Post/Author/DateTime	Post
kedi 02-08-06, 12:44 PM	Good afternoon/evening all. This is 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. Perhaps even better to note is the Ask an Elder (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=569305) thread. This initiative by LLMadCow (ye grand master of Size 7...) has already produced some worthwhile rulings. The deadline is in about an hour so finish up. :plotting:
TelinArtho 02-08-06, 12:51 PM	Unless the deadline has changed from normal - the deadline is actually in 3 hours.
Luni 02-08-06, 12:56 PM	I got three hours to bribe the prisonlords to let my gladiators out of prison then. I wonder if he likes cookies.
Book5 02-08-06, 01:14 PM	Marcos quest is over and edited... and I pmed Iced first thing this morning.. Tan is edited.. and ready, Ba'al is edited... and ready, :eek: Will Iced scream? or be here in time? :shifty: Everybody likes cookies...
NiQil 02-08-06, 01:31 PM	I got three hours to bribe the prisonlords to let my gladiators out of prison then. I wonder if he likes cookies. Last time I checked, your gladiators weren't in prison. Remember, an orange Violation tag does not prevent you from being paired. Only a red [P] tag does. And for the record, what kind of cookies?
Luni 02-08-06, 01:32 PM	Last time I checked, your gladiators weren't in prison. Remember, an orange Violation tag does not prevent you from being paired. Only a red [P] tag does. And for the record, what kind of cookies? Oops. Guess I'll eat my Chocolate Chip Cookies myself.
Vathelokai 02-08-06, 01:34 PM	Last time I checked, your gladiators weren't in prison. Remember, an orange Violation tag does not prevent you from being paired. Only a red [P] tag does. And for the record, what kind of cookies? And I thought Hassan was going to sit out this week. Crazy multi color systems... :rolleyes:
NiQil 02-08-06, 01:41 PM	And I thought Hassan was going to sit out this week. Crazy multi color systems... :rolleyes: See...this is what happens when you don't actually read what I post at the top of each roll call LOL. Cause it's right there in navy-colored type every week. That's also why I started cross-posting the message portion of the roll call into the Tavern every week...so people would actually read it LOL.
SoulLord 02-08-06, 01:41 PM	well it looks like vandelar will have to sit out this week waiting for his fight to end.... I wonder if I can sneak some scroll scribing into this lost week
Vathelokai 02-08-06, 01:47 PM	See...this is what happens when you don't actually read what I post at the top of each roll call LOL. Cause it's right there in navy-colored type every week. That's also why I started cross-posting the message portion of the roll call into the Tavern every week...so people would actually read it LOL. Read?! Are you crazy? Expecting people to read the rules and stuff... :)
NiQil 02-08-06, 01:49 PM	well it looks like vandelar will have to sit out this week waiting for his fight to end.... I wonder if I can sneak some scroll scribing into this lost week With the fight being held over and you not being able to edit the sheet, it would be a neat trick if you could...I might pay money to see that LOL
NiQil 02-08-06, 01:50 PM	Read?! Are you crazy? Expecting people to read the rules and stuff... :) Yeah..imagine that...holding people responsible for things...what's this world coming to? :P
SoulLord 02-08-06, 02:14 PM	With the fight being held over and you not being able to edit the sheet, it would be a neat trick if you could...I might pay money to see that LOL It could happen :) All I would have to do is have Vandelar Surrender so he could be ready in time. but since that is not going to happen I guess we'll just have to wait another week.
Malither76 02-08-06, 02:30 PM	so are we required to use the online roller this week or what, I'm hoping no but if I must then I must
Zevox 02-08-06, 02:34 PM	so are we required to use the online roller this week or what, I'm hoping no but if I must then I must Nope. Check the discussion thread Cat started about it - he decided to wait at least until Dracazar finishes his CoCo roller and we've had a couple of weeks to test it to implement that change. Zevox
bgt 02-08-06, 02:56 PM	Moonwatch The moon over Galdius is currently waxing. Granted, this probably does't mean anything to anyone. But if Neidr gets her way, it will next week. Oh, and I'm using GMT moon charts to determine it.
Sindorin 02-08-06, 03:03 PM	This whole "posting the scrolls that you scribe next week" thing makes me sick. As if there are not enough nerfs to casters as things currently are. Anyway, where exactly are we supposed to post them?
Kaigan 02-08-06, 03:10 PM	This whole "posting the scrolls that you scribe next week" thing makes me sick. As if there are not enough nerfs to casters as things currently are. Anyway, where exactly are we supposed to post them? I just made a section on my character sheet called Free Activity. In my header I said: Ready for Feb 08, 2006, Free Activity: Scribing Scrolls (Read Free Activity section). Then in my Free Activity Section I had: Scribing Scrolls: 2x Mage Armor [3] (25 gp, 2 xp), 2x Invisibility [3] (150 gp, 12 xp): Total 175 gp, 14 xp.... etc. Not sure if that's correct, but that's what i did.
Zevox 02-08-06, 03:12 PM	Not sure if that's correct, but that's what i did. Yep, thats pretty much what Niqil's said its supposed to be. The pitlord of your fight is supposed to include the list of scrolls you scribed in a "Free Activities" section of the wrap-up, so theres no need to link anything more than the fight you already need to link. You just need to make sure the Pitlord notices the list of scrolls you're scribing. Zevox
TheMagister 02-08-06, 03:16 PM	I just made a section on my character sheet called Free Activity. In my header I said: Ready for Feb 08, 2006, Free Activity: Scribing Scrolls (Read Free Activity section). Then in my Free Activity Section I had: Scribing Scrolls: 2x Mage Armor [3] (25 gp, 2 xp), 2x Invisibility [3] (150 gp, 12 xp): Total 175 gp, 14 xp.... etc. Not sure if that's correct, but that's what i did. Totally correct, except that you're overcharging yourself. Don't you only pay 1/2 the gp cost when scribing? Duh. Did the division. My bad. (knocks self in forehead with palm of hand) TM
Kaigan 02-08-06, 03:19 PM	Totally correct, except that you're overcharging yourself. Don't you only pay 1/2 the gp cost when scribing? Duh. Did the division. My bad. (knocks self in forehead with palm of hand) TM Lol. Don't worry, happens to all of us.
kedi 02-08-06, 03:20 PM	This whole "posting the scrolls that you scribe next week" thing makes me sick. As if there are not enough nerfs to casters as things currently are. Anyway, where exactly are we supposed to post them?I believe you can either post them in an sblock, scribed scrolls and date them? But I've seen this format and I'm thinking applying it to my necromancer; Scroll: Mage Armor Feb 2 [CL 3] [75 gp, 3 xp] Like that.
bgt 02-08-06, 04:00 PM	Stop the Editing!! Time's up. Alway's wanted to say that.
Turin 02-08-06, 04:38 PM	This whole "posting the scrolls that you scribe next week" thing makes me sick. As if there are not enough nerfs to casters as things currently are.Makes you sick? Give me a break... what a bunch of drama queens. :rolleyes: Personally I have no idea how anyone ever interpreted the rule other than what it has been clarified to be.
SoulLord 02-08-06, 04:58 PM	Makes you sick? Give me a break... what a bunch of drama queens. :rolleyes: Personally I have no idea how anyone ever interpreted the rule other than what it has been clarified to be. *ponders several adjetives on his mind* I'll just say I respectfully disagree,
Snommelp 02-08-06, 05:36 PM	Pairings haven't even been posted yet, and already tension is starting to rise... I suggest yoga.
Gonbow 02-08-06, 05:39 PM	Indeed. I was going to say 'lets move away from rules argument to smack-talk arguments' but Santos and Lortavos are not too intimidating to most people, though I hope they are growing more so as time goes on. Next week ya'll will have to deal with Tatyana again, mutilator of FFA's ^_^.
Sindorin 02-08-06, 05:42 PM	...
SoulLord 02-08-06, 05:58 PM	This whole "posting the scrolls that you scribe next week" thing makes me sick. As if there are not enough nerfs to casters as things currently are. Anyway, where exactly are we supposed to post them? to be on the safe side put on a sblock all self crafted items before the amnesty date and then add a section for each week you are crafting scrolls with what you are crafting someone posted some nice samples in the tavern.
Pitlords 02-08-06, 07:12 PM	State of Emergency I hereby declare the state of emergency in the coco. It is a safeguard I developed a year ago when Living Gladius began, and unfortunately the time leaves me no choice. It works like that: everyone can have one character active, plus one per fight he pitlords. I have excluded all excessive characters randomly from the pairings. The state of emergency will remain for the next weeks, and not be removed until the pitlord situation has improved considerably. My hope is that all the many newbies are ready to pitlord on their own by then.
Luni 02-08-06, 07:15 PM	Short of Pitlords? :( Time to activate less characters until I find more time for Pitlording. Bold, but wise move Cat.
Snommelp 02-08-06, 07:24 PM	State of Emergency I hereby declare the state of emergency in the coco. It is a safeguard I developed a year ago when Living Gladius began, and unfortunately the time leaves me no choice. It works like that: everyone can have one character active, plus one per fight he pitlords. I have excluded all excessive characters randomly from the pairings. The state of emergency will remain for the next weeks, and not be removed until the pitlord situation has improved considerably. My hope is that all the many newbies are ready to pitlord on their own by then. This "per fight he pitlords" clause, does that include miniquests, quests, and campaigns run that week as well?
Pitlords 02-08-06, 07:26 PM	Pairings Done I will assign credits tomorow. Since there have been a lot of late fights last week, I'd like to inform you again about our deadlines: You must not edit your sheet after Wednesday 9 PM GMT. If you do, you auto-lose the match. You have to send tactics until Saturday 8 AM GMT. If you haven't done so the pitlord runs the fight without tactics. The Fight must be up until Tuesday 8 AM GMT. Failure to do so causes you to lose all credits you gained for that fight and receive a negative credit on top of that. This will also be permanently marked behind your name on the pitlord roster. Quests, Miniquests, and finished Campaigns must be done till Wednesday 8 AM GMT or the same thing happens as with late fights. If you don't post the fight at all before pairings on Wednesday 9 PM GMT, you will lose another credit and the fight will be tagged as missing. Please try to finish your fight on time. Extended fights are annoying for everyone: the players of course who cannot play their characters this week, the guilds who lose income, and the pitlords who have to pick up that fight. Especially in this time when we have few pitlords, every missing fight increases the burden. Due to the state of emergency, I've also made some slight adjustments to credit prices (advanced allies 2° => 5°, Ally feat switch 2° => 5°, and Higher League entry 4° => 5°). Others might follow if necessary. I really hope we don't have to decrease the number of free character from two to one permanently. PS: One fight is still open: Sappho (Biota) => Pontifex (Warclone) => Risal (Kaigan) : XXXXX [Hunter]
NiQil 02-08-06, 07:26 PM	State of Emergency I hereby declare the state of emergency in the coco. It is a safeguard I developed a year ago when Living Gladius began, and unfortunately the time leaves me no choice. It works like that: everyone can have one character active, plus one per fight he pitlords. I have excluded all excessive characters randomly from the pairings. The state of emergency will remain for the next weeks, and not be removed until the pitlord situation has improved considerably. My hope is that all the many newbies are ready to pitlord on their own by then. I have a question about this Cat....what about those of us that are already doing other things here in CoCo that may prevent the extra time for pitlording, such as the various Guildmasters and "xlords (Scribelords, Prisonlords, Guildlords, etc)? For me personally, that is part of the reason I have the positions I do...to earn the credits to play the characters I have in play. I lose the incentive to perform those duties if my characters aren't able to be played. I realize that this is a special circumstance, but those that are already performing time consuming duties here should, in my opinion, have some consideration there.
Pitlords 02-08-06, 07:31 PM	I have a question about this Cat....what about those of us that are already doing other things here in CoCo that may prevent the extra time for pitlording, such as the various Guildmasters and "xlords (Scribelords, Prisonlords, Guildlords, etc)? For me personally, that is part of the reason I have the positions I do...to earn the credits to play the characters I have in play. I lose the incentive to perform those duties if my characters aren't able to be played. I realize that this is a special circumstance, but those that are already performing time consuming duties here should, in my opinion, have some consideration there. NiQil, I just don't have a single pitlord left. There are even now fights that still have no pitlords. I am the Game Master, the Pitlords Board Account, the Guildlords Board Account, and the Guildmaster of the CEF; not to forget all the work I did with the Scribelords board account lately. It is however in no way possible that I now activate 6 of my characters without pitlording. We all have to make sacrifices.
Macbrea 02-08-06, 07:40 PM	Hmm, Ch'Ch'ili might get a win this week. I don't think Frost can take the dangerous bug.
Maraxus 02-08-06, 07:41 PM	Sad to hear, especially since I'm not pitlording. :( However... Noko is paired against Murtagh Deegan the second week in a row. Not that I would mind... PS: Zassl could take the fight, too. He's just 1 level lower.
Pitlords 02-08-06, 07:43 PM	@Maraxus: The only one left in your league. Tut mir leid.
Sindorin 02-08-06, 07:49 PM	All things considered, I echo others who have said 'good move'. I only wish pairings could have been delayed or we would have had better warning - I would rather have had Va'ria be paired than Aranor, but that is okay. Free For Alls have been his speciality...
Macbrea 02-08-06, 07:50 PM	I always love how some things don't seem to translate well. Tut mir leid Wrong does to me? That cannot possibly be the correct translation. :P
Sindorin 02-08-06, 07:51 PM	Tut mir Leid = Does me sorrow. It means basically that he is sorry.
Snommelp 02-08-06, 07:56 PM	Tactics sent. Miniquests will be up when I get back from church.
Macbrea 02-08-06, 08:09 PM	Tactics sent for Lord Frost, hope you ready to wrestle Dromite!
Huan 02-08-06, 08:13 PM	Hm... State of Emergency... *puts on safety helmet* @Pittbull, Telinartho The rewards for the Boraxx vs Sir Valkin Fight have been correctly adjusted: Boraxx -> 1350 xp and 1500 gp.(-25%) Sir Valkin -> 750 xp and 832 gp.(+25%) @TelinArtho Hope the dice roll better for you this week.
Ariel23 02-08-06, 08:14 PM	This whole "posting the scrolls that you scribe next week" thing makes me sick. As if there are not enough nerfs to casters as things currently are. It's a wizard nerf . It doesn't nerf Sorcerers or Psions. It just makes wizards think ahead. As they all have 18 INT it shouldn't be that hard. :evillaugh I hereby declare the state of emergency in the coco. LOL, maybe we could let the mages scribe scrolls in the fallout shelter?
lonewolf 02-08-06, 08:57 PM	@Malither76: Tactics for Karen sent by email. @Shadowmaster: Tactics for Finrod sent by PM.
King Uther 02-08-06, 09:05 PM	I'll take a fight. Give it to me and it'll be up Sunday.
MitzaVolchenko 02-08-06, 09:05 PM	@Sunstroke (MindWandererB) vs. Ba'al (Book5) If you get me tactics tonight or tomorrow, I will have your fight up by Friday early afternoon. @Pitlords who has the Sybil vs. Rokk re-run? Id kedi redoing it? @Other PL's, I will likely be available for one or two pick up fights this week, but it depends entirely on how much of my campaign I get mapped tomorrow.
SauroGrenom 02-08-06, 09:21 PM	PS: One fight is still open: Sappho (Biota) => Pontifex (Warclone) => Risal (Kaigan) : XXXXX [Hunter] *Sigh* Since Telin got my Miniquest with Tatyana, I'll take this. I'd rather have the miniquest than the hunter fight, but I suppose that's the way the dice fall. It would be nice if you could fit Kracknol into the parings somewhere since I'm taking up another fight, but I understand that's probably not possible with the shortage of pitlords as it is. You can also get more character activities out of each pitlord if you give more team, hunter and all vs all fights and no monster fights for a while. Scaling back on single character quests would be another good way to free up the time of our most experienced pitlords. Instituting some kind of temporary restriction that a new quest must have at least 2 characters in it may be helpfull in the short term. Lastly, I don't think that devaluing credits (decreasing what you can get with your credits) is going to help the situation. To my mind it seams that it would hurt the situation. In any case declaring a state of emergency is a bold move and you are to be commended for it, but it also validates the threats of those who have recently been discussing withdrawing there activity due to rulings and changes.
SauroGrenom 02-08-06, 09:31 PM	I've never done a fight that held over from a previous week. I suppose that I will get the same tactics as from last weeks fight and just rerun the fight.
Ravashack 02-08-06, 09:39 PM	Tactics for Perius sent to Caterane by Email.
lonewolf 02-08-06, 09:42 PM	I've never done a fight that held over from a previous week. I suppose that I will get the same tactics as from last weeks fight and just rerun the fight. Yes you take the same tactics. That means that you can basically already start with it. ;)
SauroGrenom 02-08-06, 10:22 PM	Dameon Leonne (Huan) vs. Lissa (MysticMonk2005) : SauroGrenom [Week 2] I looked but couldn't find the previous version of the fight if it ever existed. Please Huan and MysticMonk forward the tactics for your character soon and I can get this out of the way tomarrow night. BTW don't get offended, but I consider it highly likely that I'll do a full audit of both characters and post them in the prison. I'm just trying out various ways of earning credits and auditing opponents and the characters I pitlord is something I usually do partly with each fight anyway. A formal post is only slightly more work and earns decent credits.
Snommelp 02-08-06, 10:28 PM	Forgive my stupidity; I'm going to go look up the pairings to see who's getting Evaine vs. Fjord so I can forward the tactics now.
Luni 02-08-06, 10:33 PM	Question: Didn't we change the ECL cap of expendables from your ECL +2 to your ECL? If we did, didn't the old ones have to get refunded?
Zevox 02-08-06, 11:03 PM	"State of Emergency" eh? Kinda makes me glad I only had one character set for the pairings anyway, what with Alboreth on a quest and all. @ Dsugui and Kaigain: Burgling information for Featylec has been sent. I should have tactics for him sent late tomorrow afternoon. Warfare Alliance Rogue/Fighter vs Psi Consortium Psychic Warrior should make for an interesting fight :) . @ TelinArtho and Stormwind: Tactics anytime before saturday is great. My time is very tight this weekend (literally hundreds of pages of homework reading plus three essays and work...), so the best time I have to run it will be saturday night. @ Pitlords: Is that credit raise for higher-level starting characters permanent, or just until the State of Emergency ends? I've got an ECL6 character I was planning on activating shortly after Alboreth finished his quest, but if the price jumps from 12o to 15o that'll mean I have to wait another two weeks at least to get him going. Just wondering. Zevox
Snommelp 02-08-06, 11:04 PM	Bizarre Rescue (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=583998) is up for Pestilence. Working on Tsuizues' quest now. EDIT: Wild Kingdom (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=584017) is up for Tsuizues... sort of. Need a quick clarification, which I've PMed Skojar about.
waywreth 02-08-06, 11:52 PM	@Luni - in all day meeting tomorrow and I want to coordiante with Usurpator on tactics. Will send Thurs night or Friday at latest.
TelinArtho 02-09-06, 12:45 AM	*Sigh* Since Telin got my Miniquest with Tatyana, I'll take this. I'd rather have the miniquest than the hunter fight, but I suppose that's the way the dice fall. It would be nice if you could fit Kracknol into the parings somewhere since I'm taking up another fight, but I understand that's probably not possible with the shortage of pitlords as it is. You can also get more character activities out of each pitlord if you give more team, hunter and all vs all fights and no monster fights for a while. Scaling back on single character quests would be another good way to free up the time of our most experienced pitlords. Instituting some kind of temporary restriction that a new quest must have at least 2 characters in it may be helpfull in the short term. Lastly, I don't think that devaluing credits (decreasing what you can get with your credits) is going to help the situation. To my mind it seams that it would hurt the situation. In any case declaring a state of emergency is a bold move and you are to be commended for it, but it also validates the threats of those who have recently been discussing withdrawing there activity due to rulings and changes. @Sauro - if you were supposed to get the miniquest - send me the hunter fight and you take it. I really am busy this week so the hunter fight will help balance the 4 quests I still have running.
Iced 02-09-06, 01:42 AM	my miniquest has been posted intro will come tomorrow- i'm going to bed. I can take one fight this week if it'll help some people keep their characters active. I'd also love it if someone can pitlord a fight with Galagith in it at EL8. If anyone wants a quest PM me. thanks and good night, ~Iced
malakaiunseen 02-09-06, 01:46 AM	@Shadowmaster: Tactics sent for El'enees'ka.
