Post/Author/DateTime	Post
waywreth 10-12-05, 03:38 PM	The clock is ticking - 80 minutes per this post. Good luck and have fun this week.
Snommelp 10-12-05, 04:08 PM	@ Pitlords: Sam's active again. Just a friendly reminder. I believe the clock is now at 50 minutes or so; make your last minute fixes now.
Vathelokai 10-12-05, 04:26 PM	For the record, Auburn[Vathelokai] and Gang Lion [Sloisel] have not finished their fight. We have both updated our sheets with what we will get if we loose. So a warning to our pitlords; The expendible items may not be accurate.
NiQil 10-12-05, 04:28 PM	@ Pitlords: Sam's active again. Just a friendly reminder. I believe the clock is now at 50 minutes or so; make your last minute fixes now. Yanno...I had a thought....after Amantar gets a few fights under his belt, we should get Amantar and Grik together and go on a quest together to become literate.....that would be highly amusing LOL.
nightbanegod 10-12-05, 04:42 PM	pitty im trying to get a dwarf finished for this weeks pairings but i dont htink ill be able to get him posted soon enough... could a get a few more minutes layover? he'll be the most recently posted character in the thread as soon as i can finish his bonuses
Mind Rogue 10-12-05, 04:59 PM	Tickity-tock, the mouse ran up the clock, The clock struck nine, and down came the mouse, Carrying all of the character sheets. (Time's up, so please stop editing).
NiQil 10-12-05, 05:05 PM	A pairings haiku Our supreme emperor Cat Has returned from an internet hell To once again show the way. The guilds are living anew Thanks to all of his blood, sweat and tears Bow to the Emperor Cat!
nightbanegod 10-12-05, 05:28 PM	A pairings haiku Our supreme emperor Cat Has returned from an internet hell To once again show the way. The guilds are living anew Thanks to all of his blood, sweat and tears Bow to the Emperor Cat! im sorry but i just thought you would like to know theres a little brown on your nose there... :D j/k
NiQil 10-12-05, 05:37 PM	im sorry but i just thought you would like to know theres a little brown on your nose there... :D j/k Sure....I see how it is....always pickin' on the fat kid.
nightbanegod 10-12-05, 06:02 PM	Sure....I see how it is....always pickin' on the fat kid. :heehee
Sindorin 10-12-05, 06:14 PM	I know sometimes that haiku do not follow the traditional form, but... A haiku is a three line poem about NATURE that is supposed to be spoken in one breath of 3 lines that are in a 5-7-5 syllable pattern. Yay for being an English Major in poetry class...
nightbanegod 10-12-05, 06:24 PM	Yay for being an English Major in poetry class... .... :confused: isnt that like just one step shy of being a liberal arts major .. or sports medicine major? :D *edit* sorry rough day at work.. im just being rowdy!!! .. and maybe this week crovax can ACTUALLY KILL rather than be killed...but beware... THE BOUNTY HUNTER COMES!!!!
SauroGrenom 10-12-05, 06:28 PM	and maybe this week crovax can ACTUALLY KILL rather than be killed I know what it's like. Perhaps more persistence will be rewarded.
NiQil 10-12-05, 06:29 PM	I know sometimes that haiku do not follow the traditional form, but... A haiku is a three line poem about NATURE that is supposed to be spoken in one breath of 3 lines that are in a 5-7-5 syllable pattern. Yay for being an English Major in poetry class... Heh...I always thought it was 7-9-7. Woot for learning something new.
NiQil 10-12-05, 06:33 PM	@ Cat I really hope you haven't finalized those pairings.....you have me doing another miniquest (when I am not a questlord) and you have me pitlording my own fighter in a monster fight LOL. You'll probably want to swap both of my pitlord assignments with someone else. Edit: Good....ya fixed it LOL.
Pitlords 10-12-05, 07:03 PM	PAIRINGS DONE Total Credit Changes: +11: King Uther +6: Huan +5: Vathelokai, SauroGrenom +4: Iced +3: Caterane, Tellish, Kaigan +2: Book5, Mindrogue, NiQil, Sindorin, TelinArtho +1: Altaris, Begferdeth, Ellorien, Gonbow, Maraxus, NBG, Undershadow, LLMadCow, Dellusion +0: Cerebus, Emrys, Soullord, Snommelp -1: Luni, Magister -2: Usurpator Credits for Pitlords: +2: Book5, Luni, Mindrogue, NiQil, TelinArtho, Tellish, +1: Altaris, Begferdeth, Caterane, Cerebus, Ellorien, Emrys, Gonbow, Huan, Maraxus, Nightbanegod, Sindorin, Soullord, Snommelp, Undershadow, Usurpator, Vathelokai Credits for Questers: -1: Cerebus, Emrys, Huan, Sindorin, Soullord, Tellish, Usurpator -2: Luni, TelinArtho Credits for Questlords: +10: King Uther +4: TelinArtho, Vathelokai +2: Sindorin, Iced Credits for Campaignlords: +6: Huan +3: King Uther, Tellish, Kaigan, Iced Credits for Active PCs: -1: Luni, Snommelp, Tellish -2: TelinArtho, Usurpator Special Credits: +5: SauroGrenom (Council Assistance) +2: Caterane (GM) +1: LLMadCow (Prisonlord), Delusional Illusion (Birthday) -2: King Uther (late Quests) Annoncements and News - Quests will be updated earlier from now on but only by a few hours. That helps me to prepare the roster before I begin to roll the pairings at which time I have already enough to do. Obviously, this only affects quests that are in week 3, and beyond. - Speaking of late Quests... there's still a lot of red ink on the quest roster, mostly because the Questlog is not updated. That, however, creates situations where a character is set ready for the arena but is - according to the Quest Roster - still on a quest; and similar things. For that reason, not only Questlords, but also Questers will be considered active and questing as long as the Questlog is not properly updated, with all 3 weeks posted. This will come into effect from next wednesday on! - Dellusional Illusion is our today's Birthday child! I'm sure there's a great party going on in Finnland right now. :) - I have given SauroGrenom 5° for his invaluable assistance in the Council. More than once, I thought I wouldn't be able to solve certain problems with the Living Guilds system but his ideas always helped me to move on. Thanks a lot, Sauro! - As you've surely noticed, there are three new Guilds up. The PSI CONSORTIUM should be known by now. The WAR guild is called Warfare Alliance, and the Watchful Eye is the new GSIS. I think Snommelp was interested in the WAR guild, and perhaps Emrys in the PSI but I'm not sure if that's still the case. If anyone is interested in running a guild, PM me. It's a lot of fun and the workload will be distributed among all guildmembers. - There are still some holes in the LivingGuilds system, especially Covert Operations. If you have a good idea on how to do them, please post it in the Council. Ok, that's it for today. Have fun! Cat @NiQil: Thanks for the Poem :)
nightbanegod 10-12-05, 07:08 PM	wow im looking forward to watching that vampire figher fight... lookin ... um. dangerous.
NiQil 10-12-05, 07:13 PM	PAIRINGS DONE Total Credit Changes: +11: King Uther +6: Huan +5: Vathelokai, SauroGrenom +4: Iced +3: Caterane, Tellish, Kaigan +2: Book5, Mindrogue, NiQil, Sindorin, TelinArtho +1: Altaris, Begferdeth, Ellorien, Gonbow, Maraxus, NBG, Undershadow, LLMadCow, Dellusion +0: Cerebus, Emrys, Soullord, Snommelp -1: Luni, Magister -2: Usurpator Credits for Pitlords: +2: Book5, Luni, Mindrogue, NiQil, TelinArtho, Tellish, +1: Altaris, Begferdeth, Caterane, Cerebus, Ellorien, Emrys, Gonbow, Huan, Maraxus, Nightbanegod, Sindorin, Soullord, Snommelp, Undershadow, Usurpator, Vathelokai Credits for Questers: -1: Cerebus, Emrys, Huan, Sindorin, Soullord, Tellish, Usurpator -2: Luni, TelinArtho Credits for Questlords: +10: King Uther +4: TelinArtho, Vathelokai +2: Sindorin, Iced Credits for Campaignlords: +6: Huan +3: King Uther, Tellish, Kaigan, Iced Credits for Active PCs: -1: Luni, Snommelp, Tellish -2: TelinArtho, Usurpator Special Credits: +5: SauroGrenom (Council Assistance) +2: Caterane (GM) +1: LLMadCow (Prisonlord), Delusional Illusion (Birthday) -2: King Uther (late Quests) Annoncements and News - Quests will be updated earlier from now on but only by a few hours. That helps me to prepare the roster before I begin to roll the pairings at which time I have already enough to do. Obviously, this only affects quests that are in week 3, and beyond. - Speaking of late Quests... there's still a lot of red ink on the quest roster, mostly because the Questlog is not updated. That, however, creates situations where a character is set ready for the arena but is - according to the Quest Roster - still on a quest; and similar things. For that reason, not only Questlords, but also Questers will be considered active and questing as long as the Questlog is not properly updated, with all 3 weeks posted. This will come into effect from next wednesday on! - Dellusional Illusion is our today's Birthday child! I'm sure there's a great party going on in Finnland right now. :) - I have given SauroGrenom 5° for his invaluable assistance in the Council. More than once, I thought I wouldn't be able to solve certain problems with the Living Guilds system but his ideas always helped me to move on. Thanks a lot, Sauro! - As you've surely noticed, there are three new Guilds up. The PSI CONSORTIUM should be known by now. The WAR guild is called Warfare Alliance, and the Watchful Eye is the new GSIS. I think Snommelp was interested in the WAR guild, and perhaps Emrys in the PSI but I'm not sure if that's still the case. If anyone is interested in running a guild, PM me. It's a lot of fun and the workload will be distributed among all guildmembers. - There are still some holes in the LivingGuilds system, especially Covert Operations. If you have a good idea on how to do them, please post it in the Council. Ok, that's it for today. Have fun! Cat @NiQil: Thanks for the Poem :) You normally have this done already....you have the pairings link pointing at the page in the Character's thread......should be pointing at a post in the Battles thread so that it can be linked to for crafters and such.
Pitlords 10-12-05, 07:28 PM	Slight change: Amantar (NiQil) vs Fjörd Thjünderbjürd (Begferdeth): Gonbow @Gonbow: Please send me a PM when the old pending fight is done.
Snommelp 10-12-05, 07:59 PM	All tactics for my gladiators have been sent by PM. None for my fight have been received yet. @ Cat: I was interested in the WAR guild, but if someone else wants it, they can take it. I don't mind.
Luni 10-12-05, 08:21 PM	Happy Birthday, Delusional Illusion!
Mind Rogue 10-12-05, 08:26 PM	Got both tactics from Snommelp. Say, does anyone know what the DC is to climb the rocks in the arena?
Luni 10-12-05, 08:39 PM	Got both tactics from Snommelp. Say, does anyone know what the DC is to climb the rocks in the arena? A human sized person could make a DC 10 jump check to get up. 15 Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.
Luni 10-12-05, 08:50 PM	@SoulLord: Tactics Sent! @Huan: I need to draw a map, so that Ashhûr stands a chance at the flying crossbow weilding cleric.
Enterik 10-12-05, 08:58 PM	@Book5: Tactics sent for Devolved Sleestak vs Fistula whatshisname) @Begferdeth: Tactics sent for HG Milstead vs Wlandra[Alku Henki] @Delusional Illusion: If my math is right, our match should serve as my birthday present to you :P
Poe The Great 10-12-05, 09:10 PM	@Altarin: Wolfcaller's tactics sent.
TelinArtho 10-12-05, 09:46 PM	I feel like I am severely crippling my companion in this fight... probably because I have a very small chance of actually doing anything... @Sunwolf - I'll send you a PM when I can come up with something reasonable. Hopefully I'll be able to find something I can use...
Ravashack 10-12-05, 09:57 PM	Tactics sent to NiQil. I really don't like decent AC opponents now...
Sunwolf 10-12-05, 10:46 PM	I feel like I am severely crippling my companion in this fight... probably because I have a very small chance of actually doing anything... @Sunwolf - I'll send you a PM when I can come up with something reasonable. Hopefully I'll be able to find something I can use... Don't feel bad -- I, on the other hand, think that Aquin will be very helpful believe it or not. :) Unfortunately, we are not well prepared to fight a creature with DR 10/silver *and* magic with fast healing too. We can't even crit the thing. :( We should be able to handle the Bralani with some work. I have a few ideas... Will send a PM shortly.
NiQil 10-12-05, 11:01 PM	@ The Undershadow Tactics for Kermadec sent via PM @ Gonbow Tactics for Amantar sent via PM Tactics received from Tak the Hungry (Oldmangray) and Perius (Ravashack). Tactics needed from Durkon, Giant Slayer (Poe The Great) and Delaria (TelinArtho).
TelinArtho 10-12-05, 11:05 PM	Playing poker online with the wife tonight so I'll do up tactics tomorrow morning.
Ribking 10-12-05, 11:19 PM	Is Greefe (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7081407) [ECL4] supposed to be fighting Archie Longbow (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7042212) [ECL5]? Personally, I would not mind at all. I'd love a shot at being the first to scar her perfect record....especially since she and an earlier version of Greefe have already met. But if this is pairing is a mistake, Archie may want to hop right into her first ECL5 match.
Gonbow 10-12-05, 11:31 PM	@ The Undershadow Tactics for Kermadec sent via PM @ Gonbow Tactics for Amantar sent via PM Tactics received from Tak the Hungry (Oldmangray) and Perius (Ravashack). Tactics needed from Durkon, Giant Slayer (Poe The Great) and Delaria (TelinArtho). Tactics recieved, you had an incorrect rules assumption in one of your reminders, but it doesn't affect your tactics, so all is well.
NiQil 10-12-05, 11:47 PM	Tactics recieved, you had an incorrect rules assumption in one of your reminders, but it doesn't affect your tactics, so all is well. I'll bet I know which one, too....feel free to PM me and let me know, or post it in the fight with my tactics.
Pitlords 10-13-05, 03:09 AM	Due to Archie Longbow being listed in the wrong league, there was a change in the pairings: ECL 4: Grik (Snommelp) vs Greefe (Ribking): Cerebus ECL 5: Goran the Beast (KerlanRayne) vs Archie Longbow (LongArcher): Sindorin Dong.
Pitlords 10-13-05, 04:12 AM	And another fight: Lissa Longfellow (MysticMonk2005) vs 4 Snirvneblin Gnomes: Maraxus Since Maraxus lost his other fight, there's no change in credits.
Pittbull 10-13-05, 04:51 AM	:confused: @Pitlord: Who my pitlord now? You(Cat) or Maraxus?
Pitlords 10-13-05, 05:09 AM	@Peter: Ich :)
Maraxus 10-13-05, 06:54 AM	I lost a fight? ... Ah only the job to pitlord it ... and that twice. :) The new one looks good, too. Should not be to hard.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-13-05, 08:16 AM	@Vath: Tactics for Krunch sent. Good luck to my opponent. -ToK
waywreth 10-13-05, 08:54 AM	@Emrys Donovan - tactics for Casgish sent Validi Dezox (Iced) vs Casgish Darath (Waywreth): Emrys Donovan @Huan - tactics for Amion sent Ashhûr Demonslayer (Luni) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth): Huan
Vathelokai 10-13-05, 08:56 AM	Tactics recieved from Krunch and Yoriko. Should be done friday night/ saturday morning. Tactics sent to Snommelp for Aurburn vs. Torgirr. @Questers: I will have quests posted tomorrow morning [friday]. Sorry for the delay.
Myrridin 10-13-05, 09:43 AM	Tactics for Kalarthus sent to Altaris via PM. Edit: Any chance that Altaris can dump out his PM box. It says that it's too full to accept new PM's.
Sunwolf 10-13-05, 09:59 AM	@Tellish of Ket When you get a chance would you post the equipment lists of the Bralani and vampire fighter, please? Also, please post a brief character sheet of the vampire fighter so we can plan tactics. Thanks from Sunwolf and TelinArtho
TelinArtho 10-13-05, 10:23 AM	@NiQil - tactics for Delaria vs Tak sent @Sunwolf - more ideas sent back your way.
Book5 10-13-05, 10:57 AM	@SauroGrenom & Enterik - Tactics recieved, check your PMs. @Usurpator & The Undershadow - My PMs were full last night, (oops ) if you sent your tactics please resend. @everyone - a tiny creature is "ill suited (-5)" to make ride checks on a medium sized mount correct? --- @usurpator - got your email @Caterane & Guildmaster TAO - umm... sorry PMs were full should be fine now.
SoulLord 10-13-05, 11:04 AM	@Luni Tactics for Shakari received @Sloisel Tactics not received yet for Gang Lion If I receive Gang Lion's tactics today I shall try to run the fight in the night.
NiQil 10-13-05, 11:16 AM	Tactics for Kalarthus sent to Altaris via PM. Edit: Any chance that Altaris can dump out his PM box. It says that it's too full to accept new PM's. Make sure you are sending the PM to Altaris13 and not just Altaris. Cat has a habit of cutting off those numbers, which causes tactics blunders occasionally.
Myrridin 10-13-05, 11:24 AM	I just clicked on Altaris13 in the Pitlords list, but I'll try again. Edit: I was probably trying to send it to the wrong one. Anyways, tactics for Kalarthus sent to Altaris13 via PM.
TelinArtho 10-13-05, 12:15 PM	Amazingly enough, I have not received tactics from any of the three players that I am pitlording for this week...
Usurpator 10-13-05, 12:34 PM	@usurpator - got your email What e-mail? I didn't send you one.
King Uther 10-13-05, 12:52 PM	@Usurpator Tactics for Balbanes sent via PM.
Snommelp 10-13-05, 01:18 PM	New Tactics for Grik sent Tactics for Auburn received Waiting on Torgirr
Usurpator 10-13-05, 01:24 PM	@SauroGrenom: I don't want to be a spoilsport, but I see Kracknol hasn't taken any ranks in Psicraft, which means he cannot use any of his powerstones in his fight against Aramur.
Huan 10-13-05, 01:27 PM	@waywreth Tactics and RP for Amion recieved, thank you. @Luni No worries, take your time.
Huan 10-13-05, 02:06 PM	@Luni Tactics and RP received, thank you. Good job with the map.... and oi, I'd better get started on this fight early.
SauroGrenom 10-13-05, 02:18 PM	@SauroGrenom: I don't want to be a spoilsport, but I see Kracknol hasn't taken any ranks in Psicraft, which means he cannot use any of his powerstones in his fight against Aramur. :censored: What a colossal flub! And psicraft is a trained only skill. Double Flub!! First time that I've delved into the whole psionics thing. I suppose that I was bound to make a critical error. I hope that the powers that be will allow me to edit the character after the fight.
Luni 10-13-05, 02:29 PM	:censored: What a colossal flub! And psicraft is a trained only skill. Double Flub!! First time that I've delved into the whole psionics thing. I suppose that I was bound to make a critical error. I hope that the powers that be will allow me to edit the character after the fight. They will. It is an easy oversight to miss. @Huan: Yeah, I'm not going to make it easy for you. Stupid flying clerics. Well, the cleric isn't stupid, as the tactic is sound.
Delusional Illusion 10-13-05, 02:32 PM	Tactics for Wlandra sent by email to Begferdeth. And thanks for all the "Happy birthday" wishes. They felt really wonderful :cloud9:
waywreth 10-13-05, 02:43 PM	@Huan: Yeah, I'm not going to make it easy for you. Stupid flying clerics. Well, the cleric isn't stupid, as the tactic is sound. Is it scary to the pitlord I had to include additional tactics this time in case the fight goes longer than 50 rounds? Anyway, happy B-day :gift: Delusional Illusion, mine was Oct 9th.
SauroGrenom 10-13-05, 03:13 PM	Tell Cat if it is your B-day. You get a free credit as a present.
TelinArtho 10-13-05, 04:57 PM	@All my gladiators - I have received everyone's tactics. I should be able to do the fights tonight or tomorrow. If not then, it will be by Saturday (barring unforseen events anyway).
Usurpator 10-13-05, 05:14 PM	Tactics for three of my four active gladiators sent! Jay! :cheer: @Nightbanegod: tactics for Shazzelin sent @Book5: tactics for Aramur sent @TelinArtho: I see you received Maeril's tactics. @Mindrogue: I will probably not be able to send tactics for Flamehair tonight. I'll try tomorrow night, but since it is my first set of tactics for her, it will take some extra time. Besides, the first opponent of my tripping half-giant is a dwarf monk, +4 stability, +4 dodge bonus, high touch AC, bah!
Begferdeth 10-13-05, 05:46 PM	@ Gonbow: I just sent Fjord's tactics. @ my gladiators: All the tactics are in, Ill start the fight up either tonite or tomorrow.
Book5 10-13-05, 09:54 PM	Tactics for three of my four active gladiators sent! Jay! :cheer: @Book5: tactics for Aramur sent I havent checked my email yet (wont be able to till 10ish ) but I havent gotten a PM from you yet. @Anyone - Is there an adjustment to the grapple rulings regarding multi-attack? Attack Your Opponent: You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a –4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. Unless I read that wrong - that means you cannot use multi-attack in a grapple. You can of course attack multiple times based off of BAB When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses. But not claw/claw/bite - does anyone have a refrence that contradicts that? The rules don't say much about how monsters conduct grappling combat. It's easiest, however, to allow a monster one grappling attack per natural weapon it has, provided that the natural weapon can hold on to the target in some fashion. The monster uses its listed grapple bonus when attacking with a primary natural weapon (or weapons) and its listed grapple bonus -5 for any secondary natural weapons. If the monster's grapple attack deals damage to a foe, the damage is lethal (unless the monster takes a -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage) and equal to the damage rating for the natural weapon. For example, a troll grappling with a claw has a grapple bonus of +14 and deals 1d6+6 point of damage with the attack. Does this apply to say... lizard folk? Personally I would rather not, have never, and dont think this "rules of the game" bit does anything but contradict an explicit rules statment that you cant make a "two-weapon attack" a "multi-attack" is in all other ways treated the same as "two-weapon." Why is grapple different. My theory ... "Monster" = NPC. And the reason they suggest letting that happen with monsters is because monsters are not players.
Emrys Donovan 10-13-05, 11:30 PM	@ waywreth and iced: Tactics received. I will try to run the fight tomorrow night after I get home from work. (Mmm...free hawaiian pizza... :drool: )
TelinArtho 10-13-05, 11:48 PM	@Book5 - the grapple argument comes up quite often, but it has been consistently ruled here as 1 attack per natural weapon.
Book5 10-14-05, 12:58 AM	@Book5 - the grapple argument comes up quite often, but it has been consistently ruled here as 1 attack per natural weapon. That'll do, but I would love a link to a good explanation. aka I still disagree but will use the general ruling in the fight. speaking of which.. all data downloaded.. invisible castle ready.. :fight!: :gah: ok thats freaky I type and now something strange is happening in the living room :confused:
MysticMonk2005 10-14-05, 01:41 AM	@Maraxus Tactics for Lissa PM'd
Book5 10-14-05, 01:51 AM	@anyone - OK - where is the Knockdown feat? I have a searchable pdf and the only refrences I find to knock down in feats are improved overun and trample.
Usurpator 10-14-05, 02:35 AM	@anyone - OK - where is the Knockdown feat? I have a searchable pdf and the only refrences I find to knock down in feats are improved overun and trample. It is in the Divine section of the SRD: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/divine/divineAbilitiesFeats.htm#knockDown
Pittbull 10-14-05, 07:43 AM	@cat: Hagrid's tactic has been sent to you via PM.
Sunwolf 10-14-05, 08:12 AM	@TelinArtho I have sent you combined tactics for Brilf and Aquin in two parts. Edit as you see fit and forward to Tellish.
TelinArtho 10-14-05, 10:10 AM	@Tellish - combined tactics for Brilf and Aquin sent for Bralani and Vampire. Obviously if you have any questions - attach us both. @Sunwolf - I think they are good the way you have them.
NiQil 10-14-05, 10:24 AM	Tactics received for Perius, Tak the hungry and Delaria Still need tactics from Durkah, Giant Slayer (Poe The Great)
Tellish_of_Ket 10-14-05, 11:15 AM	@Tellish - combined tactics for Brilf and Aquin sent for Bralani and Vampire. Obviously if you have any questions - attach us both. @Sunwolf - I think they are good the way you have them. I've recieved them and see no mechanical errors in what you are trying to do. But there are some things you guys are overlooking about your enemies. I'll be running the fight later this afternoon when i get back from another round of physio, so if you have any last minute addendums, or prayers, by all means PM them directly to me. -ToK
Snommelp 10-14-05, 11:24 AM	I'm still waiting on TheMagister to get me tactics for Torgirr. If I get them today, I can probably run the fight tonight.
