. You have 150 gp listed for the 2 of em so you probably only spent the 75 gp not the 150 you wanted to. Powerstones now need to be listed in their equipment like this: Stone Energy Ray (ml 4, augmented 4pp) 200 gp Stone Forcescreen (ml3) 75 gp So anything listed with just an ML rating is assumed to be manifested with minimum PP. Per the latest deviance from the core rules powerstones cost +1 level per +2 pp.
Jindl 05-13-05, 06:14 PM	Will you make your Entangle save say....10 times? Especially since you can only move half-speed through it. The spell can target anyone in the arena from anywhere with a flying mount. DC 11 doesn't matter if your stuck rolling it again and again. Yes, but making your saves doesn't cost you an action. You are free to make ranged attacks or whatever. The ranger/druid on the other hand, is using an action every round to activate the wand. And even if you are entangled, it doesn't necessarily mean your doom. JotHF has lost only 1 fight so far, and it was to an archer which he had successfully entangled. You see, it is possible to kill the ranger/druid after they entangle you.
Megrim_Lord 05-13-05, 09:21 PM	Coralias vs. Barak (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6173961&postcount=1543) is up
Zerone 05-13-05, 10:08 PM	Uhmentarymster the Old vs. Rayos Atess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6175756&postcount=1544) is up. *•. Z
Huan 05-13-05, 10:54 PM	No forfeiting, eh? And its never been done before you say? Huh. Well, sorry to cause trouble (seems to be a forte for me as of late)... tactics PMed to Spasheridan for Luken.
TaggIIV 05-13-05, 11:14 PM	Tactics have been PMd off to jstorrie and xanadu.
Sindorin 05-13-05, 11:17 PM	Uhmentarymster the Old vs. Rayos Atess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6175756&postcount=1544) is up. *•. Z Zerone's right, we really do need a chart that says what a fight's rewards are at each level (before ally adjustments).
Cerebus13 05-13-05, 11:21 PM	The end of this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5222369) post should work for ya.
Salrantol 05-13-05, 11:50 PM	@Megrim_Lord: Sorry for making things hard with you with the attempt at the UMD tool, but since I amended it in the tactics, I hope it worked out OK, but I think you have the math wrong...since I wasn't certain about the tool, I didn't add its bonus into my total...look at it, it says +15 [6 ranks, +4cha, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Magical Aptitude], and with the +4 synergy for scrolls, I have +19, not +17, so I succeeded on the last UMD check which you have down as a 23 vs. DC25 for CL5 magic missile. Also, you listed the HP wrong in rounds 9, 10, and 11 for me, but got them right again after that.
Kaigan 05-14-05, 01:57 AM	Now this I don't think is fair. Rayos started in cover, hidden, and when he happens to move into LOS of Uhmm, he gets auto spotted, and thus held, I thought that if you have cover while hiding, you maintain hidden when moving and the opponent has to make a spot check. If that is not the case, then that is unfair.
Malither76 05-14-05, 02:42 AM	He should still have to spot him against DC 0 but still -1 per 10 feet away so he could fail if the roll is bad, just looking the wrong direction or he happened to blink who knows but it happens.
spasheridan 05-14-05, 04:21 AM	Now this I don't think is fair. Rayos started in cover, hidden, and when he happens to move into LOS of Uhmm, he gets auto spotted, and thus held, I thought that if you have cover while hiding, you maintain hidden when moving and the opponent has to make a spot check. If that is not the case, then that is unfair.Here's the thing... you need something to hide behind. If you have no cover you're basicly walking across the street. I don't care how sneaky you are, you cannot hide in the open. We have some rule that you can move like 1 foot per rank in hide betwen cover. Of course, in most places in the arena cover is 30 feet away from each other so this rule does nothing. Anywho, that's the way it works. No cover = autospotted. It sure makes hiding almost impossible unless you have HiPs or Invisibility. Blur offers concealment ... so maybe a potion of blur would let you attempt a hide check in the open. But the easiest thing to use for hiding is a smokestick or a deeper darkness.
cellardweller 05-14-05, 04:21 AM	I thought that if you have cover while hiding, you maintain hidden when moving and the opponent has to make a spot check. You can move 1' without cover for every rank you have in hide.
KerlanRayne 05-14-05, 04:59 AM	Zerone's right, we really do need a chart that says what a fight's rewards are at each level (before ally adjustments).How's This? Rewards for Winning ECL XP GP ---- -- -- 1 300 300 2 600 600 3 900 900 4 1,200 1,200 5 1,500 1,600 6 1,800 2,000 7 2,100 2,600 8 2,400 3,400 9 2,700 4,500 10 3,000 5,800 11 3,300 7,500 12 3,600 9,800 13 3,900 13,000 14 4,200 17,000 15 4,500 22.000 16 4,800 28,000 17 5,100 36,000 18 5,400 47,000 19 5,700 61,000 20 6,000 80,000 Rewards for Losing ECL XP GP ---- -- -- 1 100 100 2 200 200 3 300 300 4 400 400 5 500 533 6 600 666 7 700 866 8 800 1,133 9 900 1,500 10 1,000 1,933 11 1,100 2,500 12 1,200 3,266 13 1,300 4,333 14 1,400 5,666 15 1,500 7.333 16 1,600 9,333 17 1,700 12,000 18 1,800 15,666 19 1,900 20,333 20 2,000 26,666 * NOTE: You can never get more XP than 100 * (your current ECL) by losing a fight. For example, if you are ECL 12 and you lose against an ECL 15 gladiator, you should gain (10,800/3) = 3,600 XP. However, the rule limiting XP in case of a loss cuts that down to 1,200 XP gained. KerlanRayne
Pitlords 05-14-05, 05:52 AM	How's This? Rewards for Winning ECL XP GP ---- -- -- 1 300 300 2 600 600 3 900 900 4 1,200 1,200 5 1,500 1,600 6 1,800 2,000 7 2,100 2,600 8 2,400 3,400 9 2,700 4,500 10 3,000 5,800 11 3,300 7,500 12 3,600 9,800 13 3,900 13,000 14 4,200 17,000 15 4,500 22.000 16 4,800 28,000 17 5,100 36,000 18 5,400 47,000 19 5,700 61,000 20 6,000 80,000 Rewards for Losing ECL XP GP ---- -- -- 1 100 100 2 200 200 3 300 300 4 400 400 5 500 533 6 600 666 7 700 866 8 800 1,133 9 900 1,500 10 1,000 1,933 11 1,100 2,500 12 1,200 3,266 13 1,300 4,333 14 1,400 5,666 15 1,500 7.333 16 1,600 9,333 17 1,700 12,000 18 1,800 15,666 19 1,900 20,333 20 2,000 26,666 * NOTE: You can never get more XP than 100 * (your current ECL) by losing a fight. For example, if you are ECL 12 and you lose against an ECL 15 gladiator, you should gain (10,800/3) = 3,600 XP. However, the rule limiting XP in case of a loss cuts that down to 1,200 XP gained. KerlanRayne Thanks a lot Kerlan. I have added this table to the FAQ: About Pitlording (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5674129) as a quick access to xp/gp in case of same ECLs.
cellardweller 05-14-05, 06:02 AM	Tactics for Lance, Damon and Jannelle have all been sent.
Salrantol 05-14-05, 07:51 AM	Brilf Zephyr vs. Xyanthraxia (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6176979&postcount=1545) is up!
Megrim_Lord 05-14-05, 10:28 AM	@Megrim_Lord: Sorry for making things hard with you with the attempt at the UMD tool, but since I amended it in the tactics, I hope it worked out OK, but I think you have the math wrong...since I wasn't certain about the tool, I didn't add its bonus into my total...look at it, it says +15 [6 ranks, +4cha, +3 Skill Focus, +2 Magical Aptitude], and with the +4 synergy for scrolls, I have +19, not +17, so I succeeded on the last UMD check which you have down as a 23 vs. DC25 for CL5 magic missile. Also, you listed the HP wrong in rounds 9, 10, and 11 for me, but got them right again after that. my bad, I was reading Magical Aptitude as the tool bonus, fixing
Megrim_Lord 05-14-05, 10:51 AM	Fixed Fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6173961&postcount=1543)
Kaigan 05-14-05, 11:24 AM	My concerns are this: I wanted to move into the central pillars and stay there and hide/ready action to snipe. I should not be moving out from the cover of the central pillar. Even if I did, I could move 7 feet before I could not use hide, according to the 1 foot per rank rule. So that is my main concern. Like I said, I wanted to hide in the central pillars, which, Zerone, it seems to me you did not do. Also, another thing, if Eule is flying above me, he is not invisible. He only shares the effect of invisibility if he is within 5 ft of Uhm. But still the hiding bothers me the most. What occured is not what I asked.
Huan 05-14-05, 11:33 AM	@Kaigan Tactics for Nell sent. @Cellardwellar Tactics for Lance recieved, thank you.
Caterane 05-14-05, 11:35 AM	You can only hide from someone if you have cover between you and your opponoment. There is no relative cover against someone who flies. And it doesn't matter wether Eule is invisible or not when attackign since you were held.
Kingside_Bishop 05-14-05, 11:48 AM	@ Xanadu and Cerebrus I'm going to forfeit this match... I don't have time to write tactics, and I'm not so fond of the game itself here at the CoCo. The people are great -- I just think the game itself is too item centered. At any rate, I'd rather cut my commitments here, and play in a few PbP games instead, which are less demanding and more enjoyable to my tastes. Thanks!
Caterane 05-14-05, 11:50 AM	:weep:
Zerone 05-14-05, 12:44 PM	My concerns are this: I wanted to move into the central pillars and stay there and hide/ready action to snipe. I should not be moving out from the cover of the central pillar. Even if I did, I could move 7 feet before I could not use hide, according to the 1 foot per rank rule. So that is my main concern. Like I said, I wanted to hide in the central pillars, which, Zerone, it seems to me you did not do. Also, another thing, if Eule is flying above me, he is not invisible. He only shares the effect of invisibility if he is within 5 ft of Uhm. But still the hiding bothers me the most. What occurred is not what I asked. He will probably buff a little, so for my first round, double or run, which ever will get me to the central pillars quickest. Leave my wolf back at the start, it won't be necessary. When in central pillars, hide, and drink potion of pro good, I need the boost to my saves. Now, the fun. He's an elf, so I get +4 becuase of favored enemy bonuses. So +4 to damage, spot, listen, etc. So tap my tattoo of chameleon, and ready my action to snipe the wizard when I hear him. So shoot the square that he occupies. I should be able to hear him. It's my listen check: +13+4 elf vs. his +4 move silently+ distance, so I should be able to pinpoint him. So shoot him, hopefully he'll be casting a spell when I shoot him. This assumes he is invisible. First of all, let me state that I am of Kaigan's point of view. This is the exact reason why I am pushing for Shadows to be incorporated into the Arena. In your tactics, all you state is to move into the Central Pillars and Hide. Therein lays the problem. Technically, there is no place to Hide in the Arena, only to block LoS. No matter where you 'Hide' there will be several locations where you can be seen, on Los alone. Since I was not directed to keep you in a certain location, I was moving you to the best vantage point where you had the best peripheral vision/listen chance, as, where you were located behind the Central Pillar the round before, you never would have heard Uhmen cast nor move due to 15' of solid stone between you. You left it up to me to decide your location and I did just that. May I suggest that you be a little more specific next time? Not necessarily exact coordinates, but even to say, 'I want to move into a corner of the central '+' column as soon as possible and wait there till I see Uhmen.' If some one sees the above differently than me, please explain so I understand my mistake. :) Also, I rolled for random direction for Rayos and Uhmen, when they first started out, and Rayos rolled ‘down’ and Uhmen rolled ‘up’ respectively on the map. Had you both moved in the same direction, things would have been much different. Another thing, neither character had a backup plan for when 10 rounds had past... You both assumed that the other character would come to you. That was poor planning on both your parts. This is an extremely difficult position for the Pitlord, so help us out by including tactics such as, 'if, after 9 rounds said readied action hasn't occurred yet, do this...'. Again, I side with Kaigan and all characters that wish to use the Hide skill. I would love to play a character with Hide as one of its major class abilities, but since it is reduced to half power at best, this reduces my character's CR, and is not on the same level as the characters it would be facing. *•. Z
Cerebus13 05-14-05, 01:05 PM	@ Xanadu and Cerebrus I'm going to forfeit this match... I don't have time to write tactics, and I'm not so fond of the game itself here at the CoCo. The people are great -- I just think the game itself is too item centered. At any rate, I'd rather cut my commitments here, and play in a few PbP games instead, which are less demanding and more enjoyable to my tastes. Thanks!This is unfortunate, but ultimately your decision. If there are issues you have with the CoCo you could bring them up in the Tavern thread before leaving if you wanted...that way those of us left could discuss them and try to make the CoCo better. As for our fight...perhaps the CoCo should have some rules written up for how to deal with forfeiture of fights? Some ideas: 1) Fight is still run with forfeiting opponent using default tactics (if none were sent). 2) Fight is not run and non-forfeiting player receives normal winning XP/Gold. 3) Fight is not run and a reduced amount of XP/Gold is given out. 4) Match is dissolved entirely and nobody wins anything. I'm partial to #1 myself, because that still allows the assigned Pitlord a chance to gain their credit and the non-forfeiting player has a chance of losing even against default tactics.
