Post/Author/DateTime	Post
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 10:24 AM	Good morning all. This the thread to discuss this week's fights. Usual rules apply (play nice or else...). The rules of Gladius can be found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=448520). Please take note of the Community Vote (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=552366) thread. Not only is it a place to voice your vote on a particular subject (that has been initiated by Cerebus), it is also a great resource for frequently asked questions. The deadline this week is different because of the various holidays, so the deadline is 7pm GMT, which by my count should be 3 1/2 hours away (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Altaris13 12-29-05, 11:34 AM	Allow me to be the first, I wish you all a happy and safe New Years!
Wind 12-29-05, 11:47 AM	HAPPY NEW 2006 YEAR!!!! May it be wonderful for everyone.
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 01:51 PM	Time is just about up. Even though Pitlords/Cat hasn't shown up yet - if you modify your character after the deadline - then you could be disqualified unless you have a darn good reason. Anyway - stop editing just about now.
NiQil 12-29-05, 02:16 PM	So no sign of Pitlords so far....I'm laying even money odds that Cat doesn't show until 9 pm GMT...
Iced 12-29-05, 02:30 PM	No bet on that one... :D
Snommelp 12-29-05, 02:44 PM	Even odds? No bet. This is my first week playing a druid. To my foe, who ever you are: you're either really lucky or doomed. I'm not sure which yet.
Altaris13 12-29-05, 03:15 PM	Looks like Niqil would've lost his bet. 3:20 est and there's Pitlords. :D I wonder if Cat is going to use the pairings spider this week. I'm itching to see that baby in official use.
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 03:45 PM	In case anyone has been wondering if there's still a shortage of Pitlords, here's a quick breakdown: Level 3 82 total, 41 active = 22 fights Level 4 30 total, 17 active = 9 fights Level 5 30 total, 13 active = 7 fights Level 6 23 total, 6 active = 3 fights Level 7 15 total, 3 active = 2 fights Level 8 11 total, 4 active = 2 fights Level 9 5 total, 0 active = 0 fights ~45 total fights Altaris13 (9°) <max> Begferdeth (19°) <one> Book5 (24°) <two> [Miniquest only] Caterane (115°) <one> Dracazar (44°) <two> Dr.Funk (2°) <one> DTFarstar (14°) <four> Huan (186°) <two> Iced (5°) <max> Kaigan (3°) <one> King Uther (124°) <one> [Miniquest only] Luni (16°) <two> Maraxus (4°) <one> Macbrea (11°) <one> MitzaVolchenko (0°) <three> SauroGrenom (16°) <one> Snommelp (23°) <three> TelinArtho (59°) <max> Usurpator (42°) <one> Vathelokai (14°) <one> Warclone (16°) <three> 28 + 3 miniquest (only) + 3 max In other words, Altaris13, Iced and myself all have our work cut out for us this week...
nightbanegod 12-29-05, 03:46 PM	kudos to all and anyone that wakes up with a headache on newyears day,, just remember... SOME people have to WORK that day... *ahem*...ohh and Tellin ... i could lighten your load by say 1... maybe 2 fights... we shall see what happens but i may have some decent free time come sunday...
NiQil 12-29-05, 03:53 PM	In case anyone has been wondering if there's still a shortage of Pitlords, here's a quick breakdown: ~45 total fights 28 + 3 miniquest (only) + 3 max In other words, Altaris13, Iced and myself all have our work cut out for us this week... Would not surprise me at all to see a few more team, Last Man Standing, and Hunter fights this week...especially at the lower levels.
Altaris13 12-29-05, 03:55 PM	Oh sure, help Telin out, sure, fine, be that way... :D Just kidding. Fortunately, I leave work early tomorrow and don't return until Wednesday. :)
Macbrea 12-29-05, 03:58 PM	Bah, just run a Two Man Team ALL vs ALL fight in some of those leagues. It will speed up the process!
Macbrea 12-29-05, 04:00 PM	Though for sanity sake don't run the Two man Team hunter match. It could get confusing alittle to fast.
Altaris13 12-29-05, 04:05 PM	Actually, I'd rather have 5 1vs1 fights than 2 all vs all or hunter fights. It is easier on the players for tactics, which means the tactics come quicker and are easier to understand.
Usurpator 12-29-05, 04:08 PM	If Cat gives the word, I can increase the frequency with which the pairer does special matches. Still have to build a user interface to make such variables configurable for the one who does the pairings.
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 04:08 PM	Well, remember the number of fights is a pure number of pairings. So if you are set to two fights per week, you might get 2 1-on-1 matches, 1 2-on-2 team match, 1 3-way hunter, 1 4-way hunter, 1 3-way All vs All or 1 4-way All vs All. So regardless of the number of hunter/team/all vs all matches - between Iced, Altaris13 and myself - we'll be juggling ~17 matches. @Nightbanegod - thanks for the offer - but frankly I wouldn't sign up for max matches if I couldn't handle it. I'm more making this point to hopefully drum up more pitlords - because I don't spend my credits very quickly and don't "need" this many fights anymore... /d
Altaris13 12-29-05, 04:15 PM	And just to point out, I'm probably going back to as few fights as possible following this week's pairing. That technically is 0 fights, since I don't have negative credit earnings. But I'll probably still take 1 or 2 a week. Drac's fight template make's it so much more easy for me to run fights, and his map site is just awesome.
NiQil 12-29-05, 04:18 PM	Yeah...we could definitely use more pitlords... I wish I could do it, but I just don't have the time. I have my p&p game all day Saturday, then Sunday is usually reserved for laundry/housework and time with my family. That would leave Friday night, which I could never count on because I can't guarantee tactics would be in by then, or Monday, which doesn't leave me enough time after work to run a fight. That's why I had to stop. I just couldn't keep up. That's kinda why I like the Prisonlord gig....only takes a couple hours of my time each week, and if I stay on top of it during the week, then we're talkin under an hour.
Begferdeth 12-29-05, 04:20 PM	Hey, we should have a New Years Free-For-All, with all the gladiators for each league put in one massive battle :) Whichever Pitlord isnt lucky enough to have a gladiator in that league gets to run that fight. So, everybody, quick and make a lvl 3 gladiator before you gotta run a 84 gladiator free-for-all!
Usurpator 12-29-05, 04:20 PM	For those that want to generate sample pairings: http://www.greyhawk.nl/pairer.php Note that Pitlords are not yet assigned (marked as XXXXX) as per request from Caterane.
Usurpator 12-29-05, 04:21 PM	Hey, we should have a New Years Free-For-All, with all the gladiators for each league put in one massive battle :) Whichever Pitlord isnt lucky enough to have a gladiator in that league gets to run that fight. So, everybody, quick and make a lvl 3 gladiator before you gotta run a 84 gladiator free-for-all! And that lucky ECL 3 Pitlord picks up a load of credits as well.... ;)
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 05:24 PM	Hey NiQil - looks like you've been paired up with Sir Valkin again. Are you ready? @Pitlords - although Faelto was supposed to sit out this week to craft - she'll take the free win versus Maven first...
Pitlords 12-29-05, 05:26 PM	PAIRINGS DONE As you can see there are a lot of Hunter and FFA fights in the ECL 3 league. The reason is that I want to 'bump' some of them faster to the higher leagues to distribute the PCs over more leagues. We'll probably do this again the following week *hinthint* There's also something new: Pitlords must now list all Free Activities in the fight summary; not just the gold-earning skill activities. If someone trains a trick or gathers info to get something from the Blackmarket, it should now appear in the fight summary. The player has to link it like before. Crafting Stuff and Enchanting Magic Items will still be posted by me in the Battles thread (because there's no pitlord for crafting/enchanting). Finally, I want to inform you that I am in the middle of moving to another town. I'm already in my new house but I won't have internet until Jan 2 at best. I'll visit an internet cafe once or twice. I'm sitting in one right now so I cannot access my cool list of special deeds last week, like maps and stories written. Will be posted within the week. That's also the reason why I haven't checked for rematches. If there's one, well, either you tell me within the next hour, or see it as a revenge match. And of course, special thanks to TelinArtho, Iced, and Altaris who are running <max> fights! I'll think about a special reward for <max> pitlords. Ok, that's it for now. Caterane
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 05:34 PM	@Snommelp I haven't received your tactics yet. Are you all right?
Pitlords 12-29-05, 05:38 PM	Help Request: I don't have my DMG with me. What's monster #72 in the ECL 5 league? Kracknol (SauroGrenom) vs <Random Monster>: Vathelokai [Monster]
Altaris13 12-29-05, 05:41 PM	When fighting someone with allies, do you have to destroy all of the allies (even after killing the gladiator) in order to be declared the victor?
lonewolf 12-29-05, 05:43 PM	Has Hennan hired the Merc Trillian Tallbow this week? because he is marked as hired but for last week.
Zevox 12-29-05, 05:44 PM	Help Request: I don't have my DMG with me. What's monster #72 in the ECL 5 league? Kracknol (SauroGrenom) vs <Random Monster>: Vathelokai [Monster] If I've found the correct tables (never used these before), 1d4+1 Vargouilles. Zevox
lonewolf 12-29-05, 05:48 PM	If I've found the correct tables (never used these before), 1d4+1 Vargouilles. Zevox where did you find them? I seem to be blind ...
Zevox 12-29-05, 05:52 PM	where did you find them? I seem to be blind ... DMG page 79. Zevox
NiQil 12-29-05, 06:09 PM	@ Altaris: Tactics for Caspian MacLeod sent via PM. @ TelinArtho: Tactics for Kronos MacLeod sent via PM. @ Warclone: Tactics for Methos MacLeod sent via PM. @ SauroGrenom: Tactics for Silas MacLeod sent via PM.
Altaris13 12-29-05, 06:24 PM	@ Altaris: Tactics for Caspian MacLeod sent via PM. Rcvd.
Ravashack 12-29-05, 06:28 PM	PMed tactics to SauroGrenom.
Dracazar 12-29-05, 06:30 PM	Two issues: 1. Dracazar is listed to pitlord <two> fights but it seems that I got only one. No problem, but if TelinArtho and Altaris needs help remember that you could give me a fight. 2. Uilo should craft two items this week (as in the title of the character), but it was paired for a All vs All fight. No problem, Uilo will craft next week and will do the fight this week. But remember that she doesn't have the two items in her equipment. I'll inform the Warclone (the pitlord) of this. Perhaps this happened because the pitlord said that the druid can't craft one of the two items, the Brooch (it seems a CoCo houserule). Edit: also Shaz is still listed in the quest roster even if the 3 weeks quest is complete, so Pitlord can remove it. Shaz was paired so there is no problem, I just report for accuracy.
Dracazar 12-29-05, 06:33 PM	Drac's fight template make's it so much more easy for me to run fights, and his map site is just awesome. Thank you Altaris, I'm happy that you like it, I would appreciate your ideas to improve it (besides the LoS feature).
NiQil 12-29-05, 06:45 PM	Hey NiQil - looks like you've been paired up with Sir Valkin again. Are you ready? @Pitlords - although Faelto was supposed to sit out this week to craft - she'll take the free win versus Maven first... Yep....and I think I actually have a good shot for a change. Time to get off the schnide and stop my losing streak to that stupid nag....and Foreman too. :D
King Uther 12-29-05, 06:59 PM	@Maraxus Tactics for Ajora vs Thwap sent via PM.
waywreth 12-29-05, 07:00 PM	When fighting someone with allies, do you have to destroy all of the allies (even after killing the gladiator) in order to be declared the victor? No you do not have to kill the allies. In fact most often try to avoid or ignore them. Also: @Macbrea - Tactics for Fallon sent @Luni - Tactics for Gaston sent
MitzaVolchenko 12-29-05, 07:13 PM	I prefer tactics PM'd, and as this is my first run at pitlording here, I will try to get those fights done and up by Saturday night. Anyone in one of those fights please review them as quickly as possible so that I can go back and make necessary corrections. Be patient with me, I have been out of the loop for a while and am going to be snail's pacing them as it is. *grumbles something about hating to have to write tactics for Hunter and pair fights first time out and starts arranging her desktop to accomodate fight running with ease after burning a small cone of incense in thanks to the Firefox Gods*
^Rayne^ 12-29-05, 07:15 PM	Tactics for Krayko's All vs All battle PMed to Huan.
Altaris13 12-29-05, 07:23 PM	Thank you Altaris, I'm happy that you like it, I would appreciate your ideas to improve it (besides the LoS feature). Hey now, pitlording for Gorak two weeks in a row. Macbrea likes to right his (her?) tactics in a wierd way. It is kind of refreshing. :P @Drac: I would make suggestions, but haven't had any. :) You really did an awesome job. The thanks all go to you.
Gonbow 12-29-05, 07:38 PM	Hmm. Lortavos is marked Active, but was not paired... So I think he takes the place of the Vargouiles, eh?
Zevox 12-29-05, 08:27 PM	I really wish one of my guys was ECL4+ about now... I'm finding I hate multi-foe matches. Ah well. @ DTFarstar - Tactics for Destra sent via PM (they fit in one PM this time ;) ). I'll probably have tactics for Sir Alboreth sometime tomorrow (his is my first hunter fight, I want to consider carefully what I'll have him do). Zevox
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 08:56 PM	@ TelinArtho: Tactics for Kronos MacLeod sent via PM. Received Yep....and I think I actually have a good shot for a change. Time to get off the schnide and stop my losing streak to that stupid nag....and Foreman too. Well, it definitely is going to be one of his tougher matches - let's see how we do...
Kaigan 12-29-05, 09:43 PM	Hmm. Lortavos is marked Active, but was not paired... So I think he takes the place of the Vargouiles, eh? He is on a quest, no?
Snommelp 12-29-05, 10:05 PM	Has Hennan hired the Merc Trillian Tallbow this week? because he is marked as hired but for last week. No. He hired her last week. I guess the merc roster just wasn't updated.
Luni 12-29-05, 10:16 PM	Quick Question: What happens if their isn't enough room in the starting box for a gladiator and allies? Specifically the hunter map. Some starting boxes are larger than others, and I don't think my pitlord wants 2 sets of tactics. eg. If I start in A or B bring these allies, if I start in C or D bring these allies.
Book5 12-29-05, 10:32 PM	@Nightbanegod - thanks for the offer - but frankly I wouldn't sign up for max matches if I couldn't handle it. I'm more making this point to hopefully drum up more pitlords - because I don't spend my credits very quickly and don't "need" this many fights anymore... /d Yeah! Cmon everybody! PITLORDING IS EASY ... :smirk: Really one fight a week shouldnt strain anyone that much. My goal is to be able to pitlord 2 fights a week, and be available for a quest and/champaign eventually as well. I have actually been thinking that questlording would be easier than pitlording.. instead of one massive thing its bits and peices that build up into something.. anyway. @Dr. Funk;Dracazar;DTFarstar;TelinArtho - Promted! @Begferdeth - tactics sent Tan man is up against an undefeated druid!! Im gonna get creamed.. especially if Kreagin uses the tactics .. I would use for his character!
Ariel23 12-29-05, 10:54 PM	Can someone please link to the Hunter Map and whichever map is used for free for alls? I.e., any arena battles which do not use the default map. Thanks!
Zevox 12-29-05, 11:03 PM	They're in the same place as the other arena maps (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5179891). Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 12-29-05, 11:04 PM	Maps (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5179891) @Luni Zwei's tactics sent @Dracazar Sybil's tactics sent @Macbrea Mektos' tactics received @Snommelp Hennan's tactics received @Telin Delaria's tactics received @Altaris Thelgar's tactics received
TelinArtho 12-29-05, 11:08 PM	I've sent tactics for everyone: Iced - you should be receiving 3 sets (Ana, Kraegin and Daeren) Snommelp - Felan's Mitzo - I see you've already received that one Altaris - tactics for Sir Valkin vs another NiQil character Book5 - tactics for Ural sent. I have received (finally - I had to wait almost 3 hours...) Snommelp's tactics for Sam and NiQil's tactics for Khronos. That fight will be the first run when I get the chance - probably tomorrow if I get the time.
Luni 12-29-05, 11:10 PM	@Wayreth and Mitza: Tactics received. @Iced: Uhhh. Expect them tomorrow. Probably be 2-3 PM's. It is going to be a complicated fight
Snommelp 12-30-05, 12:30 AM	Oh yeah... by the way, tactics for my gladiators have been sent. @ MitzaVolchenko: your character, Sybil, seems slightly familiar... I swear I've seen something like that before... blonde bard with golden eyes... where have I seen that before? Gimme a minute, I'm sure it will come to me... Meh, I'll figure it out later. What do you say next week you team her up with my bard Hennan to fight against another team that's ECL 3 and 5? It could be fun! We'd have to find opponents, though.
TheMagister 12-30-05, 02:11 AM	@Iced - tactics for Sdentch in her all-but-hopeless All vs. All vs. two casters* sent via PM. Congratulations on your Quest Completion! (Sorry it was late!) TM *Edit: two "save-or-die" casters (sigh) tm
Kaigan 12-30-05, 02:35 AM	Tactics Sent: Tactics for Rethun sent to Iced via PM. Tactics for Feradeth sent to DTFarstar via PM. Tactics for Gundir sent to Begferdeth via PM. Tactics for Rayos sent to Iced via PM. Tactics Received: Tactics for Savour Die not received from Warclone. Tactics for The Bounty Hunter not received from Nightbanegod.
Vathelokai 12-30-05, 03:14 AM	Help Request: I don't have my DMG with me. What's monster #72 in the ECL 5 league? Kracknol (SauroGrenom) vs <Random Monster>: Vathelokai [Monster] If I've found the correct tables (never used these before), 1d4+1 Vargouilles. Hmm. Lortavos is marked Active, but was not paired... So I think he takes the place of the Vargouiles, eh? He {Lortavos} is on a quest, no? Seems there is a problem. I will be PMing all involved parties and straighening this out.
Vathelokai 12-30-05, 04:30 AM	Felan Turok (TelinArtho) vs Hassan Sabbah (Vathelokai): Snommelp Ah... a grudge match. This should be interesting.
Iced 12-30-05, 05:03 AM	Fights: Sven (TroubleWolf) => Rethun (Kaigan) => Jonathon (Abyssal Stalker) => Anakala (TelinArtho): Iced [Hunter] Dameon (Huan) vs Kraegin (TelinArtho) vs Sdentch (TheMagister): Iced [All vs All] Talari (Luni) => Daeren (TelinArtho) => Rayos (Kaigan): Iced [Hunter] Received: Tactics for Rayos -Kaigan Tactics for Rethun -Kaigan Sdentch vs. Dameon and Draegin -TheMagister Anakala's tactics for hunter fight -TelinArtho Daeren's tactics in hunter fight -TelinArtho [ECL 8] Hunter Battle -Luni Tactics for Kraegin vs Sdentch and Dameon -TelinArtho Not Received: Sven (TroubleWolf) Jonathon (Abyssal Stalker) Dameon (Huan) I have alot on my plate this week I need those Tactics ASAP. I'll be running the EL8 fight tomorrow, expect it later that night. [begin praying for victory]@Warclone - Tactics for Marcos the Black's All vs All fight vs 2 skull-crushing meleers and 1 flame-throwing druid sent.[/end praying for victory] :shifty:
DTFarstar 12-30-05, 06:00 AM	Sent: Darius (to Book5) Received : Feradeth (Kaigan), and Destra (Zevox) Waiting : Javel (xvthreetwoonevx), Almaar (emeraldstreak), Trixie (Ariel23), Sir Alboreth (Zevox), Weiniete (Skojar), and Drac (Dracazar) Will run the All vs. All and Hunter Saturday if I can, I'm sure I'll screw something up. So, Tactics within 24 hours if at all possible, please.
Vathelokai 12-30-05, 08:16 AM	Tactics for Hassan sent... It's funny, I feel so much less sure of Hassan without Ch'ch'ili backing him up.
Altaris13 12-30-05, 08:40 AM	@Mitzo: Thanks for confirmation. Good luck to Telin & his Delaria. And good luck to my Thelgar if those elementals get a hold of me. Thank goodness for fly. ;-p @Telin: rcvd tactics for Sir Valkin. Since that's the first pair of tactics rcvd, I'll get that fight up first, probably tomorrow. @Sauro: tactics rcvd for Raskos @Macbrea: in case I forgot to mention it yesterday, I got your tactics for Gorak. @TM: Thanks for the offer, but I'm good.
Erithmu 12-30-05, 10:30 AM	@Warclone: tactics for Loddick sent Via Email --Loddick vs Uilo vs Marcos vs Jecht @MitzaVolchenko: Tactics for Sola sent Via PM --Sola vs Mektos @Iced: not the week to make a spellcaster me thinks. With all the FFA and Hunter fights.
Luni 12-30-05, 12:29 PM	@Iced Tactics sent. I think you got a question from me earlier than my tactics.
Zevox 12-30-05, 12:33 PM	@ DTFarstar - Tatics for Sir Alboreth sent for the hunter fight. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 12-30-05, 12:52 PM	@iced: tactics sent for Jonathon @altaris13: tactics sent for Manzarf
Dracazar 12-30-05, 12:57 PM	@Book5: Cher's tactic sent @Warclone: Uilo's tactic sent @DTFarstar: Drac's tactic sent @Dr.Funk: Shaz's tactic sent @Greezer: Grasshopper's tactic NOT received @MindWandererB: Aerryl's tactic NOT received @MitzaVolchenko: Sybil's tactic received @Snommelp: Amaryllis's tactic received
Begferdeth 12-30-05, 01:10 PM	Ive got all the tactics for my fight now... Ill probably start it tomorrow nite. Gah! Thats New Years Eve! What am I saying? Ummm... Ill have em done by Monday :)
Altaris13 12-30-05, 01:31 PM	@altaris13: tactics sent for Manzarf Rcvd.
Ariel23 12-30-05, 01:46 PM	They're in the same place as the other arena maps (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=5179891). Zevox Thanks. See, I was going to Core Coliseum Maps (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=249853) which is just a hodgepodge of maps, except for the standard map (and it even has two of those). Nothing about hunting or free for alls. I should have posted that link before for comparison.
Snommelp 12-30-05, 01:48 PM	Tactics for Hassan sent... It's funny, I feel so much less sure of Hassan without Ch'ch'ili backing him up. Got 'em. Both sets of tactics received for this fight, but I'm having company over tonight to play cards, so the fight will probably be up early tomorrow (early because I'm not spending New Year's Eve night running CoCo fights!).
Ayrynthyn 12-30-05, 01:49 PM	@Altaris... Talik's tactics sent via PM @Telin... Instacio's Tactics sent by PM
Iced 12-30-05, 02:03 PM	Well, I said earlier you could probably expect my first fight up tonight, but I may not have time to get it done as I won't have computer access for alot of today. Either it's going to be late tonight/really early tomorrow morning or just tomorrow. ~Iced
Altaris13 12-30-05, 02:49 PM	@Altaris... Talik's tactics sent via PM Rcvd.
Gonbow 12-30-05, 02:51 PM	Re: Lortavos and such. Eep, I am on a quest. I was confused because the quest was slated to start next week; this week works as well I suppose, though I didn't have a chance to change Lortavos' equipment for questing... Sorry for the confusion everyone :)
emeraldstreak 12-30-05, 05:17 PM	@ DTFarstar: Tactics for Almaar sent.
Mal-2 12-30-05, 05:30 PM	@Dr. Funk: Tactics for Donak sent via PM @Dracazar: I'd just like to say thank you for the very easy to read character sheet for Shaz. I particularly appreciate you listing the range and save on your powerstones. It saved me from trying to look them up, which always eats up a bunch of time.
MindWandererB 12-30-05, 06:21 PM	@TelinArtho and Dracazar: Tactics sent via PM. I'm just a little irritated at the decision to make everything this week an FFA or Hunter battle. Sure, it results in greater XP per person, on average, but now 75% of character battle histories will be losses. Power calculations will be shot. And hunter battles really need to be tweaked--they're no easier or cheaper than FFAs, but the rewards are much less. It really sucks to draw that straw.
TroubleWolf 12-30-05, 07:06 PM	Not Received:[/B] Sven (TroubleWolf) Sent. Sorry, I didn't have time to work on them at work, had to wait until I got home.
NightBreeze 12-30-05, 07:11 PM	@Luni: Tactics sent, i forgot to remind you of my talents @TelinArtho: Tactics sent, i forgot to remind you of my dodge and to say: use stunning fist.
Warclone 12-30-05, 07:11 PM	@Maraxus: Tactics sent @Kaigan: Tactics sent @Huan: Tactics sent
TelinArtho 12-30-05, 07:31 PM	Re: Lortavos and such. Eep, I am on a quest. I was confused because the quest was slated to start next week; this week works as well I suppose, though I didn't have a chance to change Lortavos' equipment for questing... Sorry for the confusion everyone :) So is the quest still standing then? I kind of anticipated the unreadiness (since I wasn't prepared myself) - so you'll have the opportunity to purchase items during the quest if you like. In any case, assuming it is still going on - go ahead and post to the Silver Acorn quest that was started last night.
Usurpator 12-30-05, 07:44 PM	@TelinArtho and Dracazar: Tactics sent via PM. I'm just a little irritated at the decision to make everything this week an FFA or Hunter battle. Sure, it results in greater XP per person, on average, but now 75% of character battle histories will be losses. Power calculations will be shot. And hunter battles really need to be tweaked--they're no easier or cheaper than FFAs, but the rewards are much less. It really sucks to draw that straw. The new power rating system I proposed and Cat implemented for the Hunter battles solves part of your problem. I'll take a look at the All-vs-All power calculation as well, since Kitaya is involved in one, and I'd hate her to catapult across the leagues without building up a decent power rating, partially why I proposed the alternate hunter battle power calculation the last time. As for the rewards, yeah, Hunter battles do give less reward, but it is not that big of a difference and the rewards system does have a certain elegance. Oh, and @Huan: tactics sent for Kitaya
Luni 12-30-05, 07:47 PM	@Luni: Tactics sent, i forgot to remind you of my talents. Got them.
Book5 12-30-05, 08:18 PM	@ my gladiators - tactics recieved. The forcast looks to include a light prefight post on saturday and heavy fight action late sunday, possibly early, possibly as late as first thing on monday. *Book5 five does another little happy dance about the dynamap!*
Huan 12-30-05, 11:02 PM	@Warclone, ^Rayne^,Usurpator Tactics for Solomon, Krayko, and Kitaya (respectively) received, thank you. @Iced Tactics for Dameon Emailed, not PMed.
MysticMonk2005 12-31-05, 02:16 AM	@snommelp: Lissa's tactics sent via PM
MitzaVolchenko 12-31-05, 03:30 AM	I agree with the dislike for the FFA fights and hunter fights as writing proper tactics for them is impossible in my case...too much variance in opponents to be efficient. I wouldn't mind running them as it is almost easier than following two people around a giant arena with both of them playing stealth assassin peek-a-boo ;) In other news: @Erithmu Sola's tactics received @lonewolf Karen's tactics received That means I have all tactics for my trio and will try to get all three fights up within 24 hours. I am still having arguments with those silly dice rollers, but I have no doubt when I wake up they will be behaving in a more logical fashion. Morituri te salutamus.
Dracazar 12-31-05, 05:29 AM	still waiting Grasshopper's tactic from Greezer to start my All vs All...
Huan 12-31-05, 10:55 AM	@Papapeperoni Tactics for Kendal still not received yet, but I will be going to work soon, so you may send it anytime today (but don't wait too long!).
TelinArtho 12-31-05, 11:42 AM	Tactics received for Kronos and Sam (first fight to be run) Tactics received for Ivangar, Instacio and Zadder - missing tactics for Electric Smurf (Greezer) Tactics received for Evaines, Tsiuzues, and Bolrak - missing tactics for Aragorn (Katana).
Snommelp 12-31-05, 01:35 PM	Tactics received for All vs. All fight. Depending on how fast the other fight goes, I may get to it today.
Macbrea 12-31-05, 04:11 PM	Kimahri Ronso (Dr.Funk) vs Fallon Dar'ath (waywreth) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8124318&postcount=909) is up.
Dr. Funk 12-31-05, 05:04 PM	in Kimahri vs Fallon my 1st sunder attack hit because tie goes to the highest modifier Kimarhi charges and attempts to sunder Fallons bow. Power attack (4). 18 vs 18, Tie not sunder) also the hardness for a deep crystal bow is 10 not 12 Kimarhi takes a 5ft step away from the archer and attempts to sunder the bow. (Power attack 4) 30 vs 23, Damage: 19 - 12 = 7 damage last thing the hp for deep crystal is 30 per 1inch of thinkness and the bow is 1/2 inch so it would be 15hp im still glad i won and if you need to change other things change this too please
MindWandererB 12-31-05, 05:24 PM	in Kimahri vs Fallon my 1st sunder attack hit because tie goes to the highest modifierI believe that's true only for initiative checks, opposed skill checks, and grapple checks. For special opposed attack options other than grapple, tie goes to the defender.
TelinArtho 12-31-05, 06:15 PM	I believe that's true only for initiative checks, opposed skill checks, and grapple checks. For special opposed attack options other than grapple, tie goes to the defender. I disagree - as this has been the case in a number of fights thus far, but I have to admit - I can't find a particular instance to correct - so for now I'll just disagree. In any case however, the roll shouldn't have been a tie since the pitlord forgot to include Kimahri's +4 to Sunder from his improved sunder feat.
Luni 12-31-05, 06:20 PM	I believe that's true only for initiative checks, opposed skill checks, and grapple checks. For special opposed attack options other than grapple, tie goes to the defender. Hrm. I can't find anything to back up that statement MindwandererB. I believe it works as Dr. Funk described, but I can't find anything about ties in the entire combat section.
Macbrea 12-31-05, 06:42 PM	You must beat the roll as per the sunder rules. Step 3 Consequences. If you beat the defender, roll damage and deal it to the weapon or shield. See Table: Common Armor, Weapon, and Shield Hardness and Hit Points to determine how much damage you must deal to destroy the weapon or shield. Magic Armor, Shields, and Weapons Each +1 of enhancement bonus adds 2 to the hardness of armor, a weapon, or a shield and +10 to the item’s hit points. The Deep crystal Long Composite Bow +1 is a magic weapon. Hardness 10 + 2 = 12 HPS: 15 (1/2 inch) + 10 = 25
Huan 12-31-05, 06:58 PM	@Papapeperoni Tactics for Kendal recived, thank you. I will start my All vs All tonight, though when it comes close to ring in the new year, there is no guarantee I'll finish tonight. @All Happy New Year!
Sindorin 12-31-05, 08:49 PM	Wasn't there supposed to be a second quest w/ EHTC+PSI starting this week? Oh well. Happy New Year!
MitzaVolchenko 12-31-05, 09:11 PM	Thelgar vs Delaria is up. Be gentle, it has been a loooong time and the silly board coding drives me batso. I will probably run through Mektos vs Sola tonight as well.
