| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| TelinArtho01-11-06, 03:17 PM | Good morning 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. There are two active questions about tower shields and the cost of items requiring xp (powerstones/tattoos in particular). The deadline is in about 40 minutes - so finish up! |
| Luni01-11-06, 03:43 PM | Good luck to everyone! |
| TelinArtho01-11-06, 03:57 PM | I've got 2 miniquests and a regular quest I think - so be looking for them. @Kaigan - Feradeth is going on a full quest right? ECL4? @Zevox and ... Ulfgar's player... - I'll have your MQs up shortly. |
| Altaris1301-11-06, 04:03 PM | Good luck to all! I hope we see some regular 1vs1 matches this week in the ECL3 league. I went ahead and made a new Gladiator now that Mini has advanced to ELC5 and Thelgar started there. Y'all need to take it easy on Rohan, ok? He'll gladly accept any and all surrenders. :D |
| nightbanegod01-11-06, 04:21 PM | speaking of new characters.... ive officially exiled Crovax and have replaced him with..JR. Pet'te F'tal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8183688&postcount=636) ... so someone in the ECL 7 league will have some problems if he gets paired... |
| Luni01-11-06, 04:22 PM | And here I am working hard on an ECL 5 Character with 50 AC. And I'm not even ready for this week. :( I should work faster. |
| waywreth01-11-06, 04:26 PM | Quest for Vathelokai, TelinArtho, and Myrridin has been started, feel free to begin posting. Quest: "Grounding the Dragon" (EL10+) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8205565) |
| SoulLord01-11-06, 04:31 PM | do we still have time for edit? I need to buy a potion of fly before vandelar is paired against dameon :) |
| nightbanegod01-11-06, 04:32 PM | And here I am working hard on an ECL 5 Character with 50 AC. And I'm not even ready for this week. :( I should work faster. LOL 50 AC? how the heck.... well not as bad as my character i was gonna make with 2 hp.... decided the kobold was cooler |
| Book501-11-06, 04:50 PM | Hey look! Both my characters are edited and ready! :rolleyes: |
| TheMagister01-11-06, 04:59 PM | edit: moved to Warfare Alliance thread. tm |
| TheMagister01-11-06, 07:07 PM | Ha! "Just for fun." Sorry! Sdentch is MQing for Membership into the Warfare alliance. I kind've ran out of room in the subject line of her character sheet. Just posting here for clarification... TM |
| Turin01-11-06, 07:13 PM | Okay, I've been given a monster fight to Pitlord, and I've got a question about the rewards/treasure. The rules say to assign treasure using the Wealth by NPC level chart, which in this case results in 3300gp. So do I randomly select treasure and equipment totalling 3300gp, do I simply give the monster 3300gp worth of equipment, or what? What's more, the monster in question is a large-size zombie, so most equipment will be useless to the gladiator. Do I use the "3/4ths rule" used on quests to determine the amount? Help, I'm confused! |
| Pitlords01-11-06, 07:23 PM | Pairings Done! Credit assignments tomorow. I have some important things to tell so please read it. The maximum duration of Campaigns must be decreased. Every second Campaign is aborted or has some character drop-outs. If there is need for more time then the Campaignlord can just continue with a new Campaign and call it Part 2 (but with a new credit cost for the players). The new maximum will be 15 weeks. The running Campaigns should try to finish within the next time. Week 30 is the absolute deadline and I will shut down every Campaign in that week so please make sure you're done then. Tellish's Campaign "A History Lesson" will be shut down. The characters are free again. If someone could check the rewards of this campaign so far (and add or substract gold depending on the Items found) I would give credits for this job. Just write me a PM that you want to do it. From next week on, Miniquests can have any EL just like Quest but you may not determine your opponoment or know it in advance. That means, if you quest for an ally, the ally won't be your foe but someone else who you don't know. I have thought very long and hard about this. Remember that you could chose your opponent which makes it much easier to defeat it. Miniquests were supposed to be a way for those who have no credits for a real Quest. However, they became popular options on their own so we have to include them better into the system. Now that they are more attractive and not more expensive than an arena fight we have to prevent characters going on miniquests only. So you can only have as many [Q] tags as your ECL. This is no problem if you go on regular quests but miniquests will fill your allotment pretty quickly. We also need to do something with expendables because they're too powerful in the coco. Access to every ressource in unlimited quantities is bad enough but being able to buy higher CL items is too much. From next month on we will restrict the max CL of scrolls and powerstones to your ECL (not ECL+2 as it is now). You can still buy higher CL expendables by paying credits as usual. You have three weeks time to use up your expendables. Anything not used by February 8 will be refunded for full price. We should also begin a discussion on how to better handle expendables. I'll open a thread soon. New Topics that need to be discussed soon will be the above mentioned expendable nerving, but also we can begin to discuss Random Arenas. My proposal is to make another roll that says in which arena the fight takes place. Most will stay in the arena but there will be a certain percentage that takes place on the Dungeon Map and the Grand Hall Map. Perhaps a second Arena would be necessary. Sneak Preview: NiQil had a very good idea for a new fight type. I don't want to give away too much but it is called "Capture the Flag". Sounds very interesting and will be discussed soon. Guildmasters must chose a second in command if they haven't done so already, and this one needs the password. Keep in mind that you must NEVER attempt to log in when the other guy has the account or an alarm goes off at the WotC HQ. They're not happy with the various Board Accounts of the CoCo even so don't give them reason to come up with bad ideas please. If we finish the Random Events: Famine and Drought we can start the Random Event system soon. There are also other things in the Council that need to be solved. Your help is appreciated. Ok so far so good. Feedback appreciated. Cat @Turin: It's a zombie so it has no equipment. The Rewards can be found <here>. If Karen wins she gains 1200 xp/gp; if she loses she only gains 400 each. Hope that helps. Credit Changes: +10: Huan +6: Iced +5: Caterane, DTFarstar, Mitza +4: Warclone +2: Altaris, Begferdeth, Book5, Lonewolf, Luni, Mal-2, Maraxus, Macbrea, Pittbull, SauroGrenom, Skojar, Snommelp, TelinArtho, Turin, Zevox, Waywreth, KingUther +1: Ariel23, Cerebus, Papapeperoni, Sindorin +0: Gonbow, Kaigan, Myrridin -1: Vathelokai, NiQil -2: Dracazar -4: Usurpator If you want to know your credit breakdown, PM me. |
| lonewolf01-11-06, 07:25 PM | Okay, I've been given a monster fight to Pitlord, and I've got a question about the rewards/treasure. The rules say to assign treasure using the Wealth by NPC level chart, which in this case results in 3300gp. So do I randomly select treasure and equipment totalling 3300gp, do I simply give the monster 3300gp worth of equipment, or what? What's more, the monster in question is a large-size zombie, so most equipment will be useless to the gladiator. Do I use the "3/4ths rule" used on quests to determine the amount? Help, I'm confused! first: If the monster has a "none" in its treasure entry, it has no equipment, period. second: The gladiator always gains gold as a reward and ignores the monsters equipment. |