Usurpator 10-14-05, 05:01 PM	Is it just me, or is it quiet on the battle front? Usually there's at least one battle up by this time. @sloisel: still need tactics for the Misses in her bout with Balbanes @Mind Rogue: PM'ed you Flamehair's tactics
nightbanegod 10-14-05, 05:15 PM	im still short half my tactics for the fight im supposed to run... @ Gonbow... ANY TIME NOW.....
Gonbow 10-14-05, 05:32 PM	im still short half my tactics for the fight im supposed to run... @ Gonbow... ANY TIME NOW..... Say what? I have a character active this week!?! <eyes the pairings list> <sighs> I set Santos as non-active... Ah well. I don't suppose I can at least get profession money as well hey? Sending tactics now. EDIT: Tactics sent.
TheMagister 10-14-05, 06:11 PM	New Tactics for Grik sent Tactics for Auburn received Waiting on Torgirr Wait no more! Tactics sent via PM. TM
TheMagister 10-14-05, 06:15 PM	I think my credit totals for this week are off. I pitlorded two fights last week: Vandelar the Red vs. Aquin and picked up from Emrys Donovan Mrs. Buttmunch vs. Amion Dar'ath Since I have Sdentch questing, that should put me at +1 credits for the week. TM
Tellish_of_Ket 10-14-05, 06:20 PM	If a person is hit with mutliple bat swarms, do they take 1 pt of bleeding dmg for each swarm that hit them? Or they just bleed 1 pt per round no matter what? Just answered my own question...duh~ -ToK
Mind Rogue 10-14-05, 06:30 PM	I have all of the tactics for my fights, but don't expect them to be up tonight as lots of schoolwork is starting to catch up to me. Funny, but I thought I asked to be taken down to only one a week, but I'm evidently listed as having two.
Sindorin 10-14-05, 06:37 PM	Don't worry, it gets better! I was at <zero> and suddenly I am at <one> when i never mentioned wanting to be assigned a fight!!! I can stand running a quest, but pitlording a fight with this workload is really testing things.
Luni 10-14-05, 06:41 PM	Don't worry, it gets better! I was at <zero> and suddenly I am at <one> when i never mentioned wanting to be assigned a fight!!! I can stand running a quest, but pitlording a fight with this workload is really testing things. If you don't want to run it, you can send it my way Sindorin. I understand what being overworked is like.
Begferdeth 10-14-05, 08:02 PM	I could probably handle a second fight this week too if you guys are stuck. Just send me a PM with all the tactics and such.
Sindorin 10-14-05, 10:03 PM	You can have my fight, Luni or Begferdeth. I definitely will not have time to run it properly and honestly. I wasn't supposed to have it in the first place... It's up to you two who gets it though. I will probably be able to keep up with my quests/campaigns though, as I might have slight internet access. But Pitlording is out of the question, as I had originally requested, and still I get assigned a fight.
TelinArtho 10-14-05, 10:09 PM	Okay, Zassl vs Maeril (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7502379) is up.
NiQil 10-14-05, 11:06 PM	@ Sindorin If it would help, you can forward me the tactics for your fight and I can pass them along to whomever takes it in case you aren't around when it's hashed out. @ all Is there any roof on the arena? In other words, is there any limit to the distance a character can fly upwards?
Ravashack 10-14-05, 11:14 PM	I thought I read there was a ceiling so that someone couldn't just fly up real high and snipe from there with very little fear of retaliation.
TelinArtho 10-14-05, 11:16 PM	The ceiling of the arena is 50ft high
NiQil 10-15-05, 01:16 AM	Delaria vs Tak the Hungry is up. As always, let me know if any errors ASAP.
The Undershadow 10-15-05, 01:31 AM	What is the Duration time to Offensive Precog?
King Uther 10-15-05, 01:37 AM	1 minute per manifester level.
The Undershadow 10-15-05, 01:42 AM	Thanks.
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 01:57 AM	Why is the air elemental not charging? Not diving (for double damage)? Here's the tactics for Breeze: If Tak is in sight, Breeze will move so that he can dive fly-by-attack on him next round. If a dive is not possible, just fly-by-attack. At this point, that's as complex as it gets for Breeze. Breeze should also always be attacking from higher ground since he is flying. (+1 to hit) In round 4 - why in the world did the elemental come down from the ceiling if it wasn't for an attack? For that matter it looks like Breeze only moves around 100ft - if he's withdrawing - why not a double move at least? Okay onto more specific things: Tak doesn't get a -1 penalty for throwing his mindblade because of lower ground (round 4) - It doesn't make him hit - but I just wanted to make sure you don't make the same mistake twice. A CDG is a full-round action. In round 6 - Tak can't manifest and CDG. In round 7 - Delaria auto-spots Tak because he has a) no cover and b) no ranks in hide In rounds 8 and 9, Tak's attack bonus is too high. It should be +4 (+2 Dex, +2 BAB). This means the attack in round 9 does not hit.
NiQil 10-15-05, 02:24 AM	Why is the air elemental not charging? Not diving (for double damage)? Here's the tactics for Breeze: Breeze should also always be attacking from higher ground since he is flying. (+1 to hit) In round 4 - why in the world did the elemental come down from the ceiling if it wasn't for an attack? For that matter it looks like Breeze only moves around 100ft - if he's withdrawing - why not a double move at least? Okay onto more specific things: Tak doesn't get a -1 penalty for throwing his mindblade because of lower ground (round 4) - It doesn't make him hit - but I just wanted to make sure you don't make the same mistake twice. A CDG is a full-round action. In round 6 - Tak can't manifest and CDG. In round 7 - Delaria auto-spots Tak because he has a) no cover and b) no ranks in hide In rounds 8 and 9, Tak's attack bonus is too high. It should be +4 (+2 Dex, +2 BAB). This means the attack in round 9 does not hit. In order.. With regard to Breeze.....my bad. I wasn't thinking in 3-D....I forgot that he could have charged downward. I will edit in an attack there in round 4 before he dies. Editing in a charge in Round 2 won't change anything, so I will leave that alone. I will edit in the +1 for flying. And remove the -1 to Tak, though as it stands won't change anything (except the attack I am editing in). With the CDG being a full round in 6, that will eliminate the issue in round 7 altogether, since he will not be where he was, due to needing another round for the CDG. However, I would like to point out that Hide is an untrained skill, and does not require ranks to use. But you are correct about the no cover. And I will fix round 8 and 9...will extend the fight....or depending on what Breeze does in round 4, it may not get that far. I'll fix them shortly. Edit: While fixing things, I also noticed that I did Delaria's movement wrong the whole fight...had it at a rate of 30 instead of 20. Will be fixing that as well.
King Uther 10-15-05, 02:28 AM	Note: Double damage on dive only works for piercing and slashing weapons.
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 02:29 AM	Actually a dive attack does change round 2: A dive attack works just like a charge, but the diving creature must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. It can make only claw or talon attacks, but these deal double damage So the elemental would deal double damage.
King Uther 10-15-05, 02:30 AM	As I stated above, Skip says only slashing and piercing do double damage. SLams from an elemental are bludgeoning.
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 02:31 AM	Okay - I stand corrected then.
King Uther 10-15-05, 02:37 AM	I think it's funny I use Skip's name as if I know him personally. You know, we go clubbin' on Friday nights, right after our weekly football scrimmage we do with the New York Jets for practice. Skip and I are like peas in a pod, best friends forever. Just as soon as he gets rid of that restraining order.... EDIT: this is to be taken as a joke. Word.
Oldmangray 10-15-05, 03:24 AM	omg i actually won a battle LOL!
The Undershadow 10-15-05, 03:45 AM	Anya vs Kermadec here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7502129&postcount=492)
NiQil 10-15-05, 04:18 AM	Delaria vs Tak the Hungry has been edited, and the result has changed. Let me know if there are any further errors.
NiQil 10-15-05, 04:20 AM	Anya vs Kermadec here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7502129&postcount=492) @ Undershadow I need to know specifically if the first two arrows that were poisoned broke or not (they were both missed shots). Can you edit that into the fight, so that if they are not broken, the fight record reflects that so I can use them again?
Usurpator 10-15-05, 04:36 AM	Okay, Zassl vs Maeril (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7502379) is up. My first fight of the week! Thank you for running it. I didn't see any obvious rules errors, but will look the fight more closely later. The only thing I have a big problem with is the following: Is it currently default tactics to run away as soon as you see an opponent casting sleep? I don't see anything in Zassl's tactics about countering the possibility. Part of my plan relied on the fact that he would fail to write tactics against Maeril's sleep spell because he would not expect me to use it against him. Applying such a specific new tactic goes beyond the PitLord's prerogative I think. Does this mean I don't have to write contingencies against sleep in the future, because I should expect the Pitlord to have my character run away when my opponent starts casting it or invent some other good counter on the spot? Why isn't Maeril casting sleep from a better position? If it is default tactics for Zassl to run away as soon as Maeril casts sleep, Maeril should be aware of that and not cast sleep when Zassl can get out of range/break LOS that easily. For that matter: what is Maeril doing at -18,21, that's against the pillars, territory where he could be webbed. I explicitely stated in my tactics to stay out in the open. About the invisible comment: Snaggle is smart enough to point his nose in the direction of an opponent he smells, heck, even a 2 Int dog can do that, surely a 6 Int familiar can as well! He has other means of communicating that solely with empathy. With his nose pointing in the right direction its just a matter of going there and waiting until he indicates the right square. I feel a bit like Maeril was played like a stupid automaton while Zassl was played smartly and adaptively. Either do both or do neither. Part of the trick in winning a fight is writing appopriate tactics. If Pitlords invent tactics for my opponent that can foil my tactics and not adapt my characters tactics to compensate, there is little I can do. Oh, my primary contingency tactic vs. Zassl being charged up with shocking grasp was to withdraw and begin shooting arrows. Why did you choose to attack? If you do attack, why didn't Snaggle attack as specified in tactics? Who here thinks that a gladiator should automatically run away when someone is casting a sleep spell even when it is not specified in a character's tactics?
Pitlords 10-15-05, 04:36 AM	Goran the Beast (KerlanRayne) vs Archie Longbow (LongArcher): Sindorin TelinArtho Sindorin-1°, TelinArtho+1°
LongArcher 10-15-05, 04:48 AM	Goran the Beast (KerlanRayne) vs Archie Longbow (LongArcher): Sindorin TelinArtho Sindorin-1°, TelinArtho+1° Actually I'm not certain, but I think Luni was also asking to take it over. But just to be on the safe side I forwarded my tactics to both Luni and TelinArtho. /amz
NiQil 10-15-05, 04:53 AM	Perius vs Durkon, Giant Slayer is up.
Usurpator 10-15-05, 05:01 AM	I just read the Tak vs. Delaria fight, and one of the errors I saw is something I have seen more often: incorrect spell durations. Delaria casts as a 3rd lvl cleric, which means her spiritual weapon lasts 3 rounds. Standard Pitlord tactics is to add 3 to the current round for duration, and then let the spell last to the end of the characters actions in the round in which is should expire. This is incorrect, the spell should last until the start of the characters actions in the round in which it will expire. It is especially apparent in the fight above, because you can clearly see both spiritual weapons making 4 attacks instead of the 3 you would expect from a 1 round/level durations spell cast at 3rd level.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-15-05, 05:03 AM	Who here thinks that a gladiator should automatically run away when someone is casting a sleep spell even when it is not specified in a character's tactics? I for one, most certainly do not. There could be a very rare exception, that if there was some concern about being slept in their tactics and they were able to properly spellcraft, and even then it would be very very iffy. There would have to have very strong evidence or insinuation that it would be a logical choice given the circumstance. But otherwise, not in a million years. There are many ways a familiar can communicate to it's master of where the opponent is even though it is empathic. For flying familiars, it's easy. They just circle the square the opponent is in. For landbound familiars, a feeling of longing and loneliness could be used to indicate the opponent is far away, and elation when the master gets within range or close enough....etc..etc.. There are many ways to do it, and we've never gone into details about it, we just say, "they do". -ToK
Tellish_of_Ket 10-15-05, 05:05 AM	I just read the Tak vs. Delaria fight, and one of the errors I saw is something I have seen more often: incorrect spell durations. Delaria casts as a 3rd lvl cleric, which means her spiritual weapon lasts 3 rounds. Standard Pitlord tactics is to add 3 to the current round for duration, and then let the spell last to the end of the characters actions in the round in which is should expire. This is incorrect, the spell should last until the start of the characters actions in the round in which it will expire. It is especially apparent in the fight above, because you can clearly see both spiritual weapons making 4 attacks instead of the 3 you would expect from a 1 round/level durations spell cast at 3rd level. Yes, a very common error that needs to be fixed Pitlords. Spell durations end at the BEGINNING of a casters turn...not the end. I've made that error a few times myself, so no worries, it happens. Perius vs Durkon, Giant Slayer is up. Excellent, and i agree. We should see more fights like that. I used to be the only one who would do that and it didn't win me a lot of friends, but the Pitlords time and other players times need to be respected. If Pitlords were more iron-fisted in their approach to tactic submissions we'd have less arguments Tuesday nights & Wednesday mornings about a fight that was run extremely late. -ToK
NiQil 10-15-05, 05:10 AM	I just read the Tak vs. Delaria fight, and one of the errors I saw is something I have seen more often: incorrect spell durations. Delaria casts as a 3rd lvl cleric, which means her spiritual weapon lasts 3 rounds. Standard Pitlord tactics is to add 3 to the current round for duration, and then let the spell last to the end of the characters actions in the round in which is should expire. This is incorrect, the spell should last until the start of the characters actions in the round in which it will expire. It is especially apparent in the fight above, because you can clearly see both spiritual weapons making 4 attacks instead of the 3 you would expect from a 1 round/level durations spell cast at 3rd level. I'll have to go back and look...you may be correct....but in any event I do know that the last attack from each weapon didn't connect, so it isn't fight affecting. If there is a need for further edits, I will change it.
Usurpator 10-15-05, 05:36 AM	I'll have to go back and look...you may be correct....but in any event I do know that the last attack from each weapon didn't connect, so it isn't fight affecting. If there is a need for further edits, I will change it. That's why I mentioned it. I have a strong feeling that pointing out errors in other people's fight that will change the outcome doesn't make many friends. In this case, it was pretty safe, and also pretty apparent. You can clearly see that there is no way for a spiritual weapon that lasts 3 rounds and has one attack per round to attack 4 times. Serves as a perfect example.
Maraxus 10-15-05, 07:36 AM	About the hide from sleep: I don't mind if the pitlord does that on a successful spellcraft, nor if he doesn't. There is some basic stuff that should happen, weather I state it or not, say the familiar wakes me up when I sleep. Stuff where you could say: There is basicly nothing else usefull he can do, so why not? Running out of sleep-range is good, too, especially I had nothing urgend pending in that situation. Just no must. If Maeril could have been run better? I don't know. But another thing: Could it be, that I am considered armed when I have cast shocking grasp, regarding, that I could use it in AoOs? THat could minimize the thread of being grappled at least by those without the feat. :)
Vathelokai 10-15-05, 07:56 AM	But another thing: Could it be, that I am considered armed when I have cast shocking grasp, regarding, that I could use it in AoOs? THat could minimize the thread of being grappled at least by those without the feat. :) Touch Attacks: Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. “Armed” Unarmed Attacks: Sometimes a character’s or creature’s unarmed attack counts as an armed attack. A monk, a character with the Improved Unarmed Strike feat, a spellcaster delivering a touch attack spell, and a creature with natural physical weapons all count as being armed. Note that being armed counts for both offense and defense (the character can make attacks of opportunity) You are correct, sir. Just so happens this is my next research project for TAO.
TheMagister 10-15-05, 08:01 AM	But another thing: Could it be, that I am considered armed when I have cast shocking grasp, regarding, that I could use it in AoOs? THat could minimize the thread of being grappled at least by those without the feat. :) You are considered armed when you have shocking grasp cast, and you should be offered the opportunity to forgo an AoO when the opportunity is presented; indeed, you NOT taking the AoO would be most unusual. TM
Usurpator 10-15-05, 08:06 AM	About the hide from sleep: I don't mind if the pitlord does that on a successful spellcraft, nor if he doesn't. There is some basic stuff that should happen, weather I state it or not, say the familiar wakes me up when I sleep. Stuff where you could say: There is basicly nothing else usefull he can do, so why not? Running out of sleep-range is good, too, especially I had nothing urgend pending in that situation. Just no must. If Maeril could have been run better? I don't know. I think it is unfair when a pitlord improvises a smart tactic on behalf on one gladiator, but lets that other gladiator act stupidly. If Zassl had known when to run, Maeril should have known not to cast when that could happen, that's only fair. On top of that, Maeril did cast a second sleep spell when he already had seen from the first that it wouldn't work because Zassl would run away. Why didn't Maeril improvise anything then? He certainly had nothing urgent to do.... Some of Maeril's tactics were disregarded to Zassl's advantage, while extra tactics for Zassl were improvised on the spot to his advantage. My first argument is that improvising such a specific counter-tactic is not the job of the Pitlord, my second argument is that if a Pitlord decides to do something like this anyway, he should improvise good counter-tactics for both players and not just for one side. But another thing: Could it be, that I am considered armed when I have cast shocking grasp, regarding, that I could use it in AoOs? THat could minimize the thread of being grappled at least by those without the feat. :) Sure, you are considered armed, AoO away!
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 10:13 AM	The only thing I have a big problem with is the following: Is it currently default tactics to run away as soon as you see an opponent casting sleep? Its not default tactics, but it was the only thing that Zassl could do given his tactics and knowing that you were casting. He couldn't realistically move and attack or draw a ranged weapon and attack - so fleeing seemed to be the only reasonable option. Why isn't Maeril casting sleep from a better position? If it is default tactics for Zassl to run away as soon as Maeril casts sleep, Maeril should be aware of that and not cast sleep when Zassl can get out of range/break LOS that easily. For that matter: what is Maeril doing at -18,21, that's against the pillars, territory where he could be webbed. I explicitely stated in my tactics to stay out in the open. Well, this is one of those things - you want to be able to cast Sleep on an invisible opponent - by definition, you are going to need to get close to him to have any chance of having success (in order to pinpoint and/or to prevent him from running out of range). Here I take priority in your tactics on the specified "main tactics" versus the "general tactics" above it. If you want to stay out in the open at all cost - that isn't a general tactic - that is a main tactic. About the invisible comment: Snaggle is smart enough to point his nose in the direction of an opponent he smells, heck, even a 2 Int dog can do that, surely a 6 Int familiar can as well! He has other means of communicating that solely with empathy. With his nose pointing in the right direction its just a matter of going there and waiting until he indicates the right square. Well in any case that they could have indicated a square it was told to you - so don't tell me you feel slighted here... And as far as it being an issue - I've had issues in at least one fight of mine where my familiar couldn't indicate it effectively, so I spent an extra round trying to figure it out. And that was with a Int 16 character... I feel a bit like Maeril was played like a stupid automaton while Zassl was played smartly and adaptively. Either do both or do neither. Part of the trick in winning a fight is writing appopriate tactics. If Pitlords invent tactics for my opponent that can foil my tactics and not adapt my characters tactics to compensate, there is little I can do. Well, there's not really much I can do about you feeling that way. Maeril tries unsuccessfully to get Zassl in the sleep spell. After that, he tries to close to melee like you wanted. Oh, my primary contingency tactic vs. Zassl being charged up with shocking grasp was to withdraw and begin shooting arrows. Why did you choose to attack? If you do attack, why didn't Snaggle attack as specified in tactics? Well there's a bit of a to-do about a spellcraft check. If you had known that he had cast Shocking Grasp - that's one thing. However, you didn't (you failed the spellcraft check). I think it is unfair when a pitlord improvises a smart tactic on behalf on one gladiator, but lets that other gladiator act stupidly. If Zassl had known when to run, Maeril should have known not to cast when that could happen, that's only fair. On top of that, Maeril did cast a second sleep spell when he already had seen from the first that it wouldn't work because Zassl would run away. Why didn't Maeril improvise anything then? He certainly had nothing urgent to do.... Some of Maeril's tactics were disregarded to Zassl's advantage, while extra tactics for Zassl were improvised on the spot to his advantage. My first argument is that improvising such a specific counter-tactic is not the job of the Pitlord, my second argument is that if a Pitlord decides to do something like this anyway, he should improvise good counter-tactics for both players and not just for one side. The thing is, Maeril's tactics were, in general, sound. If Zassl had failed to spellcraft the sleep spells - then he wouldn't have run away. Given his tactics, in the first case of the sleep spell (immediately after casting scorching ray), his only tactics were to "do whatever looks necesarry to finish him off." Since being affected by a sleep spell would be directly contrary to this - it would seem logical to flee to set up a better opportunity. Now, in that case, I HAD to improvise - there's just no two-ways about it. Since I had to, I made the most logical decision based on the character's nature. If his tactics had demanded a more up-front approach, he may have tried to interrupt - but again - he really had no options on that front. If I had made him make a single move or double move away - who is being treated as an automaton then?
Mind Rogue 10-15-05, 11:09 AM	Anya vs Kermadec here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7502129&postcount=492) Just a few little comments. 1.) Total Defense is a standard action, so Anya only single moves while warding off arrows. 2.) Anya gets a +2 bonus while sniping because she is effectively invisible. Kermadec's uncanny dodge ability only prevents him from losing his dodge bonus. However, this doesn't matter: she still either misses or hits anyway. 3.) I'm pretty sure that Anya was regaining focus between shots, so it should have taken longer for her to run out of bolts, so the hit that was previously in round 28 would have also dealt an extra 2d6 damage, which can obviously not have a minimum damage of 2 on 1d6+2d6. This happens a number of times. The comment on one range increment and shooting refers to waiting till he comes that close before using psionic shot: once he's standing and shooting, Anya regains focus. Perhaps I should have also explicitly stated to use it if he stands at range and shoots, I just thought it would be assumed that she couldn't possibly regain it if she doesn't spend it. She also imperatively needs the extra damage from psionic shot in order to win. However, this only moves a few shots past when his AC drops, and unless some of those hit, the final one can't deal enough PS damage to finish Kermadec off. 4.) Lastly, I prefer to be able to see the rolls, although I understand that there were a lot of them. Man that was a long fight: thanks for running it.
Luni 10-15-05, 11:51 AM	Anya vs Kermadec here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7502129&postcount=492) Just to be picky, poison requires a roll to be applied. If a 1 is rolled, they may have accidently poisoned themselves. A character has a 5% chance of exposing himself to a poison whenever he applies it to a weapon or otherwise readies it for use. Additionally, a character who rolls a natural 1 on an attack roll with a poisoned weapon must make a DC 15 Reflex save or accidentally poison himself with the weapon. A creature with a poison attack is immune to its own poison and the poison of others of its kind. If my reading of the rounds is right, the second arrow fired by Kermadec should of been a poisoned arrow and was a 1!. Also, in round 10 Anya has too many actions. I didn't think she could shoot twice in 1 round. @TelinArtho: You can run the 3D fight.
