Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 11:39 AM	Fights of the Week: April 18th Please don't edit the sheet after the deadline or you will lose the match. Rules of Gladius All that you need to know is written in the Rules of Gladius. It could be useful also to give a look to the Court Decisions Part 1 and Part 2. Please do not make fake accounts or insult the Elders. Pairings GM-in-Training MindwandererB will pair the active Characters of Gladius after the deadline. Make sure that your character is not in prison. Pitlording You should use the CoCo Dice Roller (http://www.hwx.it/wizards.com) for the fight. If you need it, there is a nice template ready to use that will help. You could find the Battle Map Tag Generator (http://www.hwx.it/coco) for dynamic Maps very useful. You must post a link to your fight in this thread when it is complete. If you need a quick and dirty tool to calculate distances between two points (in 2-D or 3-D), this tool (http://wormhole.ath.cx/coco/coco_dist.php) should suffice. Another useful link is the Quick Access tables for XP and Gold. If a fight needs to be rerun, the Pitlord has to inform the Pitlords account. He cannot react to requests from Players because the other player and the pitlord might disagree. He has no time to read the fight and the discussion. Please keep that in mind. PMs from players with rerun requests won't have an impact. Recent News and Developments The Iron Man tournament Round 2 continues this week - good luck to all involved Comments & Concerns Post any comments or concerns for this weeks fights in this thread. Be kind and courteous to your fellow posters, and don't feed the pitlords. Please remember that they do hard work and consume a lot of time to let you play. Above all, have FUN! If you have questions or comments on any of the changes, please make your posts be heard in the Council of Gladius!
McJarvis 04-18-07, 12:12 PM	I know the pairings have not been rolled this week yet-> but I'm pretty sure TIM is going to lose his fight. I just have a feeling. (and since my strong feelings about fights are almost always correct, I find I must trust this one... :( )
templer10 04-18-07, 12:20 PM	I know the pairings have not been rolled this week yet-> but I'm pretty sure TIM is going to lose his fight. I just have a feeling. (and since my strong feelings about fights are almost always correct, I find I must trust this one... :( ) Dont know what you are worried about - you have 6 Sl's (more then usually) and that stupidly high speed mount - EDIT - NM didnt see TIM is an elf (human paragon would have rocked with this build) btw- a fight between TIM and my druid (elrick) can be fun- can your truestike death arrows or super charge (if in a small map) kill me before i BBQ u to death?
Zevox 04-18-07, 12:21 PM	I know the pairings have not been rolled this week yet-> but I'm pretty sure TIM is going to lose his fight. I just have a feeling. (and since my strong feelings about fights are almost always correct, I find I must trust this one... :( ) Well, I was going over the ECL 5 competitors (my only character whose fight wasn't held over, Mithos, is that level). You've got two Druids - Zax and Elric - you could face, and I'd imagine Zax's army in the right map would be a tough situation for TIM. You've got MWB's undefeated Orc Gak (that'd be one I'd be interested in seeing - two of WAR's undefeated characters go at it :D ). You've got Razorfang, who I imagine you'd clean up easily. You've got Zodiac, whose save-or-dies aren't pleasant for anyone but who is frail as hell. And of course you've got Mithos, who would mop the floor with you easily* ;) . *Actually, I imagine that'd be a pretty even fight, depending on the map. Zevox
McJarvis 04-18-07, 12:51 PM	Druids? No wonder I had that feeling :( I hadn't considered my options(I just don't feel optimistic this week) -> but I think the only matchup I don't wanna hit is the battle-sorc barbarian guy. Not really out of fear or anything, but an overwhelming sense of pride that the battle sorcs of CoCo have great records :)
McJarvis 04-18-07, 01:06 PM	RE: TIM being human. I detest playing humans-> almost as much as I hate playing druids.
waywreth 04-18-07, 01:38 PM	Well, I was going over the ECL 5 competitors... Zevox You can add an evoker to that list of active competitors. Matthis III just leveled, and although he can't buy anything for a few weeks, the added spells and SLs will help immensely. Let the fireballing begin!
Zevox 04-18-07, 02:32 PM	You can add an evoker to that list of active competitors. Matthis III just leveled, and although he can't buy anything for a few weeks, the added spells and SLs will help immensely. Let the fireballing begin! *shrugs* He wasn't set to ready when I was going over them, but I'll be glad to introduce him to Mithos' saves, blade, and magic if they get matched up :D . Zevox
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 03:20 PM	@Sjiggie - your miniquest is up A Pair of Doves Good luck.
Erithmu 04-18-07, 03:23 PM	@Telin: your Mission is up The Ins and Outs of Gawane Good Luck.
hogarth 04-18-07, 03:57 PM	Gakhnalak Strongjaw (MindWandererB) vs. The Illustrated Man (McJarvis) THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE! :duel:
Pitlords 04-18-07, 03:57 PM	Pairings done. Gets easier every time... (I say just before I get bombarded with mistakes I made.) Oh, and I hate my life. Gakh vs. TIM, and Kervan the Wimpy in a Hunter with a lycanthrope guildmate and a centaur.
McJarvis 04-18-07, 04:01 PM	Oh, the bitter irony. -_-
Hirumajoe 04-18-07, 04:01 PM	@Templer10: If you get my monster rolled and what little information I'm supposed to have up, I can have tactics to you by tonight. Also, if you could tell me if my Scouting and Ambush package skills are sufficient to be used on the monster. (Yay for 2 prebuff rounds, a surprise round, and knowing where the enemy starts...)
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 04:09 PM	@Pitlords - Valanthe Valassar seems to be missing from pairings - he is miniquesting to join the CEF. So I finally make a character to use the attack and defend packages. My skills far outclass my opponent, but I am attacking - so the set trap fails. But at least assassinate and ambush work... of course he has no allies. And of course Burglary works as well - except he has no expendables... Welcome to the arena my illfated theif... (Good luck NiQil)
templer10 04-18-07, 04:09 PM	@Templer10: If you get my monster rolled and what little information I'm supposed to have up, I can have tactics to you by tonight. Also, if you could tell me if my Scouting and Ambush package skills are sufficient to be used on the monster. (Yay for 2 prebuff rounds, a surprise round, and knowing where the enemy starts...) Ill do it later tonight- doing WoW raid as we speak- can u refresh my memory about all those packeges and what u ned to make it?
templer10 04-18-07, 04:10 PM	Elrick Flamebrother (templer10) vs. Matthis Dar'ath III (waywreth) vs. Razorfang (Macbrea) : Erithmu [Plains] [All-vs-All] - the only question really is who's going to get to kill razorfang first..... (and who will be on top after that).
Pitlords 04-18-07, 04:10 PM	Credits: +6: Erithmu +4: templer10, TheMagister +3: MindWandererB, SauroGrenom, Vathelokai +2: McJarvis, Sjiggie, TelinArtho +1: Abyssal Stalker, Etiquette_Gnome, Horatius, Malither76, Maraxus, MitzaVolchenko, sonofzeal +0: Macbrea, Zevox -1: NiQil, Rauul
Macbrea 04-18-07, 04:10 PM	Rerolling Malik of Black Robe as we speak. Sorry, your last one was unknown to me also. :P
Hirumajoe 04-18-07, 04:17 PM	Ill do it later tonight- doing WoW raid as we speak- can u refresh my memory about all those packeges and what u ned to make it? The link to them are here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576#post6466576 I'm not sure if it works on multiple monsters (I'm guessing not since it doesn't work on multiple PCs), but in the case of a single monster: For the Scouting Package: I need to have a higher Use Rope Skill (+8) than its Escape Artist skill. On a take 10, (10+6) I need to beat its 15 plus tracking modifiers (Basically if there's one small or larger corporeal creature I succeed, unless it has pass without trace). If the above is true, I get 2 prebuff rounds. For the Ambush Package: I need to have higher Hide (+18) than their Spot. I need to have higher Move Silenty (+11) than their Listen. I need to have higher Bluff (+4) than their Sense Motive. I need to have higher Sense Motive (+6) than their Bluff. If the above is true, I get a surprise round and get to choose both their and my own starting boxes (which can't be the same).
Erithmu 04-18-07, 04:17 PM	Bulgar Stronghammer (TelinArtho) & Rauul Darkstar (Rauul) vs. Erithmu Darkmane (Erithmu) & Le Petit Guepe (Horatius) : templer10 Telin ... what are you doing bringing fighter levels to the cleric fight? A dwarf cleric, an elf cleric, a halfling cleric and a human cleric walk into the arena ...
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 04:22 PM	Bulgar Stronghammer (TelinArtho) & Rauul Darkstar (Rauul) vs. Erithmu Darkmane (Erithmu) & Le Petit Guepe (Horatius) : templer10 Telin ... what are you doing bringing fighter levels to the cleric fight? A dwarf cleric, an elf cleric, a halfling cleric and a human cleric walk into the arena ... Standing over the losers obviously...
templer10 04-18-07, 04:25 PM	Bulgar Stronghammer (TelinArtho) & Rauul Darkstar (Rauul) vs. Erithmu Darkmane (Erithmu) & Le Petit Guepe (Horatius) : templer10 Telin ... what are you doing bringing fighter levels to the cleric fight? A dwarf cleric, an elf cleric, a halfling cleric and a human cleric walk into the arena ... well i got shafted with pitlording that ..... of cr%p... sigh. please have tactic ASAP- it's going totake forever to run this fight.
Macbrea 04-18-07, 04:39 PM	Monster rolled for Malik of Black Robe Knowledge: non-applicable! Tactics: Send when ready! Description: Size: medium Description: The Most Fear-inspiring multi-armed multi-tenticles hairy slimy awe-inspiring child-rending horribly groutesque undescribable creature you have ever seen!
Erithmu 04-18-07, 04:41 PM	Monster rolled for Malik of Black Robe Knowledge: non-applicable! Tactics: Send when ready! Description: Size: medium Description: The Most Fear-inspiring multi-armed multi-tenticles hairy slimy awe-inspiring child-rending horribly groutesque undescribable creature you have ever seen!You forgot many sharp pointy teeth.
Zevox 04-18-07, 04:42 PM	Mithos vs Monster? Bah, thats dull. Unless the thing is humanoid, hes not going to know diddly, which means shot-in-the-dark tactics, which are so boring to write... bah. At least I have Arden and Ceilia's MQs I suppose. @ EG - If you get the monster rolled by tomorrow, I'll get you Mithos' tactics tomorrow afternoon. Not tonight - I've had all of 3 hours of sleep in as many days, thanks to some school papers, so I'm going to bed early tonight. Zevox
waywreth 04-18-07, 04:50 PM	@Erithmu - Tactics for Matthis III in Elrick Flamebrother (templer10) vs. Matthis Dar'ath III (waywreth) vs. Razorfang (Macbrea) : Erithmu [Plains] [All-vs-All] sent via PM.
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 05:03 PM	well i got shafted with pitlording that ..... of cr%p... sigh. please have tactic ASAP- it's going totake forever to run this fight. Actually - I've found that team fights tend to be easier to run... but that's just me. I've sent ideas to my partner and will hope to have them finalized tomorrow sometime. I have also sent Ilendil's tactics and Zax's tactics. I can't send Jar-red's until I have my monster lore (let's be serious - unless it is flying - I know what his tactics are already...). [EDIT] Heh - its in the cavern... I definitely know what his tactics are then...
templer10 04-18-07, 05:11 PM	The link to them are here: http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576#post6466576 I'm not sure if it works on multiple monsters (I'm guessing not since it doesn't work on multiple PCs), but in the case of a single monster: For the Scouting Package: I need to have a higher Use Rope Skill (+8) than its Escape Artist skill. On a take 10, (10+6) I need to beat its 15 plus tracking modifiers (Basically if there's one small or larger corporeal creature I succeed, unless it has pass without trace). If the above is true, I get 2 prebuff rounds. For the Ambush Package: I need to have higher Hide (+18) than their Spot. I need to have higher Move Silenty (+11) than their Listen. I need to have higher Bluff (+4) than their Sense Motive. I need to have higher Sense Motive (+6) than their Bluff. If the above is true, I get a surprise round and get to choose both their and my own starting boxes (which can't be the same). i rolled the monster- no applicable knowladge, huge really nasty creature (not flying), you get ambush and scout- use it well- i predict u getting smashed. on a second thought- does being huge in the cavern consider autolose? i can see it having problems But not neseserly lose.
TelinArtho 04-18-07, 05:21 PM	Nope - it only has to squeeze in a few areas and since huge creatures have reach - they can be pretty nasty...
templer10 04-18-07, 05:23 PM	so just to refresh for myself - when casting the mirror image - all the images are in teh sma squere as the wizard right (so a 5 foot AOE can hit the wizard anyway). oh- and is blindesense enough to ignore mirror image?
MindWandererB 04-18-07, 05:25 PM	so just to refresh for myself - when casting the mirror image - all the images are in teh sma squere as the wizard right (so a 5 foot AOE can hit the wizard anyway). oh- and is blindesense enough to ignore mirror image? Correct on the former. On the latter, no; blindsense will let you pinpoint the square, but you know that already.
SauroGrenom 04-18-07, 05:26 PM	so just to refresh for myself - when casting the mirror image - all the images are in teh sma squere as the wizard right (so a 5 foot AOE can hit the wizard anyway). oh- and is blindesense enough to ignore mirror image?No. Blindsense only gives you a pinpoint. You still have to deal with the images. If you close your eyes and have blindsense, then you attack with a 50% miss chance.
templer10 04-18-07, 05:27 PM	Correct on the former. On the latter, no; blindsense will let you pinpoint the square, but you know that already. all i need is the right squre really so that's okay.
TaggIIV 04-18-07, 05:35 PM	tactics for tagg sent to templer
templer10 04-18-07, 06:06 PM	No. Blindsense only gives you a pinpoint. You still have to deal with the images. If you close your eyes and have blindsense, then you attack with a 50% miss chance. as long as i know which squere he is i can blast using AoA (5 feet radius) so i dont really care about images.
Rauul 04-18-07, 06:11 PM	Graashnak was suppost to be active for a guild operation this week for WaR... Him and Tralamin, if this isn't happening i will send tactics i suppose..
Erithmu 04-18-07, 06:17 PM	Graashnak was suppost to be active for a guild operation this week for WaR... Him and Tralamin, if this isn't happening i will send tactics i suppose.. the Operations start a week from when they are announced, they were announced this week, they start next week.
Rauul 04-18-07, 06:24 PM	the Operations start a week from when they are announced, they were announced this week, they start next week. well dodo... 18th is the 18th not the 25th LOL.. ok thanks...
McJarvis 04-18-07, 06:32 PM	so just to refresh for myself - when casting the mirror image - all the images are in teh sma squere as the wizard right (so a 5 foot AOE can hit the wizard anyway). oh- and is blindesense enough to ignore mirror image? The Mirror Image spell specifies that each image must merely be within 5' of at least one other image or yourself. I see no reason why they should *have* to be in the same 5 ft square, nor is there a house rule specified here to my knowledge. So far as I can tell, this is merely a "very commonly misconstrewed" CoCo fact. ?
MindWandererB 04-18-07, 06:35 PM	The Mirror Image spell specifies that each image must merely be within 5' of at least one other image or yourself. I see no reason why they should *have* to be in the same 5 ft square, nor is there a house rule specified here to my knowledge. So far as I can tell, this is merely a "very commonly misconstrewed" CoCo fact. ? We probably should address this at some point... but the problem is, it's a royal pain in the butt to figure out the location of 6 or more images. Technically, McJ is right, though.
Rauul 04-18-07, 06:58 PM	@Maraxus Tactics sent for Shadow Vs General Mcjarvis
McJarvis 04-18-07, 07:17 PM	We probably should address this at some point... but the problem is, it's a royal pain in the butt to figure out the location of 6 or more images. Technically, McJ is right, though. I don't mind reaching a compromise for simplicities sake, but I'd really like "closing your eyes" not to be an effective tactic vs mirror image.
Hirumajoe 04-18-07, 07:29 PM	i rolled the monster- no applicable knowladge, huge really nasty creature (not flying), you get ambush and scout- use it well- i predict u getting smashed. on a second thought- does being huge in the cavern consider autolose? i can see it having problems But not neseserly lose. Hmm... So there's only one. Its not flying. Its huge. It has bad listen/spot/bluff/sense motive/escape artist skills. And its not an aberation/ooze/animal/fey/monstrous humanoid/plant/vermin. (Also not human by hugeness, not dragon by flying, not outsider by CR - huge outsiders tend to be tougher than CR 9 or fly) That leaves Undead or Magical Beast. And its most likely going to smash me. My guess is a Hydra of some form (could also be Undead skeleton/zombie template or perhaps a buffed up magical beast of some kind). Anyways thanks, I'll try to finish up my tactics tonight.
MindWandererB 04-18-07, 07:55 PM	@TheMagister and Telin: Tactics for Gakhnalak and Kervan sent, respectively. Baaaad week for me... probably karma from cleaning shop last week. Well, you win some, you lose some.
Hirumajoe 04-18-07, 09:09 PM	@Templer10: Tactics sent for Valen Sky vs Unknown Monster
Roulex 04-18-07, 09:26 PM	@Malither76: I'll get tactics to you ASAP as soon as you get the little information I know about the monster I'm fighting :eek:
Yitzi 04-18-07, 09:35 PM	I notice that Lightwolf is fighting the same person he fought in his first fight. Is that not supposed to happen or something? Or is that only within each level? And tactics have been sent for Dunerunner.
NiQil 04-18-07, 09:41 PM	@Pitlords - Valanthe Valassar seems to be missing from pairings - he is miniquesting to join the CEF. So I finally make a character to use the attack and defend packages. My skills far outclass my opponent, but I am attacking - so the set trap fails. But at least assassinate and ambush work... of course he has no allies. And of course Burglary works as well - except he has no expendables... Welcome to the arena my illfated theif... (Good luck NiQil) Finally! My Uber-McScroogishness pays off! I just gotta say....I got home from work and read that and I collapsed laughing for a solid 5 minutes.
Rauul 04-18-07, 09:42 PM	Looking down the ECL 4 list of monsters to fight... i notice there is only 1 elf group... 89: 1 Wild elf Ranger 1 on Pegasus [CR1+CR3] anyone wanna bet that thats the one Graashnak will get stuck with out of a d100 roll.... And if I do.... So help me Elf Slayer will be on the list... no matter what...
Rauul 04-18-07, 09:45 PM	I notice that Lightwolf is fighting the same person he fought in his first fight. Is that not supposed to happen or something? Or is that only within each level? And tactics have been sent for Dunerunner. Oh i wish... But no such luck... My Cleric faced off with a silly goblin for 3 weeks in a row.. (all lost to drow poison before i could change my spell list to get delay poison in) So no luck on that..
Malither76 04-18-07, 09:52 PM	@Roulex, you have a large giant, no ally to assassinate, ambush works so let me know where you want you and it to start and what you will be doing in your surprise round in tactics, the monster is guarding its stuff assuming all monsters would be doing this at least the ones with intelligence.
NiQil 04-18-07, 10:50 PM	@ templer30: Tactics for The Hunter sent via PM @ sonofzeal: Tactics for The Seeker sent via PM @ Malither76: Tactics for Taren Rune sent via PM @ Horatius: Tactics for Tyden Rayn sent via PM
Roulex 04-18-07, 11:32 PM	@ Malither76, tactics sent.
Deathspell_Omega 04-18-07, 11:48 PM	And of course Burglary works as well - except he has no expendables...Or in my case, opponent has a single expandable for 250gp. Perfect way to start a career. Uhm, can I steal the half of it? XD Edit: Tactics will be sent in 13 hours.
Rauul 04-19-07, 12:15 AM	Anyone else find it funny that the 4 clerics in the team battle... 2 neutral good 1 neutral and 1 neutral evil.. That battle should be fun to watch..
templer10 04-19-07, 03:10 AM	Anyone else find it funny that the 4 clerics in the team battle... 2 neutral good 1 neutral and 1 neutral evil.. That battle should be fun to watch.. To watch- not to run- keeping track of god knows how many buffs, spell levels and whatnot.
Etiquette_Gnome 04-19-07, 03:53 AM	Do I store the information as to what an opponent is going to fight in a monster fight in some medium, or is it a surprise for everyone by the Pitlord running it until the fight's posted?
templer10 04-19-07, 04:11 AM	Do I store the information as to what an opponent is going to fight in a monster fight in some medium, or is it a surprise for everyone by the Pitlord running it until the fight's posted? I usually do a 1d100 in the roller- then make it private (So no one else but you can see it) then after tactics are sent and fight is made you can make it public and the poor sod who got squased (or not) can see it was the right monster.
templer10 04-19-07, 04:19 AM	Erithmu - Tactics for elrick flamebrother in ECL5 ffa in the plains sent- IMHO- razorfang is going to come out second just becuase he's not really a danger to anyone unless some really odd stuff were to happen.
templer10 04-19-07, 09:17 AM	question - monsters in monster fights arent subject to the 1/3 rule right?
Macbrea 04-19-07, 09:17 AM	Nope..
templer10 04-19-07, 09:20 AM	Nope.. 2 Bad for valen sky- he got pitted against a pherenic bullete- i have so many ways to kill him the only limiting factor is the fact it's still an animal and so wont do the most intelligent thing.
templer10 04-19-07, 09:33 AM	NM found it
Erithmu 04-19-07, 09:35 AM	Huge is 15 foot hig and 15 reach or 20 high+reach? It says in the SRD ... for the bulette it is 15ft high and 10 ft reach
Abyssal Stalker 04-19-07, 09:36 AM	NM found it No, a huge creature is a 15x15x15 cube that has a reach stated in the creature's entry. All creatures are cubes, no matter what they are shaped or look like. Except maybe for purple worm. I think that you are probably referring to "long" and "tall", but aren't they 3.0? Edit: Kiai
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 09:49 AM	Received tactics from MWB and Maraxus. Just need tactics from Vath to start on that one...
templer10 04-19-07, 09:58 AM	No, a huge creature is a 15x15x15 cube that has a reach stated in the creature's entry. All creatures are cubes, no matter what they are shaped or look like. Except maybe for purple worm. I think that you are probably referring to "long" and "tall", but aren't they 3.0? Edit: Kiai it say in the entry 10 feet reach and it's bad enough - that thing is nasty on it's own but with psi like abilities and PR? - ouch.
Abyssal Stalker 04-19-07, 10:01 AM	it say in the entry 10 feet reach and it's bad enough - that thing is nasty on it's own but with psi like abilities and PR? - ouch. Just take a look at the Troll Weretyrannosaurus... Yep, CR10. A piece of cake for any EL10 character, right? Edit: If I get to do an EL10 quest, maybe I'll toss in a Vampire Ogre Werebear... Edit 2: Nah, impossible.
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 10:09 AM	Actually, for Valen, the PR is kinda meaningless. He has no powers which are affected by Power resistance. :) Similarly, with a will save of 14 to 16 (assuming Quartz lives through first contact) against those offensive psionic powers, he just needs to avoid rolling a 1. So not too much danger there (still could end him with an unlucky roll). The defensive abilities are annoying but not the end of the world. I'm just lucky Phrenic creatures don't come with Dispel Psionics. And he does have spring attack and mobility. So a squeezed Bullete needs to roll a 20 to hit him when he's moving. Assuming he's not out right spring attacking at which point the reach isn't all that important. However, the big issue is the raw damage it can do outright. If Valen does straight melee it, I don't give him good odds. But if he can soften it up for a round or two with some ranged attacks, and fight it while its in a squeezed area he has a fightning chance.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 10:19 AM	Just take a look at the Troll Weretyrannosaurus... Yep, CR10. A piece of cake for any EL10 character, right? Edit: If I get to do an EL10 quest, maybe I'll toss in a Vampire Ogre Werebear... Edit 2: Nah, impossible. I love it when people bring up the Troll Weretyrannosaurus... First off - remember that the encounters are designed to end in character death about 50% of the time (hence the CR vs ECL of the character). Secondly - a weretyrannosaurus versus a spellcaster is a pretty easy fight. One Hold Monster versus its whopping +10 Will save (+2 Giant, +6 Animal, +2 Iron Will) is fairly easy to do. Raw damage capacity isn't out of the question either - but you have to know your weaknesses should not be exposed. Meaning - this thing would be a beast in melee combat - so make sure you force it to ranged combat for as long as possible. Force it to squeeze since it will likely be huge. The regeneration is a big hurdle - but its not like the Hydra's impressive fast healing. The AC of the thing is bearable as well. Don't get me wrong - there are certainly things I would prefer to face at ECL10 with Kraegin or Sir Valkin - but I wouldn't count my characters out just yet... And of course, the map can make or break you against the were-tyrannosaurus... Sir Valkin would prefer to be on the open plains so that he could do endless Spirited Charges for 3d8+12[+27 (smite)][+15 (divine might)] Looking him over though - it appears I never made him a Silver lance... I should probably fix that...