| Turin01-11-06, 07:41 PM | Ah! Thanks, Lonewolf & Cat... That clears it up nicely. |
| Pitlords01-11-06, 07:45 PM | Change in pairings (Cyra Val is ECL 5) |
| TheMagister01-11-06, 07:47 PM | Sent a PM to Pitlords about possibly pairing The White Hand (ECL5) with one of the gladiators from the ECL5 All vs. All. I figured this would be a welcome change, as the general attitude of the CoCo is unfavorable towards all the group fights that we've had lately. We'll see what Cat posts... TM |
| Pitlords01-11-06, 07:49 PM | White Hand needs to be added soooo... Karen Douglas (Lonewolf) vs Ajora (King Uther): Turin The White Hand (TheMagister) vs Cyra Val (Stormwind): Papapeperoni |
| SoulLord01-11-06, 07:54 PM | Interesting I was expecting that vandelar would be fighting dameone now instead we have 4 Hound archons and 2 troglodyte clerics lvl 5 @Luni. Can we get the equipment and spells from our foes before we start writing tactics also will we be using the standard arena map? it seems like it would be too crowded otherwise. |
| Pitlords01-11-06, 07:55 PM | Interesting I was expecting that vandelar would be fighting dameone now instead we have 4 Hound archons and 2 troglodyte clerics lvl 5 @Luni. Can we get the equipment and spells from our foes before we start writing tactics also will we be using the standard arena map? it seems like it would be too crowded otherwise. Nope. Dungeon Arena it is. They'd be at a severe disadvantage in the wide open space of the Standard Arena. That's why we made a new map. |
| lonewolf01-11-06, 07:56 PM | White Hand needs to be added soooo... Karen Douglas (Lonewolf) vs Ajora (King Uther): Turin *sigh* I already sent Tactics against the Zombie with a 99.99% chance of winning. I doubt fighting Ajora will be as simple. :weep: |
| NiQil01-11-06, 08:45 PM | @ MitzaVolchenko: Tactics for Famine sent via PM. @ Snommelp: Tactics for Pestilence sent via PM. @ Huan: Tactics for War sent via PM. Roleplay sent via second PM. @ Snommelp: Tactics for Death sent via PM. |
| TheMagister01-11-06, 09:09 PM | Tactics sent to Papa via PM for The White Hand vs. Cyra Val (ECL5). Good luck to Vandelar and Dameon in tight quarters with those Hound Archons with cleric support. That's gonna be ugly. I'd rather fight Sdentch in a phone booth. TM |
| Altaris1301-11-06, 09:23 PM | @Cerebrus: tactics for Thelgar vs Donak sent via email @Zevox: tactics sent for Mini vs Leif Grudgematch sent via PM. My condolences friend. Thanks in advance. |
| Huan01-11-06, 09:52 PM | @NiQil Tactics and RP received for War, thank you very much. @SoulLord Do you use Y! or AIM? If so, contact me so we can discuss tactics. @TheMagister Thanks... it'll be quite the brawl, to be sure. |
| Snommelp01-11-06, 09:58 PM | Sdentch's miniquest has begun here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=567337). |
| DTFarstar01-11-06, 09:59 PM | @Gonbow - Tactics for Darius sent via PM. @Warclone - Tactics for Challak sent via PM. |
| Sunwolf01-11-06, 10:01 PM | @Zevox Tactics for Leif sent by PM Sunwolf |
| Zevox01-11-06, 10:04 PM | @Zevox: tactics sent for Mini vs Leif Grudgematch sent via PM. My condolences friend. Thanks in advance. Recieved. I haven't looked at them yet though, and that statement is frightening me a bit... @Zevox Tactics for Leif sent by PM Recieved. I'll try and run the fight Friday, as its late today and tomorrow I've got both school and work to deal with. @ Lonewolf - The earliest you can expect tactics for Destra (Destra vs Trixie) is Friday, for the reason I mentioned above. I'll be sure to get them to you at some point then though. @ TelinArtho - Just making sure you notice that as well - I'll probably not be able to do much with Alboreth's MQ tomorrow. Probably not a big deal, but I believe in being thorough about these things :) . Zevox |
| Luni01-11-06, 10:11 PM | Interesting I was expecting that vandelar would be fighting dameone now instead we have 4 Hound archons and 2 troglodyte clerics lvl 5 @Luni. Can we get the equipment and spells from our foes before we start writing tactics also will we be using the standard arena map? it seems like it would be too crowded otherwise. I'll send you two a PM of the equipment later tonight. I'm at work right now, so I don't have the time to come up with equipment. @Caterane: Random arena would rock! |
| Snommelp01-11-06, 10:43 PM | All tactics sent. Tactics for Death and Pestilence received. |
| Book501-11-06, 10:45 PM | @Ariel23 & Warclone - Tan and Ba'al tactics sent PM (respectivly) |
| Ravashack01-11-06, 11:32 PM | Tactics for Perius have been sent in to Caterane by email. |
| TelinArtho01-11-06, 11:37 PM | Received tactics for Hennan. @Zevox - no problem. If things get tight, since it is only EL1 - it shouldn't be too much of an issue to finish it up - even if I didn't have input from you. Once the encounter's done we can always continue with the roleplay if needed as well. |
| Gonbow01-12-06, 12:09 AM | @Gonbow - Tactics for Darius sent via PM. @Warclone - Tactics for Challak sent via PM. Tactics recieved. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-12-06, 12:40 AM | @Skojar tactics and revised tactics received for Weiniete. @ NiQil tactics for Famine received. I will run the fight tomorrow. @Telin I will get Ural's MQ set up tonight or tomorrow. I am still debating what I want to face you up with. I have read the lead in from the CEF thread and frankly I am trying to figure out why the thugs are attacking beggars...I mean what really do beggars have that thugs want? I suppose we shall find out. I have some notions that might lead to a nice quest/campaign for the goody two shoes of CEF. @Pitlords...a million blessings on you for dropping the FFA madness. I would have retired Sybil to rp only if she had been handed another auto-loss. |
| Macbrea01-12-06, 12:50 AM | Gorak not sure he can catch fast Elan woman. He think it wise ideal to shoot her in legs so she fall down then cut her to pieces with axe! @Begferdeth: Gorak's Tactics sent. (Ahm... I guess they are a bit more complex then Gorak thinks) |
| ^Rayne^01-12-06, 01:30 AM | :( I meant to have Krayko active this week and I updated the sheet but forgot to update the date at the top of the sheet to the 11th. I just made an edit to make him ready for the 18th since I already blew this week. However if it is possible to get Krayko a fight this week, I would really like to have one. Is this possible? Thanks, Karl (aka ^Rayne^) |
| Erithmu01-12-06, 01:47 AM | @Altaris13: tactics for Sola sent via PM (I hate druids!) @Macbrea: tactics for Loddick sent via PM. I hate druids! (3 weeks in a row and counting.) |