Jindl 05-14-05, 01:06 PM	@Huan - Tactic's PM'd for JotHF. @spash - Please be patient, I will get tactics for the Elder to you just as soon as my RL game is over (later today/tonight). Sorry. -Jindl
Sunwolf 05-14-05, 01:36 PM	This is unfortunate, but ultimately your decision. If there are issues you have with the CoCo you could bring them up in the Tavern thread before leaving if you wanted...that way those of us left could discuss them and try to make the CoCo better. As for our fight...perhaps the CoCo should have some rules written up for how to deal with forfeiture of fights? Some ideas: 1) Fight is still run with forfeiting opponent using default tactics (if none were sent). 2) Fight is not run and non-forfeiting player receives normal winning XP/Gold. 3) Fight is not run and a reduced amount of XP/Gold is given out. 4) Match is dissolved entirely and nobody wins anything. I'm partial to #1 myself, because that still allows the assigned Pitlord a chance to gain their credit and the non-forfeiting player has a chance of losing even against default tactics. I suggest that #1 is used too. Treat it the same as no tactics recieved and run with default tactics (if any) and if no default tactics run gladiator with out using resources costing more than 1gp -- ie use arrows but no potions, tattoos, etc. No reason to allow an uncontested win or cause a pitlord to lose his chance to earn a credit.
Caterane 05-14-05, 01:50 PM	@Zerone: Yes, the hiding skill is of very limited use in the arena but that is the nature of an arena. The solution is not to add additional features everytime something seems to be unfair towards one build (fewer obstacles for chargers, more obstacles/shadows for rogues, etc) but to use different arenas. In a real campaign, there is not one standardized enviroment, nor can we mimic such an enviroment here. But we can - and will - add additional arenas which have yet to be created. At least one of it will be beneficial for sneakers and also to those with darkvision - another major and very valuable ability that is completely useless here. We will begin with the new standard arena next week and see how it works. And while we do that, we collect ideas for other arenas; three would be best. Bottom line: I also agree with your concerns about the lack of hiding places/shadows and your concern has been noted but today is not the day to discuss this.
Sunwolf 05-14-05, 01:51 PM	@Salrantol Comments about Brilf vs X fight. Good Job. Not much I could do with generally low rolls. :( Brilf should get a listen check in round 4 when she casts the shield spell from scroll. X should have a caster check DC 6 vs casting the fly scroll in round 2. Unlikely that she will fail this one. However, unless Brilf gets a 19 or 20 on the listen check to pinpoint *and* then passes the invis miss chance *and* then crits with the arrow the fight will be the same. So unlikely that you don't need to bother checking :)
Zerone 05-14-05, 02:02 PM	Has anyone heard from Iced?
spasheridan 05-14-05, 04:49 PM	@Kaigan / Zerone- Honestly.. it's an arena. Gladiator pits. You don't hide from each other in gladiator pits, you fight. IMO a hide build is very specilized. It can only work with certain circumstances. Because the arena doesn't provide them, that build just doesn't work well here. And I think that it's a good thing. A hide build is just a denial build. The denial build does not so much have a strength as exploit another's weakness. With some not so difficult choices a 10th level PC can get a hide check of +50 or so. I can't imagine a 10th level PC with a spot of +50.. so the hide skill becomes uber. Much like invisible vs anyone who can't see invisible is overpowered, the hide build will be overpowered if the PC can hide anywhere... THe great thing about hide is that it requires a spot check to be noticed... there's almost no counter to a good hide check. And shadow dancers are core... Hrmm... Now I need to save up 20 or so credits to get a 9th level PC out.
Salrantol 05-14-05, 04:52 PM	@Sunwolf: In the interest of both fairness and accuracy, I'll fix those problems later tonight or Monday.
spasheridan 05-14-05, 05:22 PM	oops.. ignore
Kaigan 05-14-05, 07:06 PM	@Kaigan / Zerone- Honestly.. it's an arena. Gladiator pits. You don't hide from each other in gladiator pits, you fight. IMO a hide build is very specilized. It can only work with certain circumstances. Because the arena doesn't provide them, that build just doesn't work well here. And I think that it's a good thing. A hide build is just a denial build. The denial build does not so much have a strength as exploit another's weakness. With some not so difficult choices a 10th level PC can get a hide check of +50 or so. I can't imagine a 10th level PC with a spot of +50.. so the hide skill becomes uber. Much like invisible vs anyone who can't see invisible is overpowered, the hide build will be overpowered if the PC can hide anywhere... THe great thing about hide is that it requires a spot check to be noticed... there's almost no counter to a good hide check. And shadow dancers are core... Hrmm... Now I need to save up 20 or so credits to get a 9th level PC out. Just you wait till Rayos gets to level 13, then I can Hide in any terrain
xanadu 05-14-05, 08:02 PM	Bgt - need tactics for Brogan. Fight runs tomorrow morning (Pacific coast time), with or without them. Megrim Lord - also need tactics. Kingside Bishop - need tactics for Decius.
Cerebus13 05-14-05, 08:21 PM	Bgt - need tactics for Brogan. Fight runs tomorrow morning (Pacific coast time), with or without them. Megrim Lord - also need tactics. Kingside Bishop - need tactics for Decius.Kingside Bishop forfeited his fight and left the CoCo unfortunately :(. I would say just run the fight with him using default sorts of tactics if you could.
xanadu 05-14-05, 09:23 PM	Cyalin Orndrill (King Uther) vs Nyphanalith (TaggIIV) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6181986) is up.
Huan 05-14-05, 11:21 PM	@Jindl Tactics for JotHF recieved, thank you.
King Uther 05-15-05, 02:20 AM	I clearly did not have a good week. Two fights out of two an enemy was able to get LOE of me and eliminate my strategy completely. Honestly, I think that sucks. I enjoy playing here, especially since the storyline progression seems to be going well. But I will refuse to fight in the arena if this unfairness continues. And I realize that it is being changed, but how many wizard vs. wizard duels at 17+ will be decided by a quickened teleport/dimension door and power word kill?
Cerebus13 05-15-05, 02:44 AM	I clearly did not have a good week. Two fights out of two an enemy was able to get LOE of me and eliminate my strategy completely. Honestly, I think that sucks. I enjoy playing here, especially since the storyline progression seems to be going well. But I will refuse to fight in the arena if this unfairness continues. And I realize that it is being changed, but how many wizard vs. wizard duels at 17+ will be decided by a quickened teleport/dimension door and power word kill?Next week I think we will be implementing a new map of sorts that gives us options on altering our starting locations slightly to make it a lot harder to be found in the first round. We'll have to try it out and see how it works. I guess my only advice would be to have a contingency plan in your tactics to deal with your opponent getting the jump on you first.
Caterane 05-15-05, 05:13 AM	Kingside Bishop forfeited his fight and left the CoCo unfortunately :(. I would say just run the fight with him using default sorts of tactics if you could. Yes, please run the fight with default tactics.
Pitlords 05-15-05, 05:29 AM	Seems like Iced is not going to show up. I'll take over. Don Quixote (Snommelp) vs Battle Maiden Saya (Zerone): Iced Caterane Credit: Cat+1, Iced-1 Please send tactics asap! By mail.
Cerebus13 05-15-05, 10:22 AM	Seems like Iced is not going to show up. I'll take over.What should be done with Sindorin's quest to get a leadership cohort?
Pitlords 05-15-05, 11:32 AM	Cancelled. I've added Sindorin to Huan's waiting list. There's space for 2 additional questers.
Zerone 05-15-05, 11:35 AM	Tactics for The Battle Maiden, Saya sent to Caterane. Thanks for taking the fight! *•. Z Edit: I didn't know of the Cohort/Companion restriction prior to making Saya. Please switch Moto from Heavy to Light Warhorse. Thanks.
Jindl 05-15-05, 01:21 PM	@spash - Please be patient, I will get tactics for the Elder to you just as soon as my RL game is over (later today/tonight). Sorry. -Jindl Please let me know if you did not receive the tactics. They have been PM'd. -Jindl
xanadu 05-15-05, 02:38 PM	Guts Vs. Decius is up. Not much of a fight with no tactics and retiring gladiator.
Sindorin 05-15-05, 05:22 PM	Cancelled. I've added Sindorin to Huan's waiting list. There's space for 2 additional questers. Ah, that's fine. I had PM'd King Uther about it since he offered to run one for me, but I'll have him run a quest for Va'ria next week instead of Sokai.
xanadu 05-16-05, 12:20 AM	What happens when someone who is flying falls asleep?. Do they fall to the ground or just hover?
Kaigan 05-16-05, 12:23 AM	@All: I can't finish the Telveran vs. Ripper fight. I have very little time, and can't do the fight right now, or tomorrow, or tuesday. I'll have my other two up in a couple of seconds, but if someone could take that fight, I'd appreciate it, thanks. Kaigan
Kaigan 05-16-05, 12:28 AM	Well that's it. Damon vs. Nell is up. Zubair vs. Trokk is up. I need someone to take Ripper vs. Telveran from me, or else it won't get done. But yeah, I guess it's been fun, but the fun's gone now. Wish everyone well. See tavern for my official farewell. It's been good. And it was good to see the Coco grow from the character opt. forum, to it's own, and now to the LG, but as I said.... well nevermind, see the tavern if your interested. Bye everyone! Kaigan
Pitlords 05-16-05, 05:15 AM	@Xanadu: Same what happens if someone who walks falls asleep. He falls. Any movement is an act that requires consciousness. I hope Pittbull can take this fight... Ripper vs. Telveran: Kaigan Pittbull Kaigan -1°, Pittbull+1°
Pittbull 05-16-05, 05:31 AM	@Xanadu: Same what happens if someone who walks falls asleep. He falls. Any movement is an act that requires consciousness. I hope Pittbull can take this fight... Ripper vs. Telveran: Kaigan Pittbull Kaigan -1°, Pittbull+1° No problem, I'll run this fight on tuesday! Please send me your tactics!
Jindl 05-16-05, 08:54 AM	@Xanadu: Same what happens if someone who walks falls asleep. He falls. Any movement is an act that requires consciousness. Cat's wrong on this one (;)). An unconscious person under the influence of a fly spell merely hovers in place. Consciousness is not required to maintain altitude, merely to move from place to place. The flyer would not descend until the fly spell ends. -Jindl
Sunwolf 05-16-05, 09:50 AM	@Pittbull Tactics for Telveran forwarded by PM
cellardweller 05-16-05, 11:53 AM	Laph vs Ixenthor is taking even longer than I expected. Expect it in 24 hrs or so. Ps I hate you both.
Pitlords 05-16-05, 12:36 PM	@Jindl: Do you have a reference for that? We had that problem in my group too and agreed on my interpretation. @CD: sorry :(
xanadu 05-16-05, 12:37 PM	Cat's wrong on this one (;)). An unconscious person under the influence of a fly spell merely hovers in place. Consciousness is not required to maintain altitude, merely to move from place to place. The flyer would not descend until the fly spell ends. -Jindl That was my gut instinct as well. It doesn't really matter that much so I will go with that rulling. Actually it might. If someone fell they would take falling damage and presumably wake up; which is better than being coup d' graced. @ Pitbull - Ripper tactics sent.
spasheridan 05-16-05, 12:42 PM	Cat's wrong on this one (;)). An unconscious person under the influence of a fly spell merely hovers in place. Consciousness is not required to maintain altitude, merely to move from place to place. The flyer would not descend until the fly spell ends.Walking is a physical act. WHen you no longer exert physical control you go limp, and so you fall. Flying (per the fly spell) is a mental act. So to change your location in any way requires concentration. When you fall asleep you exert no mental control, so you go limp but you don't fall because you are not being held up by your legs... Flying (with wings) is a physical act. If you fall unconscious you would fall because your wings go limp and nothing is holding you up.
