| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| waywreth12-13-06, 01:16 PM | Fights of the Week: December 13th 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 Caterane will pair the active Characters of Gladius after the deadline. Make sure that your character is not in prison (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571107&goto=lastpost). 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. 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 Abyssal Stalker is very cool for resurrecting the Gladius Weekly. Telin is still somewhat cool for winning UnCon. 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! |
| Caterane12-13-06, 01:43 PM | We could use some more pitlords. Any volunteers? |
| Erithmu12-13-06, 01:46 PM | I good for one additional fight this week, and a bonus MQ if it is needed. |
| spasheridan12-13-06, 01:46 PM | I'll take 2 fights. Do I need to put on my character sheets that Fyhir is riding his horse and Legion is taking his thrallherd ally with him? Is it to late to edit that on there? - edit, happily, I already did that on their sheets |
| hogarth12-13-06, 01:47 PM | I can pitlord an ECL 3 battle, if it'll help. Plese -- no pixies, ghosts or forest maps!! |
| Sutro12-13-06, 02:28 PM | Also trying to be helpful: I won't be active this week because I don't have enough time before the deadline in a couple of hours to research what I need to buy for the next 3FC (and I don't have any skills applicable for a full activity); six papers in two weeks did that. I'd rather go into the next 3FC taking the time to make a stronger equipment build than continue my losing streak. -Sutro |
| Pitlords12-13-06, 02:57 PM | Spash, Rith, hogarth ...thanks for offering this! That'll help! |
| McJarvis12-13-06, 02:59 PM | I won't run any gladiators this week in an attempt to help out as well. :) Really, it's because I'm kind-hearted...not because I procrastinated and didn't have time to finish my magi.... |
| Hirumajoe12-13-06, 03:46 PM | Umm... I hate to point this out, but I don't believe Gonbow is going to around this week (or for several weeks possibly) due to his lack of internet access. So I don't think he can run the fight he's listed for (and I'm guessing didn't finish from last week). Perhaps he should be removed from the active Pitlord list for the time being? I'm using this post as my basis for the above statements. |
| Milov12-13-06, 05:08 PM | Odd. Quite odd. Ihdald has as his title line "Ready for Dec 13 [Fight 1] - Miniquest: EL 6, QL (Random) [goal: Join WAR] ", yet in the character listings, he has an [A] tag, which is for an arena fight... Did I make a mistake in the title bar or summat? :/ EDIT: Yup. I guess I did, cause now he's paired into a fight. |
| MindWandererB12-13-06, 05:29 PM | No, that's not your mistake. PM Pitlords if he doesn't catch this in the FotW thread. |
| hogarth12-13-06, 05:33 PM | For monster fights, I seem to recall discussion that a third party would roll the monster instead of the Pitlord. Did that ever get implemented or should I just roll a monster myself? |
| Zevox12-13-06, 05:35 PM | @ Pitlords - Looks like in spite of having her marked with a [G] on the roster, you missed Ceilia Durrol's Guild MQ in the pairings: Ready 12/13[Out of Cycle]:Guild MQ to assault CEF Outpost in Gawane. (EL 6, QL Mitza) Edit: @ Milov - No, thats not you're fault, the heading is right. Like MWB said, if he doesn't notice that going through this thread, PM Cat to get it fixed. Zevox |
| Pitlords12-13-06, 05:43 PM | Pairings Done and everything fixed although we still need some pitlords for... Terek Molt (NiQil) vs. Maglu "Schadowking" Hrugg (Sjiggie): XXXXX [Arena] [Week 2] Blizzard (NiQil) vs. Malloy (UserNamer) : XXXXX [Arena] Ihdald (Milov) miniquests to join WAR : XXXXX [Miniquest] [Guild] Ceila (Zevox) assaults CEF Outpost in Gawane : XXXXX [Miniquest] [Guild] If that isn't fixed I'll dissolve all miniquests and reassign these questlords to fights. Also, it seems the Battles thread cannot be opened. Do you have the same problems? |
| MindWandererB12-13-06, 05:44 PM | @ Pitlords - Looks like in spite of having her marked with a [G] on the roster, you missed Ceilia Durrol's Guild MQ in the pairings: Ready 12/13[Out of Cycle]:Guild MQ to assault CEF Outpost in Gawane. (EL 6, QL Mitza) Edit: @ Milov - No, thats not you're fault, the heading is right. Like MWB said, if he doesn't notice that going through this thread, PM Cat to get it fixed. Zevox Whoops. Sorry, Zevox, that one's my fault. I'm doing the headless chicken thing today, and I forgot to check on unsuccessful interceptions. @Cat: I'm not having any problems. Hold on, I'll transfer the pairings to the battles thread. Edit: Done. It's post 10907873. Edit 2: I can take a simple fight, I think. Like Blizzard vs. Malloy. |
| TelinArtho12-13-06, 05:56 PM | Hmmm... a monster fight for Kraegin. I think that's his first... should be fun. Awaiting the little bit of knowledge he can have Maraxus. @Cat - I can take an extra fight as well. |
| Hirumajoe12-13-06, 06:04 PM | I suppose I could take an extra fight. Not a miniquest though. |
| Pitlords12-13-06, 06:05 PM | Ok thanks. MWB got that fight and Telin gets the guild quest (which has priority). There is still 1 lvl 3 fight left to take. Thanks Hirumajoe! |
| Erithmu12-13-06, 06:06 PM | Also Ephraim's Miniquest is actually a full quest, with Questlord already set. So that can go away. Her first quest failed in the first week, so she is trying again. Edit: Also noticed a Team fight in the ECL 3 again ... |
| Zevox12-13-06, 06:09 PM | @ Pitlords/Cat/MWB/Whichever - Actually, if you look at Ceilia's header (which I posted right above you there...), MitzaVolchenko already volunteered to run her MQ (and truth be told, I did ask for a QL in advance partially to avoid getting Telin again :P ). Please do change that, if you would. Zevox |
| TelinArtho12-13-06, 06:11 PM | Farig's tactics have been sent. |
| Hrothmund12-13-06, 06:16 PM | @ McJarvis tactics for Maelosh the Breaker sent. @ Pitlords I am new, but I am able to run a fight this week if it is still needed. |
| Milov12-13-06, 06:20 PM | Just as a note to whoever ends up running the miniquest for Ihdald, the object/plot/"whatever-you-want-to-call-it" of the miniquest was already chosen. It's found at, hold on a moment whilst I nab it, here. Or, if you don't feel like sorting it out from there, I can sum it up fairly quickly after I get back from a concert I'm headed to soon. |
| Erithmu12-13-06, 06:24 PM | @Iced: Tactics for Loddick sent. @6 Participants: Sooner the better. |
| TelinArtho12-13-06, 06:25 PM | @ Pitlords/Cat/MWB/Whichever - Actually, if you look at Ceilia's header (which I posted right above you there...), MitzaVolchenko already volunteered to run her MQ (and truth be told, I did ask for a QL in advance partially to avoid getting Telin again :P ). Please do change that, if you would. Zevox I'll assume that this will be fixed in the near future - so I'll go ahead and take Milov's quest instead. @Milov - I will post up details when I get the chance. EDIT: Details are up - Ihdald - please step forward. |
| Caterane12-13-06, 07:11 PM | @TM: You cannot assign Campaign Militias as Patrols because you can only do that with stationed regiments which they ain't. You also cannot assign Conscripts/Militias as City Watch because you've built none (it's a special structure). |
| Hrothmund12-13-06, 07:12 PM | @ Spasheridan Tactics for Bazili Stasha sent |
| Hirumajoe12-13-06, 07:25 PM | @ Spasheridan: Tactics sent for Kai Engel. @Dsugui: Monster info is up for your fight. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-13-06, 08:23 PM | @DSugui I'll get tactics your way shortly. I have to sort out how ambush works ;) @My fighters, I need tactics by 12pm Saturday at the absolute latest. @My questers, PM me the set up links or any ideas you may have. |
| MindWandererB12-13-06, 08:24 PM | For monster fights, I seem to recall discussion that a third party would roll the monster instead of the Pitlord. Did that ever get implemented or should I just roll a monster myself?You still do it yourself. Edit: Also noticed a Team fight in the ECL 3 again ...So... are we just playing this one as-is, or are we waiting until it gets fixed? If it really is a team fight, hogarth and I need to discuss tactics. |
| nightbanegod12-13-06, 08:24 PM | @Erithmu tactics sent for gorgox... and sorry, they are kinda lengthy but explain only a simple plan. i do that... feel free to truncate as necessary. |
| Erithmu12-13-06, 08:48 PM | @NBG and EG: Tactics recieved, NBG: reply sent. |
| hogarth12-13-06, 08:57 PM | @TheMagister: Rubicanti's monster fight info is up (such as it is). |
| NiQil12-13-06, 10:03 PM | You still do it yourself. So... are we just playing this one as-is, or are we waiting until it gets fixed? If it really is a team fight, hogarth and I need to discuss tactics. I sent a PM to Pitlords to advise that this fight needs to be broken up and re-paired, as per our ECL 3 league rules. I would hold off until tomorrow morning (US time) to give Cat a chance to fix it. Edit: @ Hirumajoe: Tactics for Terek Molt forwarded via PM Edit 2: @ MWB: Tactics for Blizzard sent via PM |
| Krytos12-13-06, 10:20 PM | @Vecnoran: Monster info up. @TelinArtho: Tactics recieved. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-13-06, 11:44 PM | @Dsugui and UserName Montana has illegal pre-buffs. He has too many allies. This has to be addressed before I can write tactics. I am reserving the right to ambush pending the results. |
| Vathelokai12-14-06, 12:02 AM | @Abyssal stalker: Auburn tactics sent (with an appendix :D ) @McJarvis: Tweak tactics sent (without an appendix :D ) |
| TheMagister12-14-06, 12:22 AM | I heard that you can be home the day after they remove the appendix from your tactic. @TelinArtho - tactics for Tessero sent. @hogarth - tactics for Rubicanti sent. @Erithmu - working on tactics for Sdentch. Expect 'em before sunrise in US Central. =) TM |
| McJarvis12-14-06, 12:44 AM | Cupid De Locke's full activity was not mentioned in the battles thread, despite her being marked as "A" in the character roster. |
| Erithmu12-14-06, 12:58 AM | Cupid De Locke's full activity was not mentioned in the battles thread, despite her being marked as "A" in the character roster. Probably because she is paired .... |
| McJarvis12-14-06, 12:59 AM | Probably because she is paired .... O_O PM off to Pitlords. Forgot that "A" means actively battling in CoCo. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-14-06, 01:52 AM | @Erithmu @Dsugui Tactics for Ynotar & Sabra respectively sent |
| TheMagister12-14-06, 03:26 AM | @Erithmu - tactics for Sdentch sent via PM. |
| Caterane12-14-06, 05:52 AM | The ECL 3 team fight is fixed: Petr (hogarth) vs. Maya (MindWandererB) : McJarvis [Arena] Wildfire (NiQil) vs. Daniel (UserNamer) : Macbrea [Arena] |
| DSugui12-14-06, 08:08 AM | @Dsugui and UserName Montana has illegal pre-buffs. He has too many allies. This has to be addressed before I can write tactics. I am reserving the right to ambush pending the results. You are right. There used to be rules for Forgery, which allowed one to brning more allies than the cap. Were those rules removed? |
| NiQil12-14-06, 08:13 AM | You are right. There used to be rules for Forgery, which allowed one to brning more allies than the cap. Were those rules removed? Those rules were removed months ago... |
| hogarth12-14-06, 08:35 AM | The ECL 3 team fight is fixed: Petr (hogarth) vs. Maya (MindWandererB) : McJarvis [Arena] Dang...why can't it be Maya vs. Petr instead of vice versa? I'm dying to drop a big rock on someone's head. |
| Erithmu12-14-06, 08:46 AM | @Pitlords/Cat: Sent a PM to the pitlords account to clarify some things about Ephraim on the fight listing. |
| waywreth12-14-06, 08:52 AM | @Spasheridan - Tactics for Matthis in Anselm Falstred (rowsdower44) vs. Matthis Dar'ath II (waywreth) : Spasheridan [Arena] sent via PM. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-14-06, 10:02 AM | You are right. There used to be rules for Forgery, which allowed one to brning more allies than the cap. Were those rules removed? Would you please randomly remove an ally from Montana, or disallow all (though that seems a little harsh)? As it is, I won't be able to write tactics before this evening. @My quest folks. I need you input by this evening, otherwise, you get whatever wanders out of the dice and/or my warped little brain. |
| TelinArtho12-14-06, 12:01 PM | Kraegin's tactics have been sent to Maraxus. EDIT: I have also received tactics for Tessero and Relanex - but not their opponents. |
| DSugui12-14-06, 01:06 PM | @Abyssal Stalker: tactics for Dronnar sent. @Hirumajoe: tactics for Valek sent. @Mitza/UserNamer: I will let UserNamer decide which ally he leaves home. UserNamer, make sure you send this information to Mitza as well. Mitza, you are on the defense, so you cannot Ambush. @questers: quests will be up in a minute. |
| Erithmu12-14-06, 01:16 PM | @Maraxus: Your 'monster' fight is up ... I'm glad you have a horse, on the dumb forest map. |
| rowsdower4412-14-06, 01:51 PM | @Spasheridan - Tactics for Anselm Falstred sent via PM. |
| Zevox12-14-06, 02:25 PM | @My quest folks. I need you input by this evening, otherwise, you get whatever wanders out of the dice and/or my warped little brain. No real input needed for Ceilia - rules state that the opponent on Guild operation MQs like hers has to be a randomly rolled monster anyway, and in RP its pretty much exactly what the goal says it is. If it helps any with that aspect, aside from being with WAR, Ceilia does have a mild dislike for Paladins in general due to her parents holding them up on a pedastal and having seen the high-and-mighty way some of them act when her parents had her train with a group of them for a while. Zevox |
| Macbrea12-14-06, 02:25 PM | @Mitza/UserNamer: I will let UserNamer decide which ally he leaves home. UserNamer, make sure you send this information to Mitza as well. Mitza, you are on the defense, so you cannot Ambush. Isn't it slightly unfair to the person that didn't break the rules to then allow the person that broke the rules decide what items they get to keep and which ones they don't get to use after getting to know their opponent? |
| MindWandererB12-14-06, 03:26 PM | @McJarvis: Tactics for Maya sent. @NiQil: Tactics for Blizzard received. Still waiting on UserNamer to send tactics for Malloy before I can get things started. |
| UserNamer12-14-06, 03:43 PM | @MindWandererB: Tactics for Malloy sent. |
| MindWandererB12-14-06, 03:47 PM | And received. Starting now. |
| Sunwolf12-14-06, 03:50 PM | @Erithmu Tactics for Leif sent by PM Sunwolf |
| Erithmu12-14-06, 03:53 PM | Tactics recieved from all Gladiators, all issues have been addressed, Going to deal with the quickest one first. |
| TheMagister12-14-06, 07:00 PM | Sdentch is SO going to die. |
| NiQil12-14-06, 09:23 PM | @ Macbrea: Tactics for Wildfire sent via PM |
| MitzaVolchenko12-15-06, 12:21 AM | No real input needed for Ceilia - rules state that the opponent on Guild operation MQs like hers has to be a randomly rolled monster anyway, and in RP its pretty much exactly what the goal says it is. If it helps any with that aspect, aside from being with WAR, Ceilia does have a mild dislike for Paladins in general due to her parents holding them up on a pedastal and having seen the high-and-mighty way some of them act when her parents had her train with a group of them for a while. Zevox "Guardians of Gawane" (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=756269) is started here. |
| spasheridan12-15-06, 03:20 AM | @Telin - tactics for Legion and Finael sent, hopefully I'll make an addendum to Legion tomorrow but start the fight whenever you're ready @Krytos - tactics for Fyhir sent. @ My gladiators - tactics recieved for both fights. |
| UserNamer12-15-06, 03:35 AM | @Macbrea: Tactics for Daniel Ocean sent. |
| Sjiggie12-15-06, 04:03 AM | @ McJarvis: Tactics Zerth sended @ Hirumajoe: Tactics Maglu forwarded When there are problems I can't change it cause I'm at school now and don't have any internet acces at home. Trying to fix that but don't count in it. Should be very straightforward tactics. |
| MindWandererB12-15-06, 06:13 PM | Blizzard vs. Malloy is done. The dice gods rule with an iron fist. |
| hogarth12-15-06, 06:17 PM | Tactics sent yesterday for Kilpquabjeg and Petr Semchuk. |
| Erithmu12-16-06, 10:16 AM | Sdentch vs Leif is up ... "So your saying there's a chance..." |
| MitzaVolchenko12-16-06, 11:49 AM | Who is Meaner? (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=10927138#post10927138) is started here for Manzarf the Loathsome (AbyssalStalker). @DSugui Sybil's tactics sent...sorry so late, the delay in fight clarification and the board outage yesterday slowed me up. |
| Erithmu12-16-06, 03:28 PM | Sabra vs Gorgox is up. I am expecting some flamitory comments to follow, please note my profile(sig) when crafting responses. |
| TheMagister12-16-06, 03:45 PM | Sdentch vs Leif is up ... "So your saying there's a chance..." Stupid blacklight. Didn't forsee that. Stupid crits. Can't do anything about that. STUPID NATURAL ONES!!! Sdentch's curse lives on. Death by crits and natural ones. |
| nightbanegod12-16-06, 04:44 PM | Sabra vs Gorgox is up. I am expecting some flamitory comments to follow, please note my profile(sig) when crafting responses. all i gotta say is.... figures.... WOOT ME!!! :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: :dancin: |