| Luni01-12-06, 02:35 AM | Troglodyte (5th level cleric) Size/Type: Medium Humanoid (Reptilian) Hit Dice: 7d8+28 (59 hp) Initiative: -2 Speed: 30 ft. (6 squares) Armor Class: 26 (-2 Dex, +6 natural, +9 Armor (Fullplate), +3 Shield {Heavy Steel)), touch 8, flat-footed 26 Base Attack/Grapple: +4/+5 Attack: [ma] Club +6 melee (1d6+1) or claw +5 melee (1d4+1) or javelin +3 ranged (1d6+1) Full Attack: [ma] Club +6 melee (1d6+1) and bite +3 melee (1d4); or 1 claws +5 melee (1d4+1) and bite +3 melee (1d4); or javelin +3 ranged (1d6+1) Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Stench Special Qualities: Darkvision 90 ft.; Rebuke Undead; Rebuke/Command Reptillian Creatures and Snakes; rebuke/Command Air Creatures Saves: Fort +11, Ref +1, Will +7 Abilities: Str 13, Dex 6, Con 18, Int 8, Wis 16, Cha 12 Skills: Hide +5*, Listen +3, Concentration +9 Feats: MultiattackB, Weapon Focus (javelin), Brew Potion, Lightning Reflexes Domains: Scalykind, Earth Spells: (5/5/4/3) 0th-Detect Magic; Guidance (2); Light; Resistance; 1st-Bane (2), Bless , Shield of Faith, Magic Fang (D) 2nd-Aid, Bull's Strength, Sound Burst, Soften Earth and Stone (D) 3rd-Dispel magic, Magic Circle Against Good, Stone Shape (D) Equipment: +1 Full Plate, +1 Heavy Steel Shield, Masterwork CLub, 10 javelins, 2 Scrolls Cure Light Wounds, Wooden Holy Symbol Hound Archon Size/Type: Medium Outsider (Archon, Extraplanar, Good, Lawful) Hit Dice: 6d8+6 (33 hp) Initiative: +4 Speed: 40 ft. (8 squares) Armor Class: 19 (+9 natural, +7 Armor), touch 10, flat-footed 26 Base Attack/Grapple: +6/+8 Attack: Bite +8 melee (1d8+2) or greatsword +9 melee (2d6+3/19-20) or Longbow +7 Ranged (1d8/x3) Full Attack: Bite +8 melee (1d8+2) and slam +3 melee (1d4+1); or greatsword +9/+4 melee (2d6+3/19-20) and bite +3 melee (1d8+1) or Longbow +7/+2 Ranged (1d8/x3) Space/Reach: 5 ft./5 ft. Special Attacks: Spell-like abilities Special Qualities: Aura of menace, change shape, damage reduction 10/evil, darkvision 60 ft., immunity to electricity and petrification, magic circle against evil, scent, spell resistance 16, teleport, tongues Saves: Fort +6 (+10 against poison), Ref +5, Will +6 Abilities: Str 15, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 13, Cha 12 Skills: Concentration +10, Diplomacy +3, Hide +9*, Jump +15, Listen +10, Move Silently +9, Sense Motive +10, Spot +10, Survival +10* (+12 following tracks) Feats: Improved Initiative, Power Attack, Track Equipment: [Ma] Half Plate, [Ma] Greatsword, [Ma] Comp. Longbow (Mighty +2), 40 Arrows Spell-Like Abilities At will—aid, continual flame, detect evil, message. Caster level 6th. Aura of Menace (Su) Will DC 16 negates. Change Shape (Su) A hound archon can assume any canine form of Small to Large size. While in canine form, the hound archon loses its bite, slam, and greatsword attacks, but gains the bite attack of the form it chooses. For the purposes of this ability, canines include any doglike or wolflike animal of the animal type. Skills *While in canine form, a hound archon gains a +4 circumstance bonus on Hide and Survival checks. Archon Traits An archon possesses the following traits (unless otherwise noted in a creature’s entry). Darkvision out to 60 feet and low-light vision. Aura of Menace (Su): A righteous aura surrounds archons that fight or get angry. Any hostile creature within a 20-foot radius of an archon must succeed on a Will save to resist its effects. The save DC varies with the type of archon, is Charisma-based, and includes a +2 racial bonus. Those who fail take a -2 penalty on attacks, AC, and saves for 24 hours or until they successfully hit the archon that generated the aura. A creature that has resisted or broken the effect cannot be affected again by the same archon’s aura for 24 hours. Immunity to electricity and petrification. +4 racial bonus on saves against poison. Magic Circle against Evil (Su): A magic circle against evil effect always surrounds an archon (caster level equals the archon’s Hit Dice). (The defensive benefits from the circle are not included in an archon’s statistics block.) Teleport (Su): Archons can use greater teleport at will, as the spell (caster level 14th), except that the creature can transport only itself and up to 50 pounds of objects. Tongues (Su): All archons can speak with any creature that has a language, as though using a tongues spell (caster level 14th). This ability is always active. If anyone notices anything wrong, let me know. :) |
| Luni01-12-06, 03:10 AM | @Vathelokai: Tactics for Ariel Sent. @Macbrea: Tactics for Imperi Sent. |
| MysticMonk200501-12-06, 03:56 AM | @Iced: Tactics for Lissa Vs Dr.Hobo sent via E-Mail. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-12-06, 04:01 AM | @Warclone Tactics for Sybil sent...this is gonna hurt. @Telin MQ is up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8212940#post8212940) Feel free to post. I will check back in a few hours. |
| lonewolf01-12-06, 04:40 AM | @Luni: I am not involved in the fight, but Hound Archons are not proficient with armor, so you might want to think over the decision giving them Half plates. |
| Pittbull01-12-06, 06:04 AM | All my tactics are sent. |
| Pitlords01-12-06, 08:04 AM | Credits assignment here. |
| Altaris1301-12-06, 08:33 AM | @Rith: tactics recieved. Interesting they are too. I have to question the rules on a couple bits, but I'll wait until I receive your opponents tactics to post my questions. @Mitza: Zwei's miniquest is here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8213676#post8213676). |
| Turin01-12-06, 08:45 AM | I already sent Tactics against the Zombie with a 99.99% chance of winning. I doubt fighting Ajora will be as simple.Tactics received and being reviewed. Running this fight won't be as simple, either. I was looking forward to writing the zombie's tactics: "Brrrrraaaaaaiiiinnnsss..." :D Edit: also, Cat, in the credits listing you've awarded me 2 credits this week but I'm only pitlording 1 fight. |
| waywreth01-12-06, 08:57 AM | @Snommelp - Tactics sent for Histal in Pestilence (NiQil) vs Histal Dar'ath (waywreth) @Ariel23 - Tactics sent for Gaston in Tan (Book5) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) |
| Cerebus1301-12-06, 09:04 AM | @Altaris13 - Tactics recieved. @Mal-2 - Waiting on tactics still. @Iced - Tactics for Dr. Hobo sent through email. @MitzaVolchenko - Still writing tactics, probably send them tomorrow. |
| Erithmu01-12-06, 09:39 AM | @Rith: tactics recieved. Interesting they are too. I have to question the rules on a couple bits, but I'll wait until I receive your opponents tactics to post my questions. I would be interested in some of those questions via PM if you wanted me to state my reasoning for writing them. @all pitlords: just a curtosey for those of use who do guild accounting: we don't get to tax what a character makes from a profession/craft/etc so if you could differentiate between those amounts it would be helpful for the accountants. |
| Altaris1301-12-06, 09:59 AM | I would be interested in some of those questions via PM if you wanted me to state my reasoning for writing them. @all pitlords: just a curtosey for those of use who do guild accounting: we don't get to tax what a character makes from a profession/craft/etc so if you could differentiate between those amounts it would be helpful for the accountants. No, reasons are clear. :D I've thought of similar tactics myself before. This is a GM call on how I should proceed with the tactics, rather than if they are viable and what not, and I've sent a PM to Pitlords. |
| Dracazar01-12-06, 10:10 AM | @DTFarstar: Drac's tactic sent @Altaris13: Uilo's tactic sent @Mal-2: Cher's tactic sent @Gonbow: Shaz's tactic sent |
| Myrridin01-12-06, 10:16 AM | DTFarStar: Tactics for Tarik vs. Jonathon have been sent. |
| Altaris1301-12-06, 10:20 AM | @Altaris13: Uilo's tactic sent Rcvd & understood. |
| Snommelp01-12-06, 10:27 AM | @Snommelp - Tactics sent for Histal in Pestilence (NiQil) vs Histal Dar'ath (waywreth) Got 'em. It's going to be an interesting fight, I think. |
| Snommelp01-12-06, 10:36 AM | Nevermind... |
| waywreth01-12-06, 10:38 AM | Question answered and deleted. |
| Snommelp01-12-06, 10:40 AM | You can still use them as is for this month. Oops... let's just delete these before my opponent sees what I said, eh? |
| Altaris1301-12-06, 10:48 AM | @Warclone: rcvd your tactics for Savour Die. What do you say to a challenge from my Thelgar Giantsbane once Savour hits ECL5? Would you accept? |
| DTFarstar01-12-06, 11:06 AM | OK, maybe I am just confused, but I was looking at the feat Divine Might in the SRD and ummm... isn't it dieties only? I mean, it says Divine FEATS Deities can obtain the feats described here, in addition to any standard feats. Granted, I guess it doesn't specifically prohibit players from taking them, but I always just assumed Divine feats were dieties only. Anyway, some clarification would be great. Edit : It's the [Divine] descriptor that is confusing me. |