Jindl 05-16-05, 12:47 PM	@Cat - Spash explained it pretty well. Basically the fly spell continues until its duration expires, at which point a feather fall effect is triggered. The duration does not expire due to unconsciousness. It would expire upon death, but only because a corpse is an object and thus not a valid target for the spell. So upon death the spell ends (which I assume triggers the feather fall effect). But an unconscious wizard w/ a fly spell stays hovering in place. -Jindl
King Uther 05-16-05, 01:24 PM	That's a tough call. It explicitly states that fly takes as much concentration as walking, so without that ability to concentrate you couldn't fly. A hold person wouldn't stop fly, but any effect that prevents an sort of concentration, such as sleep, would. I think that makes sense. Although...I do think I may have read something in Dragon or the like stating that fly allows you to float while unconscious. But I might be making that up.
Cerebus13 05-16-05, 01:54 PM	@All If you have a Large Greatsword (3d6 damage) sized up one more category to Huge, what damage would it do? 4d6, 4d8? The weapon size table in the SRD ends before that. @Pitlords The CoCo line of sight tool is very useful to me for determining who has LOS/cover and whatnot. However if we change the shape of the arena this tool will be a bit harder to use. What is this program coded in, and would it be easy for someone to edit to reflect the new map? The tool comes from here: http://www.sebastian-sutor.de/coco/coco.html
Malither76 05-16-05, 02:00 PM	it scales up to 4d6, it always stays d6, the bastard sword scales by d8's
xanadu 05-16-05, 02:01 PM	This fight is driving me nuts. Do multiple necromatic effects stack when draining stength? We got chill touch, ray of enfeeblement, and touch of fatigue as possibilities. It is the only way this one character can kill his opponent!
Cerebus13 05-16-05, 02:03 PM	it scales up to 4d6, it always stays d6, the bastard sword scales by d8'sIf that is true then Greatswords are slightly inferior to Glaives at larger sizes. Glaive sizing: 1d10->2d8->3d8->4d8? Greatsword sizing 2d6->3d6->4d6->5d6? That is if this pattern holds true for sizing...again I'm not totally sure. Edit: This fight is driving me nuts. Do multiple necromatic effects stack when draining stength? We got chill touch, ray of enfeeblement, and touch of fatigue as possibilities. It is the only way this one character can kill his opponent!Chill Touch is "Strength Damage", the Ray is a "Strength Penalty", and Touch of Fatigue simply grants the target the Fatigue condition. I'm pretty sure the Fatigue will stack regardless...and it could be argued that a Penalty and Damage will stack as well because they have different meanings and methods of curing them.
Malither76 05-16-05, 02:05 PM	ray and touch I believe both say can't lower the stat below 1 now chill touch I think can finish draining them, do they stack yes its all ability drain just like if you were getting hit from multiple undead, he will just have to get them down to 1 str with the ray and touch and the chill touch him.
Pittbull 05-16-05, 02:47 PM	@Sunwolf/Xanadu: Tactics received! @Cellar: Sorry!
Jindl 05-16-05, 02:56 PM	If that is true then Greatswords are slightly inferior to Glaives at larger sizes. Glaive sizing: 1d10->2d8->3d8->4d8? Greatsword sizing 2d6->3d6->4d6->5d6? That is if this pattern holds true for sizing...again I'm not totally sure. Greatsword should be: 2d6 -> 3d6 -> 4d6 -> 6d6. Edit: Chill Touch is "Strength Damage", the Ray is a "Strength Penalty", and Touch of Fatigue simply grants the target the Fatigue condition. I'm pretty sure the Fatigue will stack regardless...and it could be argued that a Penalty and Damage will stack as well because they have different meanings and methods of curing them. The Str penalty from RoE can't drop your strength below 1. The penalty can get you to 1, but even additional chill touches won't drop it below 1. The fatigued condition can reduce Str to 0 (I think). But a combination of the two won't reduce it to 0 unless the non-enfeebled Str is 2 or less. In this instance, Chill touch will have to reduce Str to a 2 (not counting the RoE) before the fatigued condition could drop it to 0. RoE can only make the opponent's Str a minimum of 1. -Jindl
Salrantol 05-16-05, 06:29 PM	Updated Brilf Zephyr vs. Xyanthraxia (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6176979&postcount=1545) is up. Brilf used one more arrow, poor guy, but everything else is the same.
Caterane 05-16-05, 06:34 PM	Don Quixotte vs Saya is up
Malither76 05-16-05, 06:54 PM	Meinrad vs Aurilis is up stile not sure how to link the fight so yeah :) Any one want to try the new team fights or somthing this week, with Gareth Irontower,
Salrantol 05-16-05, 06:59 PM	@Malither76: Aurilis' horse's speed is only 40ft., not 60 [see below], so I can outrun it, and it can only run in straight lines, so if I am, as per my tactics, "avoiding charges and runs", I can maintain distance fairly easily. Also, why did I not 5' step away from him in round 4, since I have stated many times in my tactics (including in the part about tanglefoot bags) that I will try to maintain distance? If he had had a heavy warhorse like he wanted, he had this line on his character sheet: Speed: 35 ft. (Medium Armor) Armor Class: 19 (–1 size, +1 Dex, +4 natural, +5 Chain barding), touch 10, flat-footed 18 With the speed reduction and the +5 AC, it is clear that the "Chain barding" is supposed to be chainmail, not chain shirt, so a light warhorse would have speed 40. Even if it's a chain shirt though, he's carrying 176 lbs. of gear, plus the rider's own weight [human minimum is 124] which is 300 lbs. total, which is a medium load for a light warhorse, which will slow it down anyways.
Pitlords 05-16-05, 07:00 PM	@Malither: Aurilis gains 1200 XP and Gold. Meinrad gets 225 xp/gp. Please correct that. To link a fight, use (post=NUMBER)NAME(/post) where the number is shown in your status bar when you hover (don't click) over the quote button. And replace () with []. NAME is how the link should appear. Example: Aurilis vs Meinrad
Malither76 05-16-05, 07:05 PM	The horse was a light warhorse, I had to alter a few things just to run the fight since Iced is not around, I didn't treat the horse as having any armour just a saddle, and you could not 5 foot step and still throw it, it takes a move action to get it out that provokes an AoA, even if you would have 5 stepped and then drawn it he would have move next round and hit you just the same before you could thorw it, I thought I would give you to opportunity of him possibly missing and you getting him glued then putting some arrows in him. Why would Aurilis get more he brought the mount not Meinrad
Pitlords 05-16-05, 07:07 PM	Oh right, then it's the other way around. Aurilis 900 -25% = 675 xp/gp Meinrad 300 +33% = 400 xp/gp
Malither76 05-16-05, 07:09 PM	oh ok I did the percentages wrong, thanks
Salrantol 05-16-05, 07:10 PM	<this was a reply to an already-corrected post>
Salrantol 05-16-05, 07:13 PM	The horse was a light warhorse, I had to alter a few things just to run the fight since Iced is not around, I didn't treat the horse as having any armour just a saddle, and you could not 5 foot step and still throw it, it takes a move action to get it out that provokes an AoA, even if you would have 5 stepped and then drawn it he would have move next round and hit you just the same before you could thorw it, I thought I would give you to opportunity of him possibly missing and you getting him glued then putting some arrows in him. Since a 5' step is a free action, 5' step [free] + draw [move] + throw [standard/attack] = 1 round's worth of actions. Also, I certainly think it would have been fair for you to notify me in time to update my tactics of a 25ft. increase in my opponent's speed from his posted character sheet, especially since it makes my tactics completely impossible. Edit: Also, even without the armor, the horse is still carrying enough weight to bring it to a medium encumbrance--just include the weight of the spikes on his armor and shield (which he didn't, mind you)--so it's speed is still only 40ft.
Malither76 05-16-05, 07:16 PM	just testing this out Aurilis Vs Meinrad
Malither76 05-16-05, 07:26 PM	5 foot step is only free if you take no other move action in a round. Sorry about the tactics getting spoiled I pointed out the violations on wednesday last week or mabie thursday and waited for Iced to come around, His build is around using a mount and he is not high enough ECL to have a heavy war horse so I thought this was the only option, I don't know what we can do here I'm sorry about the loss, but even if the horse had barding or even if it was his heavy horse the same thing could have happend, he made no normal move until you was based. The Heavy horse with a move of 35 could have still moved at x5 because of the run feat and made all the same manuvers, so the light horse easily did it. again i'm sorry for the loss but I don't thin, you could have won unless the dice were very friendly even with his 19AC instead of a 21 for not having the full plate you would have needed 18's plus to hit if he takes cover, and the best thing he could have done was just approach slow and steady full defense and take cover on your shots making you need 20's to hit, so I don't know but again sorry. Ok even if the horse was moving 40 it was capable of 200 feet a round moves , all my moves were runs and did not exceed that
Salrantol 05-16-05, 07:32 PM	You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. It's not no move actions, it's no movement. Drawing a tanglefoot bag is not movement, so the 5' step is still free.
spasheridan 05-16-05, 07:39 PM	Since a 5' step is a free action, 5' step [free] + draw [move] + throw [standard/attack] = 1 round's worth of actions.Absolutley true. THis is perfectly legal. Also, I certainly think it would have been fair for you to notify me in time to update my tactics of a 25ft. increase in my opponent's speed from his posted character sheet, especially since it makes my tactics completely impossible.Ouch... any change to a character sheet after the pairings is grounds for disqualification for this reason. Pitlords are not allowed to do this either. If Iced messed up and bought a hvy warhorse instead of a light one, then Iced as to play with no horse until he buys a light one. Now Iced is required to have a light warhorse (wasted money) at higher levels instead of the heavy one he had planned to have. I think this change is a big no-no. THe best bet would have been to leave the heavy warhorse at home. In cases where there is an error on a characters sheet I usually PM both gladiators in the fight and bring it up with them... and then make sure that both know what the final change is. If one gladiator doesn't know about a proposed change then the change is not made. I think that hurting Salrantol because Iced has been non-repsonsive is a bit cruel.
Malither76 05-16-05, 07:39 PM	you are right I just read it again in all about movement on Wizards I will edit from that point on sorry
spasheridan 05-16-05, 07:41 PM	you could not 5 foot step and still throw it, it takes a move action to get it out that provokes an AoA, even if you would have 5 stepped and then drawn it he would have move next round and hit you just the same before you could thorw it, I thought I would give you to opportunity of him possibly missing and you getting him glued then putting some arrows in him.Usually when a gladiator of mine sends illegal tactics I PM him back and ask for a clarifaction or an update BEFORE I run the fight.. to avoid just this situation. Sometimes the pitlord doesn't understand the tactic and incorrectly believes it is illegal. Sometimes the gladiator has his tactics confused and so has made an illegal one.. In either case, a little elbow grease usually fixes this problem.
Malither76 05-16-05, 08:04 PM	he didn't mention 5 foot steps in his tactics he just wanted to stay away, and I forgot the a moveaction doesn't actualy count as movement, anyways its fixed I'm sorry though no change in outcome, keeping his attack rolls it extended the fight 1 more round cost Arilis 2 arrows and Meinrad 1 bolt. here is the update Aurilis vs Meinrad
Salrantol 05-16-05, 08:47 PM	I'm very sorry to keep bothering you about this fight, but Meinrad the Many-Fisted has Deflect Arrows, which reads in part "Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it." As a result, neither of those two bow shots would have hit him.
Malither76 05-16-05, 09:15 PM	good point will update now, thanks overlooked that
Malither76 05-16-05, 09:43 PM	and finally it is over, everything is fixed now I think and the new winner is Aurilis vs Meinrad
TaggIIV 05-16-05, 11:05 PM	Apologies, my fight will be late this week. I'll have it done tomorrow afternoon/evening/night depending on your time zone.
Huan 05-16-05, 11:16 PM	Bare-bones of JotHF vs Lance (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6198632) is up. Short version: One good plan had regrettably bad timing. (please check for errors)
Jindl 05-16-05, 11:22 PM	@Huan- JotHF shouldn't be losing xp/gp for bringing in his animal companion. Also, please double check the base xp/gp reward since JotHF was facing a higher ECL opponent. Thanks for running the fight! -Jindl
spasheridan 05-17-05, 02:16 AM	Elder v Luken is up.