| Maraxus12-16-06, 05:46 PM | Let's do a quiz: How do you manage to attack 16 times and only roll a 9+ two times (especially since you need to roll a 9 to hit your opponent)? PS: comment about fight up: I also wasted my rage. |
| Erithmu12-16-06, 05:49 PM | Let's do a quiz: How do you manage to attack 16 times and only roll a 9+ two times (especially since you need to roll a 9 to hit your opponent)? You get Durin vs a Dwarf Ftr2/Clr2 Billed as followed: Durin is a dwarf from the depths of the earth, master of stone and all things underground. Dwarf is a dwarf of the mountains, a master craftsman and religious follower. They fight in the middle of ... a Forest?!? 2.5 fights in one day ... Time to call it a day week. |
| spasheridan12-16-06, 08:31 PM | Kai vs Bazili is up. Please look it over, this was my 1st pitlord in a while. Thankfully it was a straight forward fight. |
| Hirumajoe12-16-06, 08:52 PM | Kai vs Bazili is up. Please look it over, this was my 1st pitlord in a while. Thankfully it was a straight forward fight. Thanks for the run! Only thing I note, which doesn't make a difference in the fight, is Kai Engel has the Improved Trip feat. This is purely for future fights. Benefit You do not provoke an attack of opportunity when you attempt to trip an opponent while you are unarmed. You also gain a +4 bonus on your Strength check to trip your opponent. If you trip an opponent in melee combat, you immediately get a melee attack against that opponent as if you hadn’t used your attack for the trip attempt. So Kai Engel does not provoke attacks of opportunity when making unarmed trip attacks. I suppose I could have mentioned in the notes sections. I'll try to do that in future. Anyways, everything else looks good from my end. |
| spasheridan12-16-06, 09:37 PM | Wouldn't he provoke an AoO because he was making an unarmed attack though? I didn't notice the trip feat - that would have given you an extra +4 to your trip if you had hit. |
| Hirumajoe12-16-06, 09:47 PM | Wouldn't he provoke an AoO because he was making an unarmed attack though? I didn't notice the trip feat - that would have given you an extra +4 to your trip if you had hit. Actually, read the benefits of the Improved Trip feat again (posted in my previous response). If someone without the Improved Trip feat tries to trip someone while unarmed, they only provoke one AoO. Thats for attacking unarmed. If they used a trip weapon, then they don't provoke an AoO. The Improved Trip feat is like a specialized Improved Unarmed Strike feat. It removes the AoO for attacking unarmed, but only while trying to trip. The feat itself specifically says it removes the AoO due to attempting a trip while unarmed. I'll quote a section from SRD regarding tripping in combat: Making a Trip Attack Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. If your attack succeeds, make a Strength check opposed by the defender’s Dexterity or Strength check (whichever ability score has the higher modifier). A combatant gets a +4 bonus for every size category he is larger than Medium or a -4 penalty for every size category he is smaller than Medium. The defender gets a +4 bonus on his check if he has more than two legs or is otherwise more stable than a normal humanoid. If you win, you trip the defender. If you lose, the defender may immediately react and make a Strength check opposed by your Dexterity or Strength check to try to trip you. Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. Also, an interesting thing to note is that a Greatsword is not a tripping weapon. So Kai Engel always has to let go with one hand to make trip attempts. If he's holding a scroll and the Greatsword, he has to drop one to do a trip. I direct you to the last paragraph regarding Avoiding Attack of Opportunity. Does this clear things up for you? |
| TelinArtho12-16-06, 09:50 PM | No - because the description of the special attack indicates that you only draw an AoO if you don't have the feat and are making the attack unarmed: Making a Trip Attack: Make an unarmed melee touch attack against your target. This provokes an attack of opportunity from your target as normal for unarmed attacks. ... Avoiding Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Improved Trip feat, or if you are tripping with a weapon (see below), you don’t provoke an attack of opportunity for making a trip attack. |
| Hirumajoe12-16-06, 09:56 PM | @spasheridan: Edited: Nevermind, I can't read. And I'm very glad that True Strike is Verbal and Focus (with Focus and material components not being needed with scrolls). Since True Strike doesn't get better with levels, its much easier to just mass produce a 100 scrolls 'em and save my casting slots for things like Enlarge Person and Shield, which do last longer with levels. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-16-06, 10:20 PM | @Erithmu - I am under the impression that a torch can be held in the lap for use in relighting, though I'm fine with that interpretation (if a bit confused). Also, if it was obvious that he wasn't going to come within the range of my flame, shouldn't I just have had the flame come back to the torch so I could renew it (I float down while he waits far away, then the flame can run to me and give me a chance to float up before he can reach me; or heck, bring it closer and set one of the used javelins on fire and renew Control Flame from there)? That last part is a minor quibble since I didn't include it, even though you did ad hoc Gorgox's tactics favorably by having him throw infrequently so his ammunition supply would outlast my Control Flame duration (that part seems a bit unfair). |
| Erithmu12-17-06, 12:20 AM | @Erithmu - I am under the impression that a torch can be held in the lap for use in relighting, though I'm fine with that interpretation (if a bit confused). Also, if it was obvious that he wasn't going to come within the range of my flame, shouldn't I just have had the flame come back to the torch so I could renew it (I float down while he waits far away, then the flame can run to me and give me a chance to float up before he can reach me; or heck, bring it closer and set one of the used javelins on fire and renew Control Flame from there)? That last part is a minor quibble since I didn't include it, even though you did ad hoc Gorgox's tactics favorably by having him throw infrequently so his ammunition supply would outlast my Control Flame duration (that part seems a bit unfair). I can understand the relighting thing, and with the body fuel feat I probably would have done so if mentioned in tactics. Even if I had had Gorgox throw all of his javs at the front end. He is still in a situation where he can't reach you, in that situation where he also has no ammo the delay then turns to you where there is no effort to move into a situation to make an attack. His tactics did include the keep away option from the flame, The spread out of his shots is within his int/wis score range. Something to consider is that many opponents will better ranged shots than Gorgox is, I promise their arrows will last longer than your flame duration. As a note: I did not think of igniting his javelins, but the end result is that you still have to come down when he has no way to hurt you, and you are in the posistion of having to be the agressor, If you had chosen to be on the ground w/ control flame, that makes for something more interesting. Just some thoughts. Edit: I also haven't done the Body fuel thing as I am wanting to see what a ruling is that might change your mind on getting those 7 pp back. |
| Vecnoran12-17-06, 01:44 AM | Tactics for Danidus sent some time ago, forgot to post anything here about it. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-17-06, 02:05 AM | There is a ceiling in the arena (60' high I believe), which does allow my character to go up to and pull himself along for movement. |
| nightbanegod12-17-06, 02:18 AM | Even if I had had Gorgox throw all of his javs at the front end. He is still in a situation where he can't reach you, in that situation where he also has no ammo the delay then turns to you where there is no effort to move into a situation to make an attack. is everyone forgetting javelins are NOT amunition and are thus reusable. as specified in my tactics (somewhere) i can simply go pick up my javelin and reuse it.... its not like i throw it and it disapears. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-17-06, 02:56 AM | I don't think he was implying that, but once you threw all the ones you did have, you'd have to come beneath Sabra and thus open to a possible attack from the flame in order to pick them back up. |
| nightbanegod12-17-06, 03:51 AM | and should you start scrambling across the ceiling like you said you could do. eventually you would be in a circular pattern where you are trying to scramble within range to allow the fireball to catch up to me where i can just run/hustle around you and back to a previously thrown javelin... this is a no win tactic for you and like was shown previously. i CAN keep up with anti delay tactics.. all i have to do is wait out the half hour or so for your levitate to wear off then just cut you down with tooth/claw after the fact. not to mention that your tactics specify clearly to body fuel after i am dead. which is a bit dificult considering your inability to manifest another control flame with alloted PP in this fight.. to controll a torch it would require a minimum investment of 3 PP per augmentation. in addition to the 3 PP spent on levitate and the 3 PP vigor... techincally your already OVER your limit for one fight now by 2. so i am going to have to dispute that as well. EDIT: after reviewing control flame.. you CAN control the torch and still manifest all those abilites, but thats it.. total PP 7. sorry about that, turns out that augment just makes the fire bigger, my bad EDIT ex deux: Court Connections Knowledge (Nobility/Royality) Earning Money Free Activity . Task: You need at least 5 ranks in both skills. You must earn money with a Free Activity. . Effect: You gain a bonus to the money earned with the Free Activity in percent equal to your Knowledge Nobility value. this means you only get that % increase on the GOLD only and ONLY on the value listed as how much you would have earned from your free activity... IE not the GP fo the fight too... i believe this to be an error on the pitlords behalf so this isnt directly against etiquette_gnome |
| Erithmu12-17-06, 09:02 AM | EDIT ex deux: Court Connections Knowledge (Nobility/Royality) Earning Money Free Activity . Task: You need at least 5 ranks in both skills. You must earn money with a Free Activity. . Effect: You gain a bonus to the money earned with the Free Activity in percent equal to your Knowledge Nobility value. this means you only get that % increase on the GOLD only and ONLY on the value listed as how much you would have earned from your free activity... IE not the GP fo the fight too... i believe this to be an error on the pitlords behalf so this isnt directly against etiquette_gnome It is right: Knowledge (Nobility/Royality) Diplomacy . Task: You need at least 5 ranks in both skills . Effect: You gain a bonus to your XP Rewards equal to the sum of both skills in percent. Calculate gold rewards from that new XP value. Edit: @NBG: Control flame only costs 1 pp to manifest. The augmentation cost is if you want to change the existing size of the fire. If you look on the chart, it says that a 3rd lvl manifester can control a fire the size of a torch flame. If he wanted to increase or decrease the fire size, then he would need to spend additional pp. He is within his normal pp expendature. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-17-06, 10:33 AM | Fights of the Week: December 13th 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 Abyssal Stalker is very cool for resurrecting the Gladius Weekly. Telin is still somewhat cool for winning UnCon. Pitlords account is the only place that a fight can be appealed after a pitlord says no to re-run or editing. That is Pitlords'/GM's job. He is supposed to overrule a botched PL decision. Abyssal Stalker is very cool for resurrecting the Gladius Weekly. Telin is not somewhat cool for winning UnCon, but he is very cool just because he is Telin QuestKiller :P |
| TelinArtho12-17-06, 11:05 AM | Hey Ihdald hasn't died yet... |
| Vathelokai12-17-06, 11:22 AM | I wouldn't take it too hard, Telin. We all keep comming back for more :) |
| Hirumajoe12-17-06, 11:26 AM | Ok, say you're trying to put together a 1st Level Psion Unbodied for someone's monster fight. 1) Do the manifester levels stack? 2) How much money does he get to be customized? Unbodied are listed as Half Treasure and CR 5 base. CR 6 with the Psion level. Thanks. Edit: In regards to Telin, think of being able to beat a Telin quest as a badge of honor. It actually *means* something. (Like your character could take on a normal table top party of 4 and wipe the floor with them. :) ) |
| nightbanegod12-17-06, 11:47 AM | It is right: Knowledge (Nobility/Royality) Diplomacy . Task: You need at least 5 ranks in both skills . Effect: You gain a bonus to your XP Rewards equal to the sum of both skills in percent. Calculate gold rewards from that new XP value. from what i understood is that for THIS package he would get the exp bump... sorry yeah i didnt notice he had the skills for it. should have double checked. but for the OTHER package. it only applies to the gold he makes from his free activity. not the entire fight. Thats how this translates to me Court Connections Knowledge (Nobility/Royality) Earning Money Free Activity . Task: You need at least 5 ranks in both skills. You must earn money with a Free Activity. . Effect: You gain a bonus to the money earned with the Free Activity in percent equal to your Knowledge Nobility value. Edit: @NBG: Control flame only costs 1 pp to manifest. The augmentation cost is if you want to change the existing size of the fire. If you look on the chart, it says that a 3rd lvl manifester can control a fire the size of a torch flame. If he wanted to increase or decrease the fire size, then he would need to spend additional pp. He is within his normal pp expendature.yeah i caught that the 2nd run through. sorry |
| Erithmu12-17-06, 12:00 PM | @NBG: last line of political Career: calculate GP from the new XP value. Trust me ... everything is right, it has been calculated. There is a modified rewards system in place with the new interleague fights and guild stuff, so that xp is gained and then gp is xp * multiplier. At low levels the multiplier is 1 so I just channeled evreything through the 20%. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-17-06, 12:09 PM | I would hardly think that was a total no-win situation for me, as the flame has a speed of 30'; which I assume (could be wrong here) to mean it has full run/hustle ability as well. Since you need to spend a move action to pick up a javelin, it can just run through your square to initiate a Reflex save for setting you on fire. |
| nightbanegod12-17-06, 12:13 PM | @NBG: last line of political Career: calculate GP from the new XP value. Trust me ... everything is right, it has been calculated. There is a modified rewards system in place with the new interleague fights and guild stuff, so that xp is gained and then gp is xp * multiplier. At low levels the multiplier is 1 so I just channeled evreything through the 20%. WOW. that is.... WOW... (shuts up with his meaningless rant) ... well, then. sounds good. |
| Macbrea12-17-06, 12:24 PM | I have a silly question.. In the fight I am running here. Who has initiative at this point? |
| Abyssal Stalker12-17-06, 12:50 PM | Auburn vs Dronnar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10934113&postcount=373) is up. Still needs the rewards. Dice gods, dice gods... |
| NiQil12-17-06, 12:52 PM | I have a silly question.. In the fight I am running here. Who has initiative at this point? Since it appears that both actions carried the same trigger (LOS), and LOS was gained simultaneously due to the mount's movement, I would not adjust the order at all. |
| Vathelokai12-17-06, 12:55 PM | Auburn vs Dronnar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10934113&postcount=373) is up. Still needs the rewards. Dice gods, dice gods... Sheesh, the 1s and 20s were fierce in that fight. |
| Maraxus12-17-06, 02:07 PM | Kraegin vs. Unknown Monster is up. See an evil Cleric vs an horrible abomination of the rules about templates and base creature. |
| Abyssal Stalker12-17-06, 02:21 PM | :rofl: |
| MitzaVolchenko12-17-06, 02:38 PM | Kraegin vs. Unknown Monster is up. See an evil Cleric vs an horrible abomination of the rules about templates and base creature. Aww, poor Gloog! As a Dragon sub-type doesn't he get to be a little more intelligent for being half dragon (nevermind what the silver dragon was thinking when it was horny enough to boff a pudding). |
| Maraxus12-17-06, 02:48 PM | I was thinking about that, too. But then, I decided since the half dragon keeps the traids and abilities of the base creature, it also keeps Nonability: Intelliigence. I mean, an ooze is not simply dumb like an Orc or animal. It does not have a low intelligence, it has no intelligence score at all. I was really wondereing, if I should give it the ability to see from the dragon head. And when it saw Kraegin and then Kraegin moved behind the stature, I was really wondering, if the Dragon Ooze should be smart enough to know, the target is still there. But then again, fights vs. intelligence-less monsters would be to easy, if one would interpret it like that. |