| Rousseau01-12-06, 11:30 AM | OK, maybe I am just confused, but I was looking at the feat Divine Might in the SRD and ummm... isn't it dieties only? I mean, it says Divine FEATS Deities can obtain the feats described here, in addition to any standard feats. Granted, I guess it doesn't specifically prohibit players from taking them, but I always just assumed Divine feats were dieties only. Anyway, some clarification would be great. Edit : It's the [Divine] descriptor that is confusing me.Divine feats were originally introduced with Defenders of the Faith (I believe) and have been in scattered sourcebooks since then (Complete Warrior, Deities and Demigods, and Complete Divine). The divine descriptor means that one needs to be able to turn undead and are usually powered by turning attempts. (The wild feats introduced in several sourcebooks depend on druids spending wild shape uses to gain the benefit.) |
| SoulLord01-12-06, 12:01 PM | Tactics sent to Papa via PM for The White Hand vs. Cyra Val (ECL5). Good luck to Vandelar and Dameon in tight quarters with those Hound Archons with cleric support. That's gonna be ugly. I'd rather fight Sdentch in a phone booth. TM Those Hounds shall taste the steel of Vandelar's dagger .... or maybe not it will be an interesting fight. Does anyone know if Gladius weekly is coming back? |
| Luni01-12-06, 12:15 PM | @Luni: I am not involved in the fight, but Hound Archons are not proficient with armor, so you might want to think over the decision giving them Half plates. Thats what I get for equiping them as 3rd level Paladins. |
| Abyssal Stalker01-12-06, 12:24 PM | @DTFarstar: Tactics for Jonathon Raven against Tarik Vale PM'ed! And about the Divine Might -feat. I seem to remember that divine feats are allowed, trust me, I tried to find a way around it! I guess that Jonathon just has to take it... |
| TroubleWolf01-12-06, 12:59 PM | @Kaigan: Tactics for Sven sent. So much simpler writing tactics versus just one foe than versus three. ;) |
| Abyssal Stalker01-12-06, 01:07 PM | @Lonewolf: Tactics for Manzarf the Loathsome against Faelto PM'ed! |
| Warclone01-12-06, 01:18 PM | @Warclone: rcvd your tactics for Savour Die. What do you say to a challenge from my Thelgar Giantsbane once Savour hits ECL5? Would you accept? Savour would accept, but doesn't that cost credits? I'm not sure if I'll have any credits to spare for a bit, but maybe. @Huan, Caternae: Tactics Sent |
| Altaris1301-12-06, 01:30 PM | Savour would accept, but doesn't that cost credits? I'm not sure if I'll have any credits to spare for a bit, but maybe. I could pay the credit if needed. I don't spend them on much. |
| TelinArtho01-12-06, 01:32 PM | Tactics have been sent for Kraegin vs Galagith (to Pittbull via PM) and Sir Valkin vs Raskos (to Usurpator via PM). I'll work on the rest today - they will be coming as I have the time to write them up. |
| Huan01-12-06, 01:48 PM | @Warclone Tactics received, thank you. I will get started on this fight tonight. |
| Stormwind01-12-06, 01:59 PM | @Papapeperoni: Tactics sent via PM for The White Hand vs. Cyra Val @SoulLord: I don't know if the Gladius Weekly is coming back but I'd be happy to write an article for it if it does. |
| Caterane01-12-06, 02:07 PM | Flashbacks during arena fights are not healthy. Why? Read Thwap vs Perius. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-12-06, 02:18 PM | @all: Grrr, why do I always get the broken sheets that produce strange results when posted. I cannot open the sblocks and they're silver If you are using Firefox, it will not open sblocks with bad tags. It just says, no. You can open them in Explorer. I forgot to mention that one on the last couple I have had with bad tags. You can also edit the tags when you quote the character sheet to fix the boo boo's. |
| Ravashack01-12-06, 03:25 PM | Flashbacks during arena fights are not healthy. Why? Read Thwap vs Perius. Perius isn't flat footed in round 3. The first shot in round 3 misses because his AC is 20 and 10+10-2 == 18. Dazed doesn't make you lose Dex to AC anyway. So sorry, you have a few more rounds to go. :D |
| Caterane01-12-06, 04:41 PM | Done. I've included a comment for you, Rav. |
| Rousseau01-12-06, 04:53 PM | If you are using Firefox, it will not open sblocks with bad tags. It just says, no. You can open them in Explorer. I forgot to mention that one on the last couple I have had with bad tags. You can also edit the tags when you quote the character sheet to fix the boo boo's.I don't know if this directly addresses the situation at hand, but SBLOCK tags are fine, as long as they specifically are not being formatted (i.e. you haven't included them under any font changes or color changes, etc.). The SBLOCK can still be opened under Firefox as long as you refresh the page; that'll "erase" the formatting the second time around. That's how I usually get around it. |
| TelinArtho01-12-06, 04:55 PM | I think I've sent the rest of my tactics: Ana vs 2 sm Air elementals sent to DTFarstar via PM Faelto vs Manzarf sent via PM- can't remember who now though... Delaria vs Pirotess sent via PM - to somebody else... Man am I scatter-brained today... |
| Ravashack01-12-06, 04:59 PM | Done. I've included a comment for you, Rav. I would have done that Cat, but that particular power slot was what he started with at level 3, when he wasn't allowed to pick 2nd level powers. Offensive Precognition sucked the appropriate pick for a 2nd level power, and since I use Offensive Precognition a lot, I would have to pay credits I don't have for that change, wouldn't I? Also, if he is attempting to grapple me, I get an AOO on him (since I was manifesting the last round, not using Total Defense), which I don't see. And Perius's touch AC is 16. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-12-06, 06:00 PM | @Telin Delaria's tactics received. I will be out from around 19:00 GMT tomorrow through whenever I wake up on Saturday. If I receive Pirotess' tactics tonight, I iwll try to be done by then. If you or anyone else wants to get in touch with me, my MSN messenger is linked to my cell phone ;) |
| Usurpator01-12-06, 06:18 PM | About the new notation of Free Activities: Nexa is crafting as main activity and training her Dire Bat as free activity. Obviously I cannot ask my Pitlord to ask to put the activity in the fight record. What now? |
| Cerebus1301-12-06, 06:24 PM | @Telin Delaria's tactics received. I will be out from around 19:00 GMT tomorrow through whenever I wake up on Saturday. If I receive Pirotess' tactics tonight, I iwll try to be done by then. If you or anyone else wants to get in touch with me, my MSN messenger is linked to my cell phone ;)I may not be able to get them out until tomorrow morning when I have some spare time in the morning at work. I've come down with a really bad head cold and I'm finding it hard to concentrate this evening. |
| Pittbull01-12-06, 06:32 PM | About the new notation of Free Activities: Nexa is crafting as main activity and training her Dire Bat as free activity. Obviously I cannot ask my Pitlord to ask to put the activity in the fight record. What now? 11 Jan: Crafting Bracers of Armor +1 (1000 gp.), Ioun Stone, Dusty Rose Prism (5000 gp.), Teaching Duskseeker ‘come’ Do you have free-activities, if you don't fight? Just link this post, I'm confirming this as an Elder. |
| Iced01-12-06, 06:41 PM | Does having a natural claw attack act the same as improved unarmed strike? Basically can I take deflect arrows without taking improved unarmed strike if i have a claw attack. @Pittbull tactics sent last night for the Galagith-crushes-Telinartho's-Cleric fight... ;) |