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 10:54 AM	@Templer10: Hope you read this before you get to far. I've taken a look at the roller, and I'm noticing a few things. You indicate Rapid Fire haste rounds, but I only see 3 shots each. Valen gets 4 attacks when doings so. Three at full BAB and one at BAB -5. There's no reason not to fire the last shot. Secondly, you may be forgetting the Offensive Prescience buff which adds +2 damage to each hit (if for some reason Valen didn't get a chance to buff this thats fine). Thanks.
templer10 04-19-07, 11:15 AM	@Templer10: Hope you read this before you get to far. I've taken a look at the roller, and I'm noticing a few things. You indicate Rapid Fire haste rounds, but I only see 3 shots each. Valen gets 4 attacks when doings so. Three at full BAB and one at BAB -5. There's no reason not to fire the last shot. Secondly, you may be forgetting the Offensive Prescience buff which adds +2 damage to each hit (if for some reason Valen didn't get a chance to buff this thats fine). Thanks. hmm forgot the rapid shot - on the other hand - i also forgot the minuses it gives - ill go over and check- and do more attacks- i remmber the offensive precog just tired of diffrent bonus's to roller so considering it's just you VS monster iam adding the bonus's later. btw- that monster constantly cant reach valen so it's getting anooying and going to go for a bit of grapple to keep you still if it can reach you (and then it's all over basicly). BTW- just making sure- in grapple when you have natural attack you either attack with it at -4 or do grapple check for unarmed strike dmg (1d6 + str for huge?) if you do natural attacks how many you get - as many as number of natural attacks you have?
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 11:23 AM	hmm forgot the rapid shot - on the other hand - i also forgot the minuses it gives - ill go over and check- and do more attacks- i remmber the offensive precog just tired of diffrent bonus's to roller so considering it's just you VS monster iam adding the bonus's later. Fair enough. Just trying to save you having to go back alot. Or run the fight longer than it needs to go. :)
templer10 04-19-07, 11:30 AM	Fair enough. Just trying to save you having to go back alot. Or run the fight longer than it needs to go. :) Btw- about melee - you only said to use spring attack for initial attack - and only to engage in melee if the monster is faster or unaffected by ranged dmg.
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 11:36 AM	Btw- about melee - you only said to use spring attack for initial attack - and only to engage in melee if the monster is faster or unaffected by ranged dmg. Thats correct. Although in modifications, it does say use spring attack as needed to avoid AoOs due to reach. (He can do this even while carrying the bow because of the armor spikes). Although, if you're asking what happens when Valen does go melee, then yes, the tactics indicate to get it into a squeezing situation and just full attack (with Haste and Animal Affinity - Strength). No fancy Spring Attack manuevers every round. And I also noted Valen can afford AoOs due to movement when its squeezed, but don't go out of your way to provoke them (in the Important notes section). Although, are you asking a question or just stating a fact?
templer10 04-19-07, 11:39 AM	Thats correct. Although in modifications, it does say use spring attack as needed to avoid AoOs due to reach. (He can do this even while carrying the bow because of the armor spikes). Although, if you're asking what happens when Valen does go melee, then yes, the tactics indicate to get it into a squeezing situation and just full attack (with Haste and Animal Affinity - Strength). No fancy Spring Attack manuevers every round. And I also noted Valen can afford AoOs due to movement when its squeezed, but don't go out of your way to provoke them (in the Important notes section). Although, are you asking a question or just stating a fact? just stating a fact- now can someone answer my question about grapple?
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 11:51 AM	BTW- just making sure- in grapple when you have natural attack you either attack with it at -4 or do grapple check for unarmed strike dmg (1d6 + str for huge?) if you do natural attacks how many you get - as many as number of natural attacks you have? In a grapple, a creature with a natural attack can attack with that natural attack at -4 for his regular damage. Alternatively the creature can grapple for damage with an opposed grapple check, which if successful deals unarmed strike damage for the size plus the strength modifier of the creature. In both cases, a creature gets one attack per 5 BAB (so 2 at +6 BAB through +10, 3 at +11 through +15, 4 at +16 through +20). A creature that initiates the grapple through improved grab has different rules (namely - it deals natural attack damage with a successful grapple check and possibly constriction or other special things...)
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 11:54 AM	Oh, sorry, missed that question. Here's the relevant sections: When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses. Attack Your Opponent You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty on your grapple check. So the Bullete can take one natural attack for each 5 points of BAB (or portion thereof) it has, but takes a -4 penalty on the attack. It also takes a -5 penalty on the second attack. Also note that if its squeezed it takes an additional -4 to hit. And that when grappling, the attacker moves into the defender's space. Otherwise it can make grapple checks to damage the opponent with non-lethal damage of 1d6+ strength (+8 in this case). Also, since the bullete lacks any improved grapple abilities or feats, Valen would get an attack of opportunity that if it damages the bullete, prevents the grapple. He can do this up to 5 times a round (thanks to Combat Reflexes and a 20 dex).
templer10 04-19-07, 12:02 PM	Oh, sorry, missed that question. Here's the relevant sections: When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action). If your base attack bonus allows you multiple attacks, you can attempt one of these actions in place of each of your attacks, but at successively lower base attack bonuses. Attack Your Opponent You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks. You can’t attack with two weapons while grappling, even if both are light weapons. While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike (1d3 points for Medium attackers or 1d2 points for Small attackers, plus Strength modifiers). If you want to deal lethal damage, you take a -4 penalty on your grapple check. So the Bullete can take one natural attack for each 5 points of BAB (or portion thereof) it has, but takes a -4 penalty on the attack. It also takes a -5 penalty on the second attack. Also note that if its squeezed it takes an additional -4 to hit. And that when grappling, the attacker moves into the defender's space. Otherwise it can make grapple checks to damage the opponent with non-lethal damage of 1d6+ strength (+8 in this case). Also, since the bullete lacks any improved grapple abilities or feats, Valen would get an attack of opportunity that if it damages the bullete, prevents the grapple. He can do this up to 5 times a round (thanks to Combat Reflexes and a 20 dex). dude- you have the luck of the gods- finally got close enogu and you hit with AoA lol.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 12:16 PM	Also, since the bullete lacks any improved grapple abilities or feats, Valen would get an attack of opportunity that if it damages the bullete, prevents the grapple. He can do this up to 5 times a round (thanks to Combat Reflexes and a 20 dex). Bit of an error here... (though you'll like it...) Benefit: You may make a number of additional attacks of opportunity equal to your Dexterity bonus. With this feat, you may also make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed. Normal: A character without this feat can make only one attack of opportunity per round and can’t make attacks of opportunity while flat-footed. Meaning you actually get up to 6 attacks of opportunity each round...
templer10 04-19-07, 12:26 PM	Bit of an error here... (though you'll like it...) Meaning you actually get up to 6 attacks of opportunity each round... still no more then 1 attack per provoking event,
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 12:29 PM	still no more then 1 attack per provoking event, Of course. But its handy if for whatever reason someone is taking a full attack action to make multiple grapple attempts. Or some poor entangled archer is trying to rapid shot Valen within a threatened area.
Macbrea 04-19-07, 12:31 PM	Yeah, but each event provokes an AoO. And unlike 3.0 you are allowed to make multiple AoO's vs the same opponent.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 12:51 PM	@templer10 - Bulgar's portion of team tactics sent. Rauul's portion should be along soon.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 01:04 PM	The Mirror Image spell specifies that each image must merely be within 5' of at least one other image or yourself. I see no reason why they should *have* to be in the same 5 ft square, nor is there a house rule specified here to my knowledge. So far as I can tell, this is merely a "very commonly misconstrewed" CoCo fact. ? We probably should address this at some point... but the problem is, it's a royal pain in the butt to figure out the location of 6 or more images. Technically, McJ is right, though. There are a couple of points in the FAQ that should help make this easier: Are the multiple targets from a mirror image spell legal targets for cleaving? That is, if you have the Cleave feat and you hit an image and destroy it, can you then attack another target within reach (such as another figment from the spell or perhaps the spell user)? What about Whirlwind Attack? Can you use this feat to attack all the images around the spell user? What about spells that allow multiple targets, such as Magic Missile? Can you aim magic missiles at different images? For all intents and purposes, the figments from a foe's mirror image spell are your foes. You aim your spells and your attacks at the figments just as though they were real creatures. Any spell you can aim at a creature you can aim at an image. When you use a spell that allows you to select multiple creatures as targets, such as magic missile, you can choose multiple images as targets. If you have the cleave or great cleave feat, destroying an image with a melee attack triggers the feat (and your cleaving attack might well strike the spell user instead of another image). Likewise, you can use Whirlwind Attack to strike at any image you can reach. A Whirlwind attack almost certainly will allow you to strike once at the spell user. Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If its the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, its easiest to assume that all images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user's space can affect an image.
Rauul 04-19-07, 01:13 PM	@templer10 - Rauul's portion of team tactics sent. Bulgar's portion should be along soon.
Abyssal Stalker 04-19-07, 01:15 PM	I love it when people bring up the Troll Weretyrannosaurus... First off - remember that the encounters are designed to end in character death about 50% of the time (hence the CR vs ECL of the character). Secondly - a weretyrannosaurus versus a spellcaster is a pretty easy fight. One Hold Monster versus its whopping +10 Will save (+2 Giant, +6 Animal, +2 Iron Will) is fairly easy to do. Raw damage capacity isn't out of the question either - but you have to know your weaknesses should not be exposed. Meaning - this thing would be a beast in melee combat - so make sure you force it to ranged combat for as long as possible. Force it to squeeze since it will likely be huge. The regeneration is a big hurdle - but its not like the Hydra's impressive fast healing. The AC of the thing is bearable as well. Don't get me wrong - there are certainly things I would prefer to face at ECL10 with Kraegin or Sir Valkin - but I wouldn't count my characters out just yet... And of course, the map can make or break you against the were-tyrannosaurus... Sir Valkin would prefer to be on the open plains so that he could do endless Spirited Charges for 3d8+12[+27 (smite)][+15 (divine might)] Looking him over though - it appears I never made him a Silver lance... I should probably fix that... Heh, didn't mean to complain or anything. I just pointed out the one creature that is according to what seems to me as the general opinion of the most overpowered monster on our tables (in addition to dragons). Heck, even Cat looked at it and his reaction was WTF? :) I realize that it is kind of a one-trick pony after all and not that hard to beat. Spellcasters with save-or-dies shouldn't have hard times facing it and there are probably several tactics that can bring it down as you described. I didn't actually even want to point out anything, but if I look further to my comment it probably reveals a great secret unknown to all CoCo: some characters have harder times against certain monsters than others! ;)
Deathspell_Omega 04-19-07, 01:23 PM	@McJarvis: Tactics for Shadovar [ECL 3] sent. Just a reminder, I won't be using the robbery, since, well... I can't. Just in case if it wasn't obvious.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 01:35 PM	@McJarvis: Tactics for Shadovar [ECL 3] sent. Just a reminder, I won't be using the robbery, since, well... I can't. Just in case if it wasn't obvious. Well - its not an issue anyway. Hajj's potion is actually not allowed without credits at ECL3. (Hence why I just posted him into prison...)
Macbrea 04-19-07, 01:48 PM	Bah.. The Fiendish Half-Blackdragon Black pudding is only CR 10! The damage output of it doing some prebuffing with a butter knife is pretty brutal! 10d12 + 72 = 127 , Split to eight 15hp puddings each with a 6d8 acid breath 60ft long, DC 22 reflex save for half
Rauul 04-19-07, 01:51 PM	3 wyrmling white dragons in the temple.... i think the ork should of just gotten drunk and slept in... @Abyssal Slayer Tactics sent... this should be fun...
hogarth 04-19-07, 01:53 PM	3 wyrmling white dragons in the temple.... i think the ork should of just gotten drunk and slept in... This is one of those dumb 3x CR 2 creature entries in the EL 4 chart. IMO, they should all be reduced to 2x CR 2 creatures instead.
Abyssal Stalker 04-19-07, 01:55 PM	3 wyrmling white dragons in the temple.... i think the ork should of just gotten drunk and slept in... @Abyssal Slayer Tactics sent... this should be fun... And the setup for your battle has been posted. I'll run this on weekend. I tried to keep the monsters within good taste and not load them with magic missile wands and stuff like that. I don't want to make the fight an auto-win just with equipment. Edit: I am sorry but I had to reroll the original monster. The giant crocodile just would've been an auto-win. When I saw the result of the next roll, I reconsidered it, but it's 20ft speed made it auto-lose.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 01:57 PM	This is one of those dumb 3x CR 2 creature entries in the EL 4 chart. IMO, they should all be reduced to 2x CR 2 creatures instead. Indeed - they are on the list of entries to be fixed. Who was fixing them anyhow?
Abyssal Stalker 04-19-07, 01:58 PM	Indeed - they are on the list of entries to be fixed. Who was fixing them anyhow? Somebody. That lazy dude who never does what he is supposed to do...
McJarvis 04-19-07, 01:59 PM	Some fairly bad & noobish tactics have been sent to Maraxus for General Zaroff.
hogarth 04-19-07, 02:00 PM	Somebody. That lazy dude who never does what he is supposed to do... I hate that guy! According to my wife, Somebody is supposed to all the work around our house, but he never does! ;)
Rauul 04-19-07, 02:00 PM	Somebody. That lazy dude who never does what he is supposed to do... Well drop them to 2 and i acually have a chance LOL but either way.. goodluck to me
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 02:01 PM	I hate that guy! According to my wife, somebody is supposed to all the work around our house, but he never does! ;) Hmmm... I took a look in the council thread and it appears that Hogarth did the ECL3 table... shame on you for not doing the ECL4 table as well... Anyway - who wants to take up the task and post the corrections to the council thread?
hogarth 04-19-07, 02:03 PM	Hmmm... I took a look in the council thread and it appears that Hogarth did the ECL3 table... shame on you for not doing the ECL4 table as well... Anyway - who wants to take up the task and post the corrections to the council thread? The fix to the EL 4 table is trivial -- change 3x CR 2 encounter to 2x CR 2 encounters (e.g. 3 wyrmling white dragons --> 2 wyrmling white dragons). If we need someone to actually go through and pick out which ones fit the bill, I could do that.
Rauul 04-19-07, 02:04 PM	Hmmm... I took a look in the council thread and it appears that Hogarth did the ECL3 table... shame on you for not doing the ECL4 table as well... Anyway - who wants to take up the task and post the corrections to the council thread? I can attempt to... and post it... no promises i won't put more elfs on there
hogarth 04-19-07, 02:07 PM	I can attempt to... and post it... no promises i won't put more elfs on there Hint: Here's how I'd do it. :%s/3/2/g
templer10 04-19-07, 02:19 PM	Originally Posted by FAQ, Spells pg 62 "Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If its the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, its easiest to assume that all images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user's space can affect an image." so essentially that means that all images are in the same 5 feet square?
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 02:22 PM	so essentially that means that all images are in the same 5 feet square? Yes.
Rauul 04-19-07, 02:32 PM	Originally Posted by FAQ, Spells pg 62 "Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If its the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, its easiest to assume that all images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user's space can affect an image." so essentially that means that all images are in the same 5 feet square? yes.. It also means that to hit the entire Square you need an Area Blast and not a touch spell (would effect just one of the targets) ect.. ect.. to effted the entire Area you do need an area effect and that don't bring down any Images.. only individual attacks bring down images..
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 02:35 PM	@Templer10: I'd just like to point out, given the rolls you have, and presuming all the damage rolls did in fact hit, the Bulette is already down. Assuming Valen finished his buff sequence which included Offensive Prescience for the +2 damage bonus (thus making his ranged attack damage 1d8+4 and his armor spike damage 1d6+4.) It wasn't exactly clear in your first reponse whether that was the case. Just trying to save you some time. :) Edit: Nevermind, I think I do see some missed hits.
templer10 04-19-07, 02:43 PM	@Templer10: I'd just like to point out, given the rolls you have, and presuming all the damage rolls did in fact hit, the Bulette is already down. Assuming Valen finished his buff sequence which included Offensive Prescience for the +2 damage bonus (thus making his ranged attack damage 1d8+4 and his armor spike damage 1d6+4.) It wasn't exactly clear in your first reponse whether that was the case. Just trying to save you some time. :) Edit: Nevermind, I think I do see some missed hits. Bloody hell- didnt even see that presciece offensive in the tactics- that's what you get whne pitlording after sleeping 5 hours in 2 days total lol. ill go do edits but i think you are right - and just when the monster finally hit with touch attack 2....
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 02:45 PM	Bloody hell- didnt even see that presciece offensive in the tactics- that's what you get whne pitlording after sleeping 5 hours in 2 days total lol. ill go do edits but i think you are right - and just when the monster finally hit with touch attack 2.... 5 hours in the last 48? Get some sleep man! The fight will hold as is, believe me. :)
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 02:53 PM	5 hours in the last 48? Get some sleep man! The fight will hold as is, believe me. :) You apparently don't know the life of parenthood of toddlers and babies... Last night I got blessed with 6 hours of sleep, but the two nights before that totalled in at 4 hours...
McJarvis 04-19-07, 02:55 PM	Originally Posted by FAQ, Spells pg 62 "Is there a way to decide which squares the figments from a mirror image occupy? Or do the images distribute themselves randomly? If its the latter, how does the DM decide where they go? Although the spell description says the images from a mirror image spell always stay within 5 feet of either the user or another image, its easiest to assume that all images occupy the same space the spell user occupies. Any attack that can reach the user's space can affect an image." so essentially that means that all images are in the same 5 feet square? All it really says is that it's easiest to assume that they're in the same square. Not that they are assumed to be in the same square.
Erithmu 04-19-07, 02:59 PM	All it really says is that it's easiest to assume that they're in the same square. Not that they are assumed to be in the same square. I curse you to run a fight like this for every other week of your pitlord career.
Rauul 04-19-07, 03:01 PM	I curse you to run a fight like this for every other week of your pitlord career. Oh Sounds like general Mcjarvis was BAD!
TheMagister 04-19-07, 03:03 PM	@Telin - monster description is up here. Sorry 'bout the delay (but Thursday afternoon ain't bad, now that I think about it). TM
templer10 04-19-07, 03:08 PM	All it really says is that it's easiest to assume that they're in the same square. Not that they are assumed to be in the same square. i really would like a ruling on this - it's hard to plan when you dont know the rules.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 03:10 PM	@Telin - monster description is up here. Sorry 'bout the delay (but Thursday afternoon ain't bad, now that I think about it). TM Now you've got me all kinds of concerned... if they look just like my were-self - do you mean they look like my animal form, or that they exhibit behavior of shapechangers? Oh well - I guess I'll make do and just regret that I didn't take some ranks in Knowledge like I planned to...
hogarth 04-19-07, 03:11 PM	i really would like a ruling on this - it's hard to plan when you dont know the rules. I'd go with the easy method suggested in the FAQ, considering that's the method I've seen used in every fight so far.
McJarvis 04-19-07, 03:14 PM	I'd go with the easy method suggested in the FAQ, considering that's the method I've seen used in every fight so far. The outcome of any such fight would be disputable since we don't have a house-rule set up. As MWB said, I am technically(read: "Actually") right on this one :).
templer10 04-19-07, 03:19 PM	Valen sky VS big nasty is up and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12147002&postcount=786)
hogarth 04-19-07, 03:34 PM	The outcome of any such fight would be disputable since we don't have a house-rule set up. As MWB said, I am technically(read: "Actually") right on this one :). Of course, if you want to play the hair-splitting game, there's nothing in the spell description that says the caster has any control over where the images are placed (except for the merging and splitting off ability). So you can't complain if they "coincidentally" end up stacked in a vertical column with you on the bottom, right? ;)
Zevox 04-19-07, 03:42 PM	@ Etiquette_Gnome - Tactics for Mithos have been PMed. Would've been in quicker, but I slept in until 2 PM today. Guess thats what happens when you go 3 days on 3 hours of sleep... Zevox
templer10 04-19-07, 03:45 PM	Of course, if you want to play the hair-splitting game, there's nothing in the spell description that says the caster has any control over where the images are placed (except for the merging and splitting off ability). So you can't complain if they "coincidentally" end up stacked in a vertical column with you on the bottom, right? ;) lol- he got you there.
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 03:56 PM	You apparently don't know the life of parenthood of toddlers and babies... Last night I got blessed with 6 hours of sleep, but the two nights before that totalled in at 4 hours... Actually, I know all about that. Which is why if you can get it, I suggest that you do. Since somedays you can't. And I certainly rate getting my fight done far below sleep. Especially on a Thursday. :) @Templer10: Thanks very much for the run.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 03:58 PM	Heh - I look at it completely differently. I forecast most weeks as: Monday-Friday - not enough sleep. Saturday, Sunday - enough sleep to get me by. Since I don't usually have time to run fights on the weekend, that means I have to choose between running them before or after the weekend. While running them after might mean I am more refreshed - running them before gives me more time to correct any potential errors.
McJarvis 04-19-07, 04:16 PM	Of course, if you want to play the hair-splitting game, there's nothing in the spell description that says the caster has any control over where the images are placed (except for the merging and splitting off ability). So you can't complain if they "coincidentally" end up stacked in a vertical column with you on the bottom, right? ;) (this is a little strange, since I actually have no characters that use mirror image...) I don't really think it's splitting hairs to want to use a spell exactly as it's described. If they meant "the images are in your square" then why didn't they just say "the images are in your square"? (instead of dancing around the bush, as it were, by saying it's merely "easier" to assume they are in the same square?) For simplicities sake-> I'd say that the mirror image's effect is giving a 1/x (x=# of mirror images+1) chance of hitting the caster, unless you have some way of pinpointing the caster otherwise. (then you can close your eyes for the 50% miss chance instead). Beyond that, it doesn't matter where the images are exactly. (so a pitlord doesn't have to map them) Unless, of course, a gladiator gets clever and sends an image out around a corner....
hogarth 04-19-07, 04:29 PM	Unless, of course, a gladiator gets clever and sends an image out around a corner.... As I said before, where does it say that a gladiator can send an image anywhere at all? :confused: All it says is they "pop into being" and "stay near you".
Hirumajoe 04-19-07, 04:29 PM	(this is a little strange, since I actually have no characters that use mirror image...) I don't really think it's splitting hairs to want to use a spell exactly as it's described. If they meant "the images are in your square" then why didn't they just say "the images are in your square"? (instead of dancing around the bush, as it were, by saying it's merely "easier" to assume they are in the same square?) For simplicities sake-> I'd say that the mirror image's effect is giving a 1/x (x=# of mirror images+1) chance of hitting the caster, unless you have some way of pinpointing the caster otherwise. (then you can close your eyes for the 50% miss chance instead). Beyond that, it doesn't matter where the images are exactly. (so a pitlord doesn't have to map them) Unless, of course, a gladiator gets clever and sends an image out around a corner.... Actually, yes it does, since you might be able to reach one image but not another. If there's an image 5' to your left and 5' to your right, and the opponent can only reach 5' to your left. I quote the last sentence of the FAQ entry: "Any attack that can reach the user's space can affect an image." The only way that statement can be true all the time is if all the images are in the same square as the caster. Otherwise that would not be true for a tiny creature with 0' reach in the same square as the caster. And if he suddenly could reach an image 5' away when he's got no reach, well, then he knows its an image, now doesn't he. :)
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 04:32 PM	It becomes a problem when an AoE spell would affect some of the images - but not all. Picture a caster with 8 images all in a row. In one round, the opponent drops a fireball in the middle of them - affecting all but the caster. In the next round, the images plan for the opponent to cast a lightning bolt and align themselves into a box formation (or better yet - a line at a 90 degree angle from the previous formation). In other words - what determines the "shape" of the formation? Is it "best possible" for the caster with Mirror Image? Is it "random" - in which case we would need a set of permutations with all the possible shapes? I vote for keeping it simple. When the wizard is being attacked by an area affect (of even one square in diameter), the wizard gets hit. If the wizard is being attacked by multiple arrows - roll randomly. Anything more complex - and it becomes a nightmare to pitlord.
templer10 04-19-07, 04:34 PM	It becomes a problem when an AoE spell would affect some of the images - but not all. Picture a caster with 8 images all in a row. In one round, the opponent drops a fireball in the middle of them - affecting all but the caster. In the next round, the images plan for the opponent to cast a lightning bolt and align themselves into a box formation (or better yet - a line at a 90 degree angle from the previous formation). In other words - what determines the "shape" of the formation? Is it "best possible" for the caster with Mirror Image? Is it "random" - in which case we would need a set of permutations with all the possible shapes? I vote for keeping it simple. When the wizard is being attacked by an area affect (of even one square in diameter), the wizard gets hit. If the wizard is being attacked by multiple arrows - roll randomly. Anything more complex - and it becomes a nightmare to pitlord. sounds good to me- other elders?
McJarvis 04-19-07, 04:38 PM	I think it's important to specify that merely closing your eyes does not merely replace the effect of the spell with a 50% miss-chance. You should still have to pinpoint the person casting Mirror Image somehow. (setup: Now a warrior with an incredibly good listen check closing his eyes to listen & know which mirror image to hit-> that's just plain good thematics :) ) This is the primary result of "oversimplifying" the spell effect that I objected to the most.
TelinArtho 04-19-07, 04:41 PM	But that's covered in the spell explicitly: An attacker must be able to see the images to be fooled. If you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect. (Being unable to see carries the same penalties as being blinded.)
hogarth 04-19-07, 04:45 PM	But that's covered in the spell explicitly: McJarvis's point is that a blind person would not know a priori which square his target is in without somehow pinpointing the target. He thinks it's lame that you can auto-pinpoint a character with Mirror Images and then attack blind.
templer10 04-19-07, 05:02 PM	Mitza- tactics for Lord lorian VS lightwolf sent, pm with any questions.
McJarvis 04-19-07, 05:51 PM	McJarvis's point is that a blind person would not know a priori which square his target is in without somehow pinpointing the target. He thinks it's lame that you can auto-pinpoint a character with Mirror Images and then attack blind. Nod. As stated, you shouldn't be able to just "take" a 50% miss chances unless you can pinpoint the character that is mirror imaged through other means than sight. (because even if you close your eyes, you still have to decide which of the mirror images to strike in your head...unless you have some other way of pinpointing your opponent.) The spell may have no effect after the gladiator closes his eyes-> but this doesn't change that the blinded character doesn't *actually* know which square his enemy is in.