| Macbrea12-17-06, 04:25 PM | Well, pretty much Wildfire (NiQil) vs. Daniel (UserNamer) : [Arena] can be found here |
| NiQil12-17-06, 04:33 PM | Well, pretty much Wildfire (NiQil) vs. Daniel (UserNamer) : [Arena] can be found here Meh...pretty much what I figured....sure getting tired of seeing ECL 3 characters with light warhorses.... |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-17-06, 06:34 PM | @Erithmu - While I can understand the result (to a point), I'm not terribly happy with the inclusion of Gorgox's little 4 round attack pattern to force my plan's flaw (which he didn't have included) while you ignore my options of movement from the ceiling or relighting the torch (via holding between legs). While I didn't have such plans in my tactics, you added/modified his, which is unfair. I'll be requesting an alteration to Sabra soon with this houserule on Body Fuel's use in the 3FC, assuming the implications I'm seeing are going to be the final call (I got a different impression when I asked the same question awhile back), but that's a different story (and mainly a reminder to myself so I don't forget). |
| NiQil12-17-06, 07:15 PM | @ Macbrea: I just realized something about the fight between Daniel Ocean & Wildfire. Daniel Ocean's mount is illegal, and thus should never have been allowed in the fight at all. Here is the violation posted on it by Zevox. As such, this may cause the need to rerun the fight. How you choose to handle this is your call as the pitlord. I personally feel that the horse should be disallowed, but that's me. |
| Macbrea12-17-06, 07:19 PM | Wait.. why was the character paired if he was in prison? And why didn't you mention it as prisonlord? :P The horse didn't do anything but act like a horse through-out the fight. If the fight needs to be rerun it will need to be rerun next week. With everyone sending in new tactics. Both of you assumed the horse was in the match. |
| NiQil12-17-06, 07:25 PM | Wait.. why was the character paired if he was in prison? And why didn't you mention it as prisonlord? :P The horse didn't do anything but act like a horse through-out the fight. If the fight needs to be rerun it will need to be rerun next week. With everyone sending in new tactics. Both of you assumed the horse was in the match. He wasn't in prison (as in unable to be paired), it was simply reported as a violation. However, you are correct in that the horse did not use any of the customization...a normal light warhorse in it's place would have caused the same result, so upon further review no need to change anything...the result can stand. I knew going in I had very little chance of winning...next level will give me healing wand access so that will solve that problem. |
| hogarth12-17-06, 08:40 PM | Rubilocks and the Two Pigs (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10909324&postcount=363) is up now. Let me know if there are any problems. |
| DSugui12-17-06, 09:31 PM | Auburn vs Dronnar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10934113&postcount=373) is up. Still needs the rewards. Dice gods, dice gods... Well, I can't argue against bad luck. I am starting to thing Dronnar is cursed. Thanks for the run Abyssal. |
| Milov12-17-06, 10:47 PM | Telin is not somewhat cool for winning UnCon, but he is very cool just because he is Telin QuestKiller :P Hey Ihdald hasn't died yet... Yet being the key word. I'm not seeing a way Ihdald could beat them things except by pure, unexplained dumb luck. And by that I mean those beasties missing, alot, or Ihdald getting some quick crits. So yeah, with my luck, he's dead either this upcoming round, or the following one. Twas still fun though, so thanks for runnin' it :clap: |
| MitzaVolchenko12-17-06, 11:03 PM | I think I may actually manage to kill one of my two questers this week. Telin will be so proud of me! |
| NiQil12-17-06, 11:07 PM | I think I may actually manage to kill one of my two questers this week. Telin will be so proud of me! I find it amusing that ever since Telin began his killing spree, the goal of questlords seems to have gone from providing an adequete challenge to the participant that they should be able to get through, to "Skip to the end, how do I kill him (the PC)?"1 1No intentional slight is meant to anyone by this...just a thought that gave me a chuckle. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-17-06, 11:09 PM | I find it amusing that ever since Telin began his killing spree, the goal of questlords seems to have gone from providing an adequete challenge to the participant that they should be able to get through, to "Skip to the end, how do I kill him (the PC)?"1 1No intentional slight is meant to anyone by this...just a thought that gave me a chuckle. To date, I haven't killed or had a single quester fail their quest that I can recall. I am the questlord of choice for a lot of folks because I give credit for ingenuity and roleplay as much as defeating their foe ;) |
| NiQil12-17-06, 11:14 PM | To date, I haven't killed or had a single quester fail their quest that I can recall. I am the questlord of choice for a lot of folks because I give credit for ingenuity and roleplay as much as defeating their foe ;) True, but moreso you are the questlord of choice because you are *not Telin LOL Telin has become the "master level" questlord in this forum....it's like setting your favorite video game on the hardest setting to see if you have what it takes LOL |
| Milov12-17-06, 11:21 PM | This was a half-hearted idea that spawned between me and Zevox speaking of Telin's questlording... record, so to speak. I went through the quest-log and counted up to find your odds of living in one of Telin's quests. Sorry Telin... So here we go. QUESTS: TOTAL NUMBER: 23 SURVIVING: 9 DEAD: 9 ABORTED: 5 Odds (Ignoring aborted): 50:50 (surprisingly) MINIQUESTS: TOTAL NUMBER: 20 SURVIVING: 19 (One retreated, so it wasn't a win) DEAD: 1 ABORTED: 0 Odds: 95:5 (...) My... those results are... distressing, for me. Either I got -really- unlucky with the monsters, or I'm not very good at the questing thing. Oh well. There ya are Zevox, and everyone else, not as many people die on Telin's quests as ya thought, now do they? :P |
| Zevox12-17-06, 11:27 PM | The miniquest record probably has something to do with the fact that, for a long time, miniquests had to be at EL at least 2 below your ECL. Makes for less chance of lethality. Zevox |
| Hirumajoe12-17-06, 11:30 PM | Wait, so I don't need to go up against an ECL 6 enemy to join LOY? Oh well... |
| Zevox12-17-06, 11:58 PM | Wait, so I don't need to go up against an ECL 6 enemy to join LOY? Oh well... No, you do. Its actually now required that MQs to join a Guild be at least ECL = EL. Its just that, back in the day, no miniquest at all could be a higher EL than ECL-2. That rule was removed not too long after I joined. Zevox |
| Hirumajoe12-18-06, 12:41 AM | Terek vs Maglu is now up here. I just need to finish up rewards and expendables used. I.e. how many arrows survived. Edit: Rewards finished. |
| Hrothmund12-18-06, 02:38 AM | @ Spasheridan There are some mistakes in the fight and two major departures from Kai's tactics. In round 2 Kai can not cast a spell from a scroll, draw a scroll, and move. You can only draw and move when the object is weaponlike which a scroll is not. So he is still at (5,32). In round 3 Kai casts Shield and draws the scroll of enlarge person. Bazili hears Kai. In round 4 Kai casts Enlarge Person which is a full round casting. Bazili double moves towards Kai and ends up in (20,17). In round 5 Kai draws the scroll of true strike and moves so get to within 10'-15' of Bazili. He can get to (13,26) this round. Kai's tactics state that he is going to do this specifically. Bazili is blocked from charging but he can move next to Kai and attack. In round 6 Kai 5' steps, casts True Strike, and draws greatsword. Bazili 5' steps and attacks. In round 7 Kai attacks. He can only take 1 from his BAB for either power attack or combat expertise. He only has 1 BAB to trade off into these feats so he can not take more than 1. Bazili attacks again. In round 8 Kai, 5' steps, and draws another scroll of true strike, and I assume sheathes his greatsword because he can not cast the spell with it in hand. (He could drop it, but that seems worse for him.) Look at his detailed tactics. He very clearly stated that he was going to use another scroll and you chose to have him attack again, this goes against explicitly written tactics. Bazili 5' steps and attacks. In round 9 Kai 5' steps and casts true strike and draws greatsword. Bazili 5' steps and attacks. In round 10 Kai attacks if he is still alive. I really must ask for a rerun as there are 3 attacks that Bazili can make on Kai before he hits him for the 23 damage. It is totally possible that Bazili could have dropped Kai as he has 11 hp through this portion of the fight. Using the extra scroll is written in black and white in Kai's tactics with no room for interpretation. Those 23 points of damage have to wait until round 10. |
| Krytos12-18-06, 03:04 AM | Farig of Denth (TelinArtho) vs. Fyhir (spasheridan) is up. Quite the end to the fight too. I'll try to get my other fight up tomorrow afternoon/evening. |
| spasheridan12-18-06, 03:30 AM | @krytos: Round 10 Farig steps up and swings once more 1: 1d20+9=17 vs AC 26 Miss 2: 1d20+9=14 vs AC 26 Miss Fyhir withdraws across the water, avoiding any AoOs This move doesn't make sense to me - I have my focus and my crystals focus - shouldn't I attack? Round 13 Farig: You know the drill. 1: 1d20+9=13 vs AC 26 Miss 2: 1d20+9=20 vs AC 26 Miss Fyhir has to withdraw again to avoid the AoO rnd 12 I regained my focus, why don't I attack here? Round 15 Farig's FS wears off. He moves up and attacks: 1: 1d20+9=24 vs AC 24 Hit! Damage: 1d8+6-2=10 2: 1d20+9=14 vs AC 24 Miss Fyhir attacks (His) 1d20+9=26 vs AC 20 (Ride wouldn't help) Hit! Damage 1d12+7=18 5ft steps and attempts to focus: 1d20+13=22 Success! I did a psychic weapon attack, shouldn't the damage be +2d6? Finally - by the rules, as soon as you are unconsisous your mount 'drops out' - right? If we move attack rolls up in time to take the place of the 2 missed ones I would drop Farrig on rnd 16. The extra damage might drop him earlier... or did I miss some reason why I would have to withdraw instead of taking attacks on those 2 rounds? If that's not true - my attack would take place on Rnd 18, knocking Farig out. His horse would "surrender" and I would win - then I would take my 1 pt of damage and start bleeding, but after I won. I think - this part of the rules is fuzzy to me. Can you take a peek into this? |
| Abyssal Stalker12-18-06, 08:18 AM | True, but moreso you are the questlord of choice because you are *not Telin LOL Telin has become the "master level" questlord in this forum....it's like setting your favorite video game on the hardest setting to see if you have what it takes LOL Come on, guys! Telin isn't that bad, allthough he hasn't questlorded anything for me, so I don't have first-hand experience. It's much more exciting to play when there is something to lose. I don't like DMs, who make things too easy. You win approximately 50% of your arena fights, but I bet that this isn't the case on quests and miniquests. As Milov proved, Telin is merely making things challenging. Maybe that level of challenge is above D&D standards, but so are our characters too. :thumbsup: |
| Hirumajoe12-18-06, 08:25 AM | @ Spasheridan There are some mistakes in the fight and two major departures from Kai's tactics. In round 2 Kai can not cast a spell from a scroll, draw a scroll, and move. You can only draw and move when the object is weaponlike which a scroll is not. So he is still at (5,32). Woops. That's probably right. I know that wands are considered weapon like and can drawn in that fashion, and I was thinking the same of scrolls. However, I don't actually know what the official CoCo standing on the matter is, but its probably as you say. In round 3 Kai casts Shield and draws the scroll of enlarge person. Bazili hears Kai. In round 4 Kai casts Enlarge Person which is a full round casting. Bazili double moves towards Kai and ends up in (20,17). Good catch. Didn't realize Enlarge Person was full round. In round 5 Kai draws the scroll of true strike and moves so get to within 10'-15' of Bazili. He can get to (13,26) this round. Kai's tactics state that he is going to do this specifically. Bazili is blocked from charging but he can move next to Kai and attack. Actually he'll draw the scroll of true strike, make a move action *and* draw his greatsword. There was an addendum sent to Spasheridan regarding tactics which doesn't look like he posted with the main tactics. 1) Do not start with the greatsword in hand (which Spasheridan followed) and 2) Draw the Greatsword on Round 5. (which Spasheridan followed too) In round 6 Kai 5' steps, casts True Strike, and draws greatsword. Bazili 5' steps and attacks. In round 7 Kai attacks. He can only take 1 from his BAB for either power attack or combat expertise. He only has 1 BAB to trade off into these feats so he can not take more than 1. Bazili attacks again. Woops, my bad on the -5 and +5 combat expertise, was thinking the limit is 5 and forgetting the other clause. You're correct it only goes up to BAB -1 and +1. However, he *can* power attack for -1/+2 and expertise for -1/+1 AC. This is because they only apply an attack penalty, not a BAB penalty. Thus, the feats only ever look at BAB, not whether any other penalties have been applied. If Kai had a BAB of +5, he could actually take -5/+10 damage and -5/+5 AC. Odd as that may shound. In round 8 Kai, 5' steps, and draws another scroll of true strike, and I assume sheathes his greatsword because he can not cast the spell with it in hand. (He could drop it, but that seems worse for him.) Look at his detailed tactics. He very clearly stated that he was going to use another scroll and you chose to have him attack again, this goes against explicitly written tactics. Bazili 5' steps and attacks. Kai doesn't need to sheathe the sword since True Strike only has verbal and Arcane Focus components. Since scrolls eliminate any Arcane Focus or material components, all Kai needs to be able to do is hold the scroll, read the scroll and speak. No somatic components necessary, since being a scroll doesn't add them. In round 9 Kai 5' steps and casts true strike and draws greatsword. Bazili 5' steps and attacks. In round 10 Kai attacks if he is still alive. I really must ask for a rerun as there are 3 attacks that Bazili can make on Kai before he hits him for the 23 damage. It is totally possible that Bazili could have dropped Kai as he has 11 hp through this portion of the fight. Using the extra scroll is written in black and white in Kai's tactics with no room for interpretation. Those 23 points of damage have to wait until round 10. So I agree that you should get 2 more attacks, one on approach and one for the round to 5' step, draw scroll, cast True strike. Although having a map would be handy on figuring out that attack on approach, since it depends on if you still need to double move to reach Kai or not. Those two atttacks could admittedly put Valen down very easily. I don't think you should get 3 attacks however. |
| Erithmu12-18-06, 10:47 AM | @Erithmu - While I can understand the result (to a point), I'm not terribly happy with the inclusion of Gorgox's little 4 round attack pattern to force my plan's flaw (which he didn't have included) while you ignore my options of movement from the ceiling or relighting the torch (via holding between legs). While I didn't have such plans in my tactics, you added/modified his, which is unfair. I'll be requesting an alteration to Sabra soon with this houserule on Body Fuel's use in the 3FC, assuming the implications I'm seeing are going to be the final call (I got a different impression when I asked the same question awhile back), but that's a different story (and mainly a reminder to myself so I don't forget).I had to take some time to calm down and form a constructive response for this one. Before I start, I have no intention of rerunning any portion of the fight for the reasons below. These are reasons that I have tried to explain, but have not come out clearly. Concerns that have been expressed: - 4 round anti delay tactic (in fight improv) - Relighting the torch - Not moving on the ceiling (post fight improv) - Burning the Javelins - Modifying only one side of the fight Reasons: - 4 Round: In his tactics he lists that he wants to avoid the flames first, and throw javelins second. He would like to attack, but NBG understood that you had one form of attack, and chose to negate it before leaving himself at risk. Running through the area of the flame is not a logical choice, or improv from his tactics. We start all characters at 3rd level, but RP wise there is a ECL 1 and 2 league, the gladiators are not dumb nor are they inexperienced in the arena. If I had thrown all the javelins, the next progression would have been for him to wait out the duration of Control flame and then go collect his javs and start throwing them. - Relight the torch: I probably would have dropped your towershield, but as you are about to switch out the feat that would have given you the pp to mainfest another control flame, it comes down to your choice on spending the 5 credits to do so. - Not moving on the ceiling: Levitate allows you to climb along at half your base speed (in this case 10ft) So you could move 10ft while he still has a move of 30 ft. You wouldn't catch him. - Burn the Javelins: If Gorgox has no method of being able to attack you until you come down, and you have no method of attacking from above. The delay penalty then falls to Sabra and in this case I probably would end levitate as the punishment for delaying. Even if you had a crossbow, I would have run it out, but you have no weapon, a single attack (which can be beaten with resist energy very easily). -Modifying only one side: To be fairly blunt, I have to have something to work with to modify. Consider: you have 7pp to use in the fight, all of which were covered for use in tactics. You have no melee or ranged weapons, no expendables, and (now) no way to gain additional powerpoints. There is nothing I can really modify in the fight from your side. Just trade places with me and look at the fight from a neutral pitlord standpoint, what would you do, and then how would Gorgox react. End: I think Sabra could be a viable character with some better powers to back up the control flame. But right now she has a 'single' form of attack, and most Players here can get around that. |