Usurpator 10-15-05, 12:01 PM	Its not default tactics, but it was the only thing that Zassl could do given his tactics and knowing that you were casting. He couldn't realistically move and attack or draw a ranged weapon and attack - so fleeing seemed to be the only reasonable option. Zassl's tactics said to 'turn invisible and move away at half speed' when Maeril came too close. You disregarded that instruction and improvised a more effective counter-tactic yourself. A counter-tactic which completely foiled my main tactic no less. I think we can agree that your improvisation has a major effect on the course of the battle, even if we might disagree if it was justified or not. Well, this is one of those things - you want to be able to cast Sleep on an invisible opponent - by definition, you are going to need to get close to him to have any chance of having success (in order to pinpoint and/or to prevent him from running out of range). Here I take priority in your tactics on the specified "main tactics" versus the "general tactics" above it. If you want to stay out in the open at all cost - that isn't a general tactic - that is a main tactic. No, I don't need to do that. He needs to be close to launch that scorching ray or attack me with shocking grasp, within Scent range even. My shield spell would have protected me from the magic missiles and Zassl has no other offensive options left. I didn't have to go out to search for him if he was invisible, that would be detrimental to my chances of victory, as you proved. That is also why I specified in my main tactic: Zassl invisible: just wait until I hear or see him or familiar nearby My plan was just waiting for him, since he needed to be close, close enough for Scent to pick him up. I didn't need to go around the arena looking for him, I only provided a contingency for looking for him if we were both waiting for each other indefinitely but that contingency wasn't triggered, I didn't have to wait long for him to act. I did spot a serious error in my tactics though, in my first contingency I wrote shield while I meant to write sleep. I can understand if that put you on the wrong foot. Well in any case that they could have indicated a square it was told to you - so don't tell me you feel slighted here... And as far as it being an issue - I've had issues in at least one fight of mine where my familiar couldn't indicate it effectively, so I spent an extra round trying to figure it out. And that was with a Int 16 character... Are you telling me I can't feel bad or complain because it happened to you once? That's not really an argument. If you think a familiar cannot communicate a location efficiently to its master, and therefore I have written tactics which won't work as a result, you could always PM me, or improvise something more effective, like Snaggle running towards Zassl to point him out, since Snaggle wasn't in any danger from the invisible Kobold who wanted to target Maeril. Where do you draw the line which tactics you improvise and which not? Well there's a bit of a to-do about a spellcraft check. If you had known that he had cast Shocking Grasp - that's one thing. However, you didn't (you failed the spellcraft check). Look at my tactics again. I specifically indicated why I should be able to see he has shocking grasp charged, otherwise I would have gotten an AoO when he tries to attack me unarmed. Obviously, I don't get the AoO because, as the PHB says, a charged touch spell presents a credible threat. I have to be aware of something for it to be a credible threat. Either I was aware and withdrew, or I was not aware and get an AoO. Give my character a little credit, Zassl attacked Maeril with an unarmed attack and missed, obviously he is not trying to grapple me or something, he is trying to touch me with a touch spell.... Additionally, you didn't answer while Maeril stupidly tried to cast two sleep spells while the first clearly failed because of Zassl's improvised counter-tactics. Why did you continue with said tactic, was there any realistic chance of succeeding? Why didn't you improvise here? If not treating gladiators as automatons is an important argument for you, why not apply it here? The thing is, Maeril's tactics were, in general, sound. If Zassl had failed to spellcraft the sleep spells - then he wouldn't have run away. Given his tactics, in the first case of the sleep spell (immediately after casting scorching ray), his only tactics were to "do whatever looks necesarry to finish him off." Since being affected by a sleep spell would be directly contrary to this - it would seem logical to flee to set up a better opportunity. I know his tactics were sound. I have read Zassl's sheet, I have Pitlorded fights with Zassl, two of my characters have fought Zassl before. I knew what his strengths and weaknesses were. I did certainly not rely on him failing his spellcraft check with +11 on the check, I assumed he would succeed. I counted on Maraxus not expecting that I would let Maeril use Sleep against a Sorcerer, who generally have good will saves. I expected for Maraxus to write counter-tactics for melee, which he did. Now, in that case, I HAD to improvise - there's just no two-ways about it. Since I had to, I made the most logical decision based on the character's nature. If his tactics had demanded a more up-front approach, he may have tried to interrupt - but again - he really had no options on that front. If I had made him make a single move or double move away - who is being treated as an automaton then? I agree that you have to exercise some judgement, but his tactics said to turn invisible and make a half move, you chose otherwise. You certainly didn't HAVE to improvise. If his tactics were followed (who were certainly also applicable at that point), it would probably have made it possible for Maeril to catch Zassl in the sleep burst. I am only saying that it was misapplication and no Pitlord improvisation of my tactics versus good application and good Pitlord improvisation on Zassl's tactics played an important role in costing me the match. A bit too important a role for my liking. I am sorry for sounding a bit rantish, from what I've seen I think you're a good and solid Pitlord, that probably contributed to me being a little shocked and surprised when I saw the results. When I read Maraxus tactics I thought "Yeah, no contingency for sleep, no unexpected tactics, I will have a good chance", then I read Zassl running away after Maeril cast sleep and I went "What?!", reread his tactics and only confirmed my earlier reading. Other points, such as Maeril not withdrawing when it is obvious that Zassl has shocking graps active where only minor compared to that. But I do mention them because if a Pitlord do improvises to such an extent as you did, I do expect equal improvisation for both parties.
Pittbull 10-15-05, 01:57 PM	@Cat: Thanks for running the fight. I don't like the ruling, that prebuffs don't carry over, but I'll accept it, Hail the empereor! ;)
TheMagister 10-15-05, 02:02 PM	Also, in round 10 Anya has too many actions. I didn't think she could shoot twice in 1 round. I noticed that myself. Actually, Anya has too many actions for like, 1/2 the fight. Total defense is a standard action. She was doing double moves plus total defense after she ran out of bolts. TM
TheMagister 10-15-05, 02:06 PM	@TelinArtho I have no stake or business in this fight, but he makes a good point. TM
SoulLord 10-15-05, 02:21 PM	Tick tock the mouse ran up the clock! In the fight Shakari (Luni) vs Gang Lion (Sloisel) I have received tactics for luni But none for Sloisel. Since Sloisel does not have defalut tactics written on his character sheet for Gang Lion I will give him 30 minutes starting now to send them to me otherwise he will forfeit the match. You have been warned.
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 02:30 PM	Zassl's tactics said to 'turn invisible and move away at half speed' when Maeril came too close. Where does it say that, except under the buffing cycle (and never at half-speed): General plan is, to locate him at a distance as long as possible, shoot him and when he comes close turn invisible and sneak away, to strike from great distance, again. To acomplish that, start behind the left stone of my starting box and hide as soon as possibile. Have the scroll of mage armor at hand. Use that scroll and take expeditious retreat. Cast that one and take out acid arrow. If my opponent locates me while buffing, move behind full cover (taking AoO for moving if necessary) and turn invisible. Continue buffing but always move each turn (so draw scroll+move, then cast+move) Protected like that, I will start to sneak around, through the starting boxes and the outer obstacles. Always end movement behind cover towards most of the arena (unless I'm invisible). Try to cast the acid arrow at him from a good distance (if he is moving away from me, ready to cast just before he get's out of sight, if he is within on of his horse's moves, stay hidden and let him pass (as long as I'm not seen yet) If enough time cast a magic missle, too, and move away behind cover. Turn invisible if the opponent get's to close and move away again (at half speed). Then shot him with magic missles from a scroll and the second if possible. Turn invisible again. Now buff with shield and prot. good (draw scroll+move, then cast+move, so he can not locate me easily). And shoot him with the scorching ray. Should he still live do whatever looks necesarry to finish him off. Pockedwyrm ... will try to grapple and pin Snaggle, if the hostile familiar comes into my square. If I'm right, our both grapple modifiers are wrong, Snagle should have -9 and Pockedwyrm -10, if I'm not mistaken. Should I be grappled, try to get out and cast greese on myself or take out the mace, if I'm out of spells. Like I said, his first tactic was used. He still had an invisibility yet, and that was in his plan - but I don't see why he would cast it and still be in the range of the sleep spell. In other words - I didn't disregard an instruction, I had to improvise. No, I don't need to do that. He needs to be close to launch that scorching ray or attack me with shocking grasp, within Scent range even. My shield spell would have protected me from the magic missiles and Zassl has no other offensive options left. I didn't have to go out to search for him if he was invisible, that would be detrimental to my chances of victory, as you proved. Okay - so he's within the range of scent - at 30ft. Scent allows the creature with scent to spend a move action to locate the direction. Only when the opponent is within 5ft are they pinpointed. So, while you might now the general area (30ft radius), you definitely can't pinpoint enough to have a good chance of succeeding in hitting him with your sleep spell (and not target your mount in the same breath I might add). Are you telling me I can't feel bad or complain because it happened to you once? That's not really an argument. If you think a familiar cannot communicate a location efficiently to its master, and therefore I have written tactics which won't work as a result, you could always PM me, or improvise something more effective, like Snaggle running towards Zassl to point him out, since Snaggle wasn't in any danger from the invisible Kobold who wanted to target Maeril. Where do you draw the line which tactics you improvise and which not? No I'm telling you that it is ruled inconsistently. Snaggle might be a little more able to give you indicators - but the horse (without a trick anyway) really has no way to give you that indication. And plus - I reiterate that any time the familiar was able to sense him - he gave you that indication. I didn't like it - but it felt it was more correct than not. Additionally, you didn't answer while Maeril stupidly tried to cast two sleep spells while the first clearly failed because of Zassl's improvised counter-tactics. Why did you continue with said tactic, was there any realistic chance of succeeding? Why didn't you improvise here? If not treating gladiators as automatons is an important argument for you, why not apply it here? I did answer it in saying that it wasn't a stupid attempt. The circumstances of the fight allowed it to be ineffective (because Zassl was able to identify the spell while it was cast and you had limited ability to stop him from moving out of range), but the sleep spell in itself wasn't a bad idea. Solution I will edit the portions of the fight regarding three items: 1. The seeking out of your invisible opponent. 2. Casting the 2nd sleep spell 3. Withdrawing when he is using shocking grasp. Zassl will continue to withdraw when you cast the first sleep spell, if he is able to.
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 02:35 PM	I have received tactics for Archie and Goran and will run the fight when I get the chance.
The Undershadow 10-15-05, 03:03 PM	Just a few little comments. 1.) Total Defense is a standard action, so Anya only single moves while warding off arrows. 2.) Anya gets a +2 bonus while sniping because she is effectively invisible. Kermadec's uncanny dodge ability only prevents him from losing his dodge bonus. However, this doesn't matter: she still either misses or hits anyway. 3.) I'm pretty sure that Anya was regaining focus between shots, so it should have taken longer for her to run out of bolts, so the hit that was previously in round 28 would have also dealt an extra 2d6 damage, which can obviously not have a minimum damage of 2 on 1d6+2d6. This happens a number of times. The comment on one range increment and shooting refers to waiting till he comes that close before using psionic shot: once he's standing and shooting, Anya regains focus. Perhaps I should have also explicitly stated to use it if he stands at range and shoots, I just thought it would be assumed that she couldn't possibly regain it if she doesn't spend it. She also imperatively needs the extra damage from psionic shot in order to win. However, this only moves a few shots past when his AC drops, and unless some of those hit, the final one can't deal enough PS damage to finish Kermadec off. 4.) Lastly, I prefer to be able to see the rolls, although I understand that there were a lot of them. Man that was a long fight: thanks for running it. When I read the feat for some reason it clicked in my head that you had to be within one range increment for it to work. I can go over the fight at that point, check the shots that would have come after Kermadec loses his protection. Now, the single move and total defence would not help in Anya winning, so I am not going to worry about that. About the +2 to sniping, could you please show me where he gets that. And sorry about the rolls, it got late last night, and I wanted to finish the fight before I went to bed, so I made it as simple as possible for myself.
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 03:12 PM	The fight has been edited - which changed a lot of decisions - and I feel like Maeril is more of an automaton now than before - but hey - if he wants to sit and wait - I guess that's hit prerogative... /d
Mind Rogue 10-15-05, 03:20 PM	When I read the feat for some reason it clicked in my head that you had to be within one range increment for it to work. I can go over the fight at that point, check the shots that would have come after Kermadec loses his protection. Now, the single move and total defence would not help in Anya winning, so I am not going to worry about that. About the +2 to sniping, could you please show me where he gets that. And sorry about the rolls, it got late last night, and I wanted to finish the fight before I went to bed, so I made it as simple as possible for myself. It's on page 151 of the PHB in table 8-5 Attack Modifiers. I'm effectively invisible because he hasn't spotted me yet. Normally I get a +2 to hit him and he looses his Dex bonus. However, he has uncanny dodge, so he gets to keep his Dex bonus. Because of that, it's not an issue. All the shots that hit still hit, and the one that missed still miss even with the +2 bonus. It's just something I thought you should be aware of in the future. I understand about the rolls. That was a long fight, which is amazing for someone who's designed to deliver one-shot KO's. Perhaps I should have gone skate and then hustle up. On a side note, I may be doing one of my fights soon, if I don't think they'll take a few hours.
Usurpator 10-15-05, 03:32 PM	Where does it say that, except under the buffing cycle (and never at half-speed): Fifth paragraph: Turn invisible if the opponent get's to close and move away again (at half speed). Then shot him with magic missles from a scroll and the second if possible. Turn invisible again. That's after the buffing routine. Okay - so he's within the range of scent - at 30ft. Scent allows the creature with scent to spend a move action to locate the direction. Only when the opponent is within 5ft are they pinpointed. So, while you might now the general area (30ft radius), you definitely can't pinpoint enough to have a good chance of succeeding in hitting him with your sleep spell (and not target your mount in the same breath I might add). No I'm telling you that it is ruled inconsistently. Snaggle might be a little more able to give you indicators - but the horse (without a trick anyway) really has no way to give you that indication. And plus - I reiterate that any time the familiar was able to sense him - he gave you that indication. I didn't like it - but it felt it was more correct than not. I agree that a horse wouldn't be much help other than just indicating he is within 30 ft. (which he needs for scorching ray). Maraxus also says Zassl wants to cast a spell and then move away, meaning he has to end his turn within 30 ft. of Maeril to do that. From my tactics: Remember both mount and Snaggle have scent. Snaggle can use an action to sniff out the direction and point Maeril and Inspiration in the right direction. My hopes when I wrote this: Snaggle will use a move action to determine the direction of the scent after he sniffed 'someting' while Maeril delays, being alerted by both weasel and horse. Hopefully Snaggle can point me in the right direction, just by squeaking and pointing his nose out of the hip bag towards Zassl and sniffing if neccessary (I always imagine him doing this when he takes the move action to determine direction). Maeril can then decide whether to cast sleep or take a move action in the indicated direction, hoping to pinpoint and then attack Zassl if Inspiration or Snaggle come within 5 ft. If there is something wrong with my assumption that doing a thing like this is beyond the scope of a 6 Int familiar, let me know, I will take that into account in future fights. I did answer it in saying that it wasn't a stupid attempt. The circumstances of the fight allowed it to be ineffective (because Zassl was able to identify the spell while it was cast and you had limited ability to stop him from moving out of range), but the sleep spell in itself wasn't a bad idea. I don't think anybody has an ability to stop someone else from breaking LOS or getting out of range while they are busy casting a spell. Any opponent with 30+ ft. move should be able to get out of range of a low level sleep spell. Casting sleep and counting on Zassl not identifying it (20% chance), not interrupting it, and also failing the save (35% chance), may come in at 5%. That's like counting on a crit to kill your opponent and falls in the stupid category in my book, not effective tactics. What I like in fights is doing the unexpected. Choosing a strategy that your opponent is ill prepared for or wrote no contingency for. I sometimes prefer that above the obvious better strategy, if only because my opponent will be prepared for the obvious. Pitlord improvisation can throw a wrench in carrying out a less optimal but surprise tactic. I meant for the sleep option to suprise Maraxus and simultaneously get good use out of scrolls I won't be using much in the future anyway. Solution I will edit the portions of the fight regarding three items: 1. The seeking out of your invisible opponent. 2. Casting the 2nd sleep spell 3. Withdrawing when he is using shocking grasp. Zassl will continue to withdraw when you cast the first sleep spell, if he is able to. Ultimately, it is Pitlord's prerogative, but I will be happy with any change you make! I can only try and explain you why I felt something was unfair and hope it makes some sense. Additionally, I am always learning how to write better (clearer) tactics. What's a completely obvious choice or improvisation for one Pitlord is sometimes unthinkable for another. That is simply not to be helped, after all, we cannot make rules for everything.
Usurpator 10-15-05, 03:51 PM	The fight has been edited - which changed a lot of decisions - and I feel like Maeril is more of an automaton now than before - but hey - if he wants to sit and wait - I guess that's hit prerogative... /d Maybe, but it feels more like what I wanted Maeril to do. Note that I did not ask for Maeril to be run as an automaton, I asked that if you want to improvise because you hate to run gladiators like automatons, you should improvise equally for both. I still don't agree with the running away improvisation, and I would have run it differently, but as it stands now it feels to me like a fair enough loss to accept. Oh, I don't think that you can ready a sleep spell, delaying would be fine. Doesn't change anything though.
TelinArtho 10-15-05, 03:56 PM	You can ready to start a sleep spell (start a full round action). As to the improvisation I only do so when I feel it is needed and warranted. In the case of the sleep spell in the original run (of course it doesn't apply in the second one now), Zassl really didn't have much to do other than run away. In the case of Maeril, I didn't really see any place where it needed to be improvised (which is indicative that your tactics were just fine). Granted, I definitely misread some things, but I think that'll happen a lot in all fights. You just have to minimize them.
SoulLord 10-15-05, 04:13 PM	Quick question does a 20 always hit or not?
Mind Rogue 10-15-05, 04:31 PM	A 20 is always a hit. Also, Sam vs Flamehair is up. I'll get the rewards fully posted later, but perhaps someone would like to tell me the Xp penalty for a light warhorse at ECL 4 so I don't have to look it up?
SauroGrenom 10-15-05, 04:37 PM	12.5%
Mind Rogue 10-15-05, 05:07 PM	12.5% Thanks. Xp and Gp awards added.
Begferdeth 10-15-05, 05:24 PM	Wlandra vs HG Milstead (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=750759) is up! Lemme know if Ive messed something up. Ranged combat is... awkward.
TheMagister 10-15-05, 06:09 PM	A 20 is always a hit. Also, Sam vs Flamehair is up. I'll get the rewards fully posted later, but perhaps someone would like to tell me the Xp penalty for a light warhorse at ECL 4 so I don't have to look it up? Just noticed that you didn't include the light warhorse's second instance of heavy crossbow damage. I don't think that that'll change anything, but I thought I'd mention it. TM
Snommelp 10-15-05, 07:02 PM	A 20 is always a hit. Also, Sam vs Flamehair is up. I'll get the rewards fully posted later, but perhaps someone would like to tell me the Xp penalty for a light warhorse at ECL 4 so I don't have to look it up? The 5 damage to the horse isn't counted in round 6. Broca should be down in round 10. Sam has Diehard. He doesn't die until he's at -10.
sloisel 10-15-05, 07:05 PM	Tick tock the mouse ran up the clock! In the fight Shakari (Luni) vs Gang Lion (Sloisel) I have received tactics for luni But none for Sloisel. Since Sloisel does not have defalut tactics written on his character sheet for Gang Lion I will give him 30 minutes starting now to send them to me otherwise he will forfeit the match. You have been warned. I just saw your post now. I had in my head that tactics were due by Saturday night, 21:00GMT. In fact the FAQs have no such rule, and they urge me to send tactics by Friday. Oops, my bad. The FAQ http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6467185 tells you to try to get the tactics from me on Saturday, so I hope you'll be able to run the fight with the tactics I emailed you. Sorry for the confusion. I had a busy week. Sébastien Loisel
Mind Rogue 10-15-05, 07:49 PM	The 5 damage to the horse isn't counted in round 6. Broca should be down in round 10. Sam has Diehard. He doesn't die until he's at -10. Fixed, although ultimately it doesn't change much. Also, Usurpator, you can't claim total cover from the tower shield because it would break LoE, which would cause you to no longer be able to concentrate on it.
Usurpator 10-15-05, 08:05 PM	Fixed, although ultimately it doesn't change much. Also, Usurpator, you can't claim total cover from the tower shield because it would break LoE, which would cause you to no longer be able to concentrate on it. I didn't know that. But I do know that according to Rules of the Game using a tower shield for total cover is a standard action, as is concentrating on a spell, so Flamehair wouldn't be able to do it anyway. Using total cover was only required if Flamehair needed to close while Sam was still pelting her with bolts. Fortunately, Sam's tactics played right into my hand, since he expected Flamehair to close, which she didn't. Thank you for running it, it was very gratifying to see that my chosen tactics were able to surprise my opponent.
Snommelp 10-15-05, 08:50 PM	Fixed, although ultimately it doesn't change much. Also, Usurpator, you can't claim total cover from the tower shield because it would break LoE, which would cause you to no longer be able to concentrate on it. Thanks. Now my only complaint is that I didn't know what Matter Agitation did, which is my fault. I really need to learn psionics... EDIT: How many bolts did Sam use, and which ones that missed were recoverable? Could be important later...
Snommelp 10-15-05, 11:18 PM	I'm running Torgirr vs. Auburn now. It's fun when both want to wait for the other. Torgirr had a contingency, though. Just had to share one thing: Torgirr ran, ran, into the center, and Auburn still failed the listen check. On a tie, no less. I guess Torgirr is more quiet than he would have wanted to be.
SoulLord 10-15-05, 11:45 PM	I just saw your post now. I had in my head that tactics were due by Saturday night, 21:00GMT. In fact the FAQs have no such rule, and they urge me to send tactics by Friday. Oops, my bad. The FAQ http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6467185 tells you to try to get the tactics from me on Saturday, so I hope you'll be able to run the fight with the tactics I emailed you. Sorry for the confusion. I had a busy week. Sébastien Loisel No worries I received your tactics and used them.
Luni 10-16-05, 12:16 AM	I'm running Torgirr vs. Auburn now. It's fun when both want to wait for the other. Torgirr had a contingency, though. Just had to share one thing: Torgirr ran, ran, into the center, and Auburn still failed the listen check. On a tie, no less. I guess Torgirr is more quiet than he would have wanted to be. Sheesh. Torgirr did the impossible then. Have fun, Snommelp! :D
Snommelp 10-16-05, 12:26 AM	Torgirr vs. Auburn is up here. Vathelokai, please list Auburn's alignment and spell save DCs and stat bonuses.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-16-05, 12:34 AM	I posted Aquin and Brilf vs Vampire and Bralani, but i can't read it. Can anyone? -ToK
Snommelp 10-16-05, 12:47 AM	I posted Aquin and Brilf vs Vampire and Bralani, but i can't read it. Can anyone? -ToK Yeah, I can read it just fine. That's kind of weird.
Book5 10-16-05, 12:56 AM	Fight! Kracknor vs Aramur (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7510457#post7510457) ummm, gotta go, but I wanted to throw this up, will be back in an hour or two to clean it and add sheets, tactics and the accounting thing, and :shifty: make any changes that are necesary. :fight!: Round 5 is soooo messy... oh its sick. and wrong.. but oh, you'll see.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-16-05, 01:04 AM	Yeah, I can read it just fine. That's kind of weird. K, had to reboot, but i can see it now. -ToK
Usurpator 10-16-05, 06:01 AM	Fight! Kracknor vs Aramur (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7510457#post7510457) ummm, gotta go, but I wanted to throw this up, will be back in an hour or two to clean it and add sheets, tactics and the accounting thing, and :shifty: make any changes that are necesary. :fight!: Round 5 is soooo messy... oh its sick. and wrong.. but oh, you'll see. Hi Book5. I see you did a very thorough fight with including all conditions, hide rolls etc., and even rolled and linked everything using Invisiblecastle, very impressive! I can imagine it would easily cost you several hours to do something like this. Once you Pitlord more fights it will be getting easier and faster. I am doing my current fights in less than half the time I took for my first fight. On the the comments: 1. I see you exercised Pitlord leniency by allowing Kracknol to use his powerstones without having the required Psicraft. While I can understand this, I would like to be informed of it so that I have the option of changing my tactics. My tactics were now written assuming he couldn't use them. 2. In round 5 Kracknol ends up within 5 ft. of Aramur. This should be 10 ft. because he is enlarged and if charging must attack from the first square he can, which is at 10 ft. 3. In round 6 you have Aramur making a Trip attack. I never said to do so in my tactics. I assumed that the default attack method when you say 'attack' is not a Trip attack but regular melee attack and that Pitlords would not have Aramur make Trip attacks unless I said so in my tactics. 4. I believe Kracknol has +12 on his opposed trip rolls, not +4. That's because he gets +4 from being large and +4 from dwarven stability. This is better than Aramur's +9 and incidentally the reason I wanted Aramur to make regular attacks (see previous point) and only try to trip when I got a free one due to Knockdown. 5. In round 6, Rakkar is first making a 5 ft. step backwards, then Aramur drops his sling, draws his guisarme and attacks, then Rakkar takes a move with a standard action along the way (=Overrun). I don't think that's possible. 6. Why is Rakkar performing an overrun? Aramur knew he bought a feisty and stubborn horse when he got Rakkar and horses aren't the brightest of creatures, but I really have no idea why he performed an overrun instead of 5 ft. step and full attack (as specified in my tactics) 7. Why does Aramur fall within 5 ft. of Kracknol? Either he has a choice where to end up after his horse dies from the AoO, or you should randomize it (the AoO is resolved before Rakkar completes his move). 8. Aramur does +3 damage when he is raging, so 2d4+7 from the guisarme, not 2d4+4. I am not going into issues beyond round 6, since the things above can already be pretty fight-changing.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-16-05, 06:55 AM	I saw a pairings that just screams at me for concerns. Kalarthus K'Vennon (Myrridin) vs The Wolfcaller (Poe The Great): Altaris I haven't seen hide nor hair from Altaris13 in a very long time, probably over a month now. As a tentative measure to avoid what appears to be an imminent late fight, i would ask both gladiators to forward me their tactics in the event come monday morning your fight isn't run, i will run it for ya. -ToK
Purkake 10-16-05, 07:20 AM	I posted Aquin and Brilf vs Vampire and Bralani, but i can't read it. Can anyone? -ToK Empathic Transfer, Hostile is a Mind-Affecting effect and Mr. Vampire would have been immune to it anyway. Well it was a nice fight, the puny human and mutant never had a chance. And by the way, shouldn't the dominate-gaze have affected the mutant?