MitzaVolchenko 04-19-07, 06:30 PM	Mitza- tactics for Lord lorian VS lightwolf sent, pm with any questions. Received. If I have any questions not covered in the two full pm's worth of tactics, I'll wing it.
Sjiggie 04-19-07, 06:33 PM	Milov your MQ is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=832395)
templer10 04-19-07, 06:36 PM	Received. If I have any questions not covered in the two full pm's worth of tactics, I'll wing it. yea sorry about that- i do long tactics- 2 pm's arent 2 bad for me - my record is 3 i think but that was for 4 way ffa.
Rauul 04-19-07, 09:25 PM	looking at the loot on the dragons.... why is it we can't loot the bodys again.. LOL
Yitzi 04-19-07, 11:17 PM	Received. If I have any questions not covered in the two full pm's worth of tactics, I'll wing it. Tactics for Lightwolf sent, for the same battle. And this is three full PMs of tactics.:) (Largely contingencies, and well organized for minimum inconvenience) (Actually, it'll probably take you less time to read and run than it took me to come up with and write out.)
templer10 04-20-07, 04:39 AM	Tactics for Lightwolf sent, for the same battle. And this is three full PMs of tactics.:) (Largely contingencies, and well organized for minimum inconvenience) (Actually, it'll probably take you less time to read and run than it took me to come up with and write out.) hmm- i really didnt want to meet Lighwolf in ECL 4 - and especially not in the city - decent touch and nasty to hit isny my favorite combo - not to mention i pitlorded him enough times to know he writes about as much tactics as i do- and i do a LOT of tactics. Yitzi-you should really make a spellcaster or psion or something - lot more room to wiggle out of bad situations since you can buy all sorts of options using expendables, dorjas and whatnot. (doesnt ALWAYS work but still...)
Macbrea 04-20-07, 07:39 AM	Why exactly are people writting 3 full PMs full of tactics for a fight. The limit on posts is 50,000 characters. If one person sends 2 full PMs and the other person sends 3 PMs of 10,000 characters each. It takes more then one post just to get their tactics in the fight. Is the goal to annoy the Pitlords by having every possible item you could argue?
waywreth 04-20-07, 09:17 AM	I filled about 3/4 of a PM on my last set of tactics and I thought it was long... yeesh.
TelinArtho 04-20-07, 09:40 AM	Why exactly are people writting 3 full PMs full of tactics for a fight. The limit on posts is 50,000 characters. If one person sends 2 full PMs and the other person sends 3 PMs of 10,000 characters each. It takes more then one post just to get their tactics in the fight. Is the goal to annoy the Pitlords by having every possible item you could argue? PMs max out at 4k characters I think - so hitting that wall is somewhat understandable. While I rarely do it - I tend to try to pack things in as much as possible. If you add formatting to your PMs, that just shortens things down quite a bit (visually).
McJarvis 04-20-07, 11:35 AM	Tactics sent for TIM in the slaughterhouse. First sneak-peak line of tactics: "This fight is going to be a bloody mess." General comment on the battle: I really wish I could have my full expendible cap to face against him with. I strongly suspect that it's the only reason he has a chance -_-. ;)
templer10 04-20-07, 12:27 PM	PMs max out at 4k characters I think - so hitting that wall is somewhat understandable. While I rarely do it - I tend to try to pack things in as much as possible. If you add formatting to your PMs, that just shortens things down quite a bit (visually). well - i personally overwrite always- with contingencies upon contingencies ask any pitlord that pitlorded any of my chars- also i usually write stuff everyone knows but are relevent to the spells to save looking it up later and also to avoid arguments and need to redo battles.
TelinArtho 04-20-07, 12:36 PM	In my personal experience as a pitlord, I find the ideal length of tactics falls right at the edge of 1 PM's worth of tactics. Anything shorter than that is either too brief (missing some important contingencies) or the player feels the fight is already won/lost (so the player didn't put as much effort into the tactics). Anything longer than that starts to become bogged down. Once you get to a scenario where you have multiple contingencies that apply in the same situation - this actually creates more of a headache for the pitlord - because now he has to (fairly) choose between one of many possible actions. Including information that "everyone" should know - as in specific descriptions within the SRD really isn't necessary, unless it is such an obscure rule that it just doesn't come up often or unless you feel it has been done incorrectly in several cases in the past (I did this for Farig on 5 fights in a row - specify that her weapon (a dire flail) is a double weapon - and I still had people asking me how I was two-weapon fighting. Same thing with the DR from Kraegin's/Sir Valkin's Adamantine Armor - 3 pitlords in a row forgot to apply it - so after the first instance I started including it in my tactics. All that said - I sometimes need to send a second PM for my summoners. The second PM usually includes the Augmented stats of the creatures I have listed in my tactics. This is so the pitlord doesn't need to look up the creature and apply the +4 Str/+4 Con on the spot.
Rauul 04-20-07, 12:37 PM	well - i personally overwrite always- with contingencies upon contingencies ask any pitlord that pitlorded any of my chars- also i usually write stuff everyone knows but are relevent to the spells to save looking it up later and also to avoid arguments and need to redo battles. yea.. well i for one never believe what a charater writes as far as spells and powers go.. so i look them up anyways.. Players have a way to always try to get advanatges to a power that aren't there.. but thats the nature of people... LOL
MitzaVolchenko 04-20-07, 12:46 PM	@Yitzi and Templer10 I haven't read through the tactics yet. I probably never will make it more than once through all of that. I am going to tell you in advance that if I miss a contingency in the total of 6 PM's that I have for one ECL4 one on one fight, I will deny re-run based on pitlord annoyance. I will accept one appeal and one rebuttal on the fight should anything be wrong with it when I am done. After that, the fight will stand as written.
Yitzi 04-20-07, 01:16 PM	In my personal experience as a pitlord, I find the ideal length of tactics falls right at the edge of 1 PM's worth of tactics. Anything shorter than that is either too brief (missing some important contingencies) or the player feels the fight is already won/lost (so the player didn't put as much effort into the tactics). Anything longer than that starts to become bogged down. Once you get to a scenario where you have multiple contingencies that apply in the same situation - this actually creates more of a headache for the pitlord - because now he has to (fairly) choose between one of many possible actions. Actually, my tactics are usually shorter than this one-the reasons it's so long are a) there's an item in the courthouse that might be decided other than what I expect and make part of my tactics unusable, so about half of 1 PM was for that eventuality, and b) Lorian is pretty tough due to his +9 attack against anyone with metal armor, so I needed nonconventional multi-stage tactics.
templer10 04-20-07, 01:33 PM	@Yitzi and Templer10 I haven't read through the tactics yet. I probably never will make it more than once through all of that. I am going to tell you in advance that if I miss a contingency in the total of 6 PM's that I have for one ECL4 one on one fight, I will deny re-run based on pitlord annoyance. I will accept one appeal and one rebuttal on the fight should anything be wrong with it when I am done. After that, the fight will stand as written. i dont expect you to need to use most of my tactics which are basicly for 1 spesific nasty situation i dont want to encounter.
TelinArtho 04-20-07, 02:08 PM	@Vath - I still haven't received tactics for Antalya in the hunter fight. If I don't get them soon - the fight will have to wait until Monday...
MindWandererB 04-20-07, 02:20 PM	General comment on the battle: I really wish I could have my full expendible cap to face against him with. I strongly suspect that it's the only reason he has a chance -_-. ;)Don't get too cocky... Gakhnalak leveled up mid-cycle too. He could be playing with a lot more expendables, as well. Of course, even if TIM did have more expendables, it remains to be seen if he'd have a chance to use them. It's a small map.
McJarvis 04-20-07, 02:29 PM	Don't get too cocky... Gakhnalak leveled up mid-cycle too. He could be playing with a lot more expendables, as well. Of course, even if TIM did have more expendables, it remains to be seen if he'd have a chance to use them. It's a small map. Without knowing what expendibles you'd choose in return, I guess there's no real way of knowing. I daresay that anything he could do to keep you from entering melee would be enough, though. (Whether this is fly or a well-placed web spell before a buffing cycle, whatever)
MindWandererB 04-20-07, 02:51 PM	Without knowing what expendibles you'd choose in return, I guess there's no real way of knowing. I daresay that anything he could do to keep you from entering melee would be enough, though. (Whether this is fly or a well-placed web spell before a buffing cycle, whatever) Just for the sake of argument: Fly is all but useless on this map (can't even dive). Web might help a little... but that's just one of the reasons Gakh carries a torch. Note to self: maybe a scroll of Burning Hands might be a good idea....
McJarvis 04-20-07, 02:57 PM	Nod. Fly/Spider Climb/Web would just be ways of slowing you down so TIM could buff. I'd still wanna tango in melee with you :) I actually mis-read the description of the place...thought it said it was a cavarn of 150 ft height. :-O Even some scrolls of minor image might help out TIM. He hasn't equipped the standard "helluvalotofscrolls" to his expendibles yet merely because he hasn't been able to afford it until this point. ((to reference one of our previous IM conversations....)
McJarvis 04-20-07, 03:06 PM	In general-> two hours until tactics deadline and still no word from one of my fighters. You guys know the drill-> If I get nothing by 6pm est I'll default the fight(or run it with default tactics if he has any) & offer it up to anyone who wants to run it later this weekend.
Horatius 04-20-07, 05:36 PM	Tyden vs Lars is up.
NiQil 04-20-07, 10:08 PM	Tyden vs Lars is up. Thanks for the run Two minor things to fix, neither fight affecting: 1) In your last round summary (the round before the last one), you don't reflect the damage dealt in that round...probably just a cut and paste error, but since you'll have to edit for #2, might as well fix it while yer in there... 2) I did fire 2 arrows...1 hit and one missed...so if you could add those to the summary and give me a recovery roll (or flip a coin) on the one that missed, that would be super.
Horatius 04-21-07, 03:57 AM	Thanks for the run Two minor things to fix, neither fight affecting: 1) In your last round summary (the round before the last one), you don't reflect the damage dealt in that round...probably just a cut and paste error, but since you'll have to edit for #2, might as well fix it while yer in there... 2) I did fire 2 arrows...1 hit and one missed...so if you could add those to the summary and give me a recovery roll (or flip a coin) on the one that missed, that would be super. Fixed.
Abyssal Stalker 04-21-07, 08:17 AM	Graashnak vs monster is up. I used the updated table so there were only two dragons.
Deathspell_Omega 04-21-07, 09:37 AM	In general-> two hours until tactics deadline and still no word from one of my fighters. You guys know the drill-> If I get nothing by 6pm est I'll default the fight(or run it with default tactics if he has any) & offer it up to anyone who wants to run it later this weekend.I'm just hoping you got mines?
McJarvis 04-21-07, 11:22 AM	I'm just hoping you got mines? I've received both at this point. I'll run it later today or tomorrow...though no promises :)
Vathelokai 04-21-07, 02:56 PM	@Vath - I still haven't received tactics for Antalya in the hunter fight. If I don't get them soon - the fight will have to wait until Monday... Very sorry. Overtime at work, teething toddler... you know how it goes. Tactics sent; at least this one looks pretty straightforward, as Hunter fights go. I filled about 3/4 of a PM on my last set of tactics and I thought it was long... yeesh. I've gone from one paragraph to two pms. Really depends on who is fighting whom. Two fighters with no expendables, cake. But two caster/manifesters with allies and summons... @Rith: Setting up your MQ now
Deathspell_Omega 04-21-07, 02:59 PM	I've received both at this point. I'll run it later today or tomorrow...though no promises :)Cool then, thanks. :)
MindWandererB 04-21-07, 04:19 PM	Graashnak vs monster is up. I used the updated table so there were only two dragons. FYI, that fight should have been a lot more one-sided. Tiny creatures, no reach, AoOs.
hogarth 04-21-07, 04:47 PM	FYI, that fight should have been a lot more one-sided. Tiny creatures, no reach, AoOs. The dragons' bite attacks have 5' reach. That's why it went: 1) 10' range + breathe 2) 5' step + bite 3) 5' step + full attack The only movements were 5' steps --> no AoOs.
Maraxus 04-21-07, 05:36 PM	I'm not so sure, if you can 5ft-step into an opponents square, unless you can legally move into that square (helpless or 3 size-categories diffrence, I think).
MindWandererB 04-21-07, 05:40 PM	I'm not so sure, if you can 5ft-step into an opponents square, unless you can legally move into that square (helpless or 3 size-categories diffrence, I think). You can, if you're tiny. But it provokes, even if it's only 5 feet.
hogarth 04-21-07, 05:44 PM	You can, if you're tiny. But it provokes, even if it's only 5 feet. Hmm... You can move 5 feet in any round when you don’t perform any other kind of movement. Taking this 5-foot step never provokes an attack of opportunity. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. Which supersedes which? :confused:
Vathelokai 04-21-07, 05:56 PM	Hmm... Which supersedes which? :confused: Taking a 5 ft step dosn't provoke, but entering someones space does. This would be another one of those 'multi actions' we had such a big fight over last week. Not sure how to interpret it.
TheMagister 04-21-07, 06:41 PM	Jar-red's Monster Fight is up here. Not the most exciting bout I've ever run. :bored: TM
templer10 04-21-07, 06:51 PM	what happenes to summoned creature which summoner died? does it still follow the last command or go home?
SauroGrenom 04-21-07, 06:53 PM	Hmm... Which supersedes which? :confused: Hence my whole point in that discussion. Any time an action falls under multiple classification, we are going to need an elder ruling to decide if the action is "really" one type of action or another. The elder majority voted that actions can fall under one classification only. Poppycock. Go ask for a majority vote, because the majority voted down the only solution that would have eliminated all these confusions in one fell swoop. As a consequence of the previous vote, CoCo elders are going to need to vote on each and every case now.
SauroGrenom 04-21-07, 06:54 PM	what happenes to summoned creature which summoner died? does it still follow the last command or go home?Spells don't expire when the caster dies. I'd assume that the spell would just continue normally, and the creature would continue to attack the caster's enemies.
NiQil 04-21-07, 07:38 PM	Regarding tiny creatures and 5 ft steps. For a tiny creature using a 5 ft step to enter an opponent's space, both rules that hogart quoted apply. The tiny creature does not incur an AoO for taking a 5 ft step. But it does incur an AoO for entering an opponent's space, regardless of the action that got him there. On a larger scale, this would be why a medium creature fighting a large creature would incur an AoO if it tried to bullrush said large creature. If he (the medium guy) started at a range of 10 ft away and took a 5 ft step to make base contact with the large creature, he would not incur an AoO. But as soon as he attempted to bullrush, he would incur an AoO for entering the large creature's space. Same principle. The two rules that hogarth quoted are not applying to the same action for said tiny creature. They are both absolutely correct.
Rauul 04-21-07, 08:10 PM	FYI, that fight should have been a lot more one-sided. Tiny creatures, no reach, AoOs. acually would of only been 1 Aoo (since i can only get one, and i don't believe the breath weapon causes one) after that they should just close in and kill since a 5ft step won't get them out of my large area.. (he was enlarged)
SauroGrenom 04-21-07, 08:34 PM	Durin vs Ogre Barbarian
SauroGrenom 04-21-07, 08:42 PM	Regarding tiny creatures and 5 ft steps. For a tiny creature using a 5 ft step to enter an opponent's space, both rules that hogart quoted apply. The tiny creature does not incur an AoO for taking a 5 ft step. But it does incur an AoO for entering an opponent's space, regardless of the action that got him there. On a larger scale, this would be why a medium creature fighting a large creature would incur an AoO if it tried to bullrush said large creature. If he (the medium guy) started at a range of 10 ft away and took a 5 ft step to make base contact with the large creature, he would not incur an AoO. But as soon as he attempted to bullrush, he would incur an AoO for entering the large creature's space. Same principle. The two rules that hogarth quoted are not applying to the same action for said tiny creature. They are both absolutely correct.I hope you understand that the position you took here is identical to the position I took with respect to ranged attacks with wands. However in that case you decided that a ranged attack with a wand is only using a spell trigger item, and not a ranged attack. I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I hope you realize this is either a complete reversal of your previous position, or there needs to be some reason that some actions fall into one and only one classification (like wand ranged attacks), while others fall into all applicable classifications (like 5' steps into another creature's square). There is an internal inconsistency in this approach.
NiQil 04-21-07, 09:03 PM	I hope you understand that the position you took here is identical to the position I took with respect to ranged attacks with wands. However in that case you decided that a ranged attack with a wand is only using a spell trigger item, and not a ranged attack. I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I hope you realize this is either a complete reversal of your previous position, or there needs to be some reason that some actions fall into one and only one classification (like wand ranged attacks), while others fall into all applicable classifications (like 5' steps into another creature's square). There is an internal inconsistency in this approach. There is no inconsistancy whatsoever. In this circumstance, we are talking about two different actions. One is a 5 ft step, the other in entering an opponent's space. The other circumstance regarding wands and touch attacks is talking about the same action....that of activating a spell/power completion item. What you seem to be trying to do is seperate the distinct portions of activating said item, when the rules clearly do not seperate them. There is a specifically defined action called activating a magical item. This is a single standard action, and either provokes an AoO or not, depending on the item in question. The result of the activation of a magical item only provokes AoO if the activation of the item itself provokes one. The other thing you have to remember is that touch attacks are considered armed attacks, and therefore do not provoke attacks of opportunity. This is RAW, and irrefutable. Touch attacks are categorized as either melee or ranged, but both are touch attacks, and as such neither provoke AoO. To give you a contrary example....by your logic, casting scorching ray from a scroll (or from memory, for that matter) should provide an opponent with 2 AoO....one for the casting of the spell, and the other for the attack roll itself. Clearly this is not the case.
MindWandererB 04-21-07, 09:22 PM	I hope you understand that the position you took here is identical to the position I took with respect to ranged attacks with wands. However in that case you decided that a ranged attack with a wand is only using a spell trigger item, and not a ranged attack. I'm not going to argue with you about it, but I hope you realize this is either a complete reversal of your previous position, or there needs to be some reason that some actions fall into one and only one classification (like wand ranged attacks), while others fall into all applicable classifications (like 5' steps into another creature's square). There is an internal inconsistency in this approach. <sigh> All right, I'm going to explain my position one more time, because it isn't a reversal at all. Attacks of opportunity can be provoked by either movement through a threatened square, or by performing certain actions that provoke. Every action that be performed (at the time of publication) is listed in the "Actions in Combat" table, and every action appears on that table only once. Tiny creatures moving into an opponent's square is a special case, specifically called out in the section on size and reach. It provokes because that rule says it does. It's not listed on the table because it's not an action; the AoO is a consequence of performing a different action under a certain condition. If "move into an opponent's square" was listed on that table, it would present more problems (since it would be either a move action or a non-action), so it doesn't get its own entry. Edit: I in no way agree with or endorse NiQil's opinion. They're not two different actions, and I know perfectly well that you think casting Scorching Ray from a scroll does indeed provoke 2 AoOs.
SauroGrenom 04-21-07, 09:32 PM	There is no inconsistancy whatsoever. In this circumstance, we are talking about two different actions. One is a 5 ft step, the other in entering an opponent's space. No we are talking about a single action... That action is a 5' step that enters an opponent's square. This is not two separate actions. It's the same free action that in this case is both a 5' step and a move into another's square. This is a single free action that either provokes an AoO, or it doesn't. It's identical to the other situations.
TelinArtho 04-21-07, 09:32 PM	Jar-red's Monster Fight is up here. Not the most exciting bout I've ever run. :bored: TM TM - just so that you are aware - the Megaraptor and Deinonychus are errataed - and the change is significant. I know it wouldn't change anything - but I just figured I'd mention it so that it doesn't come up again. In the errata - the Megaraptor is Large size and the Deinonychus is medium size (which is why Druids of Level 5 or more can wildshape into the latter).
templer10 04-21-07, 09:35 PM	the ECL 4 team fight is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12174129&postcount=793) i truly hate who rolls 20 first fights. a note about some of the desicions i did- if i used any healing once everyone got into the get a 20 phase the fight wouldnt have ended untill all wands run out since at worst case scenario LPG and bulgar (after round 43). has same speed so i just didnt heal anyone.
NiQil 04-21-07, 09:47 PM	No we are talking about a single action... That action is a 5' step that enters an opponent's square. This is not two separate actions. It's the same free action that in this case is both a 5' step and a move into another's square. This is a single free action that either provokes an AoO, or it doesn't. It's identical to the other situations. You missed my point. My point is that they are not two different actions, but two different conditions. If you are taking a 5 ft step, you never provoke an AoO for taking said 5 ft step. If you move into an opponent's space, you always provoke an AoO (barring feats), regardless of what type of movement got you there. So taking a 5 ft step into an opponent's space does not provoke for the 5 ft step itself, but the movement into the opponent's space does provoke. Yes, it's the same action, but two different conditions that occur.
Rauul 04-21-07, 09:58 PM	the ECL 4 team fight is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12174129&postcount=793) i truly hate who rolls 20 first fights. a note about some of the desicions i did- if i used any healing once everyone got into the get a 20 phase the fight wouldnt have ended untill all wands run out since at worst case scenario LPG and bulgar (after round 43). has same speed so i just didnt heal anyone. Looks good to me.. except for the rewards... i believe bulgar and me take 12.5% penaltys due to our CR 1 animals (his dog my horse) Sorry for the wand healing but you asked a Neutral Evil charater to not heal... a Neutral Evil charater with a Failure tag Btw.. yea not gonna happen..
templer10 04-21-07, 10:24 PM	Looks good to me.. except for the rewards... i believe bulgar and me take 12.5% penaltys due to our CR 1 animals (his dog my horse) Sorry for the wand healing but you asked a Neutral Evil charater to not heal... a Neutral Evil charater with a Failure tag Btw.. yea not gonna happen.. yes but do the other side gets 12.5% bonus or more since you both had allys and the other team had none?
Zevox 04-21-07, 10:29 PM	yes but do the other side gets 12.5% bonus or more since you both had allys and the other team had none? 12.5% bonus is correct. Because each side had 2 foes, each ally only counts as half as much when it comes to boosting the opposing side's rewards (counts normally for the penalty though, since you don't get penalized for your teammate's ally). Zevox
SauroGrenom 04-21-07, 10:31 PM	You missed my point. My point is that they are not two different actions, but two different conditions. If you are taking a 5 ft step, you never provoke an AoO for taking said 5 ft step. If you move into an opponent's space, you always provoke an AoO (barring feats), regardless of what type of movement got you there. So taking a 5 ft step into an opponent's space does not provoke for the 5 ft step itself, but the movement into the opponent's space does provoke. Yes, it's the same action, but two different conditions that occur.This is precisely what happens when you use a wand to cast scorching ray. This action is both using a wand(no AoO) and using a ranged attack while threatened(provokes an AoO). Casting a touch attack spell is both Casting a Spell (provokes an AoO) and using an armed touch attack spell (doesn't provoke an AoO). So this provokes an AoO. Using the wand for Acid Arrow or casting inflict wounds are both single actions that satisfy more than one condition or an AoO.
TheMagister 04-21-07, 11:34 PM	Zodiac vs. Zax and Zoo is set up here and finished here. {pops neck} MAN I'm glad I'm done with that one. I hope the WAR face-off is an interesting fight. I want some suspense this week! TM
TheMagister 04-21-07, 11:38 PM	TM - just so that you are aware - the Megaraptor and Deinonychus are errataed - and the change is significant. I know it wouldn't change anything - but I just figured I'd mention it so that it doesn't come up again. In the errata - the Megaraptor is Large size and the Deinonychus is medium size (which is why Druids of Level 5 or more can wildshape into the latter). Oh, that's right...! I ran into that issue when Hood faced this same monster roll last level. You know, I'm gonna mess this up every time, too: the only place I can grab the SRD (that my work firewall allows me access to) is outdated. Oh well. It didn't slow Jar-red down any. Made 'em one easier to hit and yielded more meat for a hungry were-dino. TM
Zevox 04-21-07, 11:41 PM	Oh, that's right...! I ran into that issue when Hood faced this same monster roll last level. You know, I'm gonna mess this up every time, too: the only place I can grab the SRD (that my work firewall allows me access to) is outdated. Oh well. It didn't slow Jar-red down any. Made 'em one easier to hit and yielded more meat for a hungry were-dino. TM *eyebrow raised* You can't access either the d20 SRD or the Sovelior_Sage SRD from your work? What SRD do you use then? Zevox
Vathelokai 04-21-07, 11:47 PM	Zodiac vs. Zax and Zoo is set up here and finished here. {pops neck} MAN I'm glad I'm done with that one. I hope the WAR face-off is an interesting fight. I want some suspense this week! TM Looks good to me. Supprised Zax came with his zoo instead of just sending them all out.
NiQil 04-21-07, 11:49 PM	This is precisely what happens when you use a wand to cast scorching ray. This action is both using a wand(no AoO) and using a ranged attack while threatened(provokes an AoO). Casting a touch attack spell is both Casting a Spell (provokes an AoO) and using an armed touch attack spell (doesn't provoke an AoO). So this provokes an AoO. Using the wand for Acid Arrow or casting inflict wounds are both single actions that satisfy more than one condition or an AoO. I think I have identified our difference of opinion here. You appear to think (and correct me if I am wrong) that the ranged attack made when activating a wand is seperate from saying the command word to activate the wand. So you are seperating the act of activating the wand (no AoO) and making the ranged touch attack. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that the attack roll made when activating the wand is all a part of the wand activation. The activation of a magical item is a specifically defined standard action, as per this quote: Spell Trigger, Command Word, or Use-Activated Items: Activating any of these kinds of items does not require concentration and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Any result of a magical item activation that falls into this category does not provoke AoO. It all falls under this specifically defined standard action. Using a wand to summon a swarm? No AoO. Using a dorje to create grease? No AoO. Using a wand to fire a magic missile? No AoO. Using a dorje to fire crystal shards? No AoO. So let me put this question to you: If your stance is that the attack roll made for a ranged touch attack is seperate from the activation of the wand itself, can you please identify your source?