Luni 02-09-06, 01:52 AM	@Kaigan: Link to the post with Talari and Vandelars tactics sent. @Pittbull: 3 Spellcasters and Ashhur in a FFA. My heart goes out to you.
Pittbull 02-09-06, 03:46 AM	@Luni,Iced,Sindorin and Vathelokai: Please send me your tactic as quick as possible, I'll be on a skiing-holiday on tuesday and won't have any chance to fix some errors. I'll try to get the fight up as quick as possible. EDIT: All my tactics have been sent to their pitlords.
Vathelokai 02-09-06, 07:06 AM	@Pitt: Writing tactics now. Tactics sent. And might I add, I sure will be fun to get the crap kicked out of my by Ashur again. :D @Kaigan: Tactics for Hassan vs. Donak sent. @Whoever: I have this ongoing problem with my wizard, Auburn. This will be the third time now that she has been set to spend the whole week crafting and has been paired instead. This is especially frustrating with the adjustments to the scroll scribing rules. Is there some specific way to write my header/title so I don't have this problem? Usually it looks something like... "Feb 8: Crafting - Scribing Scrolls {week 1/1}". Any sugestions to alter this?
Ravashack 02-09-06, 07:19 AM	You could try in caps CRAFTING--SCRIBING SCROLLS--DO NOT PAIR ME and see how that goes.
DSugui 02-09-06, 07:36 AM	@Kaigan: Tatics for Dronnar sent by e-mail before I read the PM about the burglary, but I was right, after all...] Aerryl (MindWandererB) vs. Anakala (TelinArtho) : DSugui [Week 2] I will try to run the fight tonight.
Sindorin 02-09-06, 09:56 AM	Tactics for Aranor sent to Pittbull. They had better pray that TAO doesn't team up on them... oh wait, what am I saying... *smacks self in head*
bgt 02-09-06, 10:41 AM	@Caterane: Tactics for Neidr Bresent sent.
DSugui 02-09-06, 10:57 AM	My, my, my... Couple of questions: 1) Does Point Blank Shot bonus count when someone is trying to disarm you from your bow? 2) In case of a tie in the rolls, who does win a disarm attempt? Thanks.
NiQil 02-09-06, 11:13 AM	My, my, my... Couple of questions: 1) Does Point Blank Shot bonus count when someone is trying to disarm you from your bow? 2) In case of a tie in the rolls, who does win a disarm attempt? Thanks. 1) No, it does not. PBS only counts when you are firing an arrow shot, and there are no such things as ranged disarms in core rules. 2) Tie goes to the person with the higher disarm modifier. If still tied, reroll.
Mal-2 02-09-06, 11:23 AM	1) No, it does not. PBS only counts when you are firing an arrow shot, and there are no such things as ranged disarms in core rules. 2) Tie goes to the person with the higher disarm modifier. If still tied, reroll. NiQil, I don't see support for either of those rulings in the Disarm rules. Here's what the SRD says (sblocked, because it's kind of long): Disarm As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand. If you’re attempting to disarm a melee weapon, follow the steps outlined here. If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails. Step 1 Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm. (If you have the Improved Disarm feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making a disarm attempt.) If the defender’s attack of opportunity deals any damage, your disarm attempt fails. Step 2 Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. (An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.) If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a -4 penalty on the roll. Step 3 Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square. If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his disarm attempt, you do not subsequently get a free disarm attempt against him. Note: A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can’t be disarmed. A defender using a weapon attached to a locked gauntlet gets a +10 bonus to resist being disarmed. Assuming that the defender is the one with the bow, I'm unclear on whether point blank shot applies. My instinct would be "Yes", because point blank shot grants "a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet", and the range here has to be less than 30 feet. On the other hand, it's not an attack against a target, it's just an "attack roll". On the second point, I think the rules are pretty clear. The attacker must "beat" the defender on his opposed attack roll, so a tie should go to the defender.
SoulLord 02-09-06, 11:25 AM	My, my, my... Couple of questions: 1) Does Point Blank Shot bonus count when someone is trying to disarm you from your bow? 2) In case of a tie in the rolls, who does win a disarm attempt? Thanks. 1) No it only applies to attack & damage rolls 2) the roll of the defender has to be beaten for a disarm to happen so in the case of a tie no disarm results
NiQil 02-09-06, 11:30 AM	NiQil, I don't see support for either of those rulings in the Disarm rules. Here's what the SRD says (sblocked, because it's kind of long): Disarm As a melee attack, you may attempt to disarm your opponent. If you do so with a weapon, you knock the opponent’s weapon out of his hands and to the ground. If you attempt the disarm while unarmed, you end up with the weapon in your hand. If you’re attempting to disarm a melee weapon, follow the steps outlined here. If the item you are attempting to disarm isn’t a melee weapon the defender may still oppose you with an attack roll, but takes a penalty and can’t attempt to disarm you in return if your attempt fails. Step 1 Attack of Opportunity. You provoke an attack of opportunity from the target you are trying to disarm. (If you have the Improved Disarm feat, you don’t incur an attack of opportunity for making a disarm attempt.) If the defender’s attack of opportunity deals any damage, your disarm attempt fails. Step 2 Opposed Rolls. You and the defender make opposed attack rolls with your respective weapons. The wielder of a two-handed weapon on a disarm attempt gets a +4 bonus on this roll, and the wielder of a light weapon takes a -4 penalty. (An unarmed strike is considered a light weapon, so you always take a penalty when trying to disarm an opponent by using an unarmed strike.) If the combatants are of different sizes, the larger combatant gets a bonus on the attack roll of +4 per difference in size category. If the targeted item isn’t a melee weapon, the defender takes a -4 penalty on the roll. Step 3 Consequences. If you beat the defender, the defender is disarmed. If you attempted the disarm action unarmed, you now have the weapon. If you were armed, the defender’s weapon is on the ground in the defender’s square. If you fail on the disarm attempt, the defender may immediately react and attempt to disarm you with the same sort of opposed melee attack roll. His attempt does not provoke an attack of opportunity from you. If he fails his disarm attempt, you do not subsequently get a free disarm attempt against him. Note: A defender wearing spiked gauntlets can’t be disarmed. A defender using a weapon attached to a locked gauntlet gets a +10 bonus to resist being disarmed. Assuming that the defender is the one with the bow, I'm unclear on whether point blank shot applies. My instinct would be "Yes", because point blank shot grants "a +1 bonus on attack and damage rolls with ranged weapons at ranges of up to 30 feet", and the range here has to be less than 30 feet. On the other hand, it's not an attack against a target, it's just an "attack roll". On the second point, I think the rules are pretty clear. The attacker must "beat" the defender on his opposed attack roll, so a tie should go to the defender. In 3.5, disarms, grapples and trips are no longer attacks. They are opposed checks. An opposed attack roll is not an attack, it is merely an opposed check using your attack modifiers as the roll. PBS would not apply because defending against a disarm is not an attack, it is an opposed roll. If memory serves, the FAQ has further clarification on this (though I have no time to find it now). With regard to the second point, in D&D ties always go to the person with the higher modifier, unless specifically stated otherwise. I see no such specification in the disarming rules.
Mal-2 02-09-06, 11:51 AM	In 3.5, disarms, grapples and trips are no longer attacks. They are opposed checks. An opposed attack roll is not an attack, it is merely an opposed check using your attack modifiers as the roll. PBS would not apply because defending against a disarm is not an attack, it is an opposed roll. If memory serves, the FAQ has further clarification on this (though I have no time to find it now). With regard to the second point, in D&D ties always go to the person with the higher modifier, unless specifically stated otherwise. I see no such specification in the disarming rules. At your suggestion, I went through the FAQ, looking for clarifications. The only rule I can find in the FAQ about disarms is that a monk with Vow of Poverty does get his bonuses to hit on opposed attack rolls like disarms. A Disarm isn't just a opposed role, it's an "opposed attack roll" which is why I suggested that PBS applies, since it applies to "attack rolls" I also can't find a general rule about ties that overrides the specific requirement that the attacker "beat" the defender in the opposed attack rolls required for a Disarm. I'll go look through the Rules of the Game articles next. Edit: I don't see anything in the Rules of the Game either.
kedi 02-09-06, 12:02 PM	@Kai: Tactics sent via PM. :plotting:
TelinArtho 02-09-06, 12:04 PM	Tactics for Ural, Anton and Delaria have been sent. Ana's tactics for her held over fight should be taken from the original posting of the fight.
SauroGrenom 02-09-06, 12:07 PM	Telin, If you'd rather have the hunter fight than Tatyana's miniquest, then that would be great. I find miniquests to be a bit more fun to run than a fight. If you'd rather keep the quest, then that's fine as well. In any cast I don't think that Pitlords has decided who gets that hunter fight yet.
TelinArtho 02-09-06, 12:14 PM	Go ahead with the miniquest - I just don't have the energy for it right now (while easier - they require more innovation - and I just don't have the time right now). I'll PM pitlords with the changes (and I'll request the hunter fight if it hasn't been assigned).
Abyssal Stalker 02-09-06, 12:18 PM	@Begferdeth: tactics sent. Have fun with two barbarians!
Turin 02-09-06, 12:49 PM	@ Lucanthrope: tactics for Hexacious (Turin) vs. Anton Fael (TelinArtho) sent via PM. @ Kaigan: tactics for Ivangar the Exile (Turin) vs. Hennan (Snommelp) sent via PM/email. @ bgt, King Uther, Dr.Funk: I'd like to start the "Week 2" fight Alagar vs. Vivi Ornitier starting tomorrow afternoon (afternoon for GMT-5, that is), so if you guys can get me tactics before then, that would be swell.
Sunwolf 02-09-06, 01:47 PM	@Lonewolf Tactics for Leif sent by PM
Turin 02-09-06, 03:16 PM	@ bgt, King Uther, Dr.Funk: I'd like to start the "Week 2" fight Alagar vs. Vivi Ornitier starting tomorrow afternoon (afternoon for GMT-5, that is), so if you guys can get me tactics before then, that would be swell.Tactics received.
Usurpator 02-09-06, 04:37 PM	@Luni: Your PM box is full (EDIT: or was it mine?), so I am posting this question here instead: Could you enlighten me about the (or your) procedure about choosing starting boxes? It would help writing tactics. 1. Is is possible for two team members to start in the same box? 2. If 1. is possible, how do you determine who starts where, since I think starting in the same box can be an advantage, and the order of rolling starting places determines the chance that you start in the same box (since you cannot end up in an opponent's box). 3. Do you have information about where your teammember started when the match begins?
Macbrea 02-09-06, 04:50 PM	When people get a chance, I really could use your tactics. Weiniete (Skojar) vs. Feradeth Dryearraheal (Kaigan) : Macbrea Imperi Vahalla (Luni) vs. Barthleby (Pittbull) : Macbrea * I don't have your tactics yet * I have your tactics
Kaigan 02-09-06, 05:10 PM	I'll be sending my tactics later tonight. I don't have the time at the moment, sorry. My first fight should be up tomorrow sometime.
Zevox 02-09-06, 05:19 PM	@ Kaigan: Featylec's tactics have been sent via PM. The representatives of the Warfare Alliance and the Psi Consortium can start exchanging blows whenever you're ready :) . Zevox
Begferdeth 02-09-06, 05:50 PM	@Arynthynerynyin..yn..yn. Hope I spelled it right when I sent you the PM. Chilis tactics are sent! Chili the Dragon Slayer... Sounds impressive!
Mal-2 02-09-06, 05:55 PM	@Kaigan: Donak's tactics for (Donak v Hassan) have been sent via PM.
Biota 02-09-06, 06:16 PM	@Huan: Tactics for Sappho in the Hunter fight sent to you via email. I think Huan is running it, that is what is listed on the pairings. I'm going to be out of town starting now until Sunday so if someone else has to take it just use your best judgement running my charater (or maybe Huan can forward tactics). Thanks, Biota
Luni 02-09-06, 06:52 PM	@Luni: Your PM box is full (EDIT: or was it mine?), so I am posting this question here instead: Could you enlighten me about the (or your) procedure about choosing starting boxes? It would help writing tactics. 1. Is is possible for two team members to start in the same box? 2. If 1. is possible, how do you determine who starts where, since I think starting in the same box can be an advantage, and the order of rolling starting places determines the chance that you start in the same box (since you cannot end up in an opponent's box). 3. Do you have information about where your teammember started when the match begins? My PM box isn't full. :) 1: Yes 2: I just roll using invisible castle to determine the starting box. Yeah, sometimes people start in the same box, and thier opponents don;t. 3: Yes. You know where your partner is, so if you specify to team up, yu don't have to wander around looking for each other. Best way to do it Usurpator, is to give me 3 different starting info (if you start together, boxes beside each other, boxes across the arena). Heck, send me 10 PM's for tactics, I'll read it all.
Iced 02-09-06, 07:24 PM	Tactics for Validi's FFA PM'd to pittbull.
DSugui 02-09-06, 08:25 PM	Aerryl vs Anakala is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8438525) Hope there aren't many mistakes. Too many pets confused me a little... Also, check for the rewards, I am not sure I calculated them right...
Luni 02-09-06, 08:49 PM	@Pittbull: Ashhûr's tactics sent by PM I'll send Imperi's tactics later tonight. Must come up with a good strategy.
Kaigan 02-09-06, 11:08 PM	Okay, here we go. Tactics Sent: Tactics sent for Risal Atess to Huan via PM. Tactics sent for Coralias Dryearraheal to Caterane via E-mail. Tactics sent for Feradeth Dryearraheal to Macbrea via PM. Tactics sent for Rethun Woshad to Gonbow via PM. Tactics sent for Eiletha Surion to Kedi via PM. Tactics sent for Gundir Malakas to Warclone via PM. Tactics Received: Tactics received for gladiators in green. Tactics not received yet for gladiators in red. ECL 3: Featylec (Zevox) vs. Dronnar Darkjof (DSugui) : Kaigan Secropiagor (kedi) vs. Mizay Alamak (Katana) : Kaigan ECL 5: Ivangar the Exile (Turin) vs. Hennan (Snommelp) : Kaigan Donak (Mal-2) vs. Hassan Sabbah (Vathelokai) : Kaigan ECL 9: Vandelar the Red (SoulLord) vs. Talari Leafwhisperer (Luni) : Kaigan [Week 2] Well, looks like I've received all my tactics. I've got some work to do now, but if you're lucky a fight may be up tonight. Cheers! Kaigan
Vathelokai 02-10-06, 02:45 AM	1. Is is possible for two team members to start in the same box? 2. If 1. is possible, how do you determine who starts where, since I think starting in the same box can be an advantage, and the order of rolling starting places determines the chance that you start in the same box (since you cannot end up in an opponent's box). 3. Do you have information about where your teammember started when the match begins? 1: Yes 2: I just roll using invisible castle to determine the starting box. Yeah, sometimes people start in the same box, and thier opponents don;t. 3: Yes. You know where your partner is, so if you specify to team up, yu don't have to wander around looking for each other. I got kind of curious and tried to look this up in the rules. Arena Battles 1 was the only place I could find rules for it. In the Team battle section, it says that all players are rolled individually. That's all I could find. There are a couple other lines that could be taken out of context (such as the rule that allies must start in the same box), but there seem to be no hard rules for this. Am I missing them? If there are no stated rules, can we make Luni's suggestion the official rule? Or maybe a "teams start in the same box" sort of rule?
Usurpator 02-10-06, 03:24 AM	I got kind of curious and tried to look this up in the rules. Arena Battles 1 was the only place I could find rules for it. In the Team battle section, it says that all players are rolled individually. That's all I could find. There are a couple other lines that could be taken out of context (such as the rule that allies must start in the same box), but there seem to be no hard rules for this. Am I missing them? If there are no stated rules, can we make Luni's suggestion the official rule? Or maybe a "teams start in the same box" sort of rule? Well, consider this 'rolling order': First the Pitlord rolls team A (members 1 and 2): member 1 takes a random spot (say north, doesn't really matter) member 2 takes a random spot (he has 25% chance to end up in 1's box, but say he draws west) Then the Pitlord rolls team B (members 3 and 4): member 3 takes a random spot (only two spots left, say he draws south) member 4 takes a random spot (he has a 50% chance to end up in 3's box, double the odds in comparison to team A) In other words, rolling order matters, and because starting in the same box is generally an advantage (you can concetrate firepower more easily) it is unavoidable that one team has a slight advantage over the other to start with. My solution would be: A. start each team member in their own box (not possible to start in the same box) OR B. start each team always together in the same box Not coincidentally, this follows my principle of adding new rules that ease the workload of everyone: less rolling for starting positions, less writing of alternative tactics, less reading of alternative tactics by Pitlords. I think it is fairer to both teams too.
Luni 02-10-06, 03:40 AM	Well, consider this 'rolling order': First the Pitlord rolls team A (members 1 and 2): member 1 takes a random spot (say north, doesn't really matter) member 2 takes a random spot (he has 25% chance to end up in 1's box, but say he draws west) Then the Pitlord rolls team B (members 3 and 4): member 3 takes a random spot (only two spots left, say he draws south) member 4 takes a random spot (he has a 50% chance to end up in 3's box, double the odds in comparison to team A) In other words, rolling order matters, and because starting in the same box is generally an advantage (you can concetrate firepower more easily) it is unavoidable that one team has a slight advantage over the other to start with. My solution would be: A. start each team member in their own box (not possible to start in the same box) OR B. start each team always together in the same box Not coincidentally, this follows my principle of adding new rules that ease the workload of everyone: less rolling for starting positions, less writing of alternative tactics, less reading of alternative tactics by Pitlords. I think it is fairer to both teams too. We have two teams (A&B) vs (C&D). I was going to roll for A, (4 choices) Then C (3 Choices) Then B (3 Choices) Then D (2-3 Choices) I do see what you mean Usurpator though. Personally I prefer option 2. @Vathelokai: Caterane explained team starting positions the very first time we added them, a long time ago. HE basically said that there was a chance of one team starting together and the 2nd team starting seprately. @Macbrea: Imperi tactics sent.
Vathelokai 02-10-06, 03:46 AM	My solution would be: A. start each team member in their own box (not possible to start in the same box) OR B. start each team always together in the same box C. roll one member of each team, then roll the other two players, so that there is always a 33% chance that a team is together. Of course my vote goes for B; It's a team fight and it makes sense that teams would be together. Just doing the devils advocate thing for a moment. EDIT: Slow to the post today.... @Vathelokai: Caterane explained team starting positions the very first time we added them, a long time ago. HE basically said that there was a chance of one team starting together and the 2nd team starting seprately. I'll go look that up....
Usurpator 02-10-06, 03:56 AM	C. roll one member of each team, then roll the other two players, so that there is always a 33% chance that a team is together. Unfortunately, that's not true. Firsts, you always have to roll in order, because otherwise you might end up with the last two in the same box.... Second, The next-to last has a 33% chance to end up with a teammember. The last has a either a 33% or a 50% chance to end up with a teammember, dependent on the outcome of the previous roll.
Usurpator 02-10-06, 04:03 AM	@Vathelokai: Caterane explained team starting positions the very first time we added them, a long time ago. HE basically said that there was a chance of one team starting together and the 2nd team starting seprately. I have no idea why Cat wanted to do that, since it can severely disadvantage one of the teams and add a hassle in writing alternative tactics. It would be an unfair and complicating rule. But since it isn't a rule (and only a random post somewhere) I guess if I Pitlord I can make up a fair rule of my own. I just have to take care that the players are informed and agreed.
Luni 02-10-06, 04:04 AM	From June 15,2005 It will be rolled randomly and team mates can even end up in the same box although never in the same box with an opponoment. Team mates do know where their ally starts. Thread link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=447703) Man, some of those names I miss.
Vathelokai 02-10-06, 04:31 AM	Wow... The Ashur/Validi/Aranor/Auburn FFA is takes up three posts. Tactics look pretty straight forward. Validi and Aranor fly up to the ceiling and play vulture while Ashur chops up Auburn. Aranor can't eat anyone because of freedom of movement cleric powers. Guess it depends on Validi's resistance to spells.
DSugui 02-10-06, 07:06 AM	@nickbeat: your PM box is full, I can't send you my tactics.
klangley 02-10-06, 09:08 AM	@Caterane: You should have Rallik's tactics.