Huan 05-17-05, 08:14 AM	@Huan- JotHF shouldn't be losing xp/gp for bringing in his animal companion. Also, please double check the base xp/gp reward since JotHF was facing a higher ECL opponent. Thanks for running the fight! -Jindl Whoops, sorry about that. Fixed (and I did check the charts, I thought I had the rewards for Jindl right. If not, please correct me. :confused: ).
Jindl 05-17-05, 08:37 AM	Whoops, sorry about that. Fixed (and I did check the charts, I thought I had the rewards for Jindl right. If not, please correct me. :confused: ). I think you forgot that it was an ECL6 vs an ECL7 when calculating the rewards. The rewards should be: JotHF: 2700 xp, 2600 gp Lance: 467 xp, 667 gp Thanks again! (And sorry for the spoiler to those who haven't read the fight yet :D) -Jindl
Jindl 05-17-05, 08:50 AM	Afternotes:Elder, your tactics didn't seem to take into account Lukens very high Wil check and his many HP. Something to consider next time! Perhaps I failed to take into account how incredibly HOT the pitlord's dice would be! Here is a list of d20 results from the fight: 15, 9, 1, 15, 17, 13, 18, 20, 19, 15, 1, 5, 20. Wow. 13 rolls, with 10 results of a 13 or better. Not exactly an average distribution. Make sure you save that d20 for your next tabletop game!! :D -Jindl
Sunwolf 05-17-05, 10:29 AM	@Pittbull, Thanks for picking up the fight. Some concerns I have: In round 1 Rippy needs line of sight to do spellcraft check vs a cast spell. Or he needs to make a listen check dc 0 + distance mods. He can do the spellcraft check after he sees Telveran but need to see or detect the effects of the spell to make the check. I am not sure that Prot from * spells have a visible effect if not interacted with. In round eleven, protection from evil is a potion not a scroll so should be automatic. He also wouldn't be able to tell it is a prot from evil potion w/o a spell craft check. Faerie fire outlines a person but does it show spell effects? Probably not so his obscuring mist would conceal the signs of the potion effect. He could guess but Telveran has other potions so he wouldn't know. This would force rippy to act by round 15 at the latest. So Telveran could keep trying to escape entangle and obscuring mist areas W/o being attacked by summons till round 21. Obscuring mist has just a 20% miss penalty at 5ft or less -- ie like when fighting a swarm. So Telveran should get an attack in round 15. And AOO vs griff in round 38. It looks like you were having the griffs charge up and attack while flying. They have average fly mobility so have to fly at least half speed to maintain flight. They have wing over so they can do 180 degree turns. All this means is that Telveran should be getting an AOO every time the griffs left to begin a new attack run (only 1 AOO per round though) . Otherwise, the griff would have to land and possibly get entangled. Also in round 19 why didn't Telveran use lay on hands to heal up and stop the bleeding instead of trying to break out of the entangle? He was already below the threshold request to use lay on hands healing. If you have time would you look into these concerns? Ripper also used 1 scroll obscuring mist and 1 scroll faerie fire If the out come is the same: XP awards should be Win: Ripper +1200 xp/gp (fought ecl 4 gladiator) Lose: Telveran +400 xp/gp (fought ecl 5 gladiator but hit cap on xp/gold for a loss) If different outcome: Lose: Ripper +400 xp/gold (fought ecl 4 gladiator) Win: Telveran +1600 xp/gold (fought ecl 5 gladiator ) Thanks, Sunwolf
spasheridan 05-17-05, 11:08 AM	15, 9, 1, 15, 17, 13, 18, 20, 19, 15, 1, 5, 20. Wow. 13 rolls, with 10 results of a 13 or better. Not exactly an average distribution.I didn't write down the ML & CL checks... there was a 19 and 15 in there as well.
Pittbull 05-17-05, 11:16 AM	Oh, yes quite many mistakes! Spellcraft: You donnot need a line of sight! Hearing the caster is quite enough, if the spell has a verbal component. Ripper's listen is +14, rolling a 1 would have been enough. But with the miss chance, I did a big mistake. I'm too busy today to fix this mistake, but I can do tomorrow morning [*cough* during my work], hours before pairings. If you want me to do this just tellme, but with these tactics, Telverans chances for a win are pretty low, after the Griff there comes the direwolf, after the direwolf there comes Fleshgrinder and last but not least there will the wildshaped Rippy. I wasn't sure about the reward, but think you're right. Sorry, working without SRD and books is pretty difficult! @Cellar: Sorry again for this fight! It must have been a huge workload!
King Uther 05-17-05, 11:41 AM	Gablim Utye vs Ga'al Arc'ilwi (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6202068&postcount=1558) is up. It did have some story, but after I wrote it my new kitten jumped on my computer desk and somehow all the text disappeared. Check for any errors, because I had to push some actions back 1 round because cat's have a 0 reach, otherwise the fight would've gone the other way. It was a fun one to run though.
Zerone 05-17-05, 12:01 PM	If Don wields his Lance: Readied Action: Wait for his charge to be 10’ away, take a 5’ step towards him, Basing him and canceling his attack (Lance is only a reach weapon) but not the ‘ride by’, [This is not possible (anymore). According to the FAQ: Arena Combat (Ready actions) you cannot take a 5ft step as part of your ready action. Likewise, you cannot use a ready action to make an attack miss.] and Sunder his Lance with Spiked Chain, attack modifier of +10 (+6 Spiked Chain, +4 Two Handed Weapon). Since his Lance is only a reach weapon and it cannot attack, it should be Sundered as a ‘carried object’, [No. A wielded lance is a weapon. Just because someone has a greater reach doesn't make your held greatsword a carried object. It will be an opposed sunder check.] with an AC of 11 (10 Base, +0 Size, +3 Dex, -2 Charge) [Charging doesn't affect the AC of a worn item] and 10 Hit Points (2 handed hafted weapon) [and 5 hardness]. Repeat in necessary. Cat, I disagree on the held object vs. weapon part. There is a difference between your example and what is really happening. In your example there is room for the defender to wield his sword. In the fight, there is no room for the defender to wield his Lance, as it is a reach weapon and you cannot attack adjacent foes with a reach weapon. Therefore, how can he attack with it if I am adjacent? And since Sundering is an opposed attack roll, it would have to be uasble, which it is not... [Zerone, I've written you a mail with these issues some days ago but didn't receive an answer. I will run the fight as closely as possible. This tactic is the worst exploit of ready actions ever and I am glad we got rid of some of the things that caused the problems. Uhhh... I received your e-mail Sunday, and sent a reply Sunday evening... You posted this fight Monday... where are the 'several days' part? Had I know about it sooner, you know I would have changed my tactics! Why didn't you wait till Tuesday to run the fight. If I was not able to resend you my tactics in time - like Snowmmelp - I'd be even more upset. Also, 'worst exploit' is a little harsh for using what's available. This is war, real war, kill or be killed. Exploiting a weakness in my opponent is what war is about. I went about it fairly, using everything available that was by the book and fair. I'm sorry I might be a good tactition but don't call a good idea something it's not. If things are not working out, Withdraw and Heal as necessary, continuing with tactics if possible, or shoot Don with arrows, keeping cover. And what happened to implementing this aspect of my tactics? Z
spasheridan 05-17-05, 12:46 PM	We implemented the ready action changes? I remember the discussion but I don't remember the outcome... Is there a home for rules like these or do they get spread around the FAQ? If someone wields a lance they wield a lance, their wielding of it is not dependant on if the person attempting to sunder it is threatented by the weapon. By that logic Zerone.. no bows are ever wielding because they don't threaten. WHips are never wielded because they don't threaten. If I attempt to sunder a greatsword with my glaive you are not wielding it because you don't threaten me at range...
Caterane 05-17-05, 01:13 PM	@Cellardweller: There is one big mistake in the fight that would change it completely: The smoke does not dissipate after 1 round. It dissipates after 1 round if there's a strong wind. A moderate winds needs 4 rounds to dissipate it. No wind at all - like in the arena - surely takes a lot longer than that. And only if the bottle is stopped which is also not the case. The smoke pours on from the bottle filling another 10ft in all directions every round. This should fill the arena pretty soon. Then, Laph needs a listen check to pinpoint me. You instead let him target the "center of the cloud". Last week, we talked about listen check to pinpoint someone in a 20ft darkness or blacklight area. Now Laph auto-pinpoints me within hundreds of diameters of fog! That's definately not possible. I have touchsight while Laph is effectively blind and flatfooted. However, I've never seen this being beneficial to me. So here's how the fight should go: Laph stays outside the fog, Ixenthor inside. Since the fog spreads 10ft in all directions (plus the initial 50ft), it should reach the maximum of 100ft radius soon. That's 200ft in all directions and I see NO WAY for Laph to avoid the fog. Then Ixenthor shoots cold iron arrows at Laph or grapples him with a cold iron arrow. Two additional complaints: 1. Do you know how many attacks I did in 68 rounds? Zero. And for all that I used a touchsight stone and 30 charges from my wand. 2. It's a great adaption for Laph to free fire and free pinpoint Ix (that's what he wanted to do anyway) but I don't think it's a good adaption to be on the receiving end of this. @Zerone: Cat, I disagree on the held object vs. weapon part. There is a difference between your example and what is really happening. It does not depend on the threatening range but wether it is a weapon in your hand or not. A lance certainly is. Uhhh... I received your e-mail Sunday, and sent a reply Sunday evening... You posted this fight Monday... where are the 'several days' part? I sent them at 0:32 on sunday and ran the fight almost 2 days later. Several is perhaps exxagerated though. And what happened to implementing this aspect of my tactics? His horse is faster than yours.
Zerone 05-17-05, 01:13 PM	We implemented the ready action changes? I remember the discussion but I don't remember the outcome... Is there a home for rules like these or do they get spread around the FAQ? If someone wields a lance they wield a lance, their wielding of it is not dependant on if the person attempting to sunder it is threatented by the weapon. By that logic Zerone.. no bows are ever wielding because they don't threaten. WHips are never wielded because they don't threaten. If I attempt to sunder a greatsword with my glaive you are not wielding it because you don't threaten me at range... That first part there is interesting. Where is this current ruling? I'd like to see it. Your logic is wrong, however, ask Jindl about logic and D&D... A lance does not threaten a 5' arc around the weilder. Therefore, it is not able to attack adjacent foes. How can one use something when it is unusable? How can you roll an attack for a weapon that doesn't get an attack under the current conditions? A bow would not get an opposed attack roll vs. a Sunder either, it isn't considered a weapon when in melee. Similarly, the glass rod a wizard uses when casting a lightning bolt could be concidered a club. Woud it get an attack roll or is it treated as a held object?
Caterane 05-17-05, 01:17 PM	It's in the FAQ (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5221608). Scroll down to "Arena Combat". There you will see "Readying: Are there any special rules concerning Ready Actions?"
Sunwolf 05-17-05, 01:25 PM	Oh, yes quite many mistakes! Spellcraft: You donnot need a line of sight! Hearing the caster is quite enough, if the spell has a verbal component. Ripper's listen is +14, rolling a 1 would have been enough. But with the miss chance, I did a big mistake. I'm too busy today to fix this mistake, but I can do tomorrow morning [*cough* during my work], hours before pairings. If you want me to do this just tellme, but with these tactics, Telverans chances for a win are pretty low, after the Griff there comes the direwolf, after the direwolf there comes Fleshgrinder and last but not least there will the wildshaped Rippy. I wasn't sure about the reward, but think you're right. Sorry, working without SRD and books is pretty difficult! @Cellar: Sorry again for this fight! It must have been a huge workload! No don't worry about rerunning. Telveran didn't have a high chance of success on this one. I had hoped that the swarm would go down faster and that Telveran would have been able to take out the Griff sooner. At least Telveran made some money on the fight. :)
Pittbull 05-17-05, 01:27 PM	@Cellardweller: So here's how the fight should go: Laph stays outside the fog, Ixenthor inside. Since the fog spreads 10ft in all directions (plus the initial 50ft), it should reach the maximum of 100ft radius soon. That's 200ft in all directions and I see NO WAY for Laph to avoid the fog. Sorry, this tactic might be illegal. It takes more than ten rounds to get the arena filled and this is a violation. This week the ceiling is still at 155ft. 200ft (40paces in diameter) in all directions gives enough space to get away.