| TelinArtho01-12-06, 06:45 PM | Crushes? Funny - I was thinking of offering terms of surrender for you... |
| Pittbull01-12-06, 06:52 PM | All tactics received! |
| King Uther01-12-06, 06:52 PM | @Turin Tactics for Ajora sent via PM. Shouldn't be too complicated despite the large amount of text. I was sending them to you when you PMed me. Classic. @lonewolf Well, this is usually the place where trash talk would go. Good luck. If you win initiative or start in the opposite square this could be a fun fight. |
| Usurpator01-12-06, 06:56 PM | Do you have free-activities, if you don't fight? Just link this post, I'm confirming this as an Elder. Well, I did train my wolves and my partly Dire Bat partly when I was busy with crafting previously. If you can only train animals while you are fighting, I have worse problems than I thought already. With 24 tricks to be taught, that would mean at least 24 fights. With the current rate of 3 fights to level, that would mean Nexa would hit 15th lvl before she taught her animals their full package of tricks. That's just a little too late for me. I proposed before, but I'll ask again: how does anyone feel for 'Training Animals' to be also possible as primary activity (just like Crafting is when you want to Craft for more than 1000 gp.), and enable a gladiator to train up to three animals a trick instead of just one animal? |
| lonewolf01-12-06, 07:01 PM | @lonewolf Well, this is usually the place where trash talk would go. Good luck. If you win initiative or start in the opposite square this could be a fun fight. Lets wait and see if you can hit Karen prone, behind cover and with the tower shield out. Flatfooted AC28 good luck with your 10% chance to hit her. :evillaugh |
| Iced01-12-06, 07:12 PM | Crushes? Funny - I was thinking of offering terms of surrender for you... lol! - :D :clap: Well I guess it's up to Pittbull to run the fight so we can find out. Shouldn't be long, Kraegin will be dead in a couple of rounds... |
| NiQil01-12-06, 08:17 PM | Does having a natural claw attack act the same as improved unarmed strike? Basically can I take deflect arrows without taking improved unarmed strike if i have a claw attack. @Pittbull tactics sent last night for the Galagith-crushes-Telinartho's-Cleric fight... ;) Yes, it has been ruled that natural attacks serve as a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat...you may have either in order to qualify for things that require Improved Unarmed Strike. I'll add that to the Court Decisions when I get a chance. |
| King Uther01-12-06, 08:39 PM | @lonewolf Well, yes that would be good. But you can't start prone. And your character might choose the wrong side to take cover since you don't know my starting location. |
| Sindorin01-12-06, 09:15 PM | Are you sure that we can't start prone? I've heard people say that we can start hovering if, say, we have a flying mount capable of doing so... why wouldn't they be able to start prone? |
| Huan01-12-06, 09:36 PM | @Maraxus Tactics received, thank you. @Luni, Nightbanegod Thank you, Luni for findingthis error. Nightbanegod, if you will, please PM Maraxus and myself your edited spell list. I will allow you to drop the appropriate spell by your own choice, but its something your opponent needs to know as well. Thanks. |
| Iced01-12-06, 09:46 PM | Yes, it has been ruled that natural attacks serve as a substitute for the Improved Unarmed Strike feat...you may have either in order to qualify for things that require Improved Unarmed Strike. I'll add that to the Court Decisions when I get a chance. Awesome. New question: I have a centaur character - free mounted combat feat? |
| TheMagister01-12-06, 10:07 PM | Awesome. New question: I have a centaur character - free mounted combat feat? I wouldn't THINK so. Humans have legs and are suited for running, but we don't start with the Run feat. Edit: Wait, wait. You're looking for a racial ability substitution for a feat! Like, treating centaurs as having Mounted Combat so that they can take spirited charge and such without meeting the prereqs. As a DM, I wouldn't allow it. Riding in a battle is different than just being a centaur. I'd think taking the Mounted Combat feat would signify combat training specific for a horse-body-type character. Otherwise, you'd deal x2 damage with a lance just like every other non-trained rider out there. More RAWish, though: You should get exactly what the SRD says you get when you take a monster as a race. TM |
| Luni01-12-06, 10:09 PM | Awesome. New question: I have a centaur character - free mounted combat feat? Iced, Centaur's can't ride horses. |
| TheMagister01-12-06, 10:12 PM | Iced, Centaur's can't ride horses. HAHAHA! Luni, I was thinking of saying something like this, but couldn't make it work in my head. HAHAHA! Clever girl! Girl, right? TM |
| NiQil01-12-06, 10:12 PM | Awesome. New question: I have a centaur character - free mounted combat feat? Where would you think you get that from? I see no mention of that in the MM listing for centaurs as characters.... |
| Macbrea01-12-06, 10:14 PM | Combat A centaur employing a lance deals double damage when it charges, just as a rider on a mount does. It was a valid question, because in order to qualify for other feats the Centaur must take mounted combat. For such feats as spirited charge or trample. |
| King Uther01-12-06, 10:19 PM | @Sindorin If you are a flying creature or havea flying mount you can hover, because you always will hover. You wouldn't always start the fight prone. |
| King Uther01-12-06, 10:29 PM | I'm going to have a Centaur Psywar use the Compression power so he can ride a horse. |
| Iced01-12-06, 10:53 PM | I'm going to have a Centaur Psywar use the Compression power so he can ride a horse. lol! My point is here: COMBAT A centaur employing a lance deals double damage when it charges, just as a rider on a mount does. It's pretty much pointless to buy mounted combat as a centaur can't negate hits against itself/use itself as cover etc. I was wondering if I could take the spirited charge feat here without taking the mounted combat feat because a centaur is half-horse. @ NiQil - CENTAURS AS CHARACTERS A centaur druid is usually a tribe’s designated leader and speaker. Centaur characters possess the following racial traits. +8 Strength, +4 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, –2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom. Large size. –1 penalty to Armor Class, –1 penalty on attack rolls, –4 penalty on Hide checks, +4 bonus on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits double those of Medium characters. Space/Reach: 10 feet/5 feet. A centaur’s base land speed is 50 feet. Darkvision out to 60 feet. Racial Hit Dice: A centaur begins with four levels of monstrous humanoid, which provide 4d8 Hit Dice, a base attack bonus of +4, and base saving throw bonuses of Fort +1, Ref +4, and Will +4. Racial Skills: A centaur’s monstrous humanoid levels give it skill points equal to 7 x (2 + Int modifier). Its class skills are Listen, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival. Racial Feats: A centaur’s monstrous humanoid levels give it two feats. +3 natural armor bonus. Automatic Languages: Sylvan, Elven. Bonus Languages: Common, Gnome, Halfling. Favored Class: Ranger. Level adjustment +2. |