Vathelokai 04-21-07, 11:49 PM	Oh, that's right...! I ran into that issue when Hood faced this same monster roll last level. You know, I'm gonna mess this up every time, too: the only place I can grab the SRD (that my work firewall allows me access to) is outdated. Oh well. It didn't slow Jar-red down any. Made 'em one easier to hit and yielded more meat for a hungry were-dino. TM Have you considered just keeping it on a disk and taking it to work? Maybe setting up a little angelfire site or something?
NiQil 04-21-07, 11:51 PM	Oh, that's right...! I ran into that issue when Hood faced this same monster roll last level. You know, I'm gonna mess this up every time, too: the only place I can grab the SRD (that my work firewall allows me access to) is outdated. Oh well. It didn't slow Jar-red down any. Made 'em one easier to hit and yielded more meat for a hungry were-dino. TM The Sovelior Sage SRD is available for use offline, as is the WotC SRD. If you want to send me an email address, I'd be happy to upload them to you for you to store on your local hard drive. Edit: Vath, get out of my head! LOL
TheMagister 04-22-07, 12:04 AM	*eyebrow raised* You can't access either the d20 SRD or the Sovelior_Sage SRD from your work? What SRD do you use then? Zevox This is the only one I could find that I could access: http://www.andargor.com/ And it uses a buncha stuff this comp doesn't have like .sql and xml (either this comp doesn't have it or I just don't know how to use it). :P
TheMagister 04-22-07, 12:06 AM	The Sovelior Sage SRD is available for use offline, as is the WotC SRD. If you want to send me an email address, I'd be happy to upload them to you for you to store on your local hard drive. Edit: Vath, get out of my head! LOL I'm nervous about keeping gaming-related stuff on this hard drive (it doesn't really belong to me, you know). Also, receiving a big MB e-mail from an unknown source would have to raise a whole bunch of warning flags. I'm not so comfortable that either. Thanks for the offer, though. I should just ask one of my DnD buddies to make me a DVD copy of the SRD. It's not like I'm not friends with computer geeks or anything. ;) TM
NiQil 04-22-07, 01:13 AM	I'm nervous about keeping gaming-related stuff on this hard drive (it doesn't really belong to me, you know). Also, receiving a big MB e-mail from an unknown source would have to raise a whole bunch of warning flags. I'm not so comfortable that either. Thanks for the offer, though. I should just ask one of my DnD buddies to make me a DVD copy of the SRD. It's not like I'm not friends with computer geeks or anything. ;) TM That's the nice thing about the WotC SRD and errata....it is broken up into smaller files. So, though it would be many emails, it wouldn't be large files. But I think a hard copy idea is the best....get someone to burn you a data disc with the SRD and errata on it....then it's just a matter of playing the disc. Easily hideable if the boss comes around, too.
MindWandererB 04-22-07, 02:05 AM	I pack the Sovelior Sage SRD with me on a thumb drive all the time. And I actually keep the WotC .rtf one on my Pocket PC, too.
Erithmu 04-22-07, 02:57 AM	the ECL 4 team fight is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12174129&postcount=793) i truly hate who rolls 20 first fights. a note about some of the desicions i did- if i used any healing once everyone got into the get a 20 phase the fight wouldnt have ended untill all wands run out since at worst case scenario LPG and bulgar (after round 43). has same speed so i just didnt heal anyone. I will also have my political career to add in. I don't have any problems with the part of the fight I was involved in.
Abyssal Stalker 04-22-07, 02:58 AM	The dragons' bite attacks have 5' reach. That's why it went: 1) 10' range + breathe 2) 5' step + bite 3) 5' step + full attack The only movements were 5' steps --> no AoOs. This is how I was thinking it, but I obviously missed the part that entering another creature's space causes an AoO. This would mean that the remaining dragon switches to using only bite attacks, since the claw attacks are so unlikely to hit. Anyway, thanks for noting the issue. I'll try to remember it next time.
TheMagister 04-22-07, 03:40 AM	Gakhnalak Strongjaw vs. The Illustrated Man is up here. It was everything I'd been hoping for. I was just as much in the dark as to who was going to win as you guys will be. They done WAR proud... TM
Rauul 04-22-07, 04:07 AM	Gakhnalak Strongjaw vs. The Illustrated Man is up here. It was everything I'd been hoping for. I was just as much in the dark as to who was going to win as you guys will be. They done WAR proud... TM And you thought the Orcs in WaR got drunk before...
Maraxus 04-22-07, 07:23 AM	About Durin vs. Ogre: Just for future reference, Durin doesn't get an AoO on the charging Ogre. You only get an AoO if you leave a threatened square. Since he's large he never leaves a threatened square, even if he moves into base contact (which with his reach isn't necessary). Basicly Sauro sais here, that such a movement: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,L,30,48;b= Name,L,37,48,33,48,32,48;n=Reach,31,47,3 does not provoke an AoO. I think this is ridiculus. He is in my threatened square and moves, I get an AoO. That another part of him is still in that square does not matter.
Hirumajoe 04-22-07, 07:48 AM	So let me put this question to you: If your stance is that the attack roll made for a ranged touch attack is seperate from the activation of the wand itself, can you please identify your source? Since you asked... Actually, I believe Sauro doesn't believe they're two seperate actions, but come under two headings of the AoO chart. At least thats what I've gotten out his posts. Hence his issue with the 5' step into an opponents square. Thats clearly not two seperate actions, but the confusion arrises since it falls under (or effectively does) two "headers". I'm the one who was arguing that it was a seperate and distinct (although a no time taking non-action). I will point out that in the courtroom of Gladius thread, I did try to answer that question (or least argued the point with quotes from the SRD, sage advice, RotG, etc). The post can be found here. The only real rebuttle was made against point 5 by Templer10, which I admitted was the least convincing part of the argument since it was using real world logic. You neatly side stepped the arguments by making them irrelevant, by arguing that the ranged touch attacks themselves don't qualify to provoke AoOs. (And to which I'm willing to go along with the interpretation). But no one actually made any comments on the quoted sections of the SRD, Sage Advice, or RotG. So I present them again in answer to your question. And in regards to the explicit description in RAW of ranged touch attacks not provoking AoOs (which was your response to my arguments), I don't think its as clear as you'd like. Touch Spells in Combat Many spells have a range of touch. To use these spells, you cast the spell and then touch the subject, either in the same round or any time later. In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. You may take your move before casting the spell, after touching the target, or between casting the spell and touching the target. You can automatically touch one friend or use the spell on yourself, but to touch an opponent, you must succeed on an attack roll. Touch Attacks Touching an opponent with a touch spell is considered to be an armed attack and therefore does not provoke attacks of opportunity. However, the act of casting a spell does provoke an attack of opportunity. Touch attacks come in two types: melee touch attacks and ranged touch attacks. You can score critical hits with either type of attack. Your opponent’s AC against a touch attack does not include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. His size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) all apply normally. Holding the Charge If you don’t discharge the spell in the round when you cast the spell, you can hold the discharge of the spell (hold the charge) indefinitely. You can continue to make touch attacks round after round. You can touch one friend as a standard action or up to six friends as a full-round action. If you touch anything or anyone while holding a charge, even unintentionally, the spell discharges. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. Alternatively, you may make a normal unarmed attack (or an attack with a natural weapon) while holding a charge. In this case, you aren’t considered armed and you provoke attacks of opportunity as normal for the attack. (If your unarmed attack or natural weapon attack doesn’t provoke attacks of opportunity, neither does this attack.) If the attack hits, you deal normal damage for your unarmed attack or natural weapon and the spell discharges. If the attack misses, you are still holding the charge. The critical line which is highlighted could be read (not saying its the intent of the designers, but reading literally it could) as the following: Touching (physical contact) an opponent with a touch spell (a spell with a range of touch, as defined in the previous paragraph) is considered to be an armed attack (an argument which doesn't apply to ranged attacks, since being armed or unarmed is not a factor for ranged attacks provoking AoOs) does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Yes, touch attacks are broken up into two types two sentences later, but the this particular line (for whatever reason - intentional or poor editing) does not address Touch attacks in general. It addresses touch spells which have always in my mind been those spells with range: touch. Otherwise, you run into the ability to hold the charge on rays. And make attacks round after round with them if you miss. If touch spell = spell with a melee or ranged touch attack. Touch Spells and Holding the Charge In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge (postpone the discharge of the spell) indefinitely. You can make touch attacks round after round. If you cast another spell, the touch spell dissipates. I agree that its suggestive that the Touch attacks are broken up into two types in the exact same paragraph, and in in the interest of letting the subject drop, I'm willing to go along with that interpretation, but it is by no means clear or the only way to read that passage. Edit: Some food for thought. The AoO chart states that Full attacks do not provoke AoOs (and not even a maybe - just no). And has no sub-clause for ranged attacks. Does this mean ranged attack made as part of a Full attack action do not provoke AoOs. Or perhaps that you only provoke one AoO if you make multiple attacks? Heck, it doesn't even fall under two headings because your not making a standard ranged attack. :)
hogarth 04-22-07, 08:22 AM	I think I have identified our difference of opinion here. You appear to think (and correct me if I am wrong) that the ranged attack made when activating a wand is seperate from saying the command word to activate the wand. So you are seperating the act of activating the wand (no AoO) and making the ranged touch attack. The point is that an action can cause an AoO for more than one reason. Examples: A character tries to sunder an opponent's weapon with a gauntlet attack. This provokes an AoO because it's a gauntlet attack and also because it's a sunder attack. A Tiny hawk moves from 30' away into a Medium sized character's square in order to attack. This provokes an AoO because the hawk is moving from one threatened square into another and (according to you) also because entering a character's square provokes an AoO. A psion manifests Crystal Shard in a threatened square. This provokes an AoO because he manifested in a threatened square and (according to Sauro) because it's a ranged attack in a threatened square. In that case, negating one of the reasons for the AoO doesn't negate the other reason. Examples: A character with Improved Unarmed Strike tries to sunder an opponent's weapon with a gauntlet attack. This does not provoke an AoO because it's a gauntlet attack but does because it's a sunder attack. A Tiny hawk moves from 5' away into a Medium sized character's square in order to attack. This does not provokes an AoO because the hawk is moving from one threatened square into another but does (according to you) because entering a character's square provokes an AoO. A psion uses Crystal Shard from a dorje in a threatened square. This does not provoke an AoO because he used a dorje in a threatened square but does (according to Sauro) because it's a ranged attack in a threatened square. The idea's not complicated. Personally, I don't think using a ranged touch spell necessarily falls under that "Attack (ranged)" category in the table. For instance, the table indicates that "Attack (ranged)" is a standard action; does that meant that a sorcerer can cast a Maximized Scorching Ray as a standard action, since it's a ranged attack? In my opinion, no.
Maraxus 04-22-07, 09:19 AM	A psion uses Crystal Shard from a dorje in a threatened square. This does not provoke an AoO because he used a dorje in a threatened square but does (according to Sauro) because it's a ranged attack in a threatened square. Hm, I though, it was generally accepted, that a ranged attack roll does not provoke an AoO, only the "ranged attack" action does.
SauroGrenom 04-22-07, 10:54 AM	About Durin vs. Ogre: Just for future reference, Durin doesn't get an AoO on the charging Ogre. You only get an AoO if you leave a threatened square. Since he's large he never leaves a threatened square, even if he moves into base contact (which with his reach isn't necessary). Basicly Sauro sais here, that such a movement: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,L,30,48;b= Name,L,37,48,33,48,32,48;n=Reach,31,47,3 does not provoke an AoO. I think this is ridiculus. He is in my threatened square and moves, I get an AoO. That another part of him is still in that square does not matter. I'm sorry you don't like it, but you're wrong. The rules are clear. You grant an AoO only for leaving a threatened square, and there is no clause about breaking a creature into "parts" that are all tracked independently. Large or larger creature rarely cause an AoO when moving into base contact against a medium creature. That's just one part of the many advantages for being large.
Horatius 04-22-07, 11:42 AM	the ECL 4 team fight is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12174129&postcount=793) i truly hate who rolls 20 first fights. a note about some of the desicions i did- if i used any healing once everyone got into the get a 20 phase the fight wouldnt have ended untill all wands run out since at worst case scenario LPG and bulgar (after round 43). has same speed so i just didnt heal anyone. I think there are a few problems. I have no problem with the 'no heal' thing - I agree with you. I also can't get the maps to work, so I can't really comment on what happened tactically before you stopped using them. Rolls look ok though. However, starting at round 15 there are a couple of problems: 1. I calculate that I need a 15 to hit Bulgar, not 17 (AC 19+4(cover)=23, Attack is +10-2(rapid)=+8) meaning I would hit in rounds 18, 21 and 25. Since he has only 13 hp left at the end, this could easily have finished Bulgar, and LPG way out-guns Rauul. 2. Bulgar got 2 attacks in round 21. 3. LPGs hp go from 19 to 1 between rounds 21-23 and the next rounds 21-23 (copy/paste error?). I only took 9 dmg, so I assume you made an edit error. In any case, LPG is still alive, I think.
SauroGrenom 04-22-07, 11:59 AM	I think I have identified our difference of opinion here. You appear to think (and correct me if I am wrong) that the ranged attack made when activating a wand is seperate from saying the command word to activate the wand. So you are seperating the act of activating the wand (no AoO) and making the ranged touch attack.I need to correct you here. I am saying that activating a wand of scorching ray is a single action that falls under multiple classifications. It is both a ranged attack and activating a magic item. There's no separate action for the ranged attack and speaking the command word. It's all a single standard action in combat. The issue is that that single action is more than one "kind" of action. Much like a short spear is both a ranged weapon and a melee weapon. Or how a flurry of blows is a full attack with unarmed strikes, melee attack and using an extraordinary ability. A flurry of blows is a single combat "action", but it's an action that falls under multiple classifications. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that the attack roll made when activating the wand is all a part of the wand activation.Certainly. The attack roll is part of the standard action activating the wand and making a ranged attack with the wand. It's just that that single action falls under multiple classifications of "actions" on the table. There are probably hundreds of single actions in the game that can fall under multiple classifications on that table. So what are we to do about it? So far we've voted that all cases where an action falls under multiple classifications, then the action is "really" only one of those actions. That just requires us to decide in every case which is the "primary" status of the action. So we need to vote on every one. I think the only reasonable way to conclude all such confusions in one ruling is to vote that all classifications apply equally.
Rauul 04-22-07, 12:58 PM	I think there are a few problems. I have no problem with the 'no heal' thing - I agree with you. I also can't get the maps to work, so I can't really comment on what happened tactically before you stopped using them. Rolls look ok though. However, starting at round 15 there are a couple of problems: 1. I calculate that I need a 15 to hit Bulgar, not 17 (AC 19+4(cover)=23, Attack is +10-2(rapid)=+8) meaning I would hit in rounds 18, 21 and 25. Since he has only 13 hp left at the end, this could easily have finished Bulgar, and LPG way out-guns Rauul. 2. Bulgar got 2 attacks in round 21. 3. LPGs hp go from 19 to 1 between rounds 21-23 and the next rounds 21-23 (copy/paste error?). I only took 9 dmg, so I assume you made an edit error. In any case, LPG is still alive, I think. And here lays the problem.. with not enough contingencies and Pitlords should make a call.. cause when your refreshing your spells, why would a mounted cleric and a slow cleric not take those 2 rounds to engage you up close, to draw you out of your hiding spot and make you move.. In a table top game we could of seen that and reacted to it.. Here we depend on the Pitlord to make those actions for us...Especually with needing 20's to hit.. Rauul's horse has a better chance of killing you than Rauul does.. (hence why i don't worry about the exp penaty) Just cause tactics don't cover a certain situation.. Please adjust to common sense is all i have ever asked and never complained about a lost yet...But we will see how this plays out.. with any fixes..
templer10 04-22-07, 12:59 PM	I think there are a few problems. I have no problem with the 'no heal' thing - I agree with you. I also can't get the maps to work, so I can't really comment on what happened tactically before you stopped using them. Rolls look ok though. However, starting at round 15 there are a couple of problems: 1. I calculate that I need a 15 to hit Bulgar, not 17 (AC 19+4(cover)=23, Attack is +10-2(rapid)=+8) meaning I would hit in rounds 18, 21 and 25. Since he has only 13 hp left at the end, this could easily have finished Bulgar, and LPG way out-guns Rauul. 2. Bulgar got 2 attacks in round 21. 3. LPGs hp go from 19 to 1 between rounds 21-23 and the next rounds 21-23 (copy/paste error?). I only took 9 dmg, so I assume you made an edit error. In any case, LPG is still alive, I think. Bulgar is both behind cover and kneeling so he has +4 (cover) and +2 (kneeling) so you need 17 to hit- you are right about round 21 ill move it 1 round forward so bulgar hits at round 23, you are also right about the edit erro so i will complete the fight later.
McJarvis 04-22-07, 01:09 PM	@TM: Only complaint comment I have: Though not expressly stated, my "intent" was to stay still in my starting room(thus no tactics for movement). PM'd you the full-rundown of what should be changed(total affect on fight is just that TIM gets one more chance to hit Gak with a non-truestriked strike) Though, as I said, I didn't state it explicitly. I've had to eat losses before for merely inferring things I meant, and would hold nothing against you if you forced me to do so once again.
Hirumajoe 04-22-07, 02:12 PM	Hm, I though, it was generally accepted, that a ranged attack roll does not provoke an AoO, only the "ranged attack" action does. If it is fact the ranged attack action, not the ranged attack roll then my understanding of AoOs is completely borked. And my understanding needs to be fixed. I had thought on a full attack, each ranged attack roll generated its own AoO. Similarly, I was under the impression that a Many shot attack generates a single AoO. If your statement is true, my assumptions cannot possibly be correct assumptions. No where in the SRD that I can find, does it say that a ranged Full attack action generates AoOs (please direct me to it if you can.) Nor can I find anywhere that says Multishot (a special action which is not the standard attack action) generates an AoO. And even if the Full attack action generated an AoO, then there should only be one attack of opportunity for the entire set of attacks. I in fact find evidence of the contrary. Both that standard actions are not part of full actions. They are seperate and distinct. Therefore, you're not making 3 Attack (Ranged) actions, you're making a single Full attack action. Similarly, on a many shot, you're not performing an Attack (Ranged) action, you're performing the standard action provided by the Many shot feat, which has no AoO listing. Its for the same reason you can't use the Many shot feat and Shot on the run, Many shot is explicitly not the attack action. Is sunder a special standard action or is it a melee attack variant? It has its own entry on the actions table, but the text describing it refers to it as a melee attack. Is sunder a melee attack only in the sense of hitting something with a melee weapon, or is sunder a true melee attack? Sunder is a special kind of melee attack. If it were a special standard action, its description would say so (as the descriptive text for the Manyshot feat says). One of the players in a campaign that I run took the Manyshot feat from the Epic Level Handbook. His character gets three attacks if he takes the full attack action, from a base attack bonus of +6/+1 and the Rapid Shot feat. He claims that with Manyshot he can fire six arrows as a fullround action. I say he can’t, since the feat applies only to standard actions. I think that the feat allows him to fire two shots during a standard action as opposed to the usual single shot that is allowed. Does Manyshot apply to full attack as well as standard actions? I would greatly appreciate it if you could shed some light on the situation. You’re right about Manyshot. It allows the character to shoot two or more arrows as a standard action. It does not allow the character to fire two or more arrows in place of a single attack. Standard actions can’t be combined with full attacks, nor are they part of a full attack. So can someone tell me the correct way AoOs are supposed to interact with such actions? And direct me to the relevant parts of the FAQ or SRD? Thanks.
templer10 04-22-07, 02:18 PM	And here lays the problem.. with not enough contingencies and Pitlords should make a call.. cause when your refreshing your spells, why would a mounted cleric and a slow cleric not take those 2 rounds to engage you up close, to draw you out of your hiding spot and make you move.. In a table top game we could of seen that and reacted to it.. Here we depend on the Pitlord to make those actions for us...Especually with needing 20's to hit.. Rauul's horse has a better chance of killing you than Rauul does.. (hence why i don't worry about the exp penaty), Just cause tactics don't cover a certain situation.. Please adjust to common sense is all i have ever asked and never complained about a lost yet...But we will see how this plays out.. with any fixes.. there is a limit to improvisations and staying away from tactics- You for instance didnt say to shoot crossbow if you have noting else to do but i did it anyway- so iam not going to go back and have the horse go out and do attacks. i mean if i go there why not do hold person for LPG- it's his last fight if i remmber correctly there is nothing preventing that. personally i dont think it will matter any since as soon as it leaves Cover LPG can either kill rauul easly since he has 4 less AC or just kill the horse outright since it has only 14 AC.
Maraxus 04-22-07, 02:44 PM	I'm sorry you don't like it, but you're wrong. The rules are clear. You grant an AoO only for leaving a threatened square, and there is no clause about breaking a creature into "parts" that are all tracked independently. Large or larger creature rarely cause an AoO when moving into base contact against a medium creature. That's just one part of the many advantages for being large. It's not that I don't like it, it's just that this is no way to introduce a new interpretation of the rules. Durin on his mount had to deal with moving through reach, Balrog had to deal with it. I have a large and a mounted character, I would totally love this rule, but it never was that way and you should not run a game with such rules without telling me. I searched and sadly no rule mentions AoOs for movement in combination with being large (the section you quote is from the Player's hand book, chapters before it is mentioned that there are creatures that take more space then 5x5). -But it was allways the way I say. -The rules don't say clearly, that a creature that leaves a square you threaten does not suffer an AoO to still be in the square you threaten, this interpretation is so wiered. -I have played with quite a lot of D&D players and nobody read this rule as you do. You threaten him + he moves = You get an AoO. Okay, your interpretation (as wiered as it looks for me) works together with the words of the rules, so I will have to live with it. However, even in that case, I definitly think I have the right, that you tell me, your interpretation and not simply say: "Bwahaha, your plan does not work, so the monster beats you to death and you don't even strike back."
McJarvis 04-22-07, 04:01 PM	I didn't really read any of the argument except what Maraxus quoted above by sauro & what he wrote, but hopefully this is hopeful: AoO's due to movement are tricky at first because new players get confused. Things like "I provoke an AoO for basing the dragon! that must mean I provoke AoO's upon approaching creatures" often popped into my head as a beginer. Sauro is correct here, though. (Assuming I read his argument correctly) You just need to simplify your thinking & consider only what the rules actually say. AoO's for movement are provoked by leaving a threatened square, and nothing else. The way you determine whether someone "left" a space is you ask yourself: "Did this person occupy the space before he moved? Was he ever not in the square during the movement? Is he still there now? If the answers to these questions are "Yes, no, yes", then no AoO could be provoked due to movement. My "source" for this rule is as follows: Moving: Moving out of a threatened square usually provokes an attack of opportunity from the threatening opponent. There are two common methods of avoiding such an attack—the 5-foot-step and the withdraw action (see below). It clearly defines the movement that provokes an AoO as "moving out of the square" The only source I can think of that contradicts this is a chart under "AoO"'s, but there is a lovely little addendum to that chart that states Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity. The addendum effectively makes the first item in that chart(moving) invalid, since it says that this chart is not meant to indicate AoO's for mere movement. Anywho, I hope this helps. (or at least, alleviates your worries that reading the rules in black-and-white is something that only Sauro does-> this is the exact way all of my table-top games run for AoO's)
templer10 04-22-07, 05:38 PM	the ECL 4 Fight is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12174129&postcount=793)- took another 12 or so rounds but the result Did change.
NiQil 04-22-07, 05:45 PM	@ Sauro: Alright...so we agree that the wand activation and the ranged attack roll are the same action. But you didn't address my last point. The activation of a wand is it's own specifically defined standard action. This action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. As we have both agreed, the activation of the wand includes both the command word and the ranged attack roll. So can you please explain to me again how the activation of the wand (that includes both the use of the command word and the ranged attack roll) is provoking an AoO, since the entire action of activation of a wand is stated to not provoke? To put it bluntly: Wand activation = Say command word & make ranged attack roll Wand activation = A standard action that provokes no AoO (as per item description) Therefore, Say command word & make ranged attack roll = A standard action that provokes no AoO. Rebuttal?