TheMagister 12-31-05, 09:36 PM	Hey, Warclone! Why didn't you have Methos tap his tattoo of Force Screen on LOS? I didn't look at the rolls too closely, but +4 AC helps a lot! TM
SoulLord 12-31-05, 09:49 PM	Logs in to see who Vandelar is paired against. oops seems poor vandelar (my only active character) didn't get paired this week, not surprising since we seem to have a pitlord shortage. Once I get an internet conection at my new home I'll try to help by pitlording again. Quick question since Vandelar didn't get paired this week does that mean that he also doesn't earn money by clockmaking? (his free activity)
Warclone 12-31-05, 10:33 PM	Hey, Warclone! Why didn't you have Methos tap his tattoo of Force Screen on LOS? I didn't look at the rolls too closely, but +4 AC helps a lot! TM Good call, I missed that one. However, it would expire. I kept the rounds going consecutively because there was no reason not to, but the sudden death would only occur after a 10 round delay. That said, I'll modify it to account for the above.
Warclone 12-31-05, 10:43 PM	First Horseman (Nightbanegod) vs Methos MacLeod (NiQil): Warclone is up.
Luni 12-31-05, 10:45 PM	First Horseman (Nightbanegod) vs Methos MacLeod (NiQil): Warclone is up. Only thing that comes to mind is inconsistent ruling of Tower shields. Some Pitlords say a ready action to hide behind cover is illegal, and others say it is legal.
Snommelp 12-31-05, 10:47 PM	Only thing that comes to mind is inconsistent ruling of Tower shields. Some Pitlords say a ready action to hide behind cover is illegal, and others say it is legal. It's a standard action to set the tower shield for cover, so logically it should be an action you can ready. Unless someone else argues otherwise, I'll add this to the WAR FAQ.
Luni 12-31-05, 10:49 PM	It's a standard action to set the tower shield for cover, so logically it should be an action you can ready. Unless someone else argues otherwise, I'll add this to the WAR FAQ. But, we have the silly thing saying you can't ready an action to dodge an attack. You could say that readying a tower shield for total cover is dodging an attack.
Macbrea 12-31-05, 10:50 PM	Only thing that comes to mind is inconsistent ruling of Tower shields. Some Pitlords say a ready action to hide behind cover is illegal, and others say it is legal. From rules of the gladius: * You cannot take a free 5ft step as part of your ready action. * A ready action must be specifically defined. There must be a concrete trigger and a concrete action. * A ready action must be a basic non-exotic action. * You cannot ready to dodge an incomming attack.
Snommelp 12-31-05, 10:53 PM	But, we have the silly thing saying you can't ready an action to dodge an attack. You could say that readying a tower shield for total cover is dodging an attack. The rules have failed us. In that case, it comes down to a vote, I guess. Cat, would you be so kind as to open an Elder poll so that the elders can vote on this issue?
DTFarstar 12-31-05, 10:58 PM	OK, last chance, I'm running the fights when I get home tonight and tommorrow. Javel (xvthreetwoonevx) I am still missing your tactics. I need them ASAP.
Snommelp 12-31-05, 10:59 PM	First Horseman (Nightbanegod) vs Methos MacLeod (NiQil): Warclone is up. One problem I see with the fight: NiQil asked to have Methos try to move around the tower shield. Whether or not you knew it wouldn't work, it's in his tactics, so you should have tried it. Wait, I see another problem: your "sudden death arena" is in this instance a biased arena; it highly favored the Horseman. The arena itself is supposed to be favorable to both, but your shrinking sudden death land severly hurt Methos, who wanted to fight from a distance. Since Methos should be trying to attack while the Horseman is just sitting there (according to their tactics), the 10 round rule should punish the Horseman but not Methos. This means no shrinking Arena.
Warclone 12-31-05, 11:00 PM	The rules have failed us. In that case, it comes down to a vote, I guess. Cat, would you be so kind as to open an Elder poll so that the elders can vote on this issue? In the house rules, they say you can't ready an action to dodge an attack. They obviously dont mean dodge as in moving your character out of the way, because that's dodge AC. So they must mean dodge as in the metaphorical way, in which case it would mean readying an action to avoid an attack entierly that your opponent can't account for because he's not playing. In this case, readying to block with a tower shield would be prohibited, in my opinion.
Warclone 12-31-05, 11:02 PM	Only thing that comes to mind is inconsistent ruling of Tower shields. Some Pitlords say a ready action to hide behind cover is illegal, and others say it is legal. According to the WoTC website, tower shield have been changed. It is now a standard action to take cover behind it every round, and it only provides cover in an 180 degree arc.
Snommelp 12-31-05, 11:02 PM	In the house rules, they say you can't ready an action to dodge an attack. They obviously dont mean dodge as in moving your character out of the way, because that's dodge AC. So they must mean dodge as in the metaphorical way, in which case it would mean readying an action to avoid an attack entierly that your opponent can't account for because he's not playing. In this case, readying to block with a tower shield would be prohibited, in my opinion. But the problem, Warclone, is that it can only be opinion; my personal opinion is that readying to dodge away from your opponent means readying to run away. The rules are currently vague; they need to be made clearer.
Luni 12-31-05, 11:13 PM	But the problem, Warclone, is that it can only be opinion; my personal opinion is that readying to dodge away from your opponent means readying to run away. The rules are currently vague; they need to be made clearer. Agreed. The COCO ready rule specifications need to be made more clear. At one point we were arguing if casting spells was considered an attack. eg If he starts to cast a spell, run behind total cover. Personally, I'm against readying tower shields as total cover. But that is just me! Ashhûr vs Amion: (http://boards.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7535933) Oct 19/2005. Tower shield can't be readied as total cover: Huan
Warclone 12-31-05, 11:34 PM	I agree, its one thing to argue about the RAW, its another thing to argue about a houserule that we can change. I am also against readying a tower shield.
King Uther 01-01-06, 12:16 AM	@Sindorin I didn't see the quest listed so I assumed everyone got paired. I'll start up the quest thread now, but if it doesn't take off the official starting week will be next pairing.
MitzaVolchenko 01-01-06, 12:18 AM	The problem with the house rule is that it is written using a combat term. Setting a shield in no way resembles dodging. However readying to set a shield and turtling may be considered not engaging your foe and therefor a delay of game. By the same token the person refusing to move in to negate cover is likewise delay of game. In the case of this fight, I would agree with Macbrea's idea that he and I discussed...who has food in their pack? Neither? Water? Neither of them on that either...looks like the first one to lose the starvation rolls dies. An alternative to that might be the crowd chanting for blood causing the pitlords to bring in some nice hungry Dire Lions to shake things up. Honestly since neither had tactics to cover a refusal to engage it is a double loss as both in effect surrendered to each other.
Snommelp 01-01-06, 01:15 AM	Honestly since neither had tactics to cover a refusal to engage it is a double loss as both in effect surrendered to each other.Actually, as I mentioned earlier, Methos should have been attempting to get a shot in for at least a round or two. That puts TFH breaking the 10 round rule, but not Methos. Also mentioned earlier, I am opposed to the "sudden death zone." It forced Methos closer, effectively rewarding TFH for going over the ten round limit. Personally, I would have given TFH a non-damaging shock that would force him forward a square each round after the 10 that he didn't move.
Warclone 01-01-06, 02:21 AM	With a shock that moved TFH forward, the only thing that would happen is that Met would move backwards. They would go in circles for infinity. In my opinion, both of them were delaying equally: in fact, TFH is the only one with any tactics AT ALL. Every single sentence in Met's tactics was either moot or illegal, effectively giving me 0 tactics. Actually, I am very partial to the starvation rule. In my opinion, they both failed miserably in the tactics department, and a unique, comedic, and embarrassing death would have fit. But the game is done: maybe I'll do starvation next time.
NiQil 01-01-06, 05:03 AM	With a shock that moved TFH forward, the only thing that would happen is that Met would move backwards. They would go in circles for infinity. In my opinion, both of them were delaying equally: in fact, TFH is the only one with any tactics AT ALL. Every single sentence in Met's tactics was either moot or illegal, effectively giving me 0 tactics. Actually, I am very partial to the starvation rule. In my opinion, they both failed miserably in the tactics department, and a unique, comedic, and embarrassing death would have fit. But the game is done: maybe I'll do starvation next time. Ok.....WTF? There is so much wrong with this fight it isn't even funny. Ok, first off....let me address your comments at the end of the fights regarding tactics. If you are not going to do your duty as pitlord to address any tactics concerns before the fight starts...especially if you think that tactics are illegal (which none of mine were), then you need to turn the fight over to someone who will. That is totally unfair to all parties concerned. Secondly, your ten round delay penalty is completely ludicrious. Have you ever seen *any fight run here that had something like that? I haven't. Thirdly, since you invoked the 10 round rule (which you shouldn't have, but I'll get to that in a minute), the rule will not affect both of us. Since TFH was first in initiative, he would be the first one affected by any 10 round delay penalty, not simultaneously as you have had take place here. Fourthly, since THF's tactics only specify to charge once I am in range, which would cause him to drop his tower shield, as soon as he did so and attacked, he no longer has that cover. Why, in T plus 6, did I not take a 5 ft step to stow the bow and avoid an AoO? Or withdraw, as per my tactics of being in melee range, and return fire next round? He now has no cover from the shield, and is wide open to arrow attacks in successive rounds. Totally against my tactics there. Withdrawing, as per my tactics, puts me out of his charge range, and open to arrow attacks the following round. Your "shrinking arena" does not prevent me from moving around the arena, regardless of what you may think. A 10 round penalty cannot alter the arena makeup. All it can do is nudge one character or another into a position where they will have to change what they are doing. Fifthly, why am I attacking from prone? Why did I not try to stand up and do so? Any AoO I take would only deal damage, and not prevent me from standing up. In round t Plus 9, you have me taking an AoO due drinking a potion. Hello, 5 ft step, where are you? Sixthly, a readied action can only trigger when the action that causes it occurs. So if you have me standing there not shooting, that means that THF is going to sit there for 10 rounds yelling, and I am going to be moving around for 10 rounds trying to negate his cover. I think that readying total cover is totally against the readying rules, but even if they are allowed, what would happen here is that you would have lots of rounds where I blow all my arrows, and then we would be forced into melee combat. The 10 round rule would never apply. There needs to be a complete rerun of this fight. This whole death arena bit is just pure crap. I'm sorry....I can't call it anything else. There is so much wrong with this fight it isn't even funny. If you aren't going to do it, then I am going to ask an elder, or someone else, to do it instead. I can't even imagine how you think this fight is acceptable on any level. If you aren't going to take your responsibilities as a pitlord seriously, then you need to stop pitlording. Part of the pitlording duties is to get clarification on any questionable tactics. If you thought all of my tactics were illegal (which they aren't), then why no PM? It's not like you didn't have time...these tactics were out a couple of hours after pairings where done. In short, if this fight stands as-is, I will not be participating any more in this arena. To let something like this stand is complete unfathomable to me. This really comes across as you not wanting to really do the fight, and looking for some way to get out of it. I really hope that's not the case....but I see no other reason for what you have done here. If this were a simple matter of errors not getting fixed that were fight affecting, as much as I would not like it, I could at least accept that if they were not fixed and I took a loss. But to take a loss in a fashion such as this, where there was obviously no effort put into this fight on your part, is complete unacceptable. I apologize if this all sounds harsh, but there's no way I can sugarcoat this one.
TheMagister 01-01-06, 05:32 AM	@Niqil - You're ticked, and I understand why (I didn't like it either), but tossing around ultimatums isn't going to help. Why would you let one person's bad running of a battle (that really isn't THAT important in the grand scheme of things) ruin your day like this? I'm certain that an Elder (or anyone, really) would grant you a rerun or a change of venue here. Chill out, man. It's the New Year! TM
NiQil 01-01-06, 06:00 AM	@Niqil - You're ticked, and I understand why (I didn't like it either), but tossing around ultimatums isn't going to help. Why would you let one person's bad running of a battle (that really isn't THAT important in the grand scheme of things) ruin your day like this? I'm certain that an Elder (or anyone, really) would grant you a rerun or a change of venue here. Chill out, man. It's the New Year! TM <shrug> I shoot from the hip. Maybe it was a little strong, but I've never been one to pull punches. It's not ruining my day in the least...and I am sure what I said seems like a childish ultimatum just to get my way. Far from it, however. I said that, because, in my view, if something like this is allowed to stand....which I will readily grant you that I am both hopeful and guessing that it won't....then that tells me that not only would be getting the shaft from the pitlord, but that also, no one cared enough to address the issue. Do I think that will happen? No. There are tons of people here that I think will address this....heck, many did before I ever saw the fight...and I'm thankful to them for that. But if the above scenerio *did play out like that, then, as I said, it would show me that it wasn't really important enough to anyone to address, and would go a long way to showing me what this place is all about. Again...I don't see that happening by any stretch....but, in my view, it had to be said. I'm not gonna pull punches...I'll always express what I'm thinking if I feel it is pertinent to the issue. I'd hate to go, but I was raised on that whole 'due unto others' philosophy, and this goes to the heart of it.
Dracazar 01-01-06, 06:01 AM	Last call for Grasshopper's tactic from Greezer I will run a 3-AllvsAll...
Macbrea 01-01-06, 08:34 AM	Actually, most of us would have objected to being sent to an ever shrinking arena. As Mektos, if that occured I would ask the pitlord just to surrender as the situation would be unfair to the tiny creature. I would personally turn around and ask for a rerun of the fight. I don't believe movement of the combat to another location should be allowed within the rules. There is a reason I originally stated the Sleep, Starvation and Thirst rules for individuals that don't ever want to approach each other and are unable to effect each other from range. This gives the advantage to those that bought constitution or endurance or wasted the money on a ring of sustance and food. Those are items that were in the control of the player when they made the character. Yes, it would be boring for the audience and they would probably walk out. But reducing the size of the arena to allow the melee warrior type to get a charge doesn't help. I only pisses the combatants off. There should be another rule probably in the Rules of Gladius that states "Any fight that lasts longer then one hour is a draw. With each combatant getting (Winner share/2)." This would mean if the Pitlord comes to a spot where this scene would have happened they would be allowed to move forward to the one hour mark and end the fight as draw.
waywreth 01-01-06, 11:50 AM	Kimahri Ronso (Dr.Funk) vs Fallon Dar'ath (waywreth) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8124318&postcount=909) is up. @Macbrea: Thanks for running the fight, but I just noticed force screen. It's all set.
TelinArtho 01-01-06, 11:51 AM	@Mitza - nothing to say about the fight - I knew I didn't have much of a chance. The only issue for me to bring up is the rewards - Delaria did not make money this week from being a diplomat because she scribed scrolls. Of course, had I given it more thought - I can definitely come up with a better tactic... I just didn't.
nightbanegod 01-01-06, 12:21 PM	ok people my bad.. i noticed in my tactics that i forgot to use single move actions to close with him. that would have ment that there would have been no delay counter against TFH ... however i do have a strong issue with people attempting to negate the entire purpose of the towershield... it clearly says in the PHB it can give you cover. if its only for a 180° arc thats good enough to negate against one person.. and a house rule that apparently is in place that makes the enire functionality of an item is cleary unfair to those who wish to use said item.. the drawbacks to using a tower shield are a hard enough penalty to deal with... no running or charging as well as a -2 on all attacks and one hand that is for all intents and purposes useless for anything else.. those are some serious drawbacks if what you people are trying to do is simply make a shield that gives only a +4 AC bonus and no other functionality.. I OBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! but seriously this is just a game and if somebody didnt like my tactic because he had to take a loss on a fight .. i do disagree with the fight being transfered to a sudden death arena... as there was no precedent by the way... then seriously its not that important for me to play here.. i was just enjoying the local people and the conversations that come up. its just a game and if rules need to be put in place so that my characters are less effective then they currently are ohh well.. a newyears resolution for some people might be " I resolve to not try and nerf other peoples clever uses of items under RAW. even if it means by not adding house rules to nerf said items."
TelinArtho 01-01-06, 12:57 PM	A reasonable subtactic to include in the future for any opponent who is readying to use the shield for cover - is to ready to fire when the opponent moves. This will go back and forth for a while - but at least it doesn't drag the fight on indefinitely or let the shooter waste every arrow on a futile tactic. As to the shield being used for cover on a ready action - it is against the CoCo houserules - but it has also been ruled inconsistently.
Luni 01-01-06, 01:13 PM	ok people my bad.. i noticed in my tactics that i forgot to use single move actions to close with him. that would have ment that there would have been no delay counter against TFH ... however i do have a strong issue with people attempting to negate the entire purpose of the towershield... it clearly says in the PHB it can give you cover. if its only for a 180° arc thats good enough to negate against one person.. and a house rule that apparently is in place that makes the enire functionality of an item is cleary unfair to those who wish to use said item.. the drawbacks to using a tower shield are a hard enough penalty to deal with... no running or charging as well as a -2 on all attacks and one hand that is for all intents and purposes useless for anything else.. those are some serious drawbacks if what you people are trying to do is simply make a shield that gives only a +4 AC bonus and no other functionality.. I OBJECT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You can run and charge while carrying a tower shield. Heavy Shield users can't use anything in their shield hand. You can still use it as cover while you get up from a prone attack, draw a potion, etc. WE just argue that readying towards total cover is unfair.
nightbanegod 01-01-06, 02:01 PM	You can run and charge while carrying a tower shield. Heavy Shield users can't use anything in their shield hand. You can still use it as cover while you get up from a prone attack, draw a potion, etc. WE just argue that readying towards total cover is unfair. woops was thinking of something else but still...
Maraxus 01-01-06, 02:08 PM	Pitlord Notes: Both sets of tactics sent to me were very poor. It is not my responsibility to play your characters or imbue them with intelligence; it is yours. I also have neither the desire nor the responsibility to play PM tag with you regarding all the questions I may have about your tactics. They will be taken as sent, and followed to the letter. I will not be changing this fight on the basis of interpretations. Please only contact me if you have 100% factual evidence of a mistake that if corrected will change the outcome of this fight. Sorry to say, but that's bad pitlording. The Arena has about 1800 fields. Thats 3,240,000 diffrent combinations for 2 people to stand on. Multiply this with 900 conbinations of hit-points in average (30 hp per character), One character probably is a caster and has at least 8 states his spellcasting-ressources can can be in. Multiply again - the average character has lots of expendables. Differentiating used/not used by each of this multiplys another 32 or 64 per character in ... or much more. And then are a lot of other things to consider: LoS, allies, prone, disarmed, takes full defence, has weapon XY out and not AB ... You see, a full and complete tactic has to consider about 100,000,000,000,000 diffrent situations (Or much more, if you really want to go into details). Nobody can write the absolute perfect tactic for every (matematically) possible situation, you have to think for the character to a point. You should play both characters the smartes way, you can expect them to think of, as long, as it does not conflict with the tactics. Really advanced tactics excluded. Don't go: They did not write this, so they want me to do nothing. - If they had wanted you to do nothing, they would have wrote that. And last: If there are two (or more) interpretaions of a tactic, don't consider: Which one is a bit more literal. - If one is good and the other one is bad, take the good one. Standard action to ready tower shield against ranged attacks against me. (...) once methos is within charge range. i will drop tower shield and charge attackThis should definitly be interpreted as Nightbanegod wanting to close to his opponent. I realize he has a tower shield, but he does have to pick a line of his square that provides the total cover, which means I can use my speed to negate his cover and take shots.And this sould definitly be interpreted as that NiQil wants his character to try to shoot around the shield - and in that case, it could include hiding and shooting About the ready full cover thing: I think you should be able to ready the shield for full cover upon LoS or upon LoS/located via listen. Doing that on attack or cast spells looks wrong to me, too.
Warclone 01-01-06, 02:11 PM	Ok, first off....let me address your comments at the end of the fights regarding tactics. If you are not going to do your duty as pitlord to address any tactics concerns before the fight starts...especially if you think that tactics are illegal (which none of mine were), then you need to turn the fight over to someone who will. That is totally unfair to all parties concerned. It is not my duty as PL to ask you about your tactics: it is my duty as PL to be fair to all combatants. If I asked you about your tactics, I would have to ask all your opponents about their tactics. If your opponent wrote good tactics and you wrote bad tactics, your opponent deserves an advantage: why should I be unfair and give you a second chance when he doesnt get one or need one? Secondly, your ten round delay penalty is completely ludicrious. Have you ever seen *any fight run here that had something like that? I haven't. You're right, nobody has used a 10 round delay penalty such as that. In reality, my penalty was a 100 round delay penalty. Or a 1000 round delay penalty. But I thought you might want to keep your inertial armor for the fight (I was trying to be fair to you) so I made it a 10 round delay penalty. Thirdly, since you invoked the 10 round rule (which you shouldn't have, but I'll get to that in a minute), the rule will not affect both of us. Since TFH was first in initiative, he would be the first one affected by any 10 round delay penalty, not simultaneously as you have had take place here. Alright. After 10 rounds, someone shouts out TFH's location. Congratulations. Drastic changes were neccisary giving the totality of the failure of both of your tactics. In retrospect, I would have forced both of you to make starvation rolls until one of you died. However, that is a solution for another fight. Fourthly, since THF's tactics only specify to charge once I am in range, which would cause him to drop his tower shield, as soon as he did so and attacked, he no longer has that cover. Why, in T plus 6, did I not take a 5 ft step to stow the bow and avoid an AoO? Or withdraw, as per my tactics of being in melee range, and return fire next round? He now has no cover from the shield, and is wide open to arrow attacks in successive rounds. Totally against my tactics there. Withdrawing, as per my tactics, puts me out of his charge range, and open to arrow attacks the following round. Your "shrinking arena" does not prevent me from moving around the arena, regardless of what you may think. A 10 round penalty cannot alter the arena makeup. All it can do is nudge one character or another into a position where they will have to change what they are doing. I'm not quite sure what you're saying. Once TFH charged you, you were backed into a corner of a force cube. I'm not sure whether you think you can withdraw without provoking in that situation, whether you think you can 5ft step to saftey in that situation, or whether you are just reiterating that you disagree with the situation. You cant withdraw while threatened in a corner without provoking. While your tactics say to chain-withdraw no matter what, I realized that would be idiocy, so I had your character do the quasi-intelligent thing (fight in melee). Fifthly, why am I attacking from prone? Why did I not try to stand up and do so? Any AoO I take would only deal damage, and not prevent me from standing up. In round t Plus 9, you have me taking an AoO due drinking a potion. Hello, 5 ft step, where are you? Once again, I'm not sure whether you are just choosing to ignore what I said in your fight or not, but you could not have 5ft stepped to saftey while in a corner and threatened. You also cannot 5ft step while prone (I'm pretty sure on this, but if I'm wrong its moot). You did not stand up because you are fighting someone with improved trip and you did not include tactics against being tripped, and it was a bad idea to continually provoke (you would have just died faster). There needs to be a complete rerun of this fight. This whole death arena bit is just pure crap. I'm sorry....I can't call it anything else. There is so much wrong with this fight it isn't even funny. If you aren't going to do it, then I am going to ask an elder, or someone else, to do it instead. I can't even imagine how you think this fight is acceptable on any level. If you aren't going to take your responsibilities as a pitlord seriously, then you need to stop pitlording. Part of the pitlording duties is to get clarification on any questionable tactics. If you thought all of my tactics were illegal (which they aren't), then why no PM? It's not like you didn't have time...these tactics were out a couple of hours after pairings where done. There will be no rerun unless an elder asks me to. The 'death arena' was the fairest solution to get a resolution to the fight (besides starvation in retrospect). I don't know if you think a magic fairy is going to come down and save your character from such an unjust, heinous fate, but if you don't like it, write better tactics next time. Even if there was a rerun, I would not be allowed to use tactics other than the ones you initially provided. In this case, the outcome would be exactly the same: you would be forced into melee or starve to death. In short, if this fight stands as-is, I will not be participating any more in this arena. To let something like this stand is complete unfathomable to me. This really comes across as you not wanting to really do the fight, and looking for some way to get out of it. I really hope that's not the case....but I see no other reason for what you have done here. If this were a simple matter of errors not getting fixed that were fight affecting, as much as I would not like it, I could at least accept that if they were not fixed and I took a loss. But to take a loss in a fashion such as this, where there was obviously no effort put into this fight on your part, is complete unacceptable. I apologize if this all sounds harsh, but there's no way I can sugarcoat this one.[/quote] In different places, when I was younger, I've given ultimatums like that when I was really, really angry. I'm sorry that you're angry, I wish there was somthing I could do about it. In all honestly however, I had little control over how the fight played out. I would not be opposed to rerunning the fight, the problem is the only reason you want to rerun the fight is because you're angry that you lost. Every potentially legitimate reason for a rerun you brought up I have disproved. Sixthly, a readied action can only trigger when the action that causes it occurs. So if you have me standing there not shooting, that means that THF is going to sit there for 10 rounds yelling, and I am going to be moving around for 10 rounds trying to negate his cover. I think that readying total cover is totally against the readying rules, but even if they are allowed, what would happen here is that you would have lots of rounds where I blow all my arrows, and then we would be forced into melee combat. The 10 round rule would never apply. This is the most legitimate claim you have made: sure, I think it would be justifiable to make this change. Let me ask you if this is really what you want, however. You will spend X rounds (where X = your arrows) shooting your arrows at his tower shield, and not a single one will have any effect. The fight will stand exactly the same, except you will have also used all your arrows. Tower shields provide total cover in a 180 degree arc. While staying 40ft away (out of charge) you cannot maneuver around his arc of cover. You also cannot overcome the hardness of his tower shield. Do you want me to make this change?
Warclone 01-01-06, 02:28 PM	Actually, most of us would have objected to being sent to an ever shrinking arena. As Mektos, if that occured I would ask the pitlord just to surrender as the situation would be unfair to the tiny creature. I would personally turn around and ask for a rerun of the fight. I don't believe movement of the combat to another location should be allowed within the rules. There is a reason I originally stated the Sleep, Starvation and Thirst rules for individuals that don't ever want to approach each other and are unable to effect each other from range. This gives the advantage to those that bought constitution or endurance or wasted the money on a ring of sustance and food. Those are items that were in the control of the player when they made the character. Yes, it would be boring for the audience and they would probably walk out. But reducing the size of the arena to allow the melee warrior type to get a charge doesn't help. I only pisses the combatants off. There should be another rule probably in the Rules of Gladius that states "Any fight that lasts longer then one hour is a draw. With each combatant getting (Winner share/2)." This would mean if the Pitlord comes to a spot where this scene would have happened they would be allowed to move forward to the one hour mark and end the fight as draw. I agree there should be a rule to determine what will happen in this case. I also would have used starvation but I didnt hear about it until later. I understand the shrinking arena gives an advantage to a melee combatant, but a normal arena gives an advantage to a ranged combatant, and he did not use his advantage or the sudden death would not happen.
Maraxus 01-01-06, 02:32 PM	As far as I see this, the fight would have probably went that way: Horseman moves towards Methos. The archer trys to hide somewhere and get around the cover (can a character see through the full cover he creates with his own towershield? I asume not - though he can here through (or around) it). Probably, Methos would get one shoot but probably not, while staying out of charging distance (Through with some luck on move silently vs. listen...). I guess that one attack the Horseman would gen. That depending on whether the trip succedes in every round, Methos beginns standing, this would give him a chance to win. Else, Methos would withdraw and in the next round shoot and move away. With double speed, this game is really easy. In that case the pitlord could have improvised for Horseman, either trying to corner Methos while staying behind cover, or moving to his shield and picking it up again and starting the game again. PS: @ my combatants: Looks like I will start my fight for the week today, too. In one hour or something maybe. :)
Warclone 01-01-06, 02:32 PM	Sorry to say, but that's bad pitlording. The Arena has about 1800 fields. Thats 3,240,000 diffrent combinations for 2 people to stand on. Multiply this with 900 conbinations of hit-points in average (30 hp per character), One character probably is a caster and has at least 8 states his spellcasting-ressources can can be in. Multiply again - the average character has lots of expendables. Differentiating used/not used by each of this multiplys another 32 or 64 per character in ... or much more. And then are a lot of other things to consider: LoS, allies, prone, disarmed, takes full defence, has weapon XY out and not AB ... You see, a full and complete tactic has to consider about 100,000,000,000,000 diffrent situations (Or much more, if you really want to go into details). Nobody can write the absolute perfect tactic for every (matematically) possible situation, you have to think for the character to a point. You should play both characters the smartes way, you can expect them to think of, as long, as it does not conflict with the tactics. Really advanced tactics excluded. Don't go: They did not write this, so they want me to do nothing. - If they had wanted you to do nothing, they would have wrote that. And last: If there are two (or more) interpretaions of a tactic, don't consider: Which one is a bit more literal. - If one is good and the other one is bad, take the good one. This should definitly be interpreted as Nightbanegod wanting to close to his opponent. And this sould definitly be interpreted as that NiQil wants his character to try to shoot around the shield - and in that case, it could include hiding and shooting About the ready full cover thing: I think you should be able to ready the shield for full cover upon LoS or upon LoS/located via listen. Doing that on attack or cast spells looks wrong to me, too. I agree with you: I ususally think more for the characters. However, there was nothing beyond going against their tactics that I could do. Even if I had him move forward, there would be no effect: I could not have Methos allow himself to be within 40 feet without violating his tactics. If methos hid and tried to shoot around the tower shield, nothign would happen either. TFH would still be hiding behind it until the world ended. In short, Maraxus, I agree with what you are saying, however you have offered no solutions to the problem. If I tried everything you suggested, the fight would still run the same way.
nightbanegod 01-01-06, 02:35 PM	Originally Posted by NiQuil In short, if this fight stands as-is, I will not be participating any more in this arena. To let something like this stand is complete unfathomable to me. This really comes across as you not wanting to really do the fight, and looking for some way to get out of it. I really hope that's not the case....but I see no other reason for what you have done here. If this were a simple matter of errors not getting fixed that were fight affecting, as much as I would not like it, I could at least accept that if they were not fixed and I took a loss. But to take a loss in a fashion such as this, where there was obviously no effort put into this fight on your part, is complete unacceptable. I apologize if this all sounds harsh, but there's no way I can sugarcoat this one. while im not going to be so drastic as to stop playing on this arena all together i do have to agree that this fight should be rerun to some degree.. ie: none of this forcecube business.. theres no precedent before this and no rule implying such a thing would happen. therefore even though it does seem advantageous to my character i am going to have to say it doesnt happen. and as far as tactics interpretations goes... i think Maraxus said it best a few posts ago.. while i forgot to include the single sentence of "single move action to close for melee." if you look at previous fights i have been in (which by the way where i used towershield for cover WAS NOT DISPUTED!!!!) that is exactly what i did... so it should follow suit. and all my previous fights are linked on my character sheet.. if you like i could point out which ones specifically off the top of my head...VS kalarthus and vs Longfellow were cases in point.