| TelinArtho12-18-06, 11:43 AM | @Maraxus - unless the ooze moves out of LOS, the spiritual weapon still gets 2 attacks per round after the first: . It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. ... If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. ... Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. In favor of the ooze however is that oozes are not subject to critical hits. Up to you if you want to edit the fight - I frankly wouldn't care if I lost since it would give me another fight to finish leveling to ECL10, but no matter to me. @Milov and anyone else - I keep a semi-up-to-date listing of all of my quests, the parties involved and the result in my pitlord profile. All of the miniquests and fights I have run since January are also maintained in that post... I am fully aware about my record as questlord. For all of the complaining that people have done, quite a few of them haven't entirely been my fault (even if you attribute criticals to being my fault). Ihdald for instance has little to no chance on succeeding as an ECL6 character versus 3 CR3 creatures on three major points: his AC just isn't up to par to avoid getting hit by most CR3 creatures, his movement isn't fast enough to avoid melee to avoid those hits and he has no diversity in attack options for the rare damage reduction situations that might come up. Frankly - he was better off using his bow the entire time, because 3 attacks with +1d6 shock versus 2 attacks without is just no contest... AoO aside - I think this was his better option... @Krytos - regarding Farig's fight 1. In rounds 6+, Whirlwind should have gotten a full attack. 2. Since Farig is on higher ground, her attacks gain a +1 bonus. [EDIT] Looks like you started keeping track - nevermind on this one. 3. In round 11, since Farig/Whirlwind had to do a move rather than a 5ft step, Farig and Whirlwind would only get one attack each. However, since this is true, Farig's attack would have done 1d8+7 damage instead of 1d8+6. Same thing in round 14. Since it appears Farig won anyway - no need to rerun or alter the fight unless my opponent has further concerns. Even if he does though, with Whirlwind's extensive amount of additional attacks - it shouldn't make much of a difference. EDIT - it looks like you missed one of my opponent's psychic weapon attacks - so maybe alterations are needed after all. Please do take into account the above. |
| waywreth12-18-06, 11:50 AM | I'd like to echo what Telin says... some questers are doomed to fail, some are purely unlucky, and some are harder than others depending on the monster that appears. Take a few of mine that failed - one was with a PC that had very low hp and a high ECL. Flavor wise - awesome character, but at low levels had serious issues. I even PM'd the player the odds were against him. And another with a dragon - Dragon vs. party isn't fair. Dragon one on one (or two on one in this case) is against the odds - dragons are more powerful than their CR. |
| TelinArtho12-18-06, 11:51 AM | And to all concerned, I should be running my fights during the day today and will post them as they are done. |
| Erithmu12-18-06, 12:00 PM | Take a few of mine that failed - one was with a PC that had very low hp and a high ECL. Flavor wise - awesome character, but at low levels had serious issues. I even PM'd the player the odds were against him. He still is an awesome character.... and is about to hit ECL 10 when Cat's campaign starts up again. I got some luck getting out of the low levels too. |
| spasheridan12-18-06, 12:26 PM | @hrothmund & hirumjoe: I'll take a look at the points raised tonight and edit the fight. I'll also post the tactics addendum about pulling the greatsword on rnd 5. The fight should definitly wind up going a few rounds longer. @rowsdower & wayreth: Your fight is finished, but the docs for it are at home. I'll post it this evening, please take a look when it gets up. I wont spoil the surprise though. |
| Sjiggie12-18-06, 12:26 PM | Terek vs Maglu is now up here. I just need to finish up rewards and expendables used. I.e. how many arrows survived. Edit: Rewards finished. I have an issue with the fight. Al my ranged attacks are made with a +3 bonus to hit but this should be +5 (3Dex+2BAB) I can't see if I have scored more hits that way. So please edit the fight concerning this. Thanks |
| Macbrea12-18-06, 12:34 PM | Shortbow +5, 1d6, (20/x3), Range 60 ft, Piercing Range was 75' the whole time. Range Increment Any attack at less than this distance is not penalized for range. However, each full range increment imposes a cumulative -2 penalty on the attack roll. A thrown weapon has a maximum range of five range increments. A projectile weapon can shoot out to ten range increments. |
| Sjiggie12-18-06, 12:51 PM | Okay didn't look at it and it but didn't saw it anywhere in the fight. Thanks for the run |
| Macbrea12-18-06, 12:54 PM | Each of the map images had the distance on them. It was the only way that I understood the distance. It has to do mostly with amount of annotation done by the pitlord that runs the fight. Some of us use a much more complex display, but that makes running the fights much longer. Example: This weeks fight for myself was 15 rounds in 5 hours of pitlording. |
| Hirumajoe12-18-06, 01:50 PM | @Sjiggie: Yeah, sorry about the minimalist style. I've been trying to speed up my pitlording (especially considering I've got 2 fights this week.) which means my bells and whistles are going down. :weep: Generally, I figure if I include a map, I can get away without transcribing all the positions. Sorry for the confusion that caused. Hope you didn't mind the way I kinda sped through at the end. Since you had orders not to move in until 8 hits had succeeded. Plus your tactics specifically said to stay at 60' or father, which meant you had the -2 for one range increment anyways. I really didn't see any manuevering that would have really helped you more than your opponent, so I settled into a ranged fight until you went down or your 8 shots hit tactics were triggered. |
| Krytos12-18-06, 02:04 PM | You are right about missing the Psionic Weapon damage. I added that back in. I also forgot about falling out of the saddle while Unconscious which between the extra Psionic Weapon damage and the fall damage, reverses the fight. No allies don't immediately surrender, but that doesn't matter anymore. As for why I used the withdraw actions. I had to improvise because you said to 5ft step to avoid AoO's from psionically focusing, but you forgot to tell me what to do when you couldn't 5ft step to avoid the AoO. The first time you couldn't 5ft step through the water (Difficult Terain) and the second time because of the corner the 5ft step would not have moved you far enough to avoid the AoO. Since you told me to avoid AoO's while Psionically focusing, I went ahead and used the Withdraw to move you to a place where you could continue the tactic of Attack, 5ft step, Refocus. I need to fix the Rewards yet Rewards edited. |
| TelinArtho12-18-06, 02:17 PM | @Krytos - did you see my comments about the Farig fight earlier this morning? Here |
| spasheridan12-18-06, 02:23 PM | @Krytos- did you see my opponents points about his horse getting attacks? Thanks for clarifying - I would imagine on those rounds I would still take attacks, I had the focus to make the attack - but then the next round I would withdraw to regain my focus. So I might change the round I hit but that’s not a big deal. That was a silly tactic on my part though – apparently I could concentrate to avoid AoO’s instead, I’ll do that next time. about the horse surrendering - i guess I was thinking about the thread about hunter fights, which has differant rules than gladiator fights. |
| Macbrea12-18-06, 02:50 PM | And to all concerned, I should be running my fights during the day today and will post them as they are done. Heh.. I have a feeling the hunter fight will be the fastest hunter fight you have ever run. |
| Krytos12-18-06, 03:09 PM | @Telin, No I missed that post. 1. As for why Whirlwind wasn't attacking, I saw only one place in your tactics where you mentioned having Whirlwind attack and that involved grappling. 2. Yes I missed that bonus but went back and included it. I failed to edit it into a few of the earlier attacks, but they wouldn't have hit with it. 3. Actually, because the entire sewer counts as Difficult Terrain for Whirlwind (Large Creature) you should never have been able to use the Full attack. |
| Sjiggie12-18-06, 03:51 PM | @Hirumajoe I've no problems the way you run the fight I had forgotten about the range increment. That what you get from writing tactics for 2 characters in half a hour because of internet problems at home. You followed my tactics as I thought you would and I expected to loose from him anyway. Thanks for running the fight :) |
| TelinArtho12-18-06, 03:57 PM | Just for the record - Tessero vs Roy is a tough fight to run. When it is eventually done - just realize that neither characters' tactics were complete enough to deal with the situations involved. Tough - but still fun to run at least... |
| TheMagister12-18-06, 04:11 PM | Thanks for the prepatory disclaimer. I knew going in that (unless I sent four pages of tactics) he was going to have too many options vs. Tessero for me to write a total and wholly encompassing set of tactics. I won't be too hard on you. Unless something is just done totally WRONG. Then I'll REAM you. :mad: <grrrr> ;) TM |
| Macbrea12-18-06, 04:13 PM | Yeah, and if the hunter fight goes past round 5. I will dissappointed in my opponents! |
| hogarth12-18-06, 04:19 PM | Yeah, and if the hunter fight goes past round 5. I will dissappointed in my opponents! I hope that means that Relanex and Legion are going to surrender (but I'm not going to hold my breath...). |
| Macbrea12-18-06, 04:21 PM | Nope, Relanex's tactics are simple. Fireball, MM, MM, Scorching ray, MM, MM. Stand out in open and take hits like a man! |
| TheMagister12-18-06, 04:23 PM | Do I detect a hint of sarcasm? :D |
| Macbrea12-18-06, 04:25 PM | No, really.... those were his tactics! http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=temple;a=Rel,M,6,6,7,7 |
| TelinArtho12-18-06, 04:47 PM | Roy Kadeer (Krytos) vs Tessero Valis (TheMagister) is up. A very tiring fight for me in the end. @Krytos - regarding the Farig fight. Although I do understand that I never specifically said to have my mount attack, I think that is the first time that an ally literally sat there throughout a fight when it was in melee combat. There was no reason not to have the mount attack. However, I can't argue that it wasn't explicitly in my tactics... |
| TheMagister12-18-06, 05:25 PM | About the tiring part: I believe it. Regarding the tricks: He's a vanilla light warhorse. I didn't think it was important. Then again: I actually started my tactics with the "guard" element, and then thought how much easier it would be if I had him "seek". Maybe I should note the tricks just for my own sake, eh? :) A question: In round 8, why did you have Tessero double move toward Roy instead of maintaining total cover and single moving? This would negate an instance of fire damage. Another question (movement and LOS related): How was Roy able to move in one round (with a 20' speed) to see Equalizer? As far as I can reconstruct, the map looked like this: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Roy,S,10,31,Roy ;b=Snif,M,11,25,Sniffs;c=Tess,L,11,24,Te ssero;d=Eq,L,7,22,Equalizer;e=Wolf,M,12, 25,Wolf A double move would change the map this way: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Roy,S,10,31,6,3 1,3,30,Roy;b=Snif,M,11,25,Sniffs;c=Tess, L,11,24,Tessero;d=Eq,L,7,22,Equalizer;e= Wolf,M,12,25,Wolf Leaving no LOS to Equalizer in Round 11. Or round 12: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Roy,S,3,30,2,28 ,2,24,Roy;b=Snif,M,11,25,Sniffs;c=Tess,L ,11,24,Tessero;d=Eq,L,7,22,Equalizer;e=W olf,M,12,25,Wolf This would buy Equalizer some time and attacks, and would let Tessero finish off Sniffs with time to spare (and perhaps rebuff Vigor? [checks tactics] Yep...it's in there.) Depending on the attacks and times, Tessero just might be able to catch Roy and flank him. Other considerations: After (if) Equalizer falls, Tessero should fall back on the Tower Shield for total cover vs. an unmounted Roy. That is a tactical necessity (the shield should have been regathered after Sniffs falls seeing as it is specifically mentioned as being needed later in the fight vs. Roy (under Caveats: Equalizer died!). This above all other things is what I would like addressed. What do you think? TM |
| TelinArtho12-18-06, 05:48 PM | In round 6, you should note that Equalizer moved to his "guarding" spot - 2,22. I did in fact forget to update the end-round summary for this in each round thereafter - but it is there in round 6. So in round 11, when Roy moves to (3,31) - he has clear LOS. For the round 8 movement, you have conflicting tactics. The first says you want to close with Roy as quickly as possible in order to best "use" Equalizer, but the second says to stay under cover when being attacked by flames. The way I saw it - Roy wasn't throwing flames at that moment, so you might as well gain as much ground as possible. Moving a whopping 10ft per round was not getting you anywhere quickly - and since you couldn't run due to the hampered terrain - the most you would be able to do ever was 20ft with a double move. To be honest, had this not happened, you still would've been based by the wolf, but Roy would've dismounted one round earlier and gotten to Equalizer similarly quickly. As to picking up the tower shield - I again felt your tactics were conflicted. If you spent the move action to pick it up, you are condemning your horse to die - and more importantly (in tune with your tactics) going to lose the advantage of painting him into a corner. Had you picked up the shield, you certainly would've been able to block his flames, but it seemed to me that you wanted to take advantage of the blocking in benefits of your mount and the tight spaces. Whether this is true or not, using a tower shield as you proposed is still an intentional delay tactic. |
| spasheridan12-18-06, 05:56 PM | Nope, Relanex's tactics are simple. Fireball, MM, MM, Scorching ray, MM, MM. Stand out in open and take hits like a man! Legions plan was simple: Step 1: Energy Adapt, Fire. Launch Thalia @ Kilpquabjeg. Step 2+: Brainlock Relanex, pray that Thalia kills Kilpquabjeg while he's hunting the disabled Relenax. Step 3: Have Thalia throw Relenex (brain locked) into the lava pit. Step 4: Laugh evily |
| TheMagister12-18-06, 06:14 PM | In round 6, you should note that Equalizer moved to his "guarding" spot - 2,22. I did in fact forget to update the end-round summary for this in each round thereafter - but it is there in round 6. So in round 11, when Roy moves to (3,31) - he has clear LOS. Ah, ok. Well, I was prepared to lose him. For the round 8 movement, you have conflicting tactics. The first says you want to close with Roy as quickly as possible in order to best "use" Equalizer, but the second says to stay under cover when being attacked by flames. The way I saw it - Roy wasn't throwing flames at that moment, so you might as well gain as much ground as possible. Moving a whopping 10ft per round was not getting you anywhere quickly - and since you couldn't run due to the hampered terrain - the most you would be able to do ever was 20ft with a double move. To be honest, had this not happened, you still would've been based by the wolf, but Roy would've dismounted one round earlier and gotten to Equalizer similarly quickly. Roy had not run away, so double moving was not an option. Tessero had all the time in the world (as far as he knew) to walk up to Roy with his awesome 10' speed. Until Roy leaves to run away, Tessero should drag along at 10'. As to picking up the tower shield - I again felt your tactics were conflicted. If you spent the move action to pick it up, you are condemning your horse to die - and more importantly (in tune with your tactics) going to lose the advantage of painting him into a corner. Had you picked up the shield, you certainly would've been able to block his flames, but it seemed to me that you wanted to take advantage of the blocking in benefits of your mount and the tight spaces. Whether this is true or not, using a tower shield as you proposed is still an intentional delay tactic. Per my tactics, I didn't care if Equalizer died, especially if Sniffs was dead and Roy lost 20'/round of movement and all the benefits of his Ride skill and the Mounted Combat feat. Roy dismounted is MUCH easier to deal with than Roy mounted. If the delay counter started being a problem, Tessero would still be taking fire damage only once every 10 rounds, and he'd be able to wait out the produce flame with Vigor. Time is on Tessero's side in this battle. |
