| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| Sindorin09-21-05, 03:59 PM | This thread is for Comments and Concerns regarding this week's Battles of Gladius. For more information and rules with the Core Coliseum, read the Rules of Gladius (http://www.wizards.com/leaving.asp?url=http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448520&origin=) or ask in the Tavern. Have fun ... Be nice... leave the monkeys be. I'm gonna go have a smoothie. Curse the boards for their new template, it makes my lime color look awful. |
| Luni09-21-05, 04:00 PM | Yeah. Far better now Sindorin. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-21-05, 04:04 PM | I use the custom skin of leather scroll anyhow. So i never noticed any change. I have a question. With monster fights, using an ECL 3 Gladiator as an example, if you roll "roll once on the level 4", would it be possible to get another 91+ and then have to "roll once on the level 5 chart"? So in theory, an ECL 3 gladiator could fight a balor? -ToK |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 04:06 PM | Yes - but there's no need to be so unlucky - you could just be at ECL+3 and that would probably be enough in most cases... |
| Luni09-21-05, 04:07 PM | I use the custom skin of leather scroll anyhow. So i never noticed any change. I have a question. With monster fights, using an ECL 3 Gladiator as an example, if you roll "roll once on the level 4", would it be possible to get another 91+ and then have to "roll once on the level 5 chart"? So in theory, an ECL 3 gladiator could fight a balor? -ToK In theory. Though, if it was me, I'd just run in, find the balor, hope to do 50 damage with a crit, and pray the balor rolls a 1 on its Fortitude Save. |
| NiQil09-21-05, 04:13 PM | Heh....balor hunting.....that would be amusing LOL. |
| Snommelp09-21-05, 04:21 PM | If it was my character, I'd see if I could recruit other gladiators as lemmings... er, I mean, helpers. They'd take down a Balor eventually, right? |
| NiQil09-21-05, 04:23 PM | If it was my character, I'd see if I could recruit other gladiators as lemmings... er, I mean, helpers. They'd take down a Balor eventually, right? LOL maybe Sam and Axhind can go band together the monks and we can all go balor hunting LOL. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-21-05, 04:28 PM | In theory. Though, if it was me, I'd just run in, find the balor, hope to do 50 damage with a crit, and pray the balor rolls a 1 on its Fortitude Save. DR 15/cold iron & good? You would need to do 65 pts...vs ac 35, BEFORE it can buff, and you PRAY it doesn't ready upon LOS. So...our orcish barbarian/sorc walks into the arena. Base Str 22, has some credits and gets some NPC spellcasting done upon him. He gets bull's strength, cat's grace. He equips hismelf with his collassal-sized crafted +10 str bow. He moves, casts true strike, and rages. He moves and sees the Balor and fires his arrow. 8d6+10str, and the boy luckily crits. 24d6+30, median dmg is 114. Balor rolls a 1! on his fort save and dies. Our happy-go-lucky gladiator just earned himself, 345,600 xp and instantly catapults himself to epic levels. -ToK |
| King Uther09-21-05, 04:34 PM | Yeah but the Balor thoght of that and used his infinite money in comparison to an EL3 gladiator and purchased an armor of Heavy Fortification. He also buffed with some NPC spellcasting, most notably a Dimension Door upon being attacked. |
| NiQil09-21-05, 04:34 PM | DR 15/cold iron & good? You would need to do 65 pts...vs ac 35, BEFORE it can buff, and you PRAY it doesn't ready upon LOS. So...our orcish barbarian/sorc walks into the arena. Base Str 22, has some credits and gets some NPC spellcasting done upon him. He gets bull's strength, cat's grace. He equips hismelf with his collassal-sized crafted +10 str bow. He moves, casts true strike, and rages. He moves and sees the Balor and fires his arrow. 8d6+10str, and the boy luckily crits. 24d6+30, median dmg is 114. Balor rolls a 1! on his fort save and dies. Our happy-go-lucky gladiator just earned himself, 345,600 xp and instantly catapults himself to epic levels. -ToK Yeah....can you build me up a character around that theory, Tok? I want to be the first to kill the balor killer before he kills the balor LOL |
| NiQil09-21-05, 04:35 PM | Yeah but the Balor thoght of that and used his infinite money in comparison to an EL3 gladiator and purchased an armor of Heavy Fortification. He also buffed with some NPC spellcasting, most notably a Dimension Door upon being attacked. So why don't we just take a balor....an ancient dragon...and the tarrasque....and put them in a canyon somewhere, and, yanno...see what happens. |
| nightbanegod09-21-05, 04:44 PM | ancient dragon flys away, Balor uses greater teleport without error and is gone and the Tarrasque just goes " HEY whered yall go? WTF!!!!! |
| NiQil09-21-05, 04:48 PM | ancient dragon flys away, Balor uses greater teleport without error and is gone and the Tarrasque just goes " HEY whered yall go? WTF!!!!! You give the Tarrasque too much credit...it would probably start eating the rocks to get out of the canyon LOL. |
| Mind Rogue09-21-05, 05:01 PM | Tick Tock: Time is up! ... and some of the fights from last week still aren't done. |
| SauroGrenom09-21-05, 05:03 PM | Rebreg now has the lowest power rating of any gladiator in the Arena. Poor Adler has a lower rating but is in prison. Just consider this a warning to all you out their: Fear my pathetic tactics! If I loose seven more fights, then Rebreg may gain a level! |
| Altaris1309-21-05, 05:14 PM | PH34R MY 1337 GL4D1470R$! Oh, nevermind. Mini is on campaign. :D Have fun in the pits this week! |
| SoulLord09-21-05, 05:30 PM | Times up? yikes I guess that means I won't be able to buy some bolts of orc/dragon slaying. |
| NiQil09-21-05, 05:32 PM | I think with Keltsat's first win I will have him invest in some ^rr0wz of Pwn1ng U ^11 |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 05:39 PM | @nightbanegod Update your character sheet to say Ready! Think he'll get the message? If you don't you don't start your quest... |
| NiQil09-21-05, 05:41 PM | @nightbanegod Update your character sheet to say Ready! Think he'll get the message? If you don't you don't start your quest... Too late...past deadlines. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-21-05, 05:43 PM | Too late...past deadlines. Not if you're questing it isn't. It's between you and your questlord. -ToK |
| NiQil09-21-05, 05:47 PM | Not if you're questing it isn't. It's between you and your questlord. -ToK Cool...I wasn't aware of that. |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 05:54 PM | So I just did some poking around in the old quests. It appears that Zamier is the first questor to actually die on a quest; and that I'm the first questlord to bestow death upon a questor. Be warned... |
| Snommelp09-21-05, 05:58 PM | So I just did some poking around in the old quests. It appears that Zamier is the first questor to actually die on a quest; and that I'm the first questlord to bestow death upon a questor. Be warned... That sounds like a challenge... maybe later, when I have more credits. Probably a lot later, at the rate I'm going... |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 06:07 PM | Not to be pessimistic, but I think I'm working on questor number 2... Crovax is going to have a tough quest ahead of him too... But that's just because I think the +2 LA for drow is a little overzealous... |
| nightbanegod09-21-05, 06:14 PM | Not to be pessimistic, but I think I'm working on questor number 2... Crovax is going to have a tough quest ahead of him too... But that's just because I think the +2 LA for drow is a little overzealous... *GULP* ... you better not be planning anything too dangerous.. granted it is ECL 7 quest... but im full of ... confidence? hope? courage? luck? god i wish ... its probably a little closer to... anticipation more than anything else!! so hey i REALLY hope i dont die |
| Altaris1309-21-05, 06:15 PM | Yeah, the dirty bastard slew my elf with a freaking orc! Damn falchions. Damn crits. Damn killer DMs. :D |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 06:18 PM | And on that note... Crovax - you bastard! You'll pay for sleeping with my wife! Crovax is heading out of Dark Abbey - anyone care to watch him run... Terror by the Sea (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=506119) |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 06:21 PM | Yeah, the dirty bastard slew my elf with a freaking orc! Damn falchions. Damn crits. Damn killer DMs. :D Hey, I'm no killer DM... you were the one who decided a full round spell was a good idea when at least one opponent was within one move of you... And give yourself some credit it was one elf versus 2 orcs and a bugbear. Its not like it was supposed to be easy. And did I mention that they got 2 crits...? |
| NiQil09-21-05, 06:23 PM | Hey, I'm no killer DM... you were the one who decided a full round spell was a good idea when at least one opponent was within one move of you... And give yourself some credit it was one elf versus 2 orcs and a bugbear. Its not like it was supposed to be easy. And did I mention that they got 2 crits...? It coulda been worse, Altaris....he coulda used Foreman. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-21-05, 06:45 PM | So I just did some poking around in the old quests. It appears that Zamier is the first questor to actually die on a quest; and that I'm the first questlord to bestow death upon a questor. Be warned... I would have killed (possibly) 2 questors a while back, but they all quit the quest. They couldn't hack the heat of the jungle. They were seriously unprepared for an environmental encounter, and would have in all likelyhood ended up dying. But I almost lost TWO questors a couple of days ago. I got smacked around a bit by a dual-spiked chain weilding Cleric Ettin. He critted my wizard and he dropped to -8 in one shot. Thank god for false life. And he really smacked on my fighter, taking him down to 3 hp, before i finished him off on my last swing and was able to cure the dying mage. I'll be dying next fight. My DM thinks the standard EL 4's are too easy for me and he just BUMPED all the encounters to EL 7's. My two little 4th level pc's are almost completely out of resources, half dead, fatigued, going into the last fight against an evil Githzerai monk of 6th or 7th level. But ONE good hit with the falchion is all i need. :D -ToK |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 06:48 PM | Well, if you noticed in my post to the tavern, Daeren is gearing up to go on a quest which will be ECL5 if its just him, but ECL8+ if it is with another player. I'm hoping to go dragon hunting... |
| Emrys Donovan09-21-05, 07:26 PM | Just a note to whoever pitlords my fight, and to Iced, if you see this: I will be evacuating from my house due to its location in the path of Hurricane Rita. I will be back sometime around Monday or so if everything goes well, but, for those of you who saw/heard about Hurricane Katrina, this hurricane is looking to be just as, if not more, powerful. I may have internet access, but if I do, it will be severly limited. All I will be able to do is send my tactics and post maybe once daily. If I can't post very often, Iced, I'll try and pm you weekly with what Kristina will do on the campaign. |
| Pitlords09-21-05, 07:30 PM | Pairings done. Credits tomorow. PS: Visit the Council |
| NiQil09-21-05, 07:32 PM | Pairings are up in the Character thread @Cat...you have me assigned to run a miniquest for TelinArtho...is that correct? I am guessing not. |
| Pitlords09-21-05, 07:34 PM | Why not? |
| NiQil09-21-05, 07:40 PM | Why not? I wasn't aware that normal pitlords ran miniquests LOL. |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 07:44 PM | @NiQil - miniquests are easy. Do you want to run a separate thread or just have me send tactics? @Pitlords - Kraegin is improving his Periapt from +1 to +3 (hence the reason why he paid credits for it...) Also, Vakkor is anxiously awaiting the approval for his gloves in the blackmarket. |
| NiQil09-21-05, 07:47 PM | @NiQil - miniquests are easy. Do you want to run a separate thread or just have me send tactics? @Pitlords - Kraegin is improving his Periapt from +1 to +3 (hence the reason why he paid credits for it...) Also, Vakkor is anxiously awaiting the approval for his gloves in the blackmarket. I can certainly give it a shot....but I wasn't aware that pitlords ran miniquests....I thought those were done by questlords...of which I am not one. |
| Luni09-21-05, 08:08 PM | Shakari vs The Phantom Lord One day, spellcasters will come back, and then Shakari can face them. 5 weeks running, 6 opponents, 0 spellcasters faced. Clearly I need to challenge one of them. Edit: I clearly can't read. Phantom Lord is a cleric. |
| Faroth09-21-05, 08:16 PM | @Keigan: Tactics sent |
| Snommelp09-21-05, 08:52 PM | Mine are sent as well, Kaigan. This looks to be a fun match. |
| nightbanegod09-21-05, 09:00 PM | any word on the missions abroad campaign? |
| TheMagister09-21-05, 09:02 PM | @nightbanegod: tactics for Sdentch vs. the pretty one sent. May the dice preserve my innocent little horc from that scary ray of doom. @Mind Rogue: tactics for Torgirr vs. the poor, unfortunate half-giant monk who gets to face not just a dwarf, but a dwarf *ranger who likes killing giants. TM |
| Luni09-21-05, 09:13 PM | @Usurpator: Tactics for Shakari Sent. @Xanadu: Shakari's hp are wrong. She should have 25. <I'm forgetful> |
| NiQil09-21-05, 09:31 PM | @ Kaigan Tactics for Axhind were attempted to be sent via PM, however PM box is full. Tactics therefore sent via email. |
| SauroGrenom09-21-05, 09:32 PM | @ Mind Rogue I sent the tactics for Rebreg. Let's see if I can keep my loosing streak up. |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 09:39 PM | @Luni - tactics sent for Daeren vs Balbanes. @Uther - good luck. |
| xanadu09-21-05, 09:40 PM | @ Mind rogue - "tactics" for The Pulverizer sent @ Usurpator - tactics for the Phantom lord sent. @ Both, if something isn't clear (a distict possiblity since I rushed them) please PM me. |
| xanadu09-21-05, 09:41 PM | @Usurpator: Tactics for Shakari Sent. @Xanadu: Shakari's hp are wrong. She should have 25. <I'm forgetful> As long as she winds up with -10 I dont care how many she starts with :D |
| Pauper09-21-05, 09:43 PM | I sent the tactics for Rebreg. Let's see if I can keep my loosing streak up. Had to chuckle when I saw this, seeing as how there's an ECL 4 fight in the arena this week where the two gladiators have a combined four wins against fourteen defeats. Rebreg has a ways to go... @TelinArtho: Have you had a chance to go back and tweak that fight between Alac and Karisia from a couple of weeks ago? It won't be an immediate problem, but those four charges wasted from Alac's wand of magic missile on conceal checks that he shouldn't have had to make are going to become significant at some point... :D @SoulLord: Tactics sent via e-mail. -- Pauper |
| Gonbow09-21-05, 09:44 PM | any word on the missions abroad campaign? Iced said he wouldn't start without a cleric type (Slightly odd, easier to start then pick up a cleric), but Caterane deducted credits (Which I thought Uther was paying for.. at least in my case and Aeryn's player :rolleyes: ) and updated the campaign roster to show it running, so apparently Iced didn't tell Cat that it was being delayed. |
| Maraxus09-21-05, 09:51 PM | Tactics for Zassl sent to TelinArtho via pm. |
| nightbanegod09-21-05, 09:55 PM | Iced said he wouldn't start without a cleric type (Slightly odd, easier to start then pick up a cleric), but Caterane deducted credits (Which I thought Uther was paying for.. at least in my case and Aeryn's player :rolleyes: ) and updated the campaign roster to show it running, so apparently Iced didn't tell Cat that it was being delayed. i just checked out the characters going, we seem to have alot of meat shields... good you all stand infront of the guy whos going to attempt to cast a fireball with a 10% chance of failure... :D would a fireball potentially sink a ship if i hit it at sea level? or would i have to resort to something more like a lightning bolt for the blast damage to pierce the hull? |
| nightbanegod09-21-05, 10:00 PM | Hey, I'm no killer DM... you were the one who decided a full round spell was a good idea when at least one opponent was within one move of you... And give yourself some credit it was one elf versus 2 orcs and a bugbear. Its not like it was supposed to be easy. And did I mention that they got 2 crits...? you may not be but i am. accidentally of course. i just started a 3rd level campaign in RL and one of the guys is a elven rogue with only 8 str and 8 con. but it was his fault he chased the dwarven assassin into the pitchblack basement holding a lantern. roughly making him a walking target. one sneakattack with a crossbow later dropped him to -8 before he even knew what was going on. and to top it off he failed his fort save vs Drow knockout poison... with an 8 con ... its no wonder he failed it... he has effectively a +0 fort check and he already knew the person they were chasing used poison of some sort. |
| LongArcher09-21-05, 10:17 PM | @Mind Rogue: Tactics Sent Via PM /amz |
| Sindorin09-21-05, 10:17 PM | You aren't a killer DM if your players are idiots. With that in mind, tactics for Va'ria vs. Talari have been sent to the Legendary Wolfxors. |
| NiQil09-21-05, 10:24 PM | @ Dr. Funk Tactics for Keltsat sent via PM |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-21-05, 10:27 PM | Casgish Darath (Waywreth) vs 1 Yuan-ti Pureblood [Monster]: Tellish of Ket Yuan-Ti Pureblood +1 studded leather +1 large shield +1 scimitar Oil of keen edge Potion of bullstrength -ToK |
| TelinArtho09-21-05, 10:30 PM | @Maraxus - tactics received for Zassl. |
| xanadu09-21-05, 10:31 PM | Iced said he wouldn't start without a cleric type (Slightly odd, easier to start then pick up a cleric), but Caterane deducted credits (Which I thought Uther was paying for.. at least in my case and Aeryn's player :rolleyes: ) and updated the campaign roster to show it running, so apparently Iced didn't tell Cat that it was being delayed. Dont delay the campaign. If you need a cleric, the Phantom Lord will join you in campaign next week if someone will pick up the credit cost (I already have one gladiator on campaign), though I find it hard to beleive there isn't one around. I thought a whole slew of clerics were made a few weeks ago. |
| Ellorion Saenelle09-21-05, 11:28 PM | @Iced Tactics Received |
| Emrys Donovan09-21-05, 11:44 PM | Ok, well, it was about a 99.9% chance that I would be leaving my area due to the hurricane. At this point, that .1% beat the 99.9% over the head with a -insert weapon of choice here- and spit on it. For those of you whose head this goes over, it means I'm staying at my house (which is supposed to get up to around 125-130 mph winds). I will most likely be able to post daily except late Thursday night and probably most of Friday, but I still cannot pitlord fights. @ xanadu: Tactics for Tzur sent. |
| Luni09-21-05, 11:51 PM | Ok, well, it was about a 99.9% chance that I would be leaving my area due to the hurricane. At this point, that .1% beat the 99.9% over the head with a -insert weapon of choice here- and spit on it. For those of you whose head this goes over, it means I'm staying at my house (which is supposed to get up to around 125-130 mph winds). I will most likely be able to post daily except late Thursday night and probably most of Friday, but I still cannot pitlord fights. Well, I hope nothing terrible happens. Maybe the hurricane will hopefully break down and become a Tropical Storm before hitting mainland. |
| Emrys Donovan09-21-05, 11:54 PM | Well, I hope nothing terrible happens. Maybe the hurricane will hopefully break down and become a Tropical Storm before hitting mainland.Not happening, unfortunately. Its a category 5 storm, meaning wind speeds of 155 mph and up. It'll be about a category 2 or so by the time we get hit, but we're not directly in the path, and we're not in a flood zone, so we should be good as long as our roof stays put. ;) |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 12:01 AM | Yeah, Corpus Christi is gettin all het up about Rita. I still have a "wait and see" attitude about it. If it goes ashore north of us as expected, all we'll see here is a lot of rain and some moderate wind. If it turns to the south, I and my family are gonna go visit Nana in San Antonio. =) TM |
| King Uther09-22-05, 12:39 AM | @Telinartho Good luck? C'mon. I'll have my tactics written tonight before bed. I'd write something intimidating or challenging, but I don't feel it is warranted. Good luck to you, then. @Questers I'll be out of town most of tomorrow, but I'll have all intros up tonight. Edit: I will pay the campaign credits. I'll PM the Pitlords about it. |
| Begferdeth09-22-05, 01:10 AM | @ Saurogrenom: You think you can take Ch'Ch'Ili's title of "Lowest Power in Gladius" without a fight? Well, your wrong! It wont be much of a fight... but once I get a few credits... Ill challenge you! Im going down! :D @ Nightbanegod: Ch'Ch'Ili's tactics are in. Im trying something Ive never tried before, so Im fairly certain poor ol' Chili is about to spend the rest of the week in the hospital. |
| Snommelp09-22-05, 01:15 AM | I've just noticed that three pitlords are listed as Monster fights only... is there much call for monster pitlords? Because I think I could do that, even with my school schedule, but if there aren't enough monster fights to go around... |
| NiQil09-22-05, 01:22 AM | I've just noticed that three pitlords are listed as Monster fights only... is there much call for monster pitlords? Because I think I could do that, even with my school schedule, but if there aren't enough monster fights to go around... Monster fights are rolled out randomly, just like Team and All vs All fights....so some weeks you will see a lot...others none at all. I don't think we had any last week...maybe one. And the pitlord assigned to them is supposed to be random....but ToK has gotten a lot of them lately, so he might be doing those only....or at least it seemed that way. |
| NiQil09-22-05, 01:25 AM | @ Saurogrenom: You think you can take Ch'Ch'Ili's title of "Lowest Power in Gladius" without a fight? Well, your wrong! It wont be much of a fight... but once I get a few credits... Ill challenge you! Im going down! :D @ Nightbanegod: Ch'Ch'Ili's tactics are in. Im trying something Ive never tried before, so Im fairly certain poor ol' Chili is about to spend the rest of the week in the hospital. I can just see Ch'Ch'ili's tactic for that fight: Round 1: Cast true strike Round 2: Load crossbow and point at head. Round 3: <click> Round 4: <thud> |
| Ellorion Saenelle09-22-05, 01:29 AM | I don't know. He'd probably still miss. |
| Sindorin09-22-05, 01:37 AM | I never noticed that Ch'Ch'Ili is a Dromite Wilder. I tried one of those before LG and he did really well - look up Cliche Ferech, he is Tair Malek's cohort in the 11th level characters... In the arena he was undefeated for like 5 matches. I have considered trying him in LG, but I am scared because of the 1/3 nerf. |
| King Uther09-22-05, 02:52 AM | Looks like my quests and tactics won't be started until tomorrow morning. I have a big assignment[my wife's] I need to finish. |
| Delusional Illusion09-22-05, 03:51 AM | Wlandra's tactics send to Ellorion Saenelle via email. |
| Luni09-22-05, 03:52 AM | @Telinartho: Karisia's tactics sent. I hope you understand them. And please don't laugh at my strategy unless it works. |
| Pittbull09-22-05, 05:39 AM | @Xanadu: Hagrid's tactic has been sent. |
| Usurpator09-22-05, 06:36 AM | @Luni Tactics for Shakari received @Xanadu Tactics for Phantom Lord received |
| Pitlords09-22-05, 08:02 AM | Credit Changes: +9: Huan, King +4: Iced, Kaigan +3: TelinArtho +2: NiQil, Tellish, Usurpator, Shaken +1: Cerebus, Dr.Funk, Mindrogue, Sindorin, Soullord, LLMadCow +0: Caterane, Ellorien, Xanadu -1: Luni, Snommelp, Longarcher -2: Vathelokai -3: Nightbanegod -4: Gonbow -5: Altaris -7: Emrys Credits for Pitlords: +3: Nightbanegod, TelinArtho +2: Kaigan, King, Luni, Mindrogue, NiQil, Tellish, Xanadu +1: Cerebus, Funk, Ellorien, Gonbow, Huan, Iced, Sindorin, Soullord, Usurpator Credits for Questlords: +6: King +4: Tellish +2: Huan, TelinArtho, Shaken -1: King (late) Credits for Questers: -1: Caterane, Ellorien, Iced, NBG, Snommelp, Vathelokai, Longarcher -3: Tellish Credits for Campaigns: +6: Huan +3: Iced, Kaigan, King, Tellish -5: Emrys, Gonbow, NBG, Altaris Special Credits: +2: Usurpator (map/news) +1: Caterane (admin), LLMadCow (admin), Iced (story) -2: Emrys (challenge) Active PC credits: -1: Kaigan, King, Mindrogue, Usurpator, Vathelokai -2: TelinArtho, Xanadu -3: Luni, Tellish |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 08:32 AM | No love for the 2 stories I wrote? |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 08:33 AM | @Luni - tactics received. |
| Altaris1309-22-05, 08:47 AM | First: To all those in the American SouthWest who will be affected by Hurricane Rita. My thoughts and prayers are with you. May the Lord bless and keep you and yours safe. Hey, I'm no killer DM... you were the one who decided a full round spell was a good idea when at least one opponent was within one move of you... And give yourself some credit it was one elf versus 2 orcs and a bugbear. Its not like it was supposed to be easy. And did I mention that they got 2 crits...? That was an ECL 3 fight? Aren't Bugbears CR3? But hey, no worries TA. :D They /did/ get two crits. -5: Emrys, Gonbow, NBG, Altaris *rings the bid red button that makes awful noises* Iced said he wouldn't start without a cleric type (Slightly odd, easier to start then pick up a cleric), but Caterane deducted credits (Which I thought Uther was paying for.. at least in my case and Aeryn's player ) and updated the campaign roster to show it running, so apparently Iced didn't tell Cat that it was being delayed. What Gonbow said! :D That, and I wasn't aware Aeryn was going. I sent Iced a PM saying I would offer him up, never got a reply, and then saw his post about not starting without a Cleric. So hey, I don't mind sticking around, but I had retired Aeryn since I figured he was a crappy gladiator. I'd be happy to RP him in a campaign, but there's a few issues there. 1) He doesn't meat the requirements for the EHTC. 2) I did/do not have the required credits. 3) I thought the awesome & super kind King Uther was paying the credits? EDIT: Wow. I see NBG was correct. I guess I better unretire Aeryn and update him from last week's fight. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 09:01 AM | Bugbears are CR2. Plus I don't think the bugbear actually hit - it was the work of 2 crits from the same orcish falchion... |
| waywreth09-22-05, 09:05 AM | @ SoulLord - Tactics for Amion sent @ Tellish of Ket - Tactics for Casgish sent |
| Mind Rogue09-22-05, 09:12 AM | @ my gladiators I have recieved all of your tactics, so hopefully I'll be running some matches this afternoon. @ Pitlords Am I losing a credit because of the Alexi vs Shan match that was held over from last week? |
| Altaris1309-22-05, 09:45 AM | Bugbears are CR2. Plus I don't think the bugbear actually hit - it was the work of 2 crits from the same orcish falchion... Oh, I know who did me in. It was a Balor in disguise! :eek: :D |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 09:53 AM | @Gonbow - clarification requested for Tatyana's tactics. Check your PM box. |