Stormwind 02-10-06, 10:28 AM	@Zevox: Cyra's tactics sent via PM ... time to see if stealth is a match for a summoner ;)
Zevox 02-10-06, 10:35 AM	@Zevox: Cyra's tactics sent via PM ... time to see if stealth is a match for a summoner ;) Tactics recieved... sheesh, and I thought I wrote a lot of contingencies :mymy: . I've also recieved Delaria's tactics (don't know if I acknowledged that before or not, but I am now). Like I said previously, best chance I'll have to run this is saturday night, so expect it up then (late: I get home from work that day 9 p.m. EST, this'll probably take a number of hours to run unless someone gets lucky). Zevox
TelinArtho 02-10-06, 10:42 AM	Aerryl vs Anakala is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8438525) Hope there aren't many mistakes. Too many pets confused me a little... Also, check for the rewards, I am not sure I calculated them right... @DSugui - no worries. The only issue I will ask you to correct is the rewards. Ana's two elementals is a 25% penalty - so 300/300 for her and 1500/1500 for her opponent. As to the elemental relocation specialist... what does it sound like? She relocates elementals.
DSugui 02-10-06, 10:48 AM	@DSugui - no worries. The only issue I will ask you to correct is the rewards. Ana's two elementals is a 25% penalty - so 300/300 for her and 1500/1500 for her opponent. As to the elemental relocation specialist... what does it sound like? She relocates elementals. But does she not get 12.5% bonus for Aerryl's horse? It would be 50 gp/xp more.
TelinArtho 02-10-06, 11:00 AM	Ah - good point, I forgot that she brought in the horse. Never mind then...
Turin 02-10-06, 12:47 PM	Alagar (King Uther) vs Vivi (Dr. Funk) is up! The lesson for today folks: "read your opponent's sheet carefully before writing tactics!"
Luni 02-10-06, 01:06 PM	Wow... The Ashur/Validi/Aranor/Auburn FFA is takes up three posts. Tactics look pretty straight forward. Validi and Aranor fly up to the ceiling and play vulture while Ashur chops up Auburn. Aranor can't eat anyone because of freedom of movement cleric powers. Guess it depends on Validi's resistance to spells. I hate vultures. They could at least try to kill one person before hiding like cowards.
Sindorin 02-10-06, 01:06 PM	Heh, is anyone else following the ECL7 FFA? It is quite suspenseful...
MindWandererB 02-10-06, 01:06 PM	Aerryl vs Anakala is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8438525) Hope there aren't many mistakes. Too many pets confused me a little... Also, check for the rewards, I am not sure I calculated them right...No complaints here. You followed my tactics pretty much perfectly--I didn't consider the disarm, so that could have gotten ugly, but it all worked out. I like Aerryl; it's too bad she'll have to be suspended for a while, until the State of Emergency ends or I feel up to Pitlording. @MitzaVolchenko: Tactics sent. Sorry I couldn't do it earlier; I'm recovering from surgery at the moment.
Macbrea 02-10-06, 01:10 PM	Alagar (King Uther) vs Vivi (Dr. Funk) is up! The lesson for today folks: "read your opponent's sheet carefully before writing tactics!" I should mention on this fight that 16+16 <> 28. :P
Turin 02-10-06, 01:23 PM	I should mention on this fight that 16+16 <> 28.Whatever are you talking about? 16+16=32... just as I have in the fight and have always had in the fight. You've clearly mis-read my numbers. :shifty: (Hard to believe I tutor math, eh?)
Macbrea 02-10-06, 01:42 PM	Oh, and if you ever run Mektos against someone with a brooch. I will make sure to mention to keep shooting at it until it is gone. :P A brooch is 101 hps protection. Against the wand, you were using it would have only cost him 7 charges to kill the brooch. 1 Brooch = 1500gp vs 7 Charges MM 7 = 735 gps Seems a fair trade off to me.
Ayrynthyn 02-10-06, 02:36 PM	@ Begferdeth & Macbrea - Lord Frost's Tactics vs Ch'Ch'ili Tactics received, thanks guys. I'll start running this late tonight.
Caterane 02-10-06, 05:47 PM	Logan vs Cora vs Kazz vs Rallik is up <here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8445401#post8445401)> Tactics have been sent to Luni and Lonewolf.
Luni 02-10-06, 06:24 PM	Logan vs Cora vs Kazz vs Rallik is up <here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8445401#post8445401)> Tactics have been sent to Luni and Lonewolf. Cat! Powerstone of Animal Affinity is 150 gp. Doubling that is 300 gp. Lizardman are getting robbed if they have to pay quadruple! @Cat: tactics received. Both of them.
Usurpator 02-10-06, 06:55 PM	Cat! Powerstone of Animal Affinity is 150 gp. Doubling that is 300 gp. Lizardman are getting robbed if they have to pay quadruple! @Cat: tactics received. Both of them. Probably because it was not a powerstone but a tattoo, especially since non-psionic lizardfolk cannot use powerstones. Combined tactics for Gaston & Flamehair will be sent your way in 30 minutes or so.
Snommelp 02-10-06, 07:13 PM	Logan vs Cora vs Kazz vs Rallik is up <here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8445401#post8445401)> Tactics have been sent to Luni and Lonewolf. Cora asked to target Rallik if there were multiple targets. Since there are no qualifiers for that, I would assume Rallik should be the first target regardless of whether or not Logan has beaten Rallik up when Cora finds them. Could you please fix this? EDIT: Kazz also asked that Cora be his first target, if given the choice, so when Cora and Rallik (or edited Cora and Logan) both move to engage, Kazz should attack Cora.
Usurpator 02-10-06, 07:56 PM	@Luni: combined tactics sent for Gaston & Flamehair
Caterane 02-10-06, 08:05 PM	But Snommelp, Rallik wouldn't survive another round anyway so why cast hold person on someone about to die? From Cora's tactic it seemed as if it didn't matter that much whom she held ("hold first person I see") so I thought it's more logical to hold the stronger guy and finish Rallik of herself.
Snommelp 02-10-06, 08:17 PM	But Snommelp, Rallik wouldn't survive another round anyway so why cast hold person on someone about to die? From Cora's tactic it seemed as if it didn't matter that much whom she held ("hold first person I see") so I thought it's more logical to hold the stronger guy and finish Rallik of herself. But stating that Rallik should be targeted first indicates that Cora thinks Rallik is the more dangerous enemy. Same reason that Kazz and Logan both put Cora at the top of their lists. And it doesn't make sense to allow the perceived stronger enemy to survive when a weaker enemy is doing a good job killing the strong one off, at least from my perspective. I know this may sound petty, coming from the player whose character died first, but to me it seems more logical to let one enemy kill the other off; that way Cora can use his two Hold Person spells on two opponents instead of trying to spread them across three.
Luni 02-10-06, 08:21 PM	@Cat: PM sent concerning the Harvester's tactics. @Usurpator and his partner whoes name escapes me: Looks good.
Vathelokai 02-10-06, 10:05 PM	Tactics for Noko vs. Martugh grudge match recieved. Should be up tommorrow.
waywreth 02-10-06, 10:31 PM	@Usurpator and his partner whoes name escapes me: Looks good. That'd be me. Thanks.
MitzaVolchenko 02-11-06, 01:18 AM	@Warclone...even without any applicable knowledge, Ishould get some sort of description for what Sliver is facing...general size and type (see monster fights run by Macbrea last week). @Gonbow Tactics for Zwei sent via PM @Book5 No tactics received fo Ba'al as yet. @MindWandererB tactics for Sunstroke received.
MitzaVolchenko 02-11-06, 02:23 AM	@Warclone Thanks! Not much to work from but even so I think I know what the pixie has to deal with. Tactics sent via PM...have fun with it ;)
Pitlords 02-11-06, 06:02 AM	Any takers for this Extended Fight? It's ECL 3 from last week. Tactics should be up. Rokk Ohn (TroubleWolf) vs Sybil (MitzaVolchenko): x [Week 2] PS: Credits have been assigned.
Vathelokai 02-11-06, 07:06 AM	Any takers for this Extended Fight? It's ECL 3 from last week. Tactics should be up. Rokk Ohn (TroubleWolf) vs Sybil (MitzaVolchenko): x [Week 2] PS: Credits have been assigned. I'll take it. Who has the tactics? Please PM them. Never mind, I found them... http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8411232&postcount=182 A Sweaty Monk Grappling a Hot Tavern Singer. It's worth to see. I'm curious as to how with a standard move of 60' with Expeditious Retreat active, Rokk ever grappled Sybil when she stated ranged fight. He had no skate and no way to out move her with his 30' move being half her speed. I have no idea what Round Nine means...draws a circle? Errr.. Kedi, hey, I hate to tell yah, but you need to follow the rules of actual movement in the arena and unable to cut corners. Also, you cannot charge over an obsticle. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Rokk,L,-6,0,-13,-12,-20,-13,-22,-3,-25,-13;b=Syb,M,-14,-12,-20,-14,-16,-20,-26,-13 This would be the actual legal last move. But you would need to go back throughout the other rounds to actually move correctly. This is a double move because the individual cannot charge over an obsticle. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Rokk,L,-23,-3,-24,-3,-24,-13,-25,-13;b=Syb,M,-26,-13;style=s @mitza, troublewolf, kedi Unfortunately, half-giants cannot use Enlarge Person. *ducks* I know you can't charge over an obstacle, which, there was no obstacle. Edit: Thank you, Ariel. Not that you are required to, but I really would appreciate a reconsideration of that fight. In no way should someone moving half my speed ever have been anywhere near Sybil. Additionally, I still want to know what draws a circle in round nine means. Losig that fight puts Sybil dangerously close to a failure tag for absolutely no reason. @kedi Since I will not be able to edit without the fight being reconsidered/edited , and I truly feel that the loss is unacceptable with the complete misrun of movement and tactics, I am going to ask for a hold over on Sybil's fight. What does draws a circle around the arena mean? It seems to mean go give him a bear hug. 30'move vs. 60'move means he CANNOT get to me short of the end of expeditious retreat even allowing illegal movements. Lacking the enlarge he cannot even get the 75' with reach weapon that he specifies in his tactics. I have included a request for holdover in my PM or activities to Pitlords. If the fight is re-run before 1:30pm EST tomorrow I might still get an edit in, but i don't know if TroubleWolf could do likewise. @TroubleWolf I'm sorry to insist on the re-run but your tactics even acknowledged that you had no way to reach me short of a reaching 75' enlarged spear charge which I can negate easily with a single withdraw or run round. Sybil's record is bad enough with the FFA's kicking it off, that I really can't afford losses with her that aren't 100% because she was overwhelmed or tactics as written failed. I understand. Gotta do what you gotta do. I honestly didn't know Enlarge Person didn't work on half-gants, so it's really mostly my mistake. @Mitza: The wall was not standing in between you and your opponent, so he was free to charge. There were no obstacles between the two of you. Drawing a circle means moving around in circles, in this fight's case, moving at quarter-circle. You could see this if you checked the coordinants. And I tried my best to figure out your movements with the basic tactics I've recieved. The arena does not really have that many obstacles that one can use to avoid charge-melee-whatever, and even then, I've menaged to make Sybil dodge some good. Guess, my view of the map is different then yours. You must charge an opponent to the closest square and you must not cut corners or go over obstacles. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Rokk,M,-22,-3,-25,-13;b=Syb,M,-26,-13 Calculating distance from [-22, -3, 0] to [-25, -13, 0]: 11 squares (55') Distance would be fine, Assuming you didn't have to make any turns. I don't think you can make that charge, since there is a hard corner that you have to run right by. Isn't that the same deal as not being able to take a 5' step around a hard corner? Correct. The pictured example is not a valid charge. Yup, basicly.. that was what I was trying to say when he stated there wasn't any obstacles. It is possible for someone with a 30ft movement to lure someone with a 60ft movement in close enough to charge them. But the person at 60ft movement has to not be trying to use cover. The arena has a plethora of columns and the small rocks count to break charge and count as cover for small and medium creatures. Additionally the lines you ran him through required him to pass portions of his anatomy through solid surfaces. I agree that in theory, if Sybil had an INT of 6 or less she might get lured into going to the wall as he specified to try in his tactic in order to get a clear shot, but as she would have attacked first, he would be the one in violation of ten round delay for hiding and waiting to try to force her into an unfavorable move. I have requested the re-run and if TroubleWolf agrees, Cat has granted it. Regardless if whether it is granted, I will not be updating Sybil for this week thanks to the lateness of response to the matter. Make note I do not have to respond. There has been only one rules issue, and I've handled it right in time. Responding to players' issues and re-running are not obligatory, they are up to pitlord's discret. I could've ignored because there is not any issues with rules, and the fight would've been done. I'm surprised if Cat has actually given you the permission for the match has to be rerun. Regardless, I won't re-run it this week, and if the fight's going to be rerun, please do not appoint me to it -I'm alright with the credit cost. Edited to avoid misunderstanding Charge is valid. And I don't know about Macbrea's map, but it's not the way I saw things -there is nothing in between two gladiators. Period. Make note that charging characted is Medium, he takes one square, while Macbrea's map showed it occupying 4 squares. Regardless, he was standing three squares behind the wall, and he could've passed it and charged -in a straigth line. I don't think - see anything wrong with the duel's outcome, and if it does mean anything as being the match's pitlord, that's my ruling. Then my pen may have mistaken me. But consider this -If he moved a (-1, 0) more, still being able to perfom his attack, and no obstacles in between -does it really matter at this point? If I must; http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Name,M,-22,-3,-26,-13;style=s;opacity=65 If you don't think that's convincing enough, I can move Rokk a step behind, because I wanted him to hide but still be able to charge if need be. So we have this; http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Name,M,-22,-2,-25,-13;style=s;opacity=65 (Which, I always considered Rokk to be two squares behind the wall. Maybe I miss places the coordinants). I can even put him to (-1, 0) more. Like this; http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Name,M,-23,-3,-25,-13;style=s;opacity=65 This is not a math I'd like to explode my head over, because since Rokk's told to charge whenever possible, and I can find a way to do it if I want to. At worst, I could have made him move a little more in (0, +x) coordinant, and Sybil would keep moving around until it was too late. All in all, I don't think Sybil can survive it, and I don't believe it does matter for the fight. I already dealt long time figuring how to play Sybil with such a short tactic, and Rokk's tactics allowed me more about him. I don't think Sybil can survive after this, but if you still don't like the idea, I'm not going to try to explain it again. Feel free to penaltize me if need be, and if rerun's gonna happen, so be it. I just don't see this happening, and I'm too tired to explain it - debate on it. First, I'm sorry you're frustrated. I'm not trying to punish you. I wasn't involved in the fight at all. I'm just trying to see what you're seeing. Every single one of the examples you posted has Rokk moving through a 5' high rock, though. The one right next to where he stops moving, directly between his starting and ending positions. He's not allowed to do that on a charge. He must go, in a straight line, from his starting position to closest possible space where he can attack. If that straight line takes him through difficult terrain or through an obstacle, he can't charge. Anyway, no more from me, as it's obviously just going to anger you. First, kedi, I am sorry if I came across too strongly. The movement restraints do not permit the movements used. That is a clear rules boo boo. It hapens and lord knows I have nerfed a fight from time to time. This is the first week I did not have time to fix one that I goofed badly on. I admitted the error to Cat and said that I would not object to a hold over but that Tuin had let me off the hook. I appreciated that greatly. Second, I am disturbed by your statement that you could find a way to do it if you wanted to. That implies a rather not cool bias simply because I objected. Finally, had I known you felt my tactics were too vague, I would have clarified them for you. I am available via pm,email, and four different IM's. You are correct that re-runs and edits are not mandatory. They are a courtesy that we try to give whenever possible. I commented with questions as soon as I saw the fight and got no response for some time. Had I received an explanation that made any sense earlier, I might have conceded the fight just to save the stress for everyone. However, the insistence that the illegal movement is legal may mean that more porblems arise in future fights. As far as I know you do not get a credit loss simply because it is re-run for rules reasons. I would not wish for you to lose credits. I simply want to see a legally run fight with my core tactics followed. I hope you didn't get me wrong, in no way I was defending one player, but he wanted to charge, so every turn I asked myself "In what position is favourable for him to be able to charge this-next turn?". However, I did also ask myself "What position is favourable for Sybil to avoid Charge and melee this turn." What I implied is that even if he could not move to the exact square, moving to just another square next to it, where he can still reach you. Sorry if I sounded too harsh, I actually didn't mean it.
Pitlords 02-11-06, 07:16 AM	Vath +1° Thanks
Caterane 02-11-06, 08:28 AM	EDIT: Kazz also asked that Cora be his first target, if given the choice, so when Cora and Rallik (or edited Cora and Logan) both move to engage, Kazz should attack Cora. Snommelp. Yes, he wrote that but if you look at the situation, Kazz was 10ft away from Rallik and 25ft from Cora. He has two options: 1) Fullattack Rallik (what I did) and wait for Cora to walk through his reach (gain AoO against her). 2) Move to Cora to single attack only. Suffer an AoO from Rallik who attempts to trip and risks foiling the whole move and attack on Cora, and if he makes it to Cora be in a flanking position with Rallik the rogue. That's what you suggest. Now add the fact that Pittbull didn't really care whom he attacks. This is not a pitlord adaption, it's me not playing characters stupid like brainless morons. We can only send tactics instead of playing them ourselves. Some devote much time into writing contingencies or covering many situations, but many just write a basic outline. If both Cora and Rallik would have been in melee with Kazz, I would have picked Cora. If both Rallik and Logan were uninjured, or both injured, I would have picked Rallik. If I would just play the characters to the letter without thinking, then I would have had Logan charge Coralias on the other end of the hall because you also wrote to attack her first: Logan will attack anyone he sees, but if he sees two foes, his order of preference is: 1) Coralias 2) Rallik 3) KazzzAHM
Snommelp 02-11-06, 01:34 PM	Snommelp. Yes, he wrote that but if you look at the situation, Kazz was 10ft away from Rallik and 25ft from Cora. He has two options: 1) Fullattack Rallik (what I did) and wait for Cora to walk through his reach (gain AoO against her). 2) Move to Cora to single attack only. Suffer an AoO from Rallik who attempts to trip and risks foiling the whole move and attack on Cora, and if he makes it to Cora be in a flanking position with Rallik the rogue. That's what you suggest. Now add the fact that Pittbull didn't really care whom he attacks. This is not a pitlord adaption, it's me not playing characters stupid like brainless morons. We can only send tactics instead of playing them ourselves. Some devote much time into writing contingencies or covering many situations, but many just write a basic outline. If both Cora and Rallik would have been in melee with Kazz, I would have picked Cora.And that was also me misinterpreting what you wrote. I assumed that when you said "they both met just when Kazz was about to break free," you meant that both were adjacent to Kazz. If both Rallik and Logan were uninjured, or both injured, I would have picked Rallik. If I would just play the characters to the letter without thinking, then I would have had Logan charge Coralias on the other end of the hall because you also wrote to attack her first:Logan will attack anyone he sees, but if he sees two foes, his order of preference is: 1) Coralias 2) Rallik 3) KazzzAHM While I now agree with you that this would be the case in Kazz's situation, I still disagree that this is the case with Cora Holding Logan. Order of preference implies that if the character is not yet engaged, then the character should pick which foe to attack in that order. Logan was engaged, Cora was not. And I would like to point you again to my most recent post: Cora specifically mentioning to attack Rallik first implies that Kaigan considered Rallik to be the most dangerous opponent. Why, then, would Cora Hold the person that is effectively dealing with that threat? Since you are arguing that Logan was Held because Rallik was injured, I can just as easily argue that Cora should have delayed until Logan had finished Rallik off. After all, since we're deviating from tactics, why throw a spell at two characters who could very well finish each other off soon anyway?
MitzaVolchenko 02-11-06, 04:45 PM	Sunstroke vs. Ba'al (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8449897&postcount=208) is up. @Rith, I have moved your quest along.
Caterane 02-11-06, 05:06 PM	Cora specifically mentioning to attack Rallik first implies that Kaigan considered Rallik to be the most dangerous opponent. You sound like Kaigan wet his pants and couldn't sleep when hearing the name Rallik. Let's see what he wrote... Move out, and use a hold person on the first person I see. If there are multiple people, hit Rallik first. "First person I see" That sounds to me like he didn't really care. It also sounds exactly like your tactic ("Logan will attack anyone he sees"). So if Cora wets her pants because of Rallik then Logan wets his pants because of Cora. If for that reason Cora attacks Rallik first, Logan attacks Cora first. Furthermore he wrote If that passes, use hold person on the next person That sounds like he didn't even care to CDG right away but just throw around the next hold person spell. Perhaps to impress the audience? No, because he wants others to finish the held person off for him. Now that we found out that Kaigan didn't care, and considering that an injured rogue is about to lose against a healthy fighter, I'd say hold the healthy fighter so that only an injured rogue remains. Wouldn't you agree to that?