| Maraxus12-18-06, 06:17 PM | @Maraxus - unless the ooze moves out of LOS, the spiritual weapon still gets 2 attacks per round after the first... . It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. ... If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. ... Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Hmmm .... I really had problems with this spell. There is nothing about how the weapon moves in the description. If there was a line like "Each round the weapon teleports in the right attack position for free" It would be clear, but this does not stand there. However, I agree with you, that this is not to far of to consider, since if the weapon would follow normal movement rules, it probably would have given a movement rate... About critical hits: It's a dragon. What it still has ooze traits? Who can look through such complicated thinks? |
| MindWandererB12-18-06, 06:20 PM | About critical hits: It's a dragon. What it still has ooze traits? Who can look through such complicated thinks? Here:If a template changes the base creature’s type, the creature also acquires the augmented subtype unless the template description indicates otherwise. The augmented subtype is always paired with the creature’s original type. Unless a template indicates otherwise, the new creature has the traits of the new type but the features of the original type.So by that, it should be neither mindless, nor blind, nor immune to crits. On the other hand: A half-dragon has all the special qualities of the base creature, plus darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision.I would say that qualifies as "indicating otherwise." And "ooze traits" is a special quality of the black pudding. |
| TelinArtho12-18-06, 06:32 PM | Relanex (Macbrea) vs Legion (spasheridan) vs Kilpquabjeg (hogarth) [Hunter] is up. I'll get the rewards in tomorrow morning. |
| Macbrea12-18-06, 06:35 PM | Mortal combat!...... Fatality! |
| hogarth12-18-06, 09:46 PM | Relanex (Macbrea) vs Legion (spasheridan) vs Kilpquabjeg (hogarth) [Hunter] is up. I'll get the rewards in tomorrow morning. Telin, why did Kilp not manifest Energy Adapatation (Fire)) in round 1? |
| spasheridan12-18-06, 10:17 PM | Anselem V Matthis is up HERE Anselem wound up blind - and then full of crossbow bolts. If he had had a bit more luck targetting Matthis instead of the mirrors, maybe things would have been a bit differant though. Let me know if there's anything missing in the fight, now to edit my other fight a bit. |
| spasheridan12-18-06, 10:53 PM | Kai v Bazilli has been edited. Net result: Kai was never hit, uses an extra scroll of True Strike. |
| McJarvis12-18-06, 11:17 PM | Sorry I'm running late this week. Tweak (Vathelokai) vs. Maelosh the Breaker (Hrothmund) : [Arena] Fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10942799&postcount=379) is up. Rewards to come in the morning. |
| Vathelokai12-18-06, 11:44 PM | Sorry I'm running late this week. Tweak (Vathelokai) vs. Maelosh the Breaker (Hrothmund) : [Arena] Fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10942799&postcount=379) is up. Rewards to come in the morning. Way to hold on, Maelosh! One issue: round 9 Maelosh starts a flurry, puches once, steps, then punches again. I don't believe that's legal. It might buy Tweak those 2 extra hp. |
| McJarvis12-19-06, 12:08 AM | Way to hold on, Maelosh! One issue: round 9 Maelosh starts a flurry, puches once, steps, then punches again. I don't believe that's legal. It might buy Tweak those 2 extra hp. I've been told in the past that you can 5' step during other actions. |
| Vathelokai12-19-06, 12:14 AM | A monk must use a full attack action to strike with a flurry of blows. The only movement you can take during a full attack is a 5-foot step. You may take the step before, after, or between your attacks.Wow! I didn't know that. Thanks for the fight. |
| Hrothmund12-19-06, 12:49 AM | Sorry to be such a stickler, but the edit has a couple of problems that make for some serious disadvantages for Bazili. In round 5 Kai draws a scroll, draws a greatsword, and casts True Strike. You can draw a weapon as part of a move not as part of a move action. The character must be using their move action to go physically to a new location to get the free drawn weapon. So it is two of the three actions not all three. If Kai draws both items then the AoO in round 5 misses. If Kai draws and uses the scroll he has no weapon out to make an AoO. An unarmed strike does not count as a weapon unless you have the feat Improved Unarmed Strike. Also, In round 5-6 Kai gets the benefit of true strike twice. True Strike applies to one attack only. This attack can occur anytime in the next round, but it only applies to the one attack. Plus, a 5' step and an attack do not draw an AoO which you have put into this round. Bazili was adjacent to Kai at the end of round 5. Kai 5' steps away. Bazili only has to 5' step to be adjacent to Kai. Anyways, Bazili's missing attack from round 6 happens in round 5, and there is another attack in round 6. Plus, I think that Kai's tactics delay him another round allowing another attack. In the edit could you put the current actions in italics or something to make it a little easier to read? Thanks. |
| Hrothmund12-19-06, 01:00 AM | Way to hold on, Maelosh! One issue: round 9 Maelosh starts a flurry, puches once, steps, then punches again. I don't believe that's legal. It might buy Tweak those 2 extra hp. Thanks, Vathelokai, that made for a very exciting read. Am I in the running for the longest time spent at 2 hp? Maleosh says, "Bag of Tricks...more like a Glass Menagerie if you ask me, mwahaha." jk |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 01:25 AM | Sorry to be such a stickler, but the edit has a couple of problems that make for some serious disadvantages for Bazili. In round 5 Kai draws a scroll, draws a greatsword, and casts True Strike. You can draw a weapon as part of a move not as part of a move action. The character must be using their move action to go physically to a new location to get the free drawn weapon. So it is two of the three actions not all three. If Kai draws both items then the AoO in round 5 misses. If Kai draws and uses the scroll he has no weapon out to make an AoO. An unarmed strike does not count as a weapon unless you have the feat Improved Unarmed Strike. I agree. Kai can't do all three. Presumably the round by round setup takes precedence, and he draws the sword and does not cast yet, since that is listed first. Thus, the AoO occurs, but does not connect. Ok, so what we have now in the begining of round 6 is Kai adjacent to Bazili. And his first part of his tactic kicks in: Move to 15' to 30' away from Bazili and cast True strike. Kai should move away with a standard action to 15' and cast true strike, incuring an attack of opportunity. This misses because Bazili's next attack roll is a 5+8 = 13. Looking at Bazili's tactics, he should then attempt to move to base Kai and attack. However, he's going to run into the AoO trip attack first. With True strike, this hits. (The roll of 9 +20 from True Strike) Kai then gets a follow up attack. This hits (17+5 = 22 vs AC 16 (prone)). He hits dealing the first damage roll of 1,5,1 + 6 = 12 damage. Bazili uses the rest of his move to stand up, and avoids an AoO because Kai doesn't have combat reflexes (yet). On Round 7, according to the tactics Kai should back up 5', cast true strike. Bazili again moves to base, incurs a AoO, and then we need more rolls. That's how I see it anyways. If this doesn't seem correct, please point it out. I certainly make mistakes (as my tactics show :) ). Also, In round 5-6 Kai gets the benefit of true strike twice. True Strike applies to one attack only. This attack can occur anytime in the next round, but it only applies to the one attack. Also agreed. Plus, a 5' step and an attack do not draw an AoO which you have put into this round. Bazili was adjacent to Kai at the end of round 5. Kai 5' steps away. Bazili only has to 5' step to be adjacent to Kai. Anyways, Bazili's missing attack from round 6 happens in round 5, and there is another attack in round 6. Plus, I think that Kai's tactics delay him another round allowing another attack. In the edit could you put the current actions in italics or something to make it a little easier to read? Thanks. Anyways, whatever Spasheridan winds up doing is going to be fine with me. Once you're happy with results, I'm certainly not going to request any changes, mostly because of time. |
| DSugui12-19-06, 01:45 AM | Montana (UserNamer) vs. Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) is up HERE. Hope there aren't many mistakes... |
| spasheridan12-19-06, 01:49 AM | I felt a little like you were hounding me here Hrothmund - Next time be nicer about things. Looks like you gained 2 attacks in before he could get his hits on you.Victory for Bazili. @Hirumajoe - Looks like I need more time to get my rules-lawyer on, I should have spotted these problems earlier and asked you what you wanted to do within the rules. BUT - please try and send in legal tactics next time. EDIT: I see your post, but your tactics don't ... hrm... -Once opponent is found, get to within 15 to 30 feet and cast True Strike. Then on next round engage in melee with greatsword (charge if you have to). Don't get adjacent, use the 10' reach. Just straight up attack. I didn't see this as break away and prepare an AoO, I saw this as set up distance to get an attack next round. Being already within reach i didn't have you run away incurring an AoO. Yeah - that's fairly specific. RERUN #4, OMW. :) |
| NiQil12-19-06, 02:01 AM | Montana (UserNamer) vs. Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) is up HERE. Hope there aren't many mistakes... That's a whole mess of allies for an ECL 4 character to have in one fight...I'm not up on the latest ally rules (cause I don't use em)...are all of those allies legal at that ECL? |
| DSugui12-19-06, 02:04 AM | That's a whole mess of allies for an ECL 4 character to have in one fight...I'm not up on the latest ally rules (cause I don't use em)...are all of those allies legal at that ECL?Well, it's a class ally and 2 CR 1 allies for a ECL 4 gladiator. There were a third CR1 ally (what caused quite a confusion), but it was left home, so I think everything is ok in that field. |
| MindWandererB12-19-06, 02:22 AM | Montana (UserNamer) vs. Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) is up HERE. Hope there aren't many mistakes... It's cool to assume that warhorses, riding dogs, etc. have Combat Riding, but more unusual mounts (like dire bats) should be treated as having no tricks unless listed and linked. That bat has no links for its tricks--I don't even know if it aquired them legally--and thus will follow no orders at all unless pushed. Also, Montana could always have Pushed the horse to grapple. I also don't understand why Montana couldn't go to the ceiling. |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 02:25 AM | I felt a little like you were hounding me here Hrothmund - Next time be nicer about things. Looks like you gained 2 attacks in before he could get his hits on you.Victory for Bazili. @Hirumajoe - Looks like I need more time to get my rules-lawyer on, I should have spotted these problems earlier and asked you what you wanted to do within the rules. BUT - please try and send in legal tactics next time. My sincere apologies. I can only plead it was my first time running the character. And since he was "de-leveled" from the UnCon as an ECL 7, I've still keep confusing the versions. (in one case, he does have a BAB +5 and actually casts most of his buffs from memory...). After the informative posts from Hrothmund I should be much better in the future with Kai. And I think I probably should shoulder most of the blame for Hrothmund needing to request changes. As you point out, if I'd written legal tactics, none of this would have been necessary. My apologies to Hrothmund. EDIT: I see your post, but your tactics don't ... hrm... I didn't see this as break away and prepare an AoO, I saw this as set up distance to get an attack next round. Being already within reach i didn't have you run away incurring an AoO. Yeah - that's fairly specific. RERUN #4, OMW. :) Hrm... I didn't mean for you to go into a re-run 4. If you need sleep/time and/or just don't want to deal with it anymore, feel free to stop editing and just consider Bazili the winner with your last edit. Since its my fault the re-runs are necessary. |
| spasheridan12-19-06, 02:35 AM | Rerun #3 finished. I forgive everyone, it's christmas! I shouldn't be snappy, I have a slew of errors on my character sheet as well. End result: a few more AoO's, but Kai never manages to get a good attack in to take that 17 damage roll. FYI - you mentioned above about combat reflexes. My understanding is that you can, at most, take a single AoO on any character in 1 turn, so it's not a very useful feat in a 1v1 environment. |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 02:41 AM | Rerun #3 finished. I forgive everyone, it's christmas! I shouldn't be snappy, I have a slew of errors on my character sheet as well. End result: a few more AoO's, but Kai never manages to get a good attack in to take that 17 damage roll. FYI - you mentioned above about combat reflexes. My understanding is that you can, at most, take a single AoO on any character in 1 turn, so it's not a very useful feat in a 1v1 environment. Sounds good. Thanks for the first run, the second run, and oh, the third run. :-) Actually, in regards to Combat Reflexes, you can only take a single AoO per offered opportunity. I.e. you can only take a single AoO when someone stands up. However you can take as many as you like (assuming you have Combat Reflexes giving them to you) against a single person as long as they keep taking new actions to provoke AoO. So lets say an enlarged Kai with a +3 Dex modifier and combat reflexes is standing next to a prone person. This person decides to stand up. This provokes an AoO and Kai can use one of his. Then this person decides to move away. He provokes an AoO as he leaves the adjacent threatened square. This provokes an AoO and Kai uses his 2nd. This person leaves the square 10' away, which Kai still threatens because he's large. This provokes another AoO and Kai uses his 3rd. What Kai can't do is use all 3 AoO's from combat reflexes when the person is standing up. He can only use 1. Edit: Basically once Kai gets a few more levels under his belt, specifically between level 6 and 10, he turns into a melee monster. Literally. Polymorph-Annis Hag (+10 natural armor, 25 Str, large size and 10' reach). Throw in a Invisibility + True Strike Setup, a Power Attack for -7/+14, Knockdown feat and Combat Reflexes. Watch the AoO's and trips pile up. Oh, and don't forget to sunder their weapons so they can only attack unarmed... Causing more AoO's... |
| MindWandererB12-19-06, 03:02 AM | So lets say an enlarged Kai with a +3 Dex modifier and combat reflexes is standing next to a prone person. This person decides to stand up. This provokes an AoO and Kai can use one of his. Then this person decides to move away. He provokes an AoO as he leaves the adjacent threatened square. This provokes an AoO and Kai uses his 2nd. This person leaves the square 10' away, which Kai still threatens because he's large. This provokes another AoO and Kai uses his 3rd.This is close, but not quite right. No amount of movement ever provokes more than 1 AoO. Kai would get 2 AoOs in this case: one for standing and one for moving out of the first square. If he decided not to take that first movement AoO, he could take it when offered the second chance, but he couldn't take both. Combat Reflexes and Additional Attacks of Opportunity: If you have the Combat Reflexes feat you can add your Dexterity modifier to the number of attacks of opportunity you can make in a round. This feat does not let you make more than one attack for a given opportunity, but if the same opponent provokes two attacks of opportunity from you, you could make two separate attacks of opportunity (since each one represents a different opportunity). Moving out of more than one square threatened by the same opponent in the same round doesn’t count as more than one opportunity for that opponent. All these attacks are at your full normal attack bonus. |
| Iced12-19-06, 03:20 AM | Loddick Saffron vs Zassl is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10950248&postcount=387). ~Iced |