| NiQil01-12-06, 11:01 PM | lol! My point is here: It's pretty much pointless to buy mounted combat as a centaur can't negate hits against itself/use itself as cover etc. I was wondering if I could take the spirited charge feat here without taking the mounted combat feat because a centaur is half-horse. @ NiQil - CENTAURS AS CHARACTERS A centaur druid is usually a tribe’s designated leader and speaker. Centaur characters possess the following racial traits. +8 Strength, +4 Dexterity, +4 Constitution, –2 Intelligence, +2 Wisdom. Large size. –1 penalty to Armor Class, –1 penalty on attack rolls, –4 penalty on Hide checks, +4 bonus on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits double those of Medium characters. Space/Reach: 10 feet/5 feet. A centaur’s base land speed is 50 feet. Darkvision out to 60 feet. Racial Hit Dice: A centaur begins with four levels of monstrous humanoid, which provide 4d8 Hit Dice, a base attack bonus of +4, and base saving throw bonuses of Fort +1, Ref +4, and Will +4. Racial Skills: A centaur’s monstrous humanoid levels give it skill points equal to 7 x (2 + Int modifier). Its class skills are Listen, Move Silently, Spot, and Survival. Racial Feats: A centaur’s monstrous humanoid levels give it two feats. +3 natural armor bonus. Automatic Languages: Sylvan, Elven. Bonus Languages: Common, Gnome, Halfling. Favored Class: Ranger. Level adjustment +2. That was exactly my point...nowhere in the entry you quoted does it mention anything about the Mounted Combat feat. The reason natural attacks can be substituted for IUS is because there are examples in the MM of creatures that have feats that require IUS as a prereq, but don't have it. To justify taking Mounted Combat for free, you would need to find a few examples of creatures that get other mounted feats for free without having Mounted Combat as a prereq feat. And then you would have to get Cat to approve it...which methinks is gonna be a hard sell. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-13-06, 01:16 AM | Famine vs. Weiniete is here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8216395&postcount=6) @Cerebus13 I am still awaiting tactics for Pirotess. |
| Vathelokai01-13-06, 03:46 AM | Ariel Reborn (Luni) vs Noko (Maraxus) [ECL 7] is up. It's a scorcher... :pbbbtt: *EDIT* Because of a new posting of the fight thread, the fight has been moved to here. |
| Sindorin01-13-06, 03:50 AM | Wow, I hope Luni does the same thing for Shakari vs. Aranor... |
| Ariel2301-13-06, 03:56 AM | @waywreth @book5 Tactics received! No promises on when I'll start, but I'll do my best. I'd like to be finished by Sunday. *crosses fingers* @lonewolf @begferdeath Tactics sent. Good luck, I hope the fights are easy (they look it) and PM if you have any issues. |
| Luni01-13-06, 04:35 AM | Wow, I hope Luni does the same thing for Shakari vs. Aranor... Well, I wouldn't have surrendered, if I could counterspell NOko's Dispel Magic. But alas, Spelllike abilities can't be countered. :( My other option I was leading towards was lying prone, having all my skellies grapple me, just so the Pixie can try to shoot at Ariel from 8 random targets. Then I thought, why subject my Pitlord to that insanity. I might have won, but it would be a silly victory. Edit: That reminds me. @Saurogrenom: Shakari tactics sent! Edit 2: For some inexplicable reason, I though pixies were immune to being blinded! Shrug. Blind might have worked. *bangs head*. Oh well. |
| lonewolf01-13-06, 05:01 AM | @lonewolf Well, yes that would be good. But you can't start prone. And your character might choose the wrong side to take cover since you don't know my starting location. I see absolutely no rule or other reason that prevents someone to start prone, and if I start behind one of the smaller rocks on the sides(which I do) I will have cover against you no matter where you start. |
| Vathelokai01-13-06, 05:12 AM | My other option I was leading towards was lying prone, having all my skellies grapple me, just so the Pixie can try to shoot at Ariel from 8 random targets. Then I thought, why subject my Pitlord to that insanity. I might have won, but it would be a silly victory.I think it might have been a fun time; but since I have three quests going on this week, I'm kind of glad you did. |
| Maraxus01-13-06, 05:30 AM | ...This reminds me of last P&P-session where I (playing a Minotaurus-Fighter-Grappler) said to the wizard: "I grapple him and my touch AC is lower, shoot me." I hope, in that grappling szenario, Vathelokai had took out my spiked chain. Now with flyby-attack, it is even better than before. :) Right, this could have been a mean fight for the pitlord, I knew, while Ariel had bad chances of damaging Noko, the other way round is only slightly better. ...If this surenders happen more often, I will really get a guilty conscience about playing a pixie. :raincloud |
| Cerebus1301-13-06, 09:04 AM | Famine vs. Weiniete is here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8216395&postcount=6) @Cerebus13 I am still awaiting tactics for Pirotess.Sent them. They aren't the greatest...so I blame it on my cold if I lose. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-13-06, 09:53 AM | @ Cerebus13 Tactics received. I'll get to the fight this afternoon or tomorrow. The Famine Vs. Weiniete fight has been moved to here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8222409&postcount=7) per Cat's request. |
| Sindorin01-13-06, 10:02 AM | ...This reminds me of last P&P-session where I (playing a Minotaurus-Fighter-Grappler) said to the wizard: "I grapple him and my touch AC is lower, shoot me." I hope, in that grappling szenario, Vathelokai had took out my spiked chain. Now with flyby-attack, it is even better than before. :) Right, this could have been a mean fight for the pitlord, I knew, while Ariel had bad chances of damaging Noko, the other way round is only slightly better. ...If this surenders happen more often, I will really get a guilty conscience about playing a pixie. :raincloud That is why before Noko was created there was sort of an unwritten rule where if we play a pixie character they are for questing or campaigning, not the arena. They are nightmares for pitlords, especially when the opponent actually can write viable tactics for them. |
| Zevox01-13-06, 10:20 AM | @ Lonewolf - Tactics for Destra sent. @ Altaris & Sunwolf - I'll run Mini vs Leif soon. Just going to get myself some lunch first :D . Zevox |
| Maraxus01-13-06, 10:29 AM | That is why before Noko was created there was sort of an unwritten rule where if we play a pixie character they are for questing or campaigning, not the arena. They are nightmares for pitlords, especially when the opponent actually can write viable tactics for them. Well - the rule was a bit to unwritten for me to notice. :rolleyes: But seriously, what makes them so bad for pitlords? I think some casters are much harder to handle, since with two casters, the tactics can get a huge set of conditionals and before making any (and each) action you have to read through them again. Nokos takic is usually eiter: "Close to 30ft and shoot" or "stay far away and shoot". Of cause it can be dificult, if the opponent finds some protection himself. A fight between two pixies should be ... forbidden. :D |
| Myrridin01-13-06, 10:32 AM | You obviously missed the first pixie character in the Arena. *shudder* I remember those days...people would actually beg to NOT have to Pitlord the character, as the fights always took forever. Though I do seem to remember one character trying to grapple her, while she was invisible, and then in the grapple stab her with a cold iron arrow...it being the only/best way to get around the DR. |