Snommelp 02-11-06, 05:42 PM	You sound like Kaigan wet his pants and couldn't sleep when hearing the name Rallik. Let's see what he wrote... "First person I see" That sounds to me like he didn't really care. It also sounds exactly like your tactic ("Logan will attack anyone he sees"). Furthermore he wrote That sounds like he didn't even care to CDG right away but just throw around the next hold person spell. Perhaps to impress the audience? No, because he wants others to finish the held person off for him. Now that we found out that Kaigan didn't care, and considering that an injured rogue is about to lose against a healthy fighter, I'd say hold the healthy fighter so that only an injured rogue remains. Wouldn't you agree to that? Caterane, you keep justifying what you did with quotes from his tactics, but we both know that at this point you were improvising. Otherwise, why not Hold Rallik as well? As you have quoted, Kaigan wrote to use Hold Person on the next opponent if the first one went off. Instead, you have Coralias go off and find Kazz, then cast the spell on him. We are not in the realm of following tactics right now. If we were, Rallik would have been one of the two getting Held. With that determined, how are you justifying your decisions with tactics? Let's review: But Snommelp, Rallik wouldn't survive another round anyway so why cast hold person on someone about to die? From Cora's tactic it seemed as if it didn't matter that much whom she held ("hold first person I see") so I thought it's more logical to hold the stronger guy and finish Rallik of herself....and then Cora did not finish Rallik off, choosing instead to go out of the way to attack the lizardman. From Cora's tactic it seemed as if it didn't matter that much whom she held"First person I see" That sounds to me like he didn't really care.Now that we found out that Kaigan didn't careThrice you say Kaigan didn't care, and yet in the fight Cora goes out of his way to not attack Rallik, when the tactics say If there are multiple people, hit Rallik first. Rallik is the only one mentioned by name in those tactics, but in the fight Coralias avoids Rallik. Also from those same tactics:If that passes, use hold person on the next person, or if there is no one around, move to the held gladiator while drawing bow, and next round CDG. But Coralias instead went off looking for the missing gladiator. Next: Coralias states that "if there are multiple people, hit Rallik first." In such a small arena, if there are multiple people, then there are good odds those multiple people are in combat. If they are in combat, there are good odds one of them is injured. Therefore, choosing to hit Logan because Rallik was injured isn't going to fly with me; combat is implied. This isn't just because he's my gladiator; if it was Kazz and Rallik we were talking about, I would say the same thing. From my perspective, there is only one way this should have happened: Coralias should have Held Rallik, then next round Held Logan, then moved in and CdGed the pair of them, probably in that order because that is the order in which they will break free. You deviated from tactics and started improvising when there was no reason to do so - the tactics had not fallen apart yet, they could still be followed. And while on the subject of tactics, Rallik asks to avoid Coralias until the Hold Person spells are gone: Avoid Coralias until he has cast Hold Person on someone else. Wherever he is heading, I will go somewhere else, trying to stay out of LoS and/or spell range. Once Hold Person has been cast, he becomes a target. and yet Rallik does not avoid Coralias before the spells are spent, nor does he target Coralias after the spells are gone. In short, Caterane, this fight deviated from tactics when it did not need to and should not have, seemingly because you decided that you the Pitlord knew how to run the characters better than their creators; this is almost certainly true, but if we all start deviating from tactics solely for that reason, what's the point in having tactics sent in at all? Just give me the character sheets and I will play them the way I think they should be played; I've never seen a fight run like that which wasn't complained about afterwards.
SauroGrenom 02-11-06, 08:55 PM	Dameon vs Lissa is up.
klangley 02-11-06, 09:14 PM	OK, I am fine with the fight as played... characters should be adapting to changing circumstances rather than slaves to every word in their tactics, I think, and it's hard to know which parts of someone's tactics deserve more weight than other parts. What I would have expected from MY tactics would have been, after Logan was held, rather than CDGing him I should have charged Coralias. Why? Because I mis-read his sheet and thought he had only one Hold Person memorized. The GM interpreted my intent (don't get held) rather than my literal wording (Coralias becomes a target, in fact the preferred target, after casting a Hold). Now if he had only interperted into my tactics the desire to drink a cure potion once I was so badly injured, or for that matter the desire to roll a natural 20 on that tanglefoot bag.... I figure someone was going to be the first one held; I made pretty clear in my tactics I didn't want it to be me... that was priority #2, right after "don't get disqualified for delay". So unless Coralias was equally emphatic that I was to be the target, or Logan was equally emphatic about avoiding him, the odds were good that Coralias was going to find Logan in his sights before he found me. And even if Coralias had been more inclined to hit Rallik than anyone else at the beginning of the fight, seeing Rallik trying to hold his lungs inside his ribcage :weep: should have allowed him to change his mind and use his precious spell on something more dangerous :D
Zevox 02-12-06, 10:52 AM	Delaria vs Cyra Val is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8447653) (part 1, sheets, and tactics) and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8456564&postcount=213) (part 2 & wrap-up). Close match, but it seems every little point of damage can make a difference in the end. Zevox
Stormwind 02-12-06, 11:55 AM	Delaria vs Cyra Val is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8447653) (part 1, sheets, and tactics) and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8456564&postcount=213) (part 2 & wrap-up). Close match, but it seems every little point of damage can make a difference in the end. Zevox @Zevox: Thanks for running the fight. There is one mistake that actually shortens the fight by one round, though it doesn't change the results at all. In Round 6 when Cyra attacks Delaria, she should do one extra point of damage from PBS as Delaria is within 30ft. Thus Delaria doesn't actually complete the second summoning in round 10 as she is unconcious at the end of round 9. @TelinArtho: Nice tactics. I had not even thought about the possibility of someone dispelling the slippers.
Zevox 02-12-06, 12:23 PM	There is one mistake that actually shortens the fight by one round, though it doesn't change the results at all. In Round 6 when Cyra attacks Delaria, she should do one extra point of damage from PBS as Delaria is within 30ft. Thus Delaria doesn't actually complete the second summoning in round 10 as she is unconcious at the end of round 9. Actually, I'm afraid thats not so. You're still on the ceiling in round 6, so Delaria is actually 55ft away. Still, like you said, it won't change the outcome either way, so no big deal. Zevox
nickbeat 02-12-06, 01:31 PM	What are the rules on Mounts and movement. Say a mount with a 40 speed carries you a full move for the round of 80 feet... Does the player have any actions left? I presume they have at least a move action or perhaps a standard action? What about if the mount does a full run at 160? Thanks, Nick
Snommelp 02-12-06, 01:35 PM	What are the rules on Mounts and movement. Say a mount with a 40 speed carries you a full move for the round of 80 feet... Does the player have any actions left? I presume they have at least a move action or perhaps a standard action? What about if the mount does a full run at 160? Thanks, Nick Page 157, PHB: "You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally, so that, for instance, you can load and fire a crossbow in a round while your mount is moving."
Stormwind 02-12-06, 01:55 PM	Actually, I'm afraid thats not so. You're still on the ceiling in round 6, so Delaria is actually 55ft away. Still, like you said, it won't change the outcome either way, so no big deal. Zevox Duh, of course ... I'm slow tonight. Thanks for running the fight. Storm
lonewolf 02-12-06, 03:19 PM	Merman vs. Baelin is up. Quick and dirty.
Luni 02-12-06, 03:24 PM	Merman vs. Baelin is up. Quick and dirty. Shouldn't Baelin get a hide check against Merman? And your fight rewards are way off. You should just round down instead of including the decimals.
lonewolf 02-12-06, 03:34 PM	Shouldn't Baelin get a hide check against Merman? He should, but with a -20 penalty for running. Hide vs Spot (1d20+2=4, 1d20+7=11) (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=362299) doesnt change anything
^Rayne^ 02-12-06, 05:42 PM	@Dr. Funk, I have lots of questions about this contest. First according to Grapple rules if his PC doesn't have Improved Grapple (which he doesn't) then he is subject to an Attack of Opportunity if he tries to Grapple my PC. It doesn't look like my PC got that Attack. He could have used his loaded crossbow to attack him under these circumstances, couldn't he? If the attack succeeds he at the very least did some damage to him. Then there is the grapple checks and opposed rolls that have to be made. I didn't see any Ride check (at DC 20) to fast dismount before making the attack, even if he did this as a move action he would have had to use other actions to get close to my PC to perform this grapple. I said specifically in my tactics to use at least a 5' step to get distance between him and his opponent. So before he even dismounted from his horse my PC should not have been right next to him. I would hope that given the situation the Pitlord would know my PC would move a lot more than 5' to avoid actions like you just described (where he gets off his horse and is convieniently standing right on top of my PC). My PC would have consistantly kept his distance and once on the ground it is doubtful his dwarf would have been able to keep up with my PC. Also once a PC uses grapple they do Unarmed damage which is 1d3 subdual (if they don't have Improved Grapple because they use the basic Unarmed Damage for their rolls). His PC has +3 strength modifier and for the rolls you posted you used a 1d4 modifier for these damage rolls plus his +3 str. modifier. This is not correct it should be 1d3. I would hope you reroll these damage rolls as they could make a difference and give my PC enough time to win an opposed grapple check (if he rolled low and Krayko rolled high) and he could get enough distance to use ranged attacks on him. One last question, how many allies does one get to use in a fight? I didn't see the Pitlord mention his dog, but in his tactics he mentioned having both the horse and the dog present. Are they both allowed to be in this fight, just curious about this?
Biota 02-12-06, 06:10 PM	@Dr. Funk, I have lots of questions about this contest. First according to Grapple rules if his PC doesn't have Improved Grapple (which he doesn't) then he is subject to an Attack of Opportunity if he tries to Grapple my PC. It doesn't look like my PC got that Attack. He could have used his loaded crossbow to attack him under these circumstances, couldn't he? If the attack succeeds he at the very least did some damage to him. Then there is the grapple checks and opposed rolls that have to be made. A couple of rules clarifications here: 1. A crossbow or other ranged weapon doesn't threaten adjacent squares. From the SRD attacks of opportunity section (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/attacksOfOpportunity.htm), "You threaten all squares into which you can make a melee attack, even when it is not your action." A crossbow is a ranged weapon, so no melee attacks. 2. Also, if you successfully deal damage when someone tries to start a grapple the grapple attempt fails. 3. Finally, firing a crossbow while threatened provokes an AOO. Biota
^Rayne^ 02-12-06, 06:10 PM	Dr. Funk, I have one more question about the fight or more appropriately to his PC Dordleton Grublesnout. What feat does he have that adds +1 to his Grapple checks? I see his grapple bonus is listed as having +1 bonus from a feat but I don't see how any of his feats would give him this bonus. Is this an error in his character sheet or am I missing something? Thanks, Karl @Biotta, Thanks for the rules clarification on Ranged Weapons and AoO. Of course I should have said to use my PC's spear in the tactics but I wasn't sure if he would be using his horse or his dog. If my PC had readied for a charge then that weapon would have helped a lot. In this case my PC could have made an unarmed Attack of Opportunity against him to avoid the Grapple right? I'm curious about this whole thing since my PC isn't a grappler and wants to avoid it as best he can.
Luni 02-12-06, 06:20 PM	Dr. Funk, I have one more question about the fight or more appropriately to his PC Dordleton Grublesnout. What feat does he have that adds +1 to his Grapple checks? I see his grapple bonus is listed as having +1 bonus from a feat but I don't see how any of his feats would give him this bonus. Is this an error in his character sheet or am I missing something? Thanks, Karl @Biotta, Thanks for the rules clarification on Ranged Weapons and AoO. Of course I should have said to use my PC's spear in the tactics but I wasn't sure if he would be using his horse or his dog. If my PC had readied for a charge then that weapon would have helped a lot. In this case my PC could have made an unarmed Attack of Opportunity against him to avoid the Grapple right? I'm curious about this whole thing since my PC isn't a grappler and wants to avoid it as best he can. If you don't have a natural weapon or impr. unarmed strike, you can't make an unarmed AoO. THe best way to avoid grapplers are to simply not be where they want you to be. Mirror Image and invisibilty can make it tough for them. Dordleton's +1 feat to grapple is an error. His Grapple bonus should be +5, not the +2 he has listed.
Begferdeth 02-12-06, 10:54 PM	Sven Dragonsson vs Manzarf the Loathsome (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8461948&postcount=216) is up! Wow, that was a lot of arrows.
nickbeat 02-13-06, 03:07 AM	Casting Grease on your armor will give you a +10, +3 for your dex, escape artist skill vs grapples.
Vathelokai 02-13-06, 05:49 AM	Noko vs. Martaugh is up. Nothing shocking over here...
Dracazar 02-13-06, 07:12 AM	Characters on Quests: QL Kedi: (none) Uilo (Dracazar) wants to find a magic item [Week 1] Hi kedi, Even with State of Emergency we got this: QL Kedi: (none) Uilo (Dracazar) wants to find a magic item [Week 1] I wait your thread, remember the quest is for Tan bag of tricks, I think it should be ECL4 Ciao Do you have news from kedi? I'm waiting for the 3 weeks quest to start... If kedi is busy may I have another questlord? Thanks
Vathelokai 02-13-06, 07:52 AM	Still working on the Sybil vs. Rokk rerun.... won't be in until tomorrow.... if I'm lucky... :raincloud
Pittbull 02-13-06, 09:05 AM	ECL-7: ALLvsALL (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8441161&postcount=204) is finished. This has been one of the toughest fight I've ever run. Unfortunately I'm not able to fix any mistakes this week, because I'm leaving tomorrow morning for a holiday. So, if there are some, which must be fixed, I can do it next week or another Pitlord fixes it this week.
Sindorin 02-13-06, 09:15 AM	ECL-7: ALLvsALL (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8441161&postcount=204) is finished. This has been one of the toughest fight I've ever run. Unfortunately I'm not able to fix any mistakes this week, because I'm leaving tomorrow morning for a holiday. So, if there are some, which must be fixed, I can do it next week or another Pitlord fixes it this week. Thanks for pitlording, Pittbull. Freedom of Movement = INSANE!!! INSANE IN THE MEMBRANE!!!
kedi 02-13-06, 09:21 AM	Do you have news from kedi? I'm waiting for the 3 weeks quest to start... If kedi is busy may I have another questlord? ThanksI've replied to you on tavern... Looks like it's been a few pages. I posted it before tuesday or something like that, that I would have limited time to run the quest this week, maybe next week if you want to or that you could just get another ql if you could. I remember you were online at that time so I didn't bother to PM. My bad. And I had quite limited access to internet, as a matter of fact, I've just found the time to read tactics. As I said, I won't be able to run it this week, I'm sure you can find another lord to run it for you. If you can't, then I apologise for not properly informing you, and effectively causing your player to sit out one week. =/
nickbeat 02-13-06, 10:06 AM	The Entangle spell causes the victom to be entangled. Is this entangle anchored to the ground by definition? I'm trying to resolve whether someone can move at all after failing a reflex save.
Zevox 02-13-06, 10:16 AM	The Entangle spell causes the victom to be entangled. Is this entangle anchored to the ground by definition? I'm trying to resolve whether someone can move at all after failing a reflex save. I'm fairly certain the decision last time this came up was that the Entangle spell is anchored to the ground and someone who fails thier save cannot move. I can't give you a 100% certainty on that though, as my memory may just be playing tricks on me... Zevox
Maraxus 02-13-06, 10:36 AM	Of cause, they are anchored to the ground. The wording "holding them fast and causing them to become entangled." Is not 100% clear, through one can interprete it into this, too. However, the fact, that, is you were not bound to the ground, you would be faster if you did not made your save (half speed vs half movement with a full round action=quarter speed), implies to me, that you can't move from the spot at all, if you fail your save.
Abyssal Stalker 02-13-06, 11:57 AM	Sven Dragonsson vs Manzarf the Loathsome (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8461948&postcount=216) is up! Wow, that was a lot of arrows. Quite a shoot-out. Just like I was afraid it would be. Damn those fast human feet. I noticed that you didn't use rage at all, but it probably wouldn't have changed the outcome. I guess I'll just have to go and buy one of those stupid CLW wands for myself. Thanks for getting the patience to run the fight, I bet it wasn't the most exciting thing to do!
nickbeat 02-13-06, 12:30 PM	Thanks, I'll assume the entangle is rooted and adjust my ruling. This makes sense according to RAW, though it makes the spell rather overpowered. Almost like an area effect Hold Person really.
kedi 02-13-06, 01:57 PM	Oh god. I've screwed big time this week. I'm heavily sick now, and I won't be able to run Kaigan's and Funk's fight. Here's the tactics they sent me, I will be pretty much restiong tonight. I'm sorry for inconvenience. Hey Kedi, thanks for pitlording. These are tactics for Eiletha Surion in: Eiletha Surion (Kaigan) vs. Cid Highwing (Dr.Funk) : Kedi For the week of Feb 8th, 2006. Note: The scrolls that I am scribing this week are under the Free Activity Section. Also: Don't forget my Arcane Spell Failure Start in the default position holding a scroll of invisibility with familiar beside me. Cast invisibility then draw scroll of expeditious retreat cast. Cast Expeditious retreat, then move out looking for Cid. I will circle one way, and my familiar the other. When we find him, I will move and imbue my familiar with a shocking grasp from memory. Then I will draw a scroll of acid arrow, and ready my action to attack with said scroll after my familiar had touched with the shocking grasp. Follow that acid arrow up with another from scroll, then another. If still alive, imbue another shocking grasp in familiar and use last scroll of acid arrow, then use an acid arrow from memory. That's it. Use scrolls of shocking grasp,then magic missles, then Use arrows from bow after that. Have fun. kaiganthis fight is going to be interresting. cid and ifrit will start front mid. Ifrit: if not in sight ifrit will run around the arena clockwise looking for him and screech once found then start attacking Cid: hold bow and move toward the center of arena. take single moves around the center so if i see him i can shoot. and try to move silently so i can get maybe my sneak attack dmg (+2d6). once ifrit is attacking/screeched or dead move in with both swords. i want ifrit flanking so i get sneak attack dmg with both swords. ...cids first lvl 4 fight hope he does good.
Caterane 02-13-06, 01:58 PM	Snommelp, I said everything I had to say about that fight so I would just repeat myself. If you look into the Discussion - Pitlording thread, you'll notice that the main reason for pitlords stopping to run fights being complaints from players about every single minor thing. In your fight, there's not a single mistake related to the D&D system, there's no coco rule violation, I executed your tactics - the 2 lines you sent me - to the best of my ability, and now you complain about me not playing other characters like fools. What I did was very well within the sense of everyone's tactic and no adaption at all. An adaption would have been to have Cora hide and wait, or Logan using his bow for whatever reason. You however pick single words out of the context, and sell them off as violation against the tactic (and we're not even talking about your tactic). Bottom line, I am not going to edit the fight. It's good as it is. PS: If there would be an edit, I'd have Rallik hide from Cora (his priority) so Logan would be the only target, then Cora CDGs Logan herself. Even IF I would follow every of your proposal oblivious to fairness to the others and common sense, and after a lot of discussion and complaining from your side, the absolute best thing you might be able to pull out is 3rd place when Cora finishes off Rallik first, giving you +300 xp/gp for the price of an annoyed pitlord and two players who'd feel cheated. Is that what you want?
DTFarstar 02-13-06, 02:11 PM	@ Vath - Fights looks correct, not good because I lost but correct =-P. Got to remember to use concentration to suppress displays so people can't ready off my manifests. Don't think it would change much vs. the invisible fast-moving pixie with elf-bane arrows. If I end up having to fight Noko AGAIN next week I am going to be very irritated.