Zerone 05-17-05, 01:29 PM	1. Sunday to Monday = 1 day in any calander, no matter the country. 2. Since I can't have a Heavy Warhorse, how is his horse faster? I know I mentioned that in the other fight, to switch it if I couldn't have a heavy to light. So what is the current ruling for compainions vs. ECL? 3. This is why I quit in the first place. Pard vs. Jin Szen was the final straw for me. I follow the book to the letter and then people change the rules or don't understand them properly, and/or don't implement tactics written, and/or say "it's too late now", and I get screwed. You (everyone) still had the fight wrong and in the end, it just wasn't worth it. It is hard for me to stand by and not say anything when it begins again. *•. Z
Salrantol 05-17-05, 01:41 PM	@King_Uther: A couple mistakes in your Gablim Utye vs. Ga'al Arc'ilwi fight About familiar death: If the familiar dies or is dismissed by the sorcerer, the sorcerer must attempt a DC 15 Fortitude saving throw. Failure means he loses 200 experience points per sorcerer level; success reduces the loss to one-half that amount. About monk AC: When unarmored and unencumbered, the monk adds her Wisdom bonus (if any) to her AC. In addition, a monk gains a +1 bonus to AC at 5th level. This bonus increases by 1 for every five monk levels thereafter (+2 at 10th, +3 at 15th, and +4 at 20th level). These bonuses to AC apply even against touch attacks or when the monk is flat-footed. She loses these bonuses when she is immobilized or helpless, when she wears any armor, when she carries a shield, or when she carries a medium or heavy load.
Caterane 05-17-05, 01:45 PM	@Zerone: Even if it is a light one, you have to be faster to get away else he attacks and AoOs you. If you withdraw, there is no action to heal left. Ok, let's assume that your ready action tactic would work. Your sunder modifiers are about equal so 50/50 chance to deal damage to the weapon. You wanted to sunder both the lance and the longsword. The lance has hardness 5 and took you 7 rounds. Let's keep in mind that in these 7 rounds, you won EVERY sunder check. The average would be twice as long. A longsword has hardness 10. With your 2d4+4 damage and a 50/50 chance to deal damage at all, it would take you forever to break the sword. You only deal damage on maximum damage, and then only a scratch! During these dozens upon dozens of rounds until you'd finally sunder all of the Don's weapons, the Don gets attacks vs you. If he hadn't rolled so absolutely crappy during round 2-7, he would have finished you off by then anyway but with the additional time you need to sunder his sword, no misfortune could keep him from killing you. @Pittbull: Don't forget that you are violating the 10 round limit too. I am seeking you (melee or ranged, whatever); you are avoiding me. You also have to pinpoint me to attack. And don't forget that after 10 rounds I have a radius of 100 ft fog around me. If I am at the center of the arena, and move towards you, there's no way to avoid the fog. With touchsight vs blinded I should have a very good advantage.
spasheridan 05-17-05, 02:05 PM	@Zerone:SUNDER You can use a melee attack with a slashing or bludgeoning weapon to strike a weapon or shield that your opponent is holding. If you’re attempting to sunder a weapon or shield, follow the steps outlined here. (Attacking held objects other than weapons or shields is covered below.)Here it clearly says that if someone is attempting to strike a weapon or shield then you follow these rules below. A lance is a weapon. A bow is a weapon. A whip is a weapon. It's "weapon" quality has nothing to do with if it threatens. Therefore, any attempt to sunder a weapon is doine by opposed rolls. You were the one wielding logic to deny a lance being a weapon. About the readied actions... the discussion about them took a while. I can't find it right now but the gist of the discussion went along these lines: 1) Readed actions are abusable. 2) The abuse of them is not a build based abuse (which we would probably allow) but rather an abuse of the "blindness" of tactics. 3) The solution to readied action tactics is even worse. Because there's no way to predict what readied actions are being sent in there's no way to create a defense in tactcs. But at a tabletop the solution would be obvious. The pitlord is obligated to make some modification to the gladiators tactics.. and now the pitlord (who knows both tactics) makes the modification.. and so the pitlord PICKS the winner of the modification. The examples of readied action abuses were in many fights, but there are some key needs for readied actions.. for example dodging spells (the only defense non-casters have vs wizards). SO, how do we stop the creation of logic traps? Logic traps that are not an artifact of the D&D rules but rather are an artifact of the arena tactics rules? We would like to keep readied actions in the game of course, they are core, but how do you fairly keep readied actions in with mail in tactics? I hope you understand that these rules changes are attempts to deal with issues revolving around how the Arena works and not how D&D works.
Cerebus13 05-17-05, 02:13 PM	about readied actions... I didn't notice the changes had been put in already, but they seem like a decent enough houserule for the situation. I'm curious though if everyone else is happy with them or think they should be altered in some way.
Malither76 05-17-05, 02:18 PM	Don't try to argue logic and D&D they don't mix, Zerone I do recreate history for fun and do armoured combat and I use a 9'-12' lance in most wars if you don't think I can block with it use it to kill you or trip or throw to the ground while you are withing 5' feet then that is somthing you would be pondering after all the above happened, I have never like the idea that you can't attack an adjacent square with a reach weapon, its quite easy and fast to choke up on a spear then stab with just the tip, but yeah don't try to argue logic and d&d it doesn't work if a weapon is being wielded its being wielded
Pittbull 05-17-05, 02:31 PM	@Pittbull: Don't forget that you are violating the 10 round limit too. I am seeking you (melee or ranged, whatever); you are avoiding me. You also have to pinpoint me to attack. And don't forget that after 10 rounds I have a radius of 100 ft fog around me. If I am at the center of the arena, and move towards you, there's no way to avoid the fog. With touchsight vs blinded I should have a very good advantage. Yes that's quite a dilemma, but I think, if Laph has the goal to hit from distance, but has problems to pin-point him, he doesn't violate the 10 rounds rule. I think, you can't be punished if you avoid the smoke, because this would be suicide, if you still try to hit your opponent from distance. Cellar got to make a difficult decission and I'll accept everything he decides.
Jindl 05-17-05, 02:36 PM	Re: Sundering - I think Spasheridan hit upon the key. Whether an item counts as a weapon or not does not depend on the range of its ability to threaten. An item is a weapon if it appears on the Weapons List in the PHB. Now, the Don was unable to take AoO's against the sunder attempts because his weapon didn't threaten his opponent. But his ability to resist the sunder by controlling his weapon was not limited by the reach of his weapon. Re: Ready Actions - I definately approve of the limitations to ready actions, although I only think they are necessary in fights where tactics are sent in. I would allow quests/miniquests to continue using all normally available ready actions. Re: Laph vs Ixenthor - I think a couple of points should be kept in mind. #1 - Ixenthor will be the one subject to the 10 round rule because he is creating the mist effect which blocks LOS to his space, making himself untargettable by Laph's ranged weapons. #2 - Laph cannot shoot Ixenthor while he is within the mist, because he doesn't have LOS to either his opponent or his opponent's space. #3 - Ixenthor can shoot Laph while within the mist, because his touchsight power grants him LOS within range. -Jindl
Caterane 05-17-05, 03:08 PM	Re: Ready Actions - I definately approve of the limitations to ready actions, although I only think they are necessary in fights where tactics are sent in. I would allow quests/miniquests to continue using all normally available ready actions. http://www.sebastian-sutor.de/smilies/think.gif Hm, that's a good point Jindl. We can use the normal rules for Ready actions in all non-tactic fights (even arena fight types that use a seperate thread and campaigns; we will see the first one soon btw). Good idea! #1 - Ixenthor will be the one subject to the 10 round rule because he is creating the mist effect which blocks LOS to his space, making himself untargettable by Laph's ranged weapons. And Laph has greater invisibility which has the same effect of making him untargetable if he keeps his distance. It's Ix's fault to not be able to cast see invisibility, and Laph's to not be able to manifest touchsight. Same thing.
Jindl 05-17-05, 03:30 PM	And Laph has greater invisibility which has the same effect of making him untargetable if he keeps his distance. It's Ix's fault to not be able to cast see invisibility, and Laph's to not be able to manifest touchsight. Same thing. Greater Invisibility does not block LOS to Laph's space, which means it does not prevent Ixenthor from shooting arrows at him (if Ixenthor locates him with listen or some other effect). The mist does block LOS, making it impossible for Laph to attack Ixenthor. -Jindl
Sunwolf 05-17-05, 03:52 PM	@King Uther Another mistake on the Gablim Utye vs. Ga'al Arc'ilwi fight. Share spells with a familiar only works if both of them stay within 5ft of each other. Once the cat moves more than 5' from Ga'al (like in round 4) one of them will lose the invisibility effect. Presumably Ga'al since Remi is the one supposed to do the striking. Gablim may now notice the visible Ga'al and take action.
spasheridan 05-17-05, 04:01 PM	#1 - Ixenthor will be the one subject to the 10 round rule because he is creating the mist effect which blocks LOS to his space, making himself untargettable by Laph's ranged weapons. Having an effect on yourself does not trigger the 10 round rule. Otherwise Laph triggers the 10 round rule every match on round 10. The 10 round rule is based on actions. If Laph sit's in the corner for 10 rounds waiting to see Ixenthor come out of the smoke then he has to DO something on round 11, no outwaiting buffs. If Ixenthor sit's in the center of the ring waiting for Laph to come into the smoke, Ixenthor must do something.. no outwaiting buffs. IF Ixenthor flies around the ring for 10 rounds carrying smoke while searching for Laph then Ixenthor is being ACTIVE. Ixenthor can have any buff on as long as Ixenthor is being ACTIVE (attempting to attack opponent). If Laph is dodging the smoke then Laph is the one who has to change his tactics. The ONLY way Laph can attack Ixenhor is to make a listen check vs Ixenthor and Laph is REQUIRED to attempt an attack. #2 - Laph cannot shoot Ixenthor while he is within the mist, because he doesn't have LOS to either his opponent or his opponent's space. This can't be how it's determined.. I do not need LOS to the target nor do I need LOS to the target's square. Otherwise the blind archer can never fire his bow. If I fly at night and attempt to shoot the ground I miss because I do not have LOS to the earth nor it's square.
Jindl 05-17-05, 04:30 PM	Having an effect on yourself does not trigger the 10 round rule. Otherwise Laph triggers the 10 round rule every match on round 10. The 10 round rule is based on actions. If Laph sit's in the corner for 10 rounds waiting to see Ixenthor come out of the smoke then he has to DO something on round 11, no outwaiting buffs. If Ixenthor sit's in the center of the ring waiting for Laph to come into the smoke, Ixenthor must do something.. no outwaiting buffs. IF Ixenthor flies around the ring for 10 rounds carrying smoke while searching for Laph then Ixenthor is being ACTIVE. Ixenthor can have any buff on as long as Ixenthor is being ACTIVE (attempting to attack opponent). If Laph is dodging the smoke then Laph is the one who has to change his tactics. The ONLY way Laph can attack Ixenhor is to make a listen check vs Ixenthor and Laph is REQUIRED to attempt an attack. There are 2 different 10 round rules. The first says that if you leave the arena for 10 rounds, then you lose the match. That obviously doesn't apply to either PC. The other says that if you avoid combat for 10 rounds then you will suffer a minor penalty. If Ixenthor flies around looking for Laph for 10 rounds, then he was not avoiding combat and its not a violation. If Laph tries to remain outside the mist and locate Ixenthor with Listen checks, then he is not avoiding combat and is not in violation either. This can't be how it's determined.. I do not need LOS to the target nor do I need LOS to the target's square. Otherwise the blind archer can never fire his bow. If I fly at night and attempt to shoot the ground I miss because I do not have LOS to the earth nor it's square. We've been over this rule enough times. The Core rules say you must have LOS to fire a ranged weapon. Several people pointed out that you can target the square an opponent is in to try and hit the opponent. The two rules interact to require you to have LOS to the square you are trying to target, in order to use a ranged weapon. Quit trying to come up with logical, real world examples to refute this rule. It's not that I disagree with your examples. It's just that the Core rule is the Core rule. -Jindl
Cerebus13 05-17-05, 04:39 PM	I'm not sure if anyone has mentioned this yet...but does the smoke produced from an Eversmoking bottle mimic normal smoke? If so this passage applies: Smoke Effects A character who breathes heavy smoke must make a Fortitude save each round (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or spend that round choking and coughing. A character who chokes for 2 consecutive rounds takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Smoke obscures vision, giving concealment (20% miss chance) to characters within it.