| King Uther09-22-05, 10:29 AM | @Luni Tactics for Balbanes have been sent via PM. Enjoy. @TelinArtho I hope you have a good strategy. I have something to ask you about your character, but I want to wait until the fight is posted just in case. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 10:32 AM | I've already sent my tactics - ask away. |
| Mind Rogue09-22-05, 10:35 AM | @Nightbanegod Tactics sent for Anya vs the ugly orc girl. |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:03 AM | @ Telin Artho Tactics for Vakkor received. And I have to say...just looking over the stats of what you are facing.....can you die on a miniquest like Zamier died on his quest? LOL This is going to be a tough one for you. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 11:04 AM | Yes you can... |
| Sunwolf09-22-05, 11:06 AM | @Xanadu Tactics for Brilf sent by PM |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 11:15 AM | That actually brings up a question I have NiQil - though I don't need it answered officially unless Vakkor actually does die... In the Rules, it says that you lose all XP that you have gained since reaching the home-plate level (level 4 - so 6000xp). That's easy. However, the second part is difficult. Vakkor has not fought anything as a 4th level character. So while he has 6891 xp, all of it was gained as a 3rd level character. So how do I determine how much gold he should lose? /d |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:26 AM | That actually brings up a question I have NiQil - though I don't need it answered officially unless Vakkor actually does die... In the Rules, it says that you lose all XP that you have gained since reaching the home-plate level (level 4 - so 6000xp). That's easy. However, the second part is difficult. Vakkor has not fought anything as a 4th level character. So while he has 6891 xp, all of it was gained as a 3rd level character. So how do I determine how much gold he should lose? /d The way I am reading it, all you would lose is 891 XP. Since everything you earned was at level 3, there is nothing you have earned at level 4, so nothing to take away. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 11:30 AM | Well, hopefully I won't have to find out. Though if the creature breaks through my sanctuary, I could be hurting REAL bad... and even then I could be hurting real bad if I don't roll well with my summons... (COME ON 6 Scorpions...!) |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:35 AM | Well, hopefully I won't have to find out. Though if the creature breaks through my sanctuary, I could be hurting REAL bad... and even then I could be hurting real bad if I don't roll well with my summons... (COME ON 6 Scorpions...!) I have a question here...how intelligent should I be playing this thing? The reason I ask is that, before I had received your tactics, I had seen something that would give it a huge advantage. It is something they might normally do, but I don't want to give them the benefit of more intelligence than they are supposed to have. |
| King Uther09-22-05, 11:38 AM | Vermin have a 1 INT, meaning they could not comprehend anything complex. On the other hand, a Centipede would be prone to grapple things, as it has a distinct advantage over every creature in the fact that is has 100 legs. But for the mostpart it all depends on what you think a Centipede would do. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 11:41 AM | Actually vermin has no intelligence - completely mindless... As to tactics - it might grapple or something similar - and I'm fine with that. Just whatever you do, make sure it doesn't think too far in advance (for instance, it wouldn't specifically set itself up to charge, but if it happens to be in position, then it would, etc). |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:44 AM | Cool beans...between the two of you, you managed to answer exactly what I was wondering about. So yeah...pray to the dice gods, Telin... and incidentally....I may have found a work around on my computer situation so that I can actually use an online roller this week...we'll see how it goes. I'll do some test runs before hand so that you can see Vakkor live or die LOL. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 12:04 PM | Honestly, I'm still optimistic. I estimated, without even looking at the map that it would need 3 rounds to base and attack. Even starting at the closest spot, it needs to squeeze enough that it takes 4 move actions to move from (for example) starting area A to area C or B. If it loses on initiative, that means I'll get 3 full rounds to work with before bases me. If it wins on initiative, and it doesn't immediately head in my direction, I still get my 3 actions. If it is in the opposite square, I'm even better off... So now it is just a matter of whether I can get Sanctuary off and if it successfully holds back the centipede... and then I need to summon 2d3 scorpions and hopefully they can whittle it down a fair amount... |
| Gonbow09-22-05, 12:10 PM | @TelinArtho PM sent. @Greevus & Nexa Hey, if you can get your tactics to me sooner rather than later I should be able to run the fight before Monday; which means I won't have to juggle homework and CoCo stuff, which is a Good Thing (tm). Just a suggestion ;) |
| Cerebus1309-22-05, 12:16 PM | @TelinArtho PM sent. @Greevus & Nexa Hey, if you can get your tactics to me sooner rather than later I should be able to run the fight before Monday; which means I won't have to juggle homework and CoCo stuff, which is a Good Thing (tm). Just a suggestion ;)Done about 5 minutes ago and sent through email. Not really looking forward to this fight since I feel it to be another loss....Greevus just isn't equipped to deal with Nexa. @Mind Rogue & Shaken, Not Stunned: Still need tactics from you both! |
| Mind Rogue09-22-05, 12:22 PM | Tactics forwarded to Cerebus. Wow. That's 3 people now that I've sent the exact same tactics to. Perhaps I should have reread them before sending them. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 12:57 PM | First fight of the week is up: Perius vs Tatyana (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7320772) Haven't had that short of a fight in a while. |
| Gonbow09-22-05, 01:18 PM | Again with my opponent getting insanely lucky >.< I'm never having Tatyana leave the center box EVER AGAIN. Grah. Re: PBS and Energy Missile; PBS says it works the damage rolls with ranged weapons within 30' ; You don't need to make an attack roll to use it, just be using a ranged weapon. Which I suppose it is arguable that energy missile isn't, eh. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 01:29 PM | I would treat energy missile just like magic missile (because they are equivalent). Magic missile strikes unerringly toward your target, same with energy missile. So, if you are very precise within 30ft, how is that going to help your magic/energy missile strike better? I don't have a specific reference, but essentially, PBS works with rays but not with lines and stuff like that. If I find the reference, I'll point it out, though since it didn't come up in the fight, I probably won't get to it. |
| NiQil09-22-05, 01:32 PM | Again with my opponent getting insanely lucky >.< I'm never having Tatyana leave the center box EVER AGAIN. Grah. Re: PBS and Energy Missile; PBS says it works the damage rolls with ranged weapons within 30' ; You don't need to make an attack roll to use it, just be using a ranged weapon. Which I suppose it is arguable that energy missile isn't, eh. POINT BLANK SHOT [GENERAL] Benefit: You get a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet. Special: A fighter may select Point Blank Shot as one of his fighter bonus feats. Yes, you do need an attack roll to use it. Without a roll, you get no bonus. Which really bites because Energy Missile is perfect for it too LOL |
| Ravashack09-22-05, 01:43 PM | BTW, for Wild Surge, since it was 2 levels the chance of enervation is 10%, not 5%. It's 5% per manifester level added ( so +20 levels == guaranteed enervation ). Not that it matters in this case, or did I miss something about that in the FAQ? =X Anyhow, that's a nice start for a fresh character. :D Oops, I just noticed a mistake on my own character sheet. Narrow Mind was never used (while Improved Initiative was), so should I assume that I can swap out Narrow Mind for that? |
| NiQil09-22-05, 01:52 PM | BTW, for Wild Surge, since it was 2 levels the chance of enervation is 10%, not 5%. It's 5% per manifester level added ( so +20 levels == guaranteed enervation ). Not that it matters in this case, or did I miss something about that in the FAQ? =X Anyhow, that's a nice start for a fresh character. :D Oops, I just noticed a mistake on my own character sheet. Narrow Mind was never used (while Improved Initiative was), so should I assume that I can swap out Narrow Mind for that? You are slightly incorrect about enervation. It's 5% per manifester level added, but if you look at the 20 level progression table for the class, you will see that it limits how many manifester levels you can add based on what your current level is. You start with the ability to add 1 manifester level, and top out and being able to increase your manifester level to a +6 at level 19, which gives you a max 30% enervation window. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 01:52 PM | Nope just an error on my part - 10% then - doesn't make a difference in your case though. As to the feats - you'd have to check with pitlords. While you did technically "use" improved initiative - it didn't make a difference in the fight (you would have won initiative regardless). However, as with all feat changes, you need Pitlords to approve. |
| Ravashack09-22-05, 01:56 PM | You are slightly incorrect about enervation. It's 5% per manifester level added, but if you look at the 20 level progression table for the class, you will see that it limits how many manifester levels you can add based on what your current level is. You start with the ability to add 1 manifester level, and top out and being able to increase your manifester level to a +6 at level 19, which gives you a max 30% enervation window. I never said I *could* add 20 levels; I was just using that to illustrate that it's possible for 100% enervation. Nope just an error on my part - 10% then - doesn't make a difference in your case though. As to the feats - you'd have to check with pitlords. While you did technically "use" improved initiative - it didn't make a difference in the fight (you would have won initiative regardless). However, as with all feat changes, you need Pitlords to approve. If that's the case, then it sounds like I can remove the Imp Initiative error (I was having a hard time choosing between the two feats) from my character sheet then. |
| NiQil09-22-05, 02:05 PM | I never said I *could* add 20 levels; I was just using that to illustrate that it's possible for 100% enervation. If that's the case, then it sounds like I can remove the Imp Initiative error (I was having a hard time choosing between the two feats) from my character sheet then. Correct...you never said you could. The point that I am trying to illustrate, however, is that you can never reach 100% enervation because it is never possible (before epic, anyway) to add more than 6 manifester levels with Wild Surge. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 02:07 PM | Stop arguing semantics Niqil and concentrate on what's important. Like Vakkor's life... |
| NiQil09-22-05, 02:09 PM | Stop arguing semantics Niqil and concentrate on what's important. Like Vakkor's life... Heh....really that anxious to die? I make no promises, but I was able to do some setup last night, so there is a chance I might get the battle up tonight (just no story with it). If not, then maybe tomorrow night. If not then, then it may not be until Sunday. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 02:16 PM | Its my own fault if he dies. I had meant to pick up some scrolls that would help the situation (hence the reason why he has a nice pile of gold at home...), but forgot to do so (among the items intended was a scroll of Summon Monster III to summon the exact same creature, just with the fiendish template...). So instead, I get to risk dying, and if I do - I try it all over again Next Week! |
| Enterik09-22-05, 02:45 PM | @Kaigan:Tactics for Devolved Sleestak vs. Axhind(NiQil) posted |
| Mind Rogue09-22-05, 03:30 PM | Torgirr vs Rebreg is up. It's also know as the "Battle of Walking in Giant Circles Trying to Find my Opponent" or the "Match Where Both Gladiators almost got Disqualified". After that, a match with the Pulverizer should go blissfully fast, but I can't do it now: I've got to recover from the last one. |
| NiQil09-22-05, 03:37 PM | Torgirr vs Rebreg is up. It's also know as the "Battle of Walking in Giant Circles Trying to Find my Opponent" or the "Match Where Both Gladiators almost got Disqualified". After that, a match with the Pulverizer should go blissfully fast, but I can't do it now: I've got to recover from the last one. Perhaps this a good time to refresh you on the disqualification rules...neither of them were in any danger. Lots of us are making this mistake, myself included. Are there any penalties for delay tactics? What if I leave the arena? There is a non-cumulative 10-round limit to delaying tactics. Every ten rounds, you have to interact meaningfully with your opponent. If you do not, the pitlord is free to introduce some unfortunate circumstance (a random spectator yelling out your exact position, for example, or people throwing beer bottles at you) that makes you vulnerable. Note that this limit only applies if one of the characters wants to engage the other, but the other one is hiding, invisible, or out of reach. If both characters are doing their best to fight the other, no penalty should be introduced. Similarly, if a wizard is flying over the head of a melee fighter and peppering him with Magic Missiles while he is unable to do anything, no penalty should be given, since there is meaningful interaction between the gladiators. Can I leave the Arena by teleporting, plane shifting, etc? You can, but there is a ten-round limit on leaving the Arena. Unlike the 10-round limit to delaying tactics, this limit is cumulative. If you spend a total of ten rounds or more outside the Arena, you automatically lose. "Outside the arena" can mean two things: you are outside the arena if you physically leave it (via Teleport or Dimension Door, for instance), or if you leave the Prime Material Plane (through a spell like Ethereal Jaunt). Note that burrowing into the ground or Melding into some stone part of the Arena does not count as leaving; it would probably count against the non-cumulative 10-round limit on delaying tactics, though. Emphasis mine. |
| SoulLord09-22-05, 03:58 PM | tactics for Alac Rensellaer (Pauper) Received (thanks for sending by e-mail) tactics for Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth) Received Tactics for Vandelar the Red sent |
| Luni09-22-05, 04:07 PM | @Huan: tactics for Talari sent. I'ved received Balbanes, Daeren and Draconis tactics. |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 04:15 PM | @Usurpator - clarification requested in your tactics for Shazzelin. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-22-05, 04:26 PM | @Nightbanegod: Tactics for Baallor sent via PM. -ToK |
| Sindorin09-22-05, 04:52 PM | I have received tictacs from KerlanRayne for Goran. I don't have tactics yet from LLMadCow for Omo-Na. I won't be here for most of the weekend, but I will be able to run the fight on monday if I don't get a chance to beforehand. |
| Huan09-22-05, 05:49 PM | @Sindorin, Luni Tactics recieved, thank you ... if both of you could be so bothered, please also submit some RP. ;) |
| Mind Rogue09-22-05, 06:09 PM | Perhaps this a good time to refresh you on the disqualification rules...neither of them were in any danger. Lots of us are making this mistake, myself included. Emphasis mine. Perhaps, but something had to be done or else I would have had to run 30 rounds of them moving randomly searching for each other and failing miserably. Either the giant would have gotten lucky and spotted Torgirr, in which case the match would have been exactly the same except he wouldn't get his readied attack or else he would wander around for 30 rounds, whereupon Torgirr would probably get precisely 1 extra ranged attack which would probably drastically change the match. Also, I don't consider "Wait here and hide" to be meaningful interaction, even when coupled with "Shoot him when you pinpoint him". That wouldn't have flown in a multiplayer match and it's not going to work here, so Torgirr was in danger of being disqualified if he didn't do something, and against a half-giant monk, there aren't a whole lot of alternatives but to prepare for the inevitable grapple attack. That readied attack came reasonably close to winning Torgirr the match too. |
| SauroGrenom09-22-05, 06:33 PM | @ Mind Rogue: Thanks for running the fight with Rebreg. I have no qualms about the outcome, but I would like to point out two details that may have escaped your notice. I never mentioned that Rebreg should be moving silently, so the long delay was most likely not necessary the opponent would have heard him earlier. I don't believe that he could have targeted Rebreg with his bow even if Rebreg was not moving silently. Also in the summary you only listed the use of the Invisibility potion, but Rebreg also used an Expansion Tattoo. |
| SoulLord09-22-05, 06:43 PM | True but remember that even then it's not a cause of disqualification. what should happen is that the pitlord can get creative in ways to punish the offending gladiator. # suddenly an espectator gets into the arena and points at the hiding character It's right here you big Oaf come here and finish him!# |
| Sindorin09-22-05, 06:52 PM | @Sindorin, Luni Tactics recieved, thank you ... if both of you could be so bothered, please also submit some RP. ;) Wow I must have forgotten who was pitlording that fight... RP has been sent. |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 07:23 PM | Yeah, I'm not happy with the way that was run. If Torgirr is out stalking his prey, and the prey is invisible and moving silently (unless the player specifically states that he's not moving silently, he's ALWAYS moving silently) then it's only a matter of time before Torgirr pinpoints his location. Also, Rebreg's howls should at least impose an additional +2 circumstance bonus on Torgirr's listen checks. If he's howling to get Torgirr's attention, that's pretty much an indication that he no longer wants to move silently. Finally, it is totally against my tactics to "draw my throwing axe and prepare to meet my maker/doom/whatever." My listen checks were just fine for knowing approximately where my prey was, and my tactics should have been followed until a) I'm spotted, or b) his invisibility runs out. This means that Torgirr can sit tight once he realizes his opponent is invisible and use a move action to listen and a standard to shoot on sight (i.e. when he loses his invisibility). Respectfully (and I really do mean this respectfully), just because you're bored with how the fight is going doesn't mean that you should break a character's tactics to speed the end. I'd like a resumption of the fight from the point where Torgirr breaks cover and advances into the teeth of something he's totally not equipped to fight. Please consider it. TM Edit: Also, if he's flurrying his grapple checks, he needs to take a -2 to each of his rolls. tm |
| Snommelp09-22-05, 07:31 PM | Perhaps, but something had to be done or else I would have had to run 30 rounds of them moving randomly searching for each other and failing miserably. Either the giant would have gotten lucky and spotted Torgirr, in which case the match would have been exactly the same except he wouldn't get his readied attack or else he would wander around for 30 rounds, whereupon Torgirr would probably get precisely 1 extra ranged attack which would probably drastically change the match. Also, I don't consider "Wait here and hide" to be meaningful interaction, even when coupled with "Shoot him when you pinpoint him". That wouldn't have flown in a multiplayer match and it's not going to work here, so Torgirr was in danger of being disqualified if he didn't do something, and against a half-giant monk, there aren't a whole lot of alternatives but to prepare for the inevitable grapple attack. That readied attack came reasonably close to winning Torgirr the match too. "Wait and Hide" isn't meaningful interaction; however, that doesn't justify a switch of tactics. Your misunderstanding of the ten round rule was justification, but now that you know the truth of the rule, I think you should probably rerun the fight from where Torgirr breaks cover. If Torgirr breaks the ten round rule, have a spectator throw popcorn at him or something else that would break his hiding without changing the tactics. |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 07:33 PM | On round 14, when Torgirr misses by 1 on his attack, Rebreg's AC is wrong. He's enlarged, so his AC drops by 1 (because of the -2 dex penalty) to 12. Torgirr hit him that round, and the next. TM |
| NiQil09-22-05, 07:47 PM | @ Kaigan & Usurpator Fair warning! It is looking very much like the time that I will have to run your fight will be on Saturday morning. I currently have not received tactics from either of you. The deadline is not until tomorrow, but I wanted to get this out now so that if I don't have them when I am ready to do the fight, you know that I will be using whatever default tactics (or, in case of not having those, tactics from previous fights) you may have. Don't mean to be rude or abrupt, and if I can give you more time before I run the fight I will....but I can only run it when I have the free time. Edit: After arriving home from work, I see that I now have Usurpator's tactics for Maeril. |
| Mind Rogue09-22-05, 07:52 PM | Yeah, I'm not happy with the way that was run. If Torgirr is out stalking his prey, and the prey is invisible and moving silently (unless the player specifically states that he's not moving silently, he's ALWAYS moving silently) then it's only a matter of time before Torgirr pinpoints his location. Also, Rebreg's howls should at least impose an additional +2 circumstance bonus on Torgirr's listen checks. If he's howling to get Torgirr's attention, that's pretty much an indication that he no longer wants to move silently. Finally, it is totally against my tactics to "draw my throwing axe and prepare to meet my maker/doom/whatever." My listen checks were just fine for knowing approximately where my prey was, and my tactics should have been followed until a) I'm spotted, or b) his invisibility runs out. This means that Torgirr can sit tight once he realizes his opponent is invisible and use a move action to listen and a standard to shoot on sight (i.e. when he loses his invisibility). Respectfully (and I really do mean this respectfully), just because you're bored with how the fight is going doesn't mean that you should break a character's tactics to speed the end. I'd like a resumption of the fight from the point where Torgirr breaks cover and advances into the teeth of something he's totally not equipped to fight. Please consider it. TM Edit: Also, if he's flurrying his grapple checks, he needs to take a -2 to each of his rolls. tm It's actually a DC 0 check to hear the howl. The move silently check was to see how hard it was to pinpoint where he moves to. The same listen check is used for both. I know that Rebreg wasn't specifically moving silently, but the rules of the game have it that way. Because you didn't say that you wanted to be sneaky, I had him move at full speed, which put a -5 penalty on all of the listen checks. Now that the actual rule has been pointed out, I'll go back and edit the fight, but I probably won't get around to it until Saturday because I want to run my other fight first, which looks like it will be a lot shorter. I'd sware the rule used to be auto-loss. Also, please don't ever make me run a fight like this again... and anyone who uses any sort of hide tactics... please utilize a contingency just in case your opponent does the same. Oh, and I'm thinking a giant neon-orange incorporeal arrow pointing to your present position would be appropriate. :D |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 08:03 PM | It's actually a DC 0 check to hear the howl. The move silently check was to see how hard it was to pinpoint where he moves to. The same listen check is used for both. I know that Rebreg wasn't specifically moving silently, but the rules of the game have it that way. Because you didn't say that you wanted to be sneaky, I had him move at full speed, which put a -5 penalty on all of the listen checks. Now that the actual rule has been pointed out, I'll go back and edit the fight, but I probably won't get around to it until Saturday because I want to run my other fight first, which looks like it will be a lot shorter. I'd sware the rule used to be auto-loss. Also, please don't ever make me run a fight like this again... and anyone who uses any sort of hide tactics... please utilize a contingency just in case your opponent does the same. Oh, and I'm thinking a giant neon-orange incorporeal arrow pointing to your present position would be appropriate. :D It's cool that you'll edit the fight: I feel for you. If you don't want to, though, I'll take the present version if you'll just change round 14. =) LoL, TM |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 08:04 PM | It's actually a DC 0 check to hear the howl. The move silently check was to see how hard it was to pinpoint where he moves to. The same listen check is used for both. Not really. Howling isn't really talking. It's not really a battle, either. I'd give it a -5 DC, just to be fair. TM |
| nightbanegod09-22-05, 08:55 PM | whats the poison check to see if you poison yourself? |
| Luni09-22-05, 09:02 PM | It is a 1-20 chance to poison yourself. If a 1 is rolled to attack, you poisoned yourself too. The SRD is right, not me. Perils Of Using Poison 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. |
| Ribking09-22-05, 10:09 PM | @Xanadu Tactics for Greefe sent |
| Sindorin09-22-05, 10:11 PM | Theoretically speaking, I am glad nightbanegod isn't my pitlord for this week, and also that I am not using poison ;) |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 10:15 PM | Theoretically speaking, I am glad nightbanegod isn't my pitlord for this week, and also that I am not using poison ;) Why do you say that? (He's pitlording one of my characters this week...) Duh, the poison thing. Sorry... TM |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:08 PM | Does recalling a spell with a Pearl of Power (a standard action) provoke attacks of opportunity? If so, can it be done defensively? |
| TelinArtho09-22-05, 11:12 PM | It falls under "Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil" - which does not provoke. |
| xanadu09-22-05, 11:24 PM | hagrid vs brilf (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7326005) will get lost since I had it previewed for 8 hours before submitting it. As always, all cocnerned parties should check for errors; there might be a few becuase I had to redo the fight from one point. |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:28 PM | How about just drawing a pearl of power? I am thinking it is like a scroll, which would be a yes. |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 11:31 PM | How about just drawing a pearl of power? I am thinking it is like a scroll, which would be a yes. You don't need to draw a pearl of power to utilize it. It just needs to be on your person, AFAIK. TM |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:35 PM | You don't need to draw a pearl of power to utilize it. It just needs to be on your person, AFAIK. TM Can I get verification on this from a source or multiple parties? This could swing the battle I am running one way or the other and I want to get it right. |