Mal-2 02-13-06, 02:45 PM	Reminder: Fights are due in about 12 hours (Tuesday, 8 AM GMT). I think the following are the fights still underway: LEVEL 3 FIGHTS Featylec (Zevox) vs. Dronnar Darkjof (DSugui) : Kaigan Hexacious (Turin) vs. Anton Fael (TelinArtho) : Lucanthrope Finrod (Lonewolf) vs. El'enees'ka (malakaiunseen) : Shadowmaster Secropiagor (kedi) vs. Mizay Alamak (Katana) : Kaigan Sappho (Biota) => Pontifex (Warclone) => Risal (Kaigan) : Huan [Hunter] LEVEL 4 FIGHTS Fjörd (Begferdeth) vs. Evaine Dreamseeker (Ariel23) : TelinArtho [Week 2] Rethun (Kaigan) vs. Zwei und'Vierzig (MitzaVolchenko) : Gonbow Eiletha Surion (Kaigan) vs. Cid Highwing (Dr.Funk) : Kedi LEVEL 5 FIGHTS Ivangar the Exile (Turin) vs. Hennan (Snommelp) : Kaigan Donak (Mal-2) vs. Hassan Sabbah (Vathelokai) : Kaigan Leif Goldeneye (Sunwolf) vs. Kimahri (Dr.Funk) : Lonewolf Ch'ch'ili (Begferdeth) vs. Lord Frost (Macbrea) : Ayrynthyn The Harvester (Caterane) & Thwap (Warclone) vs. Flamehair (Usurpator) & Gaston (waywreth) : Luni [Team] Perius (Ravashack) vs. Neidr (bgt) : Caterane LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Sliver Firebug (MitzaVolchenko) vs Unknown Monster : Warclone [Monster] Gundir Malakas (Kaigan) vs. Griff Mythral (Iced) : Warclone Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs. Greefe (Ribking) : TelinArtho Karen Douglas (Lonewolf) vs. Lortavos (Gonbow) : Malither76 LEVEL 9 FIGHTS Vandelar the Red (SoulLord) vs. Talari Leafwhisperer (Luni) : Kaigan [Week 2]
shadowmaster 02-13-06, 03:00 PM	I've got my fight partly done, it will be up tonight.
Luni 02-13-06, 03:15 PM	My fight is done, though posting it is a different story. For some odd reason, I have a hard time posting in the battle thread. Edit: Harvester and Thwap vs Gaston and Flamehair (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8466879&postcount=218) is up.
Kaigan 02-13-06, 03:56 PM	Hey guys, I'll be getting my fights up tonight. I've got work in a couple of hours, and it's been a busy weekend. But don't worry, all will be done.
Maraxus 02-13-06, 04:28 PM	@ Vath - Fights looks correct, not good because I lost but correct =-P. Got to remember to use concentration to suppress displays so people can't ready off my manifests. Don't think it would change much vs. the invisible fast-moving pixie with elf-bane arrows. If I end up having to fight Noko AGAIN next week I am going to be very irritated. Hm, I always thought, that you can see, that someone manifests a power or casts a spell, even without any displays/components, just that you can't use spellcraft to identify which power/spell it is. Well, anyway, I think you don't need to fear to see her again. As long as we are limited to 1 char, Zassl will be active for me. He is almost the longest-active active character of Gladius, excelled only by Lissa Longfellow.
lonewolf 02-13-06, 05:18 PM	Leif Goldeneye vs. Kimahri is up. @ Dr. Funk: if you disagree with the surrender I will go ahead and roll the damage of the swarm until Kimahri is dead, but with your tactics I see no way you could have won this. @Sunwolf: This is the second fight in a row where I pitlord Leif and both times you wanted to draw and use a scroll of Summon Swarm in the same round. Thats of course possible, but you lose next rounds standart action to finish the spell, and Im not 100% sure that you´re aware of that, so Im telling you.
Snommelp 02-13-06, 05:45 PM	<SNIP>To be perfectly honest, Cat, I wasn't expecting a rerun. I just like to complain. Sometimes I let it get out of hand. My apologies.
Usurpator 02-13-06, 06:32 PM	My fight is done, though posting it is a different story. For some odd reason, I have a hard time posting in the battle thread. Edit: Harvester and Thwap vs Gaston and Flamehair (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8466879&postcount=218) is up. Hi Luni, thanks for running it, looks good. I had hoped you were able to squeeze in an attack from Gaston somewhere in there, I do see a few spaces where there was room for him to do so (don't know why you had him drop to the ground) but I don't want to nitpick over how your ran the fight because it generally looks good to me. I think Cat and Warclone should be happy with the win, because it could have easily gone the other way. @Caterane: I must say I am somewhat disappointed in you. You still didn't edit put in the correct movement speed for Wraith (40 ft.), even though he is always at medium encumbrance when Harvester rides it (thanks for seeing that and applying it correctly Luni!). I think the tricks with rats is just cheesy. I considered it myself some time ago (with ravens and weasels as alternative options), but found it to clearly a case of rule abuse and refrained from doing so. When I saw Harvester quest for the rats, I suspected you might go for some kind of nanobot abuse, even thought to include it in my tactics, but waited to give you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, you did go for the abuse, so I feel obliged to slap it down. A. opening a cage is at least a move action. I don't know where you stow the cage, but retrieving it is probably a move action as well. B. You have bunch of untrained rats that act on their own initiative. This not only means a headache for every Pitlord if your bring them, it also means they will scurry away from you (just like frightened natural rats) as soon as you open the box. C. Pushing animal as Harvester did is a full round action. Your tactics seem to assume it is a move action (or less), that is not correct. D. Luni pointed out a number of problems with your rat handling already. I think you need to roll a Handle Animal check for each rat separately (although you can command them simultaneously), some may follow the Harvester's command, others do not. E. Be well aware that most of my characters can easily get a bunch of animals and do the same, but I think it would just poison the enviroment if everyone walks around with a multitude of small critters. IMO the CoCo DM should know better than to employ such tactics, especially if he spends credits for custom items to make such tactics viable. F. I think you should be glad Luni adapted your tactics and did not make Harvester command those rats as a full-round action. Saying I cannot my focus because it is not prebuffed is a bit childish IMO. My characters don't prebuff these things any more out of principle, since there is no reason not to do so, and it cannot fail. I asked several times to have this useless prebuff rule removed but not gotten any responses (other than people agreeing with me). The same holds true for the reading of the scrolls or adressing of the powerstones. If every character capable of it must add it to his sheet, it is kind of useless to demand to add it and it should be assumed that those characters who can, do it. I am fine with you ruling that animals cannot have Wild Talent as a CoCo house rule, but then please remove weird tricks like Activate Tattoo from many of your character's allies as well. That would seem to be only fair if you invoke the 'common sense' clause. Sorry about the Heavy Load thing, it seems Flamehair was 2 lb. over her medium load. I know the minimum weight of a half giant, I especially pointed this error with Harvester out to you, because you initially had Harvester weight some 102 lbs., which was exactly what he needed to ride Wraith at light encumbrance with his standard equipment (not counting the tower shield 'at home'). The minimum weight of female half-giants (like Flamehair) is actually lower than that of male half-giants, and not 236 lbs. I also still have a problem with you not prebuffing anything of your equipment at home. How are we supposed to know that the Harvester is bringing a cage filled with rats? Should we make different permutations from his equipment at home? If things should be 'prebuffed' it should be non-obvious things as at home equipment. You used credits for Harvester to self-craft an item of Handle Animal. I don't think that is possible. Logically, this should be a druid item and have 'speak with animals' or something similar as prerequiste, and not be a prerequisite free item (none of the skill items are). Approving this as self-crafted looks like a case of rule bending to your advantage. Consider crafting a circlet of persuasion instead, it also gives Harvester the desired bonus to diplomacy. Your tactics speak of Flamehair should not be able to ready her shield to foil attacks, which is true, but your tactics also say this: "and the Harvester readies blacklight vs Gaston doing anything during Gaston's turn (no matter what; breathing if you like). Expand focus on this concentration check to auto-succeed. If Gaston moves or manifests, blacklight comes up - spoiling any targeted power." This seems to be clearly against the rule that auto-negating attacks with readied actions is not possible. Or does the rule apply to Flamehair and not to Harvester? To me it seems like you sometimes apply a different set of rules to yourself and to your opponents, which is kind of dangerous given your position. I had the same feeling when a week ago you suddenly ruled that Harvester could quest for allies before he had the required diplomacy bonus, I am very glad you reversed that. Let's end on a positive note though: I liked the refreshing tactics on H's part, no more invisibility-fly-true strike thingies etc. but something to mix it up.
Luni 02-13-06, 07:09 PM	@Usurpator: Actually, the rats are trained with Aid Other. THerfore they could be commanded with a move action. I'd considered it as well, but with rats taking AoO from entering squares, it just doesn't seem worth it. Yeah, perhaps the cage opening should be a move action, but it would of made no difference in the fight. As for Gaston attacks, I was trying to follow your tactics that said to assist Flamehair. He fell prone because Thwap was still up and had his bow in hand.
Dr. Funk 02-13-06, 07:52 PM	Leif Goldeneye vs. Kimahri is up. @ Dr. Funk: if you disagree with the surrender I will go ahead and roll the damage of the swarm until Kimahri is dead, but with your tactics I see no way you could have won this. @Sunwolf: This is the second fight in a row where I pitlord Leif and both times you wanted to draw and use a scroll of Summon Swarm in the same round. Thats of course possible, but you lose next rounds standart action to finish the spell, and Im not 100% sure that you´re aware of that, so Im telling you. i didnt see away i could win with what i have. surrender was fine
waywreth 02-13-06, 07:57 PM	@Usurpator: Actually, the rats are trained with Aid Other. THerfore they could be commanded with a move action. I'd considered it as well, but with rats taking AoO from entering squares, it just doesn't seem worth it. As for Gaston attacks, I was trying to follow your tactics that said to assist Flamehair. He fell prone because Thwap was still up and had his bow in hand. The rats are a bit much... Either way no worries, Gaston is designed to be a one-on-one fighter so his effectiveness in these team things is less than optimal. He didn't use much that fight (nor did he have much chance anyway).
MitzaVolchenko 02-13-06, 08:03 PM	Mitza is majorly ill. I am going to try to stay conscious long enough tomorrow to get Sola's quest done on time. It will happen if I don't get any worse tonight. Otherwise, my plague bearing self is going to the emergency room. I'm sorry for not getting it done sooner.
Gonbow 02-13-06, 10:32 PM	Zwei vs Rethun is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8470157&postcount=221). My apologizes for lateness of the hour in which it was posted. I had it almost done earlier today, but got delayed. Speaking of almost-late fights; has anyone heard from Malither76?
Macbrea 02-13-06, 10:33 PM	Ok, that fight was strangely silly to run with this cold. Yes, I have same cold as Mitza happens that way. Anyways, here is Imperi vs Barthleby. And to answer a question before it gets asked. Spirital weapon moves back and hover by it's owner and will go back out and attack the same target without direction if the owner can draw line of effect to the person. You need to spend a move action to redirect it to another target but not the same target.
Sindorin 02-13-06, 10:58 PM	Let's take a vote: Who knew about the aid another trick being taught to animals being a breakable glitch in the rules but courteously left it out of the arena and our builds for the sake of the arena? Don't take that seriously. Seems like a lot of people knew that it was possible. I've messed with it in a game for one session and I only trained two bats that, once the DM figured out would be a great mess when I wanted to breed them, were quickly killed off. So what if my AC wanted to get up to around 100, my attack rolls for a single attack given a +100 modifier, or a simple skill check (like a knowledge or something crucial to the DM's planned mission) getting 100+. Right, mess. This glitch in the rules needs a house rule, or I am the guy who said "Let's take away 2/3 of a wizard's spells!" ~Sin
Malither76 02-14-06, 12:25 AM	Karen Douglas (Lonewolf) vs. Lortavos (Gonbow) is up
Luni 02-14-06, 01:21 AM	Ok, that fight was strangely silly to run with this cold. Yes, I have same cold as Mitza happens that way. Anyways, here is Imperi vs Barthleby. And to answer a question before it gets asked. Spirital weapon moves back and hover by it's owner and will go back out and attack the same target without direction if the owner can draw line of effect to the person. You need to spend a move action to redirect it to another target but not the same target. You got my hp's wrong. They are right as on the sheet. Look on every other lycanthrope to see that their hp's don't change from one form to the other. Also, I wouldn't of brought in the eagles unless I could attack with them. I don't really need them for spotting. I wasn't aware you was going to use Handle Animal Attack.
nickbeat 02-14-06, 01:46 AM	Davos (Lucanthrope) vs Daisy (DSugui): Nickbeat[ECL3] is up Please offer your suggestions on this, my first fight. It looks like Davos wins but I would like others to review. Thanks, Nick
Luni 02-14-06, 01:50 AM	Please offer your suggestions on this, my first fight. It looks like Davos wins but I would like others to review. Thanks, Nick Please add tactics to the fights. :) Also, I'd add the rolls themselves to the fight. Leave the link out, but put the number rolled in for easier viewing.
Pittbull 02-14-06, 01:51 AM	You got my hp's wrong. They are right as on the sheet. Look on every other lycanthrope to see that their hp's don't change from one form to the other. Also, I wouldn't of brought in the eagles unless I could attack with them. I don't really need them for spotting. I wasn't aware you was going to use Handle Animal Attack. I just logged in for a few seconds: I have no problem if the eagles are canceled totally, if Macbrea agrees. The change of HPs doesn't change the outcome, I believe. I just want to set Barthleby readies to craft next pairings and then I'm off to holiday. Yipee!
Luni 02-14-06, 01:59 AM	I just logged in for a few seconds: I have no problem if the eagles are canceled totally, if Macbrea agrees. The change of HPs doesn't change the outcome, I believe. I just want to set Barthleby readies to craft next pairings and then I'm off to holiday. Yipee! Changing the hp's won't make a difference. I just wanted to protest my innocence. :) Happy Holidays, Pittbull!
shadowmaster 02-14-06, 02:23 AM	Finrod (Lonewolf) vs. El'enees'ka (malakaiunseen) is up.
DTFarstar 02-14-06, 03:38 AM	@ Mitza & Macbrea - If it makes you feel better at all, I have gotten ill again as well. 7 illnesses in the past 10 years and 2 of those in less than a month. That cannot be a good sign. Anyway, just wanted to say I feel your pain. @ All- I'm dozing in and out and so is my net connection, I don't have the time to look this up. Can someone tell me if it is still possible to go to negative credits and if so how far? I want to join Myrridin's campaign, but noticed my lack of credits. Too bad we can't sell custom items for half-money and half-credits to the black market. Oh, how much is sending in a picture of yourself worth in credits? Anything? Thanks for listening, peoples.
malakaiunseen 02-14-06, 03:43 AM	Finrod loses and gains 300 xp and 372 gp El'enees'ka wins/loses and gains 900 xp and 951 gp :confused:Why does my fight say I got 951gp and not just 900? I'm guessing this must just be a typo. BTW :eek: Pheewf, that was close.
Kaigan 02-14-06, 04:31 AM	I am really sorry I have to do this, but can someone take these two fights from me? Secropiagor (Kedi) vs. Mizay (Katana) and Vandelar (SoulLord) vs. Talari (Luni) Tactics are here: Secropiagor's Tactics: Hey Kaigan, thanks for running this fight. Hmmm, this is what I dislike with spellcasters -their tactics are far too complex compared to hide and seek snipers'. -- Sec starts as close to wall as possible, having Scroll #4 and #6, Karthal flying next to him (30 ft away). Buffs: 1: False Life (Scroll) 2: Invisibility (Scroll) After buffs are completed, Sec'll run to the central pillars and wait. I expect him to use Invisibility to his advantage. Karthal will fly low and keep his position -30 ft away from me. If he appears (Karthal sees him or not), and he's somehow away from me (As in, if he doesn't appear after an invisible surprise attack), cast Web from Scroll. After that, draw Scroll #2, and cast three Shocking Grasp with Karthal (A creature may attack another creature entangled in a web, and won't necessarily will be entangled), and if it's not enough, blast with Burning Hands. Make note that Burning Hands, if cast on a creature entangled in Web, will make the web explode, thus dealing additional 2d4 fire damage. Even if that's not enough, start pinging with Magic Missile, memory to scrolls. If he attacks Karthal, proceed with Web plan. If my invisibility expires, repair. I don't think he'll be using two potions, so I'll be put in advantage this time. If you deem needed, feel free to use any spells - expandables I have, they are there to be used. If in trouble, Darkness - Cure Light Potion, keep on with Web and stuff after on (applicable whenever I'm hit.) Thanks again, and I hope you'll have fun with this, however boring I know it will be. (: Note: I think you might have noticed that I did not include anything backed up for grappling. If he ever tries to attack me and miraculously fails, execute Web in order. But if that ever happens, I'm pretty much dead anyway. I also have noticed two mistakes on my sheet; Init = +5 Ref = +2, not 12. Mizay's Tactics: When the fight starts I have a potion of invisibilty and a potion of mage armor in my hand. I wait 1 round and then use my potion of invisibility. Then I start looking for Secropiagor. If I see him i drink: my potion of mage armor (giving me +4 AC Wich makes my AC 19) potion of bull's strenght ( wich makes my strenght 24 so i have: Unarmed Strike +8 and 1d6+7 dmg Flurry Of Blows +7/+7 and 1d6+7 dmg and my grapple bonus becomes +13) and my potion of owls wisdom( wich makes my Wis 18 so I get another 2 AC so my AC becomes 21) (Spot becomes +10) I move towards him when im close to him I start a Grapple (+13) I ALWAYS grapple him. When he gets out of the grapple I grapple him again. If i grappled him trie to make flurry's and Unarmed Strike's. I IGNORE HIS FAMILIAR If my HP drops below 8 do a 5ft step back and use a potion of CLW. If I don't see him I trie to find him. If I really cant find him I assume he is invisible and I wait until i have 5 rounds of invisibility left and drink my potions like I said above. When he appears again just try to Grapple him and use flurry's and unarmed strikes. I ALWAYS KEEP HIM GRAPP'D If i forget to inform you about something please say it so I can say it. And the link to Vandelar vs. Talari is here: setup (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8412142&postcount=263). Thanks for whoever takes these. I thought I had time on the weekend, but it had suddenly become out of control. I've got my two other fights up, and I'm working on the third, but it's now 1:36 am, and I'm going on a trip early tomorrow, and won't be back till after pairings. Again, sorry to my gladiators, and thanks to whoever picks up the fight. Kaigan
Dracazar 02-14-06, 04:40 AM	I've replied to you on tavern... Looks like it's been a few pages. I posted it before tuesday or something like that, that I would have limited time to run the quest this week, maybe next week if you want to or that you could just get another ql if you could. I remember you were online at that time so I didn't bother to PM. My bad. And I had quite limited access to internet, as a matter of fact, I've just found the time to read tactics. As I said, I won't be able to run it this week, I'm sure you can find another lord to run it for you. If you can't, then I apologise for not properly informing you, and effectively causing your player to sit out one week. =/ Ok Kedi, no problem. Is there any questlord available? Uilo would like to go on a 3 week quest, so I would appreciate very much if the questlord can start the quest now so my only active char does not sit down this week. Then we can fasten the quest during next 2 weeks. Thanks.
Kaigan 02-14-06, 05:12 AM	Okay, 3 of my fights are up. Please look them over, hope nothing too drastic. 1) Donak vs. Hassan 2) Featylec vs. Dronnar and 3) Ivangar vs. Hennan I really hope nothing is too wrong with them because I'm away for the next couple of days. So if there is anything alarmingly wrong, I ask that it be rerun next pairings, and that I get -credits or something. Again sorry to those already mentioned in the post above, hopefully someone can take the fight. But now i need a vacation, so I'll see you guys after pairings, have a good one. kaigan
DSugui 02-14-06, 05:44 AM	Okay, 3 of my fights are up. Please look them over, hope nothing too drastic. 1) Donak vs. Hassan 2) Featylec vs. Dronnar and 3) Ivangar vs. Hennan I really hope nothing is too wrong with them because I'm away for the next couple of days. So if there is anything alarmingly wrong, I ask that it be rerun next pairings, and that I get -credits or something. Again sorry to those already mentioned in the post above, hopefully someone can take the fight. But now i need a vacation, so I'll see you guys after pairings, have a good one. kaigan I was expecting to lose this fight, so I don't really mind, but Force Screen does not count for touch attacks (only for incorporeal touch attacks), so Dronnar could have grappled in round 18, wich could have changed the outcome of the battle. I know there is no time for a re run and all, but I'd like at leats a comment about this. Thanks.
Vathelokai 02-14-06, 07:11 AM	Okay, 3 of my fights are up. Please look them over, hope nothing too drastic. 1) Donak vs. Hassan kaiganYes... all according to plan... mwahahaha..... Could you add the free activities? Hassan's slight of hand theft money.