TheMagister 10-16-05, 07:20 AM	@Snommelp Uh...didn't Auburn disqualify himself (the whole 10 round thing...he was hidden from round 2-13, and did nothing to move the fight forward). Also, why on EARTH would Torgirr break cover to look for Auburn in round 13?! The gnome should have had to at least spot Torgirr before getting off a spell. The color spray spell wakes Torgirr up (but stuns him and...blinds him? With his eyes closed? Oh, silly nonsensical rules...) so the CDG probably won't work. (see the sleep spell description: slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not.) Raven needs to make Reflex saves vs. the Entangle spell as well, as long as he's in Auburn's space. Edit: Also, did you remember to include Torgirr's innate dwarven resistance to spells (+2 vs. all spells and spell-like abilities) in his saving throws vs. sleep and color spray? That's all at a glance. Before you make any changes, tell me what you think about these points. TM
Tellish_of_Ket 10-16-05, 07:33 AM	Empathic Transfer, Hostile is a Mind-Affecting effect and Mr. Vampire would have been immune to it anyway. Well it was a nice fight, the puny human and mutant never had a chance. And by the way, shouldn't the dominate-gaze have affected the mutant? Thanks, i guess i should read up a little more on psionic spells. To dominate, the vampire must use a standard action. They had a game plan in mind and i stuck to it. Which was basically, vampire readies and blocks any attempt to get at the bralani, while the bralani rains down arrows/lightning/windblasts upon them. So in their case, domination would have been a last ditch effort to stop someone from reaching the bralani. -ToK
Purkake 10-16-05, 07:42 AM	Thanks, i guess i should read up a little more on psionic spells. To dominate, the vampire must use a standard action. They had a game plan in mind and i stuck to it. Which was basically, vampire readies and blocks any attempt to get at the bralani, while the bralani rains down arrows/lightning/windblasts upon them. So in their case, domination would have been a last ditch effort to stop someone from reaching the bralani. -ToK Hmm, didn't notice that little bit under the Vampire template. Do you think that ANY of the gladiators(of the appropriate ECL) would have had a chance against them?
Tellish_of_Ket 10-16-05, 08:15 AM	Hmm, didn't notice that little bit under the Vampire template. Do you think that ANY of the gladiators(of the appropriate ECL) would have had a chance against them? With the four rounds of buffing each side was given? Absolutely. I can name you two gladiators 2 ECL's lower that would have mowed them down. Krunch [ECL 5] and Pale-Rider [ECL 6]. Krunch drinks his potion of hide from undead, applies oil of align weapon to his cold iron falchion, enlarges, rages, charges, power attacks and kills the vampire in one hit. [dmg: 2d6+12str+8pa+1mw+1df] Pale, buffs too. Rd 1: melf's acid vs vamp...Krunch kills vampire (median dmg of both attacks:34) Rd2: dispel bralani's images (not affect by his SR), krunch smacks bralani, and if he crits he kills him. Rd3: melf's (by-passes SR), krunch finishes him off. end of fight. -ToK
Purkake 10-16-05, 08:31 AM	Nifty :D So good tactics and nice equipment choice for the "monsters" :w00t:
Tellish_of_Ket 10-16-05, 08:41 AM	Nifty :D So good tactics and nice equipment choice for the "monsters" :w00t: I try to prepare for many things...not just gladiators. I mean, there are still things that could go wrong with the above scenario, but the odds are heavy in my favour. Especially with the hide from undead pot. I guess i'm just "old-school", as people used to have a lot of undead pets in the arena with them. There are still a few out there, but most are questing. And for my casters i like to have a range of spells that by-pass SR. SR can be a real fight turner when you fail to get by an enemies SR. -ToK
Book5 10-16-05, 09:14 AM	On the the comments: In reply to most of them, I dont think the outcome will be changed. 1. I see you exercised Pitlord leniency by allowing Kracknol to use his powerstones without having the required Psicraft. While I can understand this, I would like to be informed of it so that I have the option of changing my tactics. My tactics were now written assuming he couldn't use them. Actually when I recount everything I will be changing his Powerstones to something he can use. He bought.... 8 stones that he couldnt use - thats ooops. He is going to have those exchanged and will pay the piper for the vigor and dissolving weapon tats. I seem to have obliviated that detail, but I will adjust for that here shortly. 2. In round 5 Kracknol ends up within 5 ft. of Aramur. This should be 10 ft. because he is enlarged and if charging must attack from the first square he can, which is at 10 ft. You are totaly right, but that solves part of comment 5 oddly enough. 3. In round 6 you have Aramur making a Trip attack. I never said to do so in my tactics. I assumed that the default attack method when you say 'attack' is not a Trip attack but regular melee attack and that Pitlords would not have Aramur make Trip attacks unless I said so in my tactics. Sorry, there was such a trip focus to your character, and it really worked out well. 4. I believe Kracknol has +12 on his opposed trip rolls, not +4. That's because he gets +4 from being large and +4 from dwarven stability. This is better than Aramur's +9 and incidentally the reason I wanted Aramur to make regular attacks (see previous point) and only try to trip when I got a free one due to Knockdown. You still win your first and fail your second. 5. In round 6, Rakkar is first making a 5 ft. step backwards, then Aramur drops his sling, draws his guisarme and attacks, then Rakkar takes a move with a standard action along the way (=Overrun). I don't think that's possible. . (In general, you cannot take a standard action during a move; this is an exception.) Rakkar double moved, 5ft step, then single move w/ the overrun subsummed durring the single move action. 6. Why is Rakkar performing an overrun? Aramur knew he bought a feisty and stubborn horse when he got Rakkar and horses aren't the brightest of creatures, but I really have no idea why he performed an overrun instead of 5 ft. step and full attack (as specified in my tactics) Cause nothing mattered at that point and I thought it would be cool. You said "will attack" and I figured an overrun was dramatic. 7. Why does Aramur fall within 5 ft. of Kracknol? Either he has a choice where to end up after his horse dies from the AoO, or you should randomize it (the AoO is resolved before Rakkar completes his move). He fell where Rakkar fell. They were occupying the same space and they continued to do so. The space Aramur found himself at was the 5 ft block that Rakkar died in. 8. Aramur does +3 damage when he is raging, so 2d4+7 from the guisarme, not 2d4+4. I am not going into issues beyond round 6, since the things above can already be pretty fight-changing. Speaking of which, I have a feeling SueroGenome might have some stance on round 6. Let me say though, when I was looking the whole process over - before starting the rolls. I came very much to the opinion that Kracknol was either going to win on round five or not. And that crit fail pretty much throws things to the negation. I will be editing in some stuff, tactics and rewards, made the adjustments to the trip bonuses already. "Stability" right. At the very least send me a pm or email and let me know how your tactics would have changed.
Vathelokai 10-16-05, 09:53 AM	@Snommelp Uh...didn't Auburn disqualify himself (the whole 10 round thing...he was hidden from round 2-13, and did nothing to move the fight forward). Also, why on EARTH would Torgirr break cover to look for Auburn in round 13?! The gnome should have had to at least spot Torgirr before getting off a spell. The color spray spell wakes Torgirr up (but stuns him and...blinds him? With his eyes closed? Oh, silly nonsensical rules...) so the CDG probably won't work. (see the sleep spell description: slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not.) Raven needs to make Reflex saves vs. the Entangle spell as well, as long as he's in Auburn's space. Edit: Also, did you remember to include Torgirr's innate dwarven resistance to spells (+2 vs. all spells and spell-like abilities) in his saving throws vs. sleep and color spray? That's all at a glance. Before you make any changes, tell me what you think about these points. TM Seems we both assumed that we would come looking for each other. Since we both killed lots of time, the crowd yelled out Auburn's position. The disqualification thing is for leaving the arena. In round 13; cover is always mutual, so even if the cover is right next to Auburn, she would still have to make a spot check. At least, that's how I think it works. Auburn's tactics were to CDG if he falls asleep, and do the colorspray thing if he didn't fall asleep...guess I didn't write my tactics well.
SoulLord 10-16-05, 11:15 AM	Shakari (1871) vs Gang Lion (1611) is Up. fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7510212&postcount=499)
sloisel 10-16-05, 11:19 AM	Rakkar double moved, 5ft step, then single move w/ the overrun subsummed durring the single move action. Wow, that's probably a record for the number of rules broken in a single round for a single character. And I don't have any interest in this fight. 1) You can not take a 5' step if you move at all during your round. 2) Double moving uses up your standard action and your move action, so you cannot do anything else that round. In particular, you cannot also 5' step, or also single-move. There is no exception (charging is not a double-move, it's a special full round action with strong limitations on the move and attack.) 3) You may overrun in the middle of a move action, but this does not overcome the absolute limit of one standard action and one move action per round. If you overrun, you cannot take another standard action that round. This is similar, but not the same as spring attack. Even if you're playing Clintonian semantics game ("It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"), it doesn't work. Overrun clearly states that it's a standard action during the move, and "actions in combat" clearly says that in a normal round, you can take one standard action and one move action. Not two standard actions. Sébastien Loisel
Maraxus 10-16-05, 12:13 PM	Finally I'm done with Lissa Longfellow vs 4 Svirfneblin Gnomes Comments?
Tellish_of_Ket 10-16-05, 12:19 PM	Finally I'm done with Lissa Longfellow vs 4 Svirfneblin Gnomes Comments? Lissa wins and gets 1200 XP and 1200 GP is wrong. Should be... 1050xp/1050gc (1200xp/1200gc -13%) -ToK
TelinArtho 10-16-05, 12:24 PM	And by the way, shouldn't the dominate-gaze have affected the mutant? Nope - the mutant is a Monstrous Humanoid type and the dominate gaze functions as Dominate Person - which only affects Humanoids (so Aquin is not subject to be affected by Hold Person, Enlarge Person or Charm Person either).
Cerebus13 10-16-05, 12:43 PM	Grik vs Greefe (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7513119&postcount=504) is up. Let me know if there are any problems.
TheMagister 10-16-05, 01:25 PM	Since we both killed lots of time, the crowd yelled out Auburn's position. The disqualification thing is for leaving the arena. You're right. I'd think Torgirr would've gotten better directions from the crowd, tho. For example, "Hey, dwarf! He's hiding in the southeastern nook in those columns over there!" In round 13; cover is always mutual, so even if the cover is right next to Auburn, she would still have to make a spot check. At least, that's how I think it works. No, that's not how it works. It would suck pretty hard for a sniper if it did work that way. Basically, as long as Torgirr's within 3 feet of cover, he's hiding. That allows him to peek out from around the corner of a wall/boulder/whatever to look around without being autospotted. Leaning around a corner doesn't require movement from your square. It would be stupid in the extreme to just run out into the open when you KNOW your opponent is layin for ya (looking at the battle and a arena map side-by-side, @Snommelp: how did you get Torgirr from 0,-3 to -6,-2 AND have him cast entangle in one round? That's a 35 ft. move! Pretty good for a dwarf...). Check the PHB pg. 150-151 for cover details. Being a small guy, you could take great advantage of it in your future battles. In my tactics I didn't specify that I wished for Torgirr to search stealthily...this would be the first fight that I didn't have Torgirr attempt stealth, but still...my bad. I won't argue that point. Still, it's obscenely stupid to do such a thing with a stealthy-type character. Heh. That makes me obscenely stupid, then. Auburn's tactics were to CDG if he falls asleep, and do the colorspray thing if he didn't fall asleep...guess I didn't write my tactics well. Your tactics were fine. I dunno why he had you do color spray, either. I'd be fine if he edited it out entirely; as soon as Torgirr blew that sleep save it was effectively over unless you and your familiar somehow got entangled (and that remains to be seen!). I effectively lost when Torgirr failed that Will save vs. Sleep, tho. There's not much that'll change that. Bummer. TM
Snommelp 10-16-05, 02:09 PM	You're right. I'd think Torgirr would've gotten better directions from the crowd, tho. For example, "Hey, dwarf! He's hiding in the southeastern nook in those columns over there!"The trick is to give the gladiator who breaks the ten round rule some penalty without completely ruining the match for her. It's a tough call to make, which is why people usually send contingencies for when the 10-round rule is about to take effect. But even if you had targeted the right square, Auburn would have made her saves, gotten the Sleep spell off, and escaped the Entangle zone.@Snommelp: how did you get Torgirr from 0,-3 to -6,-2 AND have him cast entangle in one round? That's a 35 ft. move! Pretty good for a dwarf...Not (0, -3). (-3, 0). That's 20 feet to (-6, -2). Your tactics were fine. I dunno why he had you do color spray, either. I'd be fine if he edited it out entirely; as soon as Torgirr blew that sleep save it was effectively over unless you and your familiar somehow got entangled (and that remains to be seen!).I thought the Color Spray seemed kind of odd, as well, but from reading the tactics, that's what it looked like Auburn wanted to do. I suppose I just read it wrong. It doesn't change the fight, except to kill Torgirr one round sooner and leave an extra Sleep spell to use against the crowd. I effectively lost when Torgirr failed that Will save vs. Sleep, tho. There's not much that'll change that.You're right, I did forget your dwarven bonus. However, you still miss the save by 4. Finally, Raven's CdG: if Raven does get Entangled, Auburn has no contingency, but logic would say that she would CdG Torgirr herself. All points of contention stand, don't change the outcome, or don't matter enough to change. The results are the same.
Snommelp 10-16-05, 02:13 PM	Grik vs Greefe (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7513119&postcount=504) is up. Let me know if there are any problems. Hard to see if there are any problems when the character sheets and tactics are missing...
Cerebus13 10-16-05, 02:27 PM	Hard to see if there are any problems when the character sheets and tactics are missing...Fixed.
SauroGrenom 10-16-05, 02:34 PM	Usurpator and Book 5, I looked over the fight, and sent a PM to Book5. There was a missunderstanding regarding how I wanted to handle the mistake I made on the character's psicraft skill. I asked that Kracnol be allowed to change one powerstone of force shield to a tattoo, not all of his powerstones. To change all of the powerstones would cost a ton of money and credits to boot. I sent revised tactics in, and these revised tactics assume that all the powerstones are unavailable. Somehow those revised tactis got lost in the shuffle. I think that Book5 will rerun the fight with these revised tactics as soon as he can. Below is the PM from Book5 it includes Kracknol's revised tactics: Hi Book5, I must appologize for making a terrible mistake on Kracknol's sheet that Usurpator has pointed out in the fight thread. Kracknol has no ranks in the trained only skill of PsiCraft. So he cannot use his psi-stones. It's your call, but I would like to spend the extra 50gp to have the stone of forceshield upgraded to a tattoo of forceshield. THen the tactics will be as follows. The job of the dog is now to make Aramur rage then to get away untill the rage ends. So the dog/psicrystal team will attack Aramur and then run away using a 5' step to get out of melee then a run action to keep the distance. They will run around the arena keeping the distance necessary so that Aramur will not be able to charge them. When the rage ends Kracknol will try to initiate a grapple and drag Aramur off the horse (falling damage) pin him and stab him with the Kurki. At this time the dog will try to enter melee with the horse to distract it from the grappling battle. So Kracknol's actions are to go invisable, enlarge, draw the potion of SoF and kurki then wait till Aramur has been raging for 4-5 rounds. Then drink the potion and activate the tattoo while moving into position to charge into a grapple on the next turn. Lastly Kracknol will manafest Grip of Iron as a swift action on the charge if the grapple is started he will use a grapple check to cause nonlethal unarmed damage (Remember large size, increased str and favored enemy). In the second round of grapple, Kracknol will try to move his opponent off the horse (falling damage) and away from melee with the horse. In the third round of grapple Kracknol will try to manifest Grip of Iron and pin his opponent. Then in the 4th round of grapple he will start to stab at his opponent with the kurki and he will expend psionic focus to cause extra damage if it hits. At about this time some of Aramur's buffs will likely begin to expire. Starting on the second round of grapple at the latest, the dog should be able to get into melee combat with the horse. If allowed the dog will take total defense actions to increase AC and continue to stall the horse while the grapple goes. Without those Psi-stones Kracknol is much weaker, but with a bit of luck mabey he can pull this off. Don't forget that Aramur is a favored enemy for Kracknol so all attacks will cause an extra 2hp damage. Enlarged Kracknol's grapple checks are made at +9 while after the rage Aramur will have only +5. Don't forget the free trip's if the dog hits anything. If Aramur is pinned treat his dex as 0 (-5mod) so it should be easy to hit him. Also Aramur has no light weapon but he may attack with his fists. If so he takes a -4 in the attackroll and he only causes nonlethal damage. I hope this works. SauroGrenom This is the message I sent before. In this message I assume that Kracknol will be unable to use the powerstones and ask for a single powerstone to become a tattoo. Please read over it again, I ask for the dog to use "run" actions so when it runs it should move 20' x 4 in each round that it runs. That may impose a range penalty on the sling shots. Also the dog is asked to actually attack my opponent and start the rage going if possable. The basic problem is that my opponent assumed that Kracknol wouldn't use his powerstones, and when I wrote these tactics above I made the same assumption. I also asked that only one powerstone become a tattoo, specifically force shield. It would probably be best if we used these tactics. If you are going to allow Kracknol to use his powerstones, then you should give my opponent a chance to submit different tactics and you should use the tactics I sent previously. Also the Enlarge effect lasts for 3 minutes because it is a psi-like ability with ML3 and it is augmented automatically at no pp cost to Kracknol. This is in the SRD, I think the psionic monsters section on psionic creatures at the top. If you have any questions, please PM me and I'll try to answer them as soon as possable. awww crap. Ok, umm. Im bout to finish up for the night, er morning, er um blaaah, boek5 needs to sleep soon.. im trying to get this min-wuest thing taken care of before I pass out. umm, post on the comments cause I posted the fight.. sorry. I think I was getting ahead of myself. Im the newbie, you and usurpator are old hats. you two tell me what I should do. I will reset the whole fight if the two of you agree. brain failing... please pardon. will respond after sleep. P.S. I was wrong before, the Dog's base movement in the barding is 30' and if running it is 30' x 4 = 120'. That should be enough to stay out of charging distance. I think we can go on for basically a total rerun of the fight with these tactics substituted in for those used previously for Kracknol. If Usurpator realy wants to rewrite his tactics, so be it. But If we both assume that the powerstones are not available then we should both go with the tactics stated before the fight was originally run. It looks like Book5 is willing to do that some time in the near future. BTW, Book5 I've never pitlorded a fight and I've only been at the CoCo for 6weeks now. I consider it to be a very daunting task due to the difficulty and time required. Best of luck with the rerun.
Snommelp 10-16-05, 02:41 PM	Fixed. Thanks. Now I can see what I thought I had said: Grik would get into melee with absolutely no regard for his own safety. If Grik had run in round 1, he would have based Greefe that round, which means Greefe would have been hard pressed to get those protection potions down his throat. I'm curious as to why you chose for Grik to double-move instead. Also, all the throwing axes should be +6 ranged (+7 if masterwork), not +8 and +7. That doesn't effect the fight as much as the round 1 basing, though.
Cerebus13 10-16-05, 04:01 PM	Thanks. Now I can see what I thought I had said: Grik would get into melee with absolutely no regard for his own safety. If Grik had run in round 1, he would have based Greefe that round, which means Greefe would have been hard pressed to get those protection potions down his throat. I'm curious as to why you chose for Grik to double-move instead. Also, all the throwing axes should be +6 ranged (+7 if masterwork), not +8 and +7. That doesn't effect the fight as much as the round 1 basing, though.Fight adjusted...again. Grik is the winner this time because his first two attacks hit. Greefe has the Point Blank Shot feat so his ranged attacks are: +4 Dex +4 BAB +1 PBS -2 Rapid Shot = +7 An additional +1 is added for his 3 MW axes.
Usurpator 10-16-05, 04:20 PM	@SauroGrenom and Book5 I certainly don't desire a rerun, that would be pointless, since Aramur won the match. I would not wish rerunning a fight just for the heck of it, especially considering the effort you put into it already Book5. Winning was largely due to Invisible Castle being on my side, I might add. Most revisions of the problems I pointed out would only make Aramur's victory more likely, considering the rolls that have been made. I do think Pitlording is a learning experience, and I do like to point out rules or tactics errors so that they can be prevented in future fights. In this case I saw quite a number of rules and tactics errors, but Aramur won despite these. Oh, I love when Pitlords use tactics that are cinematic or dramatic such as an Overrun. But if choosing this is unwise and causes my gladiator to lose I would understandably upset. Since both Sauro and I agree you don't have to edit the fight anymore I would like to point out other examples of tactics/rules errors I had seen beyond round 6: - Round 7: Dissolving weapon only does damage on the initial hit, not continous damage the next round. - Round 7: Aramur withdraws. I have no idea why. - Round 8: Aramur draws a lance while stowing the guisarme. I have no idea why. Tactics literally specified: Attack, with guisarme, heavy flail or greatsword in that order of preference. The lance isn't even mentioned. - Round 8: Aramur does a Trip attack with the lance. This is impossible, a lance is not a tripping weapon, you cannot do a trip attack with it. - Round 8: Aramur loses the illegal Trip, but Kracknol doesn't countertrip, I have no idea why. - Round 8+9: Kracknol has a Grapple modifier of +9, not +4 as you used (+1 BAB, +3 base Str, +5 from being enlarged) - Round 9: Aramur is grappled. Tactics specifiy: Grappled: grapple back for damage, yet you have Aramur pin Kracknol instead of grappling for damage. I have no idea why. Book5, I see you have honestly put a lot of effort into the fight and I appreciate that. But if I lost a fight with so many errors as I have seen in this fight, I do think I would demand a rerun. Just a warning for future fights.
Emrys Donovan 10-16-05, 05:09 PM	Casgish vs. Validi (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7515248&postcount=505) is up.
MysticMonk2005 10-16-05, 06:13 PM	Thanks for the great fight Maraxus!
Book5 10-16-05, 10:05 PM	Wow, that's probably a record for the number of rules broken in a single round for a single character. And I don't have any interest in this fight. 1) You can not take a 5' step if you move at all during your round. Sébastien Loisel No, this is what I meant. Rakkar made a double move. 1 move - a 5ft step back that didnt provoke an AoO. 1 move - Overrun. 2) Right, Rakkar made 2 moves. I call that a double move, but I mean. Two Move-E actions. 3) Right, 1 move-e action to 5ft step back. And one Standard action taken durring/as a move-e action to overun. Two very peculiar move-e actions were taken. One is normally free, but it was taken as a move-e to prevent the AoO. The other normally standard, but Overun - as it says in the rules - is an exception to the standard standard action requirements in that it IS a standard action... that is performed as a move. Anyone else's opinion on the Overrun. I have always read it to mean basically that the standard action isnt really a standard action. Since overun only works when you are moving. It s a special attack that is performed as part of a move action. What Im saying is that I have never counted overruns seperate from the move. If I understand you position sloisel - you would run an overun like this: Standard action overun and a move. = full round action turn over. Whereas I have always done this: Standard action overrun as a move and move-e sheath your weapon = full round action turn over. Overrun is a pretty pathetic attack btw, one of the only attacks that can be simply avoided without any rolls.
King Uther 10-16-05, 10:11 PM	I didn't look at the fight, Book5, but you cannot take a 5' step that doesn't provoke AoOs and then move again in the same round, regardless of the circumstances(except in the case of teleporting, the Hustle power, or some other similar ability).