| Luni09-22-05, 11:38 PM | Can I get verification on this from a source or multiple parties? This could swing the battle I am running one way or the other and I want to get it right. The SRD doesn't say a thing about it. I've always treated it as on your person, therefore you don't need to draw it to use it. |
| NiQil09-22-05, 11:44 PM | The SRD doesn't say a thing about it. I've always treated it as on your person, therefore you don't need to draw it to use it. Alright...unless someone has something concrete to alter this, this is what I will go with. Thanks for the help! |
| TheMagister09-22-05, 11:47 PM | Can I get verification on this from a source or multiple parties? This could swing the battle I am running one way or the other and I want to get it right. Look at the DMG pg. 213 under Using Items, Command Word. All it specifies is that the "command word is spoken (by a character) and the item activates. It could be sitting on the ground, or in your backpack, or whatever. If the command word is spoken by anyone, the item activates. That's it. TM |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-22-05, 11:49 PM | The SRD doesn't say a thing about it. I've always treated it as on your person, therefore you don't need to draw it to use it. I second that motion. I've never seen or heard of a pearl of power needing to be drawn to be used. -ToK |
| nightbanegod09-23-05, 12:35 AM | Theoretically speaking, I am glad nightbanegod isn't my pitlord for this week, and also that I am not using poison ;) whats that supposed to mean? :confused: :pbbbtt: and on another note... if missions abroad isnt starting this week. can i get Dalamar into a monster fight or something so that he can at least get some EXP? |
| Gonbow09-23-05, 01:05 AM | whats that supposed to mean? :confused: :pbbbtt: and on another note... if missions abroad isnt starting this week. can i get Dalamar into a monster fight or something so that he can at least get some EXP? Iced said it IS starting. |
| Emrys Donovan09-23-05, 01:12 AM | @Xanadu Tactics for Greefe sent Tactics for Tzur sent (not sure if I mentioned that earlier). |
| SauroGrenom09-23-05, 01:19 AM | For TheMagister,If you realy want Mind Rogue to follow your tactics to a T, then the fight will likely be a longer series of searching, and end with Torgirr being dead the same with a few less hits in on Rebreg. Only if Rebreg could not find the ranger before the invisibility wears off would the ranger have much of a chance. First the readied action that got his first hit in is not mentioned in your tactics, so it wouldn't happen. Readied actions are expressly mentioned in the rules of gladius here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466659). Mind Rogue gave you a freebie because nowhere in your tactics is a ready action mentioned. Also by the tactics listed Torgirr would have still had the bow in his hands at the time of the first grapple, because Torgirr would not have known when he was spotted (rebreg was invisable) and would by default be in the sniping tactic still. Also when the grapple started he would have had to succeed on a grapple check inorder to draw a weapon. You are right about the flurry of blows grapple checks, but applying the modifiers will not change the outcome at all, because all the sucessfull checks succeeded by more than 2. Your tactics suggest that you didn't know that attacking with two weapons requires a full round action. It would be impossable to throw two hammers and move more than a 5foot step in the same round. Lastly Rebreg's howls are not in my tactics, nor in character with a lawful monk to loose control in combat, so it is realy walking on thin ice to complain that sufficient bonuses were not given to your character in taking advantage of those howls at the same time as complaining about deviations from your own tactics that allowed you to take an extra attack and prepair for the grapple with a light melee weapon. For Mind Rogue, You assume that Rebreg's invisibility was intended to be a sneaking tactic, and I understand where that is coming from. However I was unaware that moving silently is automatically done unless I ask otherwise (live and learn). I realy intended the Invisibility to give Rebreg a chance to get into position unmolested and to more importantly deny Torgirr his dex and dwarven dodge bonus on the initiation of the grapple. The bonus to hit for invisibiity and mabey charging are just icing on the cake. I think you did a reasonably good job at pitlording the fight and making the reasonable tactics alterations to allow the fight to continue, and I thank you for your patience. I'm sorry that TheMagister required you to rerun the fight, but I'm fairly confident that it will not change the outcome in Torgirr's favor. |
| NiQil09-23-05, 01:22 AM | Vakkor vs the HMC is up...please check it for error before I finish up the story so I can edit without editing the story. |
| TheMagister09-23-05, 02:03 AM | If you realy want Mind Rogue to follow your tactics to a T, then the fight will likely be a longer series of searching, and end with Torgirr being dead the same with a few less hits in on Rebreg. Only if Rebreg could not find the ranger before the invisibility wears off would the ranger have much of a chance. Maybe so, maybe no. If you see me first, then yeah, you'll get your grapple, and the fight will go just like it did. If your invis wears off first, then I get a few rounds of sniping. Then you go down quick. First the readied action that got his first hit in is not mentioned in your tactics, so it wouldn't happen. Readied actions are expressly mentioned in the rules of gladius here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466659). Mind Rogue gave you a freebie because nowhere in your tactics is a ready action mentioned. There's nothing wrong with the readied action at all. Its perfectly reasonable for a Pitlord to improvise when a certain tactic isn't working; its even encouraged. Now, I don't agree with the way that Mindrogue broke from my tactics, I've made that much clear. But that's another topic. Also by the tactics listed Torgirr would have still had the bow in his hands at the time of the first grapple, because Torgirr would not have known when he was spotted (rebreg was invisable) and would by default be in the sniping tactic still. The way it's currently written has Torgirr guessing (correctly) that his opponent is invisible and has him preparing for the inevitable grapple attempt. She had Torgirr prepare for the worst, which meant that he had his throwing axe in his primary hand, as I suggested. Also, Torgirr would have expected that he was auto-spotted as soon as he left cover. He knew approximately where Rebreg was from the listen checks...that's how he knew to move toward Rebreg's position. Also when the grapple started he would have had to succeed on a grapple check inorder to draw a weapon. You'd be right about that, if Torgirr didn't already have the weapon in hand because he expected the grapple. Again, this may never happen if Torgirr hides from you for long enough. You are right about the flurry of blows grapple checks, but applying the modifiers will not change the outcome at all, because all the sucessfull checks succeeded by more than 2. I simply mentioned this for Mind Rogue's edification. I know that it didn't change any of the results. Your tactics suggest that you didn't know that attacking with two weapons requires a full round action. It would be impossable to throw two hammers and move more than a 5foot step in the same round. No, I know that. It's just common sense to move away to try to eke out every last turn of firing that I can. Note that I did mention that it was OK to double move (or even run) to break a charging line. Lastly Rebreg's howls are not in my tactics, nor in character with a lawful monk to loose control in combat, so it is realy walking on thin ice to complain that sufficient bonuses were not given to your character in taking advantage of those howls at the same time as complaining about deviations from your own tactics that allowed you to take an extra attack and prepair for the grapple with a light melee weapon. The howls were Mind Rogue's way of "getting something to happen". She could've had the crowd throw bottles or popcorn or whatnot at you (or me!) and gotten the same result; I just went with what she was going with and offered a suggestion. As far as "letting Torgirr prepare" for the grapple, it was in my tactics to prep throwing weapons if you got close. Torgirr knew you were close, so he prepared. Now, she should have drawn throwing hammers, but the axes are just as good in this situation because they're a shorter range weapon with a little more kick. If Torgirr was expecting to be grappled, they're the common sense choice for the situation. ... Look. You wanna keep the situation, cool. With the addition of the 14th round hit, you'd lose anyhow. If we have her re-run it, it'll either go the same way as she originally ran it, or Torgirr'll get a few rounds of ranged sniping on you, and you'll lose anyway. We'll just see how it comes out. The bummer of it all is that I won't know until either late Saturday night or Monday...(sigh) TM |
| Luni09-23-05, 02:11 AM | Vakkor vs the HMC is up...please check it for error before I finish up the story so I can edit without editing the story. @NiQil: Spiritual Weapons use regular AC, not touch AC. Also, if the centipede takes damage from the AoO from trying to grapple, the grapple automatically fails. |
| TheMagister09-23-05, 02:14 AM | Vakkor vs the HMC is up...please check it for error before I finish up the story so I can edit without editing the story. Hey, a few things. HMC doesn't have improved grapple or improved grab, so an AoO that deals damage on a grapple attempt foils the grapple totally. Also, I've never played that spiritual weapon ignores armor bonuses to AC. If it does, it's my new favorite spell. Reading the description, I can only find that it's a force effect that strikes as a spell...I see where you're coming from. If you're right, whoaaaa NELLY! TM Ha! Luni beat me to it! tm |
| Luni09-23-05, 02:16 AM | Ha! Luni beat me to it! tm Pffft. Slowpoke. |
| TheMagister09-23-05, 02:20 AM | Pffft. Slowpoke. Slow and unsure... I just took the time to read the spell description. YOU prove that it doesn't ignore armor... TM |
| Pittbull09-23-05, 02:20 AM | @Xanadu: Thanks for running the fight. @Sunwolf: Congrats, this week Hagrid has been the guy with the bad luck. This should have been the last training session, lets got together monster-hunting in a monster-fight next week. |
| xanadu09-23-05, 02:36 AM | Does Hargid and Brilf want to team up vs some gladiators? I know you 2 are the only ecl 7s active and are probably tired of fighting each other. I'm sure with a week to arrange, something can be worked out. |
| Pittbull09-23-05, 03:01 AM | Hagrid is prepaired for everthing, if Sunwolf likes a teambattle, we can do it. The only thing I do not want to have, is the third training-session against Hagrid's highly respected sparing-partner Brilf! |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-23-05, 04:58 AM | Vandelar [ECL 6] vs two locust swarms [EL 5] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7327853#post7327853) Closer than it should have been, but overall, a good effort by the swarms. lol -ToK |
| TheMagister09-23-05, 05:16 AM | Vandelar [ECL 6] vs two locust swarms [EL 5] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=7327853#post7327853) Closer than it should have been, but overall, a good effort by the swarms. lol -ToK LoL...that's just silly...bat's EAT bugs, for crying out loud... TM |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-23-05, 05:34 AM | LoL...that's just silly...bat's EAT bugs, for crying out loud... TM Yup...they do eat one or two, but i don't make the rules. I just follow them. Their biting is considered piercing dmg, to which the locusts are immune. <shrugs>. The bats however, are not immune, but take half dmg from the locusts in return. -ToK |
| TelinArtho09-23-05, 08:48 AM | @NiQil First of all, some of these things have been mentioned already, but I figured I'd state them for clarity: 1. The spiritual weapon strikes against the centipede's regular AC, so attack 1 would miss, but the other two would hit. 2. When the centipede tries to start a grapple, and I hit on my AoO, the grapple automatically fails. So the first two attemps fail without rolls. If I miss on future grapple attempts, it has to go through the failed rolls first. 3. The rewards for the miniquest are too high. It is an ECL 2 creature, so I get 600xp/600gp. Also, although this ultimately doesn't matter much, I don't think you were counting the squeezed squares enough - because there is no way it can move from where it started to where it ended in round 1. The farthest it could get with a double move is to (10,18) (using bottom right square like you did). Remember it is huge so it occupies a 15ft cube. I think that since the centipede would likely fail long enough for me to finish it off, I'm not too concerned about needing a rerun - but you should definitely modify the rewards to be correct. Thanks for running it. Also, when you are writing the story, if you need some RP point of view for Vakkor, look up his previous miniquest and quest. |
| Cerebus1309-23-05, 08:51 AM | I've received Mind Rogue's forwarded tactics, but nothing from Shaken, Not Stunned yet. Please get them to me soon. |
| TelinArtho09-23-05, 09:58 AM | I second that motion. I've never seen or heard of a pearl of power needing to be drawn to be used. -ToK You know - I've always had my characters draw the pearl to use it - but after checking the rules on command word items and the pearls themselves - I don't see anything of the sort. This new knowledge for me makes tactics MUCH easier for Kraegin and Vakkor (who both use pearls extensively...) |
| NiQil09-23-05, 10:40 AM | @NiQil First of all, some of these things have been mentioned already, but I figured I'd state them for clarity: 1. The spiritual weapon strikes against the centipede's regular AC, so attack 1 would miss, but the other two would hit. 2. When the centipede tries to start a grapple, and I hit on my AoO, the grapple automatically fails. So the first two attemps fail without rolls. If I miss on future grapple attempts, it has to go through the failed rolls first. 3. The rewards for the miniquest are too high. It is an ECL 2 creature, so I get 600xp/600gp. Also, although this ultimately doesn't matter much, I don't think you were counting the squeezed squares enough - because there is no way it can move from where it started to where it ended in round 1. The farthest it could get with a double move is to (10,18) (using bottom right square like you did). Remember it is huge so it occupies a 15ft cube. I think that since the centipede would likely fail long enough for me to finish it off, I'm not too concerned about needing a rerun - but you should definitely modify the rewards to be correct. Thanks for running it. Also, when you are writing the story, if you need some RP point of view for Vakkor, look up his previous miniquest and quest. 1. The reason that I have it hitting his touch AC is that the spiritual weapon strikes like a spell, not like a weapon. Spells, as far as I know, use either touch attacks or ranged touch attacks to hit, unless it is an area effect of some kind. I couldn't find anything that says definitively one way or another as a source, but that was the reasoning behind it. If someone can point me to something that says something different, it would be appreciated. 2. If you could kindly point me to a source for the AoO thing, I would appreciate it....I couldn't find anything that says that they don't get to complete their action if the AoO connects. Not saying it doesn't exist, I just couldn't find anything when I ran it. Fortunately, that only affects the fight in your favor, meaning it would end quicker. 3. I'll adjust the awards momentarily....since I don't do miniquests normally (smirking at Cat) I did it as a normal arena battle, figuring if it was wrong, someone would point it out (and I was right LOL). 4. I'm not going to worry about changing the movement...but you may be right...I'll look at it tonight when I get home from work and see what my notes have....I might have just recorded the squares incorrectly. |
| TelinArtho09-23-05, 10:44 AM | Starting a Grapple To start a grapple, you need to grab and hold your target. Starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll. If you get multiple attacks, you can attempt to start a grapple multiple times (at successively lower base attack bonuses). Step 1: Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. (Certain monsters do not provoke attacks of opportunity when they attempt to grapple, nor do characters with the Improved Grapple feat.) If the attack of opportunity misses or fails to deal damage, proceed to Step 2. Its under starting a grapple. |
| waywreth09-23-05, 10:46 AM | If the spirtual weapon spell used touch AC it'd say so in the description. Per the grapple - Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to grapple. If the attack of opportunity deals damage, the grapple attempt fails. http://d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#grappleChecks |
| NiQil09-23-05, 10:47 AM | Its under starting a grapple. Cool beans....I must have read right over that several times LOL. Unless someone points out a rather large error that could be fight affecting, I'm probably going to leave it as is since all it would do is speed up your victory. |
| TelinArtho09-23-05, 10:50 AM | I can't find anything specific about the spiritual weapon either for or against using touch ac. I know I have always had it strike against the regular ac of the opponent, but I can see your point as well. Maybe it is mentioned in an errata or FAQ somewhere. Regardless, I think I can confidently say that the battle is won... And you doubted me... |
| NiQil09-23-05, 10:51 AM | If the spirtual weapon spell used touch AC it'd say so in the description. Per the grapple - I think something a little more concrete than that is needed for the spiritual weapon issue. I have no problem changing it...but I would very much prefer a source of some kind. With the whole "attacks like a spell" bit in its description, it definitely could attack with a touch attack, as spells do. Again...not disputing that I could be wrong, but I'd like something more concrete. |
| NiQil09-23-05, 10:53 AM | I can't find anything specific about the spiritual weapon either for or against using touch ac. I know I have always had it strike against the regular ac of the opponent, but I can see your point as well. Maybe it is mentioned in an errata or FAQ somewhere. Regardless, I think I can confidently say that the battle is won... And you doubted me... The clarification the pearl of power thing is what saved you....originally you were taking AoO for doing that, and the first one landed for something like 11 damage and you failed the poison save and took 5 Dex damage also. But with it ruled that you don't have to draw them to use them saved you because those went by the side and AoO never came back up in the fight against you for them to be used. Edit: I don't have access to the FAQ or errata here at work, so if someone could peruse those (I can do it when I get home, if not), I will certainly adjust the fight if something is found. |
| Luni09-23-05, 11:39 AM | Yup...they do eat one or two, but i don't make the rules. I just follow them. Their biting is considered piercing dmg, to which the locusts are immune. <shrugs>. The bats however, are not immune, but take half dmg from the locusts in return. -ToK Ah, bats are immune to weapon damage. It is in the D&D errata. The SRD is wrong. |
| Sunwolf09-23-05, 01:29 PM | Does Hargid and Brilf want to team up vs some gladiators? I know you 2 are the only ecl 7s active and are probably tired of fighting each other. I'm sure with a week to arrange, something can be worked out. Brilf is also willing to do a team, FFA, or monster fight or even some combination of those. Brilf is certainly willing to avoid more training sessions with his esteemed partner Hagrid. |
| King Uther09-23-05, 01:32 PM | @Pittbull and Sunwolf Virgo is EL9 and would take both of you on simultaneously if you woul like. He's not edited yet though. |
| Ellorion Saenelle09-23-05, 02:05 PM | Brilf is also willing to do a team, FFA, or monster fight or even some combination of those. How about making it a three 2character teams, with one team of monsters thrown in. Then you have to make half of the characters have some type of ally. Now what kind of pitlord would take that fight. |
| TelinArtho09-23-05, 02:20 PM | @SodaGuy - just a reminder that I have not yet received your tactics. Karisia is waiting for you... /d |
| Pittbull09-23-05, 02:35 PM | @Pittbull and Sunwolf Virgo is EL9 and would take both of you on simultaneously if you woul like. He's not edited yet though. Hagrid has no problems to show his half-giant-cousin to stay better at the good side. ;) |
| Usurpator09-23-05, 05:14 PM | @Gonbow Tactics for Nexa sent through e-mail @TelinArtho Just a few more minutes and I have adapted Shazzelin's tactics.... EDIT: sent them! |
| Sindorin09-23-05, 07:23 PM | I have received both sets of tactics for my fight... but I am leaving for the weekend!!! You'll have to wait until Monday!!! (Insert annoyingly long evil laughing sequence) |
| Luni09-23-05, 08:10 PM | @Xanadu: Wild Talent is 100% legal. It is in the SRD. Hidden Talent on the other hand is not legal. It is not in the SRD |
| xanadu09-23-05, 08:44 PM | @Xanadu: Wild Talent is 100% legal. It is in the SRD. Hidden Talent on the other hand is not legal. It is not in the SRD Oh ok cool. I knew one or the other was not allowed. |
| Emrys Donovan09-23-05, 09:08 PM | Hey xanadu, why didn't you have Tzur charge Greefe in round 5? Edit: Damn! just missed him... Edit 2: Nevermind, xan. No los...damn...Curse you Ribking and your "Use obstacles and/or corners to help prevent this" contigency. ;) Good fiight...if you hadn't had that in there, I could've had you...Ha, I know what to get for my next fight. :D |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-23-05, 09:09 PM | Ah, bats are immune to weapon damage. It is in the D&D errata. The SRD is wrong. KK...thanks for pointing it out. I just checked it myself and voila, there it is. Immune to weapon dmg. I won't bother editing the fight, the results would be the same no matter what. Vandelar would still have to fireball them. -ToK |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-23-05, 09:17 PM | I think something a little more concrete than that is needed for the spiritual weapon issue. I have no problem changing it...but I would very much prefer a source of some kind. With the whole "attacks like a spell" bit in its description, it definitely could attack with a touch attack, as spells do. Again...not disputing that I could be wrong, but I'd like something more concrete. No...there isn't anything more concrete needed. The concreteness is that the spell doesn't say melee touch attack. The reason for the "attack as a spell" bit is because it's affected by spell resistance etc... You need to follow the outline of what it DOES say, not what it doesn't. Because it doesn't say it auto-kills anyone that it hits, doesn't mean that it does correct? I mean it DOESN'T SAY you can't, so obviously it must be so? C'mon, that is silly logic. No offence. Plus the spell description outlines what it means when it says "attack like a spell". -ToK |
| NiQil09-23-05, 10:34 PM | No...there isn't anything more concrete needed. The concreteness is that the spell doesn't say melee touch attack. The reason for the "attack as a spell" bit is because it's affected by spell resistance etc... You need to follow the outline of what it DOES say, not what it doesn't. Because it doesn't say it auto-kills anyone that it hits, doesn't mean that it does correct? I mean it DOESN'T SAY you can't, so obviously it must be so? C'mon, that is silly logic. No offence. Plus the spell description outlines what it means when it says "attack like a spell". -ToK Actually, it doesn't. It gives examples, yes, but it never defines what "attacks like a spell" means anywhere. I don't think it is an unreasonable thought that it would be vs touch AC, since spells that require rolls to hit also use touch AC. Spiritual Weapon Evocation [Force] Level: Clr 2, War 2 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Medium (100 ft. + 10 ft./level) Effect: Magic weapon of force Duration: 1 round/level (D) Saving Throw: None Spell Resistance: Yes A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action. A spiritual weapon cannot be attacked or harmed by physical attacks, but dispel magic, disintegrate, a sphere of annihilation, or a rod of cancellation affects it. A spiritual weapon’s AC against touch attacks is 12 (10 + size bonus for Tiny object). If an attacked creature has spell resistance, you make a caster level check (1d20 + caster level) against that spell resistance the first time the spiritual weapon strikes it. If the weapon is successfully resisted, the spell is dispelled. If not, the weapon has its normal full effect on that creature for the duration of the spell. The weapon that you get is often a force replica of your deity’s own personal weapon. A cleric without a deity gets a weapon based on his alignment. A neutral cleric without a deity can create a spiritual weapon of any alignment, provided he is acting at least generally in accord with that alignment at the time. The weapons associated with each alignment are as follows. Chaos: Battleaxe Evil: Light flail Good: Warhammer Law: Longsword I don't see a definition of "attacks like a spell" anywhere....if you do, please, point it out. Now, am I making an assumption that it uses touch AC? You betcha. Is it an unreasonable assumption, given how other spells that require rolls work? I don't think so. Do we have anything more concrete that defines what "attacks like a spell" means? Not that I could find. So where do we go from here? |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-23-05, 10:50 PM | I don't see a definition of "attacks like a spell" anywhere....if you do, please, point it out. for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. Then please read your own quote. After your bolded "for example" that's what it means when it says "attack like a spell". Not all spells require touch attacks. Those that do, say so. Those that don't, simply do not...because they don't need to. See Mordenkainen's Sword. Neither of these spells are trying to "touch" anything. They are wacking it with a very solid force object, and it needs to penetrate the armor of what it is trying to damage. There is no "energy" that the other spells base their touch attacks upon. It is physical, corporeal, and needs to hit hard to dmg. There is no transference of energy that a TOUCH requires. The "Because it doesn't say logic" is absolutely the worst kind of logic to use. I'm not trying to insult you here, that is not my intent. But you are "jindlising" things a bit too far. Ok, i'll use your logic. (by no way this is an insult...so just bear with me). I look through the descripton of a dwarf, because i play a dwarven guy in quests. "Dwarves are known for their skill in warfare, their ability to withstand physical and magical punishment, their knowledge of the earth's secrets, their hard work, and their capacity for drinking ale." Ok, so it doesn't say i'm immune to physical damage, so i must be right? I mean it doesn't say i'm not, so why not right? Holy Crow!! I also know all of the earth's secrets. Hey, lets throw immune to magic while i'm at it...i couldn't find anywhere in the description that doesn't say so, so i must be right? I hope i've proved my point. You need to go with what it SAYS, not what it DOESN'T say. -ToK |