| Turin01-13-06, 10:32 AM | I see absolutely no rule or other reason that prevents someone to start prone, and if I start behind one of the smaller rocks on the sides(which I do) I will have cover against you no matter where you start.The cover thing seems to be a moot point, as it will depend on the specific placement of the characters and can be objectively determined. But the going prone bit seems odd... what makes you think you can't start prone, King Uther? You're saying "you can't start prone," but you're not backing it up at all. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-13-06, 10:33 AM | Bah! I have a pixie in the works...just trying to decide on class...I mean what could be more embarassing than being killed by a raging pixie? I would rather run for a pixie over a psionic duergar with nineteen damage modifiers to figure in or that godsawful wereweasel that Macbrea has on the books under construction. |
| Sindorin01-13-06, 10:51 AM | I also have a pixie in the works. I've considered activating it, but I haven't had the time to polish it and flavor it up. |
| Turin01-13-06, 10:53 AM | The cover thing seems to be a moot point, as it will depend on the specific placement of the characters and can be objectively determined. But the going prone bit seems odd... what makes you think you can't start prone, King Uther? You're saying "you can't start prone," but you're not backing it up at all.Just to add something... More to the point, KU, if gladiators can start airborne (at 0 altitude) or mounted, why can't they start prone? Your argument in the PM you sent me seemed to be that it was related to "knowing who your opponent is." But the gladiators do in fact know who their opponent is, so I'm not sure how this helps your argument. |
| Macbrea01-13-06, 10:58 AM | or that godsawful wereweasel that Macbrea has on the books under construction. He isn't god forsaken! He just needs me to actually earn him some credits so, I can walk out into the arena with him! |
| Snommelp01-13-06, 11:16 AM | Bah! I have a pixie in the works...just trying to decide on class...I mean what could be more embarassing than being killed by a raging pixie? I would rather run for a pixie over a psionic duergar with nineteen damage modifiers to figure in or that godsawful wereweasel that Macbrea has on the books under construction. I try to make all of my characters easy to run. I currently have a monk, a barbarian, a bard, and a druid who will be replaced soon by a fighter named Fighter (an homage). And once the ECL 11 league opens, you'll see another easy to run character that will make opponents wet themselves. |
| Macbrea01-13-06, 11:18 AM | Bah, Larktin is easy to run... Sneak, sneak, sneak... bite, gulp, gulp, gulp. Fight over! |
| King Uther01-13-06, 11:53 AM | The argument for starting flying, hovering, mounted, etc is simple: You always do that. If you are a flyer, you start combat flying. In the arena, you don't have the time to prepare to go prone. You haven't even had an action yet. Unless you have somewhere on your sheet, "Always start prone," you cannot start prone. It's the same reason you can't start with the tower shield ready. You haven't had time to do anything yet. Yes, you do know who you're going to fight, but not until you get in the arena. It's not announced a week in advance. It's supposed to be a surprise you write tactics for. Therefore no starting prone until your 1st action. |
| Cerebus1301-13-06, 11:59 AM | The argument for starting flying, hovering, mounted, etc is simple: You always do that. If you are a flyer, you start combat flying. In the arena, you don't have the time to prepare to go prone. You haven't even had an action yet. Unless you have somewhere on your sheet, "Always start prone," you cannot start prone. It's the same reason you can't start with the tower shield ready. You haven't had time to do anything yet. Yes, you do know who you're going to fight, but not until you get in the arena. It's not announced a week in advance. It's supposed to be a surprise you write tactics for. Therefore no starting prone until your 1st action.But it is okay to prebuff with an extended Mage Armor, Dissolving Weapon, and psionically focused? Being prone can be considered a prebuff because there is nothing to say I can't lay on the ground for 16 hours prior to the battle beginning. Players have been using this interpretation of the rules for a long long looooong time. I would appreciate some more discussion on this matter before somebody just steps forward and declares that you can't do it anymore. Edit: Especially because you have a biased opinion on the matter considering you have a character who is built on making 1 round ranged kills. More input should be required before changing a rule so basic. |
| Turin01-13-06, 11:59 AM | In the arena, you don't have the time to prepare to go prone. You haven't even had an action yet. Unless you have somewhere on your sheet, "Always start prone," you cannot start prone. It's the same reason you can't start with the tower shield ready. You haven't had time to do anything yet.<shrug> Fair enough, I'll buy that argument. Prebuffing is completely different, as the character is doing all that stuff before they get to the arena (or at least that's my understanding). If someone can point me to some fights where gladiators have started prone and that was accepted by everyone, I'll change my mind on this (we're a bit of a democracy here, it seems)... but I did a Google search and wasn't able to find any. |
| Huan01-13-06, 12:00 PM | @Luni Tactics for Team Vandelar-Dameon have been e-mailed. |
| TelinArtho01-13-06, 12:04 PM | <shrug> Fair enough, I'll buy that argument. Prebuffing is completely different, as the character is doing all that stuff before they get to the arena (or at least that's my understanding). If someone can point me to some fights where gladiators have started prone and that was accepted by everyone, I'll change my mind on this (we're a bit of a democracy here, it seems)... but I did a Google search and wasn't able to find any. Daeren Stronghammer had a few fights where he started off kneeling - not quite the same - but in the same realm. No one raised a fuss about it at the time. |
| SoulLord01-13-06, 12:06 PM | Also as much as sneakers dislike it you cannot also start hiding until you act. so No hiding No Readying a Tower shield No kneeling Nor prone |
| Usurpator01-13-06, 12:15 PM | Also as much as sneakers dislike it you cannot also start hiding until you act. so No hiding No Readying a Tower shield No kneeling Nor prone No decision what you hold in your hands? No decision if you started mounted or on your feet? No decision if you have equipment lying about at your feet? It seems to me that either a clear rule should be formulated, or the prone starting condition should be allowed. Currently it's anybody's guess what is and what is not allowed at the start. Hiding and Flying is clearly defined in the rules. You cannot start hiding, you can start flying, but only at 5 ft. height. Nothing about kneeling or prone in the rules. By the fact that the other things *are* mentioned in the rules, I must assume that everything is allowed (like kneeling and selecting a weapon in your hands) unless prohibited specifically (like hiding). |
| Cerebus1301-13-06, 12:15 PM | Also as much as sneakers dislike it you cannot also start hiding until you act. so No hiding No Readying a Tower shield No kneeling Nor proneHide is used in conjunction with a movement action. Readying a Tower shield is a standard action. Going from standing to prone is a standard action. Only if your character would start in the standing position would they be required to use an action to go prone. Despite what King Uther says however we DO know who our opponent is ahead of time...we get access to their character with which we can plan tactics!! If we cannot have enough knowledge beforehand to adjust our tactics based on the opponent, then players should NEVER be allowed to adjust their tactics based on their opponent because it will be a "surprise" as to who they are fighting. This seems like a silly counter-argument, but that is how he seems to be describing it. If required I will have every one of my gladiators always start in the prone position, just so I have a chance of not being one-shotted by builds abusing the current arena construction. |