Caterane 05-17-05, 04:45 PM	It's a different smoke. This one (quote) "totally obscures" vision, and nothing in the description indicates that there is a suffocation effect accompanying the bottle smoke. Re: Delaying. Ixenthor did not delay. He was from the beginning on determined to seek and find Laph. He used touchsight and his griffon to speed this up. Since the bottle always produces 50ft smoke around the wielder, Ixenthor would always be within the smoke. With the increasing spread effect, and the old smoke that dissipates normally (which how we found out takes much longer than 4 rounds, not instantly like it has been run) the arena would very soon be filled completely with smoke. Now, only Ixenthor has (touch)sight and should have no problems to find blind and flatfooted Laph. The griffon was supposed to help Ix with scent, but he slept on the ground and (quote) "counted sheeps in the paddock". I could have buffed to the end but I wanted a straightforward fight. I really do not think I am delaying anything. Quite the opposite.
spasheridan 05-17-05, 04:48 PM	We've been over this rule enough times. The Core rules say you must have LOS to fire a ranged weapon. Several people pointed out that you can target the square an opponent is in to try and hit the opponent. The two rules interact to require you to have LOS to the square you are trying to target, in order to use a ranged weapon. Quit trying to come up with logical, real world examples to refute this rule. It's not that I disagree with your examples. It's just that the Core rule is the Core rule.So, scenario 1: PC A is invisible. PC B makes an ungodly listen check vs PC A's breathing and PC B fires an arrow at the sound of the breath. Scenario 2: PC A is invisible at night. PC B makes an ungoldy listen check vs PC A's breathing. PC B cannot fire his arrow at the sound of the breath because it's dark. Scenario 3: PC A stands in front of a wall and fires his bow at it. He closes his eyes and tries to fire his bow at the wall. Now he misses it.. in fact he cannot even let the arrow out of the bow because it's an illegal target. I'm sorry Jindl, but slavish adherence to stupid rules is.. just silly. Even better, this adherence to the LOS rule is a nice little perk for casters. Many of their spells are LOE restricted, while all ranged attacks are LOS restriced. WHile we dither over how little we should nerf overpowered 1-shot items we are glad to slap the ultimate nerf on archers.. any LOS blocking power now makes ranged combat completely useless! Obscuring mist, bottles of smoke, darkness, deeper darkness.. the list goes on and on. Boom, no more shooting bows. IMO the obvious answer to this dilema is the realize that the editors made a mistake and wrote LOS when they meant LOE. How do we get this answered? Can we peition the sage?
Caterane 05-17-05, 04:52 PM	The sage :heehee
Cerebus13 05-17-05, 05:13 PM	WHile we dither over how little we should nerf overpowered 1-shot items we are glad to slap the ultimate nerf on archers.. any LOS blocking power now makes ranged combat completely useless! Obscuring mist, bottles of smoke, darkness, deeper darkness.. the list goes on and on. Boom, no more shooting bows.I agree with spash on this one, ranged attacks are completely nerfed with any of these spells or magic items. I would rather see a houserule used in this situation than have archer builds nullified by combinations that conceal a caster and still allow them to see their opponent (like touchsight/smoke, fairie fire/deeper darkness, etc..).
spasheridan 05-17-05, 05:17 PM	I agree with spash on this one, ranged attacks are completely nerfed with any of these spells or magic items. I would rather see a houserule used in this situation than have archer builds nullified by combinations that conceal a caster and still allow them to see their opponent (like touchsight/smoke, fairie fire/deeper darkness, etc..).And i'm not saying that as long as you have LOE you get free shots. You still need to make your ungoldy listen check. I would not allow targetting of the center of a large sphere (like a 50' radius smoke sphere with billowing edges), but I might let you target the center of a 20' radius sphere or have 1/9 chance of hitting the center of a 30' radius sphere. So the combo of touchsite / smoke / silence would effectively destroy any ranged targetting sense, but at least the silenced guy wouldnt be able to cast any more spells.
cellardweller 05-17-05, 09:38 PM	Ok I'll try to get all of these at once: Re: Using bow without LoS to square See comments by Spash, I thought he had already convinced everyone over the last 3 weeks. Re: Smoke dissapation The problem is that the item gives no rules for 1)What dissapates normally means 2) What happens to smoke in a square it is no longer within the area of effect. In the absence of these of these I used my extensive experience with magical smoke to determine the following: 1)It would dissapate with a half-life of 2.5 rounds and be completely gone in 10. 2)When Ix moves it is equivilent to closing the bottle at one location and opening it at another, resetting the initial radius to 50'. We are both guilty of trying to use real world experience to judge something that has no real world counterpart. In light of this I have just gone back and re-read the description to see what it actually does say - 1) There is smoke in an area of between 50' and 100' from the bottle when it unstoppered 2) When it is stoppered the smoke begins to dissapate. 3) Vision is completely obscured within the area of effect. So without reading anything else into it or trying to guess how magical smoke behaves, you have an effect similar to 3.0 darkness centered on the bottle. I beleive this is how it should be treated in the future. Re: Targetting center of a sphere A gladiator can target any square, this means that he knows the exact cordinates for the edge of the smoke. Simple arithmetic determine the center from any 2 edge points. This is the way I have always run it though I am aware that this is not the only way it has been run. Re: Not attacking during 68 rounds You would have have had to pin point laph when he is 100-150 away (~1/200) on a round that you weren't healing (~1/400), pass a miss chance (~1/800), make your attack roll (~1/1000)and repeat this feat enough times to burn through 40 points of vigor as well as his normal hp (1/10^32). I didn't consider the one in 10^32 chance that this could make a difference worth the extra 3 weeks it would have taken me to track positions of 3 gladiators over these rounds. Re: How adapted tactics I had 2 gladiators both making half-assed attempts at offense while trying to force the other into an environment that put them at a disadvantage. There was a forceable end in sight due to Laph's limited ammunition. So I had 2 choices either take Ix's bottle and Laph invisibility away or just let things play out as if Ix spent the rounds trying to get into melee with Laph, and Laph spent the rounds avoiding Ix while shooting arrows. I went with the latter meaning that Ix lost his touchsight and Laph lost his vigor.
King Uther 05-17-05, 10:35 PM	You know what? I have absolutely no idea where I got that when the familiar dies the fortitude save is vs. death. The fight has already been run the other way, but the outcome should be the opposite. I only went back when I made up some reason for fort vs death when familiar dies. I will post corrections this evening.
King Uther 05-17-05, 11:07 PM	Corrected Gablim vs. Ga'al (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6202068&postcount=1558) is up. Wow, looking back at it I feel silly. The outcome did change, but it came down to the wire. Ended quicker though.
spasheridan 05-18-05, 03:10 AM	Re: Targetting center of a sphere A gladiator can target any square, this means that he knows the exact cordinates for the edge of the smoke. Simple arithmetic determine the center from any 2 edge points. This is the way I have always run it though I am aware that this is not the only way it has been run.I think this is a bit to much advantage. 1) Laph cannot know the exact workings of a bottle of smoke without the appropriate knowledge skills. 2) THe smoke effect is not a clearly defined cirlce that one can use a compass and L measure to bisect to determine the center 3) With Ixenthor constantly moving the disapating smoke confuses the boundary of the new smoke circle 4) Can you pinpoint the center of a moving 50' radius sphere of smoke in less than 3 seconds without fail? Show me some kind of ad-hoc roll here... Re: Smoke dissapation The problem is that the item gives no rules for 1)What dissapates normally means 2) What happens to smoke in a square it is no longer within the area of effect. In the absence of these of these I used my extensive experience with magical smoke to determine the following: 1)It would dissapate with a half-life of 2.5 rounds and be completely gone in 10. 2)When Ix moves it is equivilent to closing the bottle at one location and opening it at another, resetting the initial radius to 50'. We are both guilty of trying to use real world experience to judge something that has no real world counterpart. In light of this I have just gone back and re-read the description to see what it actually does say - 1) There is smoke in an area of between 50' and 100' from the bottle when it unstoppered 2) When it is stoppered the smoke begins to dissapate. 3) Vision is completely obscured within the area of effect. So without reading anything else into it or trying to guess how magical smoke behaves, you have an effect similar to 3.0 darkness centered on the bottle. I beleive this is how it should be treated in the future. For simplicity's sake I would say that there needs to be an EASY way to adjuticate the bottle of smoke, otherwise anyone using it is going to be struck by the pitlords wrath of annoyance... As to what the EASY adjutication of the bottle of smoke should be.. well... I like the "effectivly like stoppering it at old location an unstoppering it at new location" rule. Now we need a good disapation rule. I think 10 rounds is appropriate. We can now put things like (smoke 50' [x,y] rnd 13, smoke 50' [x,y] rnd 14, smoke 60' [x,y] rnd 16) much like we would record an entangle spell. With those rules it would take about 8 rounds to completly fill up the entire arena or 4 rounds if you just wanted ground cover. You would need a decent speed though.
michael_noah 05-18-05, 09:48 AM	I'm thinking that there is no way one can have a better than 1/4 chance of targetting the correct square. Here's why: I assume that an eversmoking bottle's effect must be centered on an intersection, just like any spells target. If that is the case, then the holder of the bottle could be in any one of the adjoining 4 squares.
Caterane 05-18-05, 09:54 AM	@CD: 1- Auto-pinpoint: You cannot let Laph free auto-pinpoint me within 100fts of smoke! That's is unacceptable. We have often talked about the necessity of pinpointing with listen in a 20ft darkness or blacklight effect. Laph even manifested synesthete (listen) to increase his listen checks! What you did is like giving me auto-knowledge of his position when he is invisible. Please correct that! 2- Instant-dissipation: The description explicitely mentions STRONG wind that needs a FULL round to dissipate it. Medium wind needs 4 rounds even. How can you say that no wind instantly disperses the fog? Again, you make a (completely illogical) houserule which completely negates my advantages, like with the pinpointing above. 3- Confined smoke: Per bottle description, the smoke quickly extends in all directions. With me moving around and the bottle always filling 50ft around my position, the whole arena would soon be filled so that Laph has no way not to end up in smoke! You completely ignore a property of my main magic item! 4- No attack in 68 rounds: Since Laph had a tricorder with which he could triangulate, send a laser pointer, and fire homing missiles, while my malfunctioning smoke bottle produces insta-dissipate smoke that doesn't extend, and my griffon who should help in locating him "counts sheep" on the ground, I can see why I didn't attack even once during one of the longest arena fights. And I can see why you produced 68 rounds at all. But I tell you how the fight should go: - With the smoke taking much time to dissipate, with new smoke filling the arena, and with Ixenthor moving around with always 50ft smoke pouring from the bottle, the arena should be filled completely within the first 10 rounds. - Ixenthor uses touchsight and his griffon to locate Laph who is blinded and flies at half speed. - Once found, Ix picks a cold iron arrow and grapples him. No AoO. No dex. Blinded. Small pixie vs strong angel. That way, the fight would have been over soon. It would have been an easy fight with a few listen checks for Laph but that's all. I want to kindly ask you to correct these huge mistakes!
cellardweller 05-18-05, 10:09 AM	Did you read *any* of what I wrote? @CD: 1- Auto-pinpoint: You cannot let Laph free auto-pinpoint me within 100fts of smoke! As I stated we fight in a world where we characters know distances exactly. It is grade 2 math to work out where the center is. 2- Instant-dissipation: The description explicitely mentions STRONG wind that needs a FULL round to dissipate it. Medium wind needs 4 rounds even. How can you say that no wind instantly disperses the fog? As I said before I used 10 rounds to "disapate normally" it did not instantly dissapear. Without a rule definition of "dissapate normally" I had it behave as real smoke ie thin out with a half-life. Please go back and read what I wrote again. 3- Confined smoke: Per bottle description, the smoke quickly extends in all directions. With me moving around and the bottle always filling 50ft around my position, the whole arena would soon be filled so that Laph has no way not to end up in smoke! ... and for the purposes of this fight as soon as you leave the area it begins to "dissapate normally". 4- No attack in 68 rounds: Since Laph had a tricorder with which he could triangulate, send a laser pointer, and fire homing missiles, while my malfunctioning smoke bottle produces insta-dissipate smoke that doesn't extend, and my griffon who should help in locating him "counts sheep" on the ground, I can see why I didn't attack even once during one of the longest arena fights. And I can see why you produced 68 rounds at all. already explained above. I want to kindly ask you to correct these huge mistakes! I see no mistakes.
Caterane 05-18-05, 10:21 AM	If the smoke takes 10 rounds to dissipate, and I can produce 50ft blocks each round, then I should be able to easily fill the arena, or at least cut off Laph's way. About pinpointing, you're the only one here who believes that you exactly know the center of the smoke radius. Michael Noah even showed that you cannot pinpoint someone just by knowing the center square because there is no center square, even with your method of every gladiator - even Int 4 Donkey - knowing the center of a huge 100 ft and more radius effect. And again: since I move around there is no way he can tell where the bottle (and Ix) is because I produce new smoke, new centers with the old centers staying in effect. He cannot use this method to target me.