| NiQil09-23-05, 11:20 PM | Then please read your own quote. After your bolded "for example" that's what it means when it says "attack like a spell". Not all spells require touch attacks. Those that do, say so. Those that don't, simply do not...because they don't need to. See Mordenkainen's Sword. Neither of these spells are trying to "touch" anything. They are wacking it with a very solid force object, and it needs to penetrate the armor of what it is trying to damage. There is no "energy" that the other spells base their touch attacks upon. It is physical, corporeal, and needs to hit hard to dmg. There is no transference of energy that a TOUCH requires. The "Because it doesn't say logic" is absolutely the worst kind of logic to use. I'm not trying to insult you here, that is not my intent. But you are "jindlising" things a bit too far. Ok, i'll use your logic. (by no way this is an insult...so just bear with me). I look through the descripton of a dwarf, because i play a dwarven guy in quests. "Dwarves are known for their skill in warfare, their ability to withstand physical and magical punishment, their knowledge of the earth's secrets, their hard work, and their capacity for drinking ale." Ok, so it doesn't say i'm immune to physical damage, so i must be right? I mean it doesn't say i'm not, so why not right? Holy Crow!! I also know all of the earth's secrets. Hey, lets throw immune to magic while i'm at it...i couldn't find anywhere in the description that doesn't say so, so i must be right? I hope i've proved my point. You need to go with what it SAYS, not what it DOESN'T say. -ToK I get what you are saying. I do. But....do you see what I am saying? Examples are not definitions. "Attacks like a spell" is not defined. Giving me examples of what something can do does not define how it works. Telling me a firehose can put out fires in a 3rd story building does not tell me how it puts out fires. This is not a case of trying to say that it can do so because it doesn't say that I can't. As you said...that would be totally asinine. What I did do was try and interpret the definition of "attacks like a spell" to the best of my ability, since it was not laid out already. As far as how spells operate, you are correct, not all spells use touch attacks. But for those that DO require rolls in order to deliver an effect, they use touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. Which is how I arrived at what I did. So again, I ask...given that line of reasoning, is what I did at the time really so far out in left field? Is it right? Who knows? Is it wrong? Who knows? Without "attacks like a spell" being defined in some way (and again I will say that examples are not definitions), it's a crapshoot any way you look at it. Edit: As an aside, the 3 GM's in my gaming group all happen to agree with my interpretation. Not saying it's right or wrong...just saying that it can go either way. |
| Snommelp09-23-05, 11:30 PM | It does not say that Spiritual Weapon makes a touch attack roll. It also does not say that Spiritual Weapon makes a regular attack roll. However, every instance I have encountered of something making a touch attack roll, it has specifically said so. It is safe to assume, then, that if it does not specifically mention touch attacks, a regular attack roll should be used. The regular attack roll is the norm, after all. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-23-05, 11:36 PM | I get what you are saying. I do. But....do you see what I am saying? Examples are not definitions. "Attacks like a spell" is not defined. Giving me examples of what something can do does not define how it works. Telling me a firehose can put out fires in a 3rd story building does not tell me how it puts out fires. This is not a case of trying to say that it can do so because it doesn't say that I can't. As you said...that would be totally asinine. What I did do was try and interpret the definition of "attacks like a spell" to the best of my ability, since it was not laid out already. As far as how spells operate, you are correct, not all spells use touch attacks. But for those that DO require rolls in order to deliver an effect, they use touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. Which is how I arrived at what I did. So again, I ask...given that line of reasoning, is what I did at the time really so far out in left field? Is it right? Who knows? Is it wrong? Who knows? Without "attacks like a spell" being defined in some way (and again I will say that examples are not definitions), it's a crapshoot any way you look at it. Edit: As an aside, the 3 GM's in my gaming group all happen to agree with my interpretation. Not saying it's right or wrong...just saying that it can go either way. 1) I do understand what you are saying. Honestly, i do. 2) I believe the examples given are examples of "attack like a spell", but that is just my interpretation. 3) If you arrived at the conclusion because of "adding an effect" as you state, then you should have concluded that it's a normal attack roll, as Spiritual Weapon does not deliver any effects upon the target. It simply wacks them. 4) Nope, it's not a crap shoot. All spells that require attack rolls that are TOUCH attacks are energy attacks don't don't rely on impact strength. Those that do rely on impact strength, are just normal attack rolls. 5) Your 3 gm's are wrong. :D :D -ToK |
| NiQil09-24-05, 03:26 AM | Alright....<looks at ToK>...rewrite of Vakkor vs the HMC is up......result didn't change, but it was a LOT closer. Go pick it apart and tell me what else I need to fix....of course...much more, and the result *will change with the way things went there at the end LOL. |
| Mind Rogue09-24-05, 11:32 AM | Archie vs the Pulverizer is up and it ran pretty much like everyone expected. |
| LongArcher09-24-05, 11:57 AM | Archie vs the Pulverizer is up and it ran pretty much like everyone expected. Yes, perfect flight forms are my favorite, but I felt the need to protect myself from an early lucky raging-javelin strike. This fight only cost me 350 buckaroo's anyhow. So, I am going to consider it cheap. My last fight i used almost 700gp of scrolls. That is the disadvantage that I am at with losing a caster level for my ECL, AND I am not a specialist wizard. Being a generalist gives me few spell levels, thus the need to rely on scrolls more than the average caster. In five fights, I've used about 1500 gp in resources. YECH! I am going to have to learn to keep that down. /amz |
| Luni09-24-05, 12:23 PM | Archie vs the Pulverizer is up and it ran pretty much like everyone expected. Shocking Grasp is 3d6 not 3d8 damage. Which will change things. |
| Mind Rogue09-24-05, 12:45 PM | You know, I had it that way, then I saw the 3d8 in Archie's tactics and changed it. I don't remember the original rolls, but I think they had amounted to 4, 10, 10 before I changed it. However, since I didn't remember exactly, I rerolled it all and the damage came out even higher, so the only change was that Archied didn't need his scroll. |
| Luni09-24-05, 02:20 PM | @Aramil Dunskar: I haven't received tactics for Grakk yet. @TelinArtho: I need a response about Daeren's tactics. |
| Dr. Funk09-24-05, 04:12 PM | sorry for telling everyone too late but i am unable to run my fight this week |
| SoulLord09-24-05, 05:02 PM | Alac Rensellaer (Pauper) (1142) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth) (805): Is Up fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7339558&postcount=417) |
| Luni09-24-05, 05:43 PM | sorry for telling everyone too late but i am unable to run my fight this week Keltsat (NiQil) vs Eiletha Surion (Kaigan): Dr.Funk Luni You can forward the tactics my way if you want Dr. Funk. |
| Luni09-24-05, 05:47 PM | Alac Rensellaer (Pauper) (1142) vs Amion Dar'ath (Waywreth) (805): Is Up fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7339558&postcount=417) Quick Glance. Alac's wand is CL 3 MM. Therefore it deals 2d4+2 damage each shot. |
| Emrys Donovan09-24-05, 05:48 PM | sorry for telling everyone too late but i am unable to run my fight this week If you have the tactics for your fighters, send them to me and I'll run the fight. I'll pm you about this as well. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-24-05, 05:55 PM | If you have the tactics for your fighters, send them to me and I'll run the fight. I'll pm you about this as well. See two posts above. Luni beat you to the punch. -ToK |
| NiQil09-24-05, 06:21 PM | @ Luni Forwarding my tactics to you now. I doubt Kaigan has done tactics yet, as I am running one of his fights and he not sent me any yet....sent a PM to me saying they would be done today...haven't seen them yet. |
| NiQil09-24-05, 07:05 PM | @ other pitlords I have a question....if you don't receive tactics from a fighter, and they have no default tactics...how should this be handled? I am leaning towards just running a very basic fight for them, using minimal expendibles and trying to keep towards the theme the character seems to be built around....but I figured I should check. Unfortunately, I need to get my second fight run now, or not get it in at all, and I am short tactics from one half of the battle. |
| SoulLord09-24-05, 07:15 PM | Quick Glance. Alac's wand is CL 3 MM. Therefore it deals 2d4+2 damage each shot. Gasp you are right I'll Update it tomorrow since it could save quite a few charges... |
| nightbanegod09-24-05, 07:20 PM | i need to know if im supposed to have 300 or 400 exp /GP for this fight MONSTER FFA (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7277336&postcount=386) i think im being robbed of 100 exp gp |
| SauroGrenom09-24-05, 07:22 PM | MindRogue, Have you rerun the fight between Rebreg and Torgirr yet? It appears that the original fight was edited on Thursday, but I don't see any changes. I was just thinking about updating Rebreg's character sheet, no big hurry. SauroGrenom |
| Snommelp09-24-05, 07:47 PM | i need to know if im supposed to have 300 or 400 exp /GP for this fight MONSTER FFA (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7277336&postcount=386) i think im being robbed of 100 exp gp Yes, you get 400, not 300. Also, since this is (I'm assuming) happening in the Arena, Snowball lives. @ NiQil: Follow the theme of the character, use as little as possible, and if you're not sure what to do, play the character's mental scores. |
| Luni09-24-05, 08:00 PM | @ other pitlords I have a question....if you don't receive tactics from a fighter, and they have no default tactics...how should this be handled? I am leaning towards just running a very basic fight for them, using minimal expendibles and trying to keep towards the theme the character seems to be built around....but I figured I should check. Unfortunately, I need to get my second fight run now, or not get it in at all, and I am short tactics from one half of the battle. Use previous fights as a basis. If they don't even have previous fights, well, I'd go for the theme. |
| NiQil09-24-05, 09:04 PM | Feradeth vs Maeril is up, with apologies to Kaigan for not being able to wait longer for tactics and still have time to get the fight done. As always, let me know what errors you find! |
| Pauper09-24-05, 10:51 PM | Gasp you are right I'll Update it tomorrow since it could save quite a few charges... Nice to see Luni's on the job. :) Thanks for running and updating the fight, SoulLord. -- Pauper |
| Luni09-24-05, 10:55 PM | Feradeth vs Maeril is up, with apologies to Kaigan for not being able to wait longer for tactics and still have time to get the fight done. As always, let me know what errors you find! Not that it matters NiQil, but how do you get (6! + 6! + 3 + 2) 17 damage for Maeril. It should be 6+6+3. I'm not too certain where the extra +2 comes from. |
| Luni09-24-05, 10:56 PM | Nice to see Luni's on the job. :) Thanks for running and updating the fight, SoulLord. -- Pauper I'm just taking a quick look through the fights. I'd suggest you take a good look yourself as well. I though 15 charges was a bit much for a CL 3 Wand of MM. |
| TelinArtho09-24-05, 11:16 PM | @Luni - question answered for Daeren. Also, email sent for Niqil's tactics for Keltsat on Dr. Funk's behalf. Kaigan - if you see this, Luni is taking your fight against Keltsat. Dr. Funk will not be online until further notice (I have access to his account if things need to be retrieved - but otherwise consider him inactive). Pitlords has been notified. /d |
| NiQil09-24-05, 11:29 PM | Not that it matters NiQil, but how do you get (6! + 6! + 3 + 2) 17 damage for Maeril. It should be 6+6+3. I'm not too certain where the extra +2 comes from. I think I may have put the adder for charging in the wrong place...in the damage instead of the attack roll. I'll fix it later. |
| NiQil09-24-05, 11:31 PM | @Luni - question answered for Daeren. Also, email sent for Niqil's tactics for Keltsat on Dr. Funk's behalf. Kaigan - if you see this, Luni is taking your fight against Keltsat. Dr. Funk will not be online until further notice (I have access to his account if things need to be retrieved - but otherwise consider him inactive). Pitlords has been notified. /d @ Luni Don't remember if I already posted this or not, but I am pretty sure I already forwarded tactics for Keltsat to you....if not, let me know and I will. |
| Luni09-24-05, 11:33 PM | @Luni - question answered for Daeren. Also, email sent for Niqil's tactics for Keltsat on Dr. Funk's behalf. Kaigan - if you see this, Luni is taking your fight against Keltsat. Dr. Funk will not be online until further notice (I have access to his account if things need to be retrieved - but otherwise consider him inactive). Pitlords has been notified. /d I got both sets of Tactics Telin. :D And I got your PM. And I have a full PM box. Will clear it out shortly. |
| Iced09-25-05, 12:11 AM | Dameon vs the spiders is up and the spiders ate him...:( let me know if i did anything wrong or if the dice gods just decided to be unkind. I believe i followed the tactics well enough and he did do alot of damage, but he lies defeated and still in a rocky chamber as spiders fight over his bones... :weep: |
| Mind Rogue09-25-05, 12:26 AM | MindRogue, Have you rerun the fight between Rebreg and Torgirr yet? It appears that the original fight was edited on Thursday, but I don't see any changes. I was just thinking about updating Rebreg's character sheet, no big hurry. SauroGrenom No, I haven't edited the fight yet. I did an insane lab, another fight, and my own DnD group tonight instead. The edit actually comes from me posting your stat blocks, then going and editing it to put the fight in, since I use the stat blocks from the battles page to run the fight so that I only have one page to switch to rather than four. But it is now terribly early in the morning for me, so I'm going to bed. Good night, and I hope I can edit it much later today (or tomorrow if you live west of me). |
| xanadu09-25-05, 12:32 AM | Dameon vs the spiders is up and the spiders ate him...:( let me know if i did anything wrong or if the dice gods just decided to be unkind. I believe i followed the tactics well enough and he did do alot of damage, but he lies defeated and still in a rocky chamber as spiders fight over his bones... :weep: Creeper's AOO in round #7 should miss I think (Daemon AC is 24 right?). This would allow Daemon to attack next round against one of the wounded ones so it might make a difference. |
| Iced09-25-05, 12:37 AM | AC18+2 SoF +4 Force Screen -2 Dex (web) = 22 :( |
| xanadu09-25-05, 12:40 AM | AC18+2 SoF +4 Force Screen -2 Dex (web) = 22 :( Yes, but the spider rolled a 21 right? |
| Luni09-25-05, 12:51 AM | Dameon vs the spiders is up and the spiders ate him...:( let me know if i did anything wrong or if the dice gods just decided to be unkind. I believe i followed the tactics well enough and he did do alot of damage, but he lies defeated and still in a rocky chamber as spiders fight over his bones... :weep: Actually, in round 5, since Dameon doesn't have combat reflexes, only the first spiders charge provokes an AoO. The others would be unarmed. Hard for Dameon to win against 3 foes like those. |
| TelinArtho09-25-05, 01:34 AM | Karisia vs Milo Tad (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7342582) Fight is up. |
| Luni09-25-05, 01:35 AM | Karisia vs Milo Tad (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7342582) Fight is up. Karisia also used a stone of Skate. Stupid drow poison. Oh well. Was worth the shot. |
| TelinArtho09-25-05, 01:39 AM | Edited in the stone of skate used. |
| Iced09-25-05, 02:05 AM | Yes, but the spider rolled a 21 right? Tthe problem was fixed and alowed him to last one more round, but he's still feeding the vermin theough he managed to take one with him to the grave. |
| Iced09-25-05, 02:07 AM | Actually, in round 5, since Dameon doesn't have combat reflexes, only the first spiders charge provokes an AoO. The others would be unarmed. Hard for Dameon to win against 3 foes like those. Either way he dies. I'll leave it up to Huan if he wants me to edit it to include this. |
| Maraxus09-25-05, 02:40 AM | Karisia vs Milo Tad (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7342582) Fight is up. When failing the 5% against poison, there is a DC15 reflex save first |
| Luni09-25-05, 02:47 AM | When failing the 5% against poison, there is a DC15 reflex save first Only when you are using the waepon. He was trying to apply the poison, which doens't allow a reflex save. |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 02:56 AM | Feradeth vs Maeril is up, with apologies to Kaigan for not being able to wait longer for tactics and still have time to get the fight done. As always, let me know what errors you find! NiQil, thanks for running, and as much as I like the results there are issues: 1. I have to point out that Maeril cannot draw a greatsword and charge on the same turn. 2. Additionally, there is no charging risk from Feradeth in round 1 when he is at -10,8: the distance is to great and he cannot move in a straight line to get at me. 3. I also see that when he shoots at me in round 2, I have cover from the pillars, but since a cover bonus doesn't stack, it doesn't matter in this case, but I am pointing this out for possible reruns and future fights. 4. You didn't count a penalty for range (more than 110 ft.) for Feradeth's longbow shot. 5. I cannot charge him in round 2, since the distance is too great (160 ft.) and there is a rock in the way of a straight charge line. About you questions: 1. My lance is mentioned under Inspiration's equipment (as is the saddle and other things Inspiration carries). 2. Can you tell me what you find unclear or contradictory about Maeril's tactics. The only unclear part I can see was that I forgot to add a connection sentence to Start block like: now move to tactic 'Shocking!'. |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 03:04 AM | Karisia vs Milo Tad (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7342582) Fight is up. I didn't know Karisia was such a deep sleeper that she can sleep through a CdG. :) Sleeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action). |
| TelinArtho09-25-05, 03:08 AM | Well, that's just a "poor" choice of words. Drow poison renders someone unconscious - not necessarily sleeping. I didn't see anything that said they would wake up with regard to being struck (as in the case with sleeping...). /d |
| TelinArtho09-25-05, 03:11 AM | Zassl vs Shazzelin the Gray (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7342938) There are a few typo errors in terms of the rolls. I'll eventually go back and fix them, but they do not affect the hits/misses themselves. Also, I need to add the arrows that Shazzelin used. |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 03:13 AM | Well, that's just a "poor" choice of words. Drow poison renders someone unconscious - not necessarily sleeping. I didn't see anything that said they would wake up with regard to being struck (as in the case with sleeping...). /d Oops, my mistake! |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 03:23 AM | Zassl vs Shazzelin the Gray (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7342938) There are a few typo errors in terms of the rolls. I'll eventually go back and fix them, but they do not affect the hits/misses themselves. Also, I need to add the arrows that Shazzelin used. The fight looks good to me, thank you for running it. I sort of counted on him using the see invisibility, but he didn't... :( Anyway, I knew this would be a hard fight to win, and I had a good shot to do so, Zassl's victory is well-earned. |
| Maraxus09-25-05, 04:17 AM | Hey, I did not count on winning either, (so you were not zassled ;)). Why does everybody (especially every Dwarf) want to hug me? Am I that sweet? :rolleyes: |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 04:31 AM | Why does everybody (especially every Dwarf) want to hug me? Am I that sweet? :rolleyes: BAB/Grap: +1/-3 In D&D lingo this translates to 'Hug me!' ;) |
| NiQil09-25-05, 04:55 AM | NiQil, thanks for running, and as much as I like the results there are issues: 1. I have to point out that Maeril cannot draw a greatsword and charge on the same turn. 2. Additionally, there is no charging risk from Feradeth in round 1 when he is at -10,8: the distance is to great and he cannot move in a straight line to get at me. 3. I also see that when he shoots at me in round 2, I have cover from the pillars, but since a cover bonus doesn't stack, it doesn't matter in this case, but I am pointing this out for possible reruns and future fights. 4. You didn't count a penalty for range (more than 110 ft.) for Feradeth's longbow shot. 5. I cannot charge him in round 2, since the distance is too great (160 ft.) and there is a rock in the way of a straight charge line. About you questions: 1. My lance is mentioned under Inspiration's equipment (as is the saddle and other things Inspiration carries). 2. Can you tell me what you find unclear or contradictory about Maeril's tactics. The only unclear part I can see was that I forgot to add a connection sentence to Start block like: now move to tactic 'Shocking!'. 1. You can draw a weapon as part of a move action if you have a BAB of at least +1, which you do...that is why you are able to draw a weapon and charge in the same round. 2. I think you may want to check the map you are using...make sure it is the new standard arena map. He would have been able to charge the following turn, since he would have 120 ft movement with a charge and there was no obstruction. Remember that you can charge diagonally as long as there are no obstructions. 3. See number 2 (i.e. check your map) 4. See number 2 (i.e. check your map...he was something like 20 ft away from you in a direct line to you.) 5. See number 2 (i.e. check your map) Also, make sure that you are looking at the coordinates correctly....x-axis, y-axis is how the coordinates are typed, and as stated in the fight, the lower right hand corner of the 4-box space the horses take up is how the spaces are listed. 1. No wonder I couldn't find it. Make sure you mention it in either your equipment or your attacks. Preferably both. 2. I'll add more on the tactics at a later time...on the way to bed. |
| xanadu09-25-05, 05:31 AM | 1. You can draw a weapon as part of a move action if you have a BAB of at least +1, which you do...that is why you are able to draw a weapon and charge in the same round. Yes, but ask yourself if a charge is a move action... |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 06:02 AM | 1. You can draw a weapon as part of a move action if you have a BAB of at least +1, which you do...that is why you are able to draw a weapon and charge in the same round. First, you cannot draw a weapon as part of any move action, only as part of a regular move. A regular move is a move action that allows you to move up to your speed. Second, a charge is not a move action, it is a full-round action. If you want to keep the fight as is, your only option is to have Maeril drop the bow and draw the greatsword during his move in round 1. 2. I think you may want to check the map you are using...make sure it is the new standard arena map. He would have been able to charge the following turn, since he would have 120 ft movement with a charge and there was no obstruction. Remember that you can charge diagonally as long as there are no obstructions. I was using the new map, but messed up the starting positions, my apologies. (Reminds me, the new map is a big improvement, but what I really would like is a map without negative coordinates, don't know why we got them....) Ok, now that I am looking at the correct situation: 1. Why did Maeril use a rock to break the charge line when I said to use the pillars? 2. Light shields are strapped to your forearm, you first have to 'loose' a shield before you can drop it. This is a move action. Which means that Feradeth performed two move actions and a standard action in round 2, which is impossible. There are also some other tactics issues, but I will not bother you with them unless you are going to do a rewrite. 1. No wonder I couldn't find it. Make sure you mention it in either your equipment or your attacks. Preferably both. You're right, I should at least mention it under attacks.... |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 09:48 AM | The Phantom Lord vs. Shakari (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7344007) is up. It was a long and very close battle. I enjoyed running it, how often do you get to do an Overrun attempt by following the gladiator's tactics? I haven't seen one in CoCo yet. |
| Vathelokai09-25-05, 10:23 AM | The Phantom Lord vs. Shakari (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7344007) is up. It was a long and very close battle. I enjoyed running it, how often do you get to do an Overrun attempt by following the gladiator's tactics? I haven't seen one in CoCo yet. :clap: Nice story...Somebody give this guy a credit. |
| Luni09-25-05, 11:34 AM | The Phantom Lord vs. Shakari (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7344007) is up. It was a long and very close battle. I enjoyed running it, how often do you get to do an Overrun attempt by following the gladiator's tactics? I haven't seen one in CoCo yet. In round 2, you have Shakari trying to overrun the skeleton. You can't overrun as part of a charge [It is in the errata]. Accoding to my tactics, it probably should be a basic attack. Otherwise looks good. He shot down Fireflame. Booo! Edit: Weird. I wrote down Shield of Faith, Usurpator used a Shield of Faith potion, but no Shield of Faith potion found on character sheet! Was supposed to be Prot. from Evil [Same benefit, same cost]. No idea what I was thinking. |
| Luni09-25-05, 12:19 PM | Balbanes vs Daeren is up. Find it Here (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7344733&postcount=423) Warning. It is a 40 round fight. |