Macbrea 02-14-06, 07:17 AM	I just logged in for a few seconds: I have no problem if the eagles are canceled totally, if Macbrea agrees. The change of HPs doesn't change the outcome, I believe. I just want to set Barthleby readies to craft next pairings and then I'm off to holiday. Yipee! Ok, by both players agreement we will cancel the eagles. As to handle animal, that would be the best reference to animals and non-humanoids. Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks. I would have to say by reading of that animals will not attack outsiders naturally.
Turin 02-14-06, 08:28 AM	@Turin: Please read your opponent carefully. Hennan is a human. :rofl: I read Snommelp's description of Hennan as "almost giant" and forgot to actually check the race! Well, it went pretty well for me in the end. At first I was a little confused on the interaction between mirror image and invisibility that we see in Round 6. But checking the FAQ it looks like you played it exactly right... good pitlording, sir! Thanks!
Turin 02-14-06, 08:35 AM	Lucanthrope has posted Anton Fael (TelinArtho) vs Dr. Hexacious Pogboomer (Turin). There is a major error in Rounds 6-7 that could have thrown the fight against Anton that I'd like to point out. Summon monster has a casting time of 1 round. Thus, my first fiendish scorpion would not appear until Round 7. I could then spend a standard action in round 7 to recall the spell. I could then start casting again in round 8, having the second fiendish scorpion appear in Round 9. (Un)fortunately, Dr. Hexacious Pogboomer lost the fight anyway to Anton's devestating mind thrust, so I'll simply concede the battle and say "good show" to Mr. TelinArtho. But I've seen this mistake with summon monster/astral construct twice in as many weeks, so I thought it important to point out.
Zevox 02-14-06, 08:47 AM	Thanks for running the fight Kaigan. I can imagine it must have been annoying - that is one long run-and-snipe battle, and I've run one or two similar to it before myself - but I knew out-meleeing him wasn't likely, so I wasn't about to do that. Still, overall looks good, just want to comment on one thing (which actually ties in with DSugui's comment). I was expecting to lose this fight, so I don't really mind, but Force Screen does not count for touch attacks (only for incorporeal touch attacks), so Dronnar could have grappled in round 18, wich could have changed the outcome of the battle. Technically, Featylec shouldn't have been taking AoOs when withdrawing (as in round 18) at all. Seems Kaigan mistook my request to "withdraw" (full-round action allowing me to move double my speed with no AoO from the first space of movement) for simply "double-move away." No need to alter anything for it - the fact that it won't change the outcome aside, its already late, and Kaigan's obviously busy, so I wouldn't ask at this point anyway - but I felt I should point it out for future reference. Anyway, again, thanks for running the fight Kaigan. :) Zevox
DSugui 02-14-06, 09:06 AM	Technically, Featylec shouldn't have been taking AoOs when withdrawing (as in round 18) at all. Seems Kaigan mistook my request to "withdraw" (full-round action allowing me to move double my speed with no AoO from the first space of movement) for simply "double-move away." No need to alter anything for it - the fact that it won't change the outcome aside, its already late, and Kaigan's obviously busy, so I wouldn't ask at this point anyway - but I felt I should point it out for future reference. Yeah, you're right. I knew that if I couldn't grapple I would be doomed... But my new character won't have this kind of problem... 50ft speed normally, up to 75ft. I wanna see anyone faster...
lonewolf 02-14-06, 09:09 AM	Finrod (Lonewolf) vs. El'enees'ka (malakaiunseen) is up. one small issue, but it could win me the fight: in round 5 Labra should have another chance delivering the ghoul touch, since she missed on round 4 if I interpret the rolls correctly and thus is still holding the charge on the spell. Also note that Labra has a touch attack of +6, not -3 as you used in the roll. If you could edit this one roll in I wold be grateful, and I hope it isnt too much work.
Vathelokai 02-14-06, 09:32 AM	Still working on the Sybil vs Rokk rerun.... almost to round 40 now... :banghead:
Snommelp 02-14-06, 09:47 AM	and 3) Ivangar vs. Hennan I'm not entirely sure when Invisibility ends, but it won't change much, if anything. I didn't expect to win this one.
Warclone 02-14-06, 10:09 AM	Hi Luni, thanks for running it, looks good. I had hoped you were able to squeeze in an attack from Gaston somewhere in there, I do see a few spaces where there was room for him to do so (don't know why you had him drop to the ground) but I don't want to nitpick over how your ran the fight because it generally looks good to me. I think Cat and Warclone should be happy with the win, because it could have easily gone the other way. @Caterane: I must say I am somewhat disappointed in you. You still didn't edit put in the correct movement speed for Wraith (40 ft.), even though he is always at medium encumbrance when Harvester rides it (thanks for seeing that and applying it correctly Luni!). I think the tricks with rats is just cheesy. I considered it myself some time ago (with ravens and weasels as alternative options), but found it to clearly a case of rule abuse and refrained from doing so. When I saw Harvester quest for the rats, I suspected you might go for some kind of nanobot abuse, even thought to include it in my tactics, but waited to give you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, you did go for the abuse, so I feel obliged to slap it down. A. opening a cage is at least a move action. I don't know where you stow the cage, but retrieving it is probably a move action as well. B. You have bunch of untrained rats that act on their own initiative. This not only means a headache for every Pitlord if your bring them, it also means they will scurry away from you (just like frightened natural rats) as soon as you open the box. C. Pushing animal as Harvester did is a full round action. Your tactics seem to assume it is a move action (or less), that is not correct. D. Luni pointed out a number of problems with your rat handling already. I think you need to roll a Handle Animal check for each rat separately (although you can command them simultaneously), some may follow the Harvester's command, others do not. E. Be well aware that most of my characters can easily get a bunch of animals and do the same, but I think it would just poison the enviroment if everyone walks around with a multitude of small critters. IMO the CoCo DM should know better than to employ such tactics, especially if he spends credits for custom items to make such tactics viable. F. I think you should be glad Luni adapted your tactics and did not make Harvester command those rats as a full-round action. Saying I cannot my focus because it is not prebuffed is a bit childish IMO. My characters don't prebuff these things any more out of principle, since there is no reason not to do so, and it cannot fail. I asked several times to have this useless prebuff rule removed but not gotten any responses (other than people agreeing with me). The same holds true for the reading of the scrolls or adressing of the powerstones. If every character capable of it must add it to his sheet, it is kind of useless to demand to add it and it should be assumed that those characters who can, do it. I am fine with you ruling that animals cannot have Wild Talent as a CoCo house rule, but then please remove weird tricks like Activate Tattoo from many of your character's allies as well. That would seem to be only fair if you invoke the 'common sense' clause. Sorry about the Heavy Load thing, it seems Flamehair was 2 lb. over her medium load. I know the minimum weight of a half giant, I especially pointed this error with Harvester out to you, because you initially had Harvester weight some 102 lbs., which was exactly what he needed to ride Wraith at light encumbrance with his standard equipment (not counting the tower shield 'at home'). The minimum weight of female half-giants (like Flamehair) is actually lower than that of male half-giants, and not 236 lbs. I also still have a problem with you not prebuffing anything of your equipment at home. How are we supposed to know that the Harvester is bringing a cage filled with rats? Should we make different permutations from his equipment at home? If things should be 'prebuffed' it should be non-obvious things as at home equipment. You used credits for Harvester to self-craft an item of Handle Animal. I don't think that is possible. Logically, this should be a druid item and have 'speak with animals' or something similar as prerequiste, and not be a prerequisite free item (none of the skill items are). Approving this as self-crafted looks like a case of rule bending to your advantage. Consider crafting a circlet of persuasion instead, it also gives Harvester the desired bonus to diplomacy. Your tactics speak of Flamehair should not be able to ready her shield to foil attacks, which is true, but your tactics also say this: "and the Harvester readies blacklight vs Gaston doing anything during Gaston's turn (no matter what; breathing if you like). Expand focus on this concentration check to auto-succeed. If Gaston moves or manifests, blacklight comes up - spoiling any targeted power." This seems to be clearly against the rule that auto-negating attacks with readied actions is not possible. Or does the rule apply to Flamehair and not to Harvester? To me it seems like you sometimes apply a different set of rules to yourself and to your opponents, which is kind of dangerous given your position. I had the same feeling when a week ago you suddenly ruled that Harvester could quest for allies before he had the required diplomacy bonus, I am very glad you reversed that. Let's end on a positive note though: I liked the refreshing tactics on H's part, no more invisibility-fly-true strike thingies etc. but something to mix it up. Whatever may be right or wrong on this issue, Cat is a human. Sometimes you guys deify him or perscribe him infalliability. Why is he here? Why does he put in so many hours of work for all of your benefit? Because he is a player. He likes D&D and he likes trying out new wacky things with the rules in the arena. I think if you are going to shoot down his rats in a cage concept you should do it like you would shoot any other player's concept down, and not with your chastising undertones because he is supposed to be better and have less fun than the rest of us.
Turin 02-14-06, 10:10 AM	I'm not entirely sure when Invisibility ends, but it won't change much, if anything. I didn't expect to win this one.Looks like it ended on Round 10, but Kaigan forgot the miss chance on Round 9 (technically I suppose he might have forgotten it on Round 8 too, but Ivangar rolled a 1 on his touch attack to start the grapple, so it's moot). I've just noticed that Kaigan's used the wrong miss chance for your invisibility as well (should be 50%), but again I think the best Hennan could hope for is another round or two.
TelinArtho 02-14-06, 10:26 AM	I'll send a PM to all involved quest members about this as well as pitlords - but my sincere apologies to everyone in these last two weeks from me. I am taking a leave from CoCo for my own personal well-being - and unfortunately the outstanding fights and quests will have to suffer - as well as the campaigns I was in. Again - my apologies - hope to see you all well in the future.
Macbrea 02-14-06, 10:30 AM	Sorry, to see you go Telin. Come back if you get bored. Good luck.
Huan 02-14-06, 10:36 AM	The Hunter fight Sappho=>Tiris=>Risal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8473084) is up. Short version: Amazingly, no one killed their intended target. A close finish with lucky rolls (both good and bad).
SoulLord 02-14-06, 10:38 AM	I am really sorry I have to do this, but can someone take these two fights from me? Vandelar (SoulLord) vs. Talari (Luni) And the link to Vandelar vs. Talari is here: setup (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8412142&postcount=263). Thanks for whoever takes these. I thought I had time on the weekend, but it had suddenly become out of control. I've got my two other fights up, and I'm working on the third, but it's now 1:36 am, and I'm going on a trip early tomorrow, and won't be back till after pairings. Again, sorry to my gladiators, and thanks to whoever picks up the fight. Kaigan Bumps it in hopes Talari and Vandelasr won't be held over a 3rd week, come on it's just a 9th lvl fight between a druid and a wizard how difficult could it be 40-50 rounds tops :)
DTFarstar 02-14-06, 10:38 AM	@Telin - I don't know if you will even check back to get this, but I just wanted to say that you will be missed while you are gone, and I hope you will come back later on. Also, tell your wife that at least one of the creepy message boards guys online hopes everything that everything goes ok and her healing process is swift and a painless as possible. So, say hello to you kids for me/us, and wish your wife well. I hope life is easier for you in the future, Telin. You are well-loved and will be missed, -Chris
Macbrea 02-14-06, 11:47 AM	Here are the current fights that are missing: LEVEL 3 FIGHTS Secropiagor (kedi) vs. Mizay Alamak (Katana) : Kaigan LEVEL 4 FIGHTS Fjörd (Begferdeth) vs. Evaine Dreamseeker (Ariel23) : TelinArtho [Week 2] Eiletha Surion (Kaigan) vs. Cid Highwing (Dr.Funk) : Kedi LEVEL 5 FIGHTS Ch'ch'ili (Begferdeth) vs. Lord Frost (Macbrea) : Ayrynthyn Perius (Ravashack) vs. Neidr (bgt) : Caterane LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs. Greefe (Ribking) : TelinArtho LEVEL 9 FIGHTS Vandelar the Red (SoulLord) vs. Talari Leafwhisperer (Luni) : Kaigan [Week 2]
Gonbow 02-14-06, 11:57 AM	I'll send a PM to all involved quest members about this as well as pitlords - but my sincere apologies to everyone in these last two weeks from me. I am taking a leave from CoCo for my own personal well-being - and unfortunately the outstanding fights and quests will have to suffer - as well as the campaigns I was in. Again - my apologies - hope to see you all well in the future. You'll be missed TelinArtho. I hope everything in RL is going well for you. We'll be waiting when you can come back.
Usurpator 02-14-06, 12:08 PM	Whatever may be right or wrong on this issue, Cat is a human. Sometimes you guys deify him or perscribe him infalliability. Why is he here? Why does he put in so many hours of work for all of your benefit? Because he is a player. He likes D&D and he likes trying out new wacky things with the rules in the arena. I think if you are going to shoot down his rats in a cage concept you should do it like you would shoot any other player's concept down, and not with your chastising undertones because he is supposed to be better and have less fun than the rest of us. While I agree with you that Cat is supposed to have fun and experiment just as we do, fact of the matter is that his words carries a lot of weight around here, and I consider him a kind of 'neutral arbiter' of the CoCo. The fact that Cat is both a player and a 'DM' means he has to apply double standards to himself, one for himself as a player, and one for himself as a DM. As a player he is allowed to try new things (within reason) even if they are rules abuses or loopholes, as a DM he should crack down on the very same things. It is not always clear to me when he has his player hat on and when he has his DM hat on. Last time Harvester was put in prison for questing for an ally without the requisite diplomacy skill. Cat argued that the rule should be interpreted differently, and was a holdover from an old CoCo version, and that it should be allowed, even though I don't think anyone agreed or ever read it that way. Was that his opinion as a player or as a DM? I don't know, but it looked like a DM opinion to me. I am very glad Luni ran the fight, and ignored his statements that 'Flamehair cannot use her psionic focus because she didn't prebuff', and treated him as a player, not a DM.
Usurpator 02-14-06, 12:19 PM	@Usurpator: Actually, the rats are trained with Aid Other. THerfore they could be commanded with a move action. I'd considered it as well, but with rats taking AoO from entering squares, it just doesn't seem worth it. I didn't see the tiny link. Still the question remains, how did Harvester train those rats? He would need at least Handle Animal +10 to do so himself, which he does not have, and would need to spend 48 weeks of free activities to do so, and not 1 week during a quest. Cat even stated a few weeks ago 'no fight, no free activity' when I wanted to train animals during crafting. Alternately Harvester can pay 48 * 50 gp. to give the rats the aid another trick, but I don't see such a payment. Did Huan give him trained rats for free? But as I said before, I think you ran the fight well. It was just unfortunate that Gaston couldn't get one shot of, with a little luck it might have won us the match.
Caterane 02-14-06, 12:24 PM	Usurpator, if I have done anything that personally offended you I apologize. I will adress all issues you brought up but there's seem to be a level of annoyance swinging in your post. Let me answer your remarks. @Caterane: I must say I am somewhat disappointed in you. You still didn't edit put in the correct movement speed for Wraith (40 ft.), even though he is always at medium encumbrance when Harvester rides it (thanks for seeing that and applying it correctly Luni!). The movement of a light warhorse is 60ft and this is what is listed. It might be the case that I send it rider-less into battle. And I have explicitely mentioned to Luni that my horse moves 40ft. I think the tricks with rats is just cheesy. I considered it myself some time ago (with ravens and weasels as alternative options), but found it to clearly a case of rule abuse and refrained from doing so. When I saw Harvester quest for the rats, I suspected you might go for some kind of nanobot abuse, even thought to include it in my tactics, but waited to give you the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, you did go for the abuse, so I feel obliged to slap it down. I don't see an abuse here. Aiding another is part of the rules. The rats can all be killed with a single area spell or an acid flask if you like which is affordable and available for everyone. If you could explain me what I did wrong (morally) I'd be happy. A. opening a cage is at least a move action. I don't know where you stow the cage, but retrieving it is probably a move action as well. I stow the cage on my horse, or on my back, or wear it chinese-style on my head, or where ever you like. And who says it must be a closed cage. It could also be an open hand-basket. B. You have bunch of untrained rats that act on their own initiative. This not only means a headache for every Pitlord if your bring them, it also means they will scurry away from you (just like frightened natural rats) as soon as you open the box. They are not untrained. And no one suggests to roll seperate initiatives for each and every rat. And they scurry no more away than your horse. Which trick is it that makes them not run away? C. Pushing animal as Harvester did is a full round action. Your tactics seem to assume it is a move action (or less), that is not correct. They know the aid another trick so it's a DC 10 move action. As you can see, it is correct. D. Luni pointed out a number of problems with your rat handling already. I think you need to roll a Handle Animal check for each rat separately (although you can command them simultaneously), some may follow the Harvester's command, others do not. No, I need to roll only one check for all rats. If you shout "GET HIM!!" to your pack of bloodhounds you can be sure that all burst into action, not just the left one. If your theory would be true then you could not for example command a horse invisibly, or give commands to a blind dog, because if you need a check for the individual animal this animal also has to see you to know you mean it and not the dog 1ft next to it. A Handle Animal check is a move action so I cannot do a HA check for each animal. As you can see, what you suggest is against the rules. E. Be well aware that most of my characters can easily get a bunch of animals and do the same, but I think it would just poison the enviroment if everyone walks around with a multitude of small critters. IMO the CoCo DM should know better than to employ such tactics, especially if he spends credits for custom items to make such tactics viable. Yes, please let them. This would give area spells and effects more power. I assure you that any of my characters can deal very well with this trick if others use it. You will also see the disadvantages soon enough if you try it out yourself. F. I think you should be glad Luni adapted your tactics and did not make Harvester command those rats as a full-round action. You already said the same twice, marked as C and D. They know the trick so it's a move action. Saying I cannot my focus because it is not prebuffed is a bit childish IMO. My characters don't prebuff these things any more out of principle, since there is no reason not to do so, and it cannot fail. So everyone can just ignore the rules out of principle? If your characters don't want to prebuff with it, that's fine but don't complain when they don't have it available. I asked several times to have this useless prebuff rule removed but not gotten any responses (other than people agreeing with me). The same holds true for the reading of the scrolls or adressing of the powerstones. If every character capable of it must add it to his sheet, it is kind of useless to demand to add it and it should be assumed that those characters who can, do it. If you read the Rules of Gladius: Arena Combat II, you will see that you do not need to prebuff with addressing a stone or reading a scroll. This is explicitely mentioned in the rules. Unlike focusing. I am fine with you ruling that animals cannot have Wild Talent as a CoCo house rule, but then please remove weird tricks like Activate Tattoo from many of your character's allies as well. That would seem to be only fair if you invoke the 'common sense' clause. The rule that prevents psionic feats is long in the FAQ. We added it right after someone bought a horse with the Up the Walls feat. The trick I use, on the other hand, is actually just a variation of the Perform trick. I taught the animals to hit a certain spot on their body and coincidently I placed a tattoo on that spot. The animal has no idea what a tattoo is but unknowingly activates it. I think you can now see the difference. Sorry about the Heavy Load thing, it seems Flamehair was 2 lb. over her medium load. I know the minimum weight of a half giant, I especially pointed this error with Harvester out to you, because you initially had Harvester weight some 102 lbs., which was exactly what he needed to ride Wraith at light encumbrance with his standard equipment (not counting the tower shield 'at home'). The minimum weight of female half-giants (like Flamehair) is actually lower than that of male half-giants, and not 236 lbs. No problem. I didn't even know Flamehair was female. I wrote "him" in my first version of the tactic. I also still have a problem with you not prebuffing anything of your equipment at home. How are we supposed to know that the Harvester is bringing a cage filled with rats? Should we make different permutations from his equipment at home? If things should be 'prebuffed' it should be non-obvious things as at home equipment. The equipment at home section is just there to keep my sheet clean. It lists things I don't use in every fight in a seperate section. I don't see how putting every home item into my equipment section helps the pitlord in reading my sheet. If a home section would be invalid, I'd just crowd my equipment section with all my stuff and mention in my tactic what I leave at home. It's just the other way around. Your suggestion just decreases the clarity. You used credits for Harvester to self-craft an item of Handle Animal. I don't think that is possible. Logically, this should be a druid item and have 'speak with animals' or something similar as prerequiste, and not be a prerequisite free item (none of the skill items are). Approving this as self-crafted looks like a case of rule bending to your advantage. Consider crafting a circlet of persuasion instead, it also gives Harvester the desired bonus to diplomacy. Telling me what a logical spell requirement for a custom item is is highly subjective. It could just aswell be Eagle's Splendor (like what the Circlet of Persuation you proposed needs). The circlet gives me +3 on all cha-checks; I just needed HA. You also seem to accuse me of approving an item myself (Pitlords/Caterane) that should not be valid. If you check the Blackmarket, you'll see that items that grant skill boni have been bought all along. I am surprised that you jump up now that I finally buy one too. It's even mentioned in the blackmarket list. Your tactics speak of Flamehair should not be able to ready her shield to foil attacks, which is true, but your tactics also say this: "and the Harvester readies blacklight vs Gaston doing anything during Gaston's turn (no matter what; breathing if you like). Expand focus on this concentration check to auto-succeed. If Gaston moves or manifests, blacklight comes up - spoiling any targeted power." This seems to be clearly against the rule that auto-negating attacks with readied actions is not possible. Or does the rule apply to Flamehair and not to Harvester? Ignoring the sarcasm in that post, no, there's a big difference. Ready actions that spoil spells are not forbidden. You can ready a fireball to spoil spellcasting by doing damage, you can ready silence to spoil spellcasting by robbing speech, you can ready to become invisible to spoil a spell, and you can ready blacklight to spoil spellcasting by robbing sight. These are absolutely okay ready actions. Why? Because you can make yourself immune to fireball or pass the concentration check, you can memorize silent spells or use a rod, and you can use touchsight to counter blacklight. You cannot however circumvent someone taking fullcover behind a towershield. To me it seems like you sometimes apply a different set of rules to yourself and to your opponents, which is kind of dangerous given your position. So you are accusing me of what? Please tell me straight in the face. I had the same feeling when a week ago you suddenly ruled that Harvester could quest for allies before he had the required diplomacy bonus, I am very glad you reversed that. As I explained, the intend of the rule is clear: to quest ahead of time. It was written a year ago and it was badly worded. I would have the allies now, well, now I have them one week later. I don't care in the least, and it's of no advantage to me. Still, I reversed it because of such accusations. Please tell me what advantage I would have had to quest for them ahead of time. I have now responded to all your concerns, and I think I have explained all of them so that you don't have to be 'disappointed in me' anymore. PS: Let's end on a positive note though: I liked the refreshing tactics on H's part, no more invisibility-fly-true strike thingies etc. but something to mix it up. Let's end on a positive note: finally a nice thing you said to me in this long post.