Yitzi 04-22-07, 06:02 PM	You seem to have proven your point. Next question: How do you prove that ranged touch attacks can be made while grappling, and without a -4 penalty at that?
templer10 04-22-07, 06:10 PM	You seem to have proven your point. Next question: How do you prove that ranged touch attacks can be made while grappling, and without a -4 penalty at that? RAnged touch attacks are a result of something- usually a spell/power casted by the grappler or shot from a wand/dorja- neither of which falls into the "attack your opponent" category which it and ONLY it gives -4 to hit. remmber that the list of actions to take in a grapple is not an open one But that you can only do once of a certein list. ill break it down further: If the ranged touch comes as a result of using a wand/dorja/magic item other then spell completion item (powerstone/scroll) - the SRD spesificly affres that in the section about what you can do in a grapple "When you are grappling (regardless of who started the grapple), you can perform any of the following actions. Some of these actions take the place of an attack (rather than being a standard action or a move action)..... Activate a Magic Item: You can activate a magic item, as long as the item doesn’t require spell completion activation. You don’t need to make a grapple check to activate the item. " If the ranged touch roll is a result of you casting a spell/manifest a power it is addresed in another section of that part - "Cast a Spell - You can attempt to cast a spell while grappling or even while pinned (see below), provided its casting time is no more than 1 standard action, it has no somatic component, and you have in hand any material components or focuses you might need. Any spell that requires precise and careful action is impossible to cast while grappling or being pinned. If the spell is one that you can cast while grappling, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or lose the spell. You don’t have to make a successful grapple check to cast the spell. " result - you can cast spell/manifest power with DC 20+level concetration check and the power/spell is what brings about the ranged attack roll. ONLY in the part about "attack your opponent" it say you take a -4 to your to hit roll- Note that as the SRD say - you can ONLY use a natural weapon, unarmed strike or light weapon to attack while in grapple using that action- since the ranged touch roll is a result of a power and none of the actions above it doesnt get -4. "You can make an attack with an unarmed strike, natural weapon, or light weapon against another character you are grappling. You take a -4 penalty on such attacks." notice that if you attempt to damage your opponent using rapple checks which is SORT of an attack you DONT take -4 to your grapple roll which tells you that the -4 is stricly for the "attack an opponent" section of the rule.
Horatius 04-22-07, 06:12 PM	there is a limit to improvisations and staying away from tactics- You for instance didnt say to shoot crossbow if you have noting else to do but i did it anyway- so iam not going to go back and have the horse go out and do attacks. i mean if i go there why not do hold person for LPG- it's his last fight if i remmber correctly there is nothing preventing that. personally i dont think it will matter any since as soon as it leaves Cover LPG can either kill rauul easly since he has 4 less AC or just kill the horse outright since it has only 14 AC. @t10: sorry, missed the kneeling for Bulgar's AC. @Rauul: I can always back away while casting, too, and as t10 says, if the horse becomes a problem, I'll kill it with arrows or a couple of inflict spells. @No one: In general, I think second-guessing the pitlords tactical choices is tricky, unless there's a clear contravention of explicit instructions. There are always many different ways a situation can be handled, and retrospect and personal bias skew the issue further. Numbers mistakes, on the other hand, are fair game - and I don't think anyone resents that.
NiQil 04-22-07, 06:12 PM	You seem to have proven your point. Next question: How do you prove that ranged touch attacks can be made while grappling, and without a -4 penalty at that? As far as whether they can be used in a grapple...it depends on where the spell is coming from. If from a wand or dorje, they can be used in a grapple under the heading of activating a magical item below: Activate a Magic Item: You can activate a magic item, as long as the item doesn’t require a spell completion trigger. You don’t need to make a grapple check to activate the item. The -4 penalty to attack rolls only applies if you are using the 'attack an opponent' action that is defined under the grapple rules. Since activating a wand is defined under 'activating a magical item', the -4 penalty is not applicable. Now if you are casting the spell from memory, then the ranged touch attack would fall under the heading of 'Casting a Spell', as below: Cast a Spell: You can attempt to cast a spell while grappling or even while pinned (see below), provided its casting time is no more than 1 standard action, it has no somatic component, and you have in hand any material components or focuses you might need. Any spell that requires precise and careful action is impossible to cast while grappling or being pinned. If the spell is one that you can cast while grappling, you must make a Concentration check (DC 20 + spell level) or lose the spell. You don’t have to make a successful grapple check to cast the spell. Again...since the -4 to your attack roll only applies when using the 'attack an opponent' action, it does not apply. Keep in mind that spellcasting and/or manifesting do not fall under the same headings as melee attacks. They fall under their own rules. This is true in many situations, and more often than not.
Erithmu 04-22-07, 06:23 PM	the ECL 4 Fight is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12174129&postcount=793)- took another 12 or so rounds but the result Did change. @T10: I/Erithmu still needs his political Career added to his rewards.
hogarth 04-22-07, 06:37 PM	@ Sauro: Alright...so we agree that the wand activation and the ranged attack roll are the same action. But you didn't address my last point. The activation of a wand is its own specifically defined standard action. This action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. As we have both agreed, the activation of the wand includes both the command word and the ranged attack roll. So can you please explain to me again how the activation of the wand (that includes both the use of the command word and the ranged attack roll) is provoking an AoO, since the entire action of activation of a wand is stated to not provoke? It's pointless to argue this further (since a decision has already been made), but here's an analogy to what you're claiming: "Sunder a weapon" is its own specifically defined standard action. If the person performing the action has the Improved Sunder feat, it does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Therefore, (by NiQil logic) an unarmed sunder with the Improved Sunder feat does not provoke attacks of opportunity (even though a normal unarmed attack would).
TheMagister 04-22-07, 06:46 PM	@TM: Only complaint comment I have: Though not expressly stated, my "intent" was to stay still in my starting room(thus no tactics for movement). PM'd you the full-rundown of what should be changed(total affect on fight is just that TIM gets one more chance to hit Gak with a non-truestriked strike) Though, as I said, I didn't state it explicitly. I've had to eat losses before for merely inferring things I meant, and would hold nothing against you if you forced me to do so once again. I'm sorry you're not happy with the fight, bro, but I'm afraid that I can't in good conscience change it for this reason. Attacking: Draw a scroll of true strike if I have time, if not skip this step. It should be pretty obvious on whether I have "Free time" or not..please do not waste time if I'm pressed, because I expect this battle to be over in 2 or 3 shots. If I have the true strike, cast it while approaching him & then next time attack with full powerattack with my spear(or spiked armor if I'm presented no other choice).(+6 damage for power attack) Also, fight defensively when I strike him with the true strike(+2 dodge ac!) The truestrike-mods will equal +13 to the attack. I read that as, "If I still haven't seen him, then I have free time. If I have free time, go with the 'true strike strategy'. If I'm going with the 'true strike strategy', cast it while approaching him so that I can be sure to hit him with my next attack." Since TIM knew where Gakh was (via listen checks), there was no reason to wait until Gakh was approaching on his own (TIM couldn't know that Gakh was Expeditiously Fast and could close and attack from so far away). To my mind, changing the fight to have TIM wait in his starting box for Gakh to "waste" an action double moving is leaning toward the 'meta-gaming with after-the-fact knowledge' side of things. Sorry, but I have to decline your edit request. If you wish to continue with your request/case, please do so here! I don't want to appear totally intractable. Always respectfully bro, TM
NiQil 04-22-07, 06:49 PM	It's pointless to argue this further (since a decision has already been made), but here's an analogy to what you're claiming: "Sunder a weapon" is its own specifically defined standard action. If the person performing the action has the Improved Sunder feat, it does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Therefore, (by NiQil logic) an unarmed sunder with the Improved Sunder feat does not provoke attacks of opportunity (even though a normal unarmed attack would). Well, I'm going to change your analogy to disarming, because only a monk can perform a sunder unarmed (because his unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, whereas everyone else's don't), and his unarmed strikes already don't provoke. So, your altered analogy would read as follows: "Disarm a weapon" is its own specifically defined standard action. If the person performing the action has the Improved Disarm feat, it does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Therefore, (by NiQil logic) an unarmed disarm with the Improved Disarm feat does not provoke attacks of opportunity (even though a normal unarmed attack would). To answer your question...yes, that is exactly what I am saying. And that is exactly the way the rules read as well. The same hold true if I were to insert tripping into your example instead of disarming. The feat for the action (disarming, tripping, etc) overrides the normal AoO that would be incurred due to the unarmed attack in this specific circumstance because that is exactly what the feat says it does.
hogarth 04-22-07, 06:50 PM	Well, I'm going to change your analogy to disarming, because only a monk can perform a sunder unarmed (because his unarmed strikes count as manufactured weapons, whereas everyone else's don't), and his unarmed strikes already don't provoke.. Anyeon can do an unarmed sunder if he's wearing a gauntlet (allows unarmed strikes to do lethal damage).
templer10 04-22-07, 06:59 PM	@T10: I/Erithmu still needs his political Career added to his rewards. Actually it was added already- 1200X1.125X1.16=1566.
NiQil 04-22-07, 07:09 PM	Anyeon can do an unarmed sunder if he's wearing a gauntlet (allows unarmed strikes to do lethal damage). But your example did not specify this. But yes, with a gauntlet, your example would hold true...and then yes, your example would be exactly what I am saying, and exactly what the RAW state.
Erithmu 04-22-07, 07:17 PM	Actually it was added already- 1200X1.125X1.16=1566. I R blind
Maraxus 04-22-07, 08:37 PM	I didn't really read any of the argument except what Maraxus quoted above by sauro & what he wrote, but hopefully this is hopeful: AoO's due to movement are tricky at first because new players get confused. Things like "I provoke an AoO for basing the dragon! that must mean I provoke AoO's upon approaching creatures" often popped into my head as a beginer. Sauro is correct here, though. (Assuming I read his argument correctly) You just need to simplify your thinking & consider only what the rules actually say. AoO's for movement are provoked by leaving a threatened square, and nothing else. The way you determine whether someone "left" a space is you ask yourself: "Did this person occupy the space before he moved? Was he ever not in the square during the movement? Is he still there now? If the answers to these questions are "Yes, no, yes", then no AoO could be provoked due to movement. My "source" for this rule is as follows: It clearly defines the movement that provokes an AoO as "moving out of the square" The only source I can think of that contradicts this is a chart under "AoO"'s, but there is a lovely little addendum to that chart that states The addendum effectively makes the first item in that chart(moving) invalid, since it says that this chart is not meant to indicate AoO's for mere movement. Anywho, I hope this helps. (or at least, alleviates your worries that reading the rules in black-and-white is something that only Sauro does-> this is the exact way all of my table-top games run for AoO's) This does make sense for medium sized creatures. For Large and larger creatures, however, this does not make sense. See, that you don't just attack larger creatures, you attack parts of larger creatures (this get's relevant when it comes to effects like concealment and cover). I think it's only logical to aply the same mechanism to AoO for movement. If something is at (x,y), I threaten it and then moves to (x+1,y), than how can it matter, that other parts of that creature are still inside (x,y)? I can't even see that parts. The AoO-rules (clearly) mean to work that way: "You should not move around carelessly when someone can take a swing at you. You are allowed to enter another characters threatened square, but not move any further." This interpretation makes a lot more sense, imho. It goes along the way larger creatures are usually handeled and it is in the spirit of what this rule is meant to do. (Yes, I dare to speculate on what the designers intended) Anyway: I allready aggred that the other interpretation is correct too (since I can't proove it wrong) and therefor I accept the pitlords right to handl eit that way, however the way the fight was run then was not okay. Short information: My tactic was: "For X rounds withdraw every turn. Use my reach weapon, if he bases me to get an AoO when I'm withdrawing, I also get an AoO." Now the best way I see here would be to write back, that he sees the rules diffrent, I go searching for rules to prove him wrong for an hour, find none and adjust my tactics acordingly. If time is bare (probably he has something to do tomorrow, that this would be the best), he could improvise smartly if possible related to the rest of the tactics. But he made me withdraw every turn, take an AoO every turn but nothing in return. And that I find bad. I probably won't be able to beat that Ogre anyway (well with some tricks maybe but nothing one could control through tactics), so I can simply say: "Monster fights are made to be lost unless you can fly and/or go invisible." and go to the next. But still, I felt it was necessary to state my dissatisfaction with this fight. :(
McJarvis 04-22-07, 09:20 PM	I'm sorry you're not happy with the fight, bro, but I'm afraid that I can't in good conscience change it for this reason. If I say that I approached someone on the street, I wouldn't say it meant "I started at 10 am and searched for them for two hours until I found them at 2pm." I'd say it meant "I saw them, then I went to them". Same reasoning applied here, and my tactics do assume that he's the one that comes into my sight.(not the other way around) As I said, I apparently wasn't clear enough in my hurry to write short & concise tactics. My bad-> you don't have to change it if you really don't want to. --> semantics argument withdrawn because they never go anywhere good :) That's a really vague wording in my tactics to interpret into "move out and seek/destroy". Given that you gave Gak the benefit of the doubt & didn't force him to always do full combat expertise, I think you can read into the general theme of my tactics(which is waiting for Gak to come into view & react to that) But it is your decision, and a loss won't kill TIM. (I did the calculations-> his high charisma makes it so great renown does nothing for his leadership score ;) )
McJarvis 04-22-07, 09:27 PM	This does make sense for medium sized creatures. For Large and larger creatures, however, this does not make sense. Do you really need to be told that this game wasn't made for large & larger creatures? All modifiers revolve around medium sized characters, and all PC races in the PHB are small/medium, who conveniently take up the same size square on the "battle grid" :)
TheMagister 04-22-07, 09:33 PM	If I say that I approached someone on the street, I wouldn't say it meant "I started at 10 am and searched for them for two hours until I found them at 2pm." I'd say it meant "I saw them, then I went to them". Same reasoning applied here, and my tactics do assume that he's the one that comes into my sight.(not the other way around) As I said, I apparently wasn't clear enough in my hurry to write short & concise tactics. My bad-> you don't have to change it if you really don't want to. I get you. To use your analogy (with a TM + DnD twist): I'd say it meant "I heard them/located them, then I went to them." Sorry that I can't help you out, man.
McJarvis 04-22-07, 09:36 PM	Alright. I'll start the RP for the loss tomorrow. edit-> Did I really say there were two hours between 10 am and 2pm? I guess you guys know about my "long lunch-hours" now :-( edit#2-> You know, it's bitterly ironic that my only two losses in the arena in the last year not only were to TM and MWB, but also due to a pitlord misinterpreting my tactics & moving towards my opponent when I didn't want to.
Zevox 04-22-07, 09:43 PM	Gakhnalak Strongjaw vs. The Illustrated Man is up here. It was everything I'd been hoping for. I was just as much in the dark as to who was going to win as you guys will be. They done WAR proud... TM Awesome fight! Too bad it was over so soon... ah well. The message this type of thing sends is nice though - "The only opponent that can beat one of WAR's finest is another of WAR's finest." :D @ MWB - You know, this now means that Gak can't lose until he catches up to Ceilia, so we can have another battle of the undefeated WAR titans ;) . Re: Rules discussions going on now - I'll not get into great depth on this (since it seems things are already being plenty well argued), but I will say I agree with Sauro on both counts. Just in case anyone cares. Zevox
Rauul 04-22-07, 09:43 PM	the ECL 4 Fight is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12174129&postcount=793)- took another 12 or so rounds but the result Did change. The result changed cause you didn't follow tactics submitted.. You don't wanna improvise tactics for a situations cause none were Submitted for that situation... But Tactics for a Specific Situation where Submittied.. (I did Submit a healing Contingency if Bulgar went down (cause i knew One on one i couldn't take LPG) and never once did i agree to NOT use my wand) I will take the Fight as you ran it.. but I don't agree with the not using tactics Submitted.. when you won't improvise and you stopped a Rider from moving and forcing the Opponent to choose targets or to open up to at least one of us.. 120 move on a horse is easy.. forcing him to choose cover for Either Bulgar or Rauul not both... (infact Bulgars Tactics State the range attacks is a last resort, and not once did i say to stop moving and hide) IMHO a rapid shot archer should not be able to get off 2 shots a round when faced with 2 oppenants and keep cover to both..(why did i buy a horse to use when for 26 rds you had me at 1 location..)
McJarvis 04-22-07, 09:49 PM	@ MWB - You know, this now means that Gak can't lose until he catches up to Ceilia, so we can have another battle of the undefeated WAR titans ;) . I'm fully planning on beating Gak in the ECL 6 league with TIM ;)
SauroGrenom 04-22-07, 10:02 PM	Maraxus, I'm sorry the fight is a disappointment for you. I didn't realize the error untill I was working through the fight, and when your tactics broke down due to a rules misunderstanding. I thought of asking for amended tactics, but then I realized that if this were a battle against another player, I would consider such a thing to be unfair. I don't think there should be a difference in the standard depending on having a monster or player as an opponent. Also even with the fact you were taking an AoO each round, it wasn't a bad strategy. You couldn't evade melee, and it was better than standing still. He would have had full attacks unless you moved each round. Better luck next time. Sauro
templer10 04-22-07, 10:11 PM	The result changed cause you didn't follow tactics submitted.. You don't wanna improvise tactics for a situations cause none were Submitted for that situation... But Tactics for a Specific Situation where Submittied.. (I did Submit a healing Contingency if Bulgar went down (cause i knew One on one i couldn't take LPG) and never once did i agree to NOT use my wand) I will take the Fight as you ran it.. but I don't agree with the not using tactics Submitted.. when you won't improvise and you stopped a Rider from moving and forcing the Opponent to choose targets or to open up to at least one of us.. 120 move on a horse is easy.. forcing him to choose cover for Either Bulgar or Rauul not both... (infact Bulgars Tactics State the range attacks is a last resort, and not once did i say to stop moving and hide) IMHO a rapid shot archer should not be able to get off 2 shots a round when faced with 2 oppenants and keep cover to both..(why did i buy a horse to use when for 26 rds you had me at 1 location..) First- even if LPG cover was only against Bulgar- he still had 25 AC (18+2+4) So rauul needed 20 to hit even without cover. second- rauul could have gone and done whatever he wanted and moved all over the battlefield But LPG would have still gone for Bulgar first since he knows that around round 40 something when his (LPG) buffs run out he's a much easier target for bulgar, LPG would have still killed bulgar even if rauul would have stayed away, if needed LPG would have make sure of bulgar (brought him to -10). in fact rauul if i remmber correctly did most of the DMG to LPG with spiritual weapon and a lucky shot. third- RAuul did heal himself in the first part of the fight i just disalloed healing for those concerned in the last part of the fight. Forth- rauul AND bulgar had plenty of opportunity to kill LPG - he had very low hp for a long time, the dice failed you. fifth- since you didnt agree not to heal i took it as All chars are allowed to heal i just Chose not to do it frankly since in this type of fight healing would probably have been pointless since most likely LPG would have won anyway since he has more Spell levels and still have the wand and the whole fight wold have taken 50 rounds (and 3 hours) longer, remmber that out in the open and once rauul's horse is dead even always healing LPG can do more dmg per round then you can heal and he still had those inflict spells. sixth- About rauul going to heal bulgar that would have been a fairly bad idia to do since it would involve leaving cover for at least 2 rounds giving LPG a very good chance to kill rauul outright in those 2 rounds and you mentioned to only do that if healing Bulgar wouldnt put you in jeporday and in that situation it would certinly do put you in jepordy.
sonofzeal 04-22-07, 10:57 PM	Can somebody take Ilendil Oratith (TelinArtho) vs. The Seeker (NiQil) for me? I'm still in exams, and finishing the FFA is as much time as I'm willing to commit out of my schedule right now.
Rauul 04-22-07, 11:43 PM	First- even if LPG cover was only against Bulgar- he still had 25 AC (18+2+4) So rauul needed 20 to hit even without cover. And this is different from the end how?? second- rauul could have gone and done whatever he wanted and moved all over the battlefield But LPG would have still gone for Bulgar first since he knows that around round 40 something when his (LPG) buffs run out he's a much easier target for bulgar, LPG would have still killed bulgar even if rauul would have stayed away, if needed LPG would have make sure of bulgar (brought him to -10). WRONG Just the opposit acually... After reading LPG's tactics fully as posted i feel that the fight should be adjusted to his tactics... and see where it acually goes from there.. (cause not once did he make Bulgar a priority.. infact to him the dwarf was the least of his prioritys) Dog went down... I didn't.. infact when you had him Engage Telin I was at full hitpoints.. and my horse was never one of his targets.. I was his priority target over Telin... You made telin his priority target cause Rauul needed a 20 to hit.. and You considered Telin's Bulgar the treat not Rauul.. (opposite of the stated Tactics) Order of targets: Telin's dog Rauul Telin in fact rauul if i remmber correctly did most of the DMG to LPG with spiritual weapon and a lucky shot. All shots that hit are lucky... third- RAuul did heal himself in the first part of the fight i just disalloed healing for those concerned in the last part of the fight. your call not the tactics as wrote.. you forget My charater is Neutral evil and follows Vecna (using allys and outsmarting oppoents is common just look at poor Kaz) Forth- rauul AND bulgar had plenty of opportunity to kill LPG - he had very low hp for a long time, the dice failed you. Should be longer fifth- since you didnt agree not to heal i took it as All chars are allowed to heal i just Chose not to do it frankly since in this type of fight healing would probably have been pointless since most likely LPG would have won anyway since he has more Spell levels and still have the wand and the whole fight wold have taken 50 rounds (and 3 hours) longer, remmber that out in the open and once rauul's horse is dead even always healing LPG can do more dmg per round then you can heal and he still had those inflict spells. None of his tactics went for my horse.. mainly cause this is the very first fight for my horse and most didn't realize i had it.. (big shock) his arrows do 1d6 dmg no str bonus.. natta.. i heal 1d8+1 with wand.. 1d8+4 with my own heal.. sixth- About rauul going to heal bulgar that would have been a fairly bad idia to do since it would involve leaving cover for at least 2 rounds giving LPG a very good chance to kill rauul outright in those 2 rounds and you mentioned to only do that if healing Bulgar wouldnt put you in jeporday and in that situation it would certinly do put you in jepordy. Ok i will agree with that but acually i think you need to follow tactics Not improvise as you see fit to..(seriously if your not gonna Improvise tactics for one... why improvise them for another..) Why would he not consider the mounted cleric who can use magic like he can a bigger threat than the slow Dwarf whos dog is already down... rember Bulgar and Rauul are suppost to be working as a team.. Just as LPG and Erithmu were suppost to be.. After rd 43 LPG would of died to magic Missile attacks (you forget rauul is also a Cleric with magic domain Same as LPG and knows exactly when the shield spell would end..(remeber when he casts them i get a spell craft to know what spells he is using) I disagree that a Mounted person should be in 1 location for 26 rds.. and if he is gonna ignore me while he kills Bulgar.. why did i sit there and not move around so to negate his cover, yes i would need a 20 to hit him, but he wouldn't be able to rapid shot me every round as i am running 120 ft a round And sooner or later he is gonna have to move Cause if he don't have LOS on me he can't rapid shoot me every round is the whole point.. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Name,L,18,43,9, 33,rauul mounted;b=Name,S,9,40,lpg;c=Name,M,11,54 ,bulgar And thats only a standard move for the horse.. not even a double move and would still allow for a non covered attack from Rauul each round I am ignored.. Shouldn't of been ignored (since he can ready to shoot me but can't rabid shoot me unless he has LOS on his action) and a mounted crossbowman in the arena should never allow someone to have LOS on them for more than 1 round.. BTW LPG has more spell levels of Inflict (he can't spontaniusly heal) and he couldn't catch me to use them... I think it would of been fun to watch the little halfling scamper around chasing the horse as the rider manuvered the halfling into where the Dwarf cleric would of tripped him and beat the snot out of him.. (his double move is 100, mine is 120, I get 1 crossbow attack each of those, he gets 0 attacks) Bulgar would move to intercept me knowing the halfling is chasing me... I have NEVER Argued a Fight win/lost till this one... Mainly cause this one was 100% according to plan till you bogged us down for 32 rds in a Archery contest... when Specifily by the Tactics Submitted it should of been anything but an archery contest.. Changing LPG's priority targets from Rauul to Bulgar is a major change in tactics... especually when running rauul into the ground before his Spells ran out would be the logical choice since rauul has the movement on him... needing a 20 to hit makes NO difference.. cause come round 43 he knew that rauul would need no to hit roll at all.. (both magic domains meaning Rauul knows the max spells he can activate off a scroll is 1/2 his cleric level IE cl 2) maybe rauul drops easily.. maybe he don't.. either way i feel it should be run according to the prioitys of the players tactics..
SauroGrenom 04-23-07, 12:22 AM	@ Sauro: Alright...so we agree that the wand activation and the ranged attack roll are the same action. But you didn't address my last point. The activation of a wand is it's own specifically defined standard action. This action does not provoke attacks of opportunity. As we have both agreed, the activation of the wand includes both the command word and the ranged attack roll. So can you please explain to me again how the activation of the wand (that includes both the use of the command word and the ranged attack roll) is provoking an AoO, since the entire action of activation of a wand is stated to not provoke?The action that is to activate a wand doesn't in general include making a ranged attack roll. In the case that it's being used for a ranged touch spell, then it's also a ranged attack. So it falls under multiple classifications on the table of actions in combat. It's simply an issue of what classifications on the chart does the activation of a wand qualify as. You have an action. You look at the chart, and ask the question "which of these entries fits the action in question?" In this case, and many others, the action clearly qualifies as more than one action on the list. So you are then lead to ask, "which action of those that qualify do I treat this action as?" Example: Say you want to use an extraordinary ability as a ranged attack. Say that you are a Duelist who's going to use Precise Strike(ex) on a thrown spear. This is both an "Attack (Ranged)" and "Use Extraordinary Ability". So is this an action to use an extra ordinary ability or an action to make a ranged attack? Your approach is to pick one of the options. That means that in every similar case, the elders must rule that the action is "really" one of the candidates. I say the action is both (or all the apply). So elders don't have to rule every case individually. Here's an analogy. Say you run a ride at Six Flags. One rule says kids can ride if they are 5'. Another rule says that kids can ride if they are at least 15. So what do you do if you get a kid who's 9 but is 5'2"? You say the kid doesn't ride because one of the rules doesn't allow it. I say the kid rides because one of the rules allows it and there's no rules that says the kid must satisfy all the rules to be allowed to ride. To put it bluntly: Wand activation = Say command word & make ranged attack roll Insert House Rule here saying: Ranged attacks as part of wand activations don't count as ranged attacks. Wand activation = A standard action that provokes no AoO (as per item description) Therefore, Say command word & make ranged attack roll = A standard action that provokes no AoO. Rebuttal? In order for your logical progression to work, you need to create a new rule that "Attack (Ranged)" as part of another action doesn't count as a ranged attack. To but it bluntly: Ranged attack = AoO There's no rules saying that ranged attacks part of another action are exempt from the AoO. Therefore any action that includes a ranged attack = AoO. The wand activation, like the 5' step that started this, doesn't impart an AoO. The element that imparts an AoO is the ranged attack, or entering another's square. The ranged attack doesn't have to be a separate action to provoke an AoO. Nor does the entering another's square need to be another action to provoke an AoO. If you require an analogy to RW events, then think of it this way. When using a wand of Hold Person, you say the command word and mentally designate a target. When using a wand of Scorching Ray, you say the command word and point the wand to direct the ray to specifically hit the guy who's actively trying to dodge or duck behind cover. The scorching ray is a much more active process, involves more time and attention and leaves you open to attack for a moment. They are both wands, and both require command words and about the same amount of time to use them. The difference is that the command word or scorching ray is spoken at the same moment as a difficult ranged attack and thus more attention is required to use it.