| Maraxus12-19-06, 03:48 AM | Loddick Saffron vs Zassl is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10950248&postcount=387). ~Iced What happend here? How could my master-plan fail so miserable. Wait ... Most important: Read the web-discription again Anyone in the effect’s area when the spell is cast must make a Reflex save. If this save succeeds, the creature is entangled, but not prevented from moving, though moving is more difficult than normal for being entangled (see below). (...) Each round devoted to moving allows the creature to make a new Strength check or Escape Artist check. The creature moves 5 feet for each full 5 points by which the check result exceeds 10. Apart from that, I am just wondering, why my opponent is charging me, instead of missle-ing me but I guess, once the web issue is fixed, this will solve itself. Oh, he allready was low of PP - well, one more reason, why I think I could have one this fight. Sorry, but that is a major point, imho. PS: So, I've looked for further points: 1. To my bad, energy missles don't seam to require attack rolls. 2. Protection from law gives me +2 on my save vs. his powers. 3. The save vs. his second energy missles, I have clearly made, with a natural 20. 4. His attack with the falchion is clearly not confirmed with a natural 1. 5. There is no reason for me to use the mace, it clearly reads: "If those two (conditionals) do not trigger (...) cast magic missles at him" (but this part of the fight will probably not happen, when the other problems are addressed). |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 07:41 AM | This is close, but not quite right. No amount of movement ever provokes more than 1 AoO. Kai would get 2 AoOs in this case: one for standing and one for moving out of the first square. If he decided not to take that first movement AoO, he could take it when offered the second chance, but he couldn't take both. Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the clarification. |
| DSugui12-19-06, 07:42 AM | It's cool to assume that warhorses, riding dogs, etc. have Combat Riding, but more unusual mounts (like dire bats) should be treated as having no tricks unless listed and linked. That bat has no links for its tricks--I don't even know if it aquired them legally--and thus will follow no orders at all unless pushed. Also, Montana could always have Pushed the horse to grapple. That's true. I don't know why the push option never crossed my mind... I also don't understand why Montana couldn't go to the ceiling. Oh, he wanted to be upside down, didn't he? My, my... where was my brain yesterday?!? I don't think any of this will affect the results, but if anyone wants me to make the HA rolls, I will edit the fight. |
| TheMagister12-19-06, 07:49 AM | Actually, in regards to Combat Reflexes, you can only take a single AoO per offered opportunity. I.e. you can only take a single AoO when someone stands up. However you can take as many as you like (assuming you have Combat Reflexes giving them to you) against a single person as long as they keep taking new actions to provoke AoO. So lets say an enlarged Kai with a +3 Dex modifier and combat reflexes is standing next to a prone person. This person decides to stand up. This provokes an AoO and Kai can use one of his. Then this person decides to move away. He provokes an AoO as he leaves the adjacent threatened square. This provokes an AoO and Kai uses his 2nd. This person leaves the square 10' away, which Kai still threatens because he's large. This provokes another AoO and Kai uses his 3rd. What Kai can't do is use all 3 AoO's from combat reflexes when the person is standing up. He can only use 1. I used to think this was true as well. The actuality is that a character can only provoke one movement-related AoO from a given enemy a round. Wait. That's not specific enough. ... How can one explain this? Movement (speed) related: one per round. Example: leaving a threatened area. Movement (move actions that provoke AoOs): one per opportunity. Examples: drawing a potion, standing from prone, sheathing a weapon. There. That should alleviate confusion. The relevant section is in the PHB Combat Section somewhere. I could look it up later. TM |
| Maraxus12-19-06, 08:06 AM | (...) So by that, it should be neither mindless, nor blind, nor immune to crits. On the other hand: I would say that qualifies as "indicating otherwise." And "ooze traits" is a special quality of the black pudding. Sorry, that was just irony, because I totally forgot the oozes immunity against criticals. But now you have confused me in the question, wheather a half dragon ooze can see. It has the "blind" trait from his argumented ooze subtype and it has Darkvision/Lowlightvision from his dragon-template (which includes "vision", imho). Those two thinks stand in conflict, which overrides what? Plus, I'd like someone knowledgeable to tell me about that spiritual weapon: Does it really move for free and can thus make a full attack each round? Sounds overpowered to me, but Telin seams to be sure about this one and I have definitly no clue ( :rolleyes: and by not editing the fight that is his win now, I hope to come around having to make a clear decission about that :rolleyes: ) |
| hogarth12-19-06, 08:19 AM | Plus, I'd like someone knowledgeable to tell me about that spiritual weapon: Does it really move for free and can thus make a full attack each round? Sounds overpowered to me, but Telin seams to be sure about this one and I have definitly no clue ( :rolleyes: and by not editing the fight that is his win now, I hope to come around having to make a clear decission about that :rolleyes: ) It's just a spell (like Magic Missile, say), except it's a spell that requires an attack roll to do damage. You don't have to worry about how fast it moves any more than you have to worry about how fast a Magic Missile moves. |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 08:23 AM | Telin, why did Kilp move to break line-of-sight with Legion's cohort? Here are the parts of her strategy relating to the cohort: Where is the part about moving away? Could you please alter the fight to use Kilp's stated tactics (for instance, manifesting Energy Adapatation (Fire))? You want the barbarian to take 1 last shot at you before he goes away? According to the fight as written if altered it would look as follows. Round 1 - Relanex blasts Legion, Legion buffs, Barbarian hits, Kilp casts alter self into choker. You do not gain any supernatural special attacks, special qualities, or spell-like abilities of the new form. Your creature type and subtype (if any) remain the same regardless of your new form. You cannot take the form of any creature with a template, even if that template doesn’t change the creature type or subtype. So, you don't get extra actions. Round 2 - Relanex blasts Legion with wand. Legion casts on Relanex (who saves), Extra attack by barbarian against Kilp that wasn't in because of mist. Kilp casts Energy adaptation? Round 3 - Relanex finishes Legion, Kilp casts Inertial Armor Round 4 - Relanex casts Dispel magic on Kilp taking down in order EA, AS and IA. Because he keeps rolls in order they were rolled. Kilp immediatly trieds and renews Choker alter self. Round 5 - Relanex blasts Kilp to disabled. So, yes, your right. exactly following your tactics you do have an altered fight. You are taking too many actions as a Choker as you don't get quickness. It is a special quality. |
| Zevox12-19-06, 08:24 AM | Plus, I'd like someone knowledgeable to tell me about that spiritual weapon: Does it really move for free and can thus make a full attack each round? Sounds overpowered to me, but Telin seams to be sure about this one and I have definitly no clue ( :rolleyes: and by not editing the fight that is his win now, I hope to come around having to make a clear decission about that :rolleyes: ) Last I checked it moved with the target automatically at the same time they did and could always full attack. Isn't that in the spell description? Zevox |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 08:25 AM | Do +1 bows bestow the magic nature on their ammunition? I.e. if Valek Usher is shooting at an incorporial creature with a +1 Composite (Mighty +1) Longbow, can he damage it (I know there's a 50% miss chance regardless). Or would he need magically enhanced arrows, i.e. Arrow +1? |
| hogarth12-19-06, 08:28 AM | You want the barbarian to take 1 last shot at you before he goes away? I agree that it would not be to my benefit. I was just pointing out that that's what it said in my tactics. According to the fight as written if altered it would look as follows. Round 1 - Relanex blasts Legion, Legion buffs, Barbarian hits, Kilp casts alter self into choker. So, you don't get extra actions. Kilpquabjeg has the feat Metamorphic Transfer: Metamorphic Transfer [Psionic] You can gain a supernatural ability of a metamorphed form. Prerequisite Wis 13, manifester level 5th. Benefit Each time you change your form, such as through the metamorphosis power, you gain one of the new form’s supernatural abilities, if it has any. Snazzy feat, isn't it? :D Thus she can make two standard actions in round 1. |
| Vathelokai12-19-06, 08:28 AM | So, you don't get extra actions. ... So, yes, your right. exactly following your tactics you do have an altered fight. You are taking too many actions as a Choker as you don't get quickness. It is a special quality. I believe that Kilp has the metamorphic transfer feat... Benefit Each time you change your form, such as through the metamorphosis power, you gain one of the new form’s supernatural abilities, if it has any. You gain only three uses of the metamorphic ability per day, even if the creature into which you metamorph has a higher limit on uses (you are still subject to other restrictions on the use of the ability.) The save DC to resist a supernatural ability gained through Metamorphic Transfer (if it is an attack) is 10 + your Cha modifier + ½ your Hit Dice. No matter how many times you manifest the metamorphosis power on a given day, you can gain only a total of three supernatural ability transfers per day. *EDIT* A bit slow on that one. |
| Vathelokai12-19-06, 08:30 AM | Last I checked it moved with the target automatically at the same time they did and could always full attack. Isn't that in the spell description? Zevox Here ya' go. A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form. It strikes the opponent you designate, starting with one attack in the round the spell is cast and continuing each round thereafter on your turn. It uses your base attack bonus (possibly allowing it multiple attacks per round in subsequent rounds) plus your Wisdom modifier as its attack bonus. It strikes as a spell, not as a weapon, so, for example, it can damage creatures that have damage reduction. As a force effect, it can strike incorporeal creatures without the normal miss chance associated with incorporeality. The weapon always strikes from your direction. It does not get a flanking bonus or help a combatant get one. Your feats or combat actions do not affect the weapon. If the weapon goes beyond the spell range, if it goes out of your sight, or if you are not directing it, the weapon returns to you and hovers. Each round after the first, you can use a move action to redirect the weapon to a new target. If you do not, the weapon continues to attack the previous round’s target. On any round that the weapon switches targets, it gets one attack. Subsequent rounds of attacking that target allow the weapon to make multiple attacks if your base attack bonus would allow it to. Even if the spiritual weapon is a ranged weapon, use the spell’s range, not the weapon’s normal range increment, and switching targets still is a move action. |
| Vathelokai12-19-06, 08:32 AM | Do +1 bows bestow the magic nature on their ammunition? I.e. if Valek Usher is shooting at an incorporial creature with a +1 Composite (Mighty +1) Longbow, can he damage it (I know there's a 50% miss chance regardless). Or would he need magically enhanced arrows, i.e. Arrow +1? Right over here...anged Weapons and Ammunition The enhancement bonus from a ranged weapon does not stack with the enhancement bonus from ammunition. Only the higher of the two enhancement bonuses applies. Ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an enhancement bonus of +1 or higher is treated as a magic weapon for the purpose of overcoming damage reduction. Similarly, ammunition fired from a projectile weapon with an alignment gains the alignment of that projectile weapon (in addition to any alignment it may already have). |
| Abyssal Stalker12-19-06, 08:53 AM | What's the idea of having +N ammunition? If the ability transfers into the ammunition, is there any reason the ammunition should be enchanted? |
| TheMagister12-19-06, 08:55 AM | @TelinArtho - Hey, you know what? I woke up today feeling bad about the way I was arguing with you. Forget the Tessero/Roy thing. Somebody's gotta lose, and I'm not gonna quibble. I'm sure you did the best you could with what you had. I accept the fight in its current incarnation. Thanks for all your service! TM |
| hogarth12-19-06, 08:57 AM | What's the idea of having +N ammunition? If the ability transfers into the ammunition, is there any reason the ammunition should be enchanted? It's not very useful, no. The only reason I've seen for buying magical arrows is that you can buy a few magic arrows even if you can't afford the same enchantment for your bow (e.g. it's easier to buy a few +1 bane arrows of various types than a few +1 bane bows of various types). |
| Vathelokai12-19-06, 08:58 AM | What's the idea of having +N ammunition? If the ability transfers into the ammunition, is there any reason the ammunition should be enchanted? From a price perspective, if you get 10 fire, 10 acid, 10 elec, etc. you might be better off and more versatile. Also, it is only the +N that dosn't stack. YOu can fire seeking arrows from a +2 bow and that stacks. |
| Abyssal Stalker12-19-06, 09:01 AM | Ah, so it's only a question of economics. Got it! |
| Maraxus12-19-06, 09:05 AM | Ah, thanks, Vath and the others. I must have missed the second paragaph somehow, when I checked the spell description. In this case, Kraegin sure is the clear and honorable victor against "The think that shall not be". Edit: For the record: Kreagins fight is fixed and the winner came out with less problems this time. |
| Erithmu12-19-06, 09:36 AM | PS: So, I've looked for further points: 1. To my bad, energy missles don't seam to require attack rolls. 2. Protection from law gives me +2 on my save vs. his powers. 3. The save vs. his second energy missles, I have clearly made, with a natural 20. 4. His attack with the falchion is clearly not confirmed with a natural 1. 5. There is no reason for me to use the mace, it clearly reads: "If those two (conditionals) do not trigger (...) cast magic missles at him" (but this part of the fight will probably not happen, when the other problems are addressed). The mistake 3 and 4 make me suspicious, btw. 1) Agreed 2) Agreed (but it doesn't change anything) 3) Agreed 4) He didn't confirm it, he charged my weapon w/ 2 pp for deep crystal 5+11 = 16 dmg (although I didn't want him to charge my weapon w/ deep crystal 5) Agreed Web Thing: yea, web is a much much more complex spell than a 2nd level wizard entangle. That thing blocks LOS. It is going to take me forever to get out of that thing, so go ahead and cast that SMII from scroll the following round. It has to deal with the webs as well. Gotta re-run it Iced: probably just from the first EM |
| TheMagister12-19-06, 09:38 AM | Ah, so it's only a question of economics. Got it! Well, I guess. Being an avid archer fan, I find that the versatility provided on the cheap by having 10 of this and 10 of that really helps the archer to contribute to a group. If no-one else can hurt that golem, I can. Just hold it off for a few rounds. In my opinion, it's hardly ever worth it to put damage enhancements on a bow. Put the damage enhancements on the ammo. Put the universal stuff on the bow (i.e. - +2-5, lucky [best one EVER], brilliant energy, psychokinetic [untyped, stacks with everything], distance, stuff like that). Put the situational stuff on the ammo (energy type (x), ghost touch, seeking, adamantine, silver, bane, etc.). You're going to want every shot to be a possible "lucky" shot. You're going to want every shot to be brilliant energy. You don't benefit at all from shooting a +1 ghost touch longbow at a giant. But when you finally come up on that ghost, you'll use those 10 +1 ghost touch arrows that get lucky and psychokinetic stacked on from the bow. That's just my 2cp. Go archers! TM |
| hogarth12-19-06, 09:45 AM | In my opinion, it's hardly ever worth it to put damage enhancements on a bow. Put the damage enhancements on the ammo. Put the universal stuff on the bow (i.e. - +2-5, lucky [best one EVER] [..] Two comments about the "Lucky" ability: 1) 1/day abilities aren't really that exciting in my experience, especially if it's just rerolling an attack roll. 2) Note that the Lucky ability is not listed in the Psionic Ranged Weapon ability table, only the Psionic Melee Weapon table. So it's not clear to me that you can put it on a bow. Zevox made the same comment about the "Ghost Touch" ability in the Tavern thread. |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 09:48 AM | @Spasheridan: I really hate to point this out in the Kai Engel fight, given how much headache its given you... You forgot to list a scroll of Enlarge person in the expendables line for Kai. If you could update that, it'd be great. Thanks. |