Usurpator 02-14-06, 12:24 PM	@WarClone: Flamehair did beat Thwap though, one-on-one no less. :P Not too bad for a +1 LA multi-class psion I would say.
Warclone 02-14-06, 12:26 PM	The Hunter fight Sappho=>Tiris=>Risal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8473084) is up. Short version: Amazingly, no one killed their intended target. A close finish with lucky rolls (both good and bad). Good fight! One big problem that shouldnt be very hard to correct, but can very well change the fight completely: Tiris defensively casts Cure Moderate Wounds from memory (Concentration 13 vs DC 17 (failed, provokes AoO from Sappho, Attack 21 vs AC 19 (hit: 10 dmg))). When you defensively cast, you do not provoke an AOO whether you succede or fail. If you fail, the only penalty is that the spell is lost. Also, I have not used my luck reroll yet (which is fine). This means: I get at least 2 more attack rolls in the form of 1 attack (another attack using luck reroll if my first attack misses). Edit: Regarding the PM I sent you, I may be wrong about the hunter victor targetting issue I mentioned. Review the hunter rules again if you like, and make up your own opinion on what I said.
Biota 02-14-06, 12:38 PM	The Hunter fight Sappho=>Tiris=>Risal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8473084) is up. Short version: Amazingly, no one killed their intended target. A close finish with lucky rolls (both good and bad). Huan, a couple of things Round 4 [Tiris defensively casts Shield scroll (Concentration succeed; ASF failed), so drops scroll and draws Greatsword.] [Risal sneaks southward.] [Sappho rages and attacks Tiris, Attack 20 vs AC 19 (hit: 11 dmg), and adjusts closer post-attack.] Tiris: HP: 12/23; (4,2) ... Round 5 [Tiris defensively casts Cure Moderate Wounds from memory (Concentration 13 vs DC 17 (failed, provokes AoO from Sappho, Attack 21 vs AC 19 (hit: 10 dmg))).] [Risal hears battle and moves in that direction.] [Sappho attacks Tiris, Attack 20 vs AC 19 (hit: 11 dmg).] Tiris: HP: 2/23; (4,2) [2 Spells left] Failing to cast defensively (as in round 5) doesn't provoke. On the other hand it doesn't look like you deducted the points from my melee hit in that round anyway. I don't think it changes anything since this is the case. Biota
lucanthrope 02-14-06, 12:38 PM	Lucanthrope has posted Anton Fael (TelinArtho) vs Dr. Hexacious Pogboomer (Turin). There is a major error in Rounds 6-7 that could have thrown the fight against Anton that I'd like to point out. Summon monster has a casting time of 1 round. Thus, my first fiendish scorpion would not appear until Round 7. I could then spend a standard action in round 7 to recall the spell. I could then start casting again in round 8, having the second fiendish scorpion appear in Round 9. (Un)fortunately, Dr. Hexacious Pogboomer lost the fight anyway to Anton's devestating mind thrust, so I'll simply concede the battle and say "good show" to Mr. TelinArtho. But I've seen this mistake with summon monster/astral construct twice in as many weeks, so I thought it important to point out. I totally forgot that Summon Monster was like that. I will be sure to remember that for future fights. However, I see no reason to make any changes since there weren't any major detrimental affects. The summons still didn't inflict enough damage to put Anton under, and neither did your Scorching Ray which would have been delayed by a couple of rounds. Anton would have still used Mind Thrust once he knew for sure that you were invisible. If either player is upset about the fight enough to have me rerun/make changes, and thus postpone their gladiators for another week, I will.
SauroGrenom 02-14-06, 12:54 PM	The rule that prevents psionic feats is long in the FAQ. We added it right after someone bought a horse with the Up the Walls feat. The trick I use, on the other hand, is actually just a variation of the Perform trick. I taught the animals to hit a certain spot on their body and coincidently I placed a tattoo on that spot. The animal has no idea what a tattoo is but unknowingly activates it. I think you can now see the difference. I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that: "A psionic tattoo produces its effect when touched by its wearer and willed to do so." I would have some trouble allowing a rat to "will" the effect of a psionic tattoo. Although a rat could be trained to touch the tattoo no problem. That's not enough in my mind to activate the thing.
DSugui 02-14-06, 01:03 PM	The rule that prevents psionic feats is long in the FAQ. We added it right after someone bought a horse with the Up the Walls feat. The trick I use, on the other hand, is actually just a variation of the Perform trick. I taught the animals to hit a certain spot on their body and coincidently I placed a tattoo on that spot. The animal has no idea what a tattoo is but unknowingly activates it. I think you can now see the difference. I don't want to take sides in this matter, but this came to my attention: Activation A psionic tattoo produces its effect when touched by its wearer and willed to do so. I don't think someone can actually unknoweingly activate a tatoo, since one must will the activation.
nickbeat 02-14-06, 01:11 PM	Rules question: If I draw a wand and heal myself, can I still gain cover from my mount during that round? What if the opponent has an action readied to attack when the wand is used?
NiQil 02-14-06, 01:14 PM	I stow the cage on my horse, or on my back, or wear it chinese-style on my head, or where ever you like. And who says it must be a closed cage. It could also be an open hand-basket. Wanted to address this. Regardless of where it is carried, all non-weapon objects take a move action to draw, unless specified otherwise. And your idea of an open basket won't work unless you have some way to prevent the rats from climbing said basket and getting out on their own. I agree with Usurpator....at least two move actions or one full round action to access the cage and free the rats. They are not untrained. And no one suggests to roll seperate initiatives for each and every rat. And they scurry no more away than your horse. Which trick is it that makes them not run away? There are rules for animals in combat. Any animal not trained for combat gets scared at the first sign of combat and will flee, unless trained not to. These rats will flee. I'll get you a quote when I have a little more time to find it. No, I need to roll only one check for all rats. If you shout "GET HIM!!" to your pack of bloodhounds you can be sure that all burst into action, not just the left one. If your theory would be true then you could not for example command a horse invisibly, or give commands to a blind dog, because if you need a check for the individual animal this animal also has to see you to know you mean it and not the dog 1ft next to it. A Handle Animal check is a move action so I cannot do a HA check for each animal. As you can see, what you suggest is against the rules. Usurpator is correct about this. You do need to make a check for each animal. Using your example, shouting "Get Him" to the bloodhounds is the command. The HA check is to determine how well they respond to that command, which much be done individually. Please provide a quote that says that you can check all animals together. The HA skill does not state this. It states that handling an animal is a move action...not handling animals. You already said the same twice, marked as C and D. They know the trick so it's a move action. As Usurpator asked, when were these rats trained? On your quest? Each rat must be trained individually, which cannot be accomplished in one week if you have more than 2. Or are you saying you received trained rats as a quest goal? So everyone can just ignore the rules out of principle? If your characters don't want to prebuff with it, that's fine but don't complain when they don't have it available. If you read the Rules of Gladius: Arena Combat II, you will see that you do not need to prebuff with addressing a stone or reading a scroll. This is explicitely mentioned in the rules. Unlike focusing. @ Usurpator: Cat is correct about this. Gaining focus is a prebuff that must be stated. Addressing stones or reading scrolls are specifically states as prebuffs that are considered automatic. Maybe gaining focus should also be automatically assumed, but at present it isn't. The rule that prevents psionic feats is long in the FAQ. We added it right after someone bought a horse with the Up the Walls feat. The trick I use, on the other hand, is actually just a variation of the Perform trick. I taught the animals to hit a certain spot on their body and coincidently I placed a tattoo on that spot. The animal has no idea what a tattoo is but unknowingly activates it. I think you can now see the difference. This is completely incorrect. Activating a tattoo requires a mental command, not a physical one. Again, I'll be more than happy to provide a quote when I have more time. This justification is way off base. The equipment at home section is just there to keep my sheet clean. It lists things I don't use in every fight in a seperate section. I don't see how putting every home item into my equipment section helps the pitlord in reading my sheet. If a home section would be invalid, I'd just crowd my equipment section with all my stuff and mention in my tactic what I leave at home. It's just the other way around. Your suggestion just decreases the clarity. This is something that we have brought up constantly, Cat. What is the point of having an At Home section if you can use everything there without listing it as being carried? Why not just have one equipment section? The only clarity issues are that this appears to be a way around giving away what equipment you will be carrying at any given time, and getting around encumbrance. Either the At Home section needs to be off limits to characters when they fight, or we should eliminate it and then everyone needs to carry everything the own and spend move actions to drop things they don't want to carry at the beginning of a fight. Ignoring the sarcasm in that post, no, there's a big difference. Ready actions that spoil spells are not forbidden. You can ready a fireball to spoil spellcasting by doing damage, you can ready silence to spoil spellcasting by robbing speech, you can ready to become invisible to spoil a spell, and you can ready blacklight to spoil spellcasting by robbing sight. These are absolutely okay ready actions. Why? Because you can make yourself immune to fireball or pass the concentration check, you can memorize silent spells or use a rod, and you can use touchsight to counter blacklight. You cannot however circumvent someone taking fullcover behind a towershield. While your logic is sound here, Cat, Usurpator is correct about the wording of your ready action. It does violate the ready rules. Readying vs any action is not a valid trigger.
nickbeat 02-14-06, 01:16 PM	I would think that any animal has a will, and can learn that touching the tattooo results in an action. See: B. F. Skinner Experiments.
Luni 02-14-06, 01:22 PM	Fjörd (Begferdeth) vs. Evaine Dreamseeker (Ariel23) : TelinArtho [Week 2] I'll send them a PM to see if they can send me tactics. Even though I won't be able to run it until tonight, tomorrow morning, they probably won't want it held over another week.
TelinArtho 02-14-06, 01:30 PM	@Luni - I'm still lurking in from time to time - I'll forward those tactics presently. Thanks for picking it up.
TelinArtho 02-14-06, 01:34 PM	LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs. Greefe (Ribking) : TelinArtho To my knowledge - I never received Greefe's tactics (though admittedly - it might be in my email and I just haven't seen it. Since I'm not sure - I'm not inclined to forward this fight to another - but rather have it held over just in case.
SauroGrenom 02-14-06, 01:36 PM	I would think that any animal has a will, and can learn that touching the tattooo results in an action. See: B. F. Skinner Experiments. Interesting point, although I don't think it reay applies in this case. The animal needs to will that the tattoo take effect, and in my opinion it would be too abstract a thing to train to an animal. The animal could have a will to do somehting or to eat something or whatever. Willing a magical item to take effect is streatching it too far in my opinion. *Shrug* But that's just my opinion and not necessarily in the RAW at all.
SauroGrenom 02-14-06, 01:40 PM	To my knowledge - I never received Greefe's tactics (though admittedly - it might be in my email and I just haven't seen it. Since I'm not sure - I'm not inclined to forward this fight to another - but rather have it held over just in case. Aww, nuts! That was going to be Rebreg's last wrestling match before retirement into the graveyard. If you hold it over then one of my other two character's probably won't get to fight next week. *Sigh* Do what you've got to do.
Ayrynthyn 02-14-06, 01:45 PM	@ Begferdeth & Macbrea - Lord Frost's Tactics vs Ch'Ch'ili Tactics received, thanks guys. I'll start running this late tonight. Sorry about not having my fight done yet guys. This is two weeks in a row. :surrender I was about to throw myself on the mercy of the court here, but seeing the state of things, i'll have to get to this tonight. Sorry again. If someone is looking to pick up an extra fight i'll gladly give it up, if not then tonight. Again.. i appologize. My dad's real sick. Big "C". Bites hard. so im spending all my free time over there. Plus work is riding me like a rented mule. In weeks past i have had time at work to run these things, but friday and monday were brutal. Sorry.
Macbrea 02-14-06, 01:51 PM	Well, whomever picks that one up it should be a fast fight. Either the Ch'ch'ili will kill Frost in under 5 rounds or Frost will kill the Ch'ch'ili in same number of rounds.
MindWandererB 02-14-06, 02:07 PM	Looks like it ended on Round 10, but Kaigan forgot the miss chance on Round 9 (technically I suppose he might have forgotten it on Round 8 too, but Ivangar rolled a 1 on his touch attack to start the grapple, so it's moot). I've just noticed that Kaigan's used the wrong miss chance for your invisibility as well (should be 50%), but again I think the best Hennan could hope for is another round or two.And even if Hennan did get that extra round or two, he'd lose it again to the Invisibility/Mirror Image thing. The text under Mirror Image specifically says "if you are invisible or an attacker shuts his or her eyes, the spell has no effect." So FYI, that was a mistake, although under the circumstances it doesn't really need to be corrected. I would think that any animal has a will, and can learn that touching the tattooo results in an action. See: B. F. Skinner Experiments.Well, you just happen to have a psychologist on the board. Operant conditioning is an extremely surface-level type of behavior. You could easily train a rat to touch the tattoo on command (although I'm not sure how well rats respond to spoken commands--those are never used, to my knowledge, and I'm sure there's a reason), but training it to "will" the tattoo's activation is pretty much impossible. More intelligent animals, like primates or dolphins, can be taught by modeling (showing them someone else, like another tattooed animal created with Silent Image, activating the tattoo and getting a reward), but rats just don't learn that way. You have no way of teaching them what "activating" the tattoo means. If I were DM and one of my players wanted to use this trick, I would require them to hire a druid with Speak with Animals so that the trainer could explain to the rat exactly what it means to activate a tattoo. They probably wouldn't need to have Speak with Animals running every minute of the training period, but they would need to cast it a couple of times a day. For 48 rats, that would cost about 20 gp/day, or 140/rat. Add that to the training cost of 50 gp, and I come up with 9120 gp to train the whole "portfolio."
nickbeat 02-14-06, 02:12 PM	Interesting point, although I don't think it reay applies in this case. The animal needs to will that the tattoo take effect, and in my opinion it would be too abstract a thing to train to an animal. The animal could have a will to do somehting or to eat something or whatever. Willing a magical item to take effect is streatching it too far in my opinion. *Shrug* But that's just my opinion and not necessarily in the RAW at all. Pegeons have been trained to click a green button to open a door or a red one to get food. I would agree the nature of will is simple, but a tattoo is just like a button. I might rule that they could not target someone using the tattoo, but merely activate something that effects the user only. BTW: Any response on my Mount cover question?
Warclone 02-14-06, 02:16 PM	@WarClone: Flamehair did beat Thwap though, one-on-one no less. :P Not too bad for a +1 LA multi-class psion I would say. You beat thwap because he spent his entire effort killing your horse for the sake of the team battle so H could finish you two off (which he did). It's alot easier to beat an opponent who isn't attacking you.
Macbrea 02-14-06, 02:24 PM	I need to just add these as the default tactics for Lord Frost. If you don't send the tactics to whomever runs that fight. Just use these tactics. :P I don't mind iffin he sees them. They weren't gonna change anyways. Your a dragon warrior never forget that! If target is visible charge him! If target is not visibile fly up 40ft and forward 55ft and look.[Move] - If target is visible fly to over his spot[Double Move] - if target isn't visible fly to opposite side of arena over start spot.[Double Move] If target wasted the invisibility spell (in otherwords not visible) fly from start position to start position looking for him. - You have blindsense 60ft - After trying all the start position fly through the center. - If I still cannot find him fly through all the pillar sections If flying and you charge dive - Dives with a white wyrmling takes you into the opponents square because they must be done with talon/claws - Dives do double claw damage If you have charged/dived at target keep entering his square to force him to move out of yours - Claws are 0ft reach - Bite is upto 5ft reach If Grappled Breath on the him every 1d4 rounds after making concentration check - Expend focus for take 15 on concentration check first round of grappled Basicly, your doing bite, claw, claw every round Don't worry about healing you don't have any
SauroGrenom 02-14-06, 02:49 PM	Pegeons have been trained to click a green button to open a door or a red one to get food. I would agree the nature of will is simple, but a tattoo is just like a button. I might rule that they could not target someone using the tattoo, but merely activate something that effects the user only. At the risk of getting too philosophical... Can you say that the pigeon in your example is willing that food be produced when it touches the button? Or is it rather just trained that when it hits a certian button it gets food? Since it's a bird it eats like 2 times its weight each day and is always hungry. It probalby wants food all the time. In my opinion you cannot say that each time the bird hits a red button it wills food to be created by the machine. Instead the bird simply hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food,..... untill it's need for food is lower than its need to go to the other side of the cage and sniff something or whatever. It's reasonable for the bird to will its beak to hit the button, or for its wings to flap or whatever. However you're suggesting that each time the bird hits the red button it wills the machine to make food. It's one thing to think that animals have a will that applies to there own bodies performing actions. It's an entirely different thing to say that they have wills that apply the behaviour of abstracted things beyond there own selves. For me that's too much. Activating a psionic tattoo is both hitting a button and having a thought at the same time. You must think "make a Skate effect" at the time you touch the thing inorder to activate it.
MindWandererB 02-14-06, 03:04 PM	At the risk of getting too philosophical... Can you say that the pigeon in your example is willing that food be produced when it touches the button? Or is it rather just trained that when it hits a certian button it gets food? Since it's a bird it eats like 2 times its weight each day and is always hungry. It probalby wants food all the time. In my opinion you cannot say that each time the bird hits a red button it wills food to be created by the machine. Instead the bird simply hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food, hits the button and eats some food,..... untill it's need for food is lower than its need to go to the other side of the cage and sniff something or whatever. It's reasonable for the bird to will its beak to hit the button, or for its wings to flap or whatever. However you're suggesting that each time the bird hits the red button it wills the machine to make food. It's one thing to think that animals have a will that applies to there own bodies performing actions. It's an entirely different thing to say that they have wills that apply the behaviour of abstracted things beyond there own selves. For me that's too much. Activating a psionic tattoo is both hitting a button and having a thought at the same time. You must think "make a Skate effect" at the time you touch the thing inorder to activate it.It's worse than you imply. If it were "touch the tattoo and will it to make food," I'd buy that. But since it's a second-order effect--"touch the tattoo and will it to make me slide around, and then I get food"--a rat or pigeon can't do that. What's more, training it to do this would require it to burn through literally hundreds of tattoos for practice. Additionally, you'd have to train it seperately for each type of tattoo, since willing it to have its effect is different depending on what its effect is. Another interesting point--when training animals like this, it can be hard to get them to stop doing what they're trained to do. It's possible--you can train a pigeon to hit a lever only when a light is turned on--but you need some kind of signal like that. Otherwise, the animal will just keep on using tattoos. So better make sure the animal doesn't have more than one.