| xanadu09-25-05, 12:26 PM | In round 2, you have Shakari trying to overrun the skeleton. You can't overrun as part of a charge [It is in the errata]. Accoding to my tactics, it probably should be a basic attack. Otherwise looks good. Aside from pointing to the errata, can someone explain why not? Go ahead Wizards of the Coast, I dare you to watch the NFL today and see that not only is it possible, but the momentum garned by a charge is actually more likely to bring about a successful result. |
| Luni09-25-05, 12:30 PM | Aside from pointing to the errata, can someone explain why not? Go ahead Wizards of the Coast, I dare you to watch the NFL today and see that not only is it possible, but the momentum garned by a charge is actually more likely to bring about a successful result. Oooh. Because WoTC is insane? I don't even understand how Ride By attack is even supposed to work. You have to charge into the closest square, then continue in a straight line, all without entering your opponents squares. |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 12:47 PM | Oooh. Because WoTC is insane? I don't even understand how Ride By attack is even supposed to work. You have to charge into the closest square, then continue in a straight line, all without entering your opponents squares. Ride-by-attack and charge seemed to have IDEAL synergy with Overrun. Because the Phantom Lord shielded obvious approaches to his skeletons, the only way to do a Ride-by-attack was by moving through your opponents instead of along them. Stupid errata. :mad: I can understand that you cannot overrun with a regular charge, both attack options don't fit well together, but in combination with Ride-by-attack, I thought it was perfect... |
| Snommelp09-25-05, 12:48 PM | Oooh. Because WoTC is insane? I don't even understand how Ride By attack is even supposed to work. You have to charge into the closest square, then continue in a straight line, all without entering your opponents squares. < is your charge path E is your enemy X is the closest square you can attack from <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<X<<<<<<< 00000E000000000 000000000000000 You literally ride by your opponent I have no clue about overrun, though |
| Mind Rogue09-25-05, 12:50 PM | Because overrun is a standard action. Charging is a full-round action. Ergo, you have no action to use for the overrun attempt. Of course, I think overrun should be a free action as part of a move, but that is a whole nother discussion. |
| Pittbull09-25-05, 12:54 PM | Aside from pointing to the errata, can someone explain why not? Go ahead Wizards of the Coast, I dare you to watch the NFL today and see that not only is it possible, but the momentum garned by a charge is actually more likely to bring about a successful result. :cheer: :cheer: GO Steelers, Go! :cheer: :cheer: Swinging the terrible towel! Steelers-fan since 1990! ;) |
| Luni09-25-05, 12:58 PM | < is your charge path E is your enemy X is the closest square you can attack from <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< <<<<<<<X<<<<<<< 00000E000000000 000000000000000 You literally ride by your opponent I have no clue about overrun, though Too bad it usually isn't that pretty Snommelp. |
| Snommelp09-25-05, 01:00 PM | Too bad it usually isn't that pretty Snommelp. True... you can't do it if your opponent is on a line with you on the x or y axis. Really, it's a feat you can't use too often. |
| xanadu09-25-05, 01:07 PM | Because overrun is a standard action. Charging is a full-round action. Ergo, you have no action to use for the overrun attempt. Of course, I think overrun should be a free action as part of a move, but that is a whole nother discussion. Tell that to Ray Lewis, Lawrence Taylor, and Dick Butkus ;) |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 01:10 PM | Because overrun is a standard action. Charging is a full-round action. Ergo, you have no action to use for the overrun attempt. Of course, I think overrun should be a free action as part of a move, but that is a whole nother discussion. I agree completely. According to the SRD text overrun it is free (doesn't cost a standard action), but only if the opponent lets you past. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-25-05, 01:40 PM | @snom: Your diagram for ride-by attack is incorrect. When you measure a straight line for a charge, you start from the center of your square to the center of your opponents square. Hence the confusion. Mechanically, it should be impossible to do a ride-by, but the game designers have just basicaly thrown their arms up in the air and said, "It just works." At least that's the OFFICIAL response we got from an OFFICIAL standpoint when I was in Living Greyhawk. RE: Drawing a weapon while charging - Can't be done. You draw a weapon or weapon-like object as part of a regualr move. Not as part of a move action, or especially a charge, which is a full-round action. -ToK |
| NiQil09-25-05, 02:07 PM | First, you cannot draw a weapon as part of any move action, only as part of a regular move. A regular move is a move action that allows you to move up to your speed. Second, a charge is not a move action, it is a full-round action. If you want to keep the fight as is, your only option is to have Maeril drop the bow and draw the greatsword during his move in round 1. I was using the new map, but messed up the starting positions, my apologies. (Reminds me, the new map is a big improvement, but what I really would like is a map without negative coordinates, don't know why we got them....) Ok, now that I am looking at the correct situation: 1. Why did Maeril use a rock to break the charge line when I said to use the pillars? 2. Light shields are strapped to your forearm, you first have to 'loose' a shield before you can drop it. This is a move action. Which means that Feradeth performed two move actions and a standard action in round 2, which is impossible. There are also some other tactics issues, but I will not bother you with them unless you are going to do a rewrite. You're right, I should at least mention it under attacks.... Loosing a shield and dropping it is something that can be done together as one free action as a part of a regular move action when you have a BAB of 1 or higher. Ready or Loose a Shield Strapping a shield to your arm to gain its shield bonus to your AC [i.e readying], or unstrapping and dropping a shield so you can use your shield hand for another purpose [i.e loosing], requires a move action. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can ready or loose a shield as a free action combined with a regular move. Dropping a carried (but not worn) shield is a free action. Everything in brackets added by me. So in that round, he looses and drops the shield[1st free action], drops the lance [2nd free action] and draws his bow [3rd free action] all while moving, and then fires at the end of movement. But in any event, I have redone the match to account for some other minor issues, which resulted in a much more entertaining match. But in the end, the result did not change. |
| TelinArtho09-25-05, 02:32 PM | @Luni - thanks for running the fight - I realize it must have been painful... It looks like I could've been a little better off with the damage department too - two or three 1s makes a big difference when your range is 1d10. Anyway, Balbanes is a formidable opponent if you are not armed to the teeth, but at least I walked away with a little bit of a profit - I'm not sure if he can say the same... /d |
| Usurpator09-25-05, 02:35 PM | But in any event, I have redone the match to account for some other minor issues, which resulted in a much more entertaining match. But in the end, the result did not change. Thank you, I appreciate it. And indeed, it's a lot more entertaining! :) |
| Mind Rogue09-25-05, 03:14 PM | I've made the revisions to the Torgirr vs Rebreg fight. I first went and changed the math errors in the late game, then reran the tactical errors. Essentially, the only difference that resulted is that Torgirr had a smaller weapon once in grapple: which means he now wins because of the extra hit do to an error. As an interesting side note, if Torgirr didn't ready to attack with the hammer upon pinpoint, he would have lost the match. |
| SauroGrenom09-25-05, 04:58 PM | I've made the revisions to the Torgirr vs Rebreg fight. I first went and changed the math errors in the late game, then reran the tactical errors. Essentially, the only difference that resulted is that Torgirr had a smaller weapon once in grapple: which means he now wins because of the extra hit do to an error. As an interesting side note, if Torgirr didn't ready to attack with the hammer upon pinpoint, he would have lost the match. I shall take responsibility for Rebreg's death again, I should have used a potion of Armor to increase his AC before starting the grapple. I would like to point out for the record that the readied action, although a reasonable adaption from Torgirr's tactics, was not listed in those tactics. To a certian extent Rebreg was killed by a savy adaption by the pitlord, but to a greater extent Rebreg was killed by an incomplete buffing sequence. It also totally sucks when Rebreg rolls minimum damage every time and his opponent rolls maximum damage a number of times. |
| xanadu09-25-05, 05:32 PM | @ Mind Rogue - can you please add in the Pulverizer's profession money (72)? Thanks. @ Usurpator - can you please add in the Phantom Lord's profession money (80)? Thanks. |
| Luni09-25-05, 05:39 PM | I shall take responsibility for Rebreg's death again, I should have used a potion of Armor to increase his AC before starting the grapple. I would like to point out for the record that the readied action, although a reasonable adaption from Torgirr's tactics, was not listed in those tactics. To a certian extent Rebreg was killed by a savy adaption by the pitlord, but to a greater extent Rebreg was killed by an incomplete buffing sequence. It also totally sucks when Rebreg rolls minimum damage every time and his opponent rolls maximum damage a number of times. I disagree with the savy adaptation. Torgirr will then sit and wait (maximum 8 rounds) for the monk to give his position away (note: Torgirr receives a +2 bonus on listen and spot vs. the half-giant). Once Torgirr has an idea of where his enemy is, he will utilize the sniping option described under the Hide skill. You are right, it isn't said explicitly, but the intent is to clearly ready a shot. Mage armor would of helped. |
| Faroth09-25-05, 06:14 PM | My fight isn't finished yet? Where are you kaigan? :( |
| Mind Rogue09-25-05, 06:31 PM | @ Mind Rogue - can you please add in the Pulverizer's profession money (72)? Thanks. @ Usurpator - can you please add in the Phantom Lord's profession money (80)? Thanks. ~Bamph!~ Done. |
| Luni09-25-05, 06:38 PM | My fight isn't finished yet? Where are you kaigan? :( Patience young gladiator. I've only run 1 out of 3. @my Gladiators: I'll finish Draconix vs Grakk fight tonight, and do the one I picked up from Dr. Funk tomorrow. @Aramil: Thanks for the tactics! |
| Pauper09-25-05, 06:58 PM | Aside from pointing to the errata, can someone explain why not? Go ahead Wizards of the Coast, I dare you to watch the NFL today and see that not only is it possible, but the momentum garned by a charge is actually more likely to bring about a successful result. And this is where I get all ticked off and nit-picky about the distinction between arbitrary game rules and modeling real-life situations. For starters, let's dispense with the illusion that what NFL players are doing defensively is attempting D&D overruns: With an overrun, you attempt to plow past or over your opponent (and move through his square) as you move. So sure, Lawrence Taylor moves up to Barry Sanders's square and tries to move through it. Sanders, of course, elects to avoid the overrun, which allows him to continue moving upfield. Tackling is not equal to overrun. In D&D terms, what you're attempting to do when you tackle someone is grapple them. Since starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll, it can be done as part of a charge (and does get the bonus from the charge, fulfulling the expectation of the original quote above). If you wanted to model an NFL situation using the overrun rules, it would be what defensive linemen are trying to do to offensive linemen on a pass play - move through their squares so that they can get to the quarterback and grapple. This has been a public service announcement of me. -- Pauper |
| Pauper09-25-05, 07:02 PM | I'm just taking a quick look through the fights. I'd suggest you take a good look yourself as well. I did - other than the caster level thing with the wand, everything else looked fine to me. (Well, OK, it does look as though Amion is making a save against his own Blindness spell when he casts off the scroll, but given that I'd have made the save with the same roll, it doesn't seem worth nit-picking about.) I'll have to check in on the previous fight, too, and see if TelinArtho has fixed the 'magic missiles miss due to concealment' thing yet, since that should save a few charges as well. Sheesh, guys, is a wand of magic missile that broken that you all feel the need to drain poor Alac out as quickly as possible? :P -- Pauper (P.S.: Don't answer that...) |
| Kaigan09-25-05, 07:20 PM | My fight isn't finished yet? Where are you kaigan? :( slow your horses. I'm busy, and they will be up, and on time. Unfortunately for you, that means tuesday 8 am gmt. or monday night at midnight my time. So look for them either tonight or tomorrow night. |
| Faroth09-25-05, 07:48 PM | slow your horses. I'm busy, and they will be up, and on time. Unfortunately for you, that means tuesday 8 am gmt. or monday night at midnight my time. So look for them either tonight or tomorrow night. Thanks for the answer :) Now I'm relaxed :cool: |
| xanadu09-25-05, 08:04 PM | And this is where I get all ticked off and nit-picky about the distinction between arbitrary game rules and modeling real-life situations. For starters, let's dispense with the illusion that what NFL players are doing defensively is attempting D&D overruns: So sure, Lawrence Taylor moves up to Barry Sanders's square and tries to move through it. Sanders, of course, elects to avoid the overrun, which allows him to continue moving upfield. Tackling is not equal to overrun. In D&D terms, what you're attempting to do when you tackle someone is grapple them. Since starting a grapple requires a successful melee attack roll, it can be done as part of a charge (and does get the bonus from the charge, fulfulling the expectation of the original quote above). If you wanted to model an NFL situation using the overrun rules, it would be what defensive linemen are trying to do to offensive linemen on a pass play - move through their squares so that they can get to the quarterback and grapple. This has been a public service announcement of me. -- Pauper :uh-huh: |
| Enterik09-25-05, 08:08 PM | So sure, Lawrence Taylor moves up to Barry Sanders's square and tries to move through it. Sanders, of course, elects to avoid the overrun, which allows him to continue moving upfield. Didn't Lawrence Taylor select Power Attack and Improved Overrun as his first level fighter feats? :P |
| xanadu09-25-05, 08:10 PM | Profession money added for both Brilf and Hagrid. |
| NiQil09-26-05, 12:01 AM | I don't know if this will help those that were debating the overrun issue earlier, and this may have already been mentioned, but in the PHB errata it says in three different places on page one of the errata that you can not overrun as a part of a charge. Don't know if that has any bearing on the issue or not....just thought I would throw that out there. |
| Snommelp09-26-05, 12:07 AM | slow your horses. I'm busy, and they will be up, and on time. Unfortunately for you, that means tuesday 8 am gmt. or monday night at midnight my time. So look for them either tonight or tomorrow night. Just an FYI: I took a quick look at Lothan Laurel, and he's got some minor violations. Unfortunately for me, when they're resolved it helps him... |
| Sindorin09-26-05, 01:57 AM | I will hopefully be able to run my fight after classes in around 15 hours or so. I just felt that I should post reassurance to the two participants that I am still here and yet alive. Ravnica was a bit of a disappointment, and at the same time there was something elusive to it that was intriguing... |
| Luni09-26-05, 02:20 AM | Read on for the fight between the orcs. Look Here (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7350431&postcount=424) Grakk vs Draconis. Who's going to win? |
| Usurpator09-26-05, 02:56 AM | Damage should be 3d8+48 (dive doubles, lances doubles, 2 doubles=triple). Hopefully that does it. I have to be 10 feet above him because I have lance. If he is still alive, breathe on him. Could somebody point me to the text that says flying dives double damage on a charge? |
| Luni09-26-05, 03:04 AM | Could somebody point me to the text that says flying dives double damage on a charge? Done! A creature that flies can make dive attacks. 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. A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line. Somewhere in the Rules of the Game article it says mounted characters also benefit from teh double damage while diving. I'm wrong about there being an additional double though. I just found this gem though. Ride-By Attack: This feat works something like the Spring Attack feat. You can charge a foe, attack, and then keep moving. The total distance you move cannot exceed twice your mount's speed. You and your mount's movements don't provoke attacks of opportunity from the foe you attack. Since you must charge in a straight line and you cannot move through another creature's space when charging, exactly how you use this feat is problematical. According to the D&D FAQ, you charge directly toward your target as normal. After your attack, you can change direction so you can move away in a straight line. So I can charge mounted, then turn around and run back. |
| Usurpator09-26-05, 03:29 AM | Done! Natural and Special Abilities: Movement Moded A creature that flies can make dive attacks. 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. A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line. Thanks, I could not find it under aerial movement, flying ability, hippogriff or charge in my PHB/DMG/MM. When I read the text through, I am inclined to say the rider of said mount does not gain the benefit (see bolded part). A. It is specifically restricted to claw or talon attacks. B. There is nothing that says that a rider also gains the same benefit I was already looking forward to making diving attacks while under the effect of a Fly spell, but since it requires claw or talon attacks..... :weep: EDIT: I am going to look if I can find it in rules of the game, but certainly rules of the game is not an official source, or is it? |
| Usurpator09-26-05, 03:35 AM | Done! So I can charge mounted, then turn around and run back. So, should I edit and rerun Shakari's the fight now? ;) |
| Luni09-26-05, 03:46 AM | Ok. I edited the Draconis/Grakk fight now. The poor hippogriff. @Usurpator: Don't worry about it. I'm fairly happy with the fight. Its not fair of the Phantom Lord to bring in more allies then me. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-26-05, 04:32 AM | Ok. I edited the Draconis/Grakk fight now. And re-edited...and re-edited...and re-edited. LOL Just teasing and poking some good-humoured 3:30am'ish (your time) fun. -ToK |
| Luni09-26-05, 04:34 AM | And re-edited...and re-edited...and re-edited. LOL Just teasing and poking some good-humoured 3:30am'ish (your time) fun. -ToK All your fault! You make my 2 round fight into a 4 hour tangle! |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-26-05, 04:36 AM | All your fault! You make my 2 round fight into a 4 hour tangle! Actually, i'm trying to UNTANGLE it. lol roflmao -ToK |
| Usurpator09-26-05, 05:15 AM | And re-edited...and re-edited...and re-edited. LOL Just teasing and poking some good-humoured 3:30am'ish (your time) fun. -ToK And the last version proofs that edits can only produce more losers :D Draconis loses and gains (600 xp/666 gp) - 12.5% = 525 xp/582.75 gp. She used Shield of Faith Potion. Grakk loses and gains (1800 xp/2000 gp) + 12.5% = 2025 xp/2250 gp. He used Oil: Magic Weapon and 9 arrows [6 hit, 3missed and are recovered |
| Luni09-26-05, 05:16 AM | New strategy. No more winners allowed. I'll go change it, then I'm going to get some sleep. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-26-05, 05:22 AM | EDIT: I am going to look if I can find it in rules of the game, but certainly rules of the game is not an official source, or is it? It's very unfortunate, but we are using it as official interpretations. They also add that a flying creature (the creature itself, not anyone mounted upon them), can also benefit from diving with any manufactured weapons they may be able to wield. -ToK |
| Sunwolf09-26-05, 10:52 AM | @King Uther & Pittbull Brilf is willing partner with Hagrid to take on the mighty Virgo. |
| Pittbull09-26-05, 11:22 AM | Yep, but he needs to upgrade his sheet to ECL9 and his cohort is also missing! |
| Kaigan09-26-05, 01:12 PM | Hey, can anyone take one of my fights. This one specifically... Devolved Sleestak (Enterik) vs Axhind (NiQil): Kaigan I can PM tactics within a couple of hours. Thanks. Haha, pitlords needs to get more focused.... giving me two fights when I wanted one, saying my quest is late, when king uther and I finished last week. Oh well.... :) So yeah, I'll PM tactics later, And my other fight will be up later today, I'm working on it now... Cheers. kaigan |
| TelinArtho09-26-05, 01:25 PM | I'll take it Kaigan. |
| NiQil09-26-05, 01:33 PM | I can go ahead and forward my tactics now... Edit: Sent |
| xanadu09-26-05, 01:47 PM | Thanks, I could not find it under aerial movement, flying ability, hippogriff or charge in my PHB/DMG/MM. When I read the text through, I am inclined to say the rider of said mount does not gain the benefit (see bolded part). A. It is specifically restricted to claw or talon attacks. B. There is nothing that says that a rider also gains the same benefit I was already looking forward to making diving attacks while under the effect of a Fly spell, but since it requires claw or talon attacks..... :weep: EDIT: I am going to look if I can find it in rules of the game, but certainly rules of the game is not an official source, or is it? This is incorrect. "If a flyer makes a diving charge of at least 30 feet (6 squares) and also loses 10 feet of altitude or more, it can attack only with a claw or with a piercing or slashing weapon. These attacks, however, deal double damage." Rules of the game. All about movement part V. Note the "piercing or slashing weapon." Note is does not say the specific creature. It says flyer. As I share the same square and movement as my mount, it's current movement status, flying, is conferred to me. Note rules of the game, Mounts I "For all game purposes, you and your mount function as a single unit on the battlefield." I am flying and using a piercing weapon, ergo I get double damage. |
| TelinArtho09-26-05, 01:49 PM | Tactics received for Axhind and Devolved Sleestak - will run it today if I get a chance. |
| TelinArtho09-26-05, 02:47 PM | @Enterik - tactics need some clarification - PM sent (respond by 9am eastern US time tomorrow or I'll run it without clarification). |
| nightbanegod09-26-05, 02:52 PM | ok im handing off anya vs sidentch with the possibility of handing off baallorr vs tak the hungry. whos takin it? RL issues have taken up alot more time this week than previously anticipated. im already running chili vs juntar so it will be just a little bit before its officially posted. |
| TelinArtho09-26-05, 02:53 PM | I'll take one or both of them. I've got to wait on the other fight anyway until Enterik updates his tactics. |
| TelinArtho09-26-05, 03:20 PM | In case anyone's missed it - Crovax has died in his quest: Terror by the Sea (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=506119) Feel free to make comments/suggestions in that thread (with of course respect to both myself and nightbanegod). |
| Scribelords09-26-05, 03:22 PM | I think you can run my next quest so I can show everyone how not to die. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-26-05, 03:31 PM | Note is does not say the specific creature. It says flyer. Correct. However, you are not the flyer. You are the rider, upon the flying creature. As I share the same square and movement as my mount, it's current movement status, flying, is conferred to me. Way wrong. If your mount dies, do you continue to fly? Nope, you drop like a stone. So flying is not conferred onto you. Note rules of the game, Mounts I "For all game purposes, you and your mount function as a single unit on the battlefield." Of course, but you are not the same unit. I am flying and using a piercing weapon, ergo I get double damage. This is a very incorrect assumption. YOU are not the flyer. You are MOUNTED upon the flyer. -ToK |
| TelinArtho09-26-05, 03:35 PM | I think you can run my next quest so I can show everyone how not to die. It would be a pleasure Uther. Actually, let's not forget that Xanadu's two characters survived their quest too... so what if the pulverizer went down in the first damage-dealing round... |
| NiQil09-26-05, 03:56 PM | That reminds me... @Telin Your miniquest story should be up tonight...I'll post again when it is. My wife likes writing, so she volunteered to it (which is really the reason I kept the miniquest and didn't badger Cat to reassign it LOL). |
| nightbanegod09-26-05, 05:17 PM | It would be a pleasure Uther. Actually, let's not forget that Xanadu's two characters survived their quest too... so what if the pulverizer went down in the first damage-dealing round... hey BOTH of his characters? perhaps if i had the horseman with me that would have turned out different. maybe next time *edit* forwarded tactics for Anya Starfire (Mind Rogue) vs Sdentch (TheMagister): Nightbanegod Telinartho ill forward tactics for the other fight if i cant find time to finish it a little later today |
| Luni09-26-05, 05:21 PM | @Xanadu: I have your arguement which makes sense, and then their is ToK's counter which also makes sense. Now, both of you can't be right. Unless someone has more concrete proof, or another Elder wishes to lay judgement, I'm not going to change the fight. I'm pretty confident the whole reason you got the hippogriff is for x3 diving lance charges. |
| NiQil09-26-05, 05:35 PM | Oye....hopefully one of my fights will get posted before deadline...this waiting stuff bites...especially when it's for *both of my fights LOL. |