| TheMagister12-19-06, 09:53 AM | Two comments about the "Lucky" ability: 1) 1/day abilities aren't really that exciting in my experience, especially if it's just rerolling an attack roll. 2) Note that the Lucky ability is not listed in the Psionic Ranged Weapon ability table, only the Psionic Melee Weapon table. So it's not clear to me that you can put it on a bow. Zevox made the same comment about the "Ghost Touch" ability in the Tavern thread. Lucky is great for the alpha strikers. The dice love to foil the 1-hit-kill builds. Just ask Dronnar this past week (sorry, dude!). As far as its not being a ranged weapon ability. Oh, man. I'll have to check on that. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-19-06, 09:56 AM | @Dsugui I object! My apologies if I was not clear enough in my tactics for you to use rapid shot constantly throughout the fight. However, I don't recall ever saying shoot Montana's horse. The dire bat is illegal on so many levels it is not even funny. I sent you and UserName both a PM about his sheet and the prison violations. In round 13 I hit and Montana didn't take damage. I am curious as to why a character with any intelligence at all is played as dumb enough to tumble instead of 5' step and rapid shot and why she tumbles to put herself against a wall instead of going for cover and mobility. I do kow I stressed the importance of mobility when facing a horde. Now, I will grant that I rolled rather badly, but there should be almost twice the number of attacks from me in there. Please take a look at that fight again and consider a re-run taking into full consideration that Montana is in violation in many ways and that the spirit of my tactics (though vague since I had to wait and wait and wait for what I was actually fighting) needs to be followed. *goes looking for the MadCow disclaimer to add to all of her character sheets* |
| MitzaVolchenko12-19-06, 09:58 AM | @My questers. I was late getting out of work last night and did not get to the finish ups in a timely fashion. My apologies. I will finish tonight. |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 10:06 AM | In my home campaign I use Enchanted ammunition alot. My Favored Soul has Craft Arms and Armor. And we allow a person to make partial lots of ammunition. So.. Heavy repeating crossbow +2, Sacred - two clips 5 Bolts +1, Undead bane (415gp) - two clips 5 Silver Bolts +1, Evil outsider bane (415gp) - two clips 5 Bolts +1, Dragon's Bane (415gp) - two clips 5 Bolts +1, Magic Beast Bane (415gp) Each day we have downtime and I have money, I toss some money into crafting another 10 bolts of some type. The damage output of that weapon isn't half bad. Though, his primary job in a party is healer. |
| Maraxus12-19-06, 10:26 AM | 1) Agreed 2) Agreed (but it doesn't change anything) 3) Agreed 4) He didn't confirm it, he charged my weapon w/ 2 pp for deep crystal 5+11 = 16 dmg (although I didn't want him to charge my weapon w/ deep crystal 5) Agreed Web Thing: yea, web is a much much more complex spell than a 2nd level wizard entangle. That thing blocks LOS. It is going to take me forever to get out of that thing, so go ahead and cast that SMII from scroll the following round. It has to deal with the webs as well. Gotta re-run it Iced: probably just from the first EM Oh, right, about 4. Ah, the monster just has to delay you long enough for me to get mage armor and false live up. My AC will be unhitable for you and your falchion. ;) You had better placed your bets on Ego-Whips. :rolleyes: ...But then again, seeing your tactics, I can think of one or another think, I should have added to my tactics, too. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-19-06, 10:31 AM | Montana (UserNamer) vs. Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) is up HERE. Hope there aren't many mistakes... I PM'd you a closer to full lsit of concerns. Please review them, and yes...the handle animal checks need to be there. I am displeased with that fight more or less from pairings onward. |
| TelinArtho12-19-06, 10:42 AM | @TelinArtho - Hey, you know what? I woke up today feeling bad about the way I was arguing with you. Forget the Tessero/Roy thing. Somebody's gotta lose, and I'm not gonna quibble. I'm sure you did the best you could with what you had. I accept the fight in its current incarnation. Thanks for all your service! TM No worries - I do appreciate it though - because I'm not sure how much time I've got today. [EDIT] Working on the edit for the hunter fight. As noted, Kilp should have manifested Energy Adaptation (Fire). This forced a new dispel magic roll (24 vs 16), so the Energy Adaptation was dispelled and the fight does not actually change beyond that. I will post the altered fight with the complete rewards shortly (and probably without further announcement. /d |
| hogarth12-19-06, 10:54 AM | Working on the edit for the hunter fight. As noted, Kilp should have manifested Energy Adaptation (Fire). This forced a new dispel magic roll (24 vs 16), so the Energy Adaptation was dispelled and the fight does not actually change beyond that. Thanks for the edit. That was some bad luck with those dispel checks! [17, 14, 18, 17, 8, 18 on 1d20!] I guess I should've used my scroll of Invisibility after all... |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 10:57 AM | Heh... dice happen! I think Relanex might have leveled.. |
| DSugui12-19-06, 11:03 AM | I PM'd you a closer to full lsit of concerns. Please review them, and yes...the handle animal checks need to be there. I am displeased with that fight more or less from pairings onward.I got them, and I must say I agree with all of them. Before start running the fight, I gave a serious consideration on make Montana auto lose the fight - he has several violations, most of them serious - but I don't know why I didn't. Now that I look to the situation closely, I think I should do that, and I will if there are supporters to this idea. As NiQil says, we have rules and they have to be enforced, no matter if they were broken by accident or oversight. In other news, Ynotar Mihm Eer (Etiquette_Gnome) vs. Finael Owlguide (Spasheridan) is up HERE, and I must say it was a deeply annoying fight. |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 11:09 AM | Awards aren't quite right Telin. Winner gets (1800 + 600 + 600) * (1+(.25/2))*(1) = 3375xp, 3746gp Because of ECL 4 Barbarian Ally. |
| TelinArtho12-19-06, 11:20 AM | @Maraxus - In Kraegin's summary, please do include that I used Spiritual Weapon. Also - did you note the Pearls that Kraegin used as a prebuff in the summary as well (I'll have to double check)? @Macbrea - I'll check again - but isn't the barbarian a thrall? |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 11:21 AM | Ah, it appears they don't cost exp or gold. Just count against your limit. Nevermind! |
| McJarvis12-19-06, 11:24 AM | Maya vs Petr is up. Rewards will come later. here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10951717&postcount=390) & setup can be found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10951710&postcount=389) |
| Hrothmund12-19-06, 11:28 AM | I felt a little like you were hounding me here Hrothmund - Next time be nicer about things. Looks like you gained 2 attacks in before he could get his hits on you.Victory for Bazili. I appreciate the extra work. I think all my posts were pretty impassive statements of fact and polite. I was focusing only on making clear the departure from the rules. Could you give me some idea of the dressing that I would need to put on these rules issues that would make them more palatable? My instinct was that lots of "pretty please's" and jokes would waste the time of all three of us, but I definately don't want to make enemies here. Thanks again |
| McJarvis12-19-06, 11:36 AM | I definately don't want to make enemies here. With personalities like myself, Sauro, NiQil, Cat, Macbrea, etc, etc around here, you're pretty much gaurunteed to make enemies :D |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 11:40 AM | Valek Usher (DSugui) vs. Unknown Monster : Hirumajoe [Forest] is now up here. All I have to say is I wouldn't want to meet an Incorpreal Psion with 30+ power points available... |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 11:40 AM | Darn'it! Relanex... Experience: 20,918 / 21,000 |
| TheMagister12-19-06, 12:02 PM | {brrrring....brrring...click!} "Hello?" "Ah, yes. Is this the Gladius Zoo?" "Yes, it is." "I was wondering. Do you by chance have any kobolds available for slaughter?" "What?!" "Kobolds. Scaly and annoying; about 3 feet tall. I need to kill something small and I was thinking that Kobolds would do the trick." "Sir, we don't supply zoo creatures to the general public for wholesale slaughter. We aren't that kind of operation." "Wellll...do you...uh...have any for...uh...for adoption? Yeah...adoption..." {pause} "No sir. We're fresh out." "Darn. Well, thanks. If you have any come in, will you phone me?" "..." "The name's Relanex." "...Sure." "Thanks! Bye." :D |
| Krytos12-19-06, 12:16 PM | Danidus of the Sands (Vecnoran) vs. Unknown Monster (Plains) is up finally. Sorry for cutting it so close to the deadline. @Vecnoran: Please don't center everything on the character sheet, was really annoying. Also, if you are planning on using those specific buffs alot, adding them in as conditional modifiers would be really nice. Also, the dice hated you. d20: 8 rolls, 9 average Not bad on average, but you had like 3 crit misses. |
| spasheridan12-19-06, 12:34 PM | I appreciate the extra work. I think all my posts were pretty impassive statements of fact and polite. I was focusing only on making clear the departure from the rules. Could you give me some idea of the dressing that I would need to put on these rules issues that would make them more palatable? My instinct was that lots of "pretty please's" and jokes would waste the time of all three of us, but I definately don't want to make enemies here. Thanks againSorry - mostly I was cranky that I messed up so much and didn't want to go back and fix it. Like I said before - it's christmas, all is forgiven. UM - and it never hurts to say please, and it doesn't take much time to read it either. But I remember now how the CoCo is when fights come out - I'll manifest thicken skin next time before I post a fight. :) I'll edit the rewards in a minute |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 12:48 PM | Hmm, pretty good idea. I could put Relanex up for a three week Quest: Relanex's trip to the Zoo [ECL 1]! Nah.. I guess I will just fight on into next three week cycle.... |
| hogarth12-19-06, 12:55 PM | Hmm, pretty good idea. I could put Relanex up for a three week Quest: Relanex's trip to the Zoo [ECL 1]! Nah.. I guess I will just fight on into next three week cycle.... Er...that's what I did with Treetall Oakleg when he was only 50 xp away from level 5 -- an EL 1 miniquest. Worked for me. ;) |
| TelinArtho12-19-06, 12:57 PM | And if you want an EL1 challenge - I could always run the fight... let's see - what CR1 monsters have spell resistance... |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 01:02 PM | Would do it as a full quest if I was going to do it. But, I will suck it up an fight another fight at 6th! One fully prepared Red wizard heading back to the arena to blow up his opponents at 6th... |
| MindWandererB12-19-06, 01:18 PM | Valek Usher (DSugui) vs. Unknown Monster : Hirumajoe [Forest] is now up here. All I have to say is I wouldn't want to meet an Incorpreal Psion with 30+ power points available...Unbodied do have incorporeal touch attacks. It probably shouldn't surrender, although it would undoubtedly die at that point. And I have to say, those were pretty terrible tactics for such an intelligent creature. Refocusing all the time with a poor Concentration skill vs. a CLW wand is pretty dumb. One more problem: Don't monsters with class levels use the Elite Array for their stats? Maya vs Petr is up. Rewards will come later. here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10951717&postcount=390)Can you add the link to the setup post? Everyone is supposed to do that (if they can't fit everything in one post), but I don't usually mind because I can just put in "showthread" instead of "showpost" to find it. However, I find that I can't load full pages of the battles thread right now.... In other news, Ynotar Mihm Eer (Etiquette_Gnome) vs. Finael Owlguide (Spasheridan) is up HERE, and I must say it was a deeply annoying fight.Tower shields are tough to deal with. We've always had a problem with those. For the information of all parties concerned, removing a shield is a move action, not a free action. It's not very useful, no. The only reason I've seen for buying magical arrows is that you can buy a few magic arrows even if you can't afford the same enchantment for your bow (e.g. it's easier to buy a few +1 bane arrows of various types than a few +1 bane bows of various types).I've always been a fan of arcane archers, in which case you do exactly the opposite. You have +X arrows all the time anyway, so you put a mess of carrier effects on your bow. Even better, you can use arrows with carrier effects on top of that! Using your +1 Seeking, Distance, Merciful, Thundering, Psychokinetic Burst, Speed bow to shoot +5 Brilliant Energy, Holy, Flaming, Freezing, Shocking arrows is a thing of beauty. |
| McJarvis12-19-06, 01:20 PM | Yet another fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10951989&postcount=392) is up. & setup is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=10951983&postcount=391) |
| Zevox12-19-06, 01:24 PM | I've always been a fan of arcane archers, in which case you do exactly the opposite. You have +X arrows all the time anyway, so you put a mess of carrier effects on your bow. Even better, you can use arrows with carrier effects on top of that! Using your +1 Seeking, Distance, Merciful, Thundering, Psychokinetic Burst, Speed bow to shoot +5 Brilliant Energy, Holy, Flaming, Freezing, Shocking arrows is a thing of beauty. And that my friends is my plan for Eraca in a nutshell :) . Zevox |
| hogarth12-19-06, 01:34 PM | I've always been a fan of arcane archers, in which case you do exactly the opposite. You have +X arrows all the time anyway, so you put a mess of carrier effects on your bow. Even better, you can use arrows with carrier effects on top of that! In tabletop games, buying enhancement bonuses is kind of silly. It's too expensive at low levels to get more than a +1, and at higher levels you can buy a Pearl of Power III and get your party cleric/wizard to prepare Greater Magic Weapon for the same cost (or less). YMMV. |
| MindWandererB12-19-06, 01:43 PM | @McJarvis: I meant in the fight post itself, but thanks. @hogarth: That tactic wouldn't have worked so well anyway. It's true that nonlethal damage doesn't actually deplete your HP, but temporary HP still count! If Maya had 19 HP + 10 temp HP, you'd need 29 nonlethal damage to take her down. On the other hand, she wouldn't be able to use Vigor multiple times, since the temp HP don't stack, and she never lost them! Hmm... that's a trick worthy of considering. Too bad I'm the main Vigor-dorje junkie around here. |
| Macbrea12-19-06, 01:44 PM | It is +1 enhancement bonus per four levels for greater magic weapon. The Favored Soul I am playing with Craft Magic weapon can basicly put up either a +2 bonus with spell or +3 permanently on the weapon. Not to mention that the pearl of power does him zero good. He doesn't prepare spells and therefore doesn't benefit from the item. So. given our party, if someone did that tactics they would just have been wasting the money. Party: Human Psy War 9 , Reinc Half-elf Favored soul 9 , Half-orc monk 9 , Half-elf Ranger 9 , Elan kinestist 9, Halfling Rogue 8/Swordsage 1 |
| hogarth12-19-06, 02:01 PM | @hogarth: That tactic wouldn't have worked so well anyway. It's true that nonlethal damage doesn't actually deplete your HP, but temporary HP still count! If Maya had 19 HP + 10 temp HP, you'd need 29 nonlethal damage to take her down. On the other hand, she wouldn't be able to use Vigor multiple times, since the temp HP don't stack, and she never lost them! Hmm... that's a trick worthy of considering. Too bad I'm the main Vigor-dorje junkie around here. Yep, the tactics were pretty weak in this case. ECL 3 guy with horse vs. ECL 3 guy without horse is usually pretty one-sided. I'm just hoping to hit someone with that damn trap some day... |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-19-06, 02:04 PM | Yeah...not terribly happy with this decision to ignore Ynotar's tactics and have him fight Finael in his area of expertise...do we have an option for ties? Because as it stands, I'm seeing a precedence for the Tower Shield being banned from the Coliseum (in practice) if it's going to be ignored like this. |
| spasheridan12-19-06, 02:31 PM | I didn't see that Tower Shields grant Full Cover, otherwise I would have tried to make a tactic to counter that. Of course, I can't think of one right now - it's a tough nut to crack. We definitly had tactics that led to a stalemate, but the alternative option is that Finael fights in your expertise (grapple / melee). I'm not sure what the fairest way is, but Finael is actively attacking while you are not, so I think the delay penalty falls on you. Of course, I'm happy with the result but if you can convince DSugi to make a change I wont argue. |