Cerebus13 05-18-05, 10:22 AM	@Cat & cellar Locating Ixenthor earlier in the match would have been easier as its not hard to see a giant 50' sphere of smoke and aim for the middle. However...once the arena has filled with many of these 50' spheres all with a 10 round duration Laph would have an almost impossible time picking out which sphere to shoot into. We'll definitely need some clairifications on how Eversmoking Bottles work after this battle...if nothing else just to aid any other Pitlords during the headache of tracking 50' spheres of smoke, 2 players and possible allies in a 3 dimensional environment. (I'll also be looking to purchase tattoos of touchsight after reading this fight :P) Edit: Moved to new post.
Salrantol 05-18-05, 10:24 AM	And again: since I move around there is no way he can tell where the bottle (and Ix) is because I produce new smoke, new centers with the old centers staying in effect. He cannot use this method to target me. That basically seals the deal--if it were a static effect with a constant visual effect it'd be one thing, but since the effect is always increasing and the only boundary of the effect is a slight gradient from full-strength to dissipating smoke, it would be impossible beyond a few rounds or so to pinpoint him from the effect.
cellardweller 05-18-05, 10:36 AM	"Disapates normally". Smoke doesn't normally just disappear, it fades away as it settles. So for the 3rd time it took as if it took 10 rounds to dissapate with a half life of 2.5 rounds. After 1 round the smoke is as 75% thick as it was After 2 rounds the smoke is as 57% thick as it was After 3 rounds the smoke is as 44% thick as it was After 4 rounds the smoke is as 33% thick as it was After 5 rounds the smoke is as 25% thick as it was After 6 rounds the smoke is as 21% thick as it was After 7 rounds the smoke is as 14% thick as it was After 8 rounds the smoke is as 11% thick as it was After 9 rounds the smoke is as 8% thick as it was After 10 rounds effectively gone
cellardweller 05-18-05, 10:39 AM	We'll definitely need some clairifications on how Eversmoking Bottles work after this battle...if nothing else just to aid any other Pitlords during the headache of tracking 50' spheres of smoke, 2 players and possible allies in a 3 dimensional environment. It is before the council as we speak. @jindl/sindorin :waits:
Caterane 05-18-05, 10:50 AM	If that smoke dissipation table is not a houserule, nothing is. And within all these different levels of dissipation, with all these "centers" within hundreds upon hundreds of square feet in all directions, Laph still picked the correct square every round.
cellardweller 05-18-05, 10:50 AM	Michael Noah even showed that you cannot pinpoint someone just by knowing the center square because there is no center square Without knowing what discussion you are referring to I would imagine that its argument rested on the following line: The point of origin of a spell is always a grid intersection. Which is clearly not applicable to this situation.
cellardweller 05-18-05, 10:51 AM	If that smoke dissipation table is not a houserule, nothing is. Ok then please point me to the non-house rule which details how smoke dissapates normally.
Caterane 05-18-05, 10:57 AM	4 rounds with moderate wind, 1 round with strong wind. No wind? Nothing mentioned. Seems like the smoke stays in effect until the janitor comes. Even if you want to use a houserule, then you have to base it on the facts. That means, with a moderate wind, there is still 100% smoke after 3.999 rounds (not 33%). Only after 4 rounds are completely over, the smoke is blown away. A light wind could take 16 rounds (again, 4 times as much as 1 -> 4), and no wind would take another 4 times -> 64 rounds. But with the bottle always producing new smoke, it actually extends instead of dissipating. And where should the smoke dissipate to? There are so many indicators that back up my side but you choose to create a house rule that is absolutely negative for me, and ignores the rules on top of that. @Zoro/Snommelp: Rerun of Saya vs Don complete.
cellardweller 05-18-05, 11:16 AM	4 rounds with moderate wind, 1 round with strong wind. No wind? Nothing mentioned. Seems like the smoke stays in effect until the janitor comes. It says it disperses 4 rounds it says nothing about its state in the intervening rounds so we are left with the definition of "Normally". Smoke normally (real-world) dissappates according to the function A0.5^kt. A light wind could take 16 rounds (again, 4 times as much as 1 -> 4), and no wind would take another 4 times -> 64 rounds. It could be any number, I picked 10 as an appropriate one. It is no more or less correct than any other number. But with the bottle always producing new smoke, it actually extends instead of dissipating. Ix is in the center of a 50' circle definied by x^2+y^2=50. There is a 50' of full smoke defined by x+^2+y^2=50 He moves 20' forward east. There is a 50' of full smoke defined by (x+20)^2+y^2=50 There is a 50' of 3/4 smoke defined by x^2+y^2=50 And where should the smoke dissipate to? Smoke is suspended carbon, it is heavier than air and settles to the ground. It should be noted that I am no longer advocating the functioning of the bottle according to how I am now describing it. I believe both how I ran it and how you wanted it run to both be incorrect. <See Council discussion thread> PS: It is well past my bedtime I will have to rebutt whatever arguments you have in the morning.
michael_noah 05-18-05, 11:18 AM	Without knowing what discussion you are referring to I would imagine that its argument rested on the following line: Which is clearly not applicable to this situation. Pray tell, then, from where does the smoke effect originate? If it is not a grid intersection, how do you plan to determine where the effects end, since there are no rules for mapping out "spreads" except those that originate at grid intersections? Note: this discussion about dissipation is pointless. Any dissipation without wind is a houserule. The smoke dissipates normally only after the bottle is stoppered. Sure, they'd probably want it to dissipate after you move... This area remains smoke-filled until the eversmoking bottle is stoppered. The bottle must be resealed by a command word, after which the smoke dissipates normally.
Cerebus13 05-18-05, 11:24 AM	The rules for this item are very poorly written :rant:. Eversmoking Bottle This metal urn is identical in appearance to an efreeti bottle, except that it does nothing but smoke. The amount of smoke is great if the stopper is pulled out, pouring from the bottle and totally obscuring vision across a 50-foot spread in 1 round. If the bottle is left unstoppered, the smoke billows out another 10 feet per round until it has covered a 100-foot radius. This area remains smoke-filled until the eversmoking bottle is stoppered.Another way to interpret this (using the bolded passages) is that a 50' smoke spread only occurs when you "pull the stopper" (i.e. activate the bottle). If the bottle is left unstoppered (its power is left active) it will only produce another 10' radius of smoke from itself. So with this interpretation in order for Ixenthor to get the desired effect of "filling the arena with 50' radius spheres of smoke" he would be required to #1: unstopper the bottle (standard action), shoot out 50' of smoke, wait out round for the smoke to fill the area. #2: Restopper the bottle (standard action, I think?), move to new location and repeat #1. Doing this however will trigger the "smoke dissipates normally" effect for the existing 50' radius of smoke. I'm not sure what "normally" is here, but it would take effect at this point. I'm not sure which way is correct, but after looking at the item description again it seems it may not constantly push out another 50' of smoke unless it has been initially activated (i.e. the stopper has been pulled).
cellardweller 05-18-05, 11:27 AM	Pray tell, then, from where does the smoke effect originate? If it is not a grid intersection, how do you plan to determine where the effects end, since there are no rules for mapping out "spreads" except those that originate at grid intersections? Got me there. I will look over this in the morning. Note: this discussion about dissipation is pointless. Any dissipation without wind is a houserule. Agreed. A ruling needed to made on a situation that had no rules so I made one. The smoke dissipates normally only after the bottle is stoppered. Sure, they'd probably want it to dissipate after you move... Again agreed. I now beleive it should function similar to a 3.0 darkness centered on the bottle (what I alluded to earlier). The smoke remains in the area - this area is defined by the radius around the bottle, so when it moves, the smoke moves with it.
Caterane 05-18-05, 11:32 AM	It says it disperses 4 rounds it says nothing about its state in the intervening rounds so we are left with the definition of "Normally". Smoke normally (real-world) dissappates according to the function A0.5^kt. No, this is a houserule! Invented by you. And it costs me the fight. It could be any number, I picked 10 as an appropriate one. It is no more or less correct than any other number. Again, invented by you. The description says something else. And this is not even necessary with the smoke not dissipating at all. Ix is in the center of a 50' circle definied by x^2+y^2=50. There is a 50' of full smoke defined by x+^2+y^2=50 He moves 20' forward east. There is a 50' of full smoke defined by (x+20)^2+y^2=50 There is a 50' of 3/4 smoke defined by x^2+y^2=50 Again, you invent something that makes it possible for Laph to discern different levels of dissipation within one huge cloud of smoke, and on top of that you invent the auto-pinpointing of the center. This also costs me the fight. Everyone tells you that a) the smoke does not dissipate b) even if, it dissipates after full rounds c) you cannot auto-pinpoint someone within 50ft smoke d) you cannot distinguish different smoke clouds by its dissipation level e) there are no different dissipation levels but you stick to your guessed real world examples and completely ignore all other members and all hints in the rule books. And also, there's not just one but ALL of your houserules that greatly benefit Laph by granting him abilities that he shouldn't possess while at the same time cancelling my abilities. It is well past my bedtime I will have to rebutt whatever arguments you have in the morning. Yeah, tomorow is thursday.
Pittbull 05-18-05, 11:42 AM	Whow! What a huge dicussion! Sorry Cellar! I've been too busy to follow the whole thing, because everybody in my area seems to need a dentist at the moment. The only thing I like to know, is: Is it a discussion about the usage of the eversmoking bottle or about the result of the fight. The Pitlord still hasn't changed their status in the roster. I'd like to set Laph ready for this week and don't want to wait for another one. So there are sevaral ways: - Cat accepts the result. - Cellar changes the result to a Ixidor win and I accept. There's no need for a rerun, just write that Cat convinced you in the dicussion that he must have won.
Jindl 05-18-05, 11:44 AM	The rules for this item are very poorly written :rant:. Another way to interpret this (using the bolded passages) is that a 50' smoke spread only occurs when you "pull the stopper" (i.e. activate the bottle). If the bottle is left unstoppered (its power is left active) it will only produce another 10' radius of smoke from itself. So with this interpretation in order for Ixenthor to get the desired effect of "filling the arena with 50' radius spheres of smoke" he would be required to #1: unstopper the bottle (standard action), shoot out 50' of smoke, wait out round for the smoke to fill the area. #2: Restopper the bottle (standard action, I think?), move to new location and repeat #1. Doing this however will trigger the "smoke dissipates normally" effect for the existing 50' radius of smoke. I'm not sure what "normally" is here, but it would take effect at this point. I'm not sure which way is correct, but after looking at the item description again it seems it may not constantly push out another 50' of smoke unless it has been initially activated (i.e. the stopper has been pulled). That is how I read it as well. So if you move out of the area of smoke, then you will be in a sphere of smoke with a 10 ft radius (which will then grow 10 ft per round that you remain stationary). I would also say that if the bottle (unstoppered) leaves an area of smoke, then it no longer provides the necessary support to maintain that smoke, and that area of smoke would begin to dissipate normally. BTW: I hate this magic item even more than the whip feather token. -Jindl
Jindl 05-18-05, 12:06 PM	I just placed my votes on the items before the Elder council. Here's what I had to say about the Eversmoking Bottle: 4. Can we please just ban this item? Well, short of that here's my take on it: #1 - Nothing in the item description indicates that this smoke is any different from normal smoke, which is an environmental hazard. The rules for smoke inhalation should apply while within the area of effect. #2 - The initial radius of 50 ft does not move with the unstoppered bottle. If the bottle moves, the 10 ft expanding radius moves with the bottle. #3 - Any smoke outside the radius currently supported by the bottle begins to dissipate normally. So here's an example of how I think the bottle should work: Ixenthor unstoppers the bottle, causing smoke to expand 50 ft around him. Any creatures within this area (including Ixenthor) fall under the rules for smoke inhalation (see the quote below). Of course, they can hold their breath as normal. Ixenthor then flies 60 ft out of the initial smoke cloud. The still open bottle isues more smoke, growing a 10 ft radius around Ixenthor, who is still carrying it. If Ixenthor moves, the 10 ft radius will grow around the bottle each round. If he stays still the current radius will expand 10 ft each round. Any smoke not within the current radius of the bottle is considered unsupported and will begin to dissipate normally. Smoke Inhalation: Forest fires naturally produce a great deal of smoke. A character who breathes heavy smoke must make a Fortitude save each round (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or spend that round choking and coughing. A character who chokes for 2 consecutive rounds takes 1d6 points of nonlethal damage. Also, smoke obscures vision, providing concealment to characters within it.