Warclone 01-01-06, 02:40 PM	As far as I see this, the fight would have probably went that way: Horseman moves towards Methos. The archer trys to hide somewhere and get around the cover (can a character see through the full cover he creates with his own towershield? I asume not - though he can here through (or around) it). Probably, Methos would get one shoot but probably not, while staying out of charging distance (Through with some luck on move silently vs. listen...). I guess that one attack the Horseman would gen. That depending on whether the trip succedes in every round, Methos beginns standing, this would give him a chance to win. Else, Methos would withdraw and in the next round shoot and move away. With double speed, this game is really easy. In that case the pitlord could have improvised for Horseman, either trying to corner Methos while staying behind cover, or moving to his shield and picking it up again and starting the game again. PS: @ my combatants: Looks like I will start my fight for the week today, too. In one hour or something maybe. :) I stand by the way I ran the fight. The combatants basically gave me 2 character sheets, and told me to run the fight by myself. That would have been much better, even, except they specifically prohibited any possible way for me to conclude the fight naturally. TFH had no chance of cornering Met: it is a circular arena.
Warclone 01-01-06, 02:46 PM	We are going in circles here. I understand there are many people who think the fight should be rerun, but I have justified my actions and nobody has listened to me. Even if you come up with a better way to resolve the fight than a force cube (such as starvation), I do not believe it warrents a rerun unless it is perfect. Starvation is unfair to those with a low con. TFH moving forward to fight Met would mean Met would withdraw and Met would be the sole violator: the penalty being a force cube. Force cube is unfair to those with ranged. However: those with ranged had their time to use it before the force cube went into effect. Therefore, the force cube is the fairest solution mentioned here. Don't repeat yourself: come up with a solution better than my force cube (and justified like I justified my force cube). If it is significantly better and more fair, I will consider rerunning the fight.
MitzaVolchenko 01-01-06, 03:05 PM	@Mitza - nothing to say about the fight - I knew I didn't have much of a chance. The only issue for me to bring up is the rewards - Delaria did not make money this week from being a diplomat because she scribed scrolls. Of course, had I given it more thought - I can definitely come up with a better tactic... I just didn't. You did not specify at any point that I could find that you were doing either so I defaulted you to profession.
MitzaVolchenko 01-01-06, 03:10 PM	We are going in circles here. I understand there are many people who think the fight should be rerun, but I have justified my actions and nobody has listened to me. Even if you come up with a better way to resolve the fight than a force cube (such as starvation), I do not believe it warrents a rerun unless it is perfect. Starvation is unfair to those with a low con. TFH moving forward to fight Met would mean Met would withdraw and Met would be the sole violator: the penalty being a force cube. Force cube is unfair to those with ranged. However: those with ranged had their time to use it before the force cube went into effect. Therefore, the force cube is the fairest solution mentioned here. Don't repeat yourself: come up with a solution better than my force cube (and justified like I justified my force cube). If it is significantly better and more fair, I will consider rerunning the fight. Starvation is not unfair. At the point where a fight becomes a neverending stalk-a-thon, the character with the most endurance or the best equipped for the situation, wins. Everyone gets to affect how hardy their character is by setting their constitution score.
Snommelp 01-01-06, 03:12 PM	We are going in circles here. I understand there are many people who think the fight should be rerun, but I have justified my actions and nobody has listened to me. Even if you come up with a better way to resolve the fight than a force cube (such as starvation), I do not believe it warrents a rerun unless it is perfect. Starvation is unfair to those with a low con. TFH moving forward to fight Met would mean Met would withdraw and Met would be the sole violator: the penalty being a force cube. Force cube is unfair to those with ranged. However: those with ranged had their time to use it before the force cube went into effect. Therefore, the force cube is the fairest solution mentioned here. Don't repeat yourself: come up with a solution better than my force cube (and justified like I justified my force cube). If it is significantly better and more fair, I will consider rerunning the fight.I'm afraid I can't offer a better solution, Warclone, but I can say without a shadow of doubt that your Force Cube was not fair; you forced a ranged combatant into melee range and gave him no alternatives. If you had broken all of his arrows and crippled him in the leg, it would have been no less damaging to that character. You claim that it was the fairest solution, but in the same breath you admit that it was not fair to Methos. When you contradict yourself like that, how can you claim that it was justified? The best (and only) solution I see is to start improvising. Maybe the Horseman gets tired of waiting and starts advancing (he should by my reasoning be the only one who broke the 10 round rule anyway). Refusing to even try to deviate from the tactics and instead forcing Methos into a no-win situation is, and I am afraid I cannot sugarcoat this, bad pitlording. It was lazy to refuse to even try to deviate from what you were sent, as it was lazy to not ask for clarification for what you viewed to be bad tactics, and it is childish to now refuse to change the fight when everyone here agrees that you are wrong. If you are unwilling to admit your error and change the fight, then I will take your fight and your credit; I will also ask that I never have any of my characters put into your hands.
Warclone 01-01-06, 03:19 PM	Starvation is not unfair. At the point where a fight becomes a neverending stalk-a-thon, the character with the most endurance or the best equipped for the situation, wins. Everyone gets to affect how hardy their character is by setting their constitution score. Fair enough. I said that I would have done starvation in retrospect. If a significant majority of the forums wants me to change the fight to be starvation instead of force cube, I will be willing to make the change.
MitzaVolchenko 01-01-06, 03:22 PM	Sola vs. Mektos is up. I had to do some improvising, but I tried to stay faithful to the tactics as written and past actions.
Macbrea 01-01-06, 03:25 PM	That should be sleep then starvation if neither opponents going to approach the other one. In truth, we need a provision that awards a tie after 1 hour of fight time. At higher levels, if we don't do this the fights will look like the following. Wizard wins initiative and casts force cage on opponent. 40 hours pass. Wizard sets up table and eats dinner and drinks a fine wine. He sleeps for 8 hours and restudies his Force cage spell.
Warclone 01-01-06, 03:29 PM	I'm afraid I can't offer a better solution, Warclone, but I can say without a shadow of doubt that your Force Cube was not fair; you forced a ranged combatant into melee range and gave him no alternatives. If you had broken all of his arrows and crippled him in the leg, it would have been no less damaging to that character. You claim that it was the fairest solution, but in the same breath you admit that it was not fair to Methos. When you contradict yourself like that, how can you claim that it was justified? The best (and only) solution I see is to start improvising. Maybe the Horseman gets tired of waiting and starts advancing (he should by my reasoning be the only one who broke the 10 round rule anyway). Refusing to even try to deviate from the tactics and instead forcing Methos into a no-win situation is, and I am afraid I cannot sugarcoat this, bad pitlording. It was lazy to refuse to even try to deviate from what you were sent, as it was lazy to not ask for clarification for what you viewed to be bad tactics, and it is childish to now refuse to change the fight when everyone here agrees that you are wrong. If you are unwilling to admit your error and change the fight, then I will take your fight and your credit; I will also ask that I never have any of my characters put into your hands. You condemn my solution but you offer me no suggestions or alternatives besides what I already tried and what has already failed. You want me to improvise, and suggest he start moving forward. OK, he starts moving forward. Met continues moving back. Since it is a circle: ad infinitum, and we are back to square 1. You should not call people names and threaten them when you admit you can't do any better yourself. So, tell me oh wise, just, and infalliable Snommelp, what would you have done if you had to pitlord this fight? You don't have a solution that would be fair to everyone, yet you have no problem attacking me because the solution I came up with isn't fair to everyone. And, I believe it is fair. Met had as long as he wants to use his ranged weapons.. and he couldn't. Therefore, his ranged element is moot and he is effectively a melee fighter. Forcing two melee fighters into melee together is hardly unfair.
Ariel23 01-01-06, 03:45 PM	I'm not really sure what the explicit duties of a pitlord or pitlording standards are, but I would guess: 1) The objective standard is to run the fight/character/tactics to the best of your ability, and 2) The subjective standard is to run a fight/character the way you would want your own fight/character run. That is obviously open to debate, but I don't think anyone would say it is this:Pitlord Notes: It is not my responsibility to play your characters or imbue them with intelligence; it is yours. I also have neither the desire nor the responsibility to play PM tag with you regarding all the questions I may have about your tactics. They will be taken as sent, and followed to the letter. This quote also probably answers the question "Why are people upset with the results of this fight?" I'm not sure the tactics were poor, but they were poor in covering contingencies. This is why it is always a good idea to give an overall strategy for each fight, which helps explain when to use your tactics, and what to do if they fail. To Nightbanegod and Niqil: Although it is more than fair to say "Warclone should have PM'd us, especially given that our tactics asked him to" it would also be fair to say that if you are prepared to write out tactics covering additional situations, or strategic goals, upon request, then you should probably just put them in your tactics to begin with. Otherwise, everyone could say, "Use my tactics if they will work. PM me if they won't." IMO, that's the whole point of tactics. As far as this ridiculous proposed "Starvation" rule goes: forget it. The audience would kill you long before you starved to death. If we're here to try out builds, I'd love to see someone sit down at the table to play D&D with me whose build is "get into fights and starve the enemy until dead." And, for the record, a generic ECL 3 Elan with some kind of hiding, fast movement, towershield combination would win every fight by simply not fighting. I think the intent of the CoCo rule is pretty clear about readying an action to completely avoid an attack, although the rule unfortunately uses the term "Dodging," directly leading to this debate. This doesn't say anything about readying to block, but it does clarify Tower Shields and answer a lot of questions:[b] Total cover prevents any attack against you. You can use a tower shield to get total cover if you give up all your attacks. What does “give up all your attacks” mean? Can you move while getting total cover from the shield? Can you cast a spell? Also, do you get total cover from all directions or from just one side of your square? Will the total cover from a tower shield negate spell effects? Will it negate attacks of opportunity from movement or from other actions such as spellcasting? Will it prevent charge attacks against you? What about bull rush attacks? Can it prevent grapple attacks or snatch attacks? Will it stop fear effects, gaze attacks, or clouds of poison gas? Will it defeat traps? To claim total cover from a tower shield, you must use a standard action. The tower shield rules don’t say that, but that’s what they mean. Since you can take only one standard action each round, you cannot also attack, cast a spell, activate a magic item (except for some use-activated items), use a special ability, use total defense, or start or complete a full-round action during the same round you claim total cover from the shield. You can, however, take a move action before or after you claim cover from the shield. Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner). You have total cover against any attack’s line of effect that passes through that side of your space. If an attack’s line of effect goes through the corner of the side of your space that the shield blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex saves) instead of total cover. If an attack’s line of effect passes through a side of your space that the shield does not block, you get no cover from the shield at all. To determine where the line of effect enters your space, draw a line from the attacker’s center to your center. Or, in the case of a magical effect, from the effect’s point of origin and your center. Once you claim cover from the shield, the shield keeps blocking the side of your space that you chose until the beginning of your next turn, when you can again decide whether you’ll use the shield for cover. Once you choose the side of your space that the shield blocks, you cannot change it until your next turn. You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with the same benefits you get. You cannot make attacks through the side of your space that the shield blocks, and should you attack through the corners of that space, your foe gets cover against your attack. Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of opportunity (see page 151 in the Player’s Handbook), the shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty wide swath. Total cover or cover from a tower shield has the following effects in different situations: • Magical Attacks: A tower shield’s effects on magical attacks depend on the kind of magical attack. Any attack aimed at your equipment is aimed at you. If a magical attack has you as a specific target (that is it does not merely affect the area that contains you but is aimed right at you), the shield has no effect. All rays fall into this category, as does any spell that has a Target entry in its header and any spell that has an Effect entry and affects creatures (provided, of course, that the attacker can and does choose the shield user as a target). Magical attacks that fill areas (bursts, cones, cylinders, lines, emanations, and spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover on page 151 of the Player’s Handbook. Such attacks are completely blocked if line of effect between you and the attack’s point of origin passes through the side of your space the shield blocks. You get cover (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex saves) if the magical attack’s line of effect passes through the corner of the blocked side. Spread effects reach around the shield if they normally would extend into your space, but you still get a Reflex save bonus for cover when they do. A gaze attack is blocked if the shield would give you total cover against attacks from the creature with the gaze attack. If the shield gives you cover only, you’re still subject to the gaze attack (although you could avert or close your eyes to avoid the attack). • Attacks of Opportunity: As noted earlier, cover or total cover prevents attacks of opportunity. So you could, for example, hunker down behind a tower shield and pick up a weapon or rummage around in a backpack and avoid attacks of opportunity against you. If you’re moving while using the shield for cover, things get a little more complicated. You must determine whether the shield gives you cover (or total cover) at the point during your movement when you’d normally provoke an attack of opportunity. Remember that attacks of opportunity are usually resolved before the actions that provoke them. In many cases, the shield won’t be positioned correctly to protect you during your whole move. • Charging and Bull Rushing: Opponents can charge you while you claim cover from the shield. An opponent moves as normal when charging you, moving to the closest square from which a melee attack normally would be possible. If the shield gives you total cover from the attack, the attack automatically fails. Foes can bull rush you normally, moving right into your space in spite of the shield. You normally get an attack of opportunity against someone entering your space, but not if the shield gives your foe cover or total cover. • Grapple and Snatch Attacks: Total cover from a tower shield blocks such attacks (the foe just can’t get hold of you). The foe could, however grab the shield. Conduct such attacks just like any other grapple or snatch attack. Your foe can’t damage you unless he pins you first. You can escape the foe’s hold simply by dropping the shield (a standard action since it’s strapped to your arm), so long as the foe has not pinned you. • Traps: Cover or total cover from a tower shield is just as effective against a trap as it is against any other attack.
Snommelp 01-01-06, 03:52 PM	You condemn my solution but you offer me no suggestions or alternatives besides what I already tried and what has already failed. You want me to improvise, and suggest he start moving forward. OK, he starts moving forward. Met continues moving back. Since it is a circle: ad infinitum, and we are back to square 1. You should not call people names and threaten them when you admit you can't do any better yourself. So, tell me oh wise, just, and infalliable Snommelp, what would you have done if you had to pitlord this fight? You don't have a solution that would be fair to everyone, yet you have no problem attacking me because the solution I came up with isn't fair to everyone. And, I believe it is fair. Met had as long as he wants to use his ranged weapons.. and he couldn't. Therefore, his ranged element is moot and he is effectively a melee fighter. Forcing two melee fighters into melee together is hardly unfair.Threaten? The only threat I made was that I would take the fight away from you if you asked me; then you come back at me saying that I am unwilling to act! So how's this for a solution, oh dubious one: the Horseman moves forward and then sets his shield. Methos readies to shoot when the Horseman drops his shield. The Horseman drops it to move forward, and Methos shoots. That arrow won't kill the Horseman, so the Horseman learns from his mistake. As Methos retreats, it is now he breaking the 10 round rule, so the Horseman cuts through the middle and Methos loses him, closes to investigate, and gets close to the Horseman, who will attempt melee (dropping his shield). Methos moves away and shoots the now shieldless Horseman. There, was that hard? I don't think so; I just came up with it off the top of my head! And again, Warclone, you contradict yourself! You say Methos had the chance to use his ranged weapons, then prove yourself wrong by saying he couldn't. If he couldn't use his ranged weapons, then he hardly had a chance to use them, now did he?
Luni 01-01-06, 04:38 PM	You condemn my solution but you offer me no suggestions or alternatives besides what I already tried and what has already failed. You want me to improvise, and suggest he start moving forward. OK, he starts moving forward. Met continues moving back. Since it is a circle: ad infinitum, and we are back to square 1. You should not call people names and threaten them when you admit you can't do any better yourself. So, tell me oh wise, just, and infalliable Snommelp, what would you have done if you had to pitlord this fight? You don't have a solution that would be fair to everyone, yet you have no problem attacking me because the solution I came up with isn't fair to everyone. And, I believe it is fair. Met had as long as he wants to use his ranged weapons.. and he couldn't. Therefore, his ranged element is moot and he is effectively a melee fighter. Forcing two melee fighters into melee together is hardly unfair. A solution is this. First Horseman advances, drops his shield and moves to within 15' of Methos. Methos then withdraws, and the Horseman chases him. End result: Methos fires all his arrows at the First Horseman, becuase the First Horseman can never get close enough to Methos. Slow, melee characters are always going to have a rough time against fast moving archers/
NiQil 01-01-06, 04:46 PM	@ all: A PM was sent to Cat to get a ruling on whether readying to take total cover behind a tower shield against ranged attacks violates the CoCo ready action rules against readying to dodge on an incoming attack. If an Elder or anyone else would be kind enough to rerun this fight once that ruling has been made, if for no other reason than to take away the bad pitlording decisions, it would be greatly appreciated. Both myself and nightbanegod have already expressed that those decisions should not have been made, and both of us have also already expressed that the fight should be rerun with those issues no longer there. Once those issues are removed, the crux of the fight will be whether that tactic is legal or not, but the fight will still need to be rerun either way.
TelinArtho 01-01-06, 04:56 PM	A heated grapple between two grown men can be found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8132623) Kronos vs Sam
Snommelp 01-01-06, 04:56 PM	@ all: A PM was sent to Cat to get a ruling on whether readying to take total cover behind a tower shield against ranged attacks violates the CoCo ready action rules against readying to dodge on an incoming attack. If an Elder or anyone else would be kind enough to rerun this fight once that ruling has been made, if for no other reason than to take away the bad pitlording decisions, it would be greatly appreciated. Both myself and nightbanegod have already expressed that those decisions should not have been made, and both of us have also already expressed that the fight should be rerun with those issues no longer there. Once those issues are removed, the crux of the fight will be whether that tactic is legal or not, but the fight will still need to be rerun either way.If nobody else takes it, NiQil, I'll do it after I run my own two fights. I'm running Felan vs. Hassan right now. @ TelinArtho: Ouch. Sorry for such a long fight. At least there wasn't any movement after round 3... but still, I'd hate to run a 50+ round fight. Many, many thanks.
NiQil 01-01-06, 05:06 PM	A heated grapple between two grown men can be found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8132623) Kronos vs Sam Well that went pretty much as expected...Im surprised Sam missed that many checks though....I woulda thought it would have been over a lot sooner than that. @ Snommelp: Thanks for the offer on the rerun. Also, I want a rematch when Kronos gets his 2nd level of ranger and has Rapid Shot LOL. Had I had it here, I think things may have gone differently....but ya never know.
Snommelp 01-01-06, 05:14 PM	@ Snommelp: Thanks for the offer on the rerun. Also, I want a rematch when Kronos gets his 2nd level of ranger and has Rapid Shot LOL. Had I had it here, I think things may have gone differently....but ya never know. Heh, sure. Just let me know ahead of time so I can buy a potion of Invisibility; we don't want the grudge match to go to the challenger, now do we? ;)
NiQil 01-01-06, 05:20 PM	Heh, sure. Just let me know ahead of time so I can buy a potion of Invisibility; we don't want the grudge match to go to the challenger, now do we? ;) Heh...iffn ya wanna wait for the assassin levels instead, I can pull that trick too....except my attacks will be with poison at that point :P
Maraxus 01-01-06, 05:49 PM	Ajora the Light vs. Thwap McSmash Is ready and up.
xvthreetwoonevx 01-01-06, 05:55 PM	DTFarstar, Sent my tactics, hope they're complete enough. Also evidently I have several errors on my sheet, I tried to avoid using items/abilities that were marked as wrong, don't know whether I should change my sheet to reflect the errors. If it matters, my initiative is 2 lower (For some reason I thought Psions got Psicrystal Affinity for free?) and my spot and listen are both 3 ranks lower. There's some other stuff in the prison thread if you notice anything yourself. Sorry to get to you so late. :)
Kaigan 01-01-06, 05:59 PM	Ajora the Light vs. Thwap McSmash Is ready and up. Just to let you know, sleep arrows deal non-lethal damage.
Snommelp 01-01-06, 06:07 PM	Felan vs. Hassan is up. When both characters write decent tactics, the one with better luck prevails.
Luni 01-01-06, 06:08 PM	Ajora the Light vs. Thwap McSmash Is ready and up. Only thing I can find, is that Thwap can't ready to rage and shoot at the same time. You can ready a standard action, a move action, or a free action. To do so, specify the action you will take and the conditions under which you will take it. So, Thwap can either ready to rage, or ready to shoot.
Huan 01-01-06, 06:50 PM	@ all: A PM was sent to Cat to get a ruling on whether readying to take total cover behind a tower shield against ranged attacks violates the CoCo ready action rules against readying to dodge on an incoming attack, In previous fights where tower shields have been used as readies for total cover to dodge attacks, it has been ruled as illegal.
TheMagister 01-01-06, 06:58 PM	I have a (semi) solution (suggestion?) for the Methos/TFH fight. Using the Force Cage to bring them together is not TOTALLY bad, just to get things moving. AFter TFH charges and bases Methos, what's not to say that the caster of the Force Cube dispels the Force Cube and then watches the fight play out from there? TFH charges and bases, Methos withdraws, and TFH tries to dodge arrows and close while Methos runs away and tries to turn TFH into a pincushion. IMO, that's what should probably happen anyway. TFH gets to close (per his tactics) and Methos gets to run and shoot (per his tactics). Basically, TFH gets one shot at tripping MEthos and preventing him from running (maybe two, with an AoO...I haven't thought this all the way through) and then Methos' tactics take over. What say all involved? (Warclone, Niqil, aw, heck...who does TFH belong to? Nightbanegod?) TM
Maraxus 01-01-06, 07:00 PM	Kaigan and Luni: Thanks for pointing it out. Not that it changes anything, but it's corrected. And one can be correct, if the correction is that simple. :) That you can not ready free actions along with readies standart or move actions was new to me - through the word of the rules leaves no room for interpretation in this case.
Warclone 01-01-06, 07:07 PM	I have a (semi) solution (suggestion?) for the Methos/TFH fight. Using the Force Cage to bring them together is not TOTALLY bad, just to get things moving. AFter TFH charges and bases Methos, what's not to say that the caster of the Force Cube dispels the Force Cube and then watches the fight play out from there? TFH charges and bases, Methos withdraws, and TFH tries to dodge arrows and close while Methos runs away and tries to turn TFH into a pincushion. IMO, that's what should probably happen anyway. TFH gets to close (per his tactics) and Methos gets to run and shoot (per his tactics). Basically, TFH gets one shot at tripping MEthos and preventing him from running (maybe two, with an AoO...I haven't thought this all the way through) and then Methos' tactics take over. What say all involved? (Warclone, Niqil, aw, heck...who does TFH belong to? Nightbanegod?) TM This sounds rational but there is one problem. I can't in good faith have TFH charging after someone shooting him that he can't catch, when his tactics explicitly state to use the tower shield as cover. I suppose the above could happen, but after that TFH would grab his tower shield and we'd start back at square one. I suppose you could then repeat the above after that and you'd get a resolution that way. If both NiQuil and Nightbanegod wish me to rerun the fight as to the above, I will do it.
NiQil 01-01-06, 07:19 PM	This sounds rational but there is one problem. I can't in good faith have TFH charging after someone shooting him that he can't catch, when his tactics explicitly state to use the tower shield as cover. I suppose the above could happen, but after that TFH would grab his tower shield and we'd start back at square one. I suppose you could then repeat the above after that and you'd get a resolution that way. If both NiQuil and Nightbanegod wish me to rerun the fight as to the above, I will do it. Until a ruling has been made by Cat on the readying the tower shield issue, nothing further can be done with this fight. By what Huan stated above, it is illegal, but I will wait for Cat to say it so it is official (no offense Huan). If that move is illegal, there is not really any way for TFH to gain melee combat, and we have a ranged shootout. If it is ruled legal, then we get Methos burning all of his arrows trying to negate total cover, and TFH being penalized under the 10 round rule for making no aggressive action in the fight. Once Methos has burned all ammunition, only at that point would he join melee of his own choice. But under no circumstances will I accept any fight result (irregardless of a win or a loss on my part) that includes the force cage shrinking arena or anything similar, as it is not something that should have ever been done.
TheMagister 01-01-06, 07:23 PM	@Warclone - friendly new-guy to new-guy advice (no sarcasm, no condescension! I've been where you are!) I just went and read NBG's tactics for TFH, and he says to do exactly what I suggested. Even if YOU know its dumb, or inappropriate, or fatal, THAT'S where your pitlord indifference has to kick in. NBG is confident in his character's ability to keep Methos in place one he closes to melee with him. Niqil is confident in his character's ability to leave TFH in the dust if he gets caught in melee with him. Its YOUR job to see which one is right, and to give each character the best shot he can get at succeeding (and here's the stickler) WITHIN THE LIMITS THEIR TACTICS ALLOW! That means that you can't really (in good faith, as you said) get creative and say "TFH wouldn't drop his shield and charge, because then he'd open himself to Methos' arrows!" because NBG's tactics state that TFH thinks exactly the opposite of that. TFH thinks, "All I've got to do is get him into melee and then I've GOT him!". The Tower Shield is there to force Methos into melee first, and to protect TFH second, the way I read those tactics. Anyhow. My first fight was between a rogue and a mounted paladin. I got creative and ran that rogue picture perfect, only semi-according to his tactics. I got really creative. I did the same with the paladin. I was impartial, fair, and totally wrong, all at the same time. My gladiators were gentle with me and let the fight stand, but I learned that the fashion in which I ran the fight was incorrect. A pitlord CAN'T have the best interests of each combatant at heart while he runs. He must be "just the guy that rolls the dice". Every now and then, you can improvise because its necessary (I think your force cube idea was a little "out there", but hey, that's your prerogative) to move the fight along, but on the whole, you should stay out of it. I hope you can take this as an offer of help, and not as a shot or criticism, because I am just trying to help. On the one hand, I'm a helper...on the other, I'm a guy, so I live with at least one foot in my mouth, except when I'm not breathing. Good luck! TM
King Uther 01-01-06, 07:33 PM	@Maraxus C'mon man. I can't be awake, at 3hp, and unconscious. Let me run behind cover as per my tactics and run the fight as normal. @Warclone So far so good, at least for you. But the fight isn't over yet.
Warclone 01-01-06, 07:44 PM	@Maraxus C'mon man. I can't be awake, at 3hp, and unconscious. Let me run behind cover as per my tactics and run the fight as normal. @Warclone So far so good, at least for you. But the fight isn't over yet. It is interesting that we have to fight after being on the same team. I'm not sure I understand the point you're making King Uther. You're unconcious when you are at 3 hp and 14 nonlethal damage. Would you mind elaborating more on what you think should happen?
MitzaVolchenko 01-01-06, 07:52 PM	Karen Douglas vs. Hennan the Orphan is complete.
Snommelp 01-01-06, 07:59 PM	Karen Douglas vs. Hennan the Orphan is complete. The only problem I see will actually help Karen win even more than she already has; she wanted to stay far enough away to keep Hennan from attacking. Absolutely no effect on the fight, though, so I don't see any reason to change it.
MitzaVolchenko 01-01-06, 08:55 PM	The only problem I see will actually help Karen win even more than she already has; she wanted to stay far enough away to keep Hennan from attacking. Absolutely no effect on the fight, though, so I don't see any reason to change it. Actually at no point do Karen's tactics say 'stay at 15 feet from him'. The specific instruction was to close to that distance and expand to be able to force AoO without the movement to otherwise do so. The presumption I made from her tactics was to prevent Hennan from getting away from her and keeping him well within her threat range was the best way to do so and get full effect of AoO's and maintain it as a melee fight.
King Uther 01-01-06, 09:24 PM	@Warclone and Maraxus I finally got done with some stuff, and I looked at the fight. True, I would have been knocked out, but some things do not ring right to me. First, Ajora knows his relative location before his first move. That means he went first, and I had a buffing contingency for that. Especially since I did not see him on my first move. Offensive Precog, Vigor, Force Screen and Defensive Precog, to be exact. This would change a lot, as Ajora would not be unconscious, as well as preventing 1 of the attacks from hitting. Second, according to the Rules of Movement he wouldn't have been able to run because the pillar would interrupt it. Although in his tactics it specified to start him elsewhere if needed. But then they conflict somewhat. Third, although it doesn't affect the fight yet, but technically in D&D when Ajora gets shot the first time he is immediately awake, and therefore if allowed to buff the second attack would miss due to cover(which works both ways). Also, while Ajora missed according to the rolls, why did you remove the attack? He readied to shoot, but was not given the chance to do so. Would they both shoot at the same time? Of course they would. Another note, he raged and I knew it. Should've provoked a contingency. Go sense motive vs bluff. Anyways, these are just some thoughts I had. Tell me if you think its unreasonable in any way. Good job, Warclone. At the very least you have me on my heels. A very damaging archer is a scary build, which is why I had the extensive buff sequence should I not be able to fire upon you immediately.
King Uther 01-01-06, 09:35 PM	Also, this slipped my mind earlier, but my Psicrystal can wake me up as a standard action. It's been proven intelligent enough to do so. That's one of the reasons I even got one in the first place.
Maraxus 01-01-06, 10:40 PM	@Warclone and Maraxus I finally got done with some stuff, and I looked at the fight. True, I would have been knocked out, but some things do not ring right to me. First, Ajora knows his relative location before his first move. That means he went first, and I had a buffing contingency for that. Especially since I did not see him on my first move. Offensive Precog, Vigor, Force Screen and Defensive Precog, to be exact. This would change a lot, as Ajora would not be unconscious, as well as preventing 1 of the attacks from hitting. Second, according to the Rules of Movement he wouldn't have been able to run because the pillar would interrupt it. Although in his tactics it specified to start him elsewhere if needed. But then they conflict somewhat. Third, although it doesn't affect the fight yet, but technically in D&D when Ajora gets shot the first time he is immediately awake, and therefore if allowed to buff the second attack would miss due to cover(which works both ways). Also, while Ajora missed according to the rolls, why did you remove the attack? He readied to shoot, but was not given the chance to do so. Would they both shoot at the same time? Of course they would. Another note, he raged and I knew it. Should've provoked a contingency. Go sense motive vs bluff. Anyways, these are just some thoughts I had. Tell me if you think its unreasonable in any way. Good job, Warclone. At the very least you have me on my heels. A very damaging archer is a scary build, which is why I had the extensive buff sequence should I not be able to fire upon you immediately. Well, your contincencies were all under the point: If he ges first and rages, or I miss and he rages, or I hit and he rages... - to me this looks very focussed on the fact, that he rages. So I had to choose either to buff, through the conticency was not triggered, or to shoot the opponent first, and probably have him rage and then retreat to buff, after thinking about this for 5 Minutes, I took the second. (PS: Also supported by the fact, that you would want to eventually shoot 2 deep-crystal charged arrows and if I had buffed, there would not have been the power points for that.) About the rules of movement, I don't know. - I always handled it that way: Line from center position one to centre position two - squares the line goes through must be free. But I'm willing to learn, if you have a link, that proves this wrong. Hm, waking up in the middle of a full attack ... sounds strange but okay. ... The cover would not work, since every line from his upper left corner to any of your (upper right square's) corners was unblocked. However, I would have made a ride check for cover, since in that round, you were going to flee anyway. I removed the attack - as well as the "Ajora notice Thwap raging" when I realized, that Warclone explicitly demanded to use the sleep arrow on the first attack. This had put you asleep and you did not wake up anymore, too fire or notice your opponent is rageing. But sadly, I have no argument about the psi-crystal-thing, looks like you are right. However - through it has proven to be a bad idea, I would have to still make you do that attack and then get shot in round 3. :( Further thoughts before I edit (except for the fact, that I said to Warclone "When in daubt, try to be as clever as possible for the character, when he was bad-pitlording and now one can tell me this." :embarrass )?