Book5 10-16-05, 10:25 PM	@SauroGrenom and Book5 I certainly don't desire a rerun, that would be pointless, since Aramur won the match. I would not wish rerunning a fight just for the heck of it, especially considering the effort you put into it already Book5. Winning was largely due to Invisible Castle being on my side, I might add. My problem is that the equipment is way off, and that means both sets of tactics are incorrect OR the whole fight is a technical fault. Most revisions of the problems I pointed out would only make Aramur's victory more likely, considering the rolls that have been made. This I agree with. One way or another the question is whether Kracknol's powerplay (however its setup) works or not. In this case the .. nat 1 .. made that decision. I do think Pitlording is a learning experience, and I do like to point out rules or tactics errors so that they can be prevented in future fights. In this case I saw quite a number of rules and tactics errors, but Aramur won despite these. Oh please do! Oh, I love when Pitlords use tactics that are cinematic or dramatic such as an Overrun. But if choosing this is unwise and causes my gladiator to lose I would understandably upset. Well ;) I only make tactical improvements not degradations. Since both Sauro and I agree you don't have to edit the fight anymore I would like to point out other examples of tactics/rules errors I had seen beyond round 6: Errr... seems like the Sauro would like a rerun BTW, Book5 I've never pitlorded a fight and I've only been at the CoCo for 6weeks now. I consider it to be a very daunting task due to the difficulty and time required. Best of luck with the rerun. Yeah, you've still been around this peice longer than me .. Guildmaster :cool: I've been running tabletops for almost ten years though. The difficulty for me here is the interface. - Round 7: Dissolving weapon only does damage on the initial hit, not continous damage the next round. I thought acid always did double round damage, must just be acid arrow spell - Round 7: Aramur withdraws. I have no idea why. I considered it the most effective tactic. - Round 8: Aramur draws a lance while stowing the guisarme. I have no idea why. Tactics literally specified: Attack, with guisarme, heavy flail or greatsword in that order of preference. The lance isn't even mentioned. But but but the lance dows double damage on a charge... your right I was making tactical calls as though it was my character not yours. - Round 8: Aramur does a Trip attack with the lance. This is impossible, a lance is not a tripping weapon, you cannot do a trip attack with it. [COLOR=Blue]I thought the Knockdown thing let you, hrm, no why would it book. - Well the dice knew what was supposed to happen. :rolleyes: - Round 8: Aramur loses the illegal Trip, but Kracknol doesn't countertrip, I have no idea why. :nonono: Neither do I - Round 8+9: Kracknol has a Grapple modifier of +9, not +4 as you used (+1 BAB, +3 base Str, +5 from being enlarged) The enlarge ended on rnd 6. - Round 9: Aramur is grappled. Tactics specifiy: Grappled: grapple back for damage, yet you have Aramur pin Kracknol instead of grappling for damage. I have no idea why. Ok that was just my "best practice" grappleing mentality. I always go for a pin before anything else. Book5, I see you have honestly put a lot of effort into the fight and I appreciate that. But if I lost a fight with so many errors as I have seen in this fight, I do think I would demand a rerun. Just a warning for future fights. Right - and I think this one is gonna rerun. @saurogenome - If you still want a rerun after all this discussion PM me a copy or a link to your accurate character sheet and I will get into it monday morning. Yeesh, Undershadow vs Entrik is gonna be way easier. At least tactically.
waywreth 10-16-05, 10:57 PM	Casgish vs. Validi (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7515248&postcount=505) is up. ... that was exciting. :rolleyes:
Iced 10-16-05, 11:00 PM	Casgish vs. Validi (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7515248&postcount=505) is up. Yes it was interesting. I thought you were going to bring the horse and i'd have to chase you down and entangle, stall, and do all kinds of heroic things to assure victory, but you left the animal at home *sigh*
Snommelp 10-16-05, 11:53 PM	Fight adjusted...again. Grik is the winner this time because his first two attacks hit. Greefe has the Point Blank Shot feat so his ranged attacks are: +4 Dex +4 BAB +1 PBS -2 Rapid Shot = +7 An additional +1 is added for his 3 MW axes. Thanks. I did indeed forget Point Blank Shot. Sorry for making you rerun the fight, but I'm very competitive. @ Vath and TheMagister: even though the results aren't going to change, I'm going to fix the mistakes I made now, including the Reflex saves for Raven.
Snommelp 10-17-05, 01:04 AM	Thanks. Now my only complaint is that I didn't know what Matter Agitation did, which is my fault. I really need to learn psionics... EDIT: How many bolts did Sam use, and which ones that missed were recoverable? Could be important later... I think this got missed... Sam used 8 bolts. 2 missed and therefore may be salvagable. A little help, please?
Luni 10-17-05, 01:19 AM	Nessa vs Crovax is up here. (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7518524&postcount=507) @Dr. Funk: I'll run your MQ in the morning. Sorry for the delay.
Ribking 10-17-05, 07:20 AM	Fight adjusted...again. Grik is the winner this time because his first two attacks hit. Greefe has the Point Blank Shot feat so his ranged attacks are: +4 Dex +4 BAB +1 PBS -2 Rapid Shot = +7 An additional +1 is added for his 3 MW axes.I'm glad I never got a chance to read the original run of this fight. Good call on Grik's run move. I know I would have done the same it I were trying to immediately overpower my opponent. I'm gonna have to adjust my tactics so that I do not always start front and center. A question - Are reruns completely rerolled as well? Grik's first two attacks would have hit my completely buffed AC24 regardless of when in the fight he made those attacks. Good Fight, Grik.
Cerebus13 10-17-05, 08:21 AM	I'm glad I never got a chance to read the original run of this fight. Good call on Grik's run move. I know I would have done the same it I were trying to immediately overpower my opponent. I'm gonna have to adjust my tactics so that I do not always start front and center. A question - Are reruns completely rerolled as well? Grik's first two attacks would have hit my completely buffed AC24 regardless of when in the fight he made those attacks. Good Fight, Grik.I try to reuse rolls as much as possible, in the order that they were rolled.
Sunwolf 10-17-05, 09:33 AM	@Tok I missed the mind affecting part of the hostile empathic transfer too. :( Brilf has deflect arrows which would have negated one of the Bralani's two arrow shots at the end -- but the wrong one. The bralani still does 31 hp damage on the crit arrow alone. More than enough to take Brilf into the negative hp. I think that Krunch and Pale would have a tough fight vs those two monsters too. Hide from undead allows a save for intelligent undead (DC 11 for a potion). And AC 33 is a tall order to hit for a ECL 7 combatant. Mirror image makes the targeted dispel dicey and and area dispel may not get the mirror image. The Bralani can put up mirror image up at will so just puts it up again if it gets dispelled. Sounds like they would have a decent chance though. Would you post the rewards that we get? Check me on this but I think this is the used and rewards Aguin used potion CMW Brilf used powerstones inertial armor[1], animal affinity[3], hostile empathic transfer[5], 1 shuriken Rewards: Aquin XP: (ECL 6) 1800 + (ECL 7) 2700 = 4500 /2(split) = 2250 /3(lose) = 750 ==> 600xp (capped) Gold: (ECL 6) 2000 + (ECL 7) 2600 = 4600 /2(split) = 2300 /3(lose) = 767 ==> 666gp (capped) Aquin also earns 144gp from hunting to relieve his frustruations from losing. Brilf XP (ECL6) 1400 + (ECL 7) 2100 = 3500 /2(split) = 1750 /3(lose) = 583 ==> 583xp Gold: (ECL 6) 2000 + (ECL 7) 2600 = 4600 /2(split) = 2300 /3(lose) = 767 ==> 767gp Brilf also earns 147gp from scribing a handbook on 'How *Not* to fight Vampires'.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-17-05, 09:45 AM	@Tok I missed the mind affecting part of the hostile empathic transfer too. :( Brilf has deflect arrows which would have negated one of the Bralani's two arrow shots at the end -- but the wrong one. The bralani still does 31 hp damage on the crit arrow alone. More than enough to take Brilf into the negative hp. I think that Krunch and Pale would have a tough fight vs those two monsters too. Hide from undead allows a save for intelligent undead (DC 11 for a potion). And AC 33 is a tall order to hit for a ECL 7 combatant. Mirror image makes the targeted dispel dicey and and area dispel may not get the mirror image. The Bralani can put up mirror image up at will so just puts it up again if it gets dispelled. Sounds like they would have a decent chance though. Would you post the rewards that we get? Check me on this but I think this is the used and rewards Aguin used potion CMW Brilf used powerstones inertial armor[1], animal affinity[3], hostile empathic transfer[5], 1 shuriken Rewards: Aquin XP: (ECL 6) 1800 + (ECL 7) 2700 = 4500 /2(split) = 2250 /3(lose) = 750 ==> 600xp (capped) Gold: (ECL 6) 2000 + (ECL 7) 2600 = 4600 /2(split) = 2300 /3(lose) = 767 ==> 666gp (capped) Aquin also earns 144gp from hunting to relieve his frustruations from losing. Brilf XP (ECL6) 1400 + (ECL 7) 2100 = 3500 /2(split) = 1750 /3(lose) = 583 ==> 583xp Gold: (ECL 6) 2000 + (ECL 7) 2600 = 4600 /2(split) = 2300 /3(lose) = 767 ==> 767gp Brilf also earns 147gp from scribing a handbook on 'How *Not* to fight Vampires'. ACK!!! Did i not right the rewards done? Damn, i must have been tired or heavily sedated from my meds. Ok, you are 100% correct on your rewards. I'll c/p them into the fight. And yes, i know it wouldn't have been an easy fight for pale/krunch, plus Pale has 6 summon scrolls (3xIII, 3xII). I'm sure that would have slowed them down as well and increased the odds in our favour and at least the vampire goes down in round 1 even without the pot. I thought you guys had a small chance of victory, and mostly depended on rolls. Unfortunately, your opponents got all the good rolls. I also initially missed the empathic xfer thingy. -ToK
TelinArtho 10-17-05, 10:48 AM	@KerlanRayne - I did receive tactics for Goran - but if you would send them again via PM - I can work on the fight now (rather than after I get home from work). If not - no big deal - but it would get the fight done 8+ hours sooner. /d
Snommelp 10-17-05, 10:59 AM	I'm glad I never got a chance to read the original run of this fight. Good call on Grik's run move. I know I would have done the same it I were trying to immediately overpower my opponent. I'm gonna have to adjust my tactics so that I do not always start front and center. A question - Are reruns completely rerolled as well? Grik's first two attacks would have hit my completely buffed AC24 regardless of when in the fight he made those attacks. Good Fight, Grik. Most pitlords try to use old rolls when possible. The first two attacks missed in the old fight because Grik had been stickied with a tanglefoot bag at that point. I'm glad you don't see any problems with the new fight; that's official enough for me! Grik's movin' on up to ECL 5! Grik: Gud fight, manling. We fight agin soon, okay?
Ribking 10-17-05, 11:06 AM	Most pitlords try to use old rolls when possible. The first two attacks missed in the old fight because Grik had been stickied with a tanglefoot bag at that point. I'm glad you don't see any problems with the new fight; that's official enough for me! Grik's movin' on up to ECL 5! Grik: Gud fight, manling. We fight agin soon, okay?Ah yes, the extra -2 to hit would have made the difference. I see now. See you when I get to 5!
Tellish_of_Ket 10-17-05, 11:37 AM	@KerlanRayne - I did receive tactics for Goran - but if you would send them again via PM - I can work on the fight now (rather than after I get home from work). If not - no big deal - but it would get the fight done 8+ hours sooner. /d We seem to have quite a few late fights again this week. You would be perfectly within your right to use default tactics if there are any, or an auto-win if there aren't. Personally, without foreknowledge of tardiness, saturday at noon, that fight gets done. But that's just me...i hate late tactics. -ToK
Myrridin 10-17-05, 11:37 AM	Damn...that was two big crits by the wolf. Ah well, at least I didn't use the scroll of fireball wastefully.
TelinArtho 10-17-05, 11:39 AM	We seem to have quite a few late fights again this week. You would be perfectly within your right to use default tactics if there are any, or an auto-win if there aren't. Personally, without foreknowledge of tardiness, saturday at noon, that fight gets done. But that's just me...i hate late tactics. -ToK He's sent the tactics - I just don't have them with me right now. The fight will NOT be late...
Tellish_of_Ket 10-17-05, 11:39 AM	Damn...that was two big crits by the wolf. Ah well, at least I didn't use the scroll of fireball wastefully. Ya, plus they tore apart your images early. I was torn between healing and casting color spray. But in hindsight, if you'd have healed, you'd just have spent an extra resource in a losing cause. It was just dumb luck you failed your concentration check AND two huge crits from the wolf. -ToK
Myrridin 10-17-05, 11:42 AM	No, the color spray was the way to go there, definitely. *shrug* I'm not mad about losing, I had some bad luck, my opponent had good luck, these things happen.
TelinArtho 10-17-05, 12:44 PM	@Pitlords (posted here for official notice) Cid Highwing's miniquest has been cancelled this week as his character is in violation for certain things. Since he has not been involved in any fights, Dr Funk is going to modify the problems to rectify the character rather than undergo the same miniquest twice.
Luni 10-17-05, 01:32 PM	@Dr. Funk: Squall's miniquest is done. Find it Here: (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7521617&postcount=509)
SauroGrenom 10-17-05, 03:00 PM	Book5, Usurpator and I have been talking and we agree that the battle does not need to be rerun or edited. There are a number of little details that I could point out where a rule here and there were not followed, and where the tactics were deviated from to a degree that is perhaps too much. I give you credit for linking all the rolls and you are resonably good at improvising on the stated tactics. In conclusion, your work is done so take a day off. If you want me to point out all the places that I noticed a minor error, PM me.
Snommelp 10-17-05, 03:53 PM	Anyone seen Mind Rogue recently? He's still got one of my fights to run, and on top of that (but much less important) I'd like to know if the two bolts that Sam used which missed are salvageable.
Mind Rogue 10-17-05, 04:01 PM	Anyone seen Mind Rogue recently? He's still got one of my fights to run, and on top of that (but much less important) I'd like to know if the two bolts that Sam used which missed are salvageable. Sorry, I've been a bit busy (such is the life of a college student). I'll run your other fight tonight. As for Sam's match, one of the bolts is salvagable, and this will be up shortly.
Snommelp 10-17-05, 04:10 PM	Sorry, I've been a bit busy (such is the life of a college student). I'll run your other fight tonight. As for Sam's match, one of the bolts is salvagable, and this will be up shortly.Heh... I know how you feel. What's your major? Whatever it is, I doubt you're as busy as one of us Music majors... Thanks for the reply. I'll edit Sam and eagerly await Ielenia's fight.
Mind Rogue 10-17-05, 05:11 PM	Heh... I know how you feel. What's your major? Whatever it is, I doubt you're as busy as one of us Music majors... Thanks for the reply. I'll edit Sam and eagerly await Ielenia's fight. I'm looking into engineering or perhaps computer science. I really doubt that I am as busy as a music major. I know some of them and they practically sleep in the music hall. Still, it's midterm season and homecoming to boot, along with having just handed in a programing project and 2 papers for one of my gen. ed. classes, on top of having run my own DnD session yesterday... so things are a little busy around here, but they look like they might be settling down soon. Still, I was expecting only one fight this week.
Mind Rogue 10-17-05, 07:08 PM	Ok, Ielenia vs Ivelios is up, and I even have the craft for Ielenia added in. It also took me a lot less time to load this page then the battle page: I'm still waiting for it to load so I can get the post number. Ah, here it is.
Snommelp 10-17-05, 07:14 PM	Ok, Ielenia vs Ivelios is up, and I even have the craft for Ielenia added in. It also took me a lot less time to load this page then the battle page: I'm still waiting for it to load so I can get the post number. Ah, here it is. Ielenia's a she. I really need a picture so that people won't mistake her for a guy... I mean, she is an elf, and all elves look feminine, but still... Other than that, no issues. I hate druids. I hate them for a reason. This fight is an example of the reason. I'm going to have to come up with a druid-killing build some time soon...
NiQil 10-17-05, 07:18 PM	Ielenia's a she. I really need a picture so that people won't mistake her for a guy... I mean, she is an elf, and all elves look feminine, but still... Other than that, no issues. I hate druids. I hate them for a reason. This fight is an example of the reason. I'm going to have to come up with a druid-killing build some time soon... Don't you already have one? I believe his name is Sam :)
Snommelp 10-17-05, 07:24 PM	Don't you already have one? I believe his name is Sam :) You think so? He hasn't gone up against any druids yet, but you could be right. All I know is he's been doing worse against giants recently than he should be. Oh, and someone remind me next time I face a summoner to use my protection potions *slaps self across face*
NiQil 10-17-05, 07:28 PM	You think so? He hasn't gone up against any druids yet, but you could be right. All I know is he's been doing worse against giants recently than he should be. Oh, and someone remind me next time I face a summoner to use my protection potions *slaps self across face* <manifests Deja Vu just to watch you do that again>
Mind Rogue 10-17-05, 07:37 PM	Ielenia's a she. I really need a picture so that people won't mistake her for a guy... I mean, she is an elf, and all elves look feminine, but still... Other than that, no issues. I hate druids. I hate them for a reason. This fight is an example of the reason. I'm going to have to come up with a druid-killing build some time soon... Now I thought that I called Ielenia a she. I must have mixed it up (some of each). Anyway, Ielenia sounds feminine to me.
nightbanegod 10-17-05, 09:56 PM	alright folks... i have an unusually early day tomarrow as well as a hellishly busy week this week and this weekend for that matter... i get to spend saturday and sunday tearing the dash of my car appart to replace my heater core so i can defrost my windoes in the winter... ohh and so it has a heater for that matter... but with this in mind... santos vs shazzelin is up for grabs... and if you could please inform pitlords that i cant run a fight this week... RL hurts the wallet at times...but ive already done the hard part ... just copy and past THIS POST (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7526108&postcount=511) then you have both character sheets and tactics all nicely drawn up for you... i just dont have time to run the fight since i have to go to bed half an hour ago....G'night and good will twards MEN and occasionally mice...
Snommelp 10-17-05, 10:03 PM	Now I thought that I called Ielenia a she. I must have mixed it up (some of each). Anyway, Ielenia sounds feminine to me. Yeah, you played the hermaphrodite game with her. It's okay, though. Gives me an excuse to bug people on the art thread for a picture.
waywreth 10-17-05, 10:31 PM	Speaking of fights, anyone seen Huan around? Amion needs to lose one more time so I can retire him.
Emrys Donovan 10-17-05, 10:47 PM	Speaking of fights, anyone seen Huan around? Amion needs to lose one more time so I can retire him. So...what happens if he wins?
waywreth 10-17-05, 10:49 PM	So...what happens if he wins? Have you seen his record? 8 straight losses. Simply a lack of offense.
TelinArtho 10-17-05, 11:06 PM	Archie Longbow vs Goran the Beast (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7526829&postcount=512) The fight is long - but I hope the improvisations of the fight to keep things reasonable for me are alright with the combatants. If not - well, I'll see what I can do tomorrow. /d
NiQil 10-18-05, 12:35 AM	Any word from Gonbow? Still missing a fight....
Book5 10-18-05, 05:56 AM	The Lizard vs the Elven Mage is up. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7528583#post7528583) Now at about round 7 I thought that this fight was going to degenerate into cat and mouse.. but oh did it end with a bang! I do plan on reviewing and commenting in blue with Tan's voice, :rolleyes: 'cause I can... but I can also go to sleep - cause its 3am where I am. PM me regarding anything, I only have 12 right now.. hehe "am. PM" it is too late for book5 to be awake.
Vathelokai 10-18-05, 07:36 AM	Krunch [Tellish of Ket] Vs. Yoriko [Mind Rogue] is posted here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7528795&postcount=514)
Pitlords 10-18-05, 09:00 AM	These fights are for the taking. If you want them, tell me. Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs Trent Lock (SodaGuy): Ellorien Amantar (NiQil) vs Fjörd Thjünderbjürd (Begferdeth): Gonbow Ashhûr Demonslayer (Luni) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth): Huan Late Penalties (-2°) for Gonbow, Huan, and Ellorien (who also goes to the inactive list).
Luni 10-18-05, 09:14 AM	These fights are for the taking. If you want them, tell me. Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs Trent Lock (SodaGuy): Ellorien Amantar (NiQil) vs Fjörd Thjünderbjürd (Begferdeth): Gonbow Ashhûr Demonslayer (Luni) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth): Huan Late Penalties (-2°) for Gonbow, Huan, and Ellorien (who also goes to the inactive list). With apologies, Mr. Pitlord, but the tactics I sent to Huan probably made him pull out his hair.
Mind Rogue 10-18-05, 09:17 AM	Krunch [Tellish of Ket] Vs. Yoriko [Mind Rogue] is posted here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7528795&postcount=514) Ya, about that. As soon as I read his tactics I knew I lost. At least he had to spend 1050 gp to win while I only spent 100 to lose.
waywreth 10-18-05, 09:18 AM	With apologies, Mr. Pitlord, but the tactics I sent to Huan probably made him pull out his hair. Oh yeah? You should post those here so we can go over and make sure. :D Then again mine were probably about as bad... My tactics are very simple and basic... and I don't complain. You should take this fight. /nod
Luni 10-18-05, 09:19 AM	Oh yeah? You should post those here so we can go over and make sure. :D Then again mine were probably about as bad... Well, if he comes back, laughing like a madman, I think we got to him.
SoulLord 10-18-05, 09:49 AM	These fights are for the taking. If you want them, tell me. Ashhûr Demonslayer (Luni) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth): Huan[/B] With apologies, Mr. Pitlord, but the tactics I sent to Huan probably made him pull out his hair. Takes note to not volunteer to take over luni's fight on the premise of keeping sanity I can take over this fight. So send the tactics my way (by e-mail by preference) Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs Trent Lock (SodaGuy): Ellorien
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 09:55 AM	For my fight, KerlanRayne has brought up two points which I figured I'd post here, because I'm now not as sure as I once was: First of all, I forgot one of the steps of Archie's buffing sequence (Shield) - but still gave him the AC of it during the fight. The proper way to adjust this is to add in one round for him to do that - which gives Goran another round to attack. Second of all, with regard to spectral hand vs. Mage Armor/Shield/Force Screen/Inertial Armor: I was under the impression that these did not give AC bonuses against touch attacks since they are still armor/shield boni - however, Kerlan is supposing that since the touch attacks are coming from an incorporeal source (the spectral hand) that they should count. Can I get some official clarification there?
Pitlords 10-18-05, 10:10 AM	Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs Trent Lock (SodaGuy): Ellorien [late] SoulLord SoulLord +1°
Cerebus13 10-18-05, 10:12 AM	For my fight, KerlanRayne has brought up two points which I figured I'd post here, because I'm now not as sure as I once was: First of all, I forgot one of the steps of Archie's buffing sequence (Shield) - but still gave him the AC of it during the fight. The proper way to adjust this is to add in one round for him to do that - which gives Goran another round to attack. Second of all, with regard to spectral hand vs. Mage Armor/Shield/Force Screen/Inertial Armor: I was under the impression that these did not give AC bonuses against touch attacks since they are still armor/shield boni - however, Kerlan is supposing that since the touch attacks are coming from an incorporeal source (the spectral hand) that they should count. Can I get some official clarification there?A Spectral Hand has type "Incorporeal" and thus it normally ignores armor on attacks. However armor granted by force effects (like mage armor) still apply against it. This point is moot however because the Spectral Hand is used to perform Touch Attacks, which still ignores a large amount of armor bonuses (even if considered force effects).
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 10:12 AM	I'll take one of the last two fights (even the one that Luni had made insane tactics for...)
Usurpator 10-18-05, 10:22 AM	These fights are for the taking. If you want them, tell me. Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs Trent Lock (SodaGuy): Ellorien Amantar (NiQil) vs Fjörd Thjünderbjürd (Begferdeth): Gonbow Ashhûr Demonslayer (Luni) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth): Huan Santos Fi'Corma (Gonbow) vs. Shazzelin the Gray (Usurpator): Nightbanegod is late as well, and up for the taking (see post by Nightbanegod earlier in this thread).
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 10:25 AM	I'll take care of that one Usurpator Santos Fi'Corma (Gonbow) vs. Shazzelin the Gray (Usurpator): Nightbanegod TelinArtho
Tellish_of_Ket 10-18-05, 10:28 AM	Ya, about that. As soon as I read his tactics I knew I lost. At least he had to spend 1050 gp to win while I only spent 100 to lose. ya, a potion of fly at 750gp, is quite the expense. I probably could have managed without it, but why risk it. -ToK
Pitlords 10-18-05, 10:29 AM	I'll take care of that one Usurpator Santos Fi'Corma (Gonbow) vs. Shazzelin the Gray (Usurpator): Nightbanegod TelinArtho Ok, it's yours. TelinArtho+1°
SoulLord 10-18-05, 10:31 AM	For my fight, KerlanRayne has brought up two points which I figured I'd post here, because I'm now not as sure as I once was: First of all, I forgot one of the steps of Archie's buffing sequence (Shield) - but still gave him the AC of it during the fight. The proper way to adjust this is to add in one round for him to do that - which gives Goran another round to attack. Second of all, with regard to spectral hand vs. Mage Armor/Shield/Force Screen/Inertial Armor: I was under the impression that these did not give AC bonuses against touch attacks since they are still armor/shield boni - however, Kerlan is supposing that since the touch attacks are coming from an incorporeal source (the spectral hand) that they should count. Can I get some official clarification there? The thing is the hand is used for touch attacks so mage armor and shield won't help there. If INSTEAD it was an incorporeal mace ... as odd as that sounds; trying to deal damage by striking then the bonus against incorporeal effects would aply.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-18-05, 10:34 AM	For my fight, KerlanRayne has brought up two points which I figured I'd post here, because I'm now not as sure as I once was: First of all, I forgot one of the steps of Archie's buffing sequence (Shield) - but still gave him the AC of it during the fight. The proper way to adjust this is to add in one round for him to do that - which gives Goran another round to attack. Second of all, with regard to spectral hand vs. Mage Armor/Shield/Force Screen/Inertial Armor: I was under the impression that these did not give AC bonuses against touch attacks since they are still armor/shield boni - however, Kerlan is supposing that since the touch attacks are coming from an incorporeal source (the spectral hand) that they should count. Can I get some official clarification there? I'm of the same opinion as Cerebus and Soullord. Also, the ceiling is 50' right? Wouldn't archie reach the ceiling in one round without have to move and draw a scroll the next round? You could insert the use of shield there, that would save you bumping everything down one round. -ToK
waywreth 10-18-05, 10:46 AM	Well, if he comes back, laughing like a madman, I think we got to him. Great... you scared them all away. I hope this fight does get done though, because I'm really hoping to unveil my new gladiator for Wednesdays battles.