Pittbull 05-18-05, 12:42 PM	Whow! Jindl, where do you find all these rules? :clap: The eversmoking bottle is made with pyrotechnics. In old AD&D this has been an elemental spell, which means it produces real smoke, not magical one (I can't find any new rule for that). That could mean, that Jindl is right and Ixidor has to roll for fortsaves if he stays in the smoke. Another reason why Laph should avoid the smoke. ;)
michael_noah 05-18-05, 12:56 PM	I just placed my votes on the items before the Elder council. Here's what I had to say about the Eversmoking Bottle: The quote from the SRD is pretty clearly talking only about smoke from forest fires. The section quoted by Jindl is preceeded by: Within the bounds of a forest fire, a character faces three dangers: heat damage, catching on fire, and smoke inhalation. If we took that section to apply to every type of smoke, not just forest fire smoke, we'd need to take this: Heat Damage: Getting caught within a forest fire is even worse than being exposed to extreme heat (see Heat Dangers). Breathing the air causes a character to take 1d6 points of damage per round (no save). In addition, a character must make a Fortitude save every 5 rounds (DC 15, +1 per previous check) or take 1d4 points of nonlethal damage. A character who holds his breath can avoid the lethal damage, but not the nonlethal damage. Those wearing heavy clothing or any sort of armor take a –4 penalty on their saving throws. In addition, those wearing metal armor or coming into contact with very hot metal are affected as if by a heat metal spell. to mean that breathing "the air" causes a character to take damage, no matter if it is air in a forest fire or not.
Jindl 05-18-05, 01:06 PM	Michael - The rule I quoted is for smoke inhalation. It wouldn't matter if that smoke was caused by a forest fire, a burning building, or an eversmoking bottle. The rule describes the effects of breathing heavy smoke, which is defined as smoke that is thick enough to grant concealment. The smoke from an eversmoking bottle obviously falls into this category. There is no argument being made about the effects of breathing superheated air. -Jindl
Caterane 05-18-05, 01:17 PM	And unlike normal smoke, it grants total concealment, not 20%. Nothing in the description says that you must make a fortitude save. Nothing says that you are coughing. Nothing says what dissipating normally means. Ever been to a disco Jindl? Obviously, the smoke that is being produced there isn't harmful to anyone inside. Or why is everyone cheering when smoke pours out? Because they are all mad? That just gets worse the more we talk about it. CD, I don't care anymore. Just do me one favor and delete that 30 charges of CLW that I used while I played the bull's eye to help Laph practise his archery abilities and "how to pinpoint someone I can't see within hundreds of square feet". That's really the most ridiculous thing among all the Ixenthor discriminating things that popped up in the fight. Cat out :hoppingma
michael_noah 05-18-05, 01:18 PM	Michael - The rule I quoted is for smoke inhalation. It wouldn't matter if that smoke was caused by a forest fire, a burning building, or an eversmoking bottle. The rule describes the effects of breathing heavy smoke, which is defined as smoke that is thick enough to grant concealment. The smoke from an eversmoking bottle obviously falls into this category. There is no argument being made about the effects of breathing superheated air. -Jindl The rule you quoted is for smoke inhalation during a forest fire. Like I said, if you apply it to all smoke inhalation, then you must apply the next rule to all air breathing. If there is a rule somewhere defining, "heavy smoke" i might be willing to admit that we could puzzle something out.
spasheridan 05-18-05, 01:21 PM	I'll repeat my earlier thought and say that we need an easy to adjuticate rule for smoke. If it's a breath holding / save / multiple radius tracking then the bottle of smoke becomes the largest time sink item in the game. Almost gaurenteed to cause the wrath of the pitlord. On the other hand, there needs to be some equalizer vs invisibility. Right now Laph is unbeatble vs a mundane. Ixenthor deserves a chance at a defense vs the invisible archer, and smoke (or darkness) is the only one for a non-caster. Even touchsite has such limited range that it's easy to avoid. I am pained by the popularity of the denial builds and the denial tactics in the arena. It's creeping up on a rock / paper / scissors game and that's... annoying. It's one thing to be beaten by your opponent's strength. It's another thing to be denied your actions and then kiled by papercuts...
Pittbull 05-18-05, 01:28 PM	@Spash: Laph Jeirehneen (Pittbull) [Power: 3796 (1356); 5 won, 3 lost] Laph is build to kill a elven caster, Heinrich! But he's truely not unbeatable. He's just a powerful build.
Jindl 05-18-05, 01:40 PM	And unlike normal smoke, it grants total concealment, not 20%. Nothing in the description says that you must make a fortitude save. Nothing says that you are coughing. Nothing says what dissipating normally means. If it is thicker than the smoke in a forest fire, then it definately qualifies as heavy smoke. Ever been to a disco Jindl? Obviously, the smoke that is being produced there isn't harmful to anyone inside. Or why is everyone cheering when smoke pours out? Because they are all mad? That isn't smoke, its fog. The rule you quoted is for smoke inhalation during a forest fire. Like I said, if you apply it to all smoke inhalation, then you must apply the next rule to all air breathing. If there is a rule somewhere defining, "heavy smoke" i might be willing to admit that we could puzzle something out. The bottle produces smoke, not heat. The "air breathing" rule you point at is a result of Heat Danger. I would expect it to be used anytime a character is operating in an area where the air is extremely hot. I think the smoke from an eversmoking bottle should be considered heavy smoke, as it grants equal or more concealment than the heavy smoke described in the smoke inhalation rules. Ultimately, the rules on this item are just badly written. We are left with our opinions on how it should work. I've given my opinion and reasons which I think support it. Short of banning the item, I think ultimately it will take an Elder vote to determine which opinion will be put into effect in the CoCo. -Jindl
spasheridan 05-18-05, 01:51 PM	Laph is build to kill a elven caster, Heinrich! But he's truely not unbeatable. He's just a powerful build.lol. Laph has nothing that a 7th level wizard can't have with 2 rounds of buffs.. fly + imp invis. Except SR that is.. I'm just saying that Invis is a denial power, as is fly. Fly slaps the nerf stick on the melee tank, it's tough to melee vs a flying opponent. So fly pushes us into a n archery batle for tanks.. but Imp Invis negates archery. If we stick to the LOS requirement for any ranged attack then Fly + smoke/dark/invis becomes the "tanks sux" tactics. And it's a denial tacic.. you just remove the ability of the tank to even take meaningful action. A fly + invis ranged build w/dodge+spring attack can almost guarentee no meaningful actions. Rock beats scissors, next match please. It's bad enough that the game has the save or die effects in it (hold person / brainlock / finger of death / sleep) and it's bad enough that there are mighty nerfs in the game (entangle, blindness) but at LEAST those are attacks that deal effects. The denial buffs are just rude... I guess I'm looking for fair fights. No eye gouging, no hitting below the belt, step back when the ref calls it kind of a match...
Pittbull 05-18-05, 02:14 PM	@Spash: Do I get you right? Do you want character-builds like Laph to be prohibited, because they aren't fair in the CoCo? As you said a pure caster is much more dangerous! But being nerved of these unfair circumstances for meelers has been an old feeling I have since my arrival in the CoCo. Hagrid II (Pittbull) [Power: 928 (928); 1 won, 2 lost] -- Meeler Korn (Pittbull) [Power: 1457 (1041); 4 won, 5 lost] -- Meeler Boraxx (Pittbull) [Power: 1726 (863); 5 won, 7 lost] -- Meeler Laph Jeirehneen (Pittbull) [Power: 3796 (1356); 5 won, 3 lost] Angosh (Pittbull): 12 won, 19 lost [5b] -- Meeler You see, I have quite expirienced the disadvantage of melee-builds. But it still makes fun!!
Caterane 05-19-05, 09:06 AM	Re: Ixenthor vs Laph I am going to refund my Eversmoking Bottle for full. We have used the Eversmoking Bottle a hunnered times before, especially during the High and Pre-epic fights, and we have always handled it like I expected it to work. It is bad enough that I lose the fight because of an impromptu change of the working of this item during the fight and without informing me, but I am not going to suffer the long-term effects of a rule that has been changed by the pitlord after I have sent tactics, and without my knowledge. And I am not even talking about the auto-pinpointing or the different dissipation levels or my 30 charges of CLW or that I didn't even move a single square 50 rounds long. @CD: If you ever plan to handle something differently than I expect it to work, I would appreciate if you would drop me a note so that I can adept to the different circumstances.
Andarious 05-19-05, 09:41 AM	Yeah, tactis for Evan Alerian submitted and such. May the best build win.
spasheridan 05-19-05, 12:00 PM	@CD: If you ever plan to handle something differently than I expect it to work, I would appreciate if you would drop me a note so that I can adept to the different circumstances.This really can't be stressed enough. Pitlords should take the time to read tactics when they arrive and if the pitlord sees a wacky tactic or a rules interpertation that they disagree with then the pitlord should respond to the tactic. Now, some people are more likely to send wacky / intricitate tactics than others.. *cough*caterane*cough*jindl*cough* .. so when you get them as your gladiator for the week expect a little bit more work. At the end of the day though, the legwork before the fight can save a bunch of headaches after it.
Jindl 05-19-05, 12:29 PM	Now, some people are more likely to send wacky / intricitate tactics than others.. *cough*caterane*cough*jindl*cough* .. so when you get them as your gladiator for the week expect a little bit more work. Hey! I don't think my tactics are that wacky or intricate. Especially not compared to Cat...
Sindorin 05-19-05, 12:33 PM	I can't speak for Cat because I haven't pitlorded as much for him, but seeing as how this is the third of the Elder's fight's that I've pitlorded for Jindl, his tactics are very concise and straightforward, I've never had trouble pitlording the Elder.
Jindl 05-19-05, 01:00 PM	@Spash/Sindorin - I didn't take any offense. Spash has run several fights for my characters, and I hope he didn't find the tactics too "wacky" or "intricate". I really do try to keep them concise and short. I do enjoy kidding Cat about the length of his tactics ... some of which are longer than the fight ;) -Jindl
Sindorin 05-19-05, 01:01 PM	hehe, I was just sayin'.
Caterane 05-19-05, 03:00 PM	@Jindl: The highlevel fights, yes but now my tactics are very short. Here's Ixenthor's vs Laph: Starting Equipment Hold the Bottle of Celestial Clouds in my hand Prone on the ground with a towershield in hand (FF Ac 23) Tactic 1) Unstopper the bottle and fly up (no need for a move action to stand up because I can fly). 2) Store the bottle somewhere but leave it open so that new clouds pour into the arena. Draw touchsight stone. 3) Manifest touchsight, store shield 4) Call griffon and tell him to seek and grapple Laph (scent) to the ground. 5) Draw a cold iron arrow (light weapon) and grapple Laph with it. Else or until then, attack Laph either with bow or glaive (both cold iron of course). Modifications Use PP to reduce damage in an emergency. Heal at 13 hp, or if a round time and damaged. Use wand, then vigor, and use a share pain with the griffon whenever possible. If touchsight is dispelled, renew it. If I have a round time, use it to buff (hitpoints first, then AC). Don't waste actions. Important Notes Laph will be flatfooted within the clouds. No dodge too. The Clouds should fill the arena sooner or later. Always stay within the clouds!!! Better wait until they fill the whole arena before leaving them! Short and to the point. You can also check my other PCs tactics. The higher in level, the longer the tactics. I hope to be able to use a seperate thread fight once in a while at high levels.
Snommelp 05-22-05, 04:38 PM	Figures the week I went out of town would be the week where tactics and pitlords got lost... Cat: I don't remember Quixote's tactics, but it looks like you ran him right. Uther: Sorry I couldn't resend you the tactics. You were pretty close, and the only thing you forgot wouldn't have helped or used up any items anyway. And now, to ready for this next week!
Huan 05-22-05, 10:56 PM	(Bah, I always reply to these things too late) I'll vouch: I've pitlorded (even questlorded) enough times for Caterane to know that his tactics are usually not very complicated, confusing, or crazy (nor overly detailed). Yes, they tend to get longer as lvls increase, but, as mentioned, it is only to be expected as more options become available. True, I have had to improvise on occaison for his part, but his tactics are usually straightforward enough to imply reactions to most unforseen circumstances. In summary, Caterane's tactical transcripts are not akin to undesirable structure.