Warclone 01-01-06, 10:40 PM	@King Uther: I dont have the time to check everything and determine whether or not I agree with your comments. I trust the fight in Maraxus' hands, for whatever he believes is the best result for the fight. @NiQuil, NightBaneGod: After speaking with Huan and clarifying that NightBaneGod intended to ready his tower shield as a readied action instead of just defending with it, I have rerun the fight from scratch. First Horseman (Nightbanegod) vs Methos MacLeod (NiQil): Warclone is rerun.
King Uther 01-01-06, 10:58 PM	@Maraxus I can agree with the majority of what you said. But, as you say, since I can be awakened by the psicrystal, Ajora would then ride away behind cover after missing the first attack. This may(probably won't because of the high thematic rolls by Thwap) affect the fight, and I would prefer if you would take it from there, unless you feel otherwise. I'll trust your judgment.
Begferdeth 01-01-06, 11:34 PM	This tower shield thing seems pretty messed up. Whats the point of it if you put it down to move? It just makes him wait a second to shoot you, as for some bizarre reason you give up your cover every time you take a step. You cant walk forward under cover? Take a peek so your heading the right way every now and then, and turn a bit? The whole point of a tower shield is to mess up archers. Its a portable wall. If you have one, archers are fugged up. They gotta find a way to deal with it... like... well, thats why I dont have an archer :)
Snommelp 01-01-06, 11:44 PM	This tower shield thing seems pretty messed up. Whats the point of it if you put it down to move? It just makes him wait a second to shoot you, as for some bizarre reason you give up your cover every time you take a step. You cant walk forward under cover? Take a peek so your heading the right way every now and then, and turn a bit? The whole point of a tower shield is to mess up archers. Its a portable wall. If you have one, archers are fugged up. They gotta find a way to deal with it... like... well, thats why I dont have an archer :) You most certainly can move with it up. That's in the Rules of the Game article. The decision was that you can't ready an action to duck under it. If I were DM (DM, not pitlord), I'd also rule that you can't see ahead of you while the shield's up, so if you don't drop it you have no clue what your opponent is doing.
NiQil 01-01-06, 11:48 PM	This tower shield thing seems pretty messed up. Whats the point of it if you put it down to move? It just makes him wait a second to shoot you, as for some bizarre reason you give up your cover every time you take a step. You cant walk forward under cover? Take a peek so your heading the right way every now and then, and turn a bit? The whole point of a tower shield is to mess up archers. Its a portable wall. If you have one, archers are fugged up. They gotta find a way to deal with it... like... well, thats why I dont have an archer :) I don't know if you read everything that was discussed, but what you are describing is not what the issue was. You are more than welcome to take a move action to walk forward, and then take a standard action to set your shield and take total cover. No one has ever said you couldn't. The issue was whether you could ready a tower shield to take total cover against ranged attacks. My contention was that you could not, as that violates the CoCo rule that you cannot ready to dodge an incoming attack. Most others seemed to agree with this, including Huan, as Warclone stated. I have PM'd Cat on the issue so that something can be added to either the WAR little known rules list, or Cerebus' FAQ, so that the issue is handled consistantly from here on out, since it has not been handled consistantly up to this point.
Macbrea 01-01-06, 11:52 PM	When moving with a tower shield it still counts as a +4 shield bonus shield. We shouldn't allow people to ready actions to duck for cover. It leads to some very slow fights. It would have been fine to move forward with the +4 Shield bonus then set the shield. That way the person would have to make the shot at the difficult number then not be able to hit them on their turn if they didn't ready the action. It doesn't make it so the person with the shield is unhittable.
Snommelp 01-02-06, 12:20 AM	When moving with a tower shield it still counts as a +4 shield bonus shield. We shouldn't allow people to ready actions to duck for cover. It leads to some very slow fights. It would have been fine to move forward with the +4 Shield bonus then set the shield. That way the person would have to make the shot at the difficult number then not be able to hit them on their turn if they didn't ready the action. It doesn't make it so the person with the shield is unhittable. Ever seen riot police? They move forward while keeping their shields up. The only difference is that you can see through their shields, so they can always keep the shield between them and the rioters. The shields here are opaque, so there's the risk of moving the wrong way and opening up your side. It's enough to nerf the readying, we don't need to nerf tower shields further.
Ayrynthyn 01-02-06, 12:34 AM	... My contention was that you could not, as that violates the CoCo rule that you cannot ready to dodge an incoming attack. ...it's stuff like this that caused me to pull my hat out of the Pitlord department, at least until i get a better handle on all the rules. I had no idea that you couldnt do this... *scurrys over to re-re-read the house rules/ready rules/ and arena rules*
Vathelokai 01-02-06, 02:14 AM	Felan vs. Hassan is up. When both characters write decent tactics, the one with better luck prevails. Problems; Felan only has Drow sleep poison prebuffed. Hassan is an elf, and immune to sleep. Felan would have to spend a round or 2 putting the other poison on his arrows. This makes the round 1 save moot, and means that Felan and Hassan would make contact 1 round later.move to set up a sneak attack on him with a poisoned arrow (if I don't have one, poison one). Possibly you are ruling that (ex)sleep, such as from poison, works on elves. I brought this up in the tavern; seems that the PHB says elves are "immune to magical sleep" and the MM says elves are "immune to sleep spells and effects." The flavor text of the PHB implies that elves are immune to all sleep, but there is some vagueness. Then in the drow entry under the poison it states "Since this poison is not a magical effect, drow and other elves are susceptible to it," which contradicts the "immune to sleep effects" line in the same monster entry. So I wonder: are elves immune to all sleep except drow poison? That seems to be what is going on. If it is, then I was unaware, and will put a size 7 post in the tavern about it. ---------------------------------- Round 5, Hassan can hear Felan, so he should ready to sneak attack him. Whenever he shows up (even if I only hear him around a corner), then stop buffing, and ready to shoot him with a deepcrystal, psionic shot, sneak attack (1d8+2d6+2d6+1d6), then move for cover. ------------------------------------ If you choose not to change that, then there is round 6; Hassan has 2 pp left to mindthrust with. Unless I'm missing something, manifesting a power is a mental action, and thus... Paralyzed: A paralyzed character is frozen in place and unable to move or act. A paralyzed character has effective Dexterity and Strength scores of 0 and is helpless, but can take purely mental actions.If I get paralyzed, use mind thrust on him. If paralyzed and out of PP, then surrender. However, if Hassan is asleep, and not paralyzed (see part 1, above), then this point is moot.
Macbrea 01-02-06, 02:17 AM	I am not nerfing a tower shield... Look on the chart. It is a +4 bonus when not set.
Warclone 01-02-06, 04:33 AM	Uilo (Dracazar) vs Loddick (Erithmu) vs Marcos (Iced) vs Jecht (wellTHATstinks): Warclone [All vs All] is up. Very long, very complicated, very close fight.
Dracazar 01-02-06, 06:40 AM	Warclone, first of all, thank you for the nice fight. about your notices: - Armor for a medium nonhumanoid creature costs twice > Yes, my bad. I wish only point that Uilo has money to afford extra 250 gp because not crafting the Broock, grant her 770 gp. - Husk cannot keep your shared spells without leapfogging 5ft/round with you > Yes, this is a stupid thing of the RAW. I allow (when I DM in real) to share spells if druid and animal companion moves at the same speed. But I'll accept your ruling (sigh)... - Please link me to any rules quotes which may change this if there are any > I can't quote anything at the moment, but this is really a bad rule for a druid - I debated whether to burn a scroll of CLW > I would have used the scroll, but no problem with your decision However nothing to say about the fight, well run. Uilo was only a bit unlucky: foes did 5 saves vs lightning bolt (all success!): 20+3, 14+3, 20+3, 13+5, 17+2 and the last attack hit ac 18 instead of 19, damn :D I wish only point out this (just to be a bit acid...) Uilo killed two foes and Marcos parasite stealed the victory doing really nothing for 18 rounds Marcos has a big red arrow upon his head but is still invisible... Uilo loses for an house-rule that don't allow her to craft a Brooch (...ok stop whining) Uilo gains also extra 60 gp Edit: the cost for the Chain Shirt (mw) for the dog should be 100*2+150 = 350, right? not (100+150)*2 if so, she has money for that since now.
Begferdeth 01-02-06, 09:53 AM	It also says you can set it before or after your move action. I would guess the before lets you walk forward blind but in total cover. I am not nerfing a tower shield... Look on the chart. It is a +4 bonus when not set.
Macbrea 01-02-06, 10:09 AM	Shield, Tower This massive wooden shield is nearly as tall as you are. In most situations, it provides the indicated shield bonus to your AC. However, you can instead use it as total cover, though you must give up your attacks to do so. The shield does not, however, provide cover against targeted spells; a spellcaster can cast a spell on you by targeting the shield you are holding. You cannot bash with a tower shield, nor can you use your shield hand for anything else. When employing a tower shield in combat, you take a -2 penalty on attack rolls because of the shield’s encumbrance. Technically. You can just move along behind a tower shield. There is no setting it at all. If you give up your attack with it your automaticly considered in full cover. You don't need to emplace it anywhere. ]
DTFarstar 01-02-06, 10:27 AM	Hate to interrupt the infighting, but my Hunter Battle (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8137424&postcount=922) is up, and it was surprisingly short. I want to sleep so freaking much right now. Going to go try some more, do the AllvsAll later today. It is going to be crappy.
Zevox 01-02-06, 10:38 AM	Hate to interrupt the infighting, but my Hunter Battle (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8137424&postcount=922) is up, and it was surprisingly short. I want to sleep so freaking much right now. Going to go try some more, do the AllvsAll later today. It is going to be crappy. Looks good to me DTF. Lucky final blow indeed. Only one problem (which I hesitate to mention since it may hamper my Paladin's victory, but....) - isn't Sir Alboreth's Energy Ray supposed to do only 1d6-1 damage? Its ML is 1/2 his HD, so the Maenad entry says. I'd thought this was rounded down, but if its rounded up, I need to change it on my character sheet. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 01-02-06, 10:52 AM	I just got done perusing the completed fights, and wow are there a lot still out there... If someone has a one on one fight remaining but no time, I can pick up one more this week. I have about 20 free hours that can be spared before deadline, but I am fairly certain that a muli-fight would take me longer than that ;) I really really really don't want to see the same multiplayer mess next week. This is gonna put it really close to deadline for those that level up to be able to edit thoughtfully and be ready for this week.
DTFarstar 01-02-06, 11:21 AM	Grrr..... teach me to do a fight while being unable to sleep. Looks like I get to go back and see what Energy Ray doing 1d6-1 will do to change the fight. Wheee!
Kaigan 01-02-06, 11:25 AM	Hate to interrupt the infighting, but my Hunter Battle (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8137424&postcount=922) is up, and it was surprisingly short. I want to sleep so freaking much right now. Going to go try some more, do the AllvsAll later today. It is going to be crappy. I sent a PM as well, but in my tactics, I wanted to heal as soon as I was injured. That's the whole reason for using the lance one-handed while mounted, and holding the wand of CLW since the beginning of the fight. So I would have healed after the energy ray in round 4. And I would not have died later either, and I beleive Feradeth would last a little while longer. Thanks. Kaigan. PS. I hope to have my fight up tonight, but it could be as late as tomorrow morning.
Vathelokai 01-02-06, 11:53 AM	Kraknol [SauroGrenom] vs. 4 Vargouilles is up over here. Vargouilles arn't so scarry when your immune to poison and paralysis.
Warclone 01-02-06, 12:39 PM	Warclone, first of all, thank you for the nice fight. about your notices: - Armor for a medium nonhumanoid creature costs twice > Yes, my bad. I wish only point that Uilo has money to afford extra 250 gp because not crafting the Broock, grant her 770 gp. - Husk cannot keep your shared spells without leapfogging 5ft/round with you > Yes, this is a stupid thing of the RAW. I allow (when I DM in real) to share spells if druid and animal companion moves at the same speed. But I'll accept your ruling (sigh)... - Please link me to any rules quotes which may change this if there are any > I can't quote anything at the moment, but this is really a bad rule for a druid - I debated whether to burn a scroll of CLW > I would have used the scroll, but no problem with your decision However nothing to say about the fight, well run. Uilo was only a bit unlucky: foes did 5 saves vs lightning bolt (all success!): 20+3, 14+3, 20+3, 13+5, 17+2 and the last attack hit ac 18 instead of 19, damn :D I wish only point out this (just to be a bit acid...) Uilo killed two foes and Marcos parasite stealed the victory doing really nothing for 18 rounds Marcos has a big red arrow upon his head but is still invisible... Uilo loses for an house-rule that don't allow her to craft a Brooch (...ok stop whining) Uilo gains also extra 60 gp Edit: the cost for the Chain Shirt (mw) for the dog should be 100*2+150 = 350, right? not (100+150)*2 if so, she has money for that since now. I know, Uilo, you did most of the work. You almost killed all 3 combatants yourself. Unfortunately, I just roll the dice, and I have no control over how honorable or dishonorable tactics are and how fair the fight comes out. I don't think your dog ever used a single buff he would have had, or was ever attacked. So, the point is somewhat moot. Feel free to figure out the rules minutae regarding those things at your leisure. The leapfrogging RAW is bogus, and I change it in my pnp campaign too: but i'm PL not DM. I added your 60gp.
Dracazar 01-02-06, 02:51 PM	Grasshopper (Greezer) vs Aerryl (MindWandererB) vs Sybil (MitzaVolchenko) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp) [All vs All] [ECL3] up here @Players: I'm exhausted after this fight, I'm sure that there are some errors, but unless those are major problems I beg you to don't ask to modify. I'll pm pitlord to give me <zero> fights next week to recover from this one...
Ariel23 01-02-06, 02:55 PM	@maraxus About the rules of movement, I don't know. - I always handled it that way: Line from center position one to centre position two - squares the line goes through must be free. But I'm willing to learn, if you have a link, that proves this wrong. http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#charge You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.) When it says "any line" it is referring to using all 4 of A's corners and drawing lines to all 4 of B's corners--if any of those 16 lines has an obstacle, you can't charge. You should never be making lines from the center of a square. AFAIK, the only time you use the center of a square is for radius spells.
Dracazar 01-02-06, 03:16 PM	I know, Uilo, you did most of the work. You almost killed all 3 combatants yourself. Unfortunately, I just roll the dice, and I have no control over how honorable or dishonorable tactics are and how fair the fight comes out. I added your 60gp. Yes, next All vs All it could be better to add: wait for everyone else to go after and kill each other until there’s one guy left Did you erased the items used? I'm sure I saw them but I'm unable to find now.
Warclone 01-02-06, 04:05 PM	Yes, next All vs All it could be better to add: Did you erased the items used? I'm sure I saw them but I'm unable to find now. I hope not, because I have a feeling in a few weeks FFAs will be 4 ppl sitting in boxes never moving out and pitlords having to come up with ways to make them fight. I've added items expended.
Luni 01-02-06, 04:17 PM	Aryleia (NightBreeze) => Samuel (Lonewolf) => Gaston (waywreth) => Zwei und'Vierzig (MitzaVolchenko): Luni [Hunter] IS up. Tactics here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8140659&postcount=926) Fight here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8140671&postcount=927)
Usurpator 01-02-06, 04:25 PM	I hope not, because I have a feeling in a few weeks FFAs will be 4 ppl sitting in boxes never moving out and pitlords having to come up with ways to make them fight. I've added items expended. That is indeed an unfortunate side-effect of rewarding last-man standing. I have been toying with the idea of a 'capture-the-flag' variant of the FFA, to help motivate characters to go out and fight. Waiting (if you can do so safely) is generally the best FFA tactic. Most FFA winners are those who managed to avoid any confrontation initially.
Skojar 01-02-06, 04:32 PM	@maraxus http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/specialAttacks.htm#charge When it says "any line" it is referring to using all 4 of A's corners and drawing lines to all 4 of B's corners--if any of those 16 lines has an obstacle, you can't charge. You should never be making lines from the center of a square. AFAIK, the only time you use the center of a square is for radius spells. Flanking involves a line from between the centers of the squares.
Mal-2 01-02-06, 04:37 PM	@Dr. Funk re: Donak vs Shaz What happened to Shaz's Vigor between round 3 and 4? He was at 45/30 hp, then Donak hit him for 7, and next round he's at 30/30 hp. I don't think that's going to change anything though, because there seems to be a general problem with the damage you have Donak doing. When rapid shooting at a human within 30' I should be rolling 1d20+9 to hit and 1d8+8 for damage (one less on each if I'm not within 30 feet). The rolls at invisible castle show attacks at 1d20+8 doing 1d8+4 or sometimes 1d8+5 damage. I think the extra damage makes up for the missing hit points from vigor. (I think it's 3 extra points in round 4, 6 in round 5, and 3 in round 9, and 6 more in round 10, for a total of 18 extra damage).
Dracazar 01-02-06, 05:45 PM	@Dr. Funk re: Donak vs Shaz In the fight there is plenty of errors, also my tactic was changed a bit, but with all that crits from donak there is nothing to do :D
Usurpator 01-02-06, 06:20 PM	Grik vs. Rebreg is up, a straight buff-n-slugfest.
Dr. Funk 01-02-06, 06:24 PM	round 3-4 it does say 45-30hp and only 7 dmg before i thought the 18 was a hit and i remembered the powerstone and never changed the hp. also i forgot pbs and fav enemy. i fixed it but im not sure if its fully fixed. he died the same round if im correct and does fav enemy and pbs dmg x3 from crit?
Macbrea 01-02-06, 06:34 PM	Multiplying Damage Sometimes you multiply damage by some factor, such as on a critical hit. Roll the damage (with all modifiers) multiple times and total the results. Note: When you multiply damage more than once, each multiplier works off the original, unmultiplied damage. Exception: Extra damage dice over and above a weapon’s normal damage are never multiplied. So, damage would be (1d8+8)+(1d8+8)+(1d8+8). Yes, you roll the damage 3 times and add it all together. Since, bonus damage isn't from extra dice you don't seperate it. It gets added 3 times.
TheMagister 01-02-06, 09:18 PM	Oh, man, this is good. Okay, go look at Iced's prelim post for the Kraegin/Sdentch/Dameon FFA. Pay close attention to Dameon's tactics vs. Sdentch. (muffled chuckle) Do you see it? Alter Self into an AZER!? It's true, Azers are humanoid in shape, so his equipment doesn't meld. ... But it sure BURNS!! Hafts of weapons (wood), beltpouches and belts, CLOTHING, backpacks, SCROLLS...it all BURNS baby. Oh, man, that's rich. (wipes tear) Sorry, Huan...I couldn't help myself... TM
MitzaVolchenko 01-02-06, 09:40 PM	Grasshopper (Greezer) vs Aerryl (MindWandererB) vs Sybil (MitzaVolchenko) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp) [All vs All] [ECL3] up here @Players: I'm exhausted after this fight, I'm sure that there are some errors, but unless those are major problems I beg you to don't ask to modify. I'll pm pitlord to give me <zero> fights next week to recover from this one... *grins* I only engaged in that mess at all because I refuse to let Sybil be a Maven ;) The only error I really saw was that you ran Grass' AC two points up the entire fight, but I checked the rolls and there was no effect on any of them. If the four man fight format is going to predominate this week, I will just sit out as I don't believe in doing the enter and surrender thing. It seems just kinda wrong to me. Regardless, there is no way to run Sybil sucessfully on anything but individualized tactics. Zwei is a little better off, but really the four man fights are just not worth the wait or the stress on the pitlord. Thanks for running the havoc.
Vathelokai 01-02-06, 09:53 PM	Oh, man, this is good. Okay, go look at Iced's prelim post for the Kraegin/Sdentch/Dameon FFA. Pay close attention to Dameon's tactics vs. Sdentch. (muffled chuckle) Do you see it? Alter Self into an AZER!? It's true, Azers are humanoid in shape, so his equipment doesn't meld. ... But it sure BURNS!! Hafts of weapons (wood), beltpouches and belts, CLOTHING, backpacks, SCROLLS...it all BURNS baby. Oh, man, that's rich. (wipes tear) Sorry, Huan...I couldn't help myself... TM Unfortunately that's not the case... You do not gain any extraordinary special attacks or special qualities... All an Azer gives you is a land speed of 30 and +6 natural armor. And since Dameon is an Aasimar...You keep all extraordinary special attacks and qualities derived from class levels, but you lose any from your normal form that are not derived from class levels. ... So (unless I'm mistaken) an aasimar would loose their darkvision, resistance to cold/elec/acid 5, and their +2 racial to spot and listen. Look it up over at TAO post 13.
DTFarstar 01-02-06, 09:57 PM	My hunter fight has changed, not that much actually changed.
DTFarstar 01-02-06, 09:59 PM	I'm having a ton of computer and net problems, so in the interest of actually getting my fights done, I'm having to roll them myself. If this is a problem... well, there really isn't anything I can do about it.
Zevox 01-02-06, 10:13 PM	Not to be a pest DT, but I've got two other things to bring up (neither should change the fight, but still): 1. When Drac's Hawk attacked Sir Alboreth with Shocking Grasp, the good knight should have gotten an attack of opportunity on it, since it has a reach of 0' and must enter his square to strike. This could have killed the Hawk, preventing the shocking grasp. Since Alboreth won anyway it changes nothing (and consequently theres no reason to redo the fight with it), but I thought I'd mention it so that you (and anyone else who might not have noticed it) know for next time. 2. You have the prizes wrong. Feradeth's horse's bonus is distributed evenly among his opponents when he faces multiple opponents (see "The Rules of Gladius: Allies I - How do allies impact treasure and XP against multiple opponents?"), and is added to the total reward, not just the one given for killing him. So in this case each of his foes gets +25%/3 = 8.3% to thier rewards, meaning Sir Alboreth should have (900+300+300)*1.083 = 1624 xp/gp, Drac should have (300+300)*1.083 = 650 xp/gp, and Weiniete should have 300*1.083 = 325 xp/gp. Just a quick alteration to make on that one. Zevox
MitzaVolchenko 01-02-06, 10:25 PM	I'm having a ton of computer and net problems, so in the interest of actually getting my fights done, I'm having to roll them myself. If this is a problem... well, there really isn't anything I can do about it. Under the rules you are perfectly within your rights to sit at your desk and roll dice. Personally I prefer it but was talked out of it by Macbrea.
MitzaVolchenko 01-02-06, 10:39 PM	Aryleia (NightBreeze) => Samuel (Lonewolf) => Gaston (waywreth) => Zwei und'Vierzig (MitzaVolchenko): Luni [Hunter] IS up. Tactics here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8140659&postcount=926) Fight here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8140671&postcount=927) I was running through the fight trying to learn the crazy psionics (last time I played a psion, the Dark Sun book was new and spiffy). Seeing how spiffy the stones were for effect, I checked on what they would cost. Gaston seems to have underpaid on his Stone of Vigor. It doesn't affect the fight, but if the math in my head is right he got a big discount on the ML 2 augmented stone at 50gp.
Ariel23 01-02-06, 10:47 PM	50 gp is correct. If it goes up to ML 3, then it becomes effectively a Level 2 Power and the price jumps dramatically. ML 3 x PL 2 x 25 = 150 gp. A ML 2 stone is ML 2 x PL 1 x 25 = 50 gp That is indeed an unfortunate side-effect of rewarding last-man standing. I have been toying with the idea of a 'capture-the-flag' variant of the FFA, to help motivate characters to go out and fight. Waiting (if you can do so safely) is generally the best FFA tactic. Most FFA winners are those who managed to avoid any confrontation initially. Rewards could be adjusted based on # rounds that you do something. Delaying is a penalty in a duel, it shouldn't win you extra XP and Gold. I have no idea how to implement something "fair" though. Maybe give some form of credit reward to people who engage sooner rather than later, like a "Star of the Game" award... In the meantime, I say that it's more fun to attack than to hide. You don't learn much about a build by hiding.
TelinArtho 01-02-06, 10:58 PM	Instacio vs Electric Smurf vs Zadder vs Ivangar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8143678) is up. It ain't perfect - so just bear with me - I spent most of last night in the ER... grrr... Anyway - I'll be willing to edit according to reasonable claims based on fact - not inference as usual - so bring in a quote if you have an error in mind. I'm starting my other 4 way All vs All now...
Begferdeth 01-02-06, 11:20 PM	Tan vs Gundir (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8143859&postcount=932) is up! Poor Popper... he tried so hard.
Kaigan 01-02-06, 11:32 PM	Tan vs Gundir (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8143859&postcount=932) is up! Poor Popper... he tried so hard. I'll have to look over it again, but the one thing I see, is the round that Tan makes a save to escape the entangle. you rolled a 10+7=17. The thing is to escape entangle, you make a strength check DC 20, or an escape artist check also DC 20, so he would still be entangled for at least another round. Kaigan Edit: My fight will be up sometime tomorrow. I will have to take the penalty. I'm moving back to the dorms tomorrow, and am packing tonight. Sorry to my gladiators.
waywreth 01-02-06, 11:35 PM	50 gp is correct. If it goes up to ML 3, then it becomes effectively a Level 2 Power and the price jumps dramatically. ML 3 x PL 2 x 25 = 150 gp. A ML 2 stone is ML 2 x PL 1 x 25 = 50 gp There is a reason it's ML2... when augmenting stones, even numbers offer the highest payoff in gp vs value. I concur as well - hunter fights seem to have weird rewards. Gaston won but only killed one (although at least he did something the whole fight rather than hide in a corner). Oh well level 4 it is!
TelinArtho 01-02-06, 11:38 PM	My remaining 4 way fight is going to have to wait until tomorrow first thing. It has been started and one character is already out...
TheMagister 01-03-06, 12:18 AM	Well, now I feel silly for being so tickled about the Azer thing. Figures that he's disguised as a flaming dwarf, but doesn't burn anything. That'd spoil the disguise, don't you think? TM
SauroGrenom 01-03-06, 01:05 AM	Silas MacLeod (NiQil) vs Perius (Ravashack) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8144442) is up.
Iced 01-03-06, 02:54 AM	Dameon vs Sdentch vs Kraegin is up (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8144910&postcount=934).
DTFarstar 01-03-06, 03:01 AM	My Almaar vs. Destra vs. Javel vs. Trixie (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8144977&postcount=935) is up. I'm sure there are errors, but I was rushed. I hope none are too horrid, if nothing is really bad, it will stand unless it's also easy to fix.
Ravashack 01-03-06, 03:09 AM	Silas MacLeod (NiQil) vs Perius (Ravashack) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8144442) is up. Oh well, looks like I was right. ^_^ Thanks for running the fight SauroGrenom. I also see from your fight that you liked the Feather Token Whip I got last week. :)
TheMagister 01-03-06, 03:40 AM	@Iced - sorry man, but I have to speak up. Why do you get to make common sense decisions for Dameon and not for Sdentch? Dameon calls hippogriffs instead of bison, but Sdentch doesn't rage to break hold person? Also, CL checks for Dameon to activate the scrolls (1d20+1 vs. DC 6) of Summon Monster III need to be rolled. Hippogriffs have average flight ability, and can't hover, so no full attacks on helpless Sdentch. They also can't get above her to dive at her (because she's held near the ceiling as I stated in my tactics). So, she's taken far too much punishment from the summoned monsters anyhow. (I can't look at Invisible Castle because it's filtered out by the company firewall, but the damage numbers are high enough that it looks like you were giving them full attack actions.) Also, your attack method vs. Dameon is all wrong: If a flying Dameon comes seeking Sdentch, throw the net at him in an attempt to entangle and catch him (a ranged touch attack). If he's hit, rage and drag him (via opposed Str check: see the net's description) to the central pool of lava and hurl him (net and all) into the lava (20d6 damage). I'd use the rules for moving while in a grapple, but substitute the opposed grapple check with the opposed Strength check. Don't put Sdentch directly over the lava (use your brain, man!), have her throw him at an angle. Man, I'd love to see this happen. If the net misses or he escapes it, withdraw away from Dameon in a direction that takes Sdentch as far away from Kraegin as possible and quickdraw her longspear as she goes. Take AoO for Dameon closing and then stow the longspear and quickdraw a longsword and attack. Next turn, equip shield and attack, then TWF the round after that. If Sdentch has missed every attack up to this point, resort to making 3 attempts to start a grapple (with TWF). Die trying. Be as high up as possible while doing this. Where's the net? Where's the TWF? Why the charge? Where's the longspear (I know I mentioned this in a vs. Kraegin fashion, but it applies here, too, since Dameon's the only guy left!)? These are all things I mentioned in my tactics that would've kept Sdentch from Dameon's reach. Mostly, I'd like Sdentch to rage after she's held for the +2 to saves, and I'd like recalculation of summon damage down to one claw attack a round from each of them (they can't charge if they do this, because they're turning to get back to Sdentch round after round, and no higher ground, and no double damage b/c no dive), AND I'd like a change in the combat between Sdentch and Dameon. Edit: I'm sorry, I misspoke myself. Where's the enlarge person potion in the longspear strategy? The whole point in the enlarge person is to be out of his melee reach! My apologies. Edit2: Also, 16 damage on a Sdentch Arrow Crit? Seems low (again, I can't see the rolls, I'm just askin'. She deals 1d8+4 with an arrow x 3 - 3 DR. Minimum Damage is 3+12 = 15 - 3 = 12. 13 (while possible) is just lucky for Kraegin. Just askin'. Thanks! TM
DTFarstar 01-03-06, 04:22 AM	So, is the deadline for fights past now or are we still like a day behind from last week and what-not?
DTFarstar 01-03-06, 04:29 AM	@TheMagister - On the Arrow thing, from what I see anyway, He was rolling damage with attack rolls and when the crit passed he multiplied the damage by 2 instead of re-rolling, rolling 2d8+8 more or multiplying by 3. So, that damage is wrong, should either be 21 or re-rolled or 2d8+8 more rolled and added to the 1d8+4(4+4)=8 already rolled. Edit : Oh, the hippogriffs were in fact getting full attacks, as well.