| xanadu09-26-05, 05:53 PM | @Xanadu: I have your arguement which makes sense, and then their is ToK's counter which also makes sense. Now, both of you can't be right. Unless someone has more concrete proof, or another Elder wishes to lay judgement, I'm not going to change the fight. I'm pretty confident the whole reason you got the hippogriff is for x3 diving lance charges. TOK's argument makes since, but he is not right. TOK - If you are going to privilege semantics, you cannot pick and choose those convenient to your argument. Flying is indeed conferemed to me. For some reason you ask what happens when my mount dies. No kidding if that happens, I fall to the ground. That is because the symbiotic mount-rider relationship no longer exists. One can not use a dead hippogriff as a legal mount as per the rules and are no longer treated as a single unit; hence the fall. Your counterargument is completely irrelevant because you are describing a hypothetical situation which does not exist. If we are going to be all semantic and go by the rules, then let us follow them: "For all game purposes, you and your mount function as a single unit on the battlefield." That is crystal clear and can not be simply ignored by making a semantic distiction as TOK does. Because we are a single unit for all game purposes, it is untenable to make a distiction between the two and argue a particular rule follows one and not the other as you do here: YOU are not the flyer. You are MOUNTED upon the flyer That may be semantically correct but violates the following rule: "For all game purposes, you and your mount function as a single unit on the battlefield." Much in the same way semantics make no sense in not being able to draw a weapon while making the 5 foot step movement. Semantically the argument makes sense; why yes of course you can draw your weapon because you are moving and have a +1 BAB. Semantics are not the final arbiter. The rules say draw as a move action; so even though you are moving, it ain't a move action, ergo no draw. Much in the same way regarding flying. Of course I am riding on a flying creature, but the rules say to treat them as a single unit; ergo this single unit is flying and meets the requirements for a dive attack. |
| TelinArtho09-26-05, 06:02 PM | Anya Starfire (Mind Rogue) vs Sdentch (TheMagister): Nightbanegod Telinartho Received. Also, Axhind vs Devolved Sleestak (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7355641) is up. |
| Usurpator09-26-05, 06:14 PM | "For all game purposes, you and your mount function as a single unit on the battlefield." You mean that when your mount dies, you die as well? Wow, that's pretty harsh, never considered that. Seriously, I understand you are upset, it was your undefeated gladiator after all. But extreme capitalizing won't help your case. If one were to take your repeated quote as literally as you want it to, you end up with a lot of nonsense, such as the example I gave above. Look at it this way, to reach the same effect with a regular mount you need the Spirited Charge feat, which in turn requires Mounted Combat and Ride-by-Attack, a serious investment. I think its unrealistic to assume a flying mount will essentially give a rider this for free. Flying is already a powerful advantage in and of itself. In case of doubt I always prefer the interpretation that seems the most balanced. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-26-05, 06:14 PM | Woah...easy big fella. Take a deep breath and relax for a second. I'm just pointing stuff out. I'm not talking semantics either, you are. You're making generalized assumptions on what you are reading. Ok, so you say ALL (size 7) game purposes...so if you're riding a dragon, do you get it's dragon breath as well? Nope. I'm just talking about rules, not semantics. Rules of the Game goes into further detail with mounts, and i've never read anywhere that the rider is also considered the flyer, nor does the rider benefit from the dive. This would create a severe imbalance. When they say you are a single unit, i believe you are reading too much into it. They mean, you act on the same initiative, you both move at the same time, when one combatant attacks, the other may as well, etc... About 5' step, draw weapon: Again, please calm down. I'm not talking semantics. I'm taking rules. Pure and simple. If you could draw a weapon as part of a 5' step, that would essentially give EVERYONE a quick draw feat for free. (Ex. 6th lvl fighter-type pc, takes a 5' step, draws his bow, and does a full attack/rapid shot toward his enemy)??? That absolutely cannot be. The 5' step does not meet the criteria "as part of your normal movement" that is required to draw a weapon or weapon-like object with a bab +1 or greater. A 5' step is not "a normal movement". -ToK |
| Usurpator09-26-05, 06:20 PM | Xanadu, the 5 ft. step and draw issue is crystal clear, it cannot be done. I have mentioned it two pages ago in another context and will repeat it here for convenience: You cannot draw a weapon as part of any move action or when you just move (including a 5 ft. step), you can only do it as part of a regular move. A regular move is a move action that allows you to move up to your speed. Which means you cannot draw a weapon as you take the withdraw action, for example, because a withdraw is not a regular move. You cannot draw a weapon while you run, charge, take a 5 ft. step, because even though you move, those actions are not a regular move. |
| Sindorin09-26-05, 07:18 PM | Amidst whatever you guys are talking about, Omo-Na Sento vs. Goran the Beast (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7356354&postcount=427) is finished and posted. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get it finished sooner... |
| SoulLord09-26-05, 08:10 PM | Amidst whatever you guys are talking about, Omo-Na Sento vs. Goran the Beast (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7356354&postcount=427) is finished and posted. I'm sorry I wasn't able to get it finished sooner... Just a note withdraw prevents attack AoO only from the 1st square you withdraw from all other squares are fair game so if someone threatens 20 feet there is a good chance that unless he tumbles, that it will suffer an AoO from fleeing |
| Cerebus1309-26-05, 08:34 PM | Alexi vs. Shan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7357110&postcount=428) is up. Please let me know right away if there are any questions or concerns. |
| Sindorin09-26-05, 09:11 PM | Just a note withdraw prevents attack AoO only from the 1st square you withdraw from all other squares are fair game so if someone threatens 20 feet there is a good chance that unless he tumbles, that it will suffer an AoO from fleeing Heh, things like that make me feel really stupid. Thanks for pointing it out, I will take a look at the fight. |
| xanadu09-26-05, 09:22 PM | Usurpator, I am upset because two people who are not involved in the fight are trying to tell me a rule does not count because it does not agree with their interpretations of how D & D is balanced. Usurpator, you are not telling me I am wrong by the rules. What you did was bring up a completely unrelated hypothetical and say the rule is dubious. This is extremely unfair and not a justification to overturn a fight - especially when the rules unequivocally tell me I am in the right. The quote in this situation is not nonsense. The quote here in question is talking about movement. Movement is the crux of the matter here, namely is Draconis flying? According to this Wizards sanctioned rule of the game, yes. You ask me to look at it in a way which allows individual opinion to countermand and override what The Rules of the Game say. My opinion is irrelevant so I do not see the point. There is no doubt here; any doubt created is purely by counterfactual speculation and subjective judgements of what is and what is not balanced - it is quite clear that rider-mount function as a single unit in a nominal state. Also, I did not suggest you can draw a weapon as part of a 5' movement so I am not sure why you made it a point to tell me I couldn't. ToK, I sized seven the rule because you ignored it. I am perfectly relaxed, although I have to admit I am somewhat mystified why such rules champions can so blatently disregard them. I am not making generalized assumptions, I am stating what is in the rules. You are responding with irrelevant hypotheticals to discredit my argument that have nothing to do with the rules I am talking about. If the mount dies, I will refer to the rules as to what happens when a mount dies. It is obvious that symbiotic rider-mount relationship no longer applies in that instance so I will not reference the "all practical purposes" rule. No, I do not get a breathe weapon if I am riding a dragon. However, ToK, I must be mindful of the rules. Because we are treated as a single unit, if the dragon wants to make a double move and breathe, then my attack must occur at the same time the dragon breathes, namely at the midway point because we are treated as a single unit. I have referred you to the rule in which you seek, you chose to ignore it because you believe it creates a severe imbalance. Tell me, how does allowing a Raptorean or any other creature which fits your specific definition of flying the benefit of double damage while denying the exact same attack mechanic to someone else balanced? Fighter using a fly spell? Well he's flying so he gets double damage. Fighter on a mount, well he's not so he does not. I'm sorry, that is wrong, not to mention inconsistent. The rule I pointed you to resolves the inconsistency here. How is claiming that Draconis is flying "reading too much into the rule"? It is a perfectly valid descriptor of the particular type of movement Draconis is currently travelling by. On the contrary, I think it is fair to say your examples of dying mounts and gaining breathe weapons is reading too much into the rule. Why are you bringing up the 5' movement thing? I did not argue that you could 2 pages ago, nor did I say so in my previous post. This is what I said: The rules say draw as a move action; so even though you are moving, it ain't a move action, ergo no draw. This is why I size 7 things. It says quite clearly there that one cannot draw the weapon. You ask me to calm down, yet I do not think you and Usurpator are being very fair. I cite a rule, and because neither of you agree with the rule in question, you both argue against me telling me the rule is impractical and does not square with your interpretation of balance. Moreover, you both make me look dubious by bringing up a unrelated rule insinuating I am wrong when what I say right there is correct. It is unacceptable that the burden of proof is somehow on me when I am the one with the rules on my side. |
| Mind Rogue09-26-05, 09:29 PM | Let's see. First off, I said to double move out and use biofeedback on round two, but the battle is so short that that doesn't matter. Second, while I don't think there are automatic failures on opposed ability checks, if there are the results could easily change. However, the most important factor to this battle is the mistake in how all of Shan's attacks work. He has the option of either making an opposed grapple check to deal me unarmed strike damage (not claw damage and it's going to be nonlethal) or else he can simply attack me with his weapon (probably his claw). Note that he can only attack with one weapon, meaning only one of the claws. This factor will greatly extend my life span. The same is true for when he initiates the grapple, except that he only has the option of unarmed strike damage. Note that if Lizardfolk had the Improved Grab special ability, he could deal claw damage with a grapple check. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-26-05, 10:30 PM | Usurpator, I am upset because two people who are not involved in the fight are trying to tell me a rule does not count because it does not agree with their interpretations of how D & D is balanced. Usurpator, you are not telling me I am wrong by the rules. What you did was bring up a completely unrelated hypothetical and say the rule is dubious. This is extremely unfair and not a justification to overturn a fight - especially when the rules unequivocally tell me I am in the right. The quote in this situation is not nonsense. The quote here in question is talking about movement. Movement is the crux of the matter here, namely is Draconis flying? According to this Wizards sanctioned rule of the game, yes. You ask me to look at it in a way which allows individual opinion to countermand and override what The Rules of the Game say. My opinion is irrelevant so I do not see the point. There is no doubt here; any doubt created is purely by counterfactual speculation and subjective judgements of what is and what is not balanced - it is quite clear that rider-mount function as a single unit in a nominal state. Also, I did not suggest you can draw a weapon as part of a 5' movement so I am not sure why you made it a point to tell me I couldn't. ToK, I sized seven the rule because you ignored it. I am perfectly relaxed, although I have to admit I am somewhat mystified why such rules champions can so blatently disregard them. I am not making generalized assumptions, I am stating what is in the rules. You are responding with irrelevant hypotheticals to discredit my argument that have nothing to do with the rules I am talking about. If the mount dies, I will refer to the rules as to what happens when a mount dies. It is obvious that symbiotic rider-mount relationship no longer applies in that instance so I will not reference the "all practical purposes" rule. No, I do not get a breathe weapon if I am riding a dragon. However, ToK, I must be mindful of the rules. Because we are treated as a single unit, if the dragon wants to make a double move and breathe, then my attack must occur at the same time the dragon breathes, namely at the midway point because we are treated as a single unit. I have referred you to the rule in which you seek, you chose to ignore it because you believe it creates a severe imbalance. Tell me, how does allowing a Raptorean or any other creature which fits your specific definition of flying the benefit of double damage while denying the exact same attack mechanic to someone else balanced? Fighter using a fly spell? Well he's flying so he gets double damage. Fighter on a mount, well he's not so he does not. I'm sorry, that is wrong, not to mention inconsistent. The rule I pointed you to resolves the inconsistency here. How is claiming that Draconis is flying "reading too much into the rule"? It is a perfectly valid descriptor of the particular type of movement Draconis is currently travelling by. On the contrary, I think it is fair to say your examples of dying mounts and gaining breathe weapons is reading too much into the rule. Why are you bringing up the 5' movement thing? I did not argue that you could 2 pages ago, nor did I say so in my previous post. This is what I said: This is why I size 7 things. It says quite clearly there that one cannot draw the weapon. You ask me to calm down, yet I do not think you and Usurpator are being very fair. I cite a rule, and because neither of you agree with the rule in question, you both argue against me telling me the rule is impractical and does not square with your interpretation of balance. Moreover, you both make me look dubious by bringing up a unrelated rule insinuating I am wrong when what I say right there is correct. It is unacceptable that the burden of proof is somehow on me when I am the one with the rules on my side. Hey Xanadu: Don't get me wrong. I see what you are trying to say. The part i don't agree with is your extrapolation of "they function as one unit" to imply that the rider also benefits from the dive function. A flying fighter would benefit from the dive, because HE is the flyer. If he holds a lance, he doesn't do quadruple dmg, because he needs to be mounted. But i'm sure we've both said our peace on the matter. I'm sorry you don't agree with me, but i just wish you'd see clearly on this. I understand it's hard to lose when you don't agree with a rules interpretation so i won't nag you anymore. There is no further elaboration when they give that quote. I wish they would, it would make life easier, but sadly they do not. And in no part of the entire series of articles do they insinuate that the rider of a flying mount benefits from the dive attack. Sorry, that's just my opinion. By all means, others can share theirs. -ToK |
| Cerebus1309-26-05, 10:45 PM | Let's see. First off, I said to double move out and use biofeedback on round two, but the battle is so short that that doesn't matter.If Alexi would have waited until Round 2 there may have been a chance Shan could have started a grapple before then...I didn't bother to take that chance. Second, while I don't think there are automatic failures on opposed ability checks, if there are the results could easily change.The only automatic failure rolls I can think of are attack rolls. I'm not positive on this however. However, the most important factor to this battle is the mistake in how all of Shan's attacks work. He has the option of either making an opposed grapple check to deal me unarmed strike damage (not claw damage and it's going to be nonlethal) or else he can simply attack me with his weapon (probably his claw). Note that he can only attack with one weapon, meaning only one of the claws. This factor will greatly extend my life span. The same is true for when he initiates the grapple, except that he only has the option of unarmed strike damage. Note that if Lizardfolk had the Improved Grab special ability, he could deal claw damage with a grapple check.Please read this Rules of the Game article, All About Grappling (Part Four) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a). Inside it states: 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.These are the rules we have adopted for Natural Attacks and grappling, as can be seen in Natural Weapon grappler fights such as with the Mer-Man. |
| NiQil09-26-05, 10:54 PM | If this helps the whole grapple bit (and I don't have the quote in front of me, but can obtain it if need be as I posted it last week), per the 3.0 FAQ, grapple checks are opposed attack rolls. This didn't change from 3.0 to 3.5. Per those rules, you can autofail and autosucceed on grapple checks just like any other attack rolls. If someone really wants it in plain view, I will dig up the quote. Edit: I dug it up anyway. Here is the relevant portion. When rolling opposed attack rolls (such as in a grapple or in a disarm attempt), does a natural 1 mean automatic failure as it does for a normal attack roll? For the attacker (that is, the character trying to disarm a foe or accomplish something with a grapple check) a natural 1 fails and a natural 20 succeeds, no matter what the defender rolls. Although the defender's roll is called an "opposed attack roll," the defender is really just setting the DC for the attacker: 1s and 20s aren't special for the defender. Just apply the defender's modifiers to set the DC for the attacker. If both the attacker and the defender roll a 1, the attacker fails. If both the attacker and the defender roll a 20, the attacker succeeds. Note that you cannot get a hold on a foe two or more sizes larger than you (see page 137 in the Player's Handbook). |
| Cerebus1309-26-05, 11:05 PM | And here is my counter quote from the 3.5 D&D FAQ:I have a monk with the Vow of Poverty feat (from Book of Exalted Deeds). Does the exalted strike bonus apply to grapple, sunder, disarm, and trip attempts? The exalted strike bonus gained by a character who has taken Vow of Poverty applies only on attack and damage rolls. Unless something is described as an attack roll or a damage roll, the bonus doesn’t apply. • The touch attack made to start a grapple is an attack roll (so the bonus would apply to this roll), but a grapple check is not an attack roll, and thus the bonus wouldn’t apply to the grapple check. Likewise, the touch attack made to start a trip attack would gain the bonus, but the Strength check you make to trip the defender is not an attack roll and wouldn’t gain the bonus. • To attempt a disarm attack or a sunder attack, you make an attack roll opposed by the defender’s attack roll, so the exalted strike bonus would apply.Note the bolded portion. |
| NiQil09-26-05, 11:08 PM | What page of the FAQ is that located on? I looked that thing up and down last week for another issue and couldn't find any mention of that one way or the other. Obviously, if that is there, than it did change from 3.0 to 3.5.....I've just never found that quote before. Edit: Nevermind...found it. Page 13. Guess they did change it after all. |
| nightbanegod09-26-05, 11:09 PM | Baallorr (Tellish of Ket) vs Tak the Hungry (Oldmangray): Nightbanegod *insert name here* any takers i dont have time to run this. |
| Mind Rogue09-26-05, 11:25 PM | If Alexi would have waited until Round 2 there may have been a chance Shan could have started a grapple before then...I didn't bother to take that chance. The only automatic failure rolls I can think of are attack rolls. I'm not positive on this however. Please read this Rules of the Game article, All About Grappling (Part Four) (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rg/20050322a). Inside it states: These are the rules we have adopted for Natural Attacks and grappling, as can be seen in Natural Weapon grappler fights such as with the Mer-Man. Also note the postceding paragraph... A slightly more complex method for handling grappling monsters is to allow the monster one grapple attack for every 5 points of base attack bonus it has. If the monster has natural weaponry, it deals lethal damage from one natural attack. The monster can use each natural weapon only once during its turn. If the monster's base attack allows it more grapple attacks than it has natural weapons, it must deal normal unarmed damage for any extra attacks. This would limit him to only one claw attack. However, I must say that Invisible castle was rolling pretty crummy for me. At least I only spent one tatoo. |
| Cerebus1309-26-05, 11:40 PM | The author offers both options for monster grappling, and I guess we simply chose the first one. |
| Iced09-26-05, 11:53 PM | I was feelin' creative, so here goes... Story for Shan vs Alexi Wood: The arena is hushed. No talking fans sit in the stands, no cheering peasants to watch the mighty of Gladius fight and strive for blood in the sand of the arena. A small pool of dust ripples up from the ground as Alexi Wood strides forth. A blade of force rests in one gloved hand glowing with aroused power. In the other stands a darkened shield bearing his emblem. “I know you are here treacherous snake! I have come to fight, and I have come to defend my honor!” Across the arena a rock stirs. Unfolding to form Shan! The camouflaged lizardfolk hisses in excitement as he darts forth. “Prey at lasst yess. Foolish human man to insult me sooo yes!” Reaching into a satchel at his belt, Shan pulls forth a green bag that smells of swamp mud. “Sticky yess? Sticky for meddlesome humannssss!” A rustling of sand alerts Alexi. The fool showed up! Well about time I had an opponent with guts to spill… Reahing to his forearm, Alexi touches a certain tattoo. Immediately it shimmers and fades. Gasping involuntarily, Alexi halts as he feels every cell of his body become filled with vibrant energy. Grinning he looks out. Let the brute come for me now… “Shield yess!” Shan cackles as he taps a tattoo of his own. Silvery radiances form and disappear to leave behind a wall of hardened air. “Floating shield! All Sahnnsss yess!” The lizardfolk prowls on. Foe is close… Spotting the advancing lizardfolk, Alexi raises his weapon. That’s it, come to my blade fool. Wander closer. Shan sees Alexi. “Yesss glowing swords burn, but Shann burns more human flesh! Yesss flesh is mine. Noone insult Shan!” Almost galloping forward in haste, the scaly humanoid raises a claw to rend and tear. Striking like a snake, Alexi reaches out to trip the approaching Shan, swifter than a snake, Shan dances aside with an angry hiss and jumps on the blade. Alexi stumbles and Shan with an excited hiss of triumph kicks the blade back at Alexi. The human falls and Shan leaps right after. “Humannnss fleshhhsss yess!” Alexi screams high and horribly as claws that close like iron bars clamp over him. A stinking visage fills his gaze followed by a teeth filled mouth with darting tounge. “Insullt Shan now?” The lizardfolk breathes as he tightens his grip. “Insult Shannn!” The last thing that Alexi remembers was the face of a smiling lizardfolk hissing in victory as the world faded to black… ~Iced |
| Sindorin09-27-05, 12:27 AM | The two Attacks of Opportunity have been added to Omo-Na Sento vs. Goran the Beast. Had either of them hit, it would have been a very different fight... high AC helps too. |
| Snommelp09-27-05, 12:38 AM | Baallorr (Tellish of Ket) vs Tak the Hungry (Oldmangray): Nightbanegod *insert name here* any takers i dont have time to run this. I may be able to do this some time tomorrow, if you can't find any other takers. It'll probably be pretty close to the deadline, though. |
| Huan09-27-05, 01:54 AM | Bare-bones of Telari vs Va'ria (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7359562&postcount=431) is up. Short version: Knocked down to 0 HP and still made a desparate, winning, counterattack... it does not get much closer than that. |
| NiQil09-27-05, 02:34 AM | @ Kaigan Slight issue I noticed with the Grik vs Lothan fight... Of course, the subject is not magically silenced, and certain other conditions can render the recipient detectable (such as stepping in a puddle). The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Based on that definition, as soon as Lothan began casting sleep, he became visible. Which means before Grik moves in round 3, he would have LOS, which would give him time to disrupt that spell with a bow shot, since that is what he had in his hand. A hit and a failed concentration check and there is no sleep and the battle keeps going. Also, there needs to be an arcane spell failure check for the sleep spell before it goes off. That could also cause the sleep spell to go awry. Both are minor issues, but either could definitely be battle affecting. |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-27-05, 02:46 AM | Bare-bones of Telari vs Va'ria (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7359562&postcount=431) is up. Short version: Knocked down to 0 HP and still made a desparate, winning, counterattack... it does not get much closer than that. The absolute very first fight i ran, it was a double-KO. Both gladiators stabilized. One at -5, the other at -4, then had to make the hourly stabilization check and one guy bled out, one round before the other. That's the closest i've seen. And i believe it's as close as it can get. The only way to get closer is that each stabilize from the hourly bleeding, then one regains consciousness before the other and just clubs him. lol -ToK |
| Faroth09-27-05, 03:22 AM | @ Kaigan Slight issue I noticed with the Grik vs Lothan fight... Based on that definition, as soon as Lothan began casting sleep, he became visible. Which means before Grik moves in round 3, he would have LOS, which would give him time to disrupt that spell with a bow shot, since that is what he had in his hand. A hit and a failed concentration check and there is no sleep and the battle keeps going. Also, there needs to be an arcane spell failure check for the sleep spell before it goes off. That could also cause the sleep spell to go awry. Both are minor issues, but either could definitely be battle affecting. I don't know if the invisibility is finished in the round I begin casting sleep or in the round I finish casting sleep. It would be a nice idea to get the opinion of Caterane. see ya |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 03:43 AM | I don't know if the invisibility is finished in the round I begin casting sleep or in the round I finish casting sleep. It would be a nice idea to get the opinion of Caterane. see ya It is finished after you cast sleep. You could have targeted the spell at a location where it doesn't affect anyone after all. And since spellcasting which does not target anyone (as sleep does) only breaks invisibility if it has an opponent in its area of effect. And it only has an 'area of effect' after you finish casting it, not when you start. Alternately, the spell could have been disrupted before it was finished. In both cases you would never trigger a condition that makes invisibility disappear. Invisibility does not check intent, it checks action. On the other hand, in the very first round Lothan rolls a 3 for his caster level check against DC 3, but reading a spell from a scroll has a DC of 1+caster level = 4, so the invisibility would have failed in the first place. I'm sorry.... |