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 10:55 AM	I'm of the same opinion as Cerebus and Soullord. Also, the ceiling is 50' right? Wouldn't archie reach the ceiling in one round without have to move and draw a scroll the next round? You could insert the use of shield there, that would save you bumping everything down one round. -ToK Yes and no - he said he wanted to fly up and out. The out part is what took him a few rounds to reach the ceiling for. At this point, I've already edited in the extra attack (just as an addendum to the fight), and adjusted the items used. Regardless for the touch attacks - they would've hit anyway, but I wanted to know for my own sake. Thanks everyone for clarifying it.
NiQil 10-18-05, 11:13 AM	These fights are for the taking. If you want them, tell me. Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs Trent Lock (SodaGuy): Ellorien Amantar (NiQil) vs Fjörd Thjünderbjürd (Begferdeth): Gonbow Ashhûr Demonslayer (Luni) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth): Huan Late Penalties (-2°) for Gonbow, Huan, and Ellorien (who also goes to the inactive list). :headexplo :banghead: <sigh> well I can forward my tactics to whomever....but unless Gonbow or Begferdeth shows up today or tomorrow morning methinks I'm getting held over.
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 11:23 AM	@NiQil - send me the tactics and if I get begferdeth's, I'll be able to run it today.
SoulLord 10-18-05, 11:38 AM	Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs Trent Lock (SodaGuy): Ellorien [late] SoulLord SoulLord +1° Be sure to send me your tactics before 7:00 pm -6gmt unless you want to be run using default tactics ;)
NiQil 10-18-05, 11:39 AM	@NiQil - send me the tactics and if I get begferdeth's, I'll be able to run it today. Sent
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 11:59 AM	Be sure to send me your tactics before 7:00 pm -6gmt unless you want to be run using default tactics ;) As I've said before - it you are assigned a late fight to be run - unless you know that the person did not send tactics previously - you are NOT to run the fight using default tactics.
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 12:03 PM	Santos vs Shazzelin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7530271) Tough fight to run with two invisible opponents and some pretty decent MS and Listen skills. I imagine there might be issues - but please, be gentle :)
SoulLord 10-18-05, 12:10 PM	As I've said before - it you are assigned a late fight to be run - unless you know that the person did not send tactics previously - you are NOT to run the fight using default tactics. ok ok Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) & Trent Lock (SodaGuy) If you wish your fight to be run at all before the next pairings do try to send me tactics before 7:00 pm -6gmt better? On another note it would be nice if this clarification was added to the advanced rules of gladius in the pitlording fights section. *If you get assigned a late fight you can only run it if you have the gladiators tactics; unless the tactics were never sent in the first place to the original pitlord.
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 12:10 PM	Sent Received. @Begferdeth - if you see this and send me the tactics for Fjörd Thjünderbjürd, I will be happy to run the fight before the deadline. If you get it to me by 4pm eastern US time - I should be able to have it done before I leave work. /d
Usurpator 10-18-05, 01:05 PM	Santos vs Shazzelin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7530271) Tough fight to run with two invisible opponents and some pretty decent MS and Listen skills. I imagine there might be issues - but please, be gentle :) When I read Santos tactics I was a little bit scared for the sanity of the Pitlord who'd run it. I am glad we both written in our tactics to go into the central stack so that we would not just run around randomly for 30 rounds with the Pitlord going crazy with all the move silenty and listen checks. I did account for the possibility of Santos being invisible by delaying my invisibility power for a couple of rounds so that his invisibility would expire before Shazzelin's. When he bumped into me, he had a good 40% chance to win the fight right there. He made the 50% miss chance, but unfortunately missed the attack roll (would have hit on a 4+). Then the advantage shifted to Shazzelin, who needed a 6+ to hit Santos for an almost sure kill. The battle hinged on who broke invisibility first, that gladiator would either win or lose depending on the miss chance and attack roll. In this case, Shazzelin was the lucky one. As long as my gladiators win over 50% of their matches (while executing the tactics I wrote), I'm happy. :)
Gonbow 10-18-05, 01:43 PM	Another loss for Santos, wee. Ah well. Amantar vrs Fjord will be up in a few hours; it shouldn't get held over if I can help it. EDIT: Actually. I'm listed as attacking with a +2 bonus on a touch attack, when it should be +4. (+4 strength, -1 size, +1 bab) As listed, that would have hit AC 10 rather than missing by 2. I'd appreciated it if this could be corrected.
Usurpator 10-18-05, 01:52 PM	Another loss for Santos, wee. Ah well. Amantar vrs Fjord will be up in a few hours; it shouldn't get held over if I can help it. EDIT: Actually. I'm listed as attacking with a +2 bonus on a touch attack, when it should be +4. (+4 strength, -1 size, +1 bab) As listed, that would have hit AC 10 rather than missing by 2. I'd appreciated it if this could be corrected. Jumping in for Telin: I thought that as well initially, but you actually rolled a natural 2, got +4 for your bonus as you said, raising the total to 6, and then another +2 for being invisible for a grand total of 8. You can see the roll for yourself at InvisibleCastle. The +2 is for being invisible.
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 02:13 PM	@Gonbow - Usurpator already pointed out the actual roll - in the original roll though I had forgotten to take into account the +2 for being invisible.
Caterane 10-18-05, 02:55 PM	@all: Please keep in mind that Late Fights are never run on default unless the original Pitlord didn't receive tactics in the first place.
SoulLord 10-18-05, 03:06 PM	@all: Please keep in mind that Late Fights are never run on default unless the original Pitlord didn't receive tactics in the first place. A question on that....... So if we don't receive tactics for X late fight at all; does the fight get held for next week under the latest assigned pitlord?
SauroGrenom 10-18-05, 03:11 PM	SoulLord, Forwarded the previous tactics for Rebreg. I tried to send an email, but it didn't work for some reason. Thanks for picking up the fight so late.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-18-05, 03:14 PM	A question on that....... So if we don't receive tactics for X late fight at all; does the fight get held for next week under the latest assigned pitlord? Generally speaking yes. The exception is if you don't want to be accountable for it, you can ask the fight (if it gets held over) to be assigned a new pitlord. -ToK
Gonbow 10-18-05, 03:20 PM	@Gonbow - Usurpator already pointed out the actual roll - in the original roll though I had forgotten to take into account the +2 for being invisible. Ah-ha. All good then. Gracias for running the fight. In other news: Amantar vrs Fjord is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7531707&postcount=516).
SoulLord 10-18-05, 03:32 PM	tactics from Saurogrenon received.
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 03:37 PM	@Gonbow - just so you know, Augmented summoning has been ruled that it only affects spells that are cast from memory. It cannot affect a scroll/wand/other summoning device. I had this question cleared up when I first came here and started Kraegin. /d
Caterane 10-18-05, 03:42 PM	I also suggest to write PMs to both the original pitlord and the players to get tactics. @Soullord: Tok is right. Additionally, if the fight is not posted at all, the original pitlord gets the [Missing] penalty, never the new one.
SoulLord 10-18-05, 03:45 PM	I also suggest to write PMs to both the original pitlord and the players to get tactics. @Soullord: Tok is right. Additionally, if the fight is not posted at all, the original pitlord gets the [Missing] penalty, never the new one. Will do!
Gonbow 10-18-05, 03:48 PM	@Gonbow - just so you know, Augmented summoning has been ruled that it only affects spells that are cast from memory. It cannot affect a scroll/wand/other summoning device. I had this question cleared up when I first came here and started Kraegin. /d Ah-ha. I'll edit the fight to include this statement, thanks :)
Begferdeth 10-18-05, 06:21 PM	Well, so much for the Pack Attack... darn high AC barbarians. :( Sorry about not getting my tactics to the new pitlord... but I only get on here once a day tops. It all worked out OK in the end tho :)
TelinArtho 10-18-05, 10:35 PM	I don't know why he PMs me with the questions - when it seems clear that I'm not sure... Anyway Kerlan has another problem with the fight. Is it possible for someone to be within the concealment of Obscuring Mist and fire at someone from without? For instance, Archie stayed at the edge of the mist the entire time, and benefited from total concealment from Goran, but suffers no penalty himself. Is this correct, or is this an error? I have to admit - on this rule I'm not sure.
SoulLord 10-18-05, 10:41 PM	I don't know why he PMs me with the questions - when it seems clear that I'm not sure... Anyway Kerlan has another problem with the fight. Is it possible for someone to be within the concealment of Obscuring Mist and fire at someone from without? For instance, Archie stayed at the edge of the mist the entire time, and benefited from total concealment from Goran, but suffers no penalty himself. Is this correct, or is this an error? I have to admit - on this rule I'm not sure. You are not autospotted if you are at least 1 feet from cover/concealment away for each rank in hide you have. so yes you could be on the edge of the obscuring mist and not suffer the penalties associated with it.
SoulLord 10-18-05, 10:43 PM	Rebreg Eennoss 748 vs Trent Lock 1000 is up fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7535652&postcount=517) All rolls in the invisible castle under rebreg or trent respectively. And boy did it seem like the castle hated a gladiator...
NiQil 10-18-05, 10:48 PM	I don't know why he PMs me with the questions - when it seems clear that I'm not sure... Anyway Kerlan has another problem with the fight. Is it possible for someone to be within the concealment of Obscuring Mist and fire at someone from without? For instance, Archie stayed at the edge of the mist the entire time, and benefited from total concealment from Goran, but suffers no penalty himself. Is this correct, or is this an error? I have to admit - on this rule I'm not sure. Obscuring Mist Conjuration (Creation) Level: Air 1, Clr 1, Drd 1, Sor/Wiz 1, Water 1 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: 20 ft. Effect: Cloud spreads in 20-ft. radius from you, 20 ft. high Duration: 1 min./level Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: No A misty vapor arises around you. It is stationary once created. The vapor obscures all sight, including darkvision, beyond 5 feet. A creature 5 feet away has concealment (attacks have a 20% miss chance). Creatures farther away have total concealment (50% miss chance, and the attacker cannot use sight to locate the target). A moderate wind (11+ mph), such as from a gust of wind spell, disperses the fog in 4 rounds. A strong wind (21+ mph) disperses the fog in 1 round. A fireball, flame strike, or similar spell burns away the fog in the explosive or fiery spell’s area. A wall of fire burns away the fog in the area into which it deals damage. This spell does not function underwater. The way this spell is worded, it is assuming that the caster is inside the mist. Taking it from that viewpoint, it is saying that anything 5 ft away from the caster inside the mist has a 20% miss chance, and anything further has total concealment (regardless of whether they are inside or outside the mist). This appears to be from the caster's obscured vision. Now, as for this working in reverse...if someone was standing outside of the mist with no mist in their square, and they were firing into the mist, I would think that they would suffer the total concealment penalty for anything beyond 5 ft, since they have to look through the mist to see someone in the mist just like someone in the mist has to look out to see someone. I think the 20% miss chance would apply if the 5 ft square in question is in the mist...basically treating it the same as how the caster would suffer. So I would have to agree that firing into the mist would incur the same penalties as firing out of the mist. That's my take, anyway.
NiQil 10-18-05, 10:51 PM	You are not autospotted if you are at least 1 feet from cover/concealment away for each rank in hide you have. so yes you could be on the edge of the obscuring mist and not suffer the penalties associated with it. See, I have to disagree with this.....this scenerio is almost identical to the blur spell....and we have decided that the blur spell does not give the ability to hide.
SoulLord 10-18-05, 10:59 PM	See, I have to disagree with this.....this scenerio is almost identical to the blur spell....and we have decided that the blur spell does not give the ability to hide. Yes I remember that ruling ...poor heindal. But this is not the case someone is poping next to an obscuring mist (a perfectly valid place to hide) the target is unaware from where (thats what his spot check is for) and gets attacked. If the attacker does not get back at least 10 feet into the mist to break LOS then his foe could claim the sniping penalty to hide at -20.
NiQil 10-18-05, 11:05 PM	Yes I remember that ruling ...poor heindal. But this is not the case someone is poping next to an obscuring mist (a perfectly valid place to hide) the target is unaware from where (thats what his spot check is for) and gets attacked. If the attacker does not get back at least 10 feet into the mist to break LOS then his foe could claim the sniping penalty to hide at -20. Look at it from this viewpoint: If the caster in the middle of the mist can't see out, how can the guy standing on the edge see in to shoot him? It obscures the vision of everyone equally in the spaces it covers. If you are standing in a clear space and trying to see into the mist, you are still not going to be able to, because you can't see into the mist. So firing into something that is causing you to not be able to see would give you the same 50% miss chance that the person in the middle has firing out at someone he can't see. Same with the 20%. It has to work both ways. Otherwise, what is the good of the caster throwing out the spell in the first place? Just to give HIMSELF a miss chance and let his opponent fire clearly? Doesn't that seem just a little ridiculous?
SoulLord 10-18-05, 11:19 PM	Look at it from this viewpoint: If the caster in the middle of the mist can't see out, how can the guy standing on the edge see in to shoot him? It obscures the vision of everyone equally in the spaces it covers. If you are standing in a clear space and trying to see into the mist, you are still not going to be able to, because you can't see into the mist. So firing into something that is causing you to not be able to see would give you the same 50% miss chance that the person in the middle has firing out at someone he can't see. Same with the 20%. It has to work both ways. Otherwise, what is the good of the caster throwing out the spell in the first place? Just to give HIMSELF a miss chance and let his opponent fire clearly? Doesn't that seem just a little ridiculous? Totally agree that if the caster is at least 10 feet into the mist he wont be able to see someone on the edge of the mist as clearly and vice versa. The point I'm saying is that if someone is on the edge of the obscuring mist against a target outside of it it can hide in the mist as long as *1.- he has not been spotted yet. *2.- hast at least 1 rank in hide per foot of distance away from the mist
Huan 10-18-05, 11:23 PM	Belated bare-bones Ashur vs Amion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7535933) is up. Sorry for the delay. Short Version: Two gladiators unable to hit each other + 1 realization to rerun midway = 55+ agonizing rounds of boredom.... (I'll try to spice things up later).
NiQil 10-18-05, 11:28 PM	Totally agree that if the caster is at least 10 feet into the mist he wont be able to see someone on the edge of the mist as clearly and vice versa. The point I'm saying is that if someone is on the edge of the obscuring mist against a target outside of it it can hide in the mist as long as *1.- he has not been spotted yet. *2.- hast at least 1 rank in hide per foot of distance away from the mist But like I said....since in that circumstance it is almost the same as the blur spell, I don't think it would work that way, because we have determined that you can't use a blur spell to hide. To wit: Blur Illusion (Glamer) Level: Brd 2,Sor/Wiz 2 Components: V Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Target: Creature touched Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering. This distortion grants the subject concealment (20% miss chance). A see invisibility spell does not counteract the blur effect, but a true seeing spell does. Opponents that cannot see the subject ignore the spell’s effect (though fighting an unseen opponent carries penalties of its own). Blur gives the subject the same type of concealment and the same 20% miss chance. In all mechanical respects, they operate the same. I fail to see how we can rule that one does not give the ability to hide, but that the other would. But that point aside, I think that the obscuring mist does provide penalties both ways...inside-out and outside-in...as far as attacks are concerned.
Snommelp 10-18-05, 11:46 PM	Blur gives the subject the same type of concealment and the same 20% miss chance. In all mechanical respects, they operate the same. I fail to see how we can rule that one does not give the ability to hide, but that the other would. Because one merely blurs your immediate area, whereas the other "blurs" a large area, perhaps? It's ridiculous to say that you can hide in a Blur, because the spell only affects you. Obscuring Mist, however, has an effect on a large area. With Blur, your opponent still knows exactly where you are, because there's nowhere else for you to be. With Obscuring Mist, though, you could be anywhere within the mist and still attack your opponent. Hence, you can hide at the edge of an Obscuring Mist.
NiQil 10-18-05, 11:54 PM	Because one merely blurs your immediate area, whereas the other "blurs" a large area, perhaps? It's ridiculous to say that you can hide in a Blur, because the spell only affects you. Obscuring Mist, however, has an effect on a large area. With Blur, your opponent still knows exactly where you are, because there's nowhere else for you to be. With Obscuring Mist, though, you could be anywhere within the mist and still attack your opponent. Hence, you can hide at the edge of an Obscuring Mist. But if the person you are attacking is outside of the mist, and you are on the edge, as you state, then you can still see them if they are 5 ft away. You just have a miss chance due to the poor visual circumstances...same as Blur. No one is disputing that they can hide from more than 5 ft away. I readily admit that. But if one half of the equation is outside of the mist, and the other is standing inside the edge of the mist and 5 ft away, I fail to see how you can hide.....unless of course you go further into the mist and then come back out. But if you stay within that edge, and do not break LOS, you can't hide. If you go 10 ft into the mist to break LOS (which is all that is required by the spell), and then come back out to 5 ft, then yes, you could hide. But if you are at 5 ft away when the mist begins, and you never leave that 5 ft range, you can't hide. You can't hide while being observed, so they would have to go further into the mist to break LOS and then return to the edge to hide. But again...this is beside the point of the question. I still maintain that the miss chances work both inside out and outside in.
TheMagister 10-19-05, 12:26 AM	I'm gonna chime in, if only because obscuring mist has always been a spell I wished I could use effectively in a battle situation for offense. *I think that if a caster/attacker is standing in a 5 ft. square on the edge of the mist, that he *should be able to see out beyond its boundary with unimpeded vision while those looking IN should have the 20% miss chance. *I think that if a caster/attacker is standing in a square that is 10 ft. from the edge of the mist, that his targets should have a 20% miss chance from his attacks and he should have full concealment from them. That just sounds right to me. I know that's not how it is, and so this opinion is non-constructive, but that's how it SHOULD be. TM
Luni 10-19-05, 12:56 AM	Belated bare-bones Ashur vs Amion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7535933) is up. Sorry for the delay. Short Version: Two gladiators unable to hit each other + 1 realization to rerun midway = 55+ agonizing rounds of boredom.... (I'll try to spice things up later). Thanks for running it Huan. Sorry to make the fight long for you. Under Bullet 4, Section 5, Arena Combat II of the Rules of Gladius (say that out loud ... it sounds funny and overly-legal ), readying to dodge an attack is prohibited, so Ashur will NOT be readying to use the shield as total cover against an oncoming attack. Since this is not a total breakdown of tactics, I will instead have Ashur use tactical cover, running, and evasion. I didn't think readying a shield for cover would be a dodging.... NOTE: As stated before, the 10 rd limit will apply if all Ashur does is run around, trying to stay out of range of Amion. Rather than do something cruel, I will instead have Ashur drop down prone and defend while Amion fires away. The ensuing rounds will be of Amion hovering 10 ft. above Ashur firing/reloading crossbow bolts. Hmm. I didn't think that would apply. After rereading rules, I see that it does.
TheMagister 10-19-05, 01:05 AM	FYI, the +1 to-hit mod for attacking from higher ground only applies to melee attacks, not ranged. Conversely, were I DM-ing a real game, I'd eliminate the prone +4 AC bonus vs. ranged attacks if the ranged attacker were flying directly above his target. It just don't make no sense. TM
NiQil 10-19-05, 01:50 AM	FYI, the +1 to-hit mod for attacking from higher ground only applies to melee attacks, not ranged. Conversely, were I DM-ing a real game, I'd eliminate the prone +4 AC bonus vs. ranged attacks if the ranged attacker were flying directly above his target. It just don't make no sense. TM LOL there's where the problem lies...you're trying to make D&D rules make sense. Stop that...your head will hurt a lot less LOL.
WarsawAtWork 10-19-05, 03:00 AM	In regards to spectral hand and force effects here are some quotes: The hand is incorporeal and thus cannot be harmed by normal weapons.Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor.The disk also provides a +4 shield bonus to AC. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect.Because inertial armor is composed of psychokinetic force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor. The force screen provides a +4 shield bonus to Armor Class (which applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since the force screen is a force effect).An incorporeal source is making touch attacks. How else could you define Incorporeal Touch Attacks? The spells and powers seem very specific to me. Now, for the Obscuring Mist question. This is not like Darkness where looking in gives a miss chance but looking out doesn't. I believe that it's all or nothing. Either we both get concealment or neither of us do. I could see it as both getting 20% miss chance because there is only 5 feet of mist to deal with, the mist that is in Archie's square. Warsaw (aka KerlanRayne) PS: I'm sorry about doing this through PM but I have noticed that often my posts about problems have been overlooked in the past. Not trying to be pushy.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-19-05, 05:15 AM	In regards to spectral hand and force effects here are some quotes: An incorporeal source is making touch attacks. How else could you define Incorporeal Touch Attacks? The spells and powers seem very specific to me. Now, for the Obscuring Mist question. This is not like Darkness where looking in gives a miss chance but looking out doesn't. I believe that it's all or nothing. Either we both get concealment or neither of us do. I could see it as both getting 20% miss chance because there is only 5 feet of mist to deal with, the mist that is in Archie's square. Warsaw (aka KerlanRayne) PS: I'm sorry about doing this through PM but I have noticed that often my posts about problems have been overlooked in the past. Not trying to be pushy. If a player is standing at the edge of the mist, looking out, there is no miss chance for that player, because there isn't "5 feet of mist" for him to look through. Goran is looking through 5' of mist and suffers the 20% miss chance. Also, i don't know why there is any comparison made to blur. Obscuring mist is an area spell, and gives REAL concealment. So it's concievable that a person at the edge of the mist can hide in it. Last point....mage armour etc... Normally you are right. But here is the problem. The spectral hand is delivering a discharchable touch spell. It doesn't need to pass through the mage armour to damage you. Unlike a regular incorporeal touch attack, that needs to PASS THROUGH the armour to touch your body to do either ability drain, or physicial dmg, the spectral hand doesn't need to pass through the mage amour. As long as it touches it, the spell is discharged, ergo, Goran is damaged. A ghosts incorporeal touch attack needs to pass those barriers to touch your body to drain you. Call it "physical contact" if you will. The spectral hand, just needs to touch any part...armour, shield, tower shield, etc... and a person gets fried. That's the difference, and i think you're misreading it. Hope this has helped. -ToK
Book5 10-19-05, 06:33 AM	"The subject’s outline appears blurred, shifting and wavering." - An illusion. I would hazard to say with all the tracers and after images that implies ... would make it HARDER to hide. "~Effect: 20 ft radius fog bank." - what was that Conjuration (Creation?). You MAKE a fog bank. After you make it its there as though it were a real fog bank. If LOS puts a 5ft cube of the mist between you and the targeting opponent then you get 20% miss. If there is a 10ft area between you filled with fog the targeting opponent gets a 50% miss. The key here being "in between" you gain no benefit from standing inside the last 5 ft block, because there is not a 5ft cube of miss "in between" you and the other guy. Just like you dont get concealment from a wall unless its in the space between you and the offensive. A ghosts incorporeal touch attack needs to pass those barriers to touch your body to drain you. Call it "physical contact" if you will. The spectral hand, just needs to touch any part...armour, shield, tower shield, etc... and a person gets fried. That's the difference, and i think you're misreading it. I dont see to what scenario you are responding to specifically, but maybe its on the next page back. Anyway. :twocents: It all depends on the spell, but mage armor is to an incorporeal source what chain shirt is to a corporeal source. If a corporeal caster needs to check vs the armor's rating then an incorporeal caster has to check vs mage armor's rating. In the d&d metaphysics the armor is really just a "force chain shirt." Hence if the spell is range or melee touch... mage armor doesnt help you much. If Im right and its shockin grasp, er yeah.. doesnt matter what your wearing.. on this plane or the etherial.. all its gotta do is tag and your it. The ghost's drain attack thing should be written as a grab, its not.. but with the exceptions they place on it I cant think of it any other way. Basically a ghost grapples and you loose strength. It has to get ahold, grab you (actually "grab" is not a rigorously defined concept in the srd btw) and it is allowed to ignore any simply corporeal objects when trying to do so. It doesnt sound like the spectral hand was trying to grab you, just touch. Get yourself some deflection bonus then you'll be rockin both sides of the planer barrier.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-19-05, 07:45 AM	I dont see to what scenario you are responding to specifically, but maybe its on the next page back. Anyway. :twocents: It all depends on the spell, but mage armor is to an incorporeal source what chain shirt is to a corporeal source. If a corporeal caster needs to check vs the armor's rating then an incorporeal caster has to check vs mage armor's rating. In the d&d metaphysics the armor is really just a "force chain shirt." Hence if the spell is range or melee touch... mage armor doesnt help you much. If Im right and its shockin grasp, er yeah.. doesnt matter what your wearing.. on this plane or the etherial.. all its gotta do is tag and your it. <sigh>...rehtoric. Everyone is missing the point. Forget corporeal, incorpreal...shocking grasp is a spell that is being discharged against anything it touches, force effect or not. It makes no difference on the corporeality of it. Once touched, the spell dissipates its touch. End of story. Ok, the force effect mage armour presents a real force of resistance against the spectral hand...big deal. If the hand even touches the mage armour, the shocking grasp is discharged anyhow, so please stop quoting all the corporeal vs incorporeal sources, bolding this, bolding that. This isn't the same an an incorporeal attack, like incorporeal undead possess. If the caster was somehow trying to use the spectral hand to "punch" his opponent, then yes, the mage armour would come into being. As it stands, it doesn't, because even when touched, the person gets zapped...force effect or not. Maybe that's what you were trying to say Book, but it kinda got "lost in translation". lol :D I guess we still disagree about the obscuring mist, but i know i used to use similar tactics with a character of mine and we had a discussion back then too with some very knowledge rules-players and i played Living Greyhawk as well, and works the same as i'm describing it there...which uses only official interpretations with as few table variations as possible. Goran is looking INTO the mist, there for his opponent is granted concealment, a 20% miss chance applies to Goran and his oppenent, if he wishes, may hide. But that's just my understanding. I know others have different opinions, and i see how they can think that, so i can't fault ya there. -ToK
waywreth 10-19-05, 08:40 AM	Belated bare-bones Ashur vs Amion (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7535933) is up. Sorry for the delay. Short Version: Two gladiators unable to hit each other + 1 realization to rerun midway = 55+ agonizing rounds of boredom.... (I'll try to spice things up later). Another exciting Amion fight in the bag! This gladiator teaches the important lesson that a good offense is more important than a good defense. Goodbye Amion.