NiQil 04-23-07, 01:01 AM	I need to correct you here. I am saying that activating a wand of scorching ray is a single action that falls under multiple classifications. It is both a ranged attack and activating a magic item. There's no separate action for the ranged attack and speaking the command word. It's all a single standard action in combat. The action that is to activate a wand doesn't in general include making a ranged attack roll. You've contradicted yourself here, Sauro. Previously, you stated that the ranged attack and speaking the command word are not seperate, but rather all a single standard action. Now you are saying that activating the wand as a standard action doesn't include the attack roll. Which is it? Two points: 1) You have consistantly ignored my requests to show me RAW that that the attack roll is seperate from the command word. I, on the other hand, have shown you that wand activation is a category of standard action in and of itself. This category of activation is called activating a magical item, and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. I quote the reference again here for the sake of clarity: Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. I now present you with evidence that the attack roll of a touch spell is included in the act of casting said spell: In the same round that you cast the spell, you may also touch (or attempt to touch) the target. I now also give you evidence from the FAQ that I hope will put this discussion to rest. Several spells, such as scorching ray and meteor swarm, require the user to make multiple ranged touch attacks. Does the caster have to use the full attack action to use all the ranged touch attacks these spells allow? If so, how does this work? Does the caster have to hold the charge (like a touch spell) and then use the full attack action later? Also what attack bonus does the caster use? Can the caster use his full attack bonus for each ranged touch attack, or does the caster’s attack bonus decrease by 5 for each attack? What happens if the caster uses the Quicken Spell feat and casts the spell as a free action? What attack bonus does he use then? How many ranged touch attacks can he make? Do the caster’s other actions during the rest of the round affect his attack bonus when using the spell? Both of the example spells have a casting time of 1 standard action and an instantaneous duration. The caster uses the cast a spell action (a standard action), and makes all the ranged touch attacks the spell allows as part of that standard action (not as part of the attack or full attack action); making these attacks is not an action at all. The caster uses his full attack bonus for all the ranged touch attacks from either example spell. Any other spells that allow multiple ranged touch attacks work the same way unless their descriptions specifically say otherwise. Casting a quickened version of either example spell works exactly the same way (although you’d have to be an epic-level character to cast a quickened meteor swarm); the caster makes all the ranged touch attacks the spell allows as part of the free action he used to cast the spell. The caster generally uses his full attack bonus for each ranged touch attack. Any other attacks the caster might make during the same round as the quickened spell have no effect on the caster’s attack bonus for the ranged touch attacks; however, if the caster does something that gives him an attack penalty on all his attack rolls until his next turn, such as fighting defensively, that attack penalty also applies to his ranged touch attacks from the quickened spell. Emphasis mine. As stated in the bolded section, the ranged attacks made as a part of scorching ray are included in the action of casting a spell...they are not actions at all (unless you hold the charge for later use). This agrees with my interpretation. You activate a wand, and then get to make the attack roll as part of that activation (just like you get to make the attack roll as part of the spell casting). Since the activation doesn't provoke, the attack roll doesn't either. If I were casting from a scroll or memory, which does provoke, then I would provoke an AoO for the act of casting a spell. I would not provoke one AoO for casting the spell and a second for making the attack roll. The attack roll does not fall under the heading of 'Attack (ranged)' as you seem to be arguing....it falls under the heading of 'Activate a magical item' in my first example, or 'Cast a Spell' in my second. The first example (wand) doesn't provoke, the second (scroll/memory) does. Also keep in mind that if a ranged touch attack spell is cast and the charge is held until the next round, it's classification the goes from the action of 'casting a spell' to 'Attack (ranged)', which would provoke. But it doesn't initially start out that way, as per the above FAQ quote. Edit: In any event, if this doesn't convince you....then nothing is going to. But either way, I think the conversation is at an end, as I am going to let it die.
Zevox 04-23-07, 01:06 AM	You've contradicted yourself here, Sauro. Previously, you stated that the ranged attack and speaking the command word are not seperate, but rather all a single standard action. Now you are saying that activating the wand as a standard action doesn't include the attack roll. Which is it? Um, NiQil, Sauro said that activating a wand "doesn't in general include making a ranged attack" - hes referring to the fact that most wands are not of spells which use make ranged attack rolls (ex: magic missiles). Hes not contradicting what he said before at all, rather making a totally separate observation. And I'll let him refute the rest. Its getting late for me... Zevox
Horatius 04-23-07, 04:15 AM	RE: The Team Fight. Do we really have to debate this? I think it would have been to LPG's advantage to attack in the order my tactics specified - but I didn't complain when it wasn't done that way. Honestly, there's almost no way you could force LPG into melee with Bulgar, which was the only thing I was worried about. I really don't want to get into a point-counterpoint argument about this. I'm (obviously) happy I won, but I wasn't about to argue the tactics issue even if (when) I had lost - t10 would have to re-run the whole fight to fix it. Not every fight is going to work out, and team fights and FFAs are way more difficult to run than a normal fight. Cheers, H.
templer10 04-23-07, 06:38 AM	Rauul m8- iam sorry but iam going to say this and no more - As i see it and iam truly being objective here and i personally couldnt care less who won here. you Want your char to be creative in his actions on the battlefield (moving around. negating cover, drawing LPG to where bulgar can pound on him) all of which are potentially very smart things to do but which arent covered in the tactics BUT at the same time you dont allow LPG any room to do the smart thing. In this fight as i try to do inn all fights- i give all fighters a similar ability to improvisise- i had rauul using L-crossbows when his tactics SPESIFICLY said to stay away from LPG - you didnt mention an attack order AT ALL. if you havent attacked as per the tactics 10 rounds later delay penalty hits and you are left without the horse maybe. in a similar way YOur tactics didnt mention to do spiritual weapon on LPG first thing- only if FORCED to engage LPG- you werent forced to engage- you could have let bulgar do all the fighteing. i did what is in your best intrest and had you cast the spell which did some damage to LPG. in a similar way i gave LPG a bit more tactical option- i had him go after Bulgar since rauul didnt do anything terribly dangarous and Bulgar in melee is a real threat and rauul wouldnt have been a threat until the shield spell wore off- If rauul would have started to close on LPG for maybe an inflic spell LPG would have changed targets. if anything by going after Bulgar gave you and Bulgar more time to down LPG since he needed a much harder dice roll to hit Bulgar then you - EVEN if you double move he still would have killed you in fairly short order - and NO i wouldnt have let you heal- thats 1 desicion i stand by in favor of not having the fight last until next pairing day. If i had let you gone 1 step further about improvising and let rauul try to draw LPG out, negate his cover etc etc i would have had no problems with LPG going for the horse becuase otherwise LPG would have had as you say a harder time to get to rauul- it's simply giving LPG the same consideration i would have been giving to rauul. anyway Running a team fight is a very hard thing to do And i tried to run per tactics and improvisied whitin limit to equal advantage/disadvantage to all concerned - i answered all your concernes i think and if you dont agree iam sorry - i tried to be as fair as i could.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 07:00 AM	@All: I told you I was going to lose.
Abyssal Stalker 04-23-07, 07:16 AM	I'd like to bring my opinion in the conversation, hoping it helps. I haven't read the fights in question, but I am a fairly experienced pitlord with 50+ fights. I have as well as everyone else received my part of requests to change the fights. I think there are a couple of things that we all should keep in mind. 1. Keep it polite. Everyone makes mistakes and usually they are nothing personal against the person who feels mistreated. It's also the best way to affect people's (at least my) opinion. 2. Tactics can't cover all possible situations. Sometimes pitlords need to improvise. I have heard suggestions of "guidelines" for pitlords on how to improvise. I think that's impossible and luckily almost everybody else agrees. The pitlord has to make that decision. I do it this way: Check if the tactics cover the situation. If they don't, check if some other condition could be used in the situation. It is often better to stick with written instructions if there are some that would also fit the situation in hand. Sometimes there is nothing, and then you need to improvise completely. Make the decision and record your way of thinking to the description of the fight. That way the readers see instantly that you have given the situation a thought and they hopefully give it a second thought before asking for a change. 3. The pitlord must base his decisions on what he has. Sometimes the pitlord has to improvise. He makes that decision based on his best understanding of the situation. He might not notice some other possibility that would have worked better. The pitlord has the right to stick with the decision even if he was asked to change it. He has already given the player the priviledge of improvisation. We can't expect their decisions to be perfect. 4. Sometimes it needs fixing. Sometimes the pitlord ignores a certain condition in the tactics or makes some other mistake. Every pitlord should be ready to admit their mistakes and be ready to fix them if they are really fight-affecting. Sometimes the mistake is a small one and has no important effect and I think those mistakes can be left alone. There are probably tons of unnoticed mistakes in the many fights of CoCo. 5. This is a game of tactics. Both the player and the pitlord should recognize the fact that tactics can't cover all the possible situations. 6. Is it really that important? I am here to have fun. Long debates drain the fun out of both the pitlord and the player. Sometimes moving on is the best way to deal with things. Remember that the pitlord gives away his sparetime for CoCo. Without willing people to pitlord CoCo wouldn't exist. I'm really sorry if this sounds like patronizing. I just sometimes feel that people take things a bit too seriously. I am not pointing in anyone specifically and not even the people involved in the fights in question. This is just a description of my way to deal with mistakes in fights. It isn't the only way, nor is it the best possible way. It is just a way that fits my thinking, but I still hope that many people agree with it.
Yitzi 04-23-07, 09:20 AM	I would suggest that a pitlord who foresees problems simply put in their profile (in the pitlords thread) the things that determine when they improvise, and invite people to send in "no improv" or "no improv unless it completely breaks down (e.g. the tactics call for grappling and the opponent just used fly)" with their tactics (or, on the other hand, "improv if this isn't going to work") if that's what they want. Anyone who doesn't bother to look in the pitlords thread...the majority of people prefer their pitlords to improvise if something isn't going to work (I recently lost a battle because the pitlord didn't do so), so if they don't bother to tell you, you're entitled to go by what most people would want.
TelinArtho 04-23-07, 11:07 AM	Well, I am a little disappointed with the way the 4-man team fight was run. You said that you took the healing out because it would've caused us all to run through our wands and still have the same result despite this. However, if you look over the tactics - only two of the four participants included wands in their tactics (and the other two specifically said not to use them): Contingencies: 1. If hp drops to below 18, heal to above 25 with wand (only if wand allowed). Don't use the CLW wand, Drop read magic to cast Cure Minor Wounds if Leopold is down and dying to stabilize him. Drop Bless if it wasn't cast for CLW to heal myself if I am down to half hit points or less and not in melee combat. If I am engaged in melee - don't bother with the healing. ... You shouldn't need to use my scrolls, my tanglefoot bags nor my wand for this fight. IF Bulgar goes down and is not -10, go and heal him with the wand till he is up. if it dosen't put myself in jepordy.. The reason why I bring this up is because the healing contingencies are important portions of everyone's tactics. Bulgar has a wand of CLW but for the most part does not use it in his arena fights. That does not mean that when I call for healing in my tactics to not use it if I asked for it. I can understand that you personally don't want to spend endless hours on a fight, but I do have a problem with carte blanche changing of tactics without giving advance notice to all parties involved. The end result of this of course is that Bulgar has a surplus of spells for his next fight which he can now use for healing. What happens now if my pitlord denies me healing because it would take forever to run the fight correctly? Anyway - that is my only discussion on this fight. I am not willing to have it held over if possible, but I think in the future - this kind of tactic's change without notice to the people in the fight is a slippery slope to be on... [EDIT] For the round up, here's the errors with Bulgar's portion: 14 misses, 2 hits for arrows; He cast 2 orisons (Resistance and Read Magic (spontaneously for a Cure Minor Wounds))
TelinArtho 04-23-07, 12:13 PM	Zodiac vs. Zax and Zoo is set up here and finished here. {pops neck} MAN I'm glad I'm done with that one. I hope the WAR face-off is an interesting fight. I want some suspense this week! TM Looks good to me. Supprised Zax came with his zoo instead of just sending them all out. @Vath - handling animals without being in sight/earshot is not something I am comfortable handing over to a pitlord to adjudicate (and if it was me - I wouldn't allow it either). If they all had the seek trick - the story might be different, but they don't so the point is moot. That said - in the beginning of your tactics, you mention that I haven't advanced Hugs. However, Zax is a level 5 druid and an ape is a Druid Level -3 animal companion - meaning Zax is treated as level 2 when looking up the advancement. As such - I think he is fully advanced - but if I missed something - let me know. @TM - Having that many allies is just a nature of the build. I try to keep things simple (as in having them all pretty much do the same thing), but unfortunately - they are not going anywhere soon... I might feel a bit worse for the pitlord in the last fight of Zax's cycle - since he has almost his full allotment of spells, 3 1st level pearls, 3 2nd level pearls, his wildshape and all his allies... knowing my luck I'll draw a character with 2 castings of Resist Energy, a couple of Potions of Protection from Evil or the ability to cast it at a higher CL and a high Fortitude save/immunity to poison... If you have any advice on how to keep things simpler though - I am all ears. Next level, he actually reduces his number of allies per fight (from 4 to 3), but they become bigger... (drools at his upcoming Huge Centipede...)
templer10 04-23-07, 12:31 PM	Well, I am a little disappointed with the way the 4-man team fight was run. You said that you took the healing out because it would've caused us all to run through our wands and still have the same result despite this. However, if you look over the tactics - only two of the four participants included wands in their tactics (and the other two specifically said not to use them): The reason why I bring this up is because the healing contingencies are important portions of everyone's tactics. Bulgar has a wand of CLW but for the most part does not use it in his arena fights. That does not mean that when I call for healing in my tactics to not use it if I asked for it. I can understand that you personally don't want to spend endless hours on a fight, but I do have a problem with carte blanche changing of tactics without giving advance notice to all parties involved. The end result of this of course is that Bulgar has a surplus of spells for his next fight which he can now use for healing. What happens now if my pitlord denies me healing because it would take forever to run the fight correctly? Anyway - that is my only discussion on this fight. I am not willing to have it held over if possible, but I think in the future - this kind of tactic's change without notice to the people in the fight is a slippery slope to be on... [EDIT] For the round up, here's the errors with Bulgar's portion: 14 misses, 2 hits for arrows; He cast 2 orisons (Resistance and Read Magic (spontaneously for a Cure Minor Wounds)) i explained my reasons for not healing in the archery part of the fight but in short- it wouldnt have made a diffrense in the end since LPG had a healing contingency 2. If i had gone Stricly by the tactcis everyone submitted as it seems you and rauul want - Bulgar would have still done mostly archery (with moving once in a while) after leopold died since he cant reach LPG. Rauul would have done absolutly NOTHING after doing the spiritual weapon EXEPT run away from LPG becuase he didnt even say to shoot crossbow only to AVOID LPG. rauul would have a cure/shoot contest with LPG while avoiding him for 10 rounds then delay penalty would have taken rauuls horse away. then the much higher to hit chance of LPG would have most likely killed rauul. afterwards LPG would have in my estimate at least 15 more rounds of shooting at Bulgar before Bulgar even had a chance to catch up with LPG with bulgar stopping to heal occesinaly wasting spells, and eventually it's extremly likely the end result would have been the same for no other eason that LPG had a healing contingency (with wand) and Bulgar didnt. btw- for the record- the situation here was pretty uniqe with 4 clerics all with wands of CLW - if it was any other fight i would have gone stricly by tactics and healed my way to round 200 But since all sides had equal healing possibilities it's pointless.
Zevox 04-23-07, 01:25 PM	I might feel a bit worse for the pitlord in the last fight of Zax's cycle - since he has almost his full allotment of spells, 3 1st level pearls, 3 2nd level pearls, his wildshape and all his allies... knowing my luck I'll draw a character with 2 castings of Resist Energy, a couple of Potions of Protection from Evil or the ability to cast it at a higher CL and a high Fortitude save/immunity to poison... Wow - you just basically described Mithos Durrol (scroll of Resist Energy w/ 2 castings, 2 potions of Pro Evil, and Fortitude +11). And now that I've noticed this, irony is probably going to pair us up next week (if Mithos' fight doesn't get held over, of course...). Zevox
TelinArtho 04-23-07, 01:34 PM	Yeah- that would be pretty ironic... If he doesn't face him this upcoming week though - that'll all be fixed, since he'll have a better spell selection to make things work out better...
Rauul 04-23-07, 02:15 PM	i explained my reasons for not healing in the archery part of the fight but in short- it wouldnt have made a diffrense in the end since LPG had a healing contingency 2. Then he sould of used it.. using it would of allowed Bulgar to close.. If i had gone Stricly by the tactcis everyone submitted as it seems you and rauul want - Bulgar would have still done mostly archery (with moving once in a while) after leopold died since he cant reach LPG. Rauul would have done absolutly NOTHING after doing the spiritual weapon EXEPT run away from LPG becuase he didnt even say to shoot crossbow only to AVOID LPG. rauul would have a cure/shoot contest with LPG while avoiding him for 10 rounds then delay penalty would have taken rauuls horse away. then the much higher to hit chance of LPG would have most likely killed rauul. afterwards LPG would have in my estimate at least 15 more rounds of shooting at Bulgar before Bulgar even had a chance to catch up with LPG with bulgar stopping to heal occesinaly wasting spells, and eventually it's extremly likely the end result would have been the same for no other eason that LPG had a healing contingency (with wand) and Bulgar didnt. So instead you left a mounted Cleric who needed a 20 to hit in 1 spot for 20+ rounds i would rather loose my horse to a delay penalty than to just sit there.. And there is No rule that saids he can't fire with the crossbow from outside of max range that gives the +5 (whats another -2 to hit when i need 20's anyways) btw- for the record- the situation here was pretty uniqe with 4 clerics all with wands of CLW - if it was any other fight i would have gone stricly by tactics and healed my way to round 200 But since all sides had equal healing possibilities it's pointless. It's not pointless.. you where given 4 clerics to play, cleric by thier nature have been given divine powers to overcome their enemys. this includes healing... Each charater gave his/her order of Oppenants.. in thier tactics.. you followed it right up till YOU desided this would be the shortest way for you to run the fight.. You Wouldn't break tactics to for one thing yet you fully and completely disregard tactics submitted for another option.. Personnelly i have a failure tag on rauul So it don't really matter if he wins or looses to me.. But i also can't sit back and see the tactics Submitted tossed out the window.. You don't wanna fix it then don't.. i will for the first time ever ask for it to be rerun if needed.. When a Pitlord is given 4 charaters to run in a battle like this they are IMHO suppost to follow the tactics , Improvise tactics not covered, Not Improvise tactics that are covered..
MindWandererB 04-23-07, 02:16 PM	Regarding the ranged touch spell issue: I hate to pull out the GM stick, but I think I have to at this point. We've heard all the arguments. They're all valid. No one is going to change their minds. Ultimately I think either ruling would be fine, but we have to pick one so that life can go on. And since no one has changed their minds, we're going with the no-AoO option. And unless a new FAQ/Ask Wizards/RotG item comes out on the subject, I'm declaring a moratorium on the topic. The discussion has moved out of the realm of friendly discussion into mild hostility, and it's time to nip it in the bud. I respect everyone's contributions, and thank you all for getting involved, but we're done now. Regarding Gakhnalak vs. TIM: I wish I could celebrate that damned cool fight more in this post--I certainly was, right when I read it--but all this bickering has stolen my enthusiasm somewhat. I just have two little comments about Alter Self: one is that troglodtyes have only +6 natural armor, not +7 (TM got this right, McJarvis didn't), and that Alter Self says nothing about changing the caster's subtype, so I'm not sure if that helps against Elf Slayer (or Favored Enemy).
templer10 04-23-07, 02:38 PM	Then he sould of used it.. using it would of allowed Bulgar to close.. So instead you left a mounted Cleric who needed a 20 to hit in 1 spot for 20+ rounds i would rather loose my horse to a delay penalty than to just sit there.. And there is No rule that saids he can't fire with the crossbow from outside of max range that gives the +5 (whats another -2 to hit when i need 20's anyways) It's not pointless.. you where given 4 clerics to play, cleric by thier nature have been given divine powers to overcome their enemys. this includes healing... Each charater gave his/her order of Oppenants.. in thier tactics.. you followed it right up till YOU desided this would be the shortest way for you to run the fight.. You Wouldn't break tactics to for one thing yet you fully and completely disregard tactics submitted for another option.. Personnelly i have a failure tag on rauul So it don't really matter if he wins or looses to me.. But i also can't sit back and see the tactics Submitted tossed out the window.. You don't wanna fix it then don't.. i will for the first time ever ask for it to be rerun if needed.. When a Pitlord is given 4 charaters to run in a battle like this they are IMHO suppost to follow the tactics , Improvise tactics not covered, Not Improvise tactics that are covered.. OK- i had plenty to hear about this fight- just to prove a point iam going to do a rerun of the fight From the point after telin's dog is dead - i am going to go EXACLY AND TOTALLY by the tactics submitted- with ZERO improvs - note that by that rauul is going to try to avoid LPG for 10 rounds and heal himself but will do NOTHING else for the rest of the fight since he didnt say to shoot l-crossbow. all rolls will be the one's done already and new one's will be made if additional actions will be taken. maps will not be made.
Rauul 04-23-07, 02:50 PM	OK- i had plenty to hear about this fight- just to prove a point iam going to do a rerun of the fight From the point after telin's dog is dead - i am going to go EXACLY AND TOTALLY by the tactics submitted- with ZERO improvs - note that by that rauul is going to try to avoid LPG for 10 rounds and heal himself but will do NOTHING else for the rest of the fight since he didnt say to shoot l-crossbow. all rolls will be the one's done already and new one's will be made if additional actions will be taken. maps will not be made. you do that.. play a Charater as dumb as an orc.. no matter if they have a 14 int and 18 wis.. and that don't wanna submit tactics to you like you do to everyone else.. Just forget it.. thinking i need to just walk away soon.. cause i am almost to the point of making ccjones look like a saint...
templer10 04-23-07, 02:58 PM	you do that.. play a Charater as dumb as an orc.. no matter if they have a 14 int and 18 wis.. and that don't wanna submit tactics to you like you do to everyone else.. Just forget it.. thinking i need to just walk away soon.. cause i am almost to the point of making ccjones look like a saint... OK - you need to understand something here- when we write tactics for fights here- we pretty much ignore how smart or how stupid a gladiator is- in the situation here- iam willing to either let the result stand as it is in which the fight was made with some improvisiations for both sides and no healing in the archery or to create a lot more work for myself and do a rerun going EXACLY by the tactics- it's nothing personal against you or your chars, it's not the first time i pitlorded them and they sometimes won and sometimes lost - i simply cant in good concise give both go by your tactics - run away and heal when needed etc and also improvise to your advantage when it's suitable - i.e. shoot crossbow and at the same time not allow LPG to improvise. i need to know if you want the fight to stand at it is or not.
templer10 04-23-07, 03:02 PM	tagg vs the hunter is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12189632&postcount=795) - result was funny as hell
Rauul 04-23-07, 03:10 PM	OK - you need to understand something here- when we write tactics for fights here- we pretty much ignore how smart or how stupid a gladiator is- in the situation here- iam willing to either let the result stand as it is in which the fight was made with some improvisiations for both sides and no healing in the archery or to create a lot more work for myself and do a rerun going EXACLY by the tactics- it's nothing personal against you or your chars, it's not the first time i pitlorded them and they sometimes won and sometimes lost - i simply cant in good concise give both go by your tactics - run away and heal when needed etc and also improvise to your advantage when it's suitable - i.e. shoot crossbow and at the same time not allow LPG to improvise. i need to know if you want the fight to stand at it is or not. No you seem to Forget you may ignore how smart a gladiator is and isn't.. I take that into effect when i submit my tactics it eliminates the need to right 3 pages of tactics.. When we hand our charaters over to a Pitlord it's then the Pitlords charater to run the battle with.. We submit tactics.. In an ECL 4 fight i didn't feel i needed to submit tactics of 4+ pages i can see i need to when your the Pitlord cover ever possable contingency.. No problem i spent 6 years in the army special forces writing Squad and Company level tactics Rerun it.. I am sadly dissappointed in the fight as it is now...(common sense would dictate if i am gonna yell and tell bulgar where LPG is, then if LPG is using me as a Pin custion i am gonna lead LPG into an Ambush by Bulgar... wouldn't you think?)