| xanadu09-27-05, 04:12 AM | Tok or Luni, Leaving aside the flying rule, can you explain why the second version, which Draconis also won, was invalidated? I note ToK posted around that time and made reference to the five foot rule and why I am asking him too. The 5 foot rule is a complete non-issue in that version and no reason why a result should be overturned. Draconis has neither reason nor need to drop the lance and draw the glaive; lances are perfectly legal to use dismounted. Draconis's 2nd attack hits regardless of whatever weapon she uses; heck she can use claws (and probably should since she can use 2 of them and merely needs to hit her opponent once). I see no reason to deem that version illegal because of a rule that does not apply. I see two versions of a fight I won in accordance to cited rules. The first instance is apparently ambiguous despite the crystal clear meaning of the phrase "all practical purposes," but hey, I can at least understand ToK's point - even if I think it is a house rule based on perceived notions of balance. The second instance there is simply no confusion and thus I am having a difficult time accepting it. |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 04:36 AM | I am upset because two people who are not involved in the fight are trying to tell me a rule does not count because it does not agree with their interpretations of how D & D is balanced. Usurpator, you are not telling me I am wrong by the rules. What you did was bring up a completely unrelated hypothetical and say the rule is dubious. This is extremely unfair and not a justification to overturn a fight - especially when the rules unequivocally tell me I am in the right. The quote in this situation is not nonsense. The quote here in question is talking about movement. Movement is the crux of the matter here, namely is Draconis flying? According to this Wizards sanctioned rule of the game, yes. Xanadu, I am not saying your position is utter nonsense, I am saying the rules are not 100% clear on this, and would I have been your DM, I would have ruled against it. I do think your argument is flawed, and that's what I am responding to: 1. I think the sentence you quote from rules of the game is not a 'hard rule', it's an illustration to get the concept across. 2. You now say that your size 7 'all' only applies to movement (and not to dying, obviously). Even with the limited interpretation, I still don't think that's true. Let me give you another counterexample: When your mount runs, you run as well, right? You can run for a number of rounds equal to your Constitution score, but after that you must make a DC 10 Constitution check to continue running. You must check again each round in which you continue to run, and the DC of this check increases by 1 for each check you have made. When you fail this check, you must stop running. A character who has run to his limit must rest for 1 minute (10 rounds) before running again. During a rest period, a character can move no faster than a normal move action. Your interpretation would have a mount+rider stop running because its rider fails the Constitution check, since all effects of his mounts movement mode transfer to him. Clearly nonsense. This proves to me you cannot transpose all movement conditions and corresponding benefits and penalties directly from mount to rider. 3. Now look at the description of mounted combat in the SRD: If your mount charges, you also take the AC penalty associated with a charge. If you make an attack at the end of the charge, you receive the bonus gained from the charge. The fact the text specifcally spells out that you benefit from the effects of a charge if your mount charges indicates to me that the default assumption would be that you don't automatically get the corresponding benefits and penalties. If what you say were true, I would normally expect a similar passage about getting the double damage when you are riding a diving mount. Since there is no such passage, not even in Rules of the Game, I am going with the default option: no transfer. I am not trying to make you lose the fight or picking a fight with you, I am just expressing my view about how the rules work in a case like this. |
| LLMadCow09-27-05, 05:32 AM | Okay, long and short of it ... if Omo-Na has the ability to Double Move and get near Goran, he has a high chance of being able to attack with a charge. I did some miscalculations with my initial post, so I had to edit and reply with this. I do not currently have the time to do all the math and angles, but ... double move to within 20', odds are good that he can attack. Mind you, in all of this I listed the 7D6 damage, and all of this could change anywhere along the line once a hit occurs, a trip-attempt would be attempted with any hit, Goran falling prone, etc, etc. I will have to scan the entire fight later, once corrections have been made. Please remember that with a reach of 20', charging has a whole different dynamic as to how it impacts a fight. Omo-Na can make a charge from (0,24) to (-4,15) and attack a character who was attacking from (-4,12); since Omo-Na has line of sight, he is allowed to charge, even though if he was weilding a weapon without reach, he would not be allowed to charge due to the rock in the way. The rock is not in the way of reaching (-4,15), thus the charge is allowed. So, Omo-Na only has to be able to charge a square that is within 20' of his enemy, and he will be able to get an attack in. Pretty much anytime that Omo-Na has the ability to see an enemy and move Double Move or less and base them, an attack should be made via charge. Edit: I am not going to recalculate this, but this is the basic premise. Since you have my character sheet posted within the fight, I am going to link the fight to my character sheet for ease of reference. All other edits will be made after complete fight resolution. Final note - Should the rewards be: Win (1500xp, 1600gp) and Loss (500xp, 533gp)? LLMC Edits: I miscalculated for some of the distance, but the main changes have been made. |
| Huan09-27-05, 07:38 AM | The absolute very first fight i ran, it was a double-KO. Both gladiators stabilized. One at -5, the other at -4, then had to make the hourly stabilization check and one guy bled out, one round before the other. That's the closest i've seen. And i believe it's as close as it can get. The only way to get closer is that each stabilize from the hourly bleeding, then one regains consciousness before the other and just clubs him. lol -ToK Hey, I remember that fight, heh heh... yeah, that was a crazy one. :) |
| Faroth09-27-05, 08:00 AM | On the other hand, in the very first round Lothan rolls a 3 for his caster level check against DC 3, but reading a spell from a scroll has a DC of 1+caster level = 4, so the invisibility would have failed in the first place. I'm sorry.... lol In that case, I would've casted it again from scroll.... oh man, the fight gets complicated xD see ya |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 08:28 AM | @Gonbow: Are you able to finish the fight between Greevus and Nexa before coming wednesday? I planned for Nexa to go questing with Daeren soon, but if my fight is delayed until next week, then Nexa might not be able to go. For that matter, has anyone heard anything from Gonbow the last couple of days? |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 09:19 AM | I'll be going through which fights have and have not been posted in the next few minutes. Theoretically all fights can be finished today if we have enough volunteers... |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 09:29 AM | Here's the outstanding fights and the reassignments that have already been posted: Level 3 Keltsat (NiQil) vs Eiletha Surion (Kaigan): Dr.Funk Luni Wlandra (Delusional Illusion) vs The Dire Flame (Iced): Ellorien Baallorr (Tellish of Ket) vs Tak the Hungry (Oldmangray): Nightbanegod Snommelp Level 4 Greevus (Cerebus13) vs Nexa (Usurpator): Gonbow [Finished - but requires credit change] Devolved Sleestak (Enterik) vs Axhind (NiQil): Kaigan TelinArtho Anya Starfire (Mind Rogue) vs Sdentch (TheMagister): Nightbanegod TelinArtho As per usual, if I am able to receive both sets of tactics for a fight, I will take the fight. I am working on the Anya vs Sdentch fight now. |
| Sindorin09-27-05, 09:32 AM | @Huan - I think Va'ria's losings are incorrect... she should get more than the losings for 5th level, though some other wizard nerf could make me wrong. |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 10:07 AM | Anya Starfire vs Sdentch (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7361325) Quick and dirty and a WHOLE LOTTA DAMAGE! |
| NiQil09-27-05, 10:10 AM | It is finished after you cast sleep. You could have targeted the spell at a location where it doesn't affect anyone after all. And since spellcasting which does not target anyone (as sleep does) only breaks invisibility if it has an opponent in its area of effect. And it only has an 'area of effect' after you finish casting it, not when you start. Alternately, the spell could have been disrupted before it was finished. In both cases you would never trigger a condition that makes invisibility disappear. Invisibility does not check intent, it checks action. On the other hand, in the very first round Lothan rolls a 3 for his caster level check against DC 3, but reading a spell from a scroll has a DC of 1+caster level = 4, so the invisibility would have failed in the first place. I'm sorry.... After going back to reread the spell, I see that you are correct. For some reason I thought that Sleep was an individual target spell, as opposed to an area spell. Also, in addition to your catch about caster level thing you mentioned, I also see now that there was not a check for arcane spell failure on any spell cast in that battle by Lothan. So, the first invisibility we know fails, and everything beyond that is gonna hafta change. With as busy as Kaigan has been lately, however, I am not sure if he will see all this in time to change anything. This might be one of those times where approaching Cat and/or an Elder to have them redo the fight would be worthwhile here if Kaigan can't, since the outcome is definately in question. |
| xanadu09-27-05, 10:27 AM | Xanadu, 1. I think the sentence you quote from rules of the game is not a 'hard rule', it's an illustration to get the concept across. So, the printed "rules" aren't really rules but concepts? 2. You now say that your size 7 'all' only applies to movement (and not to dying, obviously). Even with the limited interpretation, I still don't think that's true. (emphasis added) I do? Your interpretation would have a mount+rider stop running because its rider fails the Constitution check, since all effects of his mounts movement mode transfer to him. Clearly nonsense. This proves to me you cannot transpose all movement conditions and corresponding benefits and penalties directly from mount to rider. I'm going to guess your next example will involve some unrelated tranfer of paralysis question. When are you going to deal with the core mechanic of the rule - attacking an enemy from the air while in a rapid descent? If what you say were true, I would normally expect a similar passage about getting the double damage when you are riding a diving mount. So if something isn't literally stated out, it isn't RAW? It doesn't say you can't draw a weapon as part of a 5 foot step, yet we both know this to be true by extrapolation. |
| TheMagister09-27-05, 10:39 AM | Anya Starfire vs Sdentch (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7361325) Quick and dirty and a WHOLE LOTTA DAMAGE! Damn, that's brutal... The only things that I could've had Sdentch do better are: 1) Remember that she doesn't threaten anything without her armor on. 2) Ready an action once she's based to throw the trident at the first sign of power manifestation. THAT would've won the fight for her. Good run. Good sweet Mary and Joseph, those energy rays hurt... Congrats, Anya! Edit: Oh, yeah. Sdentch cost that little glass cannon her crossbow, too. TM |
| Snommelp09-27-05, 11:00 AM | Concerning Grik vs. Lothan: Usurpator's right; it's an area effect, so it technically doesn't target Grik, just the square he's in. He's also right about the first try failing because of the level check and NiQil's right about the missing ASF from armor. I don't know if spells failing burns the scrolls or not, but if it does this could become expensive for Lothan. EDIT: Baallorr (Tellish of Ket) vs Tak the Hungry (Oldmangray): Nightbanegod Snommelp If I'm going to do this, I need tactics, and soon! |
| Cerebus1309-27-05, 11:12 AM | Concerning Grik vs. Lothan: Usurpator's right; it's an area effect, so it technically doesn't target Grik, just the square he's in. He's also right about the first try failing because of the level check and NiQil's right about the missing ASF from armor. I don't know if spells failing burns the scrolls or not, but if it does this could become expensive for Lothan.Failing a Caster Level check to cast a higher level scroll does not burn the scroll out...unless they fail the subsequent DC 5 Wisdom check afterwards. |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 11:15 AM | @Gonbow: Are you able to finish the fight between Greevus and Nexa before coming wednesday? I planned for Nexa to go questing with Daeren soon, but if my fight is delayed until next week, then Nexa might not be able to go. For that matter, has anyone heard anything from Gonbow the last couple of days? If you and Cerebus13 forward me your tactics, I can get the fight done today. In any case, as I said to you in the PM - Daeren will wait to go on a quest until Nexa is 5th level since he lost versus Balbanes. |
| Enterik09-27-05, 11:19 AM | Well, the thoroughly suboptimal sleestak took another beating (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7355641), this time from human :embarrass @Enterik - I think you should review the rules for combat, specifically about readied actions and about when you can and can't use a 5ft step (you can't use it if you've moved at all during the round). Also, your tactics are a little difficult to follow and use because you are constantly assuming you can move - however, what happens if he bases you? According to your tactics you should still move - which is what you did here - provoking AoO from Axhind. Also, it bears noting that your character is in violation because of his tattoos. @TelinArtho: Yeah, well, I'll complete my transition from AD&D one of these days and be able to implement the rules correctly and consistantly. Thanks for being patient. I thought I had it straight, but was pressed for time when I did the rewrite. I'm not sure what 'bases you' means, so I'm not sure how to answer. I'm guessing you mean, what is your contingency for when you occupy a threatened square? Well in this instance, Devolved might have tried an overrun (since he's drawing an AoO anyways) but more likely, full attack. BUT since I needed a natural 20 to hit Axhind it didn't matter much in the end. One thing I'm not clear on, In round 8, what mechanism is there for Axhind to 'notice' the caltrops? There isn't a roll for it in the online roller, and he doesn't have ranks in search, and he's trying to engage Devolved in combat, not search the floor. Also in round 8, he triggered Devolved's only readied action for that round, a 5ft step away. Yet in the text Devolved gets another action so as to elicit an AoO. Is this another misunderstanding of how readied actions are resolved here in the CoCo? If so, I need an explicit explanation. It seems as if you have added an extra round for Devolved into round 8 and then maintained the original initiative order. Is that how the initiative consequences of a readied action are resolved in the CoCo? Regarding the Tattoos with the target of 'creature touched' I have seen others with those tattoos, so I thought it was okay, although I must admit to have not read all the rules about psionic tattoos. So, I should narc on those with such tattoos and get some credits accumulating? All in all, an educational and frustrational experience, but I don't know how much more I can stand to learn from Devolved Sleestak :P |
| Huan09-27-05, 11:25 AM | @Huan - I think Va'ria's losings are incorrect... she should get more than the losings for 5th level, though some other wizard nerf could make me wrong. Whoops, that was a typo, thanks for catching that. It should be 500 xp, not 300. Fixed. @Iced Shouldn't Dameon's losings vs 3 webslingers (curse you spiderman!) be 600xp/gp? (3x CR2 (600 xp/gp each) which is 1800 xp/gp had I won, divided by 3 again for the actual loss.) |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 11:29 AM | @Enterik: About the caltrops - well, I didn't see anything in the equipment section on how difficult it is to see them and they are scattered out in the open for Axhind to see. If you can find me a place where it says a search or spot DC for them - I will happily apply it - but I simply didn't find one when I was looking (I don't know all the rules either :) ) In round 7, DS was readied to attack and step back. So when, in round 8, Axhind moves in, DS attacks and steps back. Axhind finishes his actions (moving right next to you and attacking). Then, on your action, you move away - taking an AoO - drawing your sling while moving and then load it. As to the term "base" - it means to move directly next to a character (so you have no 5ft squares between you). As to the tattoos - this is something that has recently been uncovered and I suspect a lot of characters will be thrown in prison for it (for the augmented ones anyway). Your tattoos, if not augmented, would just be harmful for you if used. Since you never used them and bought them with a misunderstanding of the rules, you should be able to refund them for full price (get Cat's approval). |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 11:32 AM | @Cerebus13 - tactics received for Greevus. @Usurpator - if you send me the tactics for Nexa - I will do up the fight. /d |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 11:33 AM | I'm going to guess your next example will involve some unrelated tranfer of paralysis question. When are you going to deal with the core mechanic of the rule - attacking an enemy from the air while in a rapid descent? I did previously, as ToK did. Our opinion was that the diver gets the benefit, not its rider. Primary for two reasons: 1. Because the SRD says that the diver gets the double damage, and it does not say anywhere that the rider also gets this benefit. 2. Because of game balance. Your only counter-argument was the quote from the 'Rules of the Game'. Then I attempted to show that you should not take that quote as literally as you did, told you why I think you should not take it literally, and shown you examples of weird situations it leads to if you do take the quote literally. Now you ridicule my arguments without bringing anything substantial to refute their logic. Give me a couple other good examples from rules of the game, explain to me why my reasoning is flawed, and I may be persuaded to support your interpretation. I know I have been wrong or changed my opinion about rules interpretations plenty of times before. I am open to a good debate about this subject, I just don't want to fight you over this, it is not that an important issue to me. Once more for the sake of clarity: I don't think your point of view that 'a rider also gets double damage when his mount makes a diving attack' is impossible, against the rules or illogical. I just interpret the rules differently. The only argument you have given to support your position (the rules of the game sentence) is in itself not enough to convince me to support your interpretation for reasons mentioned in my previous posts. I also think we should stop debating this publically, since this case is only of a minor concern to most other posters here. |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 11:35 AM | @Cerebus13 - tactics received for Greevus. @Usurpator - if you send me the tactics for Nexa - I will do up the fight. /d Thank you. Unfortunately I can only send them from home, and it is at least two hours from now until I get there. |
| Mind Rogue09-27-05, 11:36 AM | The author offers both options for monster grappling, and I guess we simply chose the first one. He also points out that they are merely options, not rules (he says the rules are oddly silent). Also, on the subject of Mer-Man, I'm looking through his fights and the first one where he grapples is against Trokk where he says to attack in grapple. I'm having trouble finding another fight where he grapples right off hand, since I don't want to search through the other half of his fights, but I recall discussion where he had to make attacks and he only gets one claw and two rakes while grappling. Perhaps you'd like to find the fight upon which the precident was based. Wow, that was a lot of damage with the Anya vs Sdentch fight. If I didn't use skate or if the damage from the first ray was one higher, things would have been over a little faster, and with my health intact. If you had readied to attack, things would have been quite different. Sundering my bow before I could run away was a good tactic though: it just should have come after disrupting my all-powerful ray attack. |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 11:37 AM | Thank you. Unfortunately I can only send them from home, and it is at least two hours from now until I get there. Well, if you send them to me by tomorrow morning even, I should be able to get the fight done before pairings. Up to you. |
| NiQil09-27-05, 11:54 AM | @Enterik: About the caltrops - well, I didn't see anything in the equipment section on how difficult it is to see them and they are scattered out in the open for Axhind to see. If you can find me a place where it says a search or spot DC for them - I will happily apply it - but I simply didn't find one when I was looking (I don't know all the rules either :) ) In round 7, DS was readied to attack and step back. So when, in round 8, Axhind moves in, DS attacks and steps back. Axhind finishes his actions (moving right next to you and attacking). Then, on your action, you move away - taking an AoO - drawing your sling while moving and then load it. As to the term "base" - it means to move directly next to a character (so you have no 5ft squares between you). As to the tattoos - this is something that has recently been uncovered and I suspect a lot of characters will be thrown in prison for it (for the augmented ones anyway). Your tattoos, if not augmented, would just be harmful for you if used. Since you never used them and bought them with a misunderstanding of the rules, you should be able to refund them for full price (get Cat's approval). With regard to the caltrops, either Spot or Search could be used. As far as a DC is concerned, I would have to equate finding caltrops on the ground to something like finding a footprint, which according to the Track feat, the DC would be based on the type of ground it is on. The median DC for soft ground is DC 10. |
| Kaigan09-27-05, 11:55 AM | Hey guys, for Lothan vs. Grik. Thanks for pointing out the failed attempt at invis. and the ASF. I am in the process of rerunning it from round 1, and am on round 6 now. The rerun will be done tonight, becuase I have class now. Lates. |
| Cerebus1309-27-05, 12:00 PM | He also points out that they are merely options, not rules (he says the rules are oddly silent). Also, on the subject of Mer-Man, I'm looking through his fights and the first one where he grapples is against Trokk where he says to attack in grapple. I'm having trouble finding another fight where he grapples right off hand, since I don't want to search through the other half of his fights, but I recall discussion where he had to make attacks and he only gets one claw and two rakes while grappling. Perhaps you'd like to find the fight upon which the precident was based.PM Caterane about it and get his stance on the matter, I'm using the first option from the Rules of the Game article because that is what I thought was used here...if Caterane wants to use the second I'll adjust for that. Edit: I sent one. |
| Sindorin09-27-05, 12:01 PM | Okay, long and short of it ... if Omo-Na has the ability to Double Move and get near Goran, he has a high chance of being able to attack with a charge. I did some miscalculations with my initial post, so I had to edit and reply with this. I do not currently have the time to do all the math and angles, but ... double move to within 20', odds are good that he can attack. Mind you, in all of this I listed the 7D6 damage, and all of this could change anywhere along the line once a hit occurs, a trip-attempt would be attempted with any hit, Goran falling prone, etc, etc. I will have to scan the entire fight later, once corrections have been made. Please remember that with a reach of 20', charging has a whole different dynamic as to how it impacts a fight. Since you have my character sheet posted within the fight, I am going to link the fight to my character sheet for ease of reference. All other edits will be made after complete fight resolution. Final note - Should the rewards be: Win (1500xp, 1600gp) and Loss (500xp, 533gp)? LLMC Edits: I miscalculated for some of the distance, but the main changes have been made. Yeah, LL thanks for catching some of that stuff. I had forgotten what the gp rewards were. I will take a look at round 6 if I get a chance. I should have time to do so after my last class today, so you hopefully can edit it in before tomorrow's pairings. |
| Enterik09-27-05, 12:27 PM | @Enterik: About the caltrops - well, I didn't see anything in the equipment section on how difficult it is to see them and they are scattered out in the open for Axhind to see. If you can find me a place where it says a search or spot DC for them - I will happily apply it - but I simply didn't find one when I was looking (I don't know all the rules either :) ) Well, according to the SRD3.5 skills section, spot if for detecting creatures that are hiding or difficult to see, disguised or reading lips. whereas search, is used for scrutinizing inanimate locations and locating traps. Caltrops would seem to fall into the category of simple traps, which have a DC20, with Axhind having a +2 modifier for his elfishness. The entry says that such a search is a full round action, and gives no modifiers for being distracted. So the resolution in unclear but at best would seem to require a reactive check by Axhind. In round 7, DS was readied to attack and step back. So when, in round 8, Axhind moves in, DS attacks and steps back. Axhind finishes his actions (moving right next to you and attacking). Then, on your action, you move away - taking an AoO - drawing your sling while moving and then load it. So basically, readied actions are transferred to the next round which then proceeds past the interuption with the same initiative order? As to the term "base" - it means to move directly next to a character (so you have no 5ft squares between you). Gotcha, it would have been withdraw. As to the tattoos - this is something that has recently been uncovered and I suspect a lot of characters will be thrown in prison for it (for the augmented ones anyway). Your tattoos, if not augmented, would just be harmful for you if used. Since you never used them and bought them with a misunderstanding of the rules, you should be able to refund them for full price (get Cat's approval). So in essence, such tattoos are like a potion of inflict light wounds? |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 12:43 PM | I'd disagree that the caltrops would fall into the "simple trap category" - so that's pretty much where I am with that right now. Bear in mind that they are plainly out in sight and visible to the naked eye. As such, spot would be acceptable - but without a target DC - I am not going to edit it into the fight quite yet. Like I said, if you can find something that points directly to caltrops, I'd be willing to apply it. As to the readied action - you can ready up until your next turn in the initiative order. If it doesn't trigger, you keep the same initiative count. If your action is triggered, it takes place immediately before the action that triggered it (with one exception that I know of - I'll get to that). Once the action is triggered, for the rest of the encounter, your initiative is effectively one spot before the action that triggered the action. In other words, your actions were one round later but before Axhind - I was being lazy in keeping things the same way. This has no game effect when it involves 2 combatants - but it does change things in 3+ person fights. I apologize if it has left you confused. As to the analogy between a tattoo of dissolving touch and a potion of inflict light wounds - that's actually a very good one... this is why you want a crawling tattoo. |