TheMagister 01-03-06, 04:37 AM	Whoo! Sdentch has a chance! DTFarstar has offered to help me with checking the rolls. Thanks, man! TM
TheMagister 01-03-06, 05:07 AM	Glad to help, let's see, the Hippogriffs got Full Attacks in just about every round they attacked -7, 8, 9, on round 10 it looks like there were something like 12-14 attack vs. Sdentch. A round of full attacks from the hippos then the AoO's weren't linked, but there is a 12, 18 for no reason then another round of full attacks ending in 5 damage. Confusing. Round 11 last hippo charges, evidently into flanking, and only attacks once, then full attacks in rounds 12 and 13. Thanks! Answers one question, and saves Sdentch a buncha HP. As far as I can tell your damage vs. Kraegin is correct except the crit is wrong, he didn't roll any extra, just multiplied the original damage 1d8+4(4+4) x2 and got 16-3=13. And your saves vs hold person calculated the potion in and were rolled as 1, 2, and 8 respectively vs. DC 18. So, bad rolls for you there, but correct. Bummer. Well, Sdentch still shoulda raged for the extra +2. Just wouldn't of helped her. I think the big thing is with the exception of the charge round(11), they got full attacks every time and Round 8 was not linked, just listed as 14 damage. I checked the SW rolls too and all of those hit you. At least from the round it was cast on, I assume those were hitting you. *shrug* Hope that helps, Darian Yeah it was kinda confusing the way he had it in there, but it had to be Sdentch (darn, that grrl is tuff!). Thanks for checking for me! TM
DTFarstar 01-03-06, 05:11 AM	Glad to help, let me know if you need anything else.
^Rayne^ 01-03-06, 05:12 AM	Are pairings for this weeks matchups going to be delayed like they were last week? We are coming up on the very last day before matchups and I have yet to see my PC's All vs. All fight (run by Huan). Are we going to get a chance to get our PC's ready for the next set of battles before then? Have most of the fights been run or has the holiday weekend made a lot of the fights run behind? Thanks, Karl
Zevox 01-03-06, 08:03 AM	@ DTF - The All vs All looks pretty good. The only mistake I saw was that I'm almost certain that dissolving weapon is not a valid prebuff. I know I've seen it discussed around here before recently, and I believe I recall it being said that for some reason it isn't considered valid (perhaps somebody with better memory can say for certain the reasoning or rebuke me on this if my memory is playing tricks on me). Anyway, if this is so, that shot from Almaar wouldn't have dropped Javel. I don't think it would change the fight results, however, since Almaar could just activate it in round 1 and drop him one round later. Its your call on whether to try rerunning the match with it as far as I'm concerned. EDIT: Oh, also, you forgot to mention Destra using two castings of Cure Light Wounds from her scroll in the wrap-up. Not a big deal, just needs mentioning for record-keeping's sake. A pity I forgot to include tactics for countering Almaar flying in there - healing is not what I would have done given those circumstances, but I can understand you defaulting to it since it was the only thing my tactics mentioned on the matter. Ah well, live and learn, eh? Zevox
Begferdeth 01-03-06, 08:14 AM	Blah, I dont have time to look it over right now... but was that the save after he broke free and the plants tried to regrab him? Or was that his break free attempt? I'll have to look over it again, but the one thing I see, is the round that Tan makes a save to escape the entangle. you rolled a 10+7=17. The thing is to escape entangle, you make a strength check DC 20, or an escape artist check also DC 20, so he would still be entangled for at least another round. Kaigan Edit: My fight will be up sometime tomorrow. I will have to take the penalty. I'm moving back to the dorms tomorrow, and am packing tonight. Sorry to my gladiators.
Cerebus13 01-03-06, 08:29 AM	@ DTF - The All vs All looks pretty good. The only mistake I saw was that I'm almost certain that dissolving weapon is not a valid prebuff.Incorrect. Dissolving Weapon is a valid prebuff on melee weapons and on bow/crossbow. In the case of the bow/crossbow the first shot you make will discharge Dissolving Weapon.
Zevox 01-03-06, 08:37 AM	Incorrect. Dissolving Weapon is a valid prebuff on melee weapons and on bow/crossbow. In the case of the bow/crossbow the first shot you make will discharge Dissolving Weapon. Okay then, thanks Cerebus. Seems it was just my memory playing tricks on me after all. Zevox
Altaris13 01-03-06, 08:38 AM	Hey peoples. Wow... Interesting last couple days here. I missed alot. I'll be getting my fights up today, sorry for the delay. I had a good New Years Holiday. :cool:
Mal-2 01-03-06, 09:13 AM	@ DTF - The All vs All looks pretty good. The only mistake I saw was that I'm almost certain that dissolving weapon is not a valid prebuff. I know I've seen it discussed around here before recently, and I believe I recall it being said that for some reason it isn't considered valid (perhaps somebody with better memory can say for certain the reasoning or rebuke me on this if my memory is playing tricks on me). Dissolving weapon is a valid prebuff, as long as the character can cast it himself. You can't buy it as an NPC service, because it's range personal. You can manifest it from a powerstone, but only if you can do so without any chance of failure. If you have to make a manifester level check to manifest it from a stone, it has to be done once you're in the arena.
Ayrynthyn 01-03-06, 09:16 AM	Instacio vs Electric Smurf vs Zadder vs Ivangar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8143678) is up. It ain't perfect - so just bear with me - I spent most of last night in the ER... grrr... Anyway - I'll be willing to edit according to reasonable claims based on fact - not inference as usual - so bring in a quote if you have an error in mind. I'm starting my other 4 way All vs All now... As promised in my tactics, no gripes. I am, however, still trying to get a grasp of the flow of this whole Hide thing. Wow... i had thought chameleon only lasted 1 min per level, not 10. That offically comes out of the "ready an action" column. Also, i didn' see my Hide check or the Spot check for him to see me, and the link to invisible castle seems broken so i cant "follow he rolls". Any insight would be great so i can improve my tactics for next time... Thanks again for running what looked like a real painful fight.
NiQil 01-03-06, 10:13 AM	@ Altaris: I sent this to you in PM as well, hoping to catch you before you have to redo a lot with the fight between Sir Valkin and Caspian... I noticed that you were running the fight now, and that you already had tactics posted. I wanted to point out that part of Telin's tactics for Sir Valkin consist of metagaming that need to be disallowed. In Sir Valkin's tactics, it states that if Caspian rages, he is to withdraw. The problem is that there is no way for him to know that Caspian is in rage. Contrary to popular opinion, nowhere in the RAW does it state that there is a display of any kind (audible or visual or anything else) that indicates a barbarian is in a rage. Therefore, the withdraw portion of Sir Valkin's tactics are metagaming and illegal. Take a look for yourself: Rage (Ex): A barbarian can fly into a rage a certain number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength, a +4 bonus to Constitution, and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.) While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. A fit of rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier. A barbarian may prematurely end his rage. At the end of the rage, the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued (–2 penalty to Strength, –2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) for the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian, at which point this limitation no longer applies; see below). A barbarian can fly into a rage only once per encounter. At 1st level he can use his rage ability once per day. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, he can use it one additional time per day (to a maximum of six times per day at 20th level). Entering a rage takes no time itself, but a barbarian can do it only during his action, not in response to someone else’s action.
SauroGrenom 01-03-06, 10:54 AM	Altaris13, I see that you are working on the fight with Raskos and Aranor. I didn't see any discussion about the comments in my tactics regarding Aranor's apparent posession and use of prohibited spell scrolls and spells. His tactics rely heavily on the use of invisibility, and it appears that Aranor is not allowed to use illusion spells due the additional prohibited school required by his Red Wizard prestige class. Even though he may have had those spells before he leveled and took a level in the prestige class, he is still not able to either cast or use from an item any prohibited spells. Obviously either I am mistaken or Sindorin is mistaken. In either case we have something of a problem. I asked that if I was mistaken that I be notified so that I could post new tactics that allow for his invisibility. If Sindorin is mistaken then he would likely appreciate the opportunity to submit new valid tactics. In either case since the opponent's tactics are now public, submiting only one character's new tactics creates a sticky problem of fareness. Please before you get too far into running the fight, let me know what you intend to do about this. Sauro
SoulLord 01-03-06, 11:03 AM	Altaris13, I see that you are working on the fight with Raskos and Aranor. I didn't see any discussion about the comments in my tactics regarding Aranor's apparent posession and use of prohibited spell scrolls and spells. His tactics rely heavily on the use of invisibility, and it appears that Aranor is not allowed to use illusion spells due the additional prohibited school required by his Red Wizard prestige class. Even though he may have had those spells before he leveled and took a level in the prestige class, he is still not able to either cast or use from an item any prohibited spells. Obviously either I am mistaken or Sindorin is mistaken. In either case we have something of a problem. I asked that if I was mistaken that I be notified so that I could post new tactics that allow for his invisibility. If Sindorin is mistaken then he would likely appreciate the opportunity to submit new valid tactics. In either case since the opponent's tactics are now public, submiting only one character's new tactics creates a sticky problem of fareness. Please before you get too far into running the fight, let me know what you intend to do about this. Sauro The Red wizard prestige class adds a forbidden school But it specifically says that you still keep use of your spells learned in this forbidden school before you took it. It's in the DMG in the prestige class section.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 11:12 AM	@ Altaris: I sent this to you in PM as well, hoping to catch you before you have to redo a lot with the fight between Sir Valkin and Caspian... I noticed that you were running the fight now, and that you already had tactics posted. I wanted to point out that part of Telin's tactics for Sir Valkin consist of metagaming that need to be disallowed. In Sir Valkin's tactics, it states that if Caspian rages, he is to withdraw. The problem is that there is no way for him to know that Caspian is in rage. Contrary to popular opinion, nowhere in the RAW does it state that there is a display of any kind (audible or visual or anything else) that indicates a barbarian is in a rage. Therefore, the withdraw portion of Sir Valkin's tactics are metagaming and illegal. Take a look for yourself: I know that it isn't in the text in the SRD - but I believe it is described in the PH as something that is quite obvious. If that is not the case, I am fine with just sticking it out in melee. Could someone dredge up that text for me if they get a chance? - I don't have the 3.5 PH and my 3.0 PH is at home
NiQil 01-03-06, 11:26 AM	I know that it isn't in the text in the SRD - but I believe it is described in the PH as something that is quite obvious. If that is not the case, I am fine with just sticking it out in melee. Could someone dredge up that text for me if they get a chance? - I don't have the 3.5 PH and my 3.0 PH is at home Here's the only flavor text I could find in the PHB that mentions rage: Characteristics: The barbarian is an excellent warrior. Where the fighter's skill in combat comes from training and discipline, however, the barbarian has a powerful rage. While in that berserk fury, he becomes stronger and tougher, better able to defeat his foes and withstand their attacks. These rages leave him winded, and he has the energy for only a few such spectacular displays per day, but those few rages are usually sufficient. He is at home in the wild, and he runs at a great speed. Beyond that, the only other mentions of rage I see are describing the later rage abilities (Greater Rage, Tireless Rage, etc), none of which describe raging any further. I never owned a 3.0 PHB, so it is possible that something was in there as a part of flavor text that is no longer in the 3.5 flavor (which is what I own and quoted here.). Edit: I also wanted to mention that I really hate using the word metagaming, but use it in this case to differentiate in character vs out of character knowledge.....too often that word gets associated with pure cheating, and that is by no means what I meant to imply here...simply a difference of what the player knows vs what the character knows.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 11:29 AM	Well, then I guess I can't tell if you are raging - kind of seems like it should be an obvious thing - but maybe not. In any case, I'm fine with sticking it out in melee... good luck to you.
NiQil 01-03-06, 11:31 AM	Well, then I guess I can't tell if you are raging - kind of seems like it should be an obvious thing - but maybe not. In any case, I'm fine with sticking it out in melee... good luck to you. Yeah....if I end up dying to Foreman again, I am going to go on a quest just to have to have a chance to kill nothing but horses LMAO
Turin 01-03-06, 12:19 PM	Instacio vs Electric Smurf vs Zadder vs Ivangar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8143678) is up. It ain't perfect - so just bear with me - I spent most of last night in the ER... grrr... Anyway - I'll be willing to edit according to reasonable claims based on fact - not inference as usual - so bring in a quote if you have an error in mind.Wow... that must've been a real pain for you, TelinArtho. Sorry about that. Happy and fine with the results, but I did notice a minor error. It looks like you have Z's force screen up long after round 22 when it's supposed to have ended. Unfortunately it looks like my dice luck was bad enough that the fight still would have gone into 40 or 50-something rounds in any event. It really doesn't affect the fight either way, but it might have shaved some of the unbearably long time it must have taken you to finish that fight! :D Thanks for running it! Ivangar chuckles evily to himself, counting his winnings... "mwaahahaaa!"
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 12:25 PM	Actually, you are right - though it doesn't make any difference because you were making touches to start grapples - so it didn't affect his touch AC. /d
SauroGrenom 01-03-06, 12:30 PM	The Red wizard prestige class adds a forbidden school But it specifically says that you still keep use of your spells learned in this forbidden school before you took it. It's in the DMG in the prestige class section. SoulLord, Thanks for informing me of that. I don't have the DMG, so it was necessary for someone to tell me that. None the less I was working under a miss understanding that my opponent would be unable to use invisibility. I knew that it was possibile that I was wrong, and I requested that if so I be given the chance to submit edited tactics. So I should have had the opportunity to submit edited tactics to counter that invisibility. It's kind of too late for that now that my opponent's tactics have been posted. Any adaption of my tactics after the posting of my opponents tactics could be ruled as unfare. This is what I'd like Altaris to decide about. Thanks again for the information. Sauro
SoulLord 01-03-06, 12:37 PM	You are welcome. If you have any rules doubts feel free to post them in the tavern or in the FoTW thread if it concerns a fight of the week I'm sure someone will be able to help you.
Ariel23 01-03-06, 01:23 PM	My Almaar vs. Destra vs. Javel vs. Trixie (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8144977&postcount=935) is up. I'm sure there are errors, but I was rushed. I hope none are too horrid, if nothing is really bad, it will stand unless it's also easy to fix.First, thanks for running a 4 person free for all. Second, I expected Trixie to lose. 3rd place would have been a major victory. Finally, the only problem I have is that other than starting position, there's no coordinates given. We have no way of checking if moves were accurate or ranges valid or LOS blocked. In one round, Trixie moved 120' and her opponent moved 100' and still managed base-to-base contact. That's a mathematical impossibility, without coordinates or other evidence to explain it. I imagine this is because you did everything by hand, and since that's a special circumstance (cable modem on the fritz) I don't really mind. All Trixie could hope to gain by a re-do is for "gaining" 3rd place because Javel takes 4th, and since Trixie and Javel weren't fighting, that's not really how I'd care to "win." [Okay, okay, Trixie is C/E, so she doesn't care, but I do.] Edit: I asked two related questions in the Tavern about pre-buffs, one about Dissolving Weapon, the other a more general question. I'm not asking for a change to my fight, just looking for clarification and thought someone here might want to weigh in.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 01:23 PM	Bolrak vs Evaine vs Tsuizues vs Aragorn (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8147702) is up.
Snommelp 01-03-06, 01:27 PM	Problems; Felan only has Drow sleep poison prebuffed. Hassan is an elf, and immune to sleep. Felan would have to spend a round or 2 putting the other poison on his arrows. This makes the round 1 save moot, and means that Felan and Hassan would make contact 1 round later. Possibly you are ruling that (ex)sleep, such as from poison, works on elves. I brought this up in the tavern; seems that the PHB says elves are "immune to magical sleep" and the MM says elves are "immune to sleep spells and effects." The flavor text of the PHB implies that elves are immune to all sleep, but there is some vagueness. Then in the drow entry under the poison it states "Since this poison is not a magical effect, drow and other elves are susceptible to it," which contradicts the "immune to sleep effects" line in the same monster entry. So I wonder: are elves immune to all sleep except drow poison? That seems to be what is going on. If it is, then I was unaware, and will put a size 7 post in the tavern about it. ---------------------------------- Round 5, Hassan can hear Felan, so he should ready to sneak attack him. ------------------------------------ If you choose not to change that, then there is round 6; Hassan has 2 pp left to mindthrust with. Unless I'm missing something, manifesting a power is a mental action, and thus... However, if Hassan is asleep, and not paralyzed (see part 1, above), then this point is moot. Round five, I will change. You asked for an attack in your tactics, and I missed it. However, the drow poison I will not change. It says in the Monster Manual that drow poison works against elves, so to rule otherwise, regardless of the debate in the tavern, would be going against RAW. And actually, looking at the SRD I think I see why it works on elves. It says in the SRD that the effect of drow poison is unconsciousness, not sleep. A subtle difference that makes all the difference. Round five attack: 17+6=23 vs. AC 10, damage 2+3+6+3+6+6=26 Felan survives the attack (by 1 hp) to knock Hassan out in the next round. Sorry, Vath. And a friendly reminder to all: you don't have to PM me if you post prolems with my fights here. I always at the very least skim the thread looking for fights I am involved with. Vath, I know you mean well, but I do have a life outside of the CoCo (I know it's hard to believe sometimes considering how often I'm on); yesterday I went on a long hike and then went to a friend's house to celebrate Channukah with him. This is the first I've been on since before you posted the complaints, and I have now addressed them, at the first opportunity I had. That came off sounding angry, probably, but please don't take it that way. It's just a friendly reminder, to save both you and myself a little time so that I can fix the fights sooner.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 01:43 PM	As promised in my tactics, no gripes. I am, however, still trying to get a grasp of the flow of this whole Hide thing. Wow... i had thought chameleon only lasted 1 min per level, not 10. That offically comes out of the "ready an action" column. Also, i didn' see my Hide check or the Spot check for him to see me, and the link to invisible castle seems broken so i cant "follow he rolls". Any insight would be great so i can improve my tactics for next time... Thanks again for running what looked like a real painful fight. In general, I only include hide/spot checks when the person hiding is in LOS after someone moves (or some other situation like that). Up until the round before Ivangar saw you - no one ever had LOS to you- so there were no hide checks made. In the round that he spotted you, you were ~10ft away from cover vs him - so you had no possibility of hiding with only x ranks (where x is less than 10). If you had had better listen rolls, I might have moved you around the corner - but that would've been an difficult thing to do - because it would expose you to much more of the arena - not just give you cover and hiding vs Ivangar. The rolls can be found at invisible castle under Name = InsEleZadIva (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?u=InsEleZadIva&limit=on) Sorry about not including the name with the rolls.
Vathelokai 01-03-06, 02:29 PM	And a friendly reminder to all: you don't have to PM me if you post prolems with my fights here.... That came off sounding angry, probably, but please don't take it that way. It's just a friendly reminder, to save both you and myself a little time so that I can fix the fights sooner. No problem. With all the chatter on all the boards, it can be easy to miss one post sometimes. The PM was a "better safe than sorry" sort of thing.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 02:37 PM	Yeah....if I end up dying to Foreman again, I am going to go on a quest just to have to have a chance to kill nothing but horses LMAO Well, you better be prepared - it looks like Sir Valkin's ride skill is owning you...
Altaris13 01-03-06, 02:47 PM	SoulLord, Thanks for informing me of that. I don't have the DMG, so it was necessary for someone to tell me that. None the less I was working under a miss understanding that my opponent would be unable to use invisibility. I knew that it was possibile that I was wrong, and I requested that if so I be given the chance to submit edited tactics. So I should have had the opportunity to submit edited tactics to counter that invisibility. It's kind of too late for that now that my opponent's tactics have been posted. Any adaption of my tactics after the posting of my opponents tactics could be ruled as unfare. This is what I'd like Altaris to decide about. Thanks again for the information. Sauro You're completely right Sauro. I'm sorry, I plumb forgot to reply to your tactics, but fully intended to. Send me a PM regarding the invisibility only, and I'll take that into consideration. I've not actually started the fight yet, as the Valkin/Foreman vs Caspian fight is taking forever for some reason (my head is in the clouds today I think.)
NiQil 01-03-06, 02:56 PM	Well, you better be prepared - it looks like Sir Valkin's ride skill is owning you... Except for that whole rage/withdraw issue that is in there that needs to be removed...I already PM'd Altaris about that so it could get fixed before he finished so that he wouldn't have to redo it later.
Usurpator 01-03-06, 03:50 PM	Except for that whole rage/withdraw issue that is in there that needs to be removed...I already PM'd Altaris about that so it could get fixed before he finished so that he wouldn't have to redo it later. While I agree that withdraw on rage until it ends is a bit of a cheesy tactic, I think it is quite reasonable to assume you can see if somebody is raging. It is true that it doesn't have a description of visual display or somesuch, but almost none of the special abilities or even regular actions have so. You just use common sense to determine if something can be discerned. There are simply not rules for everything. Can you discern if someone is running even though the run action doesn't say so? Can you discern if someone is exhausted? Can you discern if someone is entangled or paralyzed? I think all conditions above can be discerned just like rage. If somebody is trying to hide/disguise their condition or action, maybe an opposed roll is required. The best thing I would give a barbarian that has written in his tactics to hide his rage is a bluff roll vs. sense motive.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 04:08 PM	In case anyone has been wondering. There are still quite a few fights that have not been posted/completed: LEVEL 3 FIGHTS Manzarf (Abyssal Stalker) vs Talik (Ayrynthyn) vs Gorak (Macbrea) vs Garland (oxybe): Altaris13 [All vs All] Tactics are posted, but fight not complete Squall (Dr.Funk) vs Cher (Dracazar) vs Darius (DTFarstar) vs Ural (TelinArtho): Book5 [All vs All] Tactics are posted, but fight not complete Sven (TroubleWolf) => Rethun (Kaigan) => Jonathon (Abyssal Stalker) => Anakala (TelinArtho): Iced [Hunter] Tactics are posted, but fight not complete Kendal (Papapeperoni) vs Krayko (^Rayne^) vs Kitaya (Usurpator) vs Solomon (Warclone): Huan [All vs All] LEVEL 4 FIGHTS Vivi Ornitier (Dr.Funk) miniquests for a small air elemental: King Uther [Miniquest] MQ cancelled as Vivi wasn't prepared. Savour Die (Warclone) vs The Bounty Hunter (Nightbanegod): Kaigan Faelto (TelinArtho) vs Maven (Tellish of Ket): <none> Posted this fight for Cat LEVEL 5 FIGHTS Sir Valkin (TelinArtho) vs Caspian MacLeod (NiQil): Altaris13 Tactics are posted and start of fight, but fight not complete LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Noko (Maraxus) vs Lissa (MysticMonk2005) vs Tezca (Usurpator): Snommelp [All vs All] Raskos the Jade Father (SauroGrenom) vs Aranor Haerdonin (Sindorin): Altaris13 Tactics are posted, but fight not complete LEVEL 8 FIGHTS Talari (Luni) => Daeren (TelinArtho) => Rayos (Kaigan): Iced [Hunter] I have posted comments to the fights in red. Since Maven surrenders - I'm PMing Cat and letting him know that I will post the fight in order to set my character ready for next week and so that things move along. Altaris - if you need someone to take one of those remaining fights - just let me know - I can probably take care of it. This goes to anyone who has a fight outstanding as well as usual.
NiQil 01-03-06, 04:09 PM	While I agree that withdraw on rage until it ends is a bit of a cheesy tactic, I think it is quite reasonable to assume you can see if somebody is raging. It is true that it doesn't have a description of visual display or somesuch, but almost none of the special abilities or even regular actions have so. You just use common sense to determine if something can be discerned. There are simply not rules for everything. Can you discern if someone is running even though the run action doesn't say so? Can you discern if someone is exhausted? Can you discern if someone is entangled or paralyzed? I think all conditions above can be discerned just like rage. If somebody is trying to hide/disguise their condition or action, maybe an opposed roll is required. The best thing I would give a barbarian that has written in his tactics to hide his rage is a bluff roll vs. sense motive. The difference between rage and some of the other actions you are describing is that there is no physical indication that they are raging. None. Everyone just assumes that when a barbarian rages, they start whooping and hollering and foaming at the mouth or growling and generally acts like a blithering idiot. However, a barbarian could just as easily rage with no physical showing whatsover, but might have a changed mindset that causes him to push his body harder than it is normally capable of....think of raging as an adrenaline rush. Running is able to be determined because you are moving faster than a walk. Entangled is able to be determined because you are held by something, which hinders your movement. Exhaustion, on the other hand, I don't believe you could tell just by looking at someone. Maybe in RL, but not in game terms. But that aside, if you are going to base a tactic around a certain characteristic of a character, then you have to have some way to determine that characteristic. It's the same thing as someone saying "do this when my opponent hits 10 hp left." It's using an out of game mechanic to make an in game decision. Unless you have a spell to determine how many hp someone has left, the above example is metagaming. Same principle. Unless you have a way to determine when a barbarian is raging, there is no way to write a tactic around that. And since, by the RAW, there isn't a way to determine if someone is raging, writing a tactic on that basis is metagaming. If I have to start writing in my tactics that all of my rages are adrenaline rushes and they have no outward display just to avoid the metagaming withdraw tactic that *everyone seems to use against barbarians, I will. But, by the RAW, I shouldn't have to.
Luni 01-03-06, 04:24 PM	The difference between rage and some of the other actions you are describing is that there is no physical indication that they are raging. None. Everyone just assumes that when a barbarian rages, they start whooping and hollering and foaming at the mouth or growling and generally acts like a blithering idiot. However, a barbarian could just as easily rage with no physical showing whatsover, but might have a changed mindset that causes him to push his body harder than it is normally capable of....think of raging as an adrenaline rush. Running is able to be determined because you are moving faster than a walk. Entangled is able to be determined because you are held by something, which hinders your movement. Exhaustion, on the other hand, I don't believe you could tell just by looking at someone. Maybe in RL, but not in game terms. But that aside, if you are going to base a tactic around a certain characteristic of a character, then you have to have some way to determine that characteristic. It's the same thing as someone saying "do this when my opponent hits 10 hp left." It's using an out of game mechanic to make an in game decision. Unless you have a spell to determine how many hp someone has left, the above example is metagaming. Same principle. Unless you have a way to determine when a barbarian is raging, there is no way to write a tactic around that. And since, by the RAW, there isn't a way to determine if someone is raging, writing a tactic on that basis is metagaming. If I have to start writing in my tactics that all of my rages are adrenaline rushes and they have no outward display just to avoid the metagaming withdraw tactic that *everyone seems to use against barbarians, I will. But, by the RAW, I shouldn't have to. I agree with NiQil. Raging doesn't have to be an observable state. Take a look at Conan the Barbarian for example. Do you think his rages were obvious? Besides the limbs going everywhere of course. I don't recall Conan foaming at the mouth. Status would alllow the caster to know if his opponent is raging. I don't think any other spell would do so. Aside: The way the rules are written, you can't even tell if someone is wounded without using magic.
Usurpator 01-03-06, 04:30 PM	The difference between rage and some of the other actions you are describing is that there is no physical indication that they are raging. None. Everyone just assumes that when a barbarian rages, they start whooping and hollering and foaming at the mouth or growling and generally acts like a blithering idiot. However, a barbarian could just as easily rage with no physical showing whatsover, but might have a changed mindset that causes him to push his body harder than it is normally capable of....think of raging as an adrenaline rush. Because you claim there is no physical indication doesn't make it true. If I ask 10 random people on the street if they can see a difference between the same person when he's raging and when he's not raging, I'll bet you 10 out of 10 will say yes. That's the common sense definition of rage. Maybe you can look it up in a dictionary as well, but unless the D&D rules specifically say different, I will hold to the common sense definition of raging. Look at it like this: even psions manifesting powers (who can do so without any outward manifestation at all) draw attacks of opportunity. These don't come falling out of the sky, they are given because an opponent sees some weakness, some hesitation. Experienced warriors would even be better at noticing changes in their opponent's fighting style (hence the bluff vs. opposed attack roll for feints) even if it is only a sudden adrenaline rush. The raging person's swings change, his breathing changes, his posture changes, his eyes widen, etc. etc. Some quotes from the rules that suggest something else than a 'quiet adrenalin rush' as you would like: Rage (Ex): A barbarian can fly into a rage a certain number of times per day. In a rage, a barbarian temporarily gains a +4 bonus to Strength, a +4 bonus to Constitution, and a +2 morale bonus on Will saves, but he takes a –2 penalty to Armor Class. The increase in Constitution increases the barbarian’s hit points by 2 points per level, but these hit points go away at the end of the rage when his Constitution score drops back to normal. (These extra hit points are not lost first the way temporary hit points are.) While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma-, Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills (except for Balance, Escape Artist, Intimidate, and Ride), the Concentration skill, or any abilities that require patience or concentration, nor can he cast spells or activate magic items that require a command word, a spell trigger (such as a wand), or spell completion (such as a scroll) to function. He can use any feat he has except Combat Expertise, item creation feats, and metamagic feats. A fit of rage lasts for a number of rounds equal to 3 + the character’s (newly improved) Constitution modifier. A barbarian may prematurely end his rage. At the end of the rage, the barbarian loses the rage modifiers and restrictions and becomes fatigued (–2 penalty to Strength, –2 penalty to Dexterity, can’t charge or run) for the duration of the current encounter (unless he is a 17th-level barbarian, at which point this limitation no longer applies; see below). A barbarian can fly into a rage only once per encounter. At 1st level he can use his rage ability once per day. At 4th level and every four levels thereafter, he can use it one additional time per day (to a maximum of six times per day at 20th level). Entering a rage takes no time itself, but a barbarian can do it only during his action, not in response to someone else’s action. Common sense says that somebody who flies into a fit of rage so bad he cannot use any skill requiring patience of concentration would be noticable to others. But if I were your DM and you were determined on playing it as a kind of quiet rage, I would give your character the benefit of the doubt and allow him a bluff check to pull it off, were it not that rage makes Charisma based skills impossible.