Horatius 04-23-07, 03:43 PM	RE: The Team Fight 1. Please, no one have a stroke. 2. I don't think you're being fair, Rauul. You posted this when t10 first put up the fight. Why no complaints then? Looks good to me.. except for the rewards... i believe bulgar and me take 12.5% penaltys due to our CR 1 animals (his dog my horse) 3. I agree with what Telin said, but I don't think it would have made a difference in this fight. LPG is the only one left alive and LPG is the only one who's tactics use the wand to full effect. Edit: I can see why t10 would drop the healing in light of the PM that went around suggesting it be ignored. I also hold that LPG suffered more from dropping the healing than anyone else. 4. I do not think it's worth re-running, but cynics will say that's because LPG won - does that invalidate my opinion? Would we be here if after those 12 extra rounds it had been LPG who lost? I doubt it. 5. I'm done. I hope everyone's blood pressure is still manageable. I respect all of you and I mean no one any offence. Over to you, t10, Cheers, H.
Rauul 04-23-07, 03:59 PM	RE: The Team Fight 1. Please, no one have a stroke. 2. I don't think you're being fair, Rauul. You posted this when t10 first put up the fight. Why no complaints then? 3. I agree with what Telin said, but I don't think it would have made a difference in this fight. LPG is the only one left alive and LPG is the only one who's tactics use the wand to full effect. Edit: I can see why t10 would drop the healing in light of the PM that went around suggesting it be ignored. I also hold that LPG suffered more from dropping the healing than anyone else. 4. I do not think it's worth re-running, but cynics will say that's because LPG won - does that invalidate my opinion? Would we be here if after those 12 extra rounds it had been LPG who lost? I doubt it. 5. I'm done. I hope everyone's blood pressure is still manageable. I respect all of you and I mean no one any offence. Over to you, t10, Cheers, H. Well to be honest when it was that we won I didn't completely disect the way it was run (i skimmed it).. then you disected it and it was changed.. So i disected it and acually read the tactics WE submittied and saw the lack of following the submitted tactics YOU submitted and as you know i don't care if My charater wins or looses, I do care about my partener getting a fair shot..
templer10 04-23-07, 04:16 PM	Well to be honest when it was that we won I didn't completely disect the way it was run (i skimmed it).. then you disected it and it was changed.. So i disected it and acually read the tactics WE submittied and saw the lack of following the submitted tactics YOU submitted and as you know i don't care if My charater wins or looses, I do care about my partener getting a fair shot.. iam in the process of redoing it and i just noticed that rauul didnt actully say to heal himself exept for after erithmu is down so it will take even less then i expect to kill him - bulgar in the meantime is like 200 feet away or something trying to catch up...
TelinArtho 04-23-07, 04:46 PM	Kervan Sheharath (MindWandererB) vs Balrog (Maraxus) vs Antalya (Vathelokai) is up. I'm aware of an error in the fight - but it has to do with an inconsistency on Kervan's sheet. As such, and since he is the victor, I'm not too eager to fix it to save him some arrows... If I need to edit the fight though - I will happily go through it.
MindWandererB 04-23-07, 05:08 PM	Kervan Sheharath (MindWandererB) vs Balrog (Maraxus) vs Antalya (Vathelokai) is up. I'm aware of an error in the fight - but it has to do with an inconsistency on Kervan's sheet. As such, and since he is the victor, I'm not too eager to fix it to save him some arrows... If I need to edit the fight though - I will happily go through it. I hate to do this, but there are some errors which are in Kervan's favor. Round 20: Kervan has a failure chance for deafness on Cure Critical Wounds. Round 23: Antalya has spell resistance vs. Spiritual Weapon. That's all I can catch right now, but they're both very potentially fight-affecting.
TelinArtho 04-23-07, 05:14 PM	CCW did have a roll - I forgot to mark it, but it was a success. (I noticed it after the CSW and Divine Favor - so when CSW failed, you tried CSW again and failed again). I'll check the SR for Spiritual weapon though. [EDIT - it fails. Okay - I won't be able to edits at the moment - so if there's anything else - let me know. And just for posterity - due to the "confusion" about Kervan's CL, he hits in round 14 and with the AoO in round 15 - so Balrog will be down a little earlier. This results in Balrog going down in round 15. With the 11 damage that Antalya doesn't take from the Spiritual weapon, Kervan fires more arrows. The first attack from there is a hit and deals 1d8+2+1 damage. The damage rolled from that attack is 11. End result - Kervan uses one more arrow which is a hit. I'll post it official when I get the chance tomorrow.
Sjiggie 04-23-07, 05:41 PM	Can somebody take Ilendil Oratith (TelinArtho) vs. The Seeker (NiQil) for me? I'm still in exams, and finishing the FFA is as much time as I'm willing to commit out of my schedule right now. If it's still needed I can take the fight but I need the tactics of them soon. So if you or the players can send me their tactics that would help :) -Sjiggie
kedi 04-23-07, 05:47 PM	If it's still needed I can take the fight but I need the tactics of them soon. So if you or the players can send me their tactics that would help :) -SjiggieBattle Setup Edit: Wuah, first post in year!
Maraxus 04-23-07, 06:24 PM	Kervan Sheharath (MindWandererB) vs Balrog (Maraxus) vs Antalya (Vathelokai) is up. I'm aware of an error in the fight - but it has to do with an inconsistency on Kervan's sheet. As such, and since he is the victor, I'm not too eager to fix it to save him some arrows... If I need to edit the fight though - I will happily go through it. Arg, well, I feel great for killing that Pegasus with 2 solid blows but after this it went worst case szenario for me - One character stepping away from me that I can hardly kill and another one clawing my back. - That impeded movement is really hard. During my last money-spending I actually considdered - Horseshoose of speed or of the Zephir - And at least considdering only this fight I picked the wrong thing. :)
TheMagister 04-23-07, 06:49 PM	Regarding Gakhnalak vs. TIM: I wish I could celebrate that damned cool fight more in this post--I certainly was, right when I read it--but all this bickering has stolen my enthusiasm somewhat. I just have two little comments about Alter Self: one is that troglodtyes have only +6 natural armor, not +7 (TM got this right, McJarvis didn't), and that Alter Self says nothing about changing the caster's subtype, so I'm not sure if that helps against Elf Slayer (or Favored Enemy). TM tries to look everything up. :) Gakh got his +2 Favored Enemy bonus to damage vs. TIM, because Alter Self specifically states that the caster's type and subtype do not change. If that's been errata'd, then I'm in error (all I have to go on is my good ol' PHB). I had to read the spell several times to make sure I got it all right. Personally, I thought TIM had the fight in the bag. The dice really came through for Gakh every time he really needed them. That last hit -- needed a 10 and got it -- was all luck. I could've flipped a coin and gotten the same sort of chances (almost). TM
templer10 04-23-07, 06:53 PM	the ECL 4 nightmare is done with no change to result - i hope i deleted all the unnesesery rolls from the roller but iam not 100% sure, i used the same rolls in 99% of the times just moved the rounds. ignore all modifiers to the dice in the roller since the conditions changed just look at the roll itself.
SauroGrenom 04-23-07, 06:58 PM	You've contradicted yourself here, Sauro. Previously, you stated that the ranged attack and speaking the command word are not seperate, but rather all a single standard action. Now you are saying that activating the wand as a standard action doesn't include the attack roll. Which is it?Zevox has it precisely correct. Using a wand of magic missile doesn't invoke an AoO. Using wands in general doesn't provoke any AoO. It's just that when using a wand is also a second type of action (not a second action in combat.. note the distinction), then the wand use may provoke an AoO. Two points: 1) You have consistantly ignored my requests to show me RAW that that the attack roll is seperate from the command word. Because there is no RAW that says this, and you know that. I'm not claiming it either. I have no idea how you have latched on to the idea that to be proven wrong, someone must show that any ranged attack in general is performed as a separate action. All ranged attacks are not separate actions. You are consistently and obstinately ignoring my point, as you beat your drum demanding that I provide an example from the RAW that isn't there and isn't necessary. Because you seam completely unable to understand it, I'll try to explain my position one more time: There are many actions that are single actions in combat but that clearly qualify as more than one type of action on the table. Your quotes from the FAQ even support that fact. I've given several examples of how ranged attacks can be made as part of using an extraordinary ability, as part or a full attack, as part of casting a spell or as part of using a magic item. In all these cases, ranged attacks are performed as part of the action in question. Similar combined actions can be found with respect to unarmed strikes, sunder or disarm attempts. In any case where a single action in combat has multiple entries on the "Actions in Combat" table, I think we should treat the action as being all the entries on the table simultaneously. I think we should do this, for two reasons. First to do otherwise requires elders to rule on every case individually. Second to do otherwise requires inserting a line into the rules claiming that all types of actions in combat are mutually exclusive with respect to AoO's. Emphasis mine. As stated in the bolded section, the ranged attacks made as a part of scorching ray are included in the action of casting a spell...they are not actions at all (unless you hold the charge for later use). This agrees with my interpretation. You activate a wand, and then get to make the attack roll as part of that activation (just like you get to make the attack roll as part of the spell casting). Since the activation doesn't provoke, the attack roll doesn't either. If I were casting from a scroll or memory, which does provoke, then I would provoke an AoO for the act of casting a spell. I would not provoke one AoO for casting the spell and a second for making the attack roll. The attack roll does not fall under the heading of 'Attack (ranged)' as you seem to be arguing....it falls under the heading of 'Activate a magical item' in my first example, or 'Cast a Spell' in my second. The first example (wand) doesn't provoke, the second (scroll/memory) does. You are conveniently ignoring the fact that any single action can occupy multiple categories on the table of "Actions in Combat". But you are also using that very fact to claim that a 5' step into another person's square is both a move into another person's square and a non-action. This is obviously a self contradiction. Your whole line of argument with respect to wands with ranged attacks is that all actions occupy one and only one entry on the "Table: Actions in Combat". If you're going to go with that, then fine. That will mean that every case where an action has multiple classifications will need to be decided by elders (a total pain in the arse if you ask me). But the important thing is that you are also saying that a 5' step into another person's square is both a 5' step and a move into another person's square. Using your rule that every action occupies one and only one entry on the table of actions, we find that the opinion that a 5' step can cause an AoO must be wrong. Either the 5' step into another person's square is only a 5' step (no AoO), or it's a combined action with multiple status and only one status is necessary to provoke an AoO.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 07:04 PM	{singsong} Sauro, you're gonna get in trouble! MWB has pulled out the GM stick. Check the last page for his decision on this matter.
Sjiggie 04-23-07, 07:17 PM	Ilendil vs The Seeker (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12193425&postcount=801) is up please check for errors -Sjiggie
MindWandererB 04-23-07, 07:17 PM	{singsong} Sauro, you're gonna get in trouble! MWB has pulled out the GM stick. Check the last page for his decision on this matter. No, no, I won't be that harsh. Besides, the point about setting precedent does need to be addressed. The main point of dissention is this: some of us think that "Attack (ranged)" applies to ranged touch attacks (because ranged touch attacks are indeed ranged attacks), and some of us don't (because the ranged attack is a result of the action and not the action itself). Both are valid arguments. Neither is overtly provable. So it comes down to a popularity contest, basically. This does not set precedent about actions that seem to fall into more than one category, because this argument is about whether ranged touch spells fall into more than one category at all. If it clearly did, then there would definitely be an AoO; if it clearly didn't, there wouldn't. I think we can probably all agree that some overlap, or at least ambiguity, is possible (yes, this is a retraction of my earlier stance). But since it's impossible to prove this one one way or the other, we have to make a judgment call, and we've made it.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 07:25 PM	But since it's impossible to prove this one one way or the other, we have to make a judgment call, and we've made it. The "royal We"? :bow: :rimshot:
Rauul 04-23-07, 07:31 PM	the ECL 4 nightmare is done with no change to result - i hope i deleted all the unnesesery rolls from the roller but iam not 100% sure, i used the same rolls in 99% of the times just moved the rounds. ignore all modifiers to the dice in the roller since the conditions changed just look at the roll itself. Just means that when your my pitlord i will write Tactics to cover every possable contingency just like i used to for the Stupid 2nd Lt's in the army.. And you think 3-4 pm's is a lot of tactics..
MindWandererB 04-23-07, 07:37 PM	The "royal We"?Don't even joke about that--when the GM is transformed into an authoritarian figure, they eventually end up with what happened to Cat (and, I infer, to Mojerajikuyx) . "We" as in the majority of the elders, including myself.
Erithmu 04-23-07, 07:40 PM	Elrick vs Matthis vs Razorfang is up. Expected result of Razorfang in 2nd, but the method of arrival is odd.
templer10 04-23-07, 07:46 PM	Elrick vs Matthis vs Razorfang is up. Expected result of Razorfang in 2nd, but the method of arrival is odd. Ouch- for matthis- and now i feel sorry i wasted those ressist energy scrolls, but a win is a win.
Maraxus 04-23-07, 08:44 PM	General Zaroff vs. The Shadow is done. Quite an interesting fight, first they wait hours to attack another and then suddenly it's a brutal carnage. :)
McJarvis 04-23-07, 08:54 PM	Did Zaroff ever try to trip the bard? It's in my tactics to do that first in melee(if the guy doesn't have a bow out) The bard's touch AC is only 12ish. "If he doesn't have his bow out, try to trip him with the guisarme." Nevermind that there is no way Zaroff should have been the first spotted/attacked. He was specifically to remain hiding until he could charge. (spotting him while hiding was impossible for his opponent: he could easily make the spot check to see his opponent hidden) Even if you improv'd him to move out, he could have moved from cover to cover & remained hidden.
Yitzi 04-23-07, 09:04 PM	Don't even joke about that--when the GM is transformed into an authoritarian figure, they eventually end up with what happened to Cat (and, I infer, to Mojerajikuyx) . Why, what did happen to Cat?
Rauul 04-23-07, 09:06 PM	General Zaroff vs. The Shadow is done. Quite an interesting fight, first they wait hours to attack another and then suddenly it's a brutal carnage. :) Proably will mean that Shadow will loose but yea you missed the trip attack granted with Shadows +5 to ac on Aoos he may acually survive (+1 for dodge, +4 for mobility)
McJarvis 04-23-07, 09:17 PM	Proably will mean that Shadow will loose but yea you missed the trip attack granted with Shadows +5 to ac on Aoos he may acually survive (+1 for dodge, +4 for mobility) two dodge bonuses never stack. Total dodge bonus vs AoO's is only +4 for shadow. edit-> It seems I used the guisarme the whole fight. -_-. I just assumed the spikes would be an obvious "default attack" when not using special features of the guisarme. No change necessary on this, but I give you a lump of coal as a pitlord for not understanding such subtleties ;)
TheMagister 04-23-07, 09:26 PM	Sorry, McJ, but dodge bonuses always stack. They're the only bonus (to my knowledge) that always stacks with itself. Check your DMG (I'm certain I'm right, but I don't wanna put forth the effort).
Yitzi 04-23-07, 09:28 PM	two dodge bonuses never stack. Total dodge bonus vs AoO's is only +4 for shadow. Not true. Dodge bonuses stack with all other bonuses to AC, even other dodge bonuses
McJarvis 04-23-07, 09:31 PM	My bad. That's what I get for assuming the game is consistent with itself....ah well. At least this'll flush out some of those lousy rolls Zaroff got.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 09:35 PM	dodge bonuses always stack. Never, always, where's the post-modern in you? They're the same thing!!!! :D
Maraxus 04-23-07, 09:35 PM	The trip-thing will be corrected tomorrow. One thing for the disscussion here: Mobility only helps against AoO becouse of movement, not for standing up, right?
TheMagister 04-23-07, 09:36 PM	right
McJarvis 04-23-07, 09:37 PM	I had some discussion with Raul about this online, and mobility does state that it protects against movement you make inside the square. Not sure if that extends to "standing up from prone" (unless this wording is merely to protect tiny sized critters from having to enter the square of medium+ critters)
TheMagister 04-23-07, 09:47 PM	Check the Table on page 141 of the PHB under "Move Actions1. There's a listing for "Stand up from Prone -- Yes". The 1 reads: "Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity." So it's not the movement of rising from prone that grants the AoO, it's the act of rising from prone that grants the AoO. TM
McJarvis 04-23-07, 09:50 PM	That's what I quoted at him, but I hate to think that I'm making a biased choice, and I really can see both sides of the issue on this one. (heck-> moving itself is in that table...) Despite what some people think **looks at TM in reference to the monster fight Art had a few weeks back** I don't care about winning so much as caring about the fight being a clean fight that neither person feels "cheated" on.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 09:57 PM	That's what I quoted at him, but I hate to think that I'm making a biased choice, and I really can see both sides of the issue on this one. (heck-> moving itself is in that table...) Despite what some people think **looks at TM in reference to the monster fight Art had a few weeks back** I don't care about winning so much as caring about the fight being a clean fight that neither person feels "cheated" on. What on earth did I have to say/do with that evil a**? Did I even have an opinion on that? I thought it was a pretty crappy choice for a monster, myself, but it wasn't my place to argue against the MQ-lord's prerogative to choose whatever he wants as the obstacle. {thinks back} I really don't remember saying anything unsympathetic about that... TM
NiQil 04-23-07, 09:58 PM	tagg vs the hunter is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12189632&postcount=795) - result was funny as hell Two problem I see, when put together are fight affecting. 1) In round 5, Tagg drops a bow (free), taps his tattoo (standard) and draws two weapons. However, since he did not make a move that round, he does not get to draw those weapons as free actions. So he can only draw one weapon that round (which would be his primary-handed weapon, the rapier). The reason this is important is that in the following round, Tagg full attacks with both weapons, scoring damage with his shortsword. But since he should not have had both weapons out in this round, he first would have had to draw the shortword, meaning that he would not be able to strike with both weapons that round. This means that the roll for the shortsword attack is going to fall down a round, and every attack after that will fall down a round. The end result is that when The Hunter makes the attack that puts him in the negatives, The Hunter will still have hp remaining. 2) In round 7 there was 4 damage dealt that you did not subtract from my opponent's hp total that round. That means that he is going to reach negative hp sooner. Putting these two errors together, I believe this will result in a change of the results. I would appreciate if you would review this.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 10:02 PM	What on earth did I have to say/do with that evil a**? Did I even have an opinion on that? I thought it was a pretty crappy choice for a monster, myself, but it wasn't my place to argue against the MQ-lord's prerogative to choose whatever he wants as the obstacle. {thinks back} I really don't remember saying anything unsympathetic about that... TM Hehe..you told me to not be so upset just because one of my characters finally lost ;)
Rauul 04-23-07, 10:02 PM	i am under the Impression that Standing is a Move action and is Therefore moving.. I could be wrong isn't a big deal except that Mobility comes after dodge is only effects Aoo's ac's So i was under the Impression that standing from prone is a Move action.. is when ever i fall down anyways
TheMagister 04-23-07, 10:03 PM	1) In round 5, Tagg drops a bow (free), taps his tattoo (standard) and draws two weapons. However, since he did not make a move that round, he does not get to draw those weapons as free actions. So he can only draw one weapon that round (which would be his primary-handed weapon, the rapier). The reason this is important is that in the following round, Tagg full attacks with both weapons, scoring damage with his shortsword. But since he should not have had both weapons out in this round, he first would have had to draw the shortword, meaning that he would not be able to strike with both weapons that round. This means that the roll for the shortsword attack is going to fall down a round, and every attack after that will fall down a round. The end result is that when The Hunter makes the attack that puts him in the negatives, The Hunter will still have hp remaining. Yay! Questions I know the answers to! If you have the Two Weapon Fighting feat (page 102), you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. So, yeah - he can draw two weapons in a single move action as long as he has the TWF feat.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 10:04 PM	i am under the Impression that Standing is a Move action and is Therefore moving.. I could be wrong isn't a big deal except that Mobility comes after dodge is only effects Aoo's ac's So i was under the Impression that standing from prone is a Move action.. is when ever i fall down anyways A "move action" and a "move equivalent action" are two different things. Standing from prone is a move equivalent action, not a move action.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 10:05 PM	Hehe..you told me to not be so upset just because one of my characters finally lost ;) Oh. Yeah, that sounds like me. :embarrass
NiQil 04-23-07, 10:05 PM	Ilendil vs The Seeker (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12193425&postcount=801) is up please check for errors -Sjiggie Thanks for the pickup. At first blush, everything appears to be in order.
Rauul 04-23-07, 10:05 PM	A "move action" and a "move equivalent action" are two different things. Standing from prone is a move equivalent action, not a move action. you lay on the floor.. and stand without moving... bet you can't do it.. LOL
MindWandererB 04-23-07, 10:05 PM	1) In round 5, Tagg drops a bow (free), taps his tattoo (standard) and draws two weapons. However, since he did not make a move that round, he does not get to draw those weapons as free actions. So he can only draw one weapon that round (which would be his primary-handed weapon, the rapier). The reason this is important is that in the following round, Tagg full attacks with both weapons, scoring damage with his shortsword. But since he should not have had both weapons out in this round, he first would have had to draw the shortword, meaning that he would not be able to strike with both weapons that round. This means that the roll for the shortsword attack is going to fall down a round, and every attack after that will fall down a round. The end result is that when The Hunter makes the attack that puts him in the negatives, The Hunter will still have hp remaining.Not quite:If you have the Two-Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one.
NiQil 04-23-07, 10:07 PM	Yay! Questions I know the answers to! So, yeah - he can draw two weapons in a single move action as long as he has the TWF feat. Ah yes....I'd forgotten about that. It rarely comes up for me....my TWF builds always use a double weapon. Edit: One other thing...in the rewards, you have The Hunter listed as using 1 orison....which is kinda funny, considering he's a barbarian.... If you could fix that, that would be super.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 10:10 PM	you lay on the floor.. and stand without moving... bet you can't do it.. LOL A character can't disarm someone without moving either, but that action provokes an AoO that isn't categorized as "movement related". The table makes it pretty clear that the move-equivalent action "stand up from prone" provokes an un-movement-related AoO. Just because the designers say it does. Don't shoot the messenger. :)
McJarvis 04-23-07, 10:11 PM	bang
TheMagister 04-23-07, 10:12 PM	:ghosted:
waywreth 04-23-07, 10:14 PM	Elrick vs Matthis vs Razorfang is up. Damn you die roller! And I almost feel bad now for my next week's opponent. Almost... but not quite.
McJarvis 04-23-07, 10:28 PM	Yet another hider screwed over by our ganked up listen rules is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12194200&postcount=802)
McJarvis 04-23-07, 10:32 PM	@TM: Can you give an example of an AoO mobility would grant a dodge bonus to on the "movement inside the square" part of the definition? You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses.
Erithmu 04-23-07, 10:35 PM	Something that has a very large reach. Ex: Size Huge or greater.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 11:00 PM	Jumping more than 5' straight up or down within a threatened area. Falling. A creature with a 0' reach provoking an AoO for leaving a creature's threatened area and then provoking another AoO for entering that creature's space to attack. Moving only 5' through difficult terrain while threatened. Different situations involving 3-D movement. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. A note: I don't think it'd be unbalancing to let Mobility apply to the AoO granted by rising from prone, or to AoOs for the drawing of potions from stored containers or what have you. The mobility feat is weak as written anyways. Nobody takes Dodge so they can take Mobility... TM
Zevox 04-23-07, 11:13 PM	@TM: Can you give an example of an AoO mobility would grant a dodge bonus to on the "movement inside the square" part of the definition? That says "within a threatened area", not "inside the square". You can be moving within a threatened area while moving through multiple squares (example: moving from one threatened space to another vs creatures with reach). Zevox
Yitzi 04-23-07, 11:27 PM	Jumping more than 5' straight up or down within a threatened area. Falling. A creature with a 0' reach provoking an AoO for leaving a creature's threatened area and then provoking another AoO for entering that creature's space to attack. Moving only 5' through difficult terrain while threatened. Different situations involving 3-D movement. That's all I can think of off the top of my head. A note: I don't think it'd be unbalancing to let Mobility apply to the AoO granted by rising from prone, or to AoOs for the drawing of potions from stored containers or what have you. The mobility feat is weak as written anyways. Nobody takes Dodge so they can take Mobility... TM No, but maybe they take dodge so they can take mobility so they can take shot on the run/spring attack.