Usurpator 10-19-05, 09:18 AM	You have four kinds of attacks: 1. regular attacks 2. touch attacks 3. incorporeal attacks 4. incorporeal touch attacks 1. mage armor: yes, regular armor: yes 2. mage armor: no, regular armor: no 3. mage armor: yes, regular armor: no 4. mage armor: no, regular armor: no
Tellish_of_Ket 10-19-05, 09:25 AM	You have four kinds of attacks: 1. regular attacks 2. touch attacks 3. incorporeal attacks 4. incorporeal touch attacks 1. mage armor: yes, regular armor: yes 2. mage armor: no, regular armor: no 3. mage armor: yes, regular armor: no 4. mage armor: no, regular armor: no AMEN!
SoulLord 10-19-05, 09:31 AM	You have four kinds of attacks: 1. regular attacks 2. touch attacks 3. incorporeal attacks 4. incorporeal touch attacks 1. mage armor: yes, regular armor: yes 2. mage armor: no, regular armor: no 3. mage armor: yes, regular armor: no 4. mage armor: no, regular armor: no Couldn't put it better myself.
TelinArtho 10-19-05, 09:49 AM	Okay - now I've heard some arguments on the Obscuring mist issue for the fight between Archie and Goran. Here's how the fight will be adjusted: 1. I'll add in the round of shield buffing 2. I'll add in spot checks for Goran when Archie is on the edge of the mist. If he makes his spot check - he can shoot at Archie with a 20% miss chance. Archie doesn't get any penalty for shooting out of the mist. I'll let you know when the fight has been edited.
TelinArtho 10-19-05, 10:22 AM	Okay - the fight has been edited, nothing much changed - but here's the scope of it: Goran spotted a few rounds before the mist disappeared, enabling him to hit one additional image. This makes Archie cast mirror image 2 rounds earlier. Other than that though - nothing really changed. Apparently, I already had the shield spell in the fight in the original, but had forgotten to include it in the totals when I did the fight and in the summary for each round. Regardless, it is there now. /d
Book5 10-19-05, 10:36 AM	Maybe that's what you were trying to say Book, but it kinda got "lost in translation". lol :D Yep, thats what I was trying to say ToK. Hence the "get yourself a deflection bonus" tagline.
Enterik 10-19-05, 11:01 AM	Devolved Sleestak vs. Finduilas Seregon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7528583&postcount=513) @Book5: Thanks for running the fight, but...since Devolved Sleestak dropped his tower shield his hide and move silently checks should have been at +3 and not -7 for a net +10 increase to the spot and listen DCs. Looking at the rolls, this means Finduilas actually failed his Listen DC checks in rounds 2,3,4,5,6,7. Since Devolved was invisible, this would mean that Finduilas would have no idea as to Devolved's location. This would mean Devolved wouldn't be spending actions in order to feint, something I never specified, but appreciate under the circumstances. Also not specified was Finduilas' heavy use of readied actions, which seems like quite a stretch given the brevity of the tactics described. Regardless, since Finduilas was casting magic missile from a threatened square, shouldn't Devolved get an attack of opportunity? And if so, might not Finduilas lose the spell, especially if grappled for lethal damage as per Devolved's tactics? Most importantly, you had Devolved make a melee claw attack when the tactics sent clearly indicated he was attempting to grapple, and since Devolved's attack hit full AC it would have hit his touch AC and thus Findulais AoO, hold(opposed strength checks), lethal damage, and maintain rolls are missing. This makes the opportunity to withdraw in later rounds unavailable without first breaking free of the grapple (if established), so casting scorching ray seems unlikely. Please address these. Now if Devolved somehow fails to grapple his opponent after all that, and even if he does, you then have to resolve the charge attack, which is also a grapple attempt. Then Finduilas gets to do whatever he can to escape...and if he fails, Devolved makes three lethal grapple attacks during the next round.
King Uther 10-19-05, 01:40 PM	In regards to mage armor vs spectral hand, ruling it has totouch the mage armor to discharge the spell is silly. Mage armor doesn't touch you, and isn't part of you. Same thing with a Shield of Faith spell, or a similar spell effect that gives you armor/shield/deflection type AC bonuses without actually being physically a part of your body. This is why, in my opinion, spectral hand has to pass through a Mage Armor or Force screen to discharge a touch spell. I'm not saying I'm right, I just honestly believe it only makes sense for force effects to hinder the touch of a spectral hand.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-19-05, 01:50 PM	In regards to mage armor vs spectral hand, ruling it has totouch the mage armor to discharge the spell is silly. Mage armor doesn't touch you, and isn't part of you. Same thing with a Shield of Faith spell, or a similar spell effect that gives you armor/shield/deflection type AC bonuses without actually being physically a part of your body. This is why, in my opinion, spectral hand has to pass through a Mage Armor or Force screen to discharge a touch spell. I'm not saying I'm right, I just honestly believe it only makes sense for force effects to hinder the touch of a spectral hand. So what your saying is if i try to touch you with just my regular with with a shocking grasp charge active, i have to by-pass your mage armour? Hunh? -ToK
King Uther 10-19-05, 02:06 PM	Fair enough. No, that would be silly. But if they specifically protect against incorporeal sources of attacks, you could see why it would be interpreted as working on a spectral hand. Especially something like Force Screen.
KerlanRayne 10-19-05, 02:10 PM	You have four kinds of attacks: 1. regular attacks 2. touch attacks 3. incorporeal attacks 4. incorporeal touch attacks 1. mage armor: yes, regular armor: yes 2. mage armor: no, regular armor: no 3. mage armor: yes, regular armor: no 4. mage armor: no, regular armor: noThat last one is not right. It protects against Incorporeal Touch Attacks, The argument from ToK is that the Spectral Hand is delivering a regular touch attack because it's a touch spell regardless of whether it's incorporeal or not. KerlanRayne PS: I don't agree by the way but I don't know what else to say.
Usurpator 10-19-05, 02:22 PM	That last one is not right. It protects against Incorporeal Touch Attacks, The argument from ToK is that the Spectral Hand is delivering a regular touch attack because it's a touch spell regardless of whether it's incorporeal or not. Rules-wise, armor never protects against touch attacks, because you can touch the armor to deliver the effect. The idea being that touch attacks ignore any barriers designed to absorb blows, magical or otherwise. It doesn't matter if the armor is made of force, fire, air, steel, crystal or whatever. If it is touched, the effect is delivered. It isn't a question of 'but I am not really wearing my mage armor'. The caster is not in direct contact with a shield spell or force screen at all. But if someone touches it, be it a touch spell or grapple check, you suffer the effects of the touch all the same. It's just the rules. Incorporeal attacks can bypass regular armor because of their incorporeality. Incorporeal touch attacks do not need to bypass armor, they just need to touch it.
Luni 10-19-05, 02:30 PM	You create an invisible mobile disk of force that hovers in front of you. The force screen provides a +4 shield bonus to Armor Class (which applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since the force screen is a force effect). Since it hovers in front of you, the effect has no armor check penalty associated with it. I'm just curious as to why you would say Spectral Hand avoids Mage Armor, but is stopped by Force Screen and shield. I would say Mage Armor stops Spectral hand.
NiQil 10-19-05, 02:30 PM	Rules-wise, armor never protects against touch attacks, because you can touch the armor to deliver the effect. The idea being that touch attacks ignore any barriers designed to absorb blows, magical or otherwise. It doesn't matter if the armor is made of force, fire, air, steel, crystal or whatever. If it is touched, the effect is delivered. It isn't a question of 'but I am not really wearing my mage armor'. The caster is not in direct contact with a shield spell or force screen at all. But if someone touches it, be it a touch spell or grapple check, you suffer the effects of the touch all the same. It's just the rules. Incorporeal attacks can bypass regular armor because of their incorporeality. Incorporeal touch attacks do not need to bypass armor, they just need to touch it. What we have here is a question of whether one rule supercedes the other. Does the protection that the various armor/shield spells mentioned against incorporeal attacks override an incorporeal touch attack, because they specifically protect from incorporeal attacks of all kinds? Or does that protection against all incorporeal attacks go away because touch attacks bypass armor and shield bonuses? I don't really think there is a clear-cut answer here. For those that argue that touch attacks ALWAYS bypass armor and shield bonuses, others will argue that mage armor/inertial/shield/force screen ALWAYS protect against incorporeal attacks. Both arguments are correct....but obviously in this circumstance they conflict. So which rule supercedes the other? I don't see any way of answering that question by the RAW. But I'll dig and see what I can find. Edit: And then Luni swoops in and discredits everything I said by finding an example LOL.
SoulLord 10-19-05, 02:31 PM	Rules-wise, armor never protects against touch attacks, because you can touch the armor to deliver the effect. The idea being that touch attacks ignore any barriers designed to absorb blows, magical or otherwise. It doesn't matter if the armor is made of force, fire, air, steel, crystal or whatever. If it is touched, the effect is delivered. It isn't a question of 'but I am not really wearing my mage armor'. The caster is not in direct contact with a shield spell or force screen at all. But if someone touches it, be it a touch spell or grapple check, you suffer the effects of the touch all the same. It's just the rules. Incorporeal attacks can bypass regular armor because of their incorporeality. Incorporeal touch attacks do not need to bypass armor, they just need to touch it. I thought it was clear last round this passed. A touch attack by an incorporeal source has the same chance to touch a subject protected by incorporeal armor as a non incorporeal source It just needs to touch the armor. protected by an incorporal armor
NiQil 10-19-05, 02:36 PM	I'm just curious as to why you would say Spectral Hand avoids Mage Armor, but is stopped by Force Screen and shield. I would say Mage Armor stops Spectral hand. Let me add more quotes....since we see that Force Screen stops ALL incorporeal attacks (including touch attacks, as it states). Because inertial armor is composed of psychokinetic force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor. Since mage armor is made of force, incorporeal creatures can’t bypass it the way they do normal armor. This bonus applies against incorporeal touch attacks, since it is a force effect. All of these quotes say that incorporeal attacks cannot bypass force effects. It doesn't limit it to normal attacks only.....it applies to all attacks. That would include touch attacks. I'm with KerlanRayne on this one. Spectral Hand does not penetrate a force effect.....ever.
Luni 10-19-05, 02:38 PM	I thought it was clear last round this passed. A touch attack by an incorporeal source has the same chance to touch a subject protected by incorporeal armor as a non incorporeal source It just needs to touch the armor. protected by an incorporal armor Then why bother making Mage Armor a force effect? Every incorporeal creature makes touch attacks. So Mage armor never helps.
SoulLord 10-19-05, 02:48 PM	Well since we are quoting things. Touch Attacks Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. An incorporeal creature’s attacks pass through (ignore) natural armor, armor, and shields, although deflection bonuses and force effects (such as mage armor) work normally against it. Incorporeal creatures pass through and operate in water as easily as they do in air. Incorporeal creatures cannot fall or take falling damage. Incorporeal creatures cannot make trip or grapple attacks, nor can they be tripped or grappled. In fact, they cannot take any physical action that would move or manipulate an opponent or its equipment, nor are they subject to such actions. Incorporeal creatures have no weight and do not set off traps that are triggered by weight. To me it seems that incorporeal attacks are not the same as the touch attack of the spectral hand. where one needs to penetrate armor the other does not.
NiQil 10-19-05, 02:51 PM	Well since we are quoting things. And there is where the conflict lies. But in this case, in order to deliver the touch attack, they have to get through the force effect. Just touching the force effect will not discharge the touch attack, because there is nothing physical to touch. And since incorporeal creatures can't get through force effects....no touch attack can be delivered.
Usurpator 10-19-05, 02:56 PM	Then why bother making Mage Armor a force effect? Every incorporeal creature makes touch attacks. So Mage armor never helps. No they don't. This is the big problem. Touch attacks don't bypass the armor (they touch it), incorporeal attacks bypass the armor (never touching it). Both methods allow the attacker to ignore armor, but they do so for different reasons. And thus incorporeal attacks act in much the same way as regular touch attacks, except against force effects. There is nothing about 'touch attacks' in the Incorporeality entry in the DMG nor in the same entry of the MM. Any author who writes 'incorporeal touch attacks' while he actually means 'regular incorporeal attacks' is making a mistake. A mistake that isn't obvious until someone tries to deliver a touch spell while being incorporeal against someone with a force effect, because in all other cases, both types of attack work the same. Incorporeality doesn't make touch spells harder to deliver. I said before there are four different kind of attacks, and I stand by that. 'Incorporeal Touch Attacks' and regular 'Incorporeal Attacks' are two different beasties.
NiQil 10-19-05, 03:01 PM	No they don't. This is the big problem. Touch attacks don't bypass the armor (they touch it), incorporeal attacks bypass the armor (never touching it). Both methods allow the attacker to ignore armor, but they do so for different reasons. And thus incorporeal attacks act in much the same way as regular touch attacks, except against force effects. There is nothing about 'touch attacks' in the Incorporeality entry in the DMG nor in the same entry of the MM. Any author who writes 'incorporeal touch attacks' while he actually means 'regular incorporeal attacks' is making a mistake. A mistake that isn't obvious until someone tries to deliver a touch spell while being incorporeal against someone with a force effect, because in all other cases, both types of attack work the same. Incorporeality doesn't make touch spells harder to deliver. I said before there are four different kind of attacks, and I stand by that. 'Incorporeal Touch Attacks' and regular 'Incorporeal Attacks' are two different beasties. I agree....they are different. But both are blocked by force effects. You can't deliver a touch attack to a force effect, because there is nothing to touch. Incorporeal attacks can't get through force effects. So no incorporeal touch attacks are going to get through force effects.
Luni 10-19-05, 03:02 PM	There is no such thing as an incorporeal attack. All incorporeal attacks are touch attacks. Go look up in the MM; Shadow, Spectre, Wraith, Allip. They all say incorporeal touch attacks. Mage Armor should apply to incorporeal touch attacks. @Spectral Hand: It says it is a touch attack, so I'll change my voice to the ignores Mage Armor camp. But Usurpator's chart is wrong though.
Enterik 10-19-05, 03:29 PM	Wlandra(Delusional Illusion) vs HG Milstead(Enterik) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7507591&postcount=498) @Enterik: HG needs more hit points. S/he had Wlandra on the ropes and then died after being shot once with a non-magical arrow :embarrass Can't get them from necromancy unless one can buy a potion of false life, maybe there's a psionic gizmo... @Anyone: I know my scroll said CL-1, but is it necessarily so for self-crafted scrolls? Do I pay extra, for scribing my full caster level? @Begferdeth: Thanks for running the fight. Firstly, the map of the fight is great! I wish it was there for all fights, it makes the action so much more comprehensible. I find no real errors, on your part, that would make a difference in the outcome. Had I crafted a CL-3 scroll, that last shot would not have hit Milstead. @Delusional Illusion: Your Bow Style Ranger almost got outgunned by a divination mage :D
TelinArtho 10-19-05, 03:35 PM	When scribing a scroll, you specify the CL up to your highest CL. So if you are a 3rd level wizard and want to scribe a scroll of Mage Armor - you could make it CL1, 2, or 3. The cost of the scroll is 12.5gp*CL*SL and 1xp*CL*SL- so yes the cost would go up. Also, the minimum CL of a scroll is the minimum CL of the spell (so, for instance, a scroll of Invisibility must have at least a CL of 3). /d
King Uther 10-19-05, 03:49 PM	ATTENTION: I have all day off tomorrow. If you wouldlike to catch up or extra RP any quest or campaign, PM me with the free tim you do have and I'll be sure to be on.
Tellish_of_Ket 10-19-05, 04:10 PM	No no no...you are missing the point. You not JUST attacking with spectral hand, you are using it to deliver a touch-based spell. That spell will go off on whatever it touches, mage armour, force screen, etc... and you will suffer the effects. There is no transferable effect with those undead touch attacks. They have to penetrate it to deal their effects. Touch spells do not. That is the main point you guys are missing. I'm not arguing that mage armour and force screen isn't affected by incorporeal touch attacks, not even on my worst headache days would i suggest it. What is happening here is the spectral hand, incorporeal or not, would deliver it's touch based spell charge that it is holding, no matter what it runs into. By saying otherwise, you are saying that even if i used my normal hand to touch you and ran up against your MAGE ARMOUR, my hand would be stopped from delivering the touch-based spell that it is holding. What is the difference if my ghostly hand gets stopped by your mage armour, or my real hand gets stopped by it? Nothing, the spell is discharged and you suffer the effects. Does this make sense? Please no more quoting, my head hurts enough. lol -ToK
NiQil 10-19-05, 04:15 PM	No no no...you are missing the point. You not JUST attacking with spectral hand, you are using it to deliver a touch-based spell. That spell will go off on whatever it touches, mage armour, force screen, etc... and you will suffer the effects. There is no transferable effect with those undead touch attacks. They have to penetrate it to deal their effects. Touch spells do not. That is the main point you guys are missing. I'm not arguing that mage armour and force screen isn't affected by incorporeal touch attacks, not even on my worst headache days would i suggest it. What is happening here is the spectral hand, incorporeal or not, would deliver it's touch based spell charge that it is holding, no matter what it runs into. By saying otherwise, you are saying that even if i used my normal hand to touch you and ran up against your MAGE ARMOUR, my hand would be stopped from delivering the touch-based spell that it is holding. What is the difference if my ghostly hand gets stopped by your mage armour, or my real hand gets stopped by it? Nothing, the spell is discharged and you suffer the effects. Does this make sense? Please no more quoting, my head hurts enough. lol -ToK Ok....that makes sense. That I can agree to. The spectral hand is not making the attack, it is merely a conduit for an attack done by the caster. I'll buy that. @ ToK Sorry....just had to. LMAO :P
Tellish_of_Ket 10-19-05, 04:47 PM	Ok....that makes sense. That I can agree to. The spectral hand is not making the attack, it is merely a conduit for an attack done by the caster. I'll buy that. @ ToK And the cookie goes to.....!!! LOL Thank you..that was the point i was trying to make all along. -ToK **EDIT Mage Armor should apply to incorporeal touch attacks. @Spectral Hand: It says it is a touch attack, so I'll change my voice to the ignores Mage Armor camp. But Usurpator's chart is wrong though. Of course mage armour affects incorporeal touch attacks...but not those that are holding a charge to zap you no matter what it comes into contact with. In a way, Usurps chart is wrong, but only in the fact that the spectral hand is "the conduit" to delivering a touch-based spell that is "discharged' upon contact. I would say running into a "FORCE" effect would suffice as contact and the spell is discharged. Thus suffering the effects, thus, when using spectral hand to make touch attacks that have a touch-based spell being delivered, mage armour, force screen etc.. have no bearing on it. -ToK
Ravashack 10-19-05, 04:48 PM	Uhhhh... HG Milstead(Enterik) has too many opposition schools. Diviners only have 1 opposition school.
Enterik 10-19-05, 06:37 PM	Uhhhh... HG Milstead(Enterik) has too many opposition schools. Diviners only have 1 opposition school. S/he wanted a handicap to level the playing field :P Seriously, I didn't know that and if it bears out, which one should S/he keep opposed?
Enterik 10-19-05, 07:35 PM	The following is a repost of #293 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7538911&postcount=293) of this thread Devolved Sleestak vs. Finduilas Seregon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7528583&postcount=513) @Book5: Thanks for running the fight, but...since Devolved Sleestak dropped his tower shield his hide and move silently checks should have been at +3 and not -7 for a net +10 increase to the spot and listen DCs. Looking at the rolls, this means Finduilas actually failed his Listen DC checks in rounds 2,3,4,5,6,7. Since Devolved was invisible, this would mean that Finduilas would have no idea as to Devolved's location. This would mean Devolved wouldn't be spending actions in order to feint, something I never specified, but appreciate under the circumstances. Also not specified was Finduilas' heavy use of readied actions, which seems like quite a stretch given the brevity of the tactics described. Regardless, since Finduilas was casting magic missile from a threatened square, shouldn't Devolved get an attack of opportunity? And if so, might not Finduilas lose the spell, especially if grappled for lethal damage as per Devolved's tactics? Most importantly, you had Devolved make a melee claw attack when the tactics sent clearly indicated he was attempting to grapple, and since Devolved's attack hit full AC it would have hit his touch AC and thus Findulais AoO, hold(opposed strength checks), lethal damage, and maintain rolls are missing. This makes the opportunity to withdraw in later rounds unavailable without first breaking free of the grapple (if established), so casting scorching ray seems unlikely. Please address these. Now if Devolved somehow fails to grapple his opponent after all that, and even if he does, you then have to resolve the charge attack, which is also a grapple attempt. Then Finduilas gets to do whatever he can to escape...and if he fails, Devolved makes three lethal grapple attacks during the next round. EDIT: Oh yeah, Finduilas can only make a melee AoO and if I remember correctly must be wielding a bow single handed, and I don't think spells can be used for AoO. In any event, holding the bow should also put Finduilas at a relative disadvantage while being/attempting to grapple as well.
Book5 10-19-05, 07:38 PM	Does this make sense? Please no more quoting, my head hurts enough. lol -ToK :evillaugh AHAHAHA! Suffer my Headache Spell! Er, you know I always agreed with you right ToK?