NiQil 01-03-06, 04:38 PM	Because you claim there is no physical indication doesn't make it true. If I ask 10 random people on the street if they can see a difference between the same person when he's raging and when he's not raging, I'll bet you 10 out of 10 will say yes. That's the common sense definition of rage. Maybe you can look it up in a dictionary as well, but unless the D&D rules specifically say different, I will hold to the common sense definition of raging. Look at it like this: even psions manifesting powers (who can do so without any outward manifestation at all) draw attacks of opportunity. These don't come falling out of the sky, they are given because an opponent sees some weakness, some hesitation. Experienced warriors would even be better at noticing changes in their opponent's fighting style (hence the bluff vs. opposed attack roll for feints) even if it is only a sudden adrenaline rush. The raging person's swings change, his breathing changes, his posture changes, his eyes widen, etc. etc. Some quotes from the rules that suggest something else than a 'quiet adrenalin rush' as you would like: Common sense says that somebody who flies into a fit of rage so bad he cannot use any skill requiring patience of concentration would be noticable to others. But if I were your DM and you were determined on playing it as a kind of quiet rage, I would give your character the benefit of the doubt and allow him a bluff check to pull it off, were it not that rage makes Charisma based skills impossible. But, once again, while you are entitled to your opinion, that does not make it RAW. By the RAW, there is no outward display of rage, and no way, short of an appropriate spell, to tell when a barbarian is in a rage. As an aside, the reason I am fighting on this so hard is because anytime I see a barbarian here, I always see the same tactic. "Withdraw until his rage goes away." It effectively makes that portion of the class useless here. A tactic of that nature shouldn't be allowed unless you have a way to tell if someone is raging.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 04:40 PM	I have posted Maven vs Faelto for Cat even though he did not request that I do so. I have PMed him to let him know as well. /d
Begferdeth 01-03-06, 04:43 PM	Well, going with that flavor text from the PHB again... Originally Posted by PHB, page 24 Characteristics: The barbarian is an excellent warrior. Where the fighter's skill in combat comes from training and discipline, however, the barbarian has a powerful rage. While in that berserk fury, he becomes stronger and tougher, better able to defeat his foes and withstand their attacks. These rages leave him winded, and he has the energy for only a few such spectacular displays per day, but those few rages are usually sufficient. He is at home in the wild, and he runs at a great speed. Its a spectacular display of some sort I guess. It might not be as obvious as glowing red eyes or going Super-Saiyan or something, but its there. Maybe the opponent should have to make a sense-motive check or something to tell that you just got a lot more mad than you were last round or something.
Book5 01-03-06, 04:44 PM	Edit: I also wanted to mention that I really hate using the word metagaming, but use it in this case to differentiate in character vs out of character knowledge.....too often that word gets associated with pure cheating, and that is by no means what I meant to imply here...simply a difference of what the player knows vs what the character knows. Dont get me started on that term.. I could write like a dissertation on the use and missuse of metagaming, yeesh! @TelinArthro;Dr. Funk;Dracazar;DTFstar :D 4x4 Fight Done.. sorry bout the reallydice.. but should be back to the dice roller next week! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8148939&postcount=943) My little gold d20 really liked Urla.. :rolleyes: creepy (gold=pelor... )
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 04:55 PM	@Book5 - rewards: Ural gets 900+300+300+300=1800 -25% (Lady Esmelda) - (0/3 +25%/3 (Aero) +0/3)= 1800 -25% +8.33% = 1800 -16.67% =1500xp/gp Cher gets 300+300+300=900 +0% + (0/3+25%/3+25%/3)= 900+16.67%=1050xp/gp Squall gets 300+300=600 -25% (Aero) + (0/3+25%/3+0/3) = 600 -16.67%=500xp/gp Darius gets 300=3000-0% + (0/3+25%/3+25%/3)= 300 +16.67%=350xp/gp
Usurpator 01-03-06, 04:55 PM	But, once again, while you are entitled to your opinion, that does not make it RAW. By the RAW, there is no outward display of rage, and no way, short of an appropriate spell, to tell when a barbarian is in a rage. NiQil, I guess I don't agree with you. I think it is clear how we both look at it, sometimes I just have difficulty to understand how others reach a particular conclusion. I have repeated the mantra below many times concerning the rules and feel compelled to do it again in this case. "If it is not written in the RAW you cannot do it" or it's counterpart "Because it is not forbidden in the RAW, you can do it." are not correct positions. The rules just cannot cover everything and you have to use common sense to fill in some gaps. Characters can skip even if there is no such movement mode in the rules. Characters cannot detach their eyes and put them back again even if there is no rule forbidding it. It's just common sense. People can usually see the difference between a calm and enraged person, between a fit and exhausted person, between a wounded and a healthy person. They should be able to do so in the game unless rules specifically forbid it. People cannot clone themselves, fly at will or grow extra hands, they should not be able to do so in the game unless the rules specifically provide for it. That's my general position. The whole rage issue itself is not particularly important to me. It think 's just a symptom of too much rules-centric thinking.
MindWandererB 01-03-06, 04:56 PM	Grasshopper (Greezer) vs Aerryl (MindWandererB) vs Sybil (MitzaVolchenko) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp)[All vs All] [ECL3]up here @Players: I'm exhausted after this fight, I'm sure that there are some errors, but unless those are major problems I beg you to don't ask to modify.Nah, the only "major" problem is Aerryl's apparent inability to roll decently. Man, that's a lot of missed shots. I really thought I'd pull it off this week... stupid dog was luckier than I was, that's all. Two problems with the summary, though: One, Aerryl used a Prot. Evil potion that isn't listed. Also you state how many arrows/bolts were recovered but not how many were lost... I'm assuming it's 50/50 and marking 11 arrows lost for the fight.
Altaris13 01-03-06, 05:00 PM	NiQil, I guess I don't agree with you. I think it is clear how we both look at it, sometimes I just have difficulty to understand how others reach a particular conclusion. I have repeated the mantra below many times concerning the rules and feel compelled to do it again in this case. "If it is not written in the RAW you cannot do it" or it's counterpart "Because it is not forbidden in the RAW, you can do it." are not correct positions. The rules just cannot cover everything and you have to use common sense to fill in some gaps. Characters can skip even if there is no such movement mode in the rules. Characters cannot detach their eyes and put them back again even if there is no rule forbidding it. It's just common sense. People can usually see the difference between a calm and enraged person, between a fit and exhausted person, between a wounded and a healthy person. They should be able to do so in the game unless rules specifically forbid it. People cannot clone themselves, fly at will or grow extra hands, they should not be able to do so in the game unless the rules specifically provide for it. That's my general position. The whole rage issue itself is not particularly important to me. It think 's just a symptom of too much rules-centric thinking. Usurp, I completely agree with you. IMO, it is painfully obvious when a person is in a Rage. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8146437&postcount=940)is the fight in question, hopefully I caught all the errors as I went. There seemed to be a few. I pray there are no more.
^Rayne^ 01-03-06, 05:03 PM	Edit: N.M.
NiQil 01-03-06, 05:08 PM	NiQil, I guess I don't agree with you. I think it is clear how we both look at it, sometimes I just have difficulty to understand how others reach a particular conclusion. I have repeated the mantra below many times concerning the rules and feel compelled to do it again in this case. "If it is not written in the RAW you cannot do it" or it's counterpart "Because it is not forbidden in the RAW, you can do it." are not correct positions. The rules just cannot cover everything and you have to use common sense to fill in some gaps. Characters can skip even if there is no such movement mode in the rules. Characters cannot detach their eyes and put them back again even if there is no rule forbidding it. It's just common sense. People can usually see the difference between a calm and enraged person, between a fit and exhausted person, between a wounded and a healthy person. They should be able to do so in the game unless rules specifically forbid it. People cannot clone themselves, fly at will or grow extra hands, they should not be able to do so in the game unless the rules specifically provide for it. That's my general position. The whole rage issue itself is not particularly important to me. It think 's just a symptom of too much rules-centric thinking. Well, in this case, there sorta is. Without a spell, such as Status... Status Divination Level: Clr 2 Components: V, S Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Touch Targets: One living creature touched per three levels Duration: 1 hour/level Saving Throw: Will negates (harmless) Spell Resistance: Yes (harmless) When you need to keep track of comrades who may get separated, status allows you to mentally monitor their relative positions and general condition. You are aware of direction and distance to the creatures and any conditions affecting them: unharmed, wounded, disabled, staggered, unconscious, dying, nauseated, panicked, stunned, poisoned, diseased, confused, or the like. Once the spell has been cast upon the subjects, the distance between them and the caster does not affect the spell as long as they are on the same plane of existence. If a subject leaves the plane, or if it dies, the spell ceases to function for it. ...there isn't a way to tell. Otherwise spells like this one and others would become useless. That's also what Heal checks are for....to determine the relative health and/or condition of another party. If anything, I would allow that a Heal check would tell you that a raging barbarian's condition has changed. But beyond that, I just don't see it.
Usurpator 01-03-06, 05:09 PM	Poor Huan! Solomon Tactics From there, Solomon has no desire to enter combat, or alert his enemies to his presence beyond the below... He will stay at a healthy distance moving at half speed, but maneuver so that he can view the fight Krayko Tactics f possible (and my PC doesn't think he is spotted yet) then attempt to use the statues to hide. Kendal Tactics At the start, drink mage armor and immediately try to hide. Kendal will just try to hide from everyone, moving away (silently) if he hears someone coming. Try to hide behind them statues and walk around the top floor. Avoid combat as much as possible. Kitaya Tactics My first priority will be to delay as long as sensible, since a FFA is not about who defeats the most opponents, but about who lasts the longest. Guess these tactics do illustrate the core of the problem with Last Man Standing FFA's.....
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 05:12 PM	Usurp, I completely agree with you. IMO, it is painfully obvious when a person is in a Rage. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8146437&postcount=940)is the fight in question, hopefully I caught all the errors as I went. There seemed to be a few. I pray there are no more. I noticed one crit that you didn't confirm on Foreman's part - but since it was a bite attack it wasn't very likely anyway - and it probably wouldn't make anything happen sooner regardless. I happen to agree that it is obvious when someone is raging. However- since it wasn't really in Sir Valkin's nature to run away - I decided I would put the issue aside for this fight - mostly because I felt Sir Valkin had a decent chance to survive regardless. And it seems to have proven true. /d
Ariel23 01-03-06, 05:19 PM	The rage controversy: Here is my meta-game (i.e., RAW-based answer): For the sake of argument, let us assume that this is a detectable change, if not an "automatic" one. What skill would we propose to use to detect it? There is almost nothing in D&D that cannot be assigned a DC (see Epic Skills, if you don't believe me). When Raging, one's state/condition changes. I believe that someone would get a Sense Motive check to detect that someone is raging, as that is a mental, emotional, and physical state. It is also a major factor in how one socializes (i.e., one doesn't). You can get the feeling from another’s behavior that something is wrong, such as when you’re talking to an impostor.You can also use this skill to determine when "something is up" (that is, something odd is going on...)Let's ask the converse question, What would be the applicable skill for the Barbarian to conceal his rage?While raging, a barbarian cannot use any Charisma- Dexterity-, or Intelligence-based skills.So whether he is trying to Hide his Rage, or Bluff that he's actually quite well, thank you...he can't. He can't pretend to not be enraged because to do so would require an INT, CHA, or DEX-based skill check. The absolute best that a Barbarian could hope for is that we make it a Concentration check, and that is explicitly prohibited under the class ability. Here is my common-sense answer: Can you tell when a kid is tired or throwing a tantrum? Can you tell when a (possibly drunken) adult gets angry? Can you tell when someone is red in the face, gnashing their teeth, white-knuckled, and so forth? Can you tell when someone is going all-out on their attacks and blindly leaving themselves open (-2 AC) to counter-attacks? Can a raging Barbarian without Spellcraft tell without a roll when a wizard is about to cast a spell and gain an AoO? If you think any of the above answers should be yes, then the answer should be the same for "Can my character tell when another character 'flies into a rage'?"Everyone just assumes that when a barbarian rages, they start whooping and hollering and foaming at the mouth or growling and generally acts like a blithering idiot. However, a barbarian could just as easily rage with no physical showing whatsover, but might have a changed mindset that causes him to push his body harder than it is normally capable of....think of raging as an adrenaline rush.Yes, but that would not meet any conventional definition of "Flies into a rage." Here is my gaming (not [i]metagaming) answer: Presumably, we all play D&D to role-play. If, as part of your regular session, you decided that every time you raged, you would go about your business in a calm, cool, and collected manner, I would say that you are doing a very poor job of role-playing and your DM is doing a poor job of adjudicating.
^Rayne^ 01-03-06, 05:20 PM	Tactics for Kitaya: Spoiler: In general I think Kitaya has a fair chance of being the last standing this match. Solomon and Kendal are fair threats, but can be neutralized by a good choice of tactics. I don't see how Krayko is able to beat Kitaya. Goals - My general goals is to buff and delay some, then slaugther my weakened opponents one by one, preferably in the order: Solomon, Kendal, Krayko. - My first priority will be to delay as long as sensible, since a FFA is not about who defeats the most opponents, but about who lasts the longest. - My second priority is not to be engaged by two opponents at the same time. Start of Combat The center would be a good place to start, since it breaks LOS from all directions. Have my buff scroll in hand. 1. Invisibility from scroll 2. Mage Armor from scroll, stow scroll 3. Longstrider from memory, draw new scroll [...] Delay a bit if sensible, assess situation 4. Divine Favor from scroll 5. Shield from scroll, stow scroll 6. Shield of Faith from scroll Question about Kitaya's tactics... How can this PC cast Arcane Scrolls? She is a Cleric/Monk and has no Arcane casting class but she has Arcane scrolls she is using as buffs? I didn't think that was possible, am I mistaken in this assumption?
Usurpator 01-03-06, 05:21 PM	Well, in this case, there sorta is. Without a spell, such as Status... ...there isn't a way to tell. Otherwise spells like this one and others would become useless. That's also what Heal checks are for....to determine the relative health and/or condition of another party. If anything, I would allow that a Heal check would tell you that a raging barbarian's condition has changed. But beyond that, I just don't see it. NiQil, I don't mind you getting really into the rules (I have some bouts of that as well), but if you're really going for rules-centered approach, then please note that the heal skill doesn't say anything about determining's someone's health, so it can't by the RAW. It also says nothing about determing rage. Also, rage isn't a condition, so both heal skills and status spell cannot determine if someone is raging by the RAW. About Status: I always thought that the most important advantage of the status spell is that you keep track of others who you cannot examine directly, not a cleric-only substitute for common sense observations. If you take a strict rules-centric approach as you would like to do with rage, you really should not be able to determine your own hit points or if you are wounded, and contingencies such as 'cure if I am wounded', 'use wand of cure light wounds until at full hit points', 'cure until above 20 hit points' should be impossible contingencies. I know however you have written some of those contingencies in your tactics in the past, which confuses me about what your real point of view is about such matters. But I guess I'll better shut up for now, I feel am getting way too much argumentative for my own (and everybody else's) good here. Sorry all....
SauroGrenom 01-03-06, 05:25 PM	Question about Kendal's tactics... How can this PC cast Arcane Scrolls? She is a Cleric/Monk and has no Arcane casting class but she has Arcane scrolls she is using as buffs? I didn't think that was possible, am I mistaken in this assumption? She has the Magic Domain. It allows a cleric to use arcane scrolls and wands as a wizard of 1/2 cleric level.
Usurpator 01-03-06, 05:26 PM	Question about Kitaya's tactics... How can this PC cast Arcane Scrolls? She is a Cleric/Monk and has no Arcane casting class but she has Arcane scrolls she is using as buffs? I didn't think that was possible, am I mistaken in this assumption? Well, I can answer that: it is that darned Magic domain, together with Travel the most popular domain here in the CoCo. And with reason. BTW, it's Kitaya, not Kendall.
^Rayne^ 01-03-06, 05:32 PM	Her Cleric level is 1 though and the spell is Level 1. So by that 1/2 rule she would not be able to cast that spell till her PC was Cleric Level 2. Also on a side note. I thought Delay tactics were cumulative. I.E. they don't reset if you delay 6 rounds fight and then go off and delay 6 more rounds. That was supposed to count as 12 rounds of delaying by the CoCo rules I thought? So Kendle was way over the Delay limit by those rules. What were the penalities for that sort of thing by the way? Edit: Never mind on this, I checked it out in the rules forum and it is Non-cumulative. My memory isn't what it used to be. Edit: I knew it was Kitaya not Kendal... To many darn 'K' names to keep up. Did you happen to notice that all of the 'K' lettered 3rd level PC's all happened to be in a battle together. I didn't see that sort of thing happen anywhere else.
Huan 01-03-06, 05:34 PM	Solomon vs Kendal vs Kitaya vs Krayko (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8149262) is up. Short Version: No offense, but if I were to give Disney-dwarf names to Solomon, Kendal, Kitaya, and Krayko, I would name them Wimpy, Runny, Missy, and Gutsy, respectively. (Solomon stayed invisible the entire time, Kendal kept running away, Kitaya tried to fight but had unspeakably bad attack rolls, and Krakyo actually put up a valiant, yet short-lived, fight till the very end.) Only by sheer luck of one of them seeing another was combat actually initiatied. Otherwise everyone would have stood in their separate corners and not moved.... Its times like this I wish the 10-rd limit was shortened to 5 or 3 for FFAs...
Usurpator 01-03-06, 05:40 PM	Huan, thanks for running it, but Kitaya's AC is a little (a lot actually) off. You have given her AC 19, but she has AC 16 normally (17 with dodge). She casts a mage armor (+4 AC) and a Shield (+4 AC), which should give her AC 24/25 (or 22/23 when still enlarged), not 19. I also spotted some other issues, but this seems a serious one. I also want to stress: thank you very much for running it! It seems to me that this was a very hard fight to run. I guess next time I should give instructions to delay even more.
Ariel23 01-03-06, 05:40 PM	Note that Status doesn't including Raging...probably because everyone can already tell if you're Raging. :D Begferdeath, you really should have bolded this: "He has energy for only a few such spectacular displays each day." Manifesters can hide their displays (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/psionic/psionicPowersOverview.htm#display) with a Concentration check, but Barbarians can't make those. :P
Skojar 01-03-06, 05:41 PM	Bolrak vs Evaine vs Tsuizues vs Aragorn (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8147702) is up. Hah. So into my own thing that it didn't even occurr to me to specify that Tsiezues intended to ride his mount. Lesson learned. One issue: you cannot recover masterwork ammunition (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/equipment/weapons.htm#masterworkWeapons). I'll mark two sling bullets off my character sheet. Thanks for running.
^Rayne^ 01-03-06, 05:45 PM	Huan, I just wanted to say good fight overall. One other minor thing I wanted to point out (that won't change the fight at all) is that my PC cast Mage Armor and at his level it lasts 3 hours. You put 31 rounds after it was cast but 3 hours would come out to 1800 rounds. ;) Not a big deal since the fight was very short but it was something I thought I would point out for future reference. Sorry about any delay tactics on my part. I honestly didn't think I would be one of four people doing anything like this for my PC. My PC was at the highest disadvantage and I was hoping to take advantage of at least two PC's who were engaged before he jumped in so he wouldn't be the initial primary target. Still I like that Krayko jumped in there and gave it his all. That is how I would have liked to see it. Besides all that he dealt out the most damage before he dropped and that is something to be proud of. ;) Thanks again Huan, for running the fight. I enjoyed reading it. Karl
Mal-2 01-03-06, 05:52 PM	Edit: Doh, wrong thread, reposting to the Tavern
^Rayne^ 01-03-06, 05:54 PM	Huan, thanks for running it, but Kitaya's AC is a little (a lot actually) off. You have given her AC 19, but she has AC 16 normally (17 with dodge). She casts a mage armor (+4 AC) and a Shield (+4 AC), which should give her AC 24/25 (or 22/23 when still enlarged), not 19. As I said in a post after we discussed the shield spell... Her Cleric level is 1 though and the spell is Level 1. So by that 1/2 rule she would not be able to cast that spell till her PC was Cleric Level 2. How can your PC cast the Shield spell? Even if you have the Magic Domain, that spell is level 1 and can only cast at 1/2 your Cleric level (1) which is 1/2 that means this spell is still out of your casting limits right now. At best your PC could cast Arcane 0-level spells from scrolls based on the rules described above.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 05:57 PM	Rayne - you need to read the magic domain more closely: Use scrolls, wands, and other devices with spell completion or spell trigger activation as a wizard of one-half your cleric level (at least 1st level). For the purpose of using a scroll or other magic device, if you are also a wizard, actual wizard levels and these effective wizard levels stack. Bolding mine.
Mal-2 01-03-06, 05:58 PM	Her Cleric level is 1 though and the spell is Level 1. So by that 1/2 rule she would not be able to cast that spell till her PC was Cleric Level 2. Also on a side note. I thought Delay tactics were cumulative. I.E. they don't reset if you delay 6 rounds fight and then go off and delay 6 more rounds. That was supposed to count as 12 rounds of delaying by the CoCo rules I thought? So Kendle was way over the Delay limit by those rules. What were the penalities for that sort of thing by the way? No offense Rayne, but both of those questions could be answered by reading the rules in question. The Magic Domain specifically says that you have a minimum effective wizard caster level of one, and the rules thread says delaying isn't cumulative, only absense from the arena.
Usurpator 01-03-06, 05:58 PM	As I said in a post after we discussed the shield spell... How can your PC cast the Shield spell? Even if you have the Magic Domain, that spell is level 1 and can only cast at 1/2 your Cleric level (1) which is 1/2 that means this spell is still out of your casting limits right now. At best your PC could cast Arcane 0-level spells from scrolls based on the rules described above. Please read the Magic domain in the SRD or take a look at Kitaya's sheet under Special Abilities, I have written an abbrevation of the domain power there under Cleric abilities. EDIT: too slow.... way too slow.
TelinArtho 01-03-06, 05:59 PM	LEVEL 3 FIGHTS Manzarf (Abyssal Stalker) vs Talik (Ayrynthyn) vs Gorak (Macbrea) vs Garland (oxybe): Altaris13 [All vs All] Tactics are posted, but fight not complete Squall (Dr.Funk) vs Cher (Dracazar) vs Darius (DTFarstar) vs Ural (TelinArtho): Book5 [All vs All] Sven (TroubleWolf) => Rethun (Kaigan) => Jonathon (Abyssal Stalker) => Anakala (TelinArtho): Iced [Hunter] Tactics are posted, but fight not complete Kendal (Papapeperoni) vs Krayko (^Rayne^) vs Kitaya (Usurpator) vs Solomon (Warclone): Huan [All vs All] LEVEL 4 FIGHTS Vivi Ornitier (Dr.Funk) miniquests for a small air elemental: King Uther [Miniquest] MQ cancelled as Vivi wasn't prepared. Savour Die (Warclone) vs The Bounty Hunter (Nightbanegod): Kaigan Faelto (TelinArtho) vs Maven (Tellish of Ket): <none> Posted this fight for Cat LEVEL 5 FIGHTS Sir Valkin (TelinArtho) vs Caspian MacLeod (NiQil): Altaris13 LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Noko (Maraxus) vs Lissa (MysticMonk2005) vs Tezca (Usurpator): Snommelp [All vs All] Running Now Raskos the Jade Father (SauroGrenom) vs Aranor Haerdonin (Sindorin): Altaris13 Tactics are posted, but fight not complete -- Running now LEVEL 8 FIGHTS Talari (Luni) => Daeren (TelinArtho) => Rayos (Kaigan): Iced [Hunter] As of right now - these are the remaining fights.
Snommelp 01-03-06, 06:03 PM	Grasshopper (Greezer) vs Aerryl (MindWandererB) vs Sybil (MitzaVolchenko) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp) [All vs All] [ECL3] up here @Players: I'm exhausted after this fight, I'm sure that there are some errors, but unless those are major problems I beg you to don't ask to modify. I'll pm pitlord to give me <zero> fights next week to recover from this one... The only real problem I see with the fight right now is that there's no link to the second post anywhere, so I have no clue how the fight continued after round nine... I'm having a hard time finding the posts buried in the fight thread... Starting my 3-way fight now... sorry for the late start...
Huan 01-03-06, 06:10 PM	Huan, I just wanted to say good fight overall. One other minor thing I wanted to point out (that won't change the fight at all) is that my PC cast Mage Armor and at his level it lasts 3 hours. You put 31 rounds after it was cast but 3 hours would come out to 1800 rounds. ;) Not a big deal since the fight was very short but it was something I thought I would point out for future reference. Sorry about any delay tactics on my part. I honestly didn't think I would be one of four people doing anything like this for my PC. My PC was at the highest disadvantage and I was hoping to take advantage of at least two PC's who were engaged before he jumped in so he wouldn't be the initial primary target. Still I like that Krayko jumped in there and gave it his all. That is how I would have liked to see it. Besides all that he dealt out the most damage before he dropped and that is something to be proud of. ;) Thanks again Huan, for running the fight. I enjoyed reading it. Karl You're welcome and sorry for the mistake (If I got a dollar every time I forgot Mage Armor is hours instead of minutes... I only have a problem remembering that spell, no others, believe it or not), but I must thank your Krayko for being the only mainly proactive character there. Your character refused to give up and was willing to give it his all. You were the one with the true spirit of FFA. Bravo! :clap: (in the future, try some CLW potions or some Magic Missile/Scorching Ray scrolls so you can make your Krayko more durable/dangerous in the future. Since sorceror are limited in spell selection, they must make up for it with wise expendables.) Good luck next week.
^Rayne^ 01-03-06, 06:11 PM	Wow tough crowd. TelinArtho, thanks for clarifying the Domain rule. I didn't read it myself I was taking my information about what was posted here when I asked about it at first. She has the Magic Domain. It allows a cleric to use arcane scrolls and wands as a wizard of 1/2 cleric level. When I saw this I saw no mention of the Minimum Level 1 spells so I responded to this with the comments I made after. So my problem was not reading it incorrectly. I was taking my information second hand here so my problem was not reading it at all. ;) Sorry but I don't like Clerics and I never play them so I never read much about their cheesy super Munchkin Domains. I have to say though this domain sort of breaks a lot of balance rules. The Cleric gets all their great stuff and with that Domain they get to have access to Arcane spells without any Arcane levels. What CHEESE. Mal-2 no need to beat on a dead horse here. Note that I did a strike through so people could see my error and know that I corrected it myself. Notice also that I put an edit below crediting my poor memory on this account. I've read the rules before and unfortunately I remembered them incorrectly. However I went and checked myself and noticed my error and made the correction myself. Do you really need to slam your boot upon my head and make me lick the dirt here? Usurpator- Sorry for ever accusing your PC of doing anything illegal. It wasn't my intention I was just asking questions and drawing incorrect conclusions to quickly. It certainly was not meant to harbor bad will against you or your PC. Okay with all that said I leave you to your own comments. Sorry about my initial concerns.
Usurpator 01-03-06, 06:13 PM	Short Version: No offense, but if I were to give Disney-dwarf names to Solomon, Kendal, Kitaya, and Krayko, I would name them Wimpy, Runny, Missy, and Gutsy, respectively. (Solomon stayed invisible the entire time, Kendal kept running away, Kitaya tried to fight but had unspeakably bad attack rolls, and Krakyo actually put up a valiant, yet short-lived, fight till the very end.)... No offense taken. Well, it is not the players fault, they just tried to choose the most effective tactic for an FFA, which is delaying.... I don't think the 10-rd limit would have helped much if the gladiators only want to engage one another when they are engaged with someone else. Even with our opponent is pinpointed, most of the gladiators would still remain in their corners waiting for others to engage. And you see what Krayko's FFA spirit has bought him: last place.... I have taken a closer look, those attack rolls are indeed horrifying! And the two times she was hit by both Krayko and Kendall they rolled max. damage. Except for the AC error I see a minor tactics error: I asked to skip buff 4 and 6 only when neccessary. Since nobody was engaging and Kitaya had all the time in the world, why did you think skipping them was neccessary? (I am not asking you to edit the fight for this, way too much work for you....). Ah, I see now why you made the AC error, you thought mage armor last for 1 minute/level, while it actually last 1 hour/level. That's why I made Kitaya cast it so early.... Since it is only significant in the final rounds, could you look at it an edit it? In case you are editing for an extension, a friendly reminder from my tactics vs. Solomon: If I don't see him, but am visible and engaged by constructs: Atack constructs (longspear would be a good idea here) unless attacked by Kendal or Shield spell goes down. In those two cases, use Total Defense, and try to position Kendal between me and the constructs so that they will attack him.
Altaris13 01-03-06, 06:15 PM	I'm working on the Raskos vs Aranor fight now.
NiQil 01-03-06, 06:22 PM	Usurp, I completely agree with you. IMO, it is painfully obvious when a person is in a Rage. Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8146437&postcount=940)is the fight in question, hopefully I caught all the errors as I went. There seemed to be a few. I pray there are no more. The rewards for Caspian are slightly off. The gold (577) is correct, but the XP (500) is not. It should be 500 + 8.33% = 533 XP. If you could adjust that, that would be super.
DTFarstar 01-03-06, 06:24 PM	*sniff* All poor Darius was going for was 3rd and he had to get lance critted round 1. *sniff* Oh well, I've got a good chance to level him even if I lose next week and I finally remember to change my other character's title to make him active. So yay!
Usurpator 01-03-06, 06:25 PM	@Huan Are you there? Could you look at those mage armor errors? Besides Kitaya being killed due to that error, I also see that Kendal is killed by a hit that wouldn't have hit him because he still has his mage armor going. The construct hits AC 19 vs. AC 20/21 from Kendall at that time. Both our defeats shouldn't have happened, or at least, not at that time.
Macbrea 01-03-06, 06:48 PM	bah
Book5 01-03-06, 07:02 PM	But I guess I'll better shut up for now, I feel am getting way too much argumentative for my own (and everybody else's) good here. Sorry all.... Whatever. I have a simple answer to "how can you tell the condition of a creature" I have used it well for quite awhile. Knowledge (appropriate). Skill says it "answers questions" ... its not an action .. and "Is it raging" "is it below half it {HP} vitality" and etc ... kinda stuff can all be considered valid "questions" for an appropriate knowledge. @My all vs all fight. The rewards will most likely stay the same (Ural really pwned that fight), but I have some serious cosmetic editing to do. (ack! obscuring mist is MIN not RND :banghead: I know this!!!)
Book5 01-03-06, 07:06 PM	@Book5 - rewards: Thank you!
Zevox 01-03-06, 07:24 PM	One thing to point out on Huan's fight: the prizes were done wrong. He gave them prizes as one would for a Hunter fight, but it was an All vs. All, so they recieve bonus prizes based on the number of foes in the battle and on thier rank in the battle, not based on foes defeated. So Solomon should have gained 1800 xp/gp (900 winner + [3*300 1 loser per foe]) and Kendal should have won 900 xp/gp (300 loser + [2*300 1 loser per foe -1 foe]). Kitaya and Krayko were right (Kitaya gets her loser + 1 loser, so 600, Krayko just gets his loser, so 300). Zevox
Huan 01-03-06, 07:57 PM	One thing to point out on Huan's fight: the prizes were done wrong. He gave them prizes as one would for a Hunter fight, but it was an All vs. All, so they recieve bonus prizes based on the number of foes in the battle and on thier rank in the battle, not based on foes defeated. So Solomon should have gained 1800 xp/gp (900 winner + [3*300 1 loser per foe]) and Kendal should have won 900 xp/gp (300 loser + [2*300 1 loser per foe -1 foe]). Kitaya and Krayko were right (Kitaya gets her loser + 1 loser, so 600, Krayko just gets his loser, so 300). Zevox Ah, thank you for this oversight. I will edit them in once I an done with the edit (see below) @Usurpator I will continue the fight given those valid points on the Mage Armor. The top 3 ranks may get shuffled, who knows?