| Gonbow09-27-05, 01:09 PM | @Gonbow: Are you able to finish the fight between Greevus and Nexa before coming wednesday? I planned for Nexa to go questing with Daeren soon, but if my fight is delayed until next week, then Nexa might not be able to go. For that matter, has anyone heard anything from Gonbow the last couple of days? Actually, yes I was planning to run and post it later today. I'm rather swamped with work which is why it's late, but as it looks like Cerebus has already sent tactics to Telin... You might as well. <mutters> There needs to be more time in the week. |
| TheMagister09-27-05, 01:12 PM | Wow, that was a lot of damage with the Anya vs Sdentch fight. If I didn't use skate or if the damage from the first ray was one higher, things would have been over a little faster, and with my health intact. If you had readied to attack, things would have been quite different. Sundering my bow before I could run away was a good tactic though: it just should have come after disrupting my all-powerful ray attack. I was fairly certain that Sdentch could survive that initial ray attack (boy, that was close!) It was the lack of readying with the trident (melee or thrown attack option is the key there) to knock you down when you manifested instead of sundering your crossbow that cost me the match. Well, live (or die) and learn! TM |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 01:14 PM | Actually, yes I was planning to run and post it later today. I'm rather swamped with work which is why it's late, but as it looks like Cerebus has already sent tactics to Telin... You might as well. <mutters> There needs to be more time in the week. Well the fight is still yours to finish up until Usurpator sends me tactics. However, if you are just going to give it to me (because you are too busy), can you forward Usurpator's tactics for Nexa - otherwise I have to wait. |
| Gonbow09-27-05, 01:16 PM | Well the fight is still yours to finish up until Usurpator sends me tactics. However, if you are just going to give it to me (because you are too busy), can you forward Usurpator's tactics for Nexa - otherwise I have to wait. Heeyyyyy logic. What place does that have here!?! Yeah, I'll forward them now. |
| Snommelp09-27-05, 01:18 PM | Baallorr (Tellish of Ket) vs Tak the Hungry (Oldmangray): Nightbanegod Snommelp If I'm going to do this, I need tactics, and soon! Just in case this was missed... if NBG got tactics, then he can forward them to me, otherwise, I need them from ToK and the Old Man before I can run the fight. If I don't get tactics by 8:30 PM or so my time, I'm running the fight without tactics. |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 01:31 PM | @Gonbow/Usurpator - tactics received for Nexa will start the fight now. @Snommelp - when taking a late fight, you must wait for tactics to be sent to you either by the former pitlord or by the individual combatants unless the original combatants never sent tactics in the first place. So if you don't receive the tactics - you should not run the fight. /d |
| Enterik09-27-05, 01:32 PM | I'd disagree that the caltrops would fall into the "simple trap category" - so that's pretty much where I am with that right now. Bear in mind that they are plainly out in sight and visible to the naked eye. As such, spot would be acceptable - but without a target DC - I am not going to edit it into the fight quite yet. Like I said, if you can find something that points directly to caltrops, I'd be willing to apply it. Don't worry, I'm not jockeying for a rerun of a match where I was hard pressed to actually hit my opponent. I just want the issue to be resolved for future use or not, depending upon the resolution. So, okay, caltrops are not simple traps, but they're pretty useless if your opponent automatically gets to avoid them. Since Axhind is intent on engaging DS in combat and not 5-foot stepping while looking at the ground, I'd say the spotter was distracted (-5 modifier). As to the spot DC, the caltrops themselves are probably diminuative, and thus have a +12 modifier to their 'Hide' DC, whereas by track the modifier to DC is +4. As to the readied action - you can ready up until your next turn in the initiative order. If it doesn't trigger, you keep the same initiative count. If your action is triggered, it takes place immediately before the action that triggered it (with one exception that I know of - I'll get to that). Once the action is triggered, for the rest of the encounter, your initiative is effectively one spot before the action that triggered the action. In other words, your actions were one round later but before Axhind - I was being lazy in keeping things the same way. This has no game effect when it involves 2 combatants - but it does change things in 3+ person fights. I apologize if it has left you confused. I figured it out...eventually As to the analogy between a tattoo of dissolving touch and a potion of inflict light wounds - that's actually a very good one... this is why you want a crawling tattoo. Although it seems pretty useless in the arena, even if it can crawl...edit: well maybe not... |
| Snommelp09-27-05, 01:36 PM | @Snommelp - when taking a late fight, you must wait for tactics to be sent to you either by the former pitlord or by the individual combatants unless the original combatants never sent tactics in the first place. So if you don't receive the tactics - you should not run the fight.Sound logic, except that I do not know whether or not tactics were sent in the first place. However, I will take your advice; if I receive no tactics, no fight shall be had. |
| Cerebus1309-27-05, 02:06 PM | @Mind Rogue Here is the question and response I received from Caterane:Originally Posted by Cerebus13 Cat, A question came up about natural weapons and grappling in a recent fight I ran. I was under the impression that we used the 1st of the 2 options presented in this Rules of the Game article. That option allows one grappling "option" for each of a creature's natural weapons...given that the weapon can hold on to the opponent in some fashion. The other option gives them grappling "options" based on BAB. I.E. they get an option for every 5 points of BAB they have. Which of these is the correct interpretation being used by the CoCo? I've missed the whole debate about that but as it stands it is the one option per natural weapon. We might need an Elder rule on that soon though. |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 02:07 PM | @Gonbow/Usurpator - tactics received for Nexa will start the fight now. /d Okay, just sent them myself as well, should have checked here first I guess... |
| Mind Rogue09-27-05, 02:14 PM | I was fairly certain that Sdentch could survive that initial ray attack (boy, that was close!) It was the lack of readying with the trident (melee or thrown attack option is the key there) to knock you down when you manifested instead of sundering your crossbow that cost me the match. Well, live (or die) and learn! TM Actually, I had done the math and I calculated that I would have a 90% chance to hit you with each ray. The first ray deals 7d6+6 damage, which averages 30 damage which is enough to drop you in one shot. Assuming that has about a 50% chance of being 30 pts (I don't want to run the actual result do to the extreme bell-curve), I would have had a 45% chance of droping you with one blow. I think the probability of this is actually a little higher, but that is still pretty good odds for a one-shot kill. Of course, if you had raged immediately, the bell-curve would have made it extremely unlikely for a one-hit KO. |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 02:37 PM | Unofficially - I'm not liking this fight I took... I can already see that there's going to be arguments about it. When the fight is posted, I want both players to carefully read their own tactics and the tactics of their opponents and realize that I HAD to make a decision here. You'll both see why when the fight is posted... |
| NiQil09-27-05, 02:44 PM | Unofficially - I'm not liking this fight I took... I can already see that there's going to be arguments about it. When the fight is posted, I want both players to carefully read their own tactics and the tactics of their opponents and realize that I HAD to make a decision here. You'll both see why when the fight is posted... <queue creepy suspenseful music> |
| Cerebus1309-27-05, 02:49 PM | Unofficially - I'm not liking this fight I took... I can already see that there's going to be arguments about it. When the fight is posted, I want both players to carefully read their own tactics and the tactics of their opponents and realize that I HAD to make a decision here. You'll both see why when the fight is posted...Well, considering I didn't even expect to win things could be worse I suppose. Greevus may be getting a rewrite, he's way too much of a wimp in melee combat for my tastes anymore. |
| TheMagister09-27-05, 03:04 PM | Actually, I had done the math and I calculated that I would have a 90% chance to hit you with each ray. The first ray deals 7d6+6 damage, which averages 30 damage which is enough to drop you in one shot. Assuming that has about a 50% chance of being 30 pts (I don't want to run the actual result do to the extreme bell-curve), I would have had a 45% chance of droping you with one blow. I think the probability of this is actually a little higher, but that is still pretty good odds for a one-shot kill. Of course, if you had raged immediately, the bell-curve would have made it extremely unlikely for a one-hit KO. I actually like the way it turned out. It was definitely quick and bloody. I have no problems at all with the fight. *I lost that one, nobody else! :) TM |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 03:04 PM | Well, considering I didn't even expect to win things could be worse I suppose. Greevus may be getting a rewrite, he's way too much of a wimp in melee combat for my tastes anymore. I guess my tactics were too careful, while I did expect too have a decent shot to win, I went on the assumption that Greevus would do anything to stay out of melee combat. And he had plenty of options to do so, he just didn't have that many options to kill Nexa. The suspense :twitch: |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-27-05, 03:14 PM | Sound logic, except that I do not know whether or not tactics were sent in the first place. However, I will take your advice; if I receive no tactics, no fight shall be had. Tactics sent. :D So i guess that means if he doesn't send you any, you'll have to use default now that you have one of the gladiators tactics. -ToK |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 03:32 PM | Tactics sent. :D So i guess that means if he doesn't send you any, you'll have to use default now that you have one of the gladiators tactics. -ToK I can tell you that when I started taking fights on Tuesdays (a few weeks ago), that Cat said NOT to run any fight where you have not received both sets of tactics. While I am not sure that your opponent ever sent tactics to nightbanegod - Snommelp still has to wait for confirmation of that. /d |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-27-05, 03:41 PM | I can tell you that when I started taking fights on Tuesdays (a few weeks ago), that Cat said NOT to run any fight where you have not received both sets of tactics. While I am not sure that your opponent ever sent tactics to nightbanegod - Snommelp still has to wait for confirmation of that. /d EDIT...ok..i see what you meant. My bad..you are right. -ToK |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 04:02 PM | Greevus vs Nexa (character sheets and tactics) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363934) Greevus vs Nexa - the fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363955) I want to remind both players that this was extremely tough to work with - so bear with me. |
| NiQil09-27-05, 04:09 PM | Greevus vs Nexa (character sheets and tactics) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363934) Greevus vs Nexa - the fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363955) I want to remind both players that this was extremely tough to work with - so bear with me. Just a thought here....and I don't necessarily disagree with how you decided on what to do with the random roll....but since both were in a holding pattern, if it had been me, I would have let them sit there and wait for the 10 rounds, and then start using crowd interaction to move one or both of them to something. Especially if one or both of them was hidden (I only skimmed the fight, so don't know details), the resulting listen checks from the crowd interaction might have changed things. Also, with them waiting as they both asked for, their buffs would start to wear off, which (if there were any), may have triggered other parts of their tactics. Just a thought...like I said....I don't disagree with what you did....just might have done it differently. |
| Cerebus1309-27-05, 04:12 PM | Greevus vs Nexa (character sheets and tactics) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363934) Greevus vs Nexa - the fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363955) I want to remind both players that this was extremely tough to work with - so bear with me.I didn't try very hard to win at this one, because I'm tired of Greevus' current form because he was designed to go on a Campaign. I'm probably restarting him to be more Arena oriented later. |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 04:16 PM | Just a thought here....and I don't necessarily disagree with how you decided on what to do with the random roll....but since both were in a holding pattern, if it had been me, I would have let them sit there and wait for the 10 rounds, and then start using crowd interaction to move one or both of them to something. Especially if one or both of them was hidden (I only skimmed the fight, so don't know details), the resulting listen checks from the crowd interaction might have changed things. Also, with them waiting as they both asked for, their buffs would start to wear off, which (if there were any), may have triggered other parts of their tactics. Just a thought...like I said....I don't disagree with what you did....just might have done it differently. Well the problem isn't so much that they are hiding. Look at the readied actions. Greevus wanted to wait until Nexa moved. Nexa wanted to wait until she heard spellcasting. Even if Nexa pinpointed Greevus - she didn't have any action listed to do anything with that - and closing for melee definitely wasn't on her agenda. Waiting wouldn't have done much - as the magic fang didn't come into play and I'm sure Greevus would've used his scorching ray before round 33. I just didn't think waiting that long was reasonable. For that matter - if it helps picture the fight better, add 30 rounds to it... |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 04:16 PM | Greevus vs Nexa (character sheets and tactics) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363934) Greevus vs Nexa - the fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7363955) I want to remind both players that this was extremely tough to work with - so bear with me. Well, the mutual holding action was certainly problematic, I can see that there was just no good solution for solving it, so you made the only possible impartial decision, good call. Since Nexa broke her tactics but she won in the end, you certainly won't get trouble from me for that decision. The rest of my tactics worked fine, I think. I had an appropriate counter for everything he threw at me. I don't see anything else to feel bad about, seeing my tactics in action makes me I feel very gratified. Thanks! I'd rather loose a match with my tactics applied succesfully than win one in which my tactics were misapplied totally. @Cerebus13 Why no hold person and CdG with weapon or summoned monsters? I kinda counted on that possibility. It might be a small chance, but its certainly better than nothing. |
| Iced09-27-05, 04:51 PM | gold corrected for Huan's loss vs the spiders. |
| Snommelp09-27-05, 05:16 PM | Query: Tak doesn't have his psionic focus listed as a prebuff, but it is mentioned in his default tactics that he will always enter psionically focused. Should I be mean and say "no psionic focus," even though the character clearly intends to always enter battle psionically focused? |
| TelinArtho09-27-05, 05:18 PM | Since the player is pretty new to the arena - I would point it out to him and give him some leeway on it. If we nitpick everything when people first start - they are much less likely to want to learn and more likely to just leave... But that's just me. I tend to cut everyone at least a little slack... |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 05:19 PM | Query: Tak doesn't have his psionic focus listed as a prebuff, but it is mentioned in his default tactics that he will always enter psionically focused. Should I be mean and say "no psionic focus," even though the character clearly intends to always enter battle psionically focused? I think some basic buffs are standard that I would even let people have them when they didn't mention it in their tactics: - read magic on scrolls - address powerstones - psionically focused I get tired of rereading those same buffs again and again. There is no reason why any people who can do this should not do this, at least, I can't think of any reason. Next thing you know the prebuffs include 'a good nights rests, slept without my armor on'. |
| Luni09-27-05, 05:24 PM | @NiQil: Keltsats fight is up! Keltsat vs Eiletha. Find it here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7364825&postcount=436) There is a map, though I don't think anyone can actually read it. |
| Luni09-27-05, 05:25 PM | I think some basic buffs are standard that I would even let people have them when they didn't mention it in their tactics: - read magic on scrolls - address powerstones - psionically focused I get tired of rereading those same buffs again and again. There is no reason why any people who can do this should not do this, at least, I can't think of any reason. Next thing you know the prebuffs include 'a good nights rests, slept without my armor on'. The Psionic Focus is fine as long as their Sonc. skill is +0 or better. I'm waiting for a Psion to appear with -1 con mod and no Conc. Skill. |
| Snommelp09-27-05, 05:37 PM | BTW, tactics from ToK received. NBG, did Oldmangray send you tactics, or should I run on default? |
| NiQil09-27-05, 05:53 PM | @NiQil: Keltsats fight is up! Keltsat vs Eiletha. Find it here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7364825&postcount=436) There is a map, though I don't think anyone can actually read it. One minor issue Per your map, it appears, when using the upper left hand corner of each box that the fighters are located in, that Keltsat has cover (with the straight-line knicking the corner of the pillar in between them). After looking at the coordinates on a larger map, I am all but sure that I do. If this is the case, the last acid arrow does not connect, and Keltsat has at least one more chance to either heal behind cover or connect with a bowshot before dying. Other than that....not much I can do when my opponent manages to make just about every roll he tries. Stupid Invisible Castle. Edit: After using paint to draw me some straight lines, I do indead have cover from the upper left hand corner of my square to the upper left hand corner of Eiletha's. |
| Usurpator09-27-05, 06:50 PM | So, Balbanes, I see you have weathered this weeks storm as well. You even made a good effort to conserve your precious resources, most commendable. Undoubtedly we will meet at some point in the near future, but since I see an officer of the prison approach us, I guess we have to continue our conversation at a later date. Nexa of the Twin Paths |
| Luni09-27-05, 07:50 PM | One minor issue Per your map, it appears, when using the upper left hand corner of each box that the fighters are located in, that Keltsat has cover (with the straight-line knicking the corner of the pillar in between them). After looking at the coordinates on a larger map, I am all but sure that I do. If this is the case, the last acid arrow does not connect, and Keltsat has at least one more chance to either heal behind cover or connect with a bowshot before dying. Other than that....not much I can do when my opponent manages to make just about every roll he tries. Stupid Invisible Castle. Edit: After using paint to draw me some straight lines, I do indead have cover from the upper left hand corner of my square to the upper left hand corner of Eiletha's. Cover To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. In this case, Eiletha chooses the lower right corner to make her final attack. You are right though, there isn't much you can do when only 1 side rolls good. |
| NiQil09-27-05, 07:57 PM | In this case, Eiletha chooses the lower right corner to make her final attack. You are right though, there isn't much you can do when only 1 side rolls good. I'm not quite sure that that is how the cover lines work. I was always under the impression that if any corner in the attackers box would go through cover when drawing a line to any box in the defender's box, then the defender has cover. I've never seen it played where the cover you receive is based on the corner you choose, because you are assumed to take up the entire 5-ft square you are standing in. Maybe I am just mixing up the melee and ranged cover rules. Not saying you are wrong....just never had it come up in a game I have played in before. Can someone confirm or deny this one way or the other? If Luni is correct, that's fine...I just want to know for sure for future reference. |
| Luni09-27-05, 08:07 PM | I'm not quite sure that that is how the cover lines work. I was always under the impression that if any corner in the attackers box would go through cover when drawing a line to any box in the defender's box, then the defender has cover. I've never seen it played where the cover you receive is based on the corner you choose, because you are assumed to take up the entire 5-ft square you are standing in. Maybe I am just mixing up the melee and ranged cover rules. Not saying you are wrong....just never had it come up in a game I have played in before. Can someone confirm or deny this one way or the other? If Luni is correct, that's fine...I just want to know for sure for future reference. That is how it works in melee. In ranged, the attacker picks any corner of his square. In my example, the left side is where he picks the bottom left corner. There is no cover for the large red creature. On the right side, the attacker uses the top right corner. The large red creature gets cover from all attacks there. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/Luni99/Coverexample.png |
| nightbanegod09-27-05, 09:00 PM | BTW, tactics from ToK received. NBG, did Oldmangray send you tactics, or should I run on default? i just double checked and i dont have any tactics from oldmangray |
| Ravashack09-27-05, 09:21 PM | IIRC, equipment destroyed in combat (like by Sunder) in the Arena only is autorepaired, right? |
| Tellish_of_Ket09-27-05, 09:22 PM | i just double checked and i dont have any tactics from oldmangray I guess default tactics it is then. IIRC, equipment destroyed in combat (like by Sunder) in the Arena only is autorepaired, right? You are correct. -ToK |
| King Uther09-27-05, 10:37 PM | "Nexa, you have witnessed glory first hand and felt the tip of death almost grip you in its evil maw. If you wish for the protection of Life, you will need your soul cleansed. Are you willing to make that sacrifice now, noble warrior?" |
| Faroth09-27-05, 11:50 PM | @Kaigan: Sorry for bothering, but I specified to begin casting sleep aprox 100 ft away to avoid melee. I said begin moving half my movement (don't have penaltyes to move silently) and get my position to cast (try to be with cover). I prefere an arrow than a slash of his blade. That was on my tactics. Thanks ;) |
| Snommelp09-28-05, 12:33 AM | Tak vs. Baallorr is up. A psionic class and a wizard get into a slug-fest... is this a sign that the end of the world is coming? |
| NiQil09-28-05, 02:17 AM | Vakkor vs the HMC now has it's story...take a look. Feedback welcome! |
| Kaigan09-28-05, 10:33 AM | The rerun fight of Lothan vs. Grik is up. Please check it out. The result stayed the same. |
| Snommelp09-28-05, 10:58 AM | The rerun fight of Lothan vs. Grik is up. Please check it out. The result stayed the same. Looks good... tough fight for me. But now Grik knows about Sleep spells, so he'll be more careful. Very minor issue: Grik may or may not have used 1 arrow; it missed, which gives Grik a 50% chance of recovery. |
| Huan09-28-05, 11:34 AM | The story for Telari vs Va'ria will be delayed but will come soon... it will be worth the wait, I assure you. |
| Sindorin09-28-05, 02:22 PM | heh, there are so many "if only's" about that fight... if only your dice had rolled one more point of damage... if only I had not been an idiot and bought a melee weapon... if only I had bought scrolls of magic missile... So many. Good fight, Luni :) |
| Luni09-28-05, 02:44 PM | heh, there are so many "if only's" about that fight... if only your dice had rolled one more point of damage... if only I had not been an idiot and bought a melee weapon... if only I had bought scrolls of magic missile... So many. Good fight, Luni :) Was a good fight Sindorin! |
| TelinArtho09-28-05, 02:49 PM | Vakkor vs the HMC now has it's story...take a look. Feedback welcome! Looks good to me - thanks! |
| Delusional Illusion09-28-05, 05:19 PM | Was the fight Wlandra (Delusional Illusion) vs The Dire Flame (Iced) by Ellorien ever run? Can't find any reference to it. It seems I had to miss this week because of waiting :weep: Oh well, can't help it. |
| Iced09-28-05, 05:36 PM | Dire Flame didn't get to paste Wlandra along the arena walls... :weep: This is indeed a sad occurence... Well on to next week... |