Macbrea 02-14-06, 03:20 PM	On animals being taught to tap tatoos and wether they have the will in D&D to activate them. Psionic Powers Overview Psionic powers spring from sentient minds. Even an undead creature or a being that has no physical form can create a reserve of inner strength necessary to manifest powers, as long as it has an Intelligence score of at least 1. Vermin possessed of a hive mind ability are an exception to this rule.
MindWandererB 02-14-06, 03:29 PM	The Hunter fight Sappho=>Tiris=>Risal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8473084) is up. Short version: Amazingly, no one killed their intended target. A close finish with lucky rolls (both good and bad).Major Issue: rewards are wrong. Sappho was first to die, and his hunter (Risal) gets the credit for it even though he didn't deal the finishing blow. +300 gp/xp. His target then changes to Tiris, whom he did kill. +300 gp/xp. So the rewards should be: Risal 1500 gp, 1500 xp; Tiris 300 gp, 300 xp; Sappho 357 gp, 300 xp.
nickbeat 02-14-06, 03:35 PM	Food is just a lower order need that a rat might have. Rats can be trained to open doors and all osrts of maze fun. "Make me Skate" is also a need they might have, though perhaps a higher order need. Granted, the cost of training would be very expensive.
nickbeat 02-14-06, 03:44 PM	Davos (Lucanthrope) vs Daisy (DSugui): Nickbeat[ECL3] is up I made some changes, though the outcome is the same. This is my first arena fight, so I took tactics round by round at the beginning then finished up at the end based on tactics. DSugui was very helpful and polite with corrections. I would like to rule in favor of Davos for this one, just due to sheer dice rolls. The question of cover is still in some debate though. Thanks, Nick
SauroGrenom 02-14-06, 04:20 PM	If a fight is held over, then does that character count as an "Active" character with regard to how many characters are active and credit cost to keep a character active and all. If so it is kind of unfair to have that happen to you because you only get one weeks worth of activity but must pay 2 credits for it.
Caterane 02-14-06, 05:41 PM	So, so. I have to make a seperate Handle Animal check for each rat, I have to teach the trick to each rat individually, and they all run away in all directions anyway as soon as they're freed (unlike animals on other sheets). And above all I am abusing the rules and disappoint and whatnot. You know what? I scrap the whole rat thing. I could perhaps argue some points through but it's not worth it because the rats are not the reason anyway. Second quest in a row that has been turned to dust :bored: FYI: I don't care about the rats at all. I thought it was a cool RP-idea that suited the Harvester, and I also liked the story on how he got them. They give me a little bonus if they survive but that's just so that they're not completely useless. Now some shoot it down by interpreting rules in the worst way possible until I cannot play them anymore. Fine. Same thing with the elementals last week. Questing ahead of time with enough skills but insufficient ECL is totally okay for everyone, but the other way around is not even though it's the absolute same effect. Well, fine too. What makes me upset, however, is the undertone in it. It's not "Hey Cat, let's talk about the rats, couldn't it be that this and that", no, it's "Cat, I'm disappointed in you" or "Cat you abuse your position". Rules violations happen daily. Perhaps we should begin every prison violation post with "<name>, I am really disappointed in you". In my case it wasn't even a violation but an unclear rule that could just aswell be in my favor. Again: I don't care about having rats or not and I don't care wether I have the elementals one week earlier or not but the recent displeasure and accusing undertones on this board, part of it directed at me, makes me ask myself for the first time why I am doing all this. I wish we could put the word 'fun' back on top of our priority list.
NiQil 02-14-06, 06:03 PM	So, so. I have to make a seperate Handle Animal check for each rat, I have to teach the trick to each rat individually, and they all run away in all directions anyway as soon as they're freed (unlike animals on other sheets). And above all I am abusing the rules and disappoint and whatnot. You know what? I scrap the whole rat thing. I could perhaps argue some points through but it's not worth it because the rats are not the reason anyway. Second quest in a row that has been turned to dust :bored: FYI: I don't care about the rats at all. I thought it was a cool RP-idea that suited the Harvester, and I also liked the story on how he got them. They give me a little bonus if they survive but that's just so that they're not completely useless. Now some shoot it down by interpreting rules in the worst way possible until I cannot play them anymore. Fine. Same thing with the elementals last week. Questing ahead of time with enough skills but insufficient ECL is totally okay for everyone, but the other way around is not even though it's the absolute same effect. Well, fine too. What makes me upset, however, is the undertone in it. It's not "Hey Cat, let's talk about the rats, couldn't it be that this and that", no, it's "Cat, I'm disappointed in you" or "Cat you abuse your position". Rules violations happen daily. Perhaps we should begin every prison violation post with "<name>, I am really disappointed in you". In my case it wasn't even a violation but an unclear rule that could just aswell be in my favor. Again: I don't care about having rats or not and I don't care wether I have the elementals one week earlier or not but the recent displeasure and accusing undertones on this board, part of it directed at me, makes me ask myself for the first time why I am doing all this. I wish we could put the word 'fun' back on top of our priority list. And by the same token, Cat...making sweeping accusations that everyone is saying these things to you doesn't sit well with me. My post was nothing more than clarifiying the rules of several of the arguments you made. Some in your favor, some not. I made no accusation of anything. As for putting fun back on top of our priority list...if it wasn't fun, I wouldn't be here. Do I have moments where I am not having fun? Sure. We all do. But if we are going to have fun doing this, then shouldn't we do it by the rules we play by? Otherwise, what's the point of having the rules? We can all just start claiming anything we want, and damn the rules. Or, we can all be civilized and play by the rules that we have all agreed to play by. As you said, violations happen every day. We all make them. I don't see how someone calling you on yours is any different than someone calling me on mine. Could it have been said differently to you? Most certainly. I won't dispute that. But does that make the errors any less valid? Nope.
Caterane 02-14-06, 06:29 PM	My post was nothing more than clarifiying the rules of several of the arguments you made. Some in your favor, some not. You agreed with me on the focus prebuff which is in the rules. The other things - all related to my character - were and are still unclear, and you shot them all down. As I said, could just as well be my way. You sell it off as RAW by asking me for quotes that you don't have either. And by the same token, Cat...making sweeping accusations that everyone is saying these things to you doesn't sit well with me. Please quote where I said 'everyone'.
nickbeat 02-14-06, 06:56 PM	"Ahem!" (Officer Krebky strolls into the tavern...) "I'm afraid I'm gonna have to ask you two to take this outside." He is holding two wands, pointing them at Cat and Niqil. What do you do?
Huan 02-14-06, 07:18 PM	@MindWandererB Thanks for the Rewards correction; I never get it right with Hunter fights. Corrected it now. @Warclone What extra attack are you talking about? (I hope its not the round with the failed casting, because that's not possible) I did not use your luck reroll for a missed attack contingency becasue all your attacks hit. Please note my comment on the scroll as well.
Ariel23 02-14-06, 08:24 PM	@ Luni, Begferdeth Ok, by both players agreement we will cancel the eagles. As to handle animal, that would be the best reference to animals and non-humanoids. Attack (DC 20): The animal attacks apparent enemies. You may point to a particular creature that you wish the animal to attack, and it will comply if able. Normally, an animal will attack only humanoids, monstrous humanoids, giants, or other animals. Teaching an animal to attack all creatures (including such unnatural creatures as undead and aberrations) counts as two tricks.I would have to say by reading of that animals will not attack outsiders naturally. LOL! Being an Elan finally pays off. I would think that any animal has a will, and can learn that touching the tattooo results in an action. See: B. F. Skinner Experiments.Psionic tattoos are a lot more expensive than rat treats. @Caterane I think the rat thing is a fine concept, it's been discussed on other Wizco boards, so it's not unprecedented. I also think some of the rules and rats would need to be clarified, and some would probably work out for Harvester and some would not. That's pretty typical of any unusual character concept. Just about any interpretation of a rule you're looking for, you can easily find 5 people on the boards that will oppose it. I honestly believe for the most part that it's not personal, I wouldn't worry about it. Do note, though, that one of the reason for prisons is to shame people into behaving according to society's rules. So we really could say "I'm disappointed in you" to everyone with a violation. :D
NiQil 02-14-06, 09:34 PM	You agreed with me on the focus prebuff which is in the rules. The other things - all related to my character - were and are still unclear, and you shot them all down. As I said, could just as well be my way. You sell it off as RAW by asking me for quotes that you don't have either. Please quote where I said 'everyone'. First and foremost, let me respond to the second part first. The tone of your post indicated and implied that you were laying blanket blame on everyone. You did not say everyone. It just came across that way. If you did not intend this, then chalk it up to a misunderstanding. As you request, Cat, here is where I am coming from with regard to your rats. These creatures generally operate on instinct, driven by simple needs such as food and reproduction. Most animals, even predators, do not attack unless they or their young are threatened. Animals are not capable of detailed reasoning, although with the Handle Animal skill it is possible to tame an animal and teach it to perform certain tricks. This is where I see that animals not trained for combat will flee. Here is further evidence: Warhorses and warponies can serve readily as combat steeds. Light horses, ponies, and heavy horses, however, are frightened by combat. This supports this idea, since warhorses and warponies are trained for combat (with the appropriate tricks), where as heavy and lights horses and ponies are not (without specific training otherwise). Horses have a 2 Int, just like rats. Finally, we look at the rat entry in the SRD itself, and we find: Rats usually run away. They bite only as a last resort. Put all that together, and you get that without proper Handle Animal training, rats will flee combat. As for requiring a Handle Animal check on each rat, there is this: Handle an Animal: This task involves commanding an animal to perform a task or trick that it knows. If the animal is wounded or has taken any nonlethal damage or ability score damage, the DC increases by 2. If your check succeeds, the animal performs the task or trick on its next action. I don't see it referring to plural animals at all. I see an animal, as I said. So a check for each rat would be required. Training the rats is something also covered by the HA skill: Teach an Animal a Trick: You can teach an animal a specific trick with one week of work and a successful Handle Animal check against the indicated DC. An animal with an Intelligence score of 1 can learn a maximum of three tricks, while an animal with an Intelligence score of 2 can learn a maximum of six tricks. Possible tricks (and their associated DCs) include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following. This falls into the same category...an animal vs animals. As for activating a psionic tattoo, I said this is a mental, not a physical act. I was slightly in error there...it's both: A psionic tattoo produces its effect when touched by its wearer and willed to do so. This activity, called "tapping" the tattoo, is a standard action that provokes attacks of opportunity. Since your justification is that they are merely hitting a spot on their bodies where you happened to place a tattoo, that won't work. They have to will the tattoo to work as well...they can't "unknowingly" tap it, as you stated. They would need to be trained to think in a certain way at the same time they hit that spot, which I don't think anyone could justify a way to train an animal to do. The At Home Equipment issue is something that is brought up time and time again. No reason to have an At Home section if you are going to use stuff that you are not carrying on you. If you are going to allow the swapping of equipment from at home, then we may as well eliminate an at home section, and just require that equipment worn be specified in tactics. With regard to the ready action, our own ready rules prevent what you wrote. Your intent may not have been the same as what you wrote, but what you wrote violated the ready rules, because readying vs "anything, even breathing" is not a specific trigger.
Ayrynthyn 02-14-06, 10:31 PM	@ Begferdeth & Macbrea - Lord Frost vs Ch'Ch'ili ...characters and tactics are posted in the Battles thread. Working out the details now, but you guys can feel free to edit/maintenance you characters if needed. Guts of the fight should be up in the next few hours, and then rewards to follow.
SauroGrenom 02-14-06, 11:15 PM	LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Rebreg Eennoss (SauroGrenom) vs. Greefe (Ribking) : TelinArtho Is there any chance that this fight can get done this weeK? I'd like to retire Rebreg after this week so that he'll be ECL7 and he can get a place of respect in the graveyard. Telin says that no tactics were recieved for Greefe. It would be realy great if this fight didn't go into next week. I have two other characters that I'd rather have active than Rebreg's last horrah fight. Please someone if you can pull this together and finish the fight. I sent a PM to Ribking asking for tactics to be sent so that the battle can be resolved this week. I don't want to spend the credit to have a third character active two weeks in a row (but only get one weeks worth of actual character actions) and also have one of my other characters be inactive due to the "State of Emergency" limit on active characters. I even ran a fight and a MQ last week but only got two active characters. I feel like I'm getting a bit jacked here, not by anyone but rather the system. I'd realy appreciate it if someone would pickup this fight in the 11th hour and make a couple of problems for me just go away. Thanks, Sauro P.S. I just got a PM from Ribking that he wants to surrender the fight and it should have also gone to Telin. Perhaps someone can make the post so that I can edit and retire Rebreg.
Ayrynthyn 02-14-06, 11:58 PM	@ Begferdeth & Macbrea - Lord Frost vs Ch'Ch'ili ...characters and tactics are posted in the Battles thread. Working out the details now, but you guys can feel free to edit/maintenance you characters if needed. Guts of the fight should be up in the next few hours, and then rewards to follow. Alrighty... this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8478603#post8478603) is done. Since ive never dealt with Flyers and my psionics knowledge is less than robust, can i get another set of eyes on this. 3 rounder, all the psionicists. I'm real concnernd with my movements for Lord Frost...even if there were only two. Oh, and getting stunned by a ready action durring a charge while in mid air. I think i got it, but if not... well we'll see.
MitzaVolchenko 02-15-06, 12:47 AM	Alrighty... this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8478603#post8478603) is done. Since ive never dealt with Flyers and my psionics knowledge is less than robust, can i get another set of eyes on this. 3 rounder, all the psionicists. I'm real concnernd with my movements for Lord Frost...even if there were only two. Oh, and getting stunned by a ready action durring a charge while in mid air. I think i got it, but if not... well we'll see. Presuming the math is right on your rolls, you did fine. The readied action has become the in vogue way to steal initiatives of late. It was perfectly legit in this case and poor saves killed the wyrmling as much as anything else. It should be noted that readied actions require specific triggers and it has been debated as to whether or not a character can instantly tell at what precise range someone else is. I personally say by this time every gladiator can pace the arenas off in their sleep and should be able to specify any amount of range they like for any action. There has been no ruling against it as yet, so looks fine all around. Poor greedy little wyrmling got cooked and Ch'ch'ili gets a solid win against Macbrea's little nightmare stable of characters ;)
Vathelokai 02-15-06, 07:26 AM	Well, it's not pretty, but it's done.... Sybil vs Rokk is posted. Hope everyone has time to update their sheets.
Macbrea 02-15-06, 07:30 AM	Alrighty... this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8478603#post8478603) is done. Since ive never dealt with Flyers and my psionics knowledge is less than robust, can i get another set of eyes on this. 3 rounder, all the psionicists. I'm real concnernd with my movements for Lord Frost...even if there were only two. Oh, and getting stunned by a ready action durring a charge while in mid air. I think i got it, but if not... well we'll see. Yup, was perfectly fine. In truth, I knew the fight was done in 5 rounds or less either way. He has good capabilities of killing Frost outright. So, good win for Ch'ch'ili! EDIT: oh, rewards are off when you get a chance: You put: Ch'ch'ili wins and gains 1500 xp and 1500 gp (1500 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession) Lord Frost looses and gains 500 xp and 500 gp (500 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession) Should be: Ch'ch'ili wins and gains 1500 xp and 1600 gp (1600 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession) Lord Frost looses and gains 500 xp and 533 gp (533 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession)
Ayrynthyn 02-15-06, 08:16 AM	Yup, was perfectly fine. In truth, I knew the fight was done in 5 rounds or less either way. He has good capabilities of killing Frost outright. So, good win for Ch'ch'ili! EDIT: oh, rewards are off when you get a chance: You put: Ch'ch'ili wins and gains 1500 xp and 1500 gp (1500 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession) Lord Frost looses and gains 500 xp and 500 gp (500 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession) Should be: Ch'ch'ili wins and gains 1500 xp and 1600 gp (1600 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession) Lord Frost looses and gains 500 xp and 533 gp (533 Arena + 0 Craft/Profession) Rewards adjusted. I was a bit surprised by the outcome myself. I still question the "coreness" of psionics (open gameing and in SRD <> core IMHO), but those are some pretty beefy "spells" for second level. Wow... just wow. Anyway, congrats to the victor and sorry again for the delay.
TroubleWolf 02-15-06, 08:33 AM	Well, it's not pretty, but it's done.... Sybil vs Rokk is posted. Hope everyone has time to update their sheets. Thanks for running, Vathelokai. I apologize that my tactics made for a long, drawn-out battle, but when you're a big grapply galoot, standing back and letting a bard pepper you with arrows doesn't sound like a good option. ;)
Vathelokai 02-15-06, 08:38 AM	Thanks for running, Vathelokai. I apologize that my tactics made for a long, drawn-out battle, but when you're a big grapply galoot, standing back and letting a bard pepper you with arrows doesn't sound like a good option. ;) I'd complain, but I'm guilty of using the same tactic on multiple occasions ;) Especially the forest gnome hiding in the obscuring mist.... got a lot of milage out of that... Honestly you could have stood and been peppered. Both of you had to roll 20s to hit each other (except for the touch attack, of course).
Macbrea 02-15-06, 08:50 AM	Rewards adjusted. I was a bit surprised by the outcome myself. I still question the "coreness" of psionics (open gameing and in SRD <> core IMHO), but those are some pretty beefy "spells" for second level. Wow... just wow. Anyway, congrats to the victor and sorry again for the delay. Was no problem, I know the capabilities of Ch'ch'ili at this point as I believe he has fought almost every one of my characters. He is good at this point I think until he reaches 10th. Then , I will probably challenge him with Marcus in the arena.
Dracazar 02-15-06, 09:18 AM	It seems I got no reply about my request for a questlord. So I think that my char (Uilo) will be sitting this week, or is there any workaround? If I have to sit for Feb08 then I'll not start the quest at all, and keep Uilo inactive until state of emergency leaves. Any feedback will be appreciated.
malakaiunseen 02-15-06, 09:52 AM	I still question the "coreness" of psionics (open gameing and in SRD <> core IMHO Sooo in agreeance with this^^ Its enough just to take a look around at how many ppl use psionics(incld. items) to tweak out a normal build to realise that it might be just a little broken.
Begferdeth 02-15-06, 10:44 AM	Woo! Chili the Dragonslayaaaaaa! That should take him off the 'failure' list right there. I mean, slaying a dragon is hard! @Mitza: I know some people dont like the 'know the exact range' thing. But this was an AoE power, and it was only 30' away... Chili can actually automatically tell when that range hits because thats when he can smell them :) Alrighty... this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8478603#post8478603) is done. Since ive never dealt with Flyers and my psionics knowledge is less than robust, can i get another set of eyes on this. 3 rounder, all the psionicists. I'm real concnernd with my movements for Lord Frost...even if there were only two. Oh, and getting stunned by a ready action durring a charge while in mid air. I think i got it, but if not... well we'll see.
MitzaVolchenko 02-15-06, 11:39 AM	Well, it's not pretty, but it's done.... Sybil vs Rokk is posted. Hope everyone has time to update their sheets. Much better...same result but character was used in a far more intelligent manner...thank you.
SoulLord 02-15-06, 11:50 AM	Looks around for Vandelars fight. Well it seems I won't have to be concerned about Vandelar reaching the frozen league :)
Ariel23 02-15-06, 01:34 PM	Yay! Week 3 holdover coming up. I blame Fjord. :P
SoulLord 02-15-06, 01:44 PM	Suddenly Has Flash backs of Illuminati. I loved the card & the board game ... I think I even have the gurps supplement :) Fnord!
Begferdeth 02-15-06, 09:35 PM	I blame Fjord too :) The only person with more allies than him is the Harvester... Should he be required to name all his rats so that we can tell them apart? :P Yay! Week 3 holdover coming up. I blame Fjord. :P
Sindorin 02-15-06, 10:52 PM	Sokai has quite a few allies and i need to get him questing for more at some point...