Altaris13 01-03-06, 08:12 PM	Raskos vs Aranor can be found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8146364&postcount=939).
Altaris13 01-03-06, 08:14 PM	The rewards for Caspian are slightly off. The gold (577) is correct, but the XP (500) is not. It should be 500 + 8.33% = 533 XP. If you could adjust that, that would be super. Corrected, and the actual amount is 541xp. 500 x .0833 = 41.64, drop the decimal.
Snommelp 01-03-06, 09:02 PM	Noko vs. Lissa vs. Tezca is up. Somewhat of a surprise ending... sorry it's so late. Please still point out any errors, and I'll (hopefully) get them fixed before pairings.
Maraxus 01-03-06, 09:47 PM	Noko vs. Lissa vs. Tezca is up. Somewhat of a surprise ending... sorry it's so late. Please still point out any errors, and I'll (hopefully) get them fixed before pairings. Two snipers vs. another archer. And all that flies are 5 arrows. :) If you want to change something, I could get point blank shot and sneak attack on my attack. - But this is not so serious in that case, since I've won. ;)
MitzaVolchenko 01-03-06, 09:48 PM	@ Altaris: I sent this to you in PM as well, hoping to catch you before you have to redo a lot with the fight between Sir Valkin and Caspian... I noticed that you were running the fight now, and that you already had tactics posted. I wanted to point out that part of Telin's tactics for Sir Valkin consist of metagaming that need to be disallowed. In Sir Valkin's tactics, it states that if Caspian rages, he is to withdraw. The problem is that there is no way for him to know that Caspian is in rage. Contrary to popular opinion, nowhere in the RAW does it state that there is a display of any kind (audible or visual or anything else) that indicates a barbarian is in a rage. Therefore, the withdraw portion of Sir Valkin's tactics are metagaming and illegal. Take a look for yourself: To the argument that you can't tell if someone is in a rage visually...are the muscles swelling up like Popeye's after a can of spinach not a good indicator? Set aside the mental state which might be hidden with Bluff if the barb were allowed to use it. The plain physical changes would be enough to tell. 'Fly into' also lends to more of a notion of implied display...just ask yourself, 'Can someone fly into a fit of calm calculation?' Just my two bent coppers worth...
nightbanegod 01-03-06, 09:51 PM	looks like kaigan never ran Savour Die (Warclone) vs The Bounty Hunter (Nightbanegod): Kaigan if this is the case then i am :weep: ... TBH would have leveled from this fight, win/loss/or draw.... *edit* and i would like to say that i have a strong problem with me using an item out of the PHB as how it is described as being capable of being used ruled as illegal... and that at the very least. if your not "ALLOWED TO USE THE ITEM AS IT IS DESCRIBED" then you should be able to say... instead of readying to take cover.. use a standard action during your turn and take cover anyways... at the very least you would gain continual partial cover bonus from enemy.... this is a big issue with tower shields being nerfed because some people didnt like it...
SauroGrenom 01-03-06, 10:09 PM	Raskos vs Aranor can be found here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8146364&postcount=939). If my opponent targets me with a spell doesn't that cause him to become visible? Even if not, the fireball/scorching rays that are used to target Raskos must pass the Spell Resistance of Raskos. I didn't see that role. Also Raskos moves ut into certian death against an opponent when he has no protections against his attacks. Aranor has a wand of scorching ray that is his major attack mode. Raskos knows this, and the range on a scorching ray is the same as the range on his own powers. He can easily try to draw his opponent into range and subsiquently attack him with a psionic ability. Since his buffs have all fallen cover is his only hope to increase his ac and reflex save enough to avoid certian death from fireballs and scorching rays. By making his opponent use move actions to gain LOS, Raskos could still have an opportunity to draw his opponent into range for a short ranged attack. Also Raskos does have the extend power feat that he can use to increase the range of any of his powers by 100%. Lastly, I was recently informed of a change in the guild rules that results in Raskos earning 10% tax for the guild.
Maraxus 01-03-06, 11:07 PM	Call Mulder, I've got an X-File for him! I'm just updating Noko. Since I'm saving for a Monk's Belt, all spend money will be the used expendables and the elf-bane arrow I gathered that week. Gold I had: 3,442 Gold I earend thisweek: +3,541 Replace expendables: -150 Pay the arrow I gathered: -167 Gold left: 6666 There can hardly be an iller omen for a good little pixie. :gah: PS: Whoos, this was meant for the tavern. Never mind.
Huan 01-03-06, 11:10 PM	I have to log off unexpectedly early tonight, and thus will not be able to finish the rerun of Solomon vs Kitaya vs Kendal vs Krayko tonight. I will be able to early tomorrow morning, so the final version will be up by noon at the latest. I will PM all involved gladiators of fight results. As it stands, the new results are: Krayko is still 4th place, an unexpected grapple landed Kendal at 3rd place, and Kitaya and Solomon are both vying for 1st (it's close, actually).
MysticMonk2005 01-03-06, 11:33 PM	Noko vs. Lissa vs. Tezca is up. Somewhat of a surprise ending... sorry it's so late. Please still point out any errors, and I'll (hopefully) get them fixed before pairings. :blink: :crazy: Hooray for being underestimated! Indeed the number of arrows loosed is rather shocking considering the contestants.
Snommelp 01-03-06, 11:36 PM	Two snipers vs. another archer. And all that flies are 5 arrows. :) If you want to change something, I could get point blank shot and sneak attack on my attack. - But this is not so serious in that case, since I've won. ;) You did get the sneak attack (2d6 lethal damage), but I forgot point blank shot. But like you said, no big deal. Just changes it from 7 damage to 8. To be fair, there were actually seven shot, it's just two missed and were recovered... still, much lower than you'd think three archers would shoot.
Ariel23 01-03-06, 11:37 PM	As of right now - these are the remaining fights. I was thinking that if these fights have characters and tactics posted, we could simply run them. I'm willing to run one. What happens if they don't get finished? Call it a tie? I don't see anything in pitlording about it.
Snommelp 01-03-06, 11:40 PM	I was thinking that if these fights have characters and tactics posted, we could simply run them. I'm willing to run one. What happens if they don't get finished? Call it a tie? I don't see anything in pitlording about it. If they don't get run, they're held over to the next week. That said, I may be able to take another fight (not Hunter... I don't have the patience to run a late hunter fight).
MitzaVolchenko 01-03-06, 11:48 PM	I can try a Hunter fight...I am awake and wired for sound. How long do we wait before simply taking a fight and running it?
Altaris13 01-03-06, 11:54 PM	Manzarf vs Talik vs Gorak vs Garland is not finished. I've been sitting here for 16 hours and need sleep. My hands are cramping. :mad: I will finish the morning. @Sauro: I am too tired to comprehend your post atm. I will review & resond tomorrow. I hate having to run the same fight four times. Flipping Valkin/Caspian fight took NINE hours to accomplish. What a joke. I've spent 3 on the all vs all fight and it seems fairly straight up, though I'm sure I'll get complaints on how tactics were handled. I'll deal with it tomorrow. Good night all.
Ayrynthyn 01-04-06, 12:33 AM	Manzarf vs Talik vs Gorak vs Garland is not finished. I've been sitting here for 16 hours and need sleep. My hands are cramping. :mad: I will finish the morning. @Sauro: I am too tired to comprehend your post atm. I will review & resond tomorrow. I hate having to run the same fight four times. Flipping Valkin/Caspian fight took NINE hours to accomplish. What a joke. I've spent 3 on the all vs all fight and it seems fairly straight up, though I'm sure I'll get complaints on how tactics were handled. I'll deal with it tomorrow. Good night all. as requested... There's absolutly no way, i'd be shot at for 19 rounds and not deflect arrows. First of all, his tactics say nothing about readying to fire, so i presume you would be as flexable with my tactics to adjust just as fully/easily (i do have 16 wisdom and 14 int) to this unforseen tactic... aside from this Normally, operating a heavy crossbow requires two hands. However, you can shoot, but not load, a heavy crossbow with one hand at a -4 penalty on attack rolls. You can shoot a heavy crossbow with each hand, but you take a penalty on attack rolls as if attacking with two one-handed weapons. This penalty is cumulative with the penalty for one-handed firing. since his ready is "Manzarf readies to fire at Talik when he fires at Manzarf." I can most definatly fire with 1 hand at the -4 penalty, and deflect arrows (as requested by my tactics). ...i gotta go to work, you guys are killin me :/
SauroGrenom 01-04-06, 12:55 AM	Manzarf vs Talik vs Gorak vs Garland is not finished. I've been sitting here for 16 hours and need sleep. My hands are cramping. :mad: I will finish the morning. @Sauro: I am too tired to comprehend your post atm. I will review & resond tomorrow. I hate having to run the same fight four times. Flipping Valkin/Caspian fight took NINE hours to accomplish. What a joke. I've spent 3 on the all vs all fight and it seems fairly straight up, though I'm sure I'll get complaints on how tactics were handled. I'll deal with it tomorrow. Good night all. Altaris, Thanks for getting the fight finished. I will be gone for a medical school interview all day tomarrow, and there is no time to edit Raskos before parrings. So any edits that may change the outcome will come too late for Raskos. For the sake of completeness, I will describe in detail the problems I have with the fight. You can review them if you like and edit the fight. In Round 8 Aranor casts Dispell targeted on Raskos. Since he targets Raskos with the spell, I would think that it is a direct attack on Raskos and that Aranor is then visible. Raskos can use his own dispell and target it on Aranor specifically. Thus having an attempt to dispell all of Aranor's buffs not just one. Not that that will make much of a difference. The spell ends if the subject attacks any creature. For purposes of this spell, an attack includes any spell targeting a foe or whose area or effect includes a foe. Then in Round 9 Aranor casts Fireball and the spell must pass Raskos's spell resistance to effect him. This is not rolled, even though there is a 35% chance of the spell failing due to that SR alone. After this Raskos does a double move basically into the lions mouth. This is against my tactics. What he should have done is move to Break LOS, as in my tactics, a good place is (-21,6). In this location, he cannot be targeted, and Aranor would have to move inorder to target Raskos with anything. Hopefully moving into range of a short range attack. This tactic works, because my opponent likes to use a wand of scorching ray. Scorching ray is a short range spell and if Raskos can be targeted by it, then he can also target Aranor. Also at this time Raskos should use another stone of Vigor, that's what they are there for and my tactics specify to use one at this time. Also you neglect to use Raskos's enlarge power feat that increases the range of all of his psionic powers. He could easily use that to manifest an energy ray at medium range. Also Scathers does have the ability to attack and should get an AoO when Aranor attempts to move out of his threatined square. Then in round 10, Aranor hits Raskos with another spell that needs to pass the SR on Raskos. The role is never made and there is a good chance that the attack will fail simply due to that. The use of the wand here is precisely why Raskos wants to head for cover. In cover he gets a bonus on his AC against these attacks. Lastly, the tax on Raskos's winings for PSI is 10%, not 9% as listed in the guild thread. If you want to calculate that, then put the correct value in the summation of the fight. Have a good night, Sauro
Kaigan 01-04-06, 01:22 AM	looks like kaigan never ran Savour Die (Warclone) vs The Bounty Hunter (Nightbanegod): Kaigan if this is the case then i am :weep: ... TBH would have leveled from this fight, win/loss/or draw.... *edit* and i would like to say that i have a strong problem with me using an item out of the PHB as how it is described as being capable of being used ruled as illegal... and that at the very least. if your not "ALLOWED TO USE THE ITEM AS IT IS DESCRIBED" then you should be able to say... instead of readying to take cover.. use a standard action during your turn and take cover anyways... at the very least you would gain continual partial cover bonus from enemy.... this is a big issue with tower shields being nerfed because some people didnt like it... I'm running the fight tonight, it should be up within 5 hours. Lol. Sorry for the wait.
MitzaVolchenko 01-04-06, 03:14 AM	I am starting on Iced's hunter fight now. Sven(TroubleWolf)=>Rethun(Kaigan)=>Jonathon(Abyssal Stalker)=>Anakala (TelinArtho)
Usurpator 01-04-06, 03:31 AM	Noko vs. Lissa vs. Tezca is up. Somewhat of a surprise ending... sorry it's so late. Please still point out any errors, and I'll (hopefully) get them fixed before pairings. Snommelp, thanks for running it, unfortunately there are a number of errors when looking at it from Tezca's perspective. 1. I do meant 25,8 (or its seven equivalents, and not 25,28) for the hiding spot. See the diagram below, which illustrates the hiding spot of 25,8 and one of its equivalents. Red T is the hiding spot, orange T's are the places within 5 ft. that can be used to claim cover. Thus they will give cover from many directions. I know you meant the best, but it is unfortunately a bad improvisation. 25,28 makes me a clear target for a Lissa that is riding around. http://www.greyhawk.nl/images/coc/tezcahides.jpg 2. In round 3 Tezca shoots at the horse while he should have been drinking his potion of mage armor as per my tactics. Tap tattoo of chameleon and move towards 25,8 or one of the 7 other equivalent positions. Stow potion of invisibility and drink potion of mage armor at earliest opportunity. Start sniping. Tezca is not in a hurry to attack Lissa, so please drink the potion of mage armor before you start sniping. 3. I have no idea why Tezca picks up the potion and jumps off in round 4. It was not in my tactics, and clearly achieved nothing but becoming a target for my opponents. What were you trying to achieve? 4. I think I better mention this in the future in my tactics, but once Tezca loses 25% or more of his hit points, he will be forced into his animal form (as per afflicted Lycanthrope). I'll take the blame for not clearly mentioning that one. I think Lissa should be suprised at winning, because I think she won now because of erronous application of tactics. Sorry.
Kaigan 01-04-06, 03:49 AM	Hey all, Savour Die vs. The Bounty Hunter is up. Please check for errors and such. Sorry it's so late, I moved back into dorms so had little time to run it till now, hope there aren't too many mistakes. Kaigan
Iced 01-04-06, 03:51 AM	Anyone awake that wants to run the EL8 hunter fight? The setup is here (Solomon ranked 1st and used a Potion of Invisibility. Recives 1200 xp and 1200 gp). Post in this thread soon and you can run it otherwise i'll stick it out another few hours to get it run.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 04:09 AM	I will be able to early tomorrow morning, so the final version will be up by noon at the latest. I will PM all involved gladiators of fight results. Thanks for the edit and rerun at this late hour! As it stands, the new results are: Krayko is still 4th place, an unexpected grapple landed Kendal at 3rd place, and Kitaya and Solomon are both vying for 1st (it's close, actually). You mean Kitaya actually rolled higher than 10, and managed to improve her average attack roll of 5 on the d20, unbelievable! :eek: EDIT: I see, she was not even that fortunate, she only hit with a 9 because Kendal was prone.... :weep:
MitzaVolchenko 01-04-06, 05:30 AM	I am still working on Iced's Hunter fight. Just ran into a couple of issues with tactics so it is taking longer than expected. Be done in a couple of hours. If anyone cares to assist and wants to catch me on msn: mitza_v@hotmail.com or aim:lukeera feel free. It is tediously slow having to look up all of the modifiers in a multi-person ugly fight.
Dracazar 01-04-06, 07:41 AM	@Book5: Thank you for the fight, please add 69 gp to Cher for profession @MindWandererB: Thanks, I have fixed the summary @Snommelp: Links added If there are further open issues with me please tell me.
MitzaVolchenko 01-04-06, 08:06 AM	I am almost done with the hunter fight. I need to check it over as I know I missed a couple of points in tactics and I want to make sure nothing dramatically changed the outcome.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 08:34 AM	as requested... There's absolutly no way, i'd be shot at for 19 rounds and not deflect arrows. First of all, his tactics say nothing about readying to fire, so i presume you would be as flexable with my tactics to adjust just as fully/easily (i do have 16 wisdom and 14 int) to this unforseen tactic... aside from this since his ready is "Manzarf readies to fire at Talik when he fires at Manzarf." I can most definatly fire with 1 hand at the -4 penalty, and deflect arrows (as requested by my tactics). ...i gotta go to work, you guys are killin me :/ I did think of that Ayr, but your tactics are /extremely/ limited. You /only/ wanted to fight at ranged as long as possible. Using Deflect Arrows and firing with an additional -4 penatly accomplishes nothing. It only delays the inevitable and forces the other characters into melee with you, which is exactly what your tactics said to avoid. Would you rather I do that? If so, then this fight will get held over until next week when I can run it again from the very beginning. Let me hear from the other players on this subject too. EDIT: And just to point out, you have a light crossbow, not a heavy.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 08:37 AM	Altaris, Thanks for getting the fight finished. I will be gone for a medical school interview all day tomarrow, and there is no time to edit Raskos before parrings. So any edits that may change the outcome will come too late for Raskos. For the sake of completeness, I will describe in detail the problems I have with the fight. You can review them if you like and edit the fight. In Round 8 Aranor casts Dispell targeted on Raskos. Since he targets Raskos with the spell, I would think that it is a direct attack on Raskos and that Aranor is then visible. Raskos can use his own dispell and target it on Aranor specifically. Thus having an attempt to dispell all of Aranor's buffs not just one. Not that that will make much of a difference. Then in Round 9 Aranor casts Fireball and the spell must pass Raskos's spell resistance to effect him. This is not rolled, even though there is a 35% chance of the spell failing due to that SR alone. After this Raskos does a double move basically into the lions mouth. This is against my tactics. What he should have done is move to Break LOS, as in my tactics, a good place is (-21,6). In this location, he cannot be targeted, and Aranor would have to move inorder to target Raskos with anything. Hopefully moving into range of a short range attack. This tactic works, because my opponent likes to use a wand of scorching ray. Scorching ray is a short range spell and if Raskos can be targeted by it, then he can also target Aranor. Also at this time Raskos should use another stone of Vigor, that's what they are there for and my tactics specify to use one at this time. Also you neglect to use Raskos's enlarge power feat that increases the range of all of his psionic powers. He could easily use that to manifest an energy ray at medium range. Also Scathers does have the ability to attack and should get an AoO when Aranor attempts to move out of his threatined square. Then in round 10, Aranor hits Raskos with another spell that needs to pass the SR on Raskos. The role is never made and there is a good chance that the attack will fail simply due to that. The use of the wand here is precisely why Raskos wants to head for cover. In cover he gets a bonus on his AC against these attacks. Lastly, the tax on Raskos's winings for PSI is 10%, not 9% as listed in the guild thread. If you want to calculate that, then put the correct value in the summation of the fight. Have a good night, Sauro All valid points Sauro. Sorry for the screw ups. I'll edit that now. That's what I get for running a fight tired.
Begferdeth 01-04-06, 09:05 AM	I have a solution for poor ol Niqil on the rage issue that fits into the rules perfectly: Take a couple ranks of bluff, and PRETEND to rage ahead of time! THey run off, come back 9 rounds later, and get pulverized :D
Macbrea 01-04-06, 09:14 AM	Technically.. if you assume he was shooting 1 handed at the end of round 24 the fight looks like: Manzarf (24,24) 32/32hp, AC 18,13,15 Arrows 0 Talik (8,29) 9/17 Bolts 23 of 38 Wolf (6,30) 13/13hp, AC 14,12,12 Bag of Tricks 103 Gorak (2,12) 15/25/hp, AC 19,13,16 Arrows 86 This is without rerunning the fight but editting it to the point that he gets one defect a round an all his shots are at -4 to hit for shooting 1 handed.
MitzaVolchenko 01-04-06, 09:17 AM	Well as I was checking Iced's CL3 Hunter fight (the one I ran) over for errors and picking Macbrea's brain, he pointed out that Iced did finally run the fight and post it. The fight was posted after I posted that I would take it. In the future it would be really nice if either a post to the effect that the fight was up was placed in here or something. Running the fight was good practice for me, but ultimately it was a waste of time. I'm not mad, just tired. Any road, congrats to the winners in his version mine came out very differently which shows the true element of chance involved in things.
TelinArtho 01-04-06, 10:02 AM	@Iced about the 4-way hunter fight: I'm not asking for changes to be made at this time because of the late hour, but there are issues with the fight - so if it does get fixed - please do take these into account: 1. After buffing, Vent was meant to move to find Sven - however I wasn't overly explicit in this in my tactics. However on the round that Sven is found - Vent can easily move to base and attack as per this: Vent will stay at a 5ft height to benefit from attacking from higher ground and attack Sven on sight. He can cover most of the arena in one round - so after a round or two, he should be on him. Once he is found, Vent will yell in auran his location so that Anakala can close quickly. He will CDG if Sven is held - but otherwise will just keep attacking. This means that from round 3 on - Vent should be attacking Sven. 2. Breaking hold person is a full round action: Each round on its turn, the subject may attempt a new saving throw to end the effect. (This is a full-round action that does not provoke attacks of opportunity.) 3. Round 11 is my first melee attack: Use my strength domain power on my first melee attack that is not for a CDG. So that attack should have done 1 more damage. All this means that Vent would have gotten a lot more attacks. It also looks like you didn't pay much attention to who was whose target - since Rethun should have been attacking me once Jonathon went down, Jonathon should have been attacking me before that and Sven should have been attacking Rethun.
TelinArtho 01-04-06, 10:05 AM	Well as I was checking Iced's CL3 Hunter fight (the one I ran) over for errors and picking Macbrea's brain, he pointed out that Iced did finally run the fight and post it. The fight was posted after I posted that I would take it. In the future it would be really nice if either a post to the effect that the fight was up was placed in here or something. Running the fight was good practice for me, but ultimately it was a waste of time. I'm not mad, just tired. Any road, congrats to the winners in his version mine came out very differently which shows the true element of chance involved in things. This is something that was overlooked, but something that everyone should pay attention to when taking another's fight: 1. Ask all players involved for tactics or the pitlord. 2. Make sure that the pitlord isn't running the fight - check invisible castle/PM the pitlord, etc. 3. Post here to say that you are taking the fight. I never take a fight unless I've checked with the pitlord or have checked the last several hundred rolls on IC to make sure I don't see anything.
MitzaVolchenko 01-04-06, 10:19 AM	This is something that was overlooked, but something that everyone should pay attention to when taking another's fight: 1. Ask all players involved for tactics or the pitlord. 2. Make sure that the pitlord isn't running the fight - check invisible castle/PM the pitlord, etc. 3. Post here to say that you are taking the fight. I never take a fight unless I've checked with the pitlord or have checked the last several hundred rolls on IC to make sure I don't see anything. The tactics were already up, and I didn't start it until after deadline. I PM'd Iced yesterday about taking one of his fights and posted in this thread that I was taking that fight when I began it. It was just a miscommunication. He missed my post would be my guess,a nd because it wasn't posted that it was up, I missed that he had finished it. I was periodically refreshing this thread but not checking the rest of the board. Either way, I won't take another fight without someone asking me directly. That having been said, it is generally fine to ask me to take an extra fight. I don't sleep much, and the more I run the more of the rules stick in my head firmly.
NiQil 01-04-06, 10:19 AM	This is something that was overlooked, but something that everyone should pay attention to when taking another's fight: 1. Ask all players involved for tactics or the pitlord. 2. Make sure that the pitlord isn't running the fight - check invisible castle/PM the pitlord, etc. 3. Post here to say that you are taking the fight. I never take a fight unless I've checked with the pitlord or have checked the last several hundred rolls on IC to make sure I don't see anything. Another issues that goes hand in hand with this that I want to mention is that, over the last couple of months, I have noticed more and more pitlords not taking the extra minute to link their fights into the FotW thread as they are required to. This makes a big difference, not only for people looking for their individual fights amid the flurry of posts that are tactics-only because the fight hasn't been done yet, but it also is extremely helpful to those that take extra fights at the end of the week to help get them all in. Please remember that you must link your fights into the FotW thread upon completion. It's not only a courtesy, but also a required aspect of pitlording.
Abyssal Stalker 01-04-06, 10:23 AM	@TelinArtho: You're not the only one a bit disappointed on the hunter-fight... Jonathons tactics never reached Iced because for some stupid reason the e-mail I sent never got there...So it obviously didn't go well since I haven't had the time to create default tactics. But Iced did his job, and I'm not gonna argue with that. Don't mess with the GM and that s***... :( Next time J is gonna kick some behinds...at least I hope so!
TelinArtho 01-04-06, 10:34 AM	Also, the rewards for the fight are off: Everyone but Ana should receive a 25%/3 bonus; Ana should receive a 25% penalty. Ana also has profession income of +63gp to take into account.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 10:43 AM	Raskos vs Aranor Revised. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8146364&postcount=939)
TroubleWolf 01-04-06, 11:22 AM	Well, this was my first battle, so I'll admit I'm inexperienced in the tactics department, but I'm confused. First off, I was led to believe that a Hunter battle was different than an All vs All fight. Each combatant should have a set foe to track down and eliminate, and once your target is down, then you move on to the next one. This fight makes it appear that there is no difference between a Hunter battle and an All vs All battle except for venue, which has no real effect on most people's tactics. To that end, why would Jonothan attack Sven on sight? I thought he'd look for Ankala, and then if he took her out he'd come looking for Sven. And when Rethun joined the fight, once Jono was down, shouldn't Rethun have attacked his next target (Ankala) instead of Sven? And why did Sven never use a potion of Cure Mod? He has two in his inventory, and they can really change the tide of a battle. A simple 5-foot step to get out of melee with Vent and a quaffed potion of Cure Mod could have saved him at the end. I can accept my losses, that's no big deal. But I am kind of bitter that every single combatant attacked Sven and only Sven until he was dead. That just seems against the point of a Hunter battle.
Ayrynthyn 01-04-06, 11:57 AM	Technically.. if you assume he was shooting 1 handed at the end of round 24 the fight looks like: Manzarf (24,24) 32/32hp, AC 18,13,15 Arrows 0 Talik (8,29) 17/17 Bolts 23 of 38 Wolf (6,30) 13/13hp, AC 14,12,12 Bag of Tricks 103 Gorak (2,12) 15/25/hp, AC 19,13,16 Arrows 86 This is without rerunning the fight but editting it to the point that he gets one defect a round an all his shots are at -4 -2 [Light Crossbow] to hit for shooting 1 handed. Once per round when you would normally be hit with a ranged weapon, you may deflect it so that you take no damage from it. You must be aware of the attack and not flat-footed. It's Hit with a ranged weapon, not "range weapon fired at you". Since there are no rounds in which both of you hit me i submit that i would be at max health and still have both my CLWs. I also question, why when i am getting fired upon is the wolf not attacking my attackers. Is this not the purpose of the Defend command? If not, and Since there is no mention of readying an "attack on the monk for when he fires" anywhere in any of my opponents tactics (nothing even close). But as this tactic is in the best interest of my opponets, i have no real problem with it. I would just like to be extened the same curtosy, and say oh, after 10 rounds or so of futility, try something else thats listed in my tactics (or not), or "If I really need to get away, give the creature an attack command, and use it as a distraction" or at least let the Wolf "defend" me as commanded. I will win a ranged battle of attrition agains M, as i have more bolts than he does at this point, but... eh.
MitzaVolchenko 01-04-06, 12:03 PM	Well, this was my first battle, so I'll admit I'm inexperienced in the tactics department, but I'm confused. First off, I was led to believe that a Hunter battle was different than an All vs All fight. Each combatant should have a set foe to track down and eliminate, and once your target is down, then you move on to the next one. This fight makes it appear that there is no difference between a Hunter battle and an All vs All battle except for venue, which has no real effect on most people's tactics. To that end, why would Jonothan attack Sven on sight? I thought he'd look for Ankala, and then if he took her out he'd come looking for Sven. And when Rethun joined the fight, once Jono was down, shouldn't Rethun have attacked his next target (Ankala) instead of Sven? And why did Sven never use a potion of Cure Mod? He has two in his inventory, and they can really change the tide of a battle. A simple 5-foot step to get out of melee with Vent and a quaffed potion of Cure Mod could have saved him at the end. I can accept my losses, that's no big deal. But I am kind of bitter that every single combatant attacked Sven and only Sven until he was dead. That just seems against the point of a Hunter battle. You are correct, Troublewolf, hunter battles are supposed to be different. I read through that and couldn't figure out what that was all about. It certainly isn't right that Jonathon attacked you out of turn with no tactics whatsoever to follow (not even old fights to refer to for guidance). There were contingencies for Sven attacking Anakala out of turn, and Rethun clearly states his order of targets giving no contingency for attacking out of turn but rather choosing stealth and cover to avoid engaging the wrong opponent. *shakes head* Dunno what to say other than ask for a rerun. As I said before, my version turned out very differently from Iced's but it was his fight to run.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 12:55 PM	It's Hit with a ranged weapon, not "range weapon fired at you". Since there are no rounds in which both of you hit me i submit that i would be at max health and still have both my CLWs. I also question, why when i am getting fired upon is the wolf not attacking my attackers. Is this not the purpose of the Defend command? If not, and Since there is no mention of readying an "attack on the monk for when he fires" anywhere in any of my opponents tactics (nothing even close). But as this tactic is in the best interest of my opponets, i have no real problem with it. I would just like to be extened the same curtosy, and say oh, after 10 rounds or so of futility, try something else thats listed in my tactics (or not), or "If I really need to get away, give the creature an attack command, and use it as a distraction" or at least let the Wolf "defend" me as commanded. I will win a ranged battle of attrition agains M, as i have more bolts than he does at this point, but... eh. OK, fight posted here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8146309&postcount=938). I'll get the rewards edited in shortly. I may have the wrong of regarding the "Defend" command, but I don't see why it would run away from you to attack someone else? Would 'defend' not be 'stay here and attack anyone who gets too close'? We can hash out the details now, but edits to the actual fight won't be able to occur until after Pairings at this point. Now, here are my issues with your requested tactical adjustment Ayr. I did not really adjust Manzarf's tactics. He even requests to use "dirty tactics." You ask to stay at ranged since you want to avoid melee. What you are asking a Pitlord to do is run 20 or more rounds of ranged attacks that do not mean squat and are a waste of time. Why are they a waste of time? Because all you are doing is running the other fighter out of arrows. What happens then? He tries to close for melee. You run. He closes. You run. He closes. You run. He closes. Run. Close. Run Close Run Close. ad infinitum. Now you come back with "what about my wolf?" OK, wolf attacks Manzarf. Manzarf crushes wolf and resumes chase. You get to fire at Manzarf a few times. When ever he can't base, he takes cover. You miss repeatedly. Meanwhile, the entire time this is going on, Gorak is pelting you with arrows. You deflect any hits. I run another 100 rounds or so of Manzarf chasing you, you running, and Gorak failing to hit you at ranged. At some point, you'll pull another animal from the bag. It gets crushed and is another round you don't fire the crossbow. OH, and guess what, it takes a move action to reload the crossbow, so that either hampers your ability to fire, or your movement. Face it, your tactics broke down pure and simple. Oh, and on top of that, eventually you start getting chased by Gorak as well, so you will eventually get pinchered and double teamed /anyway./
Macbrea 01-04-06, 01:01 PM	It's Hit with a ranged weapon, not "range weapon fired at you". Since there are no rounds in which both of you hit me i submit that i would be at max health and still have both my CLWs. Actually, in the last round you were hit twice. Round 24 Manzarf readies to fires at Manzarf if he fires Gorak readies to fire at Manzarf if he fires. Talik reloads and fires at Manzarf again. M atk T 26! vs AC25, hits for 5 (crit not confirmed) G atk T 24 vs AC24, hits for 8 That was why I suggested you were down 8 hps.