| Erithmu12-19-06, 02:37 PM | It is +1 enhancement bonus per four levels for greater magic weapon. The Favored Soul I am playing with Craft Magic weapon can basicly put up either a +2 bonus with spell or +3 permanently on the weapon. Not to mention that the pearl of power does him zero good. He doesn't prepare spells and therefore doesn't benefit from the item. So. given our party, if someone did that tactics they would just have been wasting the money. Party: Human Psy War 9 , Reinc Half-elf Favored soul 9 , Half-orc monk 9 , Half-elf Ranger 9 , Elan kinestist 9, Halfling Rogue 8/Swordsage 1In my high level game I picked up Chain spell, and funny enough you can chain GMW. At an hour a level and sorcerer casting, I dropped an extend spell on it and was looking at about 30 hrs of +5 weapons for ... 15 different weapons. Course the DM in the last fight of the campaign opened with Chained Reaving Dispel ... that is nasty. Arcane Gish + Divine Power = nasty. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-19-06, 02:39 PM | Finael couldn't have been actively attacking either, as the Tower Shield makes you unable to be attacked (quality of total cover). Also, the delay penalty probably doesn't really apply here since I have been trying to make progress towards you; I could also argue that you delayed the fight for more than 10 rounds by actively not letting yourself get into melee and moving away from me while unable to attack (though I myself think the delay rule doesn't come up here). Basically, I'm totally against this fight being a loss for just me, and am going to argue its result something fierce where I'm able, barring higher forces descending for their decrees. I made a specific build with a specific tactic, and do not appreciate it being ignored, since it sets up precedence to happen again and again. |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 03:00 PM | Unbodied do have incorporeal touch attacks. It probably shouldn't surrender, although it would undoubtedly die at that point. And I have to say, those were pretty terrible tactics for such an intelligent creature. Refocusing all the time with a poor Concentration skill vs. a CLW wand is pretty dumb. One more problem: Don't monsters with class levels use the Elite Array for their stats? At the time I wrote the tactics for the monster, I had missed the CLW on Valek's character sheet. I hadn't read Valek's tactics until having written those. Now, does this mean I should go back and change the monster's tactics having looked at Valek's tactics? But in any case, the tactics aren't that bad considering Valek's heal point of 25 hp. A non-saved 7pp attack after the first would have ended Valek. A non saved 5pp energy missile has less than a 50% chance of killing him. And if it doesn't kill, Valek runs away with his superior speed, using Scorn Earth on water and uses the CLW *anyways*. Plus, (13/20)^4 is virtually the same as (15/20)^6 in terms of making all his saves. A 0.1785 chance in the former and a 0.178 chance in the latter, but the later has less than 50% to kill after that single failed saving throw. So stastically, the Unbodied *is* better off doing it this way. What tactics do you propose, given the Unbodied power selection? What would have me do? Do 11 points of damage (5d6+5 / 2 on avg) a round while Valek heals 5.5 a round? Except Valek is going to run away at 50' a round (or 80' with a burst), get cover and heal up to 25 anyways? As for the surrender, if both you and I agree its forgone conclusion and the monster is intelligent, why not have him surrender? As for the Elite array, on looking it up again in the SRD, you're right. That can make a difference. It probably has a 19 Int and an additional +2 to the DC of the saving throws. Given there were no saves below 20, that doesn't change. He does get another 5 pp. So I suppose he gets an extra 2d6+5 on the last attack and an additional 3d6+3 attack the round after... Along with Valek's extra Cure light wounds. So 2d6+2 more damage and another 3d6+3, except I have to figure out if he can actually catch up (which I don't think he can in a single round on that map). |
| McJarvis12-19-06, 03:01 PM | @Hirm: Running the Valen Sky fight right now. Shouldn't take too long :) edit-> and done...wow...there was a wonder-crit in there that made the fight alot more one-sided then I originally intended. O_O |
| MindWandererB12-19-06, 04:06 PM | @Hirumajoe: Sorry, I didn't mean to sound inflammatory. And perhaps it wasn't going to win by any other tactics anyway; I just saw the tactics it did have as having almost no chance of working. |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 04:58 PM | @MWB: Sorry to be snappish at you. Recently had a rather large setback in my thesis work this morning, which put me in a rather bad mood. Fortunately, looks like I can work around it, but its going to take alot of effort to still get it done so I can graduate in June. Which also may mean you'll be seeing less of me... And, actually, I would argue those tactics, with the way I ran it, should have had better than a 37.5% success rate, probably closer to 50%. Simply because on 3 DC 18 reflex saves with a +10 modifier, you should get one or more failures 75% of the time. (This is after the first one dropped Valek below 30 hp, and thus would better than 50% of the time kill him). |
| Hirumajoe12-19-06, 06:08 PM | Updated Valek vs the Unbodied here. Note that Valek used an extra CLW charge for 7 total. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-19-06, 08:07 PM | Firstly, I'd like to apologize to Erithmu for sounding as snarky as I did. I accepted the final result, and was only attempting to voice discontent on the method, and didn't mean to be that annoying. Secondly, I have another point to make on one thing I'm truly in disagreement with. I would like to 'request' either a rematch in the Ynotar/Finael fight or some form of ruling towards the match being a draw, and am not really in the mood to budge much (barring Pitlord decree, obviously) on this issue. |
| DSugui12-19-06, 08:31 PM | Finael couldn't have been actively attacking either, as the Tower Shield makes you unable to be attacked (quality of total cover). Also, the delay penalty probably doesn't really apply here since I have been trying to make progress towards you; I could also argue that you delayed the fight for more than 10 rounds by actively not letting yourself get into melee and moving away from me while unable to attack (though I myself think the delay rule doesn't come up here). Basically, I'm totally against this fight being a loss for just me, and am going to argue its result something fierce where I'm able, barring higher forces descending for their decrees. I made a specific build with a specific tactic, and do not appreciate it being ignored, since it sets up precedence to happen again and again. First off, your tactics were not ignored. I run them for 10 rounds, but they simply didn't work, and they would not work even if you run all day long after him. Second, your chances in range combat were almost the same. True, you had only one shot per round and only hit with a 20 (5% chance per round to hit), but also you have deflect arrows, so he had to roll 16+ twice in a round to hit you (6,25% chance per round to hit). I am sorry, but he got luckier. In fights like this, the faster dictates the fighting style. You want to wear full plate, you pay the price. My Dronnar lost several fights because of this - I understand how frustating it can be - but if this is your only complaint (not following your tactics) then I will not edit the fight. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-19-06, 09:07 PM | I don't consider that an appropriate response for this fight. Having us run around in a circle for a minute with nothing happening, then dropping it looks like an ignoring of its use to me; especially since that made sure to negate my use of vigor, which potentially could've influenced the fight. I obtained the tower shield to further protect myself from ranged combat, and having that simply ignored is precedence to more or less negate the point in even having a tower shield if it's going to be treated like this; I don't like being punished because I gave myself good defensive traits. It was his choice to avoid melee combat, as much as it was mine to avoid ranged, but his required active avoidance of me which initiates the delay rule while mine is an added trait WHILE I do everything in my power to move towards him. Basically, I consider this an unfair handling of the fight and do not agree with the outcome as it stands. If there is such a stalemate for this fight, then inform the two combatants so that they can adjust their tactics accordingly rather than arbitrarily (which I consider this to be and disagree with) deciding which side loses. Edit: Another example, what if one character were a relatively slow moving ghost due to a spell with only melee options (or a limited selection of ranged that are countered by the opponent), while the other was a fast moving character where his ranged attacks are non-magical? Does this mean the fast-mover gets to ignore the delay rules and let the incorporeal spell run out its full duration? Edit II: Oh, and just because you changed my tactics is also a valid complaint in this scenario. My tactics relied on the assumption that the tower shield put the ball in his court to attack me, and I assure you, things would've be different had I known it was just going to be ignored and the fight would've run much differently. |
| Hrothmund12-19-06, 09:42 PM | @ McJarvis Is there a reason the rewards section of Tweak vs Maelosh is blank? I am really not trying to hurry you or anything. I was just wondering if it was overlooked. Winning in the level 3 league against an opponent with a CR 1 ally is 975 xp/gp, right? |
| Sjiggie12-19-06, 09:47 PM | The rewards section for Zerth vs Rauuul is also blank. Can you please fill them in? The way I see it now Zerth levels up in his next fight and it would be nice to let him fight with the next pairings sice I'm going on a holiday with X-mas and don;t have internet acces then. Thanks |
| McJarvis12-19-06, 11:34 PM | @ McJarvis Is there a reason the rewards section of Tweak vs Maelosh is blank? I am really not trying to hurry you or anything. I was just wondering if it was overlooked. Winning in the level 3 league against an opponent with a CR 1 ally is 975 xp/gp, right? The rewards section for Zerth vs Rauuul is also blank. Can you please fill them in? The way I see it now Zerth levels up in his next fight and it would be nice to let him fight with the next pairings sice I'm going on a holiday with X-mas and don;t have internet acces then. Thanks Rewards posted! sorry for being late |
| waywreth12-19-06, 11:52 PM | I would like to 'request' either a rematch in the Ynotar/Finael fight or some form of ruling towards the match being a draw, and am not really in the mood to budge much (barring Pitlord decree, obviously) on this issue. Just a note - the matches never end in draws. There is always a winner and a loser(s). |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-20-06, 12:19 AM | Would be nice if that was the case, since I'm certain some would prefer that rather than situations such as these. However, since that isn't the case right now, I shall simply 'request' a rematch. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-20-06, 03:54 AM | @my questers MQ's done. @DSugui ????? |
| DSugui12-20-06, 07:59 AM | @Etiquette Gnome: There is no "draw" here in CoCo. one must win, and one must lose. If you gave your character "good defensive tactics", that's useless if you cannot attack. You complain he delayed. He could have shot you every 9 rounds to avoid delay. You had only one set of tactics, with no contingencies, even knowing that your opponent was an archer with superior speed. Sorry, but if you can't foresee your opponents movements, as I pitlord I don't have any obligation to tell you them. As I showed above, you have almost the same chances he did in a ranged combat. The fight will stand as it is. @Mitza, UserNamer: I will not have time to rerun the fight until deadline, and I feel it's unfair just make Montana auto lose. I will request Pitlords to hold over the fight if it's ok by you. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-20-06, 09:41 AM | @Etiquette Gnome: There is no "draw" here in CoCo. one must win, and one must lose. If you gave your character "good defensive tactics", that's useless if you cannot attack. You complain he delayed. He could have shot you every 9 rounds to avoid delay. You had only one set of tactics, with no contingencies, even knowing that your opponent was an archer with superior speed. Sorry, but if you can't foresee your opponents movements, as I pitlord I don't have any obligation to tell you them. As I showed above, you have almost the same chances he did in a ranged combat. The fight will stand as it is. @Mitza, UserNamer: I will not have time to rerun the fight until deadline, and I feel it's unfair just make Montana auto lose. I will request Pitlords to hold over the fight if it's ok by you. Sure...it doesn't make me happy, but it makes me happier than what is up at the moment. Please forward my full list of concerns to whoever gets it next. Addition: Make sure that whoever gets the fight knows to use your set up as well. Montana was edited yesterday, though it does not appear that he fixed any of the errors except the pre-buffs, and he set the character as active for this week. I have PM'd him, and I assume you have as well. He has two other characters in [P] status. I'll try to catch him and explain that he has to fix errors in order to be paired, please try as well. |
| Etiquette_Gnome12-20-06, 11:48 AM | This isn't a matter of me being unable to 'forsee' my opponent's tactics, as I did forsee that attempt, but worked under the knowledge that a tower shield forced the opponent to have to come into melee; which is not apparently not the case and makes the tower shield a pointless piece of equipment if it's going to be treated like this. Here's to hoping you're the only one that does this... |
| nightbanegod12-24-06, 11:46 AM | i built a character that was a half giant fighter type with a towershield, who did fairly well in the arena all things considered. and he used a tower shield, now you could not ready an action to gain full cover, however, if you were to use full cover as a move action/standard action, then be mounted on a horse. not too many people can do much about that.then you do not compromise speed or any issue with being able to close to melee with an opponent while still having most of thier full cover negated, additionally, full cover is only from 1 90° arc. so a fast moving character could simply just circle around far enough where you would only have partial cover. not alot you can do about that. the towershield isnt perfect defense just a fat chunk of shield defense. get it +1 for cheap and have a readily available +9 defense at a moments notice(towershield + partial cover) you cant really complain about that. I don't consider that an appropriate response for this fight. Having us run around in a circle for a minute with nothing happening, then dropping it looks like an ignoring of its use to me; especially since that made sure to negate my use of vigor, which potentially could've influenced the fight. I obtained the tower shield to further protect myself from ranged combat, and having that simply ignored is precedence to more or less negate the point in even having a tower shield if it's going to be treated like this; I don't like being punished because I gave myself good defensive traits. It was his choice to avoid melee combat, as much as it was mine to avoid ranged, but his required active avoidance of me which initiates the delay rule while mine is an added trait WHILE I do everything in my power to move towards him. Basically, I consider this an unfair handling of the fight and do not agree with the outcome as it stands. If there is such a stalemate for this fight, then inform the two combatants so that they can adjust their tactics accordingly rather than arbitrarily (which I consider this to be and disagree with) deciding which side loses. Edit: Another example, what if one character were a relatively slow moving ghost due to a spell with only melee options (or a limited selection of ranged that are countered by the opponent), while the other was a fast moving character where his ranged attacks are non-magical? Does this mean the fast-mover gets to ignore the delay rules and let the incorporeal spell run out its full duration? Edit II: Oh, and just because you changed my tactics is also a valid complaint in this scenario. My tactics relied on the assumption that the tower shield put the ball in his court to attack me, and I assure you, things would've be different had I known it was just going to be ignored and the fight would've run much differently. |
| Erithmu12-24-06, 08:15 PM | K ... in the middle of the fight. I have a mounted character that was just hit to -2 hp. (note this does not end the fight). What are the rules for staying in the saddle after you get put to neg numbers? I know I have seen it but I can't find it. Rule and refernce would be appreciated. |
| MitzaVolchenko12-24-06, 08:54 PM | K ... in the middle of the fight. I have a mounted character that was just hit to -2 hp. (note this does not end the fight). What are the rules for staying in the saddle after you get put to neg numbers? I know I have seen it but I can't find it. Rule and refernce would be appreciated. Wrong week, hon. Saddle, Military A military saddle braces the rider, providing a +2 circumstance bonus on Ride checks related to staying in the saddle. If you’re knocked unconscious while in a military saddle, you have a 75% chance to stay in the saddle (compared to 50% for a riding saddle). |