TheMagister 04-23-07, 11:35 PM	Well, sure! But nobody says, "Hey, level 6! I get Mobility this level! Right on!" TM
Rauul 04-24-07, 12:56 AM	Mobility [General] Prerequisites Dex 13, Dodge. Benefit You get a +4 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks of opportunity caused when you move out of or within a threatened area. A condition that makes you lose your Dexterity bonus to Armor Class (if any) also makes you lose dodge bonuses. Dodge bonuses stack with each other, unlike most types of bonuses. I am not worried either way.. but MY Honest opinion is the OR in there is a very big word.. Honestly Standing is a Move and a Move action (since you can't tumble from prone for some reason) cause your acually moving your body to stand (you keep dex bonuses) I really just find it VERY funny that Standing is not considered to be moving.. But a person can crawl 5 or tumble 5ft and get the mobility bonus LOL Prone: When you're prone, you're lying on the ground. As noted in Part One, you can crawl 5 feet while prone as a move action, or you can use a move action to stand up (either of these provokes an attack of opportunity from foes that threaten you). You also can tumble 5 feet without provoking an attack of opportunity (see Part One). So crawling or tumbling would give Mobility bonus and standing don't... this is just to rich
SauroGrenom 04-24-07, 01:16 AM	No, no, I won't be that harsh. Besides, the point about setting precedent does need to be addressed. The main point of dissention is this: some of us think that "Attack (ranged)" applies to ranged touch attacks (because ranged touch attacks are indeed ranged attacks), and some of us don't (because the ranged attack is a result of the action and not the action itself). Both are valid arguments. Neither is overtly provable. So it comes down to a popularity contest, basically. This does not set precedent about actions that seem to fall into more than one category, because this argument is about whether ranged touch spells fall into more than one category at all. If it clearly did, then there would definitely be an AoO; if it clearly didn't, there wouldn't. I think we can probably all agree that some overlap, or at least ambiguity, is possible (yes, this is a retraction of my earlier stance). But since it's impossible to prove this one one way or the other, we have to make a judgment call, and we've made it.You are making this about ranged touch attacks only, but I think the whole line of argument applies equally to all actions that fall under multiple classifications (like this 5' step into another person's square). One way of ruing this case results in a morass of future rulings being required. The other way of ruling this clears all similar questions simultaneously. For the sake of consistency, we should make a generalized ruling that clears up all potential confusions in one ruling. One final point I need to make. This came to me as I was driving home today. There appears to be the consensus that only actions can provoke an AoO. (I gather this from NiQil's repeated request for me to prove that the ranged attack is a separate action. ) This however is wrong. There is a well established precedent for non-actions to provoke an AoO. An AoO is itself a non-action (defined as such in the RoTG article about actions). Also we all know that an AoO can provoke another AoO depending on what kind of attack is used. If a non-action can provoke an AoO, then why is it required for a ranged attack to be a separate action to provoke an AoO? Clearly there is no such requirement.
Vathelokai 04-24-07, 02:14 AM	Kervan Sheharath (MindWandererB) vs Balrog (Maraxus) vs Antalya (Vathelokai) is up. Thanks for the run and the edits. Seems I underestimated Kervan; should have put in some melee tactics against him.
Abyssal Stalker 04-24-07, 02:34 AM	Well, sure! But nobody says, "Hey, level 6! I get Mobility this level! Right on!" TM Hey, level 6! I get Mobility this level! Right on! touche :P
templer10 04-24-07, 02:36 AM	Two problem I see, when put together are fight affecting. 1) In round 5, Tagg drops a bow (free), taps his tattoo (standard) and draws two weapons. However, since he did not make a move that round, he does not get to draw those weapons as free actions. So he can only draw one weapon that round (which would be his primary-handed weapon, the rapier). The reason this is important is that in the following round, Tagg full attacks with both weapons, scoring damage with his shortsword. But since he should not have had both weapons out in this round, he first would have had to draw the shortword, meaning that he would not be able to strike with both weapons that round. This means that the roll for the shortsword attack is going to fall down a round, and every attack after that will fall down a round. The end result is that when The Hunter makes the attack that puts him in the negatives, The Hunter will still have hp remaining. 2) In round 7 there was 4 damage dealt that you did not subtract from my opponent's hp total that round. That means that he is going to reach negative hp sooner. Putting these two errors together, I believe this will result in a change of the results. I would appreciate if you would review this. ill look it over later - going out now
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 02:41 AM	You are making this about ranged touch attacks only, but I think the whole line of argument applies equally to all actions that fall under multiple classifications (like this 5' step into another person's square). One way of ruing this case results in a morass of future rulings being required. The other way of ruling this clears all similar questions simultaneously. For the sake of consistency, we should make a generalized ruling that clears up all potential confusions in one ruling. One final point I need to make. This came to me as I was driving home today. There appears to be the consensus that only actions can provoke an AoO. (I gather this from NiQil's repeated request for me to prove that the ranged attack is a separate action. ) This however is wrong. There is a well established precedent for non-actions to provoke an AoO. An AoO is itself a non-action (defined as such in the RoTG article about actions). Also we all know that an AoO can provoke another AoO depending on what kind of attack is used. If a non-action can provoke an AoO, then why is it required for a ranged attack to be a separate action to provoke an AoO? Clearly there is no such requirement.For the last time, that particular argument is off the table. You win. The point, once again and finally, is that we can't agree on whether a ranged touch spell qualifies as a ranged attack for the purposes of an AoO--whether the ranged attack is the action of the character (and even a non-action is a sort of action in the literal sense of the character doing something), or whether it is a consequence of that action. As for your "generalized ruling," you have that, too. If an action (or non-action) clearly falls under more than one category, then there is an AoO if any of those categories provokes. It is that clarity that is missing here.
Maraxus 04-24-07, 03:48 AM	A "move action" and a "move equivalent action" are two different things. Standing from prone is a move equivalent action, not a move action. Hehe, I had looked for that, too. But I had to see, that the term "move equivilent action" is 3.0 and was renamed move-action in 3.5. Probably for the simplicity ("So, I have a standard action and a move, or a move equivilent, but I can exchange a standard for a move or move equivilent and moves and move equivilents with another? I have only an attention span of 10 words, I don't understand."). However, this makes the problem, of course, that now there are "move actions" (those actions taking 49% of your turn) and the "move" action (altering your coordinates on the battle grid through the means of walking/flying/swiming or whatever movement types you happen to have). Oh, and in addition to this, there is also "moving" as the term for taking anything but purely mental actions. As far as I see it, Mobility only aplies the the "Move" action kind of Move. Yes, this is very low powered, I see it mainly as a blank feat that is an additional requirement for Spring attack.
Malither76 04-24-07, 04:30 AM	Roulex vs Ogre is up here had a chance if Ogre failed the save. My other fight should beat the deadline, deadline is 5pm eastern standard on Tuesday right? I apologize my late runs, after next week exams and school will be done and my time will free up. and fights will be done in a more timely manner.
McJarvis 04-24-07, 06:56 AM	(like this 5' step into another person's square). This is what everyone is arguing about? I wonder how they would feel if a wizard took a 5ft step while casting a spell(into the opposing person's square, no less) & said it didn't provoke an AoO because it was a 5ft step action. -_-
Maraxus 04-24-07, 08:55 AM	General Zaroff vs Shadow has been revised. Sadly, Lady Luck did not confirm her unsteadyness.
hogarth 04-24-07, 09:05 AM	This is what everyone is arguing about? I wonder how they would feel if a wizard took a 5ft step while casting a spell(into the opposing person's square, no less) & said it didn't provoke an AoO because it was a 5ft step action. Moving from A to B and casting a spell are certainly two separate actions. Moving from A to B (5' step) and moving from A to B (entering an opponent's square) may or may not be separate actions, depending on whom you ask.
Roulex 04-24-07, 09:19 AM	Ok, I obviously don't understand how LoS and hiding works yet. In my fight, with the tactics and fight described here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12198188&postcount=804), the idea was to be in hiding, doing the poison of out LoS and only alerting the monster with my first shot. Then I was to drop back into the shadows, hiding, and snipe again with the second shot. Do I not understand how hiding and LoS rules work, or were my tactics just not clear enough? I'm ok with the results, little late to change em even if I messed up, but what's my problem here? My character isn't ment to go toe-to-toe with anyone--he's meant to hit and run, picking his fights, standing and fighting only when it suits him.
Macbrea 04-24-07, 09:51 AM	Ok, looking over the fight. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=arena;a=Roul,M,35,55,34 ,54;b=Ogre,L,58,29,52,29,50,34,34,53 This is the map of the fight. Your movment on round 2 is illegal because you cannot step through a corner. That is fine because you didn't actually move on round 1. Your position should allow a sniping shot at 140'. Which would put you at Hide: 1d20-8 vs Spot:1d20-14. And a listen check for the ogre of 1d20+2 vs DC 14. The ogre is allowed to move from the direction that the arrow arrived from. That is a matter of touch and side of body that the arrow struck. Looking at the dice rolled no spot or listen check was made. If either is made the movement is perfectly fine. If you just fired without sniping then the movement is fine. The real odd question comes in is why the archer doesn't tumble away from the ogre and fire to prevent AoOs and keep with the shooting tactic.
TelinArtho 04-24-07, 10:32 AM	I've posted my comments and the corrections to the summary for the Hunter fight. I will try to edit the fight so all can see the changes, but it is a lot of moving things around - so it won't be nearly as pretty. If any of the players involved absolutely need the updated fight in order to accept the result - let me know and I'll hold it over for next week to be sure I have enough time.
Rauul 04-24-07, 11:02 AM	General Zaroff vs Shadow has been revised. Sadly, Lady Luck did not confirm her unsteadyness. well i have no problems with it (I won) but as long general had a fair chance I am happy.. thanks for the run Maraxus Oh and can you add the Exp retreat to spells used on shadow.. thanks
Maraxus 04-24-07, 11:15 AM	Ah, right. And this reminds me: You could make a little note in blue on your sheet that notes, how many spell-levels are currently available. It's dangerous becourse you need not forget to update it every fight (but then again, not everybody is as scatterbrained as I am :rolleyes: ) but it's obviously helpful to not have pitlords need to check your previous fights in the 3FC when they want to know how many spell-levels you have. (Wow, is that really a sentence? You know what I want to say)
McJarvis 04-24-07, 11:21 AM	This week is really quite the shock...I've never had the dice treat me so poorly. Well fought to both gladiators...I'm glad you were not druids :)
TelinArtho 04-24-07, 12:13 PM	@Rauul - regarding the miniquest you just finished up there's a bit of a technical error. A spirited charge deals x3 damage, while a critted lance normally deals x3 damage. However, when multipliers are applied twice, they are not multiplied together - they are added. In this case, x3 + (x3-1) = x5. When two or more multipliers apply to any abstract value (such as a modifier or a die roll), however, combine them into a single multiple, with each extra multiple adding 1 less than its value to the first multiple. Thus, a double (×2) and a double (×2) applied to the same number results in a triple (×3, because 2 + 1 = 3). So in all likelihood - the Gynosphinx actually survives that crit... not by much - but a little...
Malither76 04-24-07, 12:14 PM	@Roulex, the ogre auto spotted you, you had to start with the poison in hand and short sword in hand, I guess I did mess up in the fact you could have applied poison and re-sheathed short sword in surprise round. this would have given you 1 more snipe shot and even if it crits you can't kill the Ogre, it would have went snipe on round 1, Ogre moves toward your box and taps tattoo, Round 2 snipe, Ogre moves and taps tattoo, Round 3 snipe, Ogre runs toward box and negates your cover. Round 4 you stab and hit, Ogre hits you, Round 5 you stab and miss, Ogre kills you. I guess I did negate one attack from you sorry about this. but nothing would really change.
Rauul 04-24-07, 12:18 PM	@Rauul - regarding the miniquest you just finished up there's a bit of a technical error. A spirited charge deals x3 damage, while a critted lance normally deals x3 damage. However, when multipliers are applied twice, they are not multiplied together - they are added. In this case, x3 + (x3-1) = x5. So in all likelihood - the Gynosphinx actually survives that crit... not by much - but a little... so 5d8+24 damage? and not 6d8+24?
TelinArtho 04-24-07, 12:19 PM	5d8+5x(dmg modifier) If the dmg modifier is 4 - then 5d8+20.
Rauul 04-24-07, 12:20 PM	Ah, right. And this reminds me: You could make a little note in blue on your sheet that notes, how many spell-levels are currently available. It's dangerous becourse you need not forget to update it every fight (but then again, not everybody is as scatterbrained as I am :rolleyes: ) but it's obviously helpful to not have pitlords need to check your previous fights in the 3FC when they want to know how many spell-levels you have. (Wow, is that really a sentence? You know what I want to say) ok will figure out how to work sors type classes... never played one before... and I need you to to add the 19% political Bonus to the rewards :)
Zevox 04-24-07, 12:21 PM	5d8+5x(dmg modifier) If the dmg modifier is 4 - then 5d8+20. Damage mod on Ceilia's lance was +6 - 4 strength + 2 divine favor. So then, the crit should properly do 5d8+30 damage. Still likely to kill, but it will need to be rolled I suppose. Not that the Sphinx will survive the subsequent spells even if it survives the crit. Zevox
templer10 04-24-07, 12:27 PM	Ah yes....I'd forgotten about that. It rarely comes up for me....my TWF builds always use a double weapon. Edit: One other thing...in the rewards, you have The Hunter listed as using 1 orison....which is kinda funny, considering he's a barbarian.... If you could fix that, that would be super. i edited teh fight to include the hit i forgot earler- tagg still win with -9 VS -10 HP (you got to love this kind of result).
Rauul 04-24-07, 12:33 PM	Damage mod on Ceilia's lance was +6 - 4 strength + 2 divine favor. So then, the crit should properly do 5d8+30 damage. Still likely to kill, but it will need to be rolled I suppose. Not that the Sphinx will survive the subsequent spells even if it survives the crit. Zevox Mutter.. well taking off the last 1d8 damage is -5 adding the +6damage to bonuses means it died anyways... Good lord i never realized a player can do that kinda damage... that is sick.. the gyno never got to even blink let alone drink a heal potion... sheeesh..
TelinArtho 04-24-07, 12:35 PM	Sir Valkin had a similar situation. First round charge with his lance, with spirited charge, divine might, smite evil and his charging armor for something like +19 to hit, 5d8+20+20+45+2d6 or so...
Rauul 04-24-07, 12:46 PM	This week is really quite the shock...I've never had the dice treat me so poorly. Well fought to both gladiators...I'm glad you were not druids :) just a weak bard... who defeated a general so all is good.. :shocked:
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 12:48 PM	Wait 'til ya see what Gakhnalak will be able to do at ECL 9-ish: Raging, Enlarged, Bull's Strength, diving True Strike Power Attack for something like 6d6+42+28... and that's without a crit. I'm still debating the weapon he should be using at that point: Greatsword for the consistent damage, or Falchion (keen!) for extra chances to double half of that.
Zevox 04-24-07, 12:49 PM	Mutter.. well taking off the last 1d8 damage is -5 adding the +6damage to bonuses means it died anyways... Good lord i never realized a player can do that kinda damage... that is sick.. the gyno never got to even blink let alone drink a heal potion... sheeesh.. If you think thats big, you should've seen some of the damage Cat's Archangel Ixenthor would do on dives. He stacked on so many bonus damage modifiers it wasn't funny - divine might, divine favor, magic weapon, high strength with a two-handed weapon, smite evil, power attack, and probably many things I'm forgetting. I recall that on a crit with a x3 weapon he once did over 110 damage to something - now that hurts. Zevox
McJarvis 04-24-07, 01:00 PM	I'm working on an ECL 12 build that should be able to pump out an ave of 126(DC 30+ will save for half) damage on round 1 on _almost_ any map. That'll be a fun one...can't wait to reveal him :)
Macbrea 04-24-07, 01:01 PM	Note to self.... get Izumi boots of flying...
Rauul 04-24-07, 01:07 PM	So that i can get Shadow ready for tomorrow (am only gonna have 2 active so no credits i hope) 19% political gives 1071 exp/gold? (for an ecl 3 win no allies)
Rauul 04-24-07, 01:08 PM	Note to self.... get Izumi boots of flying... yea starting to think the orc needs a pair to...
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 01:13 PM	Yeah... in this envrionment, melee builds pretty much require flight from some source or another. Even potions of Fly only buy you so much (as the Brilf/Arcane Hand fight just demonstrated).
Macbrea 04-24-07, 01:14 PM	I won't own it if it's an expendable on Izumi. I am trying to avoid in the upper levels requiring them.
templer10 04-24-07, 02:08 PM	anyone seen MitzaVolchenko lately? the fight between lord lorian and lightwolf hasnt been run yet - if mitza wont show up can someone else take it?
Macbrea 04-24-07, 02:10 PM	She is at my house still. I am not sure if she is working on the fight at the moment or not. I am at work. :P
templer10 04-24-07, 02:11 PM	She is at my house still. I am not sure if she is working on the fight at the moment or not. I am at work. :P cough (phone) cough
sonofzeal 04-24-07, 02:17 PM	Re: Shadovar (Deathspell_Omega) vs. Hajj (sonofzeal) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=12194200&postcount=802) I'm not sure why the Hippogriff landed, or what happened to the other maps, but that's not really important. I would like to respond to the "piece of coal" statement by saying that {a} this being my first character, I had little way of knowing when I made it what's origional and what isn't, and that {b} last time I checked, Druids are more "origional" (by which I mean less used) than Wizards, Psions, Fighters, Clerics, or Psiwarriors, and that Halflings are practically an endangered species, trailing far behind behind Humans, Elves, and Dwarves, and even losing out to Half-Giants and Elans. That said... I have a feeling there are certain conventions around as to what's been done/proved to work/is too easy. If Druids are one, I apologize (although I do have a plan for Hajj in the long run; he isn't going to stay pure Druid). If there are any others, let me know.
McJarvis 04-24-07, 02:24 PM	Please don't take it personally-> Druids are just a pet peeve of mine(have been since my CharOp days :) )
Macbrea 04-24-07, 02:26 PM	cough (phone) cough If she gets up and does it before I get home then she does. If not I will have her post up the tactics and characters for someone to work on the fight. I am not calling home to make sure she runs a fight. :P
templer10 04-24-07, 02:28 PM	Please don't take it personally-> Druids are just a pet peeve of mine(have been since my CharOp days :) ) what would you say about my druid who managed to get over 8k xp in 4 fights.... (ecl 4-5). :D
McJarvis 04-24-07, 02:32 PM	what would you say about my druid who managed to get over 8k xp in 4 fights.... (ecl 4-5). :D Not much. I have a friend from college(Krytos-> some know of him) who did more or less the same thing. It was his only character at the CoCo before he got bored, and he isn't any sort of optimization guru.
Rauul 04-24-07, 02:40 PM	If she gets up and does it before I get home then she does. If not I will have her post up the tactics and characters for someone to work on the fight. I am not calling home to make sure she runs a fight. :P besides Macbrea don't use phones... he is allergic to them :)
sonofzeal 04-24-07, 02:43 PM	Please don't take it personally-> Druids are just a pet peeve of mine(have been since my CharOp days :) ) Any particular reason why, beyond the difficulty in tracking allies?
McJarvis 04-24-07, 02:47 PM	Any particular reason why, beyond the difficulty in tracking allies? Aside from the huge list of reasons why Druids beat the socks off of every other class?(full-casting, free ally, better hd, better to-hit, better saves, etc than wizards) Mostly that I feel like playing a druid is pretty static around here. Due to the power of certain spells available(and the entire class feature dedicated to helping you deliver those summons), it seems very few druids straight-ticket druids deviate from the "norm". Don't let _me_ discourage you, though. We have an entire guild dedicated to druids. ;) As far as keeping track of allies goes-> I don't consider it a problem. Just looking at the tactics & then listing the most likely needed stats on the round-by-round gets me by fine.
Macbrea 04-24-07, 02:56 PM	besides Macbrea don't use phones... he is allergic to them :) It's not that I am allergic to them. I work everyday with people that go to prison for many years for using them. No thanks.... :)
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 03:09 PM	Mostly that I feel like playing a druid is pretty static around here. Due to the power of certain spells available(and the entire class feature dedicated to helping you deliver those summons), it seems very few druids straight-ticket druids deviate from the "norm". Don't let _me_ discourage you, though. We have an entire guild dedicated to druids. ;)Hey, TLT isn't just for druids! Such a bad rap we get... currently, we only have 4 druids out of 10 characters on the roster, perhaps an all-time low for the guild.
TelinArtho 04-24-07, 03:14 PM	Hey, TLT isn't just for druids! Such a bad rap we get... currently, we only have 4 druids out of 10 characters on the roster, perhaps an all-time low for the guild. Plus - its not like all druids exactly fit in at TLT... I mean Zax would never step foot in a place like that. I believe Zevox had a druid of the same temperament... Druids certainly have some nice versatility to them - but I would not call them overpowered by any means - not even here within the CoCo's house rules.
Zevox 04-24-07, 03:35 PM	Plus - its not like all druids exactly fit in at TLT... I mean Zax would never step foot in a place like that. I believe Zevox had a druid of the same temperament... Yup - Destra Stormwind, the only Druid I've ever played, here or elsewhere. Devoted to Talos the Stormlord (I think shes the only Druid around here who has ever actually worshiped a deity...), a God of natural disasters and destruction in general. Absolutely hated Druids who followed TLT's philosophies of balance. She was fun, but not very successful. I kinda regret she never got to become a Werewolf like I wanted - that would've been a fun quest. Zevox
McJarvis 04-24-07, 03:35 PM	I wouldn't say druids are unbeatable or overly powerful, but there is a *reason* why the phrase "tough luck, druids are tough to beat" is fairly common in pitlord comments(IME). Moreso than wizards or cleric, as far as I can tell. And let's not forget the phrase CoD that we all know & love ;)
hogarth 04-24-07, 03:38 PM	Druids certainly have some nice versatility to them - but I would not call them overpowered by any means - not even here within the CoCo's house rules. Druids are fairly versatile, but compared to other spellcasting classes they have a limited number of save-or-"die" spells (which are much better at ending 1-on-1 battles, IMO).
Macbrea 04-24-07, 03:39 PM	Heh.. When Mektos (LN Kobold Druid 3/Sorc 3) wanted to join TLT they were talking in a tone to ally with CEF. The conversation led him at the time to leave the building because he felt they were biased towards one force over the other!
TelinArtho 04-24-07, 03:45 PM	Heh - just how many characters can lose a fight and still GAIN power? Ilendil Oratith (TelinArtho) [Power: 1100 (1100); 0 won, 1 lost] @MWB - Ilendil lost his fight - so I think (I could be wrong of course...) that his power rating should go down :)
Malither76 04-24-07, 04:15 PM	Taren VS Dunerunner is up here sorry again for taking so long to run it, at least it was a quick fight
MindWandererB 04-24-07, 04:24 PM	Heh.. When Mektos (LN Kobold Druid 3/Sorc 3) wanted to join TLT they were talking in a tone to ally with CEF. The conversation led him at the time to leave the building because he felt they were biased towards one force over the other!Must have been during Luni's time as guildmaster; the guild was being run as Good-aligned back then, despite the fact that few if any of the members were actually Good. In fact, looking through the roster... with the exception of Kitty, every good-aligned member we've ever had is currently in the guild. We've only ever had two evil members, Besthirah and Kronos MacLeod. Interesting... looks like when TLT was too "good" for Mektos, their alignment actually would have been a smidge on the evil side.Heh - just how many characters can lose a fight and still GAIN power? @MWB - Ilendil lost his fight - so I think (I could be wrong of course...) that his power rating should go down :)Oops... wishful thinking from his guildmaster, I guess. I got his opponent right... anyway, it's fixed, and thanks for the catch.
McJarvis 04-24-07, 04:39 PM	I'm not sure why the Hippogriff landed, Oh-> regarding this issue. what happened was the hippo immediately took off in the air one way, then mid-move spotted the halfling. In order to make most-haste there, it was required to land in order to turn properly. I believe we have rules against skimming along the ground in order to get perfect-turns with flying critters, so I changed movement modes to land-speed for the second part of your double-move.
Yitzi 04-24-07, 06:03 PM	Taren VS Dunerunner is up here sorry again for taking so long to run it, at least it was a quick fight Question: I said in my tactics I want to take cover at the end of my turn if it's not far out of my way. On round 4 you moved me to 30,26, but if I had moved to 32,28 instead (still within my move range, and no farther from Taren) I would have had cover. So why didn't you move me there? Also, you seem to have given Taren 35' movement instead of 30, judging from the positions given. I doubt it would have affected the results though. Mostly, I blame Taren's good attack and damage rolls for my loss. That and the fact that Dunerunner's expected to be a bit weak until level 4. Also, my rewards needs to be adjusted to 357 gp.
Malither76 04-24-07, 08:13 PM	your rewards are fine, its noted you got the 57gp in your free activity. I moved you to the most direct root to your opponent. You wanted to charge and grapple him, he just happened to be near a cluster of pillars and walls that let him move an negate the charge. If I put you behind cover you would have negated your own charge and Teran would have got at least one or two more shots. Yeah the rolls were really lucky, by the two of your tactics and both of your AC's I was sure it was going to come to the grapple but it didn't. Sorry
NiQil 04-24-07, 09:16 PM	Taren VS Dunerunner is up here sorry again for taking so long to run it, at least it was a quick fight Wow, that was rather....abrupt. But it'll do. Thanks for the run.
Rauul 04-25-07, 02:35 AM	Ok mitza sent me the 5 pages of tactics so i can run Lord Lorian (templer10) vs. Lightwolf Phoenixstar (Yitzi) : ECL 4 [City] when i wake up... So hopefully will be done before deadline.. Btw.. for future info... 5 pages of tactics is a tad much... Not even Cat's ECL 10 charaters took that much tactics i believe.. i could be wrong..
Yitzi 04-25-07, 09:23 AM	Well, each of us is somewhat scared of the other, so...
Yitzi 04-25-07, 03:13 PM	Ok mitza sent me the 5 pages of tactics so i can run Lord Lorian (templer10) vs. Lightwolf Phoenixstar (Yitzi) : ECL 4 [City] when i wake up... So hopefully will be done before deadline.. 50 minutes left and it's not up yet, so this will probably be my first holdover. Understandable, given the circumstances.
Rauul 04-25-07, 05:28 PM	50 minutes left and it's not up yet, so this will probably be my first holdover. Understandable, given the circumstances. Do to an area wide power outage that lasted 5 hrs here... just as i started the lights went out... so i went back to bed..
Yitzi 04-25-07, 06:27 PM	Well, it's too late now-but it absolutely must be up this week, as Lightwolf is planning to go questing next week.