Macbrea 01-04-06, 01:15 PM	Actually, strickly following my tactics. I would have moved around the arena and engaged the monk in hand to hand. My tactics stated don't bother firing at him in the first place. It would have simply been a matter of getting over to him and striking him twice. It is within his rights to argue the results of the fight. I am fine with it as it stands. But, then again I got 2 kills. I don't bother to argue my tactics vs the pitlords decisions how they should have been implemented. It doesn't really serve any real purpose in this case. Yes, the monk might have been able to beat Gorak in hand to hand. It wouldn't be his first loss.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 01:16 PM	My all vs all rewards: Manzarf is the 1st Winner. He gains 1800XP and GP. +57gp for stonesmithing. Gorak is the 2nd Winner. He gains 900XP and GP. Talik is the 3rd Winner. He gains 600XP and GP. +63GP for Profession. Earns 60gp for the Watchful EYE. Garland is the loser and gains 300XP and GP. +63GP for craft(pottery.) I'm filtering out the used items now.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 01:23 PM	Actually, strickly following my tactics. I would have moved around the arena and engaged the monk in hand to hand. My tactics stated don't bother firing at him in the first place. It would have simply been a matter of getting over to him and striking him twice. It is within his rights to argue the results of the fight. I am fine with it as it stands. But, then again I got 2 kills. I don't bother to argue my tactics vs the pitlords decisions how they should have been implemented. It doesn't really serve any real purpose in this case. Yes, the monk might have been able to beat Gorak in hand to hand. It wouldn't be his first loss. Heh. I see that now, buried in there at the top of your tactics. Bleh.
Macbrea 01-04-06, 01:31 PM	Personally, I don't care. I am fine with how you ran the fight. Like I stated at the bottom of my tactics. I don't expect to get far with Gorak in that fight. But I am not going to do the chicken thing other people have been doing in these fights. Otherwise, Goraks Tactics would have been the following: Gorak starts near front of his box. He moves forward and hides. Edging my way slowly toward the edge of the pit drop down in the pit and run toward the lava. As I get to the lava jump over the lava to the base of the statue and sit down at it's feet. Smoke a cigar and message your aching joints. Your an old orc and should remember the running long jump isn't your specialty. If Manz jumps over the pit bull rush his silly dwarf butt into the lava.
Warclone 01-04-06, 01:41 PM	Hey all, Savour Die vs. The Bounty Hunter is up. Please check for errors and such. Sorry it's so late, I moved back into dorms so had little time to run it till now, hope there aren't too many mistakes. Kaigan You ran the fight perfectly, except somthing inconsequential (as it turned out) which is I asked to have the scroll out before I became visible so I could take more than a 5ft step the round I become visisble. No need to change because it doesnt matter; just pointing it out. NOTE: While I am moving into position, I draw my scrolls of invisibility so they are in my hand and ready. (if I can't draw&use scroll while holding bow in one hand, have me start with bow sheathed)
Altaris13 01-04-06, 01:49 PM	Items Used Manzarf used 20 arrows and a potion of CLW. 12 arrows broke, 8 are recoverable. Talik used 15 bolts and 2 potions of CLW. 8 bolts broke, 7 can be recovered. Gorak used 17 arrows, 7 broke, 10 recovered. Garland used Stones of Vigor & Skate and a Potion of Spider Climb. @Mac: I appreciate that, and I'm sure most Pitlords would have.
Ayrynthyn 01-04-06, 02:03 PM	Face it, your tactics broke down pure and simple. ...that would have been nice to find out, oh well. Thanks for running what looked like a painful fight, in the most fair and balanced way possible. I learned a lot from running this character, and appreciate all the insight everyones given me along the way.
Snommelp 01-04-06, 02:04 PM	Snommelp, thanks for running it, unfortunately there are a number of errors when looking at it from Tezca's perspective. 1. I do meant 25,8 (or its seven equivalents, and not 25,28) for the hiding spot. See the diagram below, which illustrates the hiding spot of 25,8 and one of its equivalents. Red T is the hiding spot, orange T's are the places within 5 ft. that can be used to claim cover. Thus they will give cover from many directions. I know you meant the best, but it is unfortunately a bad improvisation. 25,28 makes me a clear target for a Lissa that is riding around. http://www.greyhawk.nl/images/coc/tezcahides.jpgWell, in that case it is both of us who were mistaken. Me with your tactics, and you with the cover. Rotating the map to put Tezca in that bottom corner, in round one he would move to (23, 6). That grants him absolutely no cover from either foe, and he is 10 feet away from cover. Corners can't be cut, friend. You would move into plain sight of Lissa and this would merely expedite the process of her shooting you. 2. In round 3 Tezca shoots at the horse while he should have been drinking his potion of mage armor as per my tactics. Tezca is not in a hurry to attack Lissa, so please drink the potion of mage armor before you start sniping.Your tactics said to shoot her before she got within 40 feet. With her movement, she was going to be within 40 feet in the next round. Your Mage Armor contingency said "at the earliest opportunity," which I took to mean it was less important than other tactics. However, that is my fault. 3. I have no idea why Tezca picks up the potion and jumps off in round 4. It was not in my tactics, and clearly achieved nothing but becoming a target for my opponents. What were you trying to achieve?Tezca picked up the potion because I was still hoping to use it, and jumped off because jumping gave him cover. Fits perfectly with your tactics. So if I apply all of the changes, Lissa sees you in round one and shoots before you down the potion. She would rapid-shoot, so using the same rolls you would be hit by two arrows in round one for 24 damage. The result isn't going to change at all, Usurpator.
Ayrynthyn 01-04-06, 02:14 PM	Actually, in the last round you were hit twice. Round 24 Manzarf readies to fires at Manzarf if he fires Gorak readies to fire at Manzarf if he fires. Talik reloads and fires at Manzarf again. M atk T 26! vs AC25, hits for 5 (crit not confirmed) G atk T 24 vs AC24, hits for 8 That was why I suggested you were down 8 hps. actually it says Gorak readies to fire at MAzarf, so i had presumed, that Mazarf had gotten hit, not me... but again, bleh.
Altaris13 01-04-06, 02:25 PM	...that would have been nice to find out, oh well. Thanks for running what looked like a painful fight, in the most fair and balanced way possible. I learned a lot from running this character, and appreciate all the insight everyones given me along the way. Sorry to be so blunt in that statement. I was feeling rather heckled this week, especially for time. Your tactics would've been great for a 1v1. And they weren't bad for the situation. But crossbows just don't make good archer weapons, and you tried to be an archer this fight (with good reason.) And I'll correct the ready for round 24. Both were attacking you when you were visible.
Mal-2 01-04-06, 02:27 PM	Well, in that case it is both of us who were mistaken. Me with your tactics, and you with the cover. Rotating the map to put Tezca in that bottom corner, in round one he would move to (23, 6). That grants him absolutely no cover from either foe, and he is 10 feet away from cover. Corners can't be cut, friend. I would just like to register my continued dissatisfaction with this interpretation of the hiding near cover house rules. You can't cut corners when moving, but since you don't have to move to gain the benefit of cover by the CoCo house rules, I believe all of those spots are merely five feet away, and not 10. Okay. Dead Horse Animated and kicked back into dust.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 02:42 PM	Well, in that case it is both of us who were mistaken. Me with your tactics, and you with the cover. Rotating the map to put Tezca in that bottom corner, in round one he would move to (23, 6). I wanted Tezca to start in the default position, which is the center of the starting square, that's why I didn't mention any position to start. From the default position it is 5 squares to one of those spots, easily doable with the 8 squares of movement Tezca has. That grants him absolutely no cover from either foe, and he is 10 feet away from cover. Corners can't be cut, friend. Next thing you know, if I cast a spell at one of those squares you will claim it is 10 ft. away because you cannot round corners. When adjucating range and distance you don't include movement. Or do you mean to say that you cannot hide within 5 ft. when walking on difficult ground (because you move at half movement)? The fact that is costs 10 ft. of movement to round a corner doesn't make that square 10 ft. distant. In any case, I have always seen it ruled like that in many of the fights in which I had someone who used hide. Although I agree with you the hiding rule should be clarified and amended (I even sent Cat a proposal for a new definition for the hide ranks = feet rule for in the Rules of Gladius that included movement as a clause, but he never implemented it, guess because he didn't think it was correct.) with some movement restriction, until it is amended, we must follow what the rules say now. And they do not mention movement, at all. I think it is really unfair when I propose a clarification/addendum to a rule, that addendum is refused, and when I write my tactics using the old rule, be suddenly told that is doesn't work that way. I cannot write proper tactics if the rules keep switching around from one Pitlord to the next. No offense meant Snommelp, it is not your fault, it is caused by unclear rules. Your tactics said to shoot her before she got within 40 feet. With her movement, she was going to be within 40 feet in the next round. Your Mage Armor contingency said "at the earliest opportunity," which I took to mean it was less important than other tactics. However, that is my fault. I think this is an unfortunate intepretation error. I said: "Use sniping shots, preferably when she's more than 40 ft. distant". There is no mention of 'before', I just don't want to shoot her from very close, because she has only a small penalty to her spot at that close range. When Sniping, I don't expect her to approach me on purpose, I expect her to wander around aimlessly. Tezca picked up the potion because I was still hoping to use it, and jumped off because jumping gave him cover. Fits perfectly with your tactics. Well, I didn't see Tezca get any cover vs. those shots from Lissa, so I guess it didn't work as you claim. Nonetheless, I admit it was not a serious oversight but a reasonable Pitlord decision. The fact that I myself would not have chosen to do it, does not make it wrong move by itself. Besides, I expect to be able to gain cover more easily because I expected Tezca to stand at the edge of the platform. So if I apply all of the changes, Lissa sees you in round one and shoots before you down the potion. She would rapid-shoot, so using the same rolls you would be hit by two arrows in round one for 24 damage. The result isn't going to change at all, Usurpator. Maybe not if you continue to not apply my tactics, but as I said, you have Tezca start in the bottom corner of the starting square. That's not what the rules say, the rules say to start me in my default square (where the letter stands), that is the only proper place for a sniper to start, since it will break LOS from all directions initially. I did think these tactics through quite thoroughly.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 02:50 PM	I would just like to register my continued dissatisfaction with this interpretation of the hiding near cover house rules. You can't cut corners when moving, but since you don't have to move to gain the benefit of cover by the CoCo house rules, I believe all of those spots are merely five feet away, and not 10. Okay. Dead Horse Animated and kicked back into dust. Thank you Mal-2. That is (unfortunately) the way it has to be intepreted. I operate under the philosophy "If you can't beat them, join them". If I think a rule is unclear or unbalanced in some way, I am happy to question it and propose clarifications. If my proposals are rejected, I will use the existing rules to my advantage. This was the rule I proposed, but never made it into the Rules of Gladius: "You are automatically spotted by an opponent (on any turn) if that opponent has Line of Sight to you and you don't have cover or concealment against that opponent, unless you are within 1 foot of normal movement per rank of Hide from a place that provides you with cover or concealment. In that case you are assumed to make use of the nearby cover or concealment to Hide, even though you are not actually required to move there." And additionally: "You can't hide within effects provided by spells, powers or items that target you and give concealment or cover such as Blur, Concealing Amorpha and a Tower Shield."
Snommelp 01-04-06, 03:05 PM	I wanted Tezca to start in the default position, which is the center of the starting square, that's why I didn't mention any position to start. From the default position it is 5 squares to one of those spots, easily doable with the 8 squares of movement Tezca has. :confused: I did start you in the default position... you moved to one of those spots in round one. Next thing you know, if I cast a spell at one of those squares you will claim it is 10 ft. away because you cannot round corners. When adjucating range and distance you don't include movement. Or do you mean to say that you cannot hide within 5 ft. when walking on difficult ground (because you move at half movement)? The fact that is costs 10 ft. of movement to round a corner doesn't make that square 10 ft. distant. In any case, I have always seen it ruled like that in many of the fights in which I had someone who used hide. Although I agree with you the hiding rule should be clarified and amended (I even sent Cat a proposal for a new definition for the hide ranks = feet rule for in the Rules of Gladius that included movement as a clause, but he never implemented it, guess because he didn't think it was correct.) with some movement restriction, until it is amended, we must follow what the rules say now. And they do not mention movement, at all. I think it is really unfair when I propose a clarification/addendum to a rule, that addendum is refused, and when I write my tactics using the old rule, be suddenly told that is doesn't work that way. I cannot write proper tactics if the rules keep switching around from one Pitlord to the next. No offense meant Snommelp, it is not your fault, it is caused by unclear rules.As you said, it's not my fault; the rules need to be clarified here. Until they are, though, I stick by my answer. As for spells, if it is a spell like Fireball that wraps around corners, then yes, I would say it is ten feet and not five. Regardless, though, you would be in LOS of one of your opponents no matter which of the two you moved to; going clockwise to your "hiding" spot would put you far away from any cover relative to Noko. And when Lissa circles to that position, you're in her line of sight, too. I think this is an unfortunate intepretation error. I said: "Use sniping shots, preferably when she's more than 40 ft. distant". There is no mention of 'before', I just don't want to shoot her from very close, because she has only a small penalty to her spot at that close range. When Sniping, I don't expect her to approach me on purpose, I expect her to wander around aimlessly. You're right that this is pitlord error, but it's not fight changing, since you're being double-teamed and the character who did more damage to you was the one you weren't focusing on. Maybe not if you continue to not apply my tactics, but as I said, you have Tezca start in the bottom corner of the starting square. That's not what the rules say, the rules say to start me in my default square (where the letter stands), that is the only proper place for a sniper to start, since it will break LOS from all directions initially. I did think these tactics through quite thoroughly.See above. You started in the default middle square, then moved per your instructions (or what I thought were your instructions). Again, no changes would be fight changing. You planned on shooting at the invisible pixie, who planned on shooting at you from cover. Lissa, who did more damage to you than Noko, was a footnote in your tactics.
Mal-2 01-04-06, 03:06 PM	Thank you Mal-2. That is (unfortunately) the way it has to be intepreted. I operate under the philosophy "If you can't beat them, join them". If I think a rule is unclear or unbalanced in some way, I am happy to question it and propose clarifications. If my proposals are rejected, I will use the existing rules to my advantage. This was the rule I proposed, but never made it into the Rules of Gladius: I certainly agree that the cover / hide ranks rule should be clarified, because there is a big divide in the Pitlords about how it works. I think the way it's currently written is pretty clear, but I'm obviously wrong, since it seems to come into dispute every few weeks. For the record, I support the rule working on actual distance, and not movement, for artistic reasons. For example. Which of these do you think should be a better hiding spot: A: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Name,M,-14,-10;style=s;opacity=65 or B: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Name,M,-13,-10;style=s;opacity=65 If we use the distance calculated as movement option, B become a better hiding spot than A, which just seem wrong to me.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 03:25 PM	@Snommelp: The end result is: I lost because you interpreted the CoCo rules differently than I. And from my previous experiences and discussions here in CoCo, I could have never expected that you would interpret those rules that way, since they all pointed to my interpretation. If I had known your interpretation, I would have written different tactics. I just hate when that happens. Same thing with the Combat Riding package needed to ride a mount question some weeks earlier. All evidence pointed to the fact that you did not need it, *still* I asked because I thought it was unclear, I even got Elder confirmation that it wasn't needed. Next week, a Pitlord still decided that it was needed despite all my efforts..... Terribly frustrating. Just nothing I can do to prevent such things, but they can completely invalidate my tactics and ruin a fight, just as it does now. That's why I think Cerebus13 has a great initiative, since unclear rules, especially if situations crop up a lot, need to be clarified. And this is especially true for CoCo-only rules, as opposed to D&D rules in general. Last point: if you had Tezca drink the mage armor as I asked and you admitted you should have, both Lissa's and Noko's arrows would miss. So I guess even if we agree to disagree on the other points, there is still a fight changing issue left on the table.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 03:31 PM	Again, no changes would be fight changing. You planned on shooting at the invisible pixie, who planned on shooting at you from cover. Lissa, who did more damage to you than Noko, was a footnote in your tactics. Snommelp, by saying such things you make it sound like it was my fault, and I should have written better tactics vs. Lissa. I hope you understand why Lissa was a footnote. She would have close to zero chance of detecting Tezca, if you interpret the hide rank = feet rule the way I did. MysticMonk2000 acknowledged that too, his entire tactics were little more than a footnote. Once again, I am not stupid, I worked for over an hour on those tactics. To have them ruined instantly by a differing rules interpretation just makes me sad and wonder why I put so much effort into them.
Snommelp 01-04-06, 03:39 PM	@Snommelp: The end result is: I lost because you interpreted the CoCo rules differently than I. And from my previous experiences and discussions here in CoCo, I could have never expected that you would interpret those rules that way, since they all pointed to my interpretation. If I had known your interpretation, I would have written different tactics. I just hate when that happens. Same thing with the Combat Riding package needed to ride a mount question some weeks earlier. All evidence pointed to the fact that you did not need it, *still* I asked because I thought it was unclear, I even got Elder confirmation that it wasn't needed. Next week, a Pitlord still decided that it was needed despite all my efforts..... Terribly frustrating. Just nothing I can do to prevent such things, but they can completely invalidate my tactics and ruin a fight, just as it does now. That's why I think Cerebus13 has a great initiative, since unclear rules, especially if situations crop up a lot, need to be clarified. And this is especially true for CoCo-only rules, as opposed to D&D rules in general.Believe it or not, I agree completely with your sentiment. I think unclear rules need to be addressed as soon as any issue comes up. However, I have stood by this interpretation for I don't know how long; certainly longer than just this week. In fact I was convinced that the rest of the CoCo agreed with this interpretation, based on my own experiences and discussions; apparently I was mistaken.Last point: if you had Tezca drink the mage armor as I asked and you admitted you should have, both Lissa's and Noko's arrows would miss. So I guess even if we agree to disagree on the other points, there is still a fight changing issue left on the table.Counter-point: unless the rules are clarified to disagree with me, Lissa can see Tezca in round one and hit him for 24 points of damage. After that, she'll be getting in more shots, one of which would miss the new AC and the rest of which would need to be rolled. However, by round three Noko would be shooting at Tezca as well, which means he would be shooting her and not Lissa, and Lissa would kill Tezca. The end result is that more arrows are shot, an expensive potion is drunk, and the order of death remains the same. Or if I have Tezca drink instead of shooting and change nothing else, again Noko comes close enough to become Tezca's target, and Lissa will eventually kill Tezca. Unless voting on the Hide issue happens fast enough to get a ruling before pairings, the fight will stand. I'm sorry, Usurpator, but barring a direct ruling from Caterane within the next fifteen minutes, the fight stands.
Ariel23 01-04-06, 03:46 PM	@iced, troublewolf, kaigan, abyssal stalker, telinartho To that end, why would Jonothan attack Sven on sight? I thought he'd look for Ankala, and then if he took her out he'd come looking for Sven. And when Rethun joined the fight, once Jono was down, shouldn't Rethun have attacked his next target (Ankala) instead of Sven? Last Target: Sven.Hey, thanks for Pitlording. I hope this won't be too difficult. Start holding an elixir of hiding, and a potion of cat's grace. Immediately imbibe the elixir of hiding, and hide, and move silently at half speed. Round 2: Drink potion of cat's grace, draw potion of protection from evil. So my target is Jonathan. Hopefully the others won't target me, but here's what I want to do. When I find Jonathon, who is likely to be mounted, stay hidden and drink potion of pro evil, and draw an alchemist fire. From the shadows, hopefully he'll be unaware, through an alchemist's fire at him, within 20 ft if possible. It should be sneak attack, and flat foot touch AC. Try for a "snipe" attack, but if he finds me, then just try to rehide and throw again next turn. After he goes down, hopefully I won't have to use too many alchemist fires, but if I need to then use the acids. Next target: Anakala. Move in shadows and do the same. Use fires if I have any, or the remaining acids. Set it up, so that I can throw, then move away. She is likely to be enlarged, so just stay out of grapple if possible. If not, use escape artist. Use fires and/or acids. If those run out, then use shortswords in combat till she goes down. Last Target: Sven. Rehide again if possible. Use invisibility potion if I must, then rain fire or acid or daggers, whichever I have. That's about it. Have a good one. Kaigan None receivedThe appropriate call in this case is either to surrender, or attack the correct opponents in the correct order. I also don't understand the Hunter fight rewards, I guess. I didn't think you got XP for killing people out of turn (rather you give XP to their hunter). Also, Anakala has an ally (air elemental) but this was not factored into the rewards. This really looks to me like it was run as a free for all. Either the "Hunter" format was ignored, or tactics were ignored, or both. Sven (TroubleWolf)=>Rethun(Kaigan)=>Jonathon(Abyssal Stalker)=>Anakala (TelinArtho) Should look like this: Sven attacks Rethun Rethun attacks Jonathon Jonathon attacks Anakala (Or surrenders) Anakala attacks Sven Instead it looks like this: :blink: Sven attacks Rethun Rethun attacks Sven Jonathon attacks Sven Anakala attacks Sven
Huan 01-04-06, 04:03 PM	Rewards for the redone Solomon vs Kitaya vs Kendal vs Krayko FFA: Solomon ranked 1st and used a Potion of Invisibility. Recives 1800 xp and 1800 gp Kitaya ranked 2nd and used a Scroll of CL1 Mage Armor, CL3 Invisibility, CL1 CLWx2, CL2 Shield, CL1 Shield, CL2 Shocking Grasp, CL2 Enlarge, and CL1 Longstrider. Receives 900 gp and 900 xp. Kendal ranked 3rd and used a Potion of Mage Armor and 2 CLW Potions. Receives 600 gp and 600 xp. Krayko ranked 4th and used nothing. Receives 300 gp and 300 xp. @Usurpator I read your PM, but Kitaya was killed by a normal attack that would have happened anyway (Kitaya does not have combat reflexes, so at least 2 constructs were pounding on her a round). All of the AoOs against Kitaya missed anyway so its fine that she did not tumble (though I do apologize for not doing so).
Ayrynthyn 01-04-06, 04:07 PM	Sorry to be so blunt in that statement. I was feeling rather heckled this week, especially for time. Your tactics would've been great for a 1v1. And they weren't bad for the situation. But crossbows just don't make good archer weapons, and you tried to be an archer this fight (with good reason.) And I'll correct the ready for round 24. Both were attacking you when you were visible. Yet the irony of it all was that i, a monk with deflect arrows, was "Arched" to death... Perhaps if you cannot give a fight the proper justice (due to time or what not) you should remove your self from Pitlording duties. I have, but thats because i feel i dont have a grasp of some of the more esoteric Game rules, CoCo house rules and what not... Me, pitlording, was doing my gladiators an injustice... anyway, thanks again.
Usurpator 01-04-06, 04:25 PM	@Huan Thanks for editing! Well, I guess we disagree a bit about use of attack rolls then. I normally use such rolls for regular attack rolls if Kitaya had tumbled succesfully. But no biggie, is Pitlord's prerogative to do it this way. It is not neccessary to make changes for this point unless you agree with me. Also, I did ask specifically for Total Defense in case the Shield went down and I was fighting Solomon's constructs in my tactics. While I did mention recasting Shield if it was 'opportune' in my general contingencies, I think the specific tactics go before the general contigencies in case of conflict. Next to that, one particular example mentioned as not being opportune was 'fighting for me life', which I think being beset by multiple constructs qualifies as such. I do mention the words as opportune and neccessary and put the examples in there for a purpose, namely, to avoid situations where I would stupidly extend my shield spell while being beset by enemies and thus actually ending up in a disadvantegeous position. And I also mention such things to help pitlords make choices for my character and prioritize between sometimes conflicting tactics. Pure luck that none of the three connected. In invisible castle I do see the final (flanking) roll hit AC 24. Only with enlarge person ended, Kitaya's AC is 10 +3 Dex +3 Wis +4 Mage Armor +4 Shield (+1 dodge) = AC 24(25). As I PM'ed, if there is movement, two constructs cannot both flank, and normally it would make sense to dodge the flanker. But really, this is also minor issue, I am fine with you dodging a random construct instead of a specific one. But one of those two is being dodged for sure. What is your opinion on these issues?
Papapeperoni 01-05-06, 08:40 AM	Fantastic. I note to Huan that mage armor lasts an entire battle instead of (I think he did) 20 rounds, and I end up third instead of second :weep: Mean, mean, mean --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's
Abyssal Stalker 01-05-06, 10:43 AM	The appropriate call in this case is either to surrender, or attack the correct opponents in the correct order. I'm happy Jon's actions didn't turn out that way. IMO surrendering would be the worst option. I like it better that the GM plays the character at least somehow, at least he/she gets to fight! Of course I understand that those who don't bother to send tactics/create defaults are the reason for the surrender-system. But I sent tactics which never got there and thought that I had done everything by the book... Oh well, maybe next time. At least my other character did well! :cheer:
TroubleWolf 01-05-06, 10:44 AM	I also don't understand the Hunter fight rewards, I guess. I didn't think you got XP for killing people out of turn (rather you give XP to their hunter). Also, Anakala has an ally (air elemental) but this was not factored into the rewards. This really looks to me like it was run as a free for all. Either the "Hunter" format was ignored, or tactics were ignored, or both. Sven (TroubleWolf)=>Rethun(Kaigan)=>Jonathon(Abyssal Stalker)=>Anakala (TelinArtho) Should look like this: Sven attacks Rethun Rethun attacks Jonathon Jonathon attacks Anakala (Or surrenders) Anakala attacks Sven Instead it looks like this: :blink: Sven attacks Rethun Rethun attacks Sven Jonathon attacks Sven Anakala attacks Sven I'd really like to hear from Iced on these issues. I'm not asking for a rerun or anything, just want to know his opinion and whether or not rewards are being altered.
Pittbull 01-05-06, 12:35 PM	@Warclone and Maraxus: Tactic sent to you. @Usurpator and Iced: Waiting for Tactics.
Ariel23 01-05-06, 03:31 PM	I'd really like to hear from Iced on these issues. I'm not asking for a rerun or anything, just want to know his opinion and whether or not rewards are being altered. I PM'd Cat. I don't think anybody reads these threads once the new pairings are up. It's too bad nobody else in the community (obviously to include people involved in the fight) commented on it. Usually there is a modicum of interest in such an egregious result. Maybe it was eclipsed by this week's "Force Cube" event, which was a much weirder fight than yours.
MitzaVolchenko 01-05-06, 03:52 PM	Troublewolf, I have taken note and that is part of my frustration with the multi-player fight mess. They take too long to get put up and get too many errors. If it were me, I would have demanded the rerun. Of course since it was posted late, it would have held you over this week to get it fixed... *sighs and leaves the dead horse for the scavengers*
TelinArtho 01-05-06, 03:52 PM	Actually - if you look back - I was the first to have commented on the fight -and I also said that I thought it had problems. I also said I wasn't going to argue it to be held over unless the rest did because quite frankly - I'm not fond of staying in the ECL3 arenas now that they are all hunter/all vs all. I'd much rather just plug through and get up to a higher level.
MitzaVolchenko 01-05-06, 03:57 PM	Actually - if you look back - I was the first to have commented on the fight -and I also said that I thought it had problems. I also said I wasn't going to argue it to be held over unless the rest did because quite frankly - I'm not fond of staying in the ECL3 arenas now that they are all hunter/all vs all. I'd much rather just plug through and get up to a higher level. And when we start seeing that at those levels? When I started here, I was under the impression that the 'specialty fights' were a fairly rare thing...maybe 1-2 per League a week...
TroubleWolf 01-05-06, 04:42 PM	Actually - if you look back - I was the first to have commented on the fight -and I also said that I thought it had problems. I also said I wasn't going to argue it to be held over unless the rest did because quite frankly - I'm not fond of staying in the ECL3 arenas now that they are all hunter/all vs all. I'd much rather just plug through and get up to a higher level. That's exactly why I'm not asking for a rerun: I don't want to have to fight the battle all over and miss out on this week's fight, and I want to hurry up and level. I just kind of want to hear what Iced was thinking when he ran it. Did he think it was All vs All? Did he think all of the combatants would see Sven as the biggest threat and take him out first? I guess I'm just confused, and want an explanation.
Usurpator 01-05-06, 05:40 PM	I PM'd Cat. I don't think anybody reads these threads once the new pairings are up. It's too bad nobody else in the community (obviously to include people involved in the fight) commented on it. Usually there is a modicum of interest in such an egregious result. Maybe it was eclipsed by this week's "Force Cube" event, which was a much weirder fight than yours. I do read these threads, but was just too busy clearing up the all-vs-all Kitaya was in. There are still some minor (but possible result changing) issues on the table, but haven't heard from Huan, going to PM him if he saw my post here. Couldn't do that yesterday because his Inbox was full.... And since most of my characters have one week of activity vs. two weeks of non-activity, I usually have plenty of time to clean up remaining errors.
TheMagister 01-05-06, 08:02 PM	I PM'd Iced about my concerns (back on page 12). Poor guy just got overwhelmed. I've been there myself. TM
TroubleWolf 01-17-06, 04:04 PM	Also, the rewards for the fight are off: Everyone but Ana should receive a 25%/3 bonus; Ana should receive a 25% penalty. Ana also has profession income of +63gp to take into account. Sorry for bumping an old thread. The quoted statement above was in reference to the Hunter battle with Rethun, Anakala, and Jonathan, which was run by Iced. I don't see where this was ever addressed. I realized while I was updating Sven's character sheet today that I had never received any answer on this. Those of you involved in this fight, did you give yourselves just what was listed on the fight as rewards, or did you give yourselves the proper amount? I just gave Sven what was on the rewards, but if I'm due some more xp, I'd really like to be able to add it. Also, Mitza, I'm curious... how did the battle turn out when you ran it?
TelinArtho 01-17-06, 11:35 PM	PM Iced and link him the post below - I put in Ana's rewards as if the ally was there (because that's the correct way). You should give yourself the extra as well.