Book5 10-19-05, 08:57 PM	Devolved Sleestak vs. Finduilas Seregon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7528583&postcount=513) @Book5: Thanks for running the fight, but...since Devolved Sleestak dropped his tower shield his hide and move silently checks should have been at +3 and not -7 for a net +10 increase to the spot and listen DCs. Looking at the rolls, this means Finduilas actually failed his Listen DC checks in rounds 2,3,4,5,6,7. Since Devolved was invisible, this would mean that Finduilas would have no idea as to Devolved's location. This would mean Devolved wouldn't be spending actions in order to feint, something I never specified, but appreciate under the circumstances. Also not specified was Finduilas' heavy use of readied actions, which seems like quite a stretch given the brevity of the tactics described. Regardless, since Finduilas was casting magic missile from a threatened square, shouldn't Devolved get an attack of opportunity? And if so, might not Finduilas lose the spell, especially if grappled for lethal damage as per Devolved's tactics? Most importantly, you had Devolved make a melee claw attack when the tactics sent clearly indicated he was attempting to grapple, and since Devolved's attack hit full AC it would have hit his touch AC and thus Findulais AoO, hold(opposed strength checks), lethal damage, and maintain rolls are missing. This makes the opportunity to withdraw in later rounds unavailable without first breaking free of the grapple (if established), so casting scorching ray seems unlikely. Please address these. Now if Devolved somehow fails to grapple his opponent after all that, and even if he does, you then have to resolve the charge attack, which is also a grapple attempt. Then Finduilas gets to do whatever he can to escape...and if he fails, Devolved makes three lethal grapple attacks during the next round. EDIT: Oh yeah, Finduilas can only make a melee AoO and if I remember correctly must be wielding a bow single handed, and I don't think spells can be used for AoO. In any event, holding the bow should also put Finduilas at a relative disadvantage while being/attempting to grapple as well.[/QUOTE] Now the only question I have is this problem here - ( -1.-2 ) Finduilas Seregon (Gray Elf) HP: 20/20 Init: 22 Dodge, Readied. ( -1,-5 ) Devolved Sleestak (Lizardfolk) HP: 20/20 Init: 21 invisible r31, shield of faith. Round 7 Devolved ( 0 ,-4 ) & Finduilas ( -1.-2 ) Finduilas Senses: Free : 7/13 [6,12]Spot (+1)/Listen (+1) 1. (~30 ft away, opposed, moved, invisible : SDC n/a, LDC 11 : Listen direction and within 30ft. Loads LongBow: Free Dodge Devolved Attack (Ranged) w/ LongBow: Standard, (+3dex, +2armor, +5 natural armor, concealed) AC 20: 22 [18] Longbow (+4)[32,81] = Miss and Salvage Arrow Readies: Standard : Cast magic missle on Devolved when he attacks. Devolved Charge: Full, (-2 blind, flat footed, +1 dodge) AC 9: 18 [12] Charge (+6) --Finduilas ---Readied Cast magic missle ---Damage Magic Missles [3,1,2] = (6) Damage Claw: [2,3] = (5) Charge movement ends on ( -1,-3 ) ( -1.-2 ) Finduilas Seregon (Gray Elf) HP: 15/20 Init: 22 Dodge, Readied. ( -1,-3 ) Devolved Sleestak (Lizardfolk) HP: 16/20 Init: 21 shield of faith. recomendations or :twocents: desired. my first impression is that Devolved became visible the moment he initiated his attack - Since Finduilas was staring right at him POW magic missle readied. - Thats why there was no Devolved AoO on Finduilas cause the Magic Missles hit him when he was at his starting block - not when he was striking. My second impression of that percise sequence of events is this - Finduilas is readied to attack at the first sight of Devolved. Invisibility drops after Devolved's attack finishes ( not as he starts ) - triggereing the readied action at the conclusion of Devolved's attack - triggering an AoO on Devolved's part. This will pretty much (barring dice disaster ) warrent Devolved winning. I dont care who wins but I would like an opinion of how that works. erm, I guess Finduilas has about 1 chance in hell once he gets grappled... Note: I completely missed a modifier - as Enerik pointed out - so the behavior of both fighters changes at about round 3. Im rerunning this fight (starting now ) hopefully I will be done before morning.
Ravashack 10-20-05, 01:51 AM	If you unban Evocation, you can use Contingency, the Bigby's Fist spells, Forcecage, Wall of Force, and more DD spells (essentially). If you unban Necromancy, you can use Abi-Dalzim's Horrid Wilting, Energy Drain, Wail of the Banshee, Waves of Exhaustion, and some other spells (i.e. I'm not really scanning the whole list). It's really all up to you.
Enterik 10-21-05, 01:21 PM	Devolved Sleestak vs. Finduilas Seregon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7528583) @Book5: Alright, that's closer to what I had planned for Devolved, but I hadn't anticipated the effectiveness of his escape artist checks. You don't need to change the fight, but I have a few comments... According to the multifight feat and the lizardfolk entry in the SRD, Devolved's second claw is not a secondary weapon and doesn't suffer the -2 penalty which means it would have hit. Also, the bite in round 10 should have hit, since... An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. Looking at the text of the fight I see a line for 3hp damage from a bite that somehow didn't influence Finduilas' hp total. @Anyone: My tactics stated that Devolved desired to take a full attack with multiple grapples for lethal damage as soon as possible. In round 10, it seems this was interpreted as three natural attacks while grappling and Devolved suffered a -4 penalty to do so. Thus he missed all three attacks. I was under the impression that one could do lethal grappling damage with each natural weapon as a grappling attack and not a natural attack. Was I operating under a flawed conclusion? Either way, I would like to know for future reference. In the present fight, if what Devolved was attempting were allowable as I had envisioned, all three in round ten would have succeeded.
Book5 10-21-05, 03:14 PM	Devolved Sleestak vs. Finduilas Seregon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7528583) @Book5: Alright, that's closer to what I had planned for Devolved, but I hadn't anticipated the effectiveness of his escape artist checks. You don't need to change the fight, but I have a few comments... According to the multifight feat and the lizardfolk entry in the SRD, Devolved's second claw is not a secondary weapon and doesn't suffer the -2 penalty which means it would have hit. Also, the bite in round 10 should have hit, since... Rrrrr.. srd looping logic. It says that the Mutli-Attack has a primary and secondary attacks. THe primary does not suffer any penaly to hit and the secondaries have a -5.. unless you have imp (which you do - as your Lizard fold 1st lv HD Feat not a bonus feat btw ). Primary is - Primary. Cmon. You primary attack is the first attack you make. Whether thats your bite or your claw. I have always had a problem with the MM entries that seem to diregard that in their example attack block. Is there a refrence to that somewhere on the "playing the game" stuff? An attack roll represents your attempt to strike your opponent on your turn in a round. When you make an attack roll, you roll a d20 and add your attack bonus. (Other modifiers may also apply to this roll.) If your result equals or beats the target’s Armor Class, you hit and deal damage. Looking at the text of the fight I see a line for 3hp damage from a bite that somehow didn't influence Finduilas' hp total. oops - you did hit. I even listed the damage ... cut and paste happy sometimes ... OUCH look at round 11! I missed the AoO claw damage - should say 3 hp end of round 6, and -9 end of round 11. Doesnt change the outcome. - not even anything on round 12. I'll fix the numbers. @Anyone: My tactics stated that Devolved desired to take a full attack with multiple grapples for lethal damage as soon as possible. In round 10, it seems this was interpreted as three natural attacks while grappling and Devolved suffered a -4 penalty to do so. Thus he missed all three attacks. I was under the impression that one could do lethal grappling damage with each natural weapon as a grappling attack and not a natural attack. Was I operating under a flawed conclusion? Either way, I would like to know for future reference. In the present fight, if what Devolved was attempting were allowable as I had envisioned, all three in round ten would have succeeded. I still think that its ludicris to allow the multiattack when you cant two weapon. So I'll leave the others to answer that.
TelinArtho 10-21-05, 03:21 PM	This has been asked and answered many a time. When you are grappling there are two ways to handle attacks (and they function as the most beneficial depending on the playing doing the grapple): 1. You get one attack per attack that you would normally get according to your BAB. So if your BAB is 6 or less - that's one; greater than 6, 2 or more attacks. You cannot use TWF to increase these number of attacks, but flurry is allowed. 2. You get one attack per natural attack that you can use in a grapple. If your attack routine is claw/claw/bite - that's three. Apply modifiers to the attack rolls as a full attack. In the case of someone like Aquin (my sahaugin mutant), he would get 7 attacks in a grapple (4 talons, 1 bite and 2 rakes). @Pitlords - some sort of explanation like this might be useful for the rules as a clarification since it comes up so often.
Enterik 10-21-05, 03:53 PM	Rrrrr.. srd looping logic. It says that the Mutli-Attack has a primary and secondary attacks. THe primary does not suffer any penaly to hit and the secondaries have a -5.. unless you have imp (which you do - as your Lizard fold 1st lv HD Feat not a bonus feat btw ). Primary is - Primary. Cmon. You primary attack is the first attack you make. Whether thats your bite or your claw. I have always had a problem with the MM entries that seem to diregard that in their example attack block. Is there a refrence to that somewhere on the "playing the game" stuff? As written in the Lizardfolk entry from the SRD3.5... Full Attack: 2 claws +2 melee (1d4+1) and bite +0 melee (1d4) Clearly, the two claws are treated as primary weapons. As do other creatures. The basic pattern is consistant and as follows, either the bite or the claws are primary, nowhere is there an example where any creature which had one claw as a primary weapon had the other claw as a secondary. Below are examples... Chimera Bite +12 melee (2d6+4) and bite +12 melee (1d8+4) and gore +12 melee (1d8+4) and 2 claws +10 melee (1d6+2) Babau 2 claws +12 melee (1d6+5) and bite +7 melee (1d6+2) And here is a supporting quote from the Rules of the Game (part 4) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a) [emphasis mine] The monster uses its listed grapple bonus when attacking with a primary natural weapon (or weapons) and its listed grapple bonus -5 for any secondary natural weapons. If the monster's grapple attack deals damage to a foe, the damage is lethal (unless the monster takes a -4 penalty to deal nonlethal damage) and equal to the damage rating for the natural weapon. Note the above quote also addresses the point about making the distinction between "grappling with natural attacks"(As I had intended) and "Natural Attacks while grappling"(As you had interpreted). And a disclaimer, just in case, my tenacity is nothing personal, I just want to resolve the issue for future reference.
The Undershadow 10-21-05, 09:42 PM	I can't believe you are still whining about this. We are almost halfway through the next week, and you are still arguieng reasons why you should have won. And what's worse, you have all ready been given the win. When Book5 PM'd me, we both said how we don't care, and we want to move on. You have the win, and I'll change my sheet later, when this week's fight is over.
NiQil 10-21-05, 09:46 PM	I can't believe you are still whining about this. We are almost halfway through the next week, and you are still arguieng reasons why you should have won. And what's worse, you have all ready been given the win. When Book5 PM'd me, we both said how we don't care, and we want to move on. You have the win, and I'll change my sheet later, when this week's fight is over. @ Undershadow: Poor form. No reason to be ugly. Enterik clearly stated that he was trying to clarify things for himself for future reference. Using the fight to illustrate his points, since that is where the issues cropped up, is perfectly acceptable. We're all here to have fun. If you have no more issues with the combat, then take a deep breath, relax, and look forward to your current opponent. Everyone is entitled to a solid understanding of the rules. ;)
The Undershadow 10-21-05, 09:59 PM	Sorry, I just get tired of listening to some people who keep arguing their position, long after they had all ready won it. Most of the fight, I admit was not in his favor, and he had the right to argue the mistakes that didn't match his tactics. And when I read that next part, it looked to me that he had been arguing his point, just to get more bonuses for a fight that he had won(yes he should have probably won that fight the whole time.) I just got carried away. I'll try not to get to mad between our fight. I don't know if there was anything you want to fix or not. Sorry again, Enterik.
NiQil 10-21-05, 10:03 PM	Sorry, I just get tired of listening to some people who keep arguing their position, long after they had all ready won it. Most of the fight, I admit was not in his favor, and he had the right to argue the mistakes that didn't match his tactics. And when I read that next part, it looked to me that he had been arguing his point, just to get more bonuses for a fight that he had won(yes he should have probably won that fight the whole time.) I just got carried away. I'll try not to get to mad between our fight. I don't know if there was anything you want to fix or not. Sorry again, Enterik. No worries....everyone has their blood boil from time to time. It's the competitive nature in us all...that's the reason most of us are here. Nobody's perfect....hell I've fired off a round or two. But, contrary to popular opinion, this board doesn't just teach you about builds and tactics...it also teaches self-control. :)
Book5 10-21-05, 10:23 PM	And a disclaimer, just in case, my tenacity is nothing personal, I just want to resolve the issue for future reference. Good cause this is absurd to me. When dealing with 2-weapon fighting - "primary" refers to ... whatever attack you want the primary bonus with. Doesnt matter if you have a MW Bastard sword in one hand and an improvised knife in the other. You can choose your knife as primary and your bastard sword as offhand, or vice versa. Why is this different for multi-attack? Druid's animal companion If it does not have the requisite three or more natural attacks, the animal companion instead gains a second attack with its primary natural weapon, albeit at a –5 penalty. two weapon fighting If you wield a second weapon in your off hand, you can get one extra attack per round with that weapon. You suffer a –6 penalty with your regular attack or attacks with your primary hand and a –10 penalty to the attack with your off hand when you fight this way. Light: A light weapon is easier to use in one’s off hand than a one-handed weapon is, and it can be used while grappling. A light weapon is used in one hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus (if any) to damage rolls for melee attacks with a light weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or one-half the wielder’s Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. Using two hands to wield a light weapon gives no advantage on damage; the Strength bonus applies as though the weapon were held in the wielder’s primary hand only. An unarmed strike is always considered a light weapon. One-Handed: A one-handed weapon can be used in either the primary hand or the off hand. Add the wielder’s Strength bonus to damage rolls for melee attacks with a one-handed weapon if it’s used in the primary hand, or 1/2 his or her Strength bonus if it’s used in the off hand. If a one-handed weapon is wielded with two hands during melee combat, add 1-1/2 times the character’s Strength bonus to damage rolls. the chemic Attack: Primary wing buffet +39 (2d6+12) melee Full Attack: 2 primary wing buffets +39 (2d6+12) melee, 6 secondary wing buffets +37 (1d6+6) melee, tail slam +37 (1d6+6 plus Cha drain) melee Equipment Hammer, Gnome Hooked: A gnome hooked hammer is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. The hammer’s blunt head is a bludgeoning weapon that deals 1d6 points of damage (crit x3). Its hook is a piercing weapon that deals 1d4 points of damage (crit x4). You can use either head as the primary weapon. The other head is the offhand weapon. A creature wielding a gnome hooked hammer in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. Urgrosh, Dwarven: A dwarven urgrosh is a double weapon. You can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, but if you do, you incur all the normal attack penalties associated with fighting with two weapons, just as if you were using a onehanded weapon and a light weapon. The urgrosh’s axe head is a slashing weapon that deals 1d8 points of damage. Its spear head is a piercing weapon that deals 1d6 points of damage. You can use either head as the primary weapon. The other is the off-hand weapon. A creature wielding a dwarven urgrosh in one hand can’t use it as a double weapon—only one end of the weapon can be used in any given round. Maralith Full Attack: Primary longsword +25/+20/+15/+10 melee (2d6+9/19–20) and 5 longswords +25 melee (2d6+4/19–20) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4); or 6 slams +24 melee (1d8+9) and tail slap +22 melee (4d6+4) Half-Dragon Attack: A half-dragon has two claw attacks and a bite attack, and the claws are the primary natural weapon. If the base creature can use weapons, the half-dragon retains this ability. A half-dragon fighting without weapons uses a claw when making an attack action. When it has a weapon, it usually uses the weapon instead. Full Attack: A half-dragon fighting without weapons uses both claws and its bite when making a full attack. If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack and its bite as a natural secondary attack. If it has a hand free, it uses a claw as an additional natural secondary attack. Half Fiend Attack: A half-fiend has two claw attacks and a bite attack, and the claws are the primary natural weapon. If the base creature can use weapons, the half-fiend retains this ability. A half-fiend fighting without weapons uses a claw when making an attack action. When it has a weapon, it usually uses the weapon instead. Full Attack: A half-fiend fighting without weapons uses both claws and its bite when making a full attack. If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack and its bite as a natural secondary attack. If it has a hand free, it uses a claw as an additional natural secondary attack. Monsters "Reading the entries" Full Attack This line shows all the physical attacks the creature makes when it uses a full-round action to make a full attack. It gives the number of attacks along with the weapon, attack bonus, and form of attack (melee or ranged). The first entry is for the creature’s primary weapon, with an attack bonus including modifications for size and Strength (for melee attacks) or Dexterity (for ranged attacks). A creature with the Weapon Finesse feat can use its Dexterity modifier on melee attacks. The remaining weapons are secondary, and attacks with them are made with a –5 penalty to the attack roll, no matter how many there are. Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary attacks. The damage that each attack deals is noted parenthetically. Damage from an attack is always at least 1 point, even if a subtraction from a die roll reduces the result to 0 or lower. A creature’s primary attack damage includes its full Strength modifier (1-1/2 times its Strength bonus if the attack is with the creature’s sole natural weapon) and is given first. Secondary attacks add only 1/2 the creature’s Strength bonus and are given second in the parentheses. Lich Attack: A lich has a touch attack that it can use once per round. If the base creature can use weapons, the lich retains this ability. A creature with natural weapons retains those natural weapons. A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack or its primary natural weapon (if it has any). A lich armed with a weapon uses its touch or a weapon, as it desires. Full Attack: A lich fighting without weapons uses either its touch attack (see above) or its natural weapons (if it has any). If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack along with a touch as a natural secondary attack, provided it has a way to make that attack (either a free hand or a natural weapon that it can use as a secondary attack). Vampire Full Attack: A vampire fighting without weapons uses either its slam attack (see above) or its natural weapons (if it has any). If armed with a weapon, it usually uses the weapon as its primary attack along with a slam or other natural weapon as a natural secondary attack. Giant Wasp Attack: Claws +6 melee (1d8+4) Full Attack: Claws +6 melee (1d8+4) and bite +1 melee (1d6+2) .... Improved Grab (Ex): To use this ability, a giant praying mantis must hit with its claws attack. If it wins the ensuing grapple check, it establishes a hold and makes a bite attack as a primary attack (at its full +6 attack bonus). Types, Subtypes, and Special Abilities manufactured weapons ... Some creatures combine attacks with natural and manufactured weapons when they make a full attack. When they do so, the manufactured weapon attack is considered the primary attack unless the creature’s description indicates otherwise and any natural weapons the creature also uses are considered secondary natural attacks. These secondary attacks do not interfere with the primary attack as attacking with an off-hand weapon does, but they take the usual –5 penalty (or –2 with the Multiattack feat) for such attacks, even if the natural weapon used is normally the creature’s primary natural weapon. Natural Weapons Natural Weapons: Natural weapons are weapons that are physically a part of a creature. A creature making a melee attack with a natural weapon is considered armed and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Likewise, it threatens any space it can reach. Creatures do not receive additional attacks from a high base attack bonus when using natural weapons. The number of attacks a creature can make with its natural weapons depends on the type of the attack—generally, a creature can make one bite attack, one attack per claw or tentacle, one gore attack, one sting attack, or one slam attack (although Large creatures with arms or arm-like limbs can make a slam attack with each arm). Refer to the individual monster descriptions. Unless otherwise noted, a natural weapon threatens a critical hit on a natural attack roll of 20. When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary. The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a –5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity. Natural weapons have types just as other weapons do. The most common are summarized below. Bite: The creature attacks with its mouth, dealing piercing, slashing, and bludgeoning damage. Claw or Talon: The creature rips with a sharp appendage, dealing piercing and slashing damage. Gore: The creature spears the opponent with an antler, horn, or similar appendage, dealing piercing damage. Slap or Slam: The creature batters opponents with an appendage, dealing bludgeoning damage. Sting: The creature stabs with a stinger, dealing piercing damage. Sting attacks usually deal damage from poison in addition to hit point damage. Tentacle: The creature flails at opponents with a powerful tentacle, dealing bludgeoning (and sometimes slashing) damage. And the rest are dealing with primary targets - some stuff in random feats, anyway. That last bit there - natural weapons - thats the goodies. When a creature has more than one natural weapon, one of them (or sometimes a pair or set of them) is the primary weapon. All the creature’s remaining natural weapons are secondary. The primary weapon is given in the creature’s Attack entry, and the primary weapon or weapons is given first in the creature’s Full Attack entry. A creature’s primary natural weapon is its most effective natural attack, usually by virtue of the creature’s physiology, training, or innate talent with the weapon. An attack with a primary natural weapon uses the creature’s full attack bonus. Attacks with secondary natural weapons are less effective and are made with a –5 penalty on the attack roll, no matter how many there are. (Creatures with the Multiattack feat take only a –2 penalty on secondary attacks.) This penalty applies even when the creature makes a single attack with the secondary weapon as part of the attack action or as an attack of opportunity. My opinion - hasnt changed. I think that "monsters" are recommended to get that bonus - but your are a character not a monster. This is a balanced Collesium not a table top game. The "primary attack" thing is about as rigourously defined as the grab attack... e.g. NOT. I think. That only what two? monsters in the srd even have the "primary" "noted" the default is indicated as the one in the attack block. But the wasp (the only animal to the word "primary" entered into the stat block) is able to use the bite or the claw. There is refrence to usually and etc. but I think that in a rigourously balanced environment - Primary - The single attack you designate as your "focus" attack. If monsters can multi-attack then players should be able to 2-weapon. I see no SRD (I understand this "playing the game" thing is considered valid source ... but. They are also not writing that with CoCo in mind. Oh, and I cant read the www.wizards.com site at work (where I am at right now). They blocked it. "not work related" - they didnt know about boards1. though :D - I'll read through the those articles tonight - or try to anyway) reason to diffentiate between the two for purposes of grapple. Creatures like Tigers - have a "rake" attack - this represents the ability that want to have with the lizard folk. The descision that will stand on my table-top is unchanged. "Unless noted on the sheet" - only two monsters have a primary attack "noted." and in both of those cases that primary attack is a single attack (in the maralith e.g. its one of six identical attacks). How do I explain the full attack stat blocks? ... never used em in the first place. See no reason to change. I think they are calculated wrong (as far as a player character is concerned). Presumptious :rolleyes: , but nonetheless, its my opinion and Im entitled to it.
Book5 10-21-05, 10:30 PM	I can't believe you are still whining about this. Hey, I'm still whining about this. This particular issue (the grapple multi-attack thing) will not change the outcome of the fight. Finduilas's only chance to win in that fight (happened both times ) was getting a crit on a spell. That happend the first runthrough (actually I forgot to confirm it so 'who knows' honestly) and didnt the second. As far as balancing - you character is going to be outmached without items. As far as rules - I disagree with the rules choices I used I want to talk about them because I dont see why this should be the case. as I noted in my last post - I havent read this "playing the game" thing, yet I have a dismal expectation of it.
TelinArtho 10-21-05, 10:42 PM	@Book - Did you read the entry that I posted above? This is the way it has been ruled time and again in the CoCo. That is the way grappling is handled. Okay about primary and secondary attacks. In general, the first set of attacks made is the primary - whether it is a single bite attack, four claw attacks or 8 tentacle attacks. If they are all the same type, they are all primary AND all have the same attack bonus. If they are all natural attacks. Once you add weapons into the mix - the weapons become the primaries and anything else is secondary. In addition, in all cases, only the FIRST weapon is the primary (in the case where you use multiple weapons). There are exceptions to this, but it is usually in the case of multiple minds, etc (Ettin comes to mind). So this is the breakdown: Regular Human - no natural attacks unless Imp. Unarmed Strike (then just one). Lizardfolk - 2 claws (primary) and a bite (secondary) or weapon (primary), claw and a bite Sahaugin Mutant (4 arms) - 4 talons (primary) and a bite (secondary) or 1 primary weapon, up to 3 secondary weapons and a bite (secondary). You may disagree with the mechanics of it - but these are the ways that the rules are spelled out. People who pick a lot of natural attacks pay for it with level adjustment (my sahaugin mutant Fighter 1 is in the ECL6 league for instance). /d
Pauper 10-22-05, 01:19 AM	There is no such thing as an incorporeal attack. All incorporeal attacks are touch attacks. I realize I'm getting in late on this discussion, but this comment isn't strictly true: Ghost touch armor is supposed to protect you from attacks by incorporeal foes, but all these creatures have incorporeal touch attacks, and touch attacks ignore armor, so ghost touch armor is really worthless, right? Wrong. Incorporeal touch attacks and touch attacks aren’t the same thing. If they were, they would not have different names. An incorporeal touch attack actually resembles a slam attack (battering the foe with a fist or other appendage), except that it passes through physical armor or shields. The term incorporeal touch attack simply serves as a reminder that most armor bonuses aren’t effective against these attacks. Armor and shield bonuses from force effects, such as the mage armor spell, shield spell, and bracers of armor are effective against incorporeal touch attacks, as is ghost touch armor or a ghost touch shield. (emphasis in answer is mine) Although the spectral hand is incorporeal, it does not deliver incorporeal touch attacks - it delivers touch-range spells: For as long as the spell lasts, any touch range spell of 4th level or lower that you cast can be delivered by the spectral hand. The spell grants a +2 bonus to your melee touch attack roll... (emphasis mine) Melee touch attacks ignore armor bonuses. The mage armor spell grants an armor bonus. The spectral hand can ignore this bonus when delivering spells. That's how I'd have ruled it. [Edit: If this is confusing, consider this - if you chose to deliver the touch spell with your physical hand rather than through the spectral hand, you would ignore the armor bonus from mage armor. The spell should block your physical hand as easily as it blocks the incorporeal hand. Therefore, it's not the hand that's the significant feature in the touch spell - it's the spell.] -- Pauper
Book5 10-22-05, 01:25 AM	@TelinArthro & Enterik - I think its nuts and unnecessary and not well stated. My way is simpler and easier to keep track of. Of course I'll play by the rules of gladius, but just for the record: "The rule is mostly supported by lazy monster entries and metagame intent." @The Undershadow - Tactics recived (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7562525&posted=1#post7562525)