| Turin01-13-06, 12:27 PM | If required I will have every one of my gladiators always start in the prone position, just so I have a chance of not being one-shotted by builds abusing the current arena construction.I can certainly see both sides of the argument here and I'm frankly not sure which it should be, although I would like to see some clear rules on it (i.e., in the Rules of Gladius thread). It's clearly not the sort of thing that comes up in campaign play, and thus the gap in the SRD rules on the subject. But I want to just comment on this statement by Cerebus13: WTF? I've only been doing this Gladius thing for a few weeks and it seems like every time I've seen a rules debate come up, someone (not neccessarily you, Cerebus, but you're getting singled out here, sorry) gets heated and comes out with this "well fine, I'm going to do this every time!" argument. Is this kind of "I'm taking my toys and leaving" babytalk what the coliseum is like? Come on, people, get a grip... we're all trying to have fun here. :rolleyes: Edit: for the record, I'm strongly leaning towards allowing starting prone... I mean, if you can start mounted or unmounted, and in any square within your starting box you choose, why shouldn't you be allowed to start prone or not? |
| NiQil01-13-06, 12:30 PM | Hide is used in conjunction with a movement action. Readying a Tower shield is a standard action. Going from standing to prone is a standard action. Only if your character would start in the standing position would they be required to use an action to go prone. Despite what King Uther says however we DO know who our opponent is ahead of time...we get access to their character with which we can plan tactics!! If we cannot have enough knowledge beforehand to adjust our tactics based on the opponent, then players should NEVER be allowed to adjust their tactics based on their opponent because it will be a "surprise" as to who they are fighting. This seems like a silly counter-argument, but that is how he seems to be describing it. If required I will have every one of my gladiators always start in the prone position, just so I have a chance of not being one-shotted by builds abusing the current arena construction. Actually, going from standing to prone is a free action, as per this table: Free Action Attack of Opportunity1 Cast a quickened spell No Cease concentration on a spell No Drop an item No Drop to the floor No Prepare spell components to cast a spell6 No Speak No And I would have to agree...I have seen nothing in the Rules thread that indicates you can't start prone. |
| Cerebus1301-13-06, 12:33 PM | I can certainly see both sides of the argument here and I'm frankly not sure which it should be, although I would like to see some clear rules on it (i.e., in the Rules of Gladius thread). It's clearly not the sort of thing that comes up in campaign play, and thus the gap in the SRD rules on the subject. But I want to just comment on this statement by Cerebus13: WTF? I've only been doing this Gladius thing for a few weeks and it seems like every time I've seen a rules debate come up, someone (not neccessarily you, Cerebus, but you're getting singled out here, sorry) gets heated and comes out with this "well fine, I'm going to do this every time!" argument. Is this kind of "I'm taking my toys and leaving" babytalk what the coliseum is like? Come on, people, get a grip... we're all trying to have fun here. :rolleyes:As you've noticed we're a little bitter about the state of the rules around here right now (or maybe its just me, I don't care either way). There is a ton of material that comes up every week that is never resolved so we just end up fighting and arguing about it with no official resolution from any of the various "Lords" to help us out. I've grown tired of it so I don't bother pulling any punches in my posts anymore, nobody pays much attention but the other players anyway. This particular argument sparked my interest because it was a very blanket statement made by a player who has a clear conflict of interest. This is not a personal attack to King Uther's integrity, but his character Ajora was designed to kill players in the first round of combat before they can get an action. Not allowing gladiators to begin combat prone is a clear advantage to Ajora, and thus why I am so outspoken about this to get a second opinion before it becomes the word of the law around here. |
| Turin01-13-06, 12:39 PM | Actually, going from standing to prone is a free action, as per this table:I think the argument here is that the type of action "going prone" is is irrelevant. Mounting a horse is a move-action (or a free action if you leap up on the saddle), but we still allow gladiators to start mounted, right? |
| King Uther01-13-06, 12:54 PM | This issue came up some time ago when Anna the Arena Ghost, ran by Jindl, wanted to start hiding because ghost's always hide. We discussed it for some time, and resolved that if your character would naturally be doing it most of the time without needing an action to do so,(Flyers would fly, Mounted riders would be mounted, etc....) then it would be allowed. A stealthy fighter needs an action to hide. So no. A character going prone prior to combat would suggest prior knowledge before ever going to the arena, as well as suggest he had the time to do so. It brings up many issues, such as getting to your starting square despite having to use full-round actions to move 5ft. You can't just move there and go prone. That gives the character an action prior to combat. @Cerebus True, issues do come up all the time. Now that I am finally getting free to work here again, I will do better to answer questions/offer insight where I can. Yes, Ajora is designed to kill as quickly as possible. His purpose is to poke holes in the random starting area rule, just as Balbanes was to the use of expendables. |
| Usurpator01-13-06, 12:56 PM | I've grown tired of it so I don't bother pulling any punches in my posts anymore, nobody pays much attention but the other players anyway. That echoes a bit of my sentiment too. If only some Ruleslord or something like that stepped up. But that is ultimately for Cat and the Elders to decide. Until now we can only ask for any official ruling and hope that somebody with a more authoritive position picks it up. If my asking goes unheard for several weeks, my first instinct will be to raise my voice somewhat. Cerebus13 created a new initiative with his polls about rules issues, which I hoped would be a great incentive to get the Elders to decide on some issues with only minimal effort. Elder participation there has unfortunately been very low. I think only Pitbull voted on a couple of issues, none of the others did. I thought Elder were here to keep tabs on the rules an CoCo rulings, but there seems to be a void, with Elders only occasionally 'popping out of the woodwork' to refer to some obscure ruling apparently made in the past. Generally, that way is not comfortable to me. I am one who likes to know clear-cut rules in advance, since that maximizes my ability to make use of said rules in building characters and thinking up tactics. I have a clear opinion about many rules issues, but *any* rule is better than an unclear or unknown rule. My ultimate frustration here is writing up a beautiful set of tactics and then the Pitlord judging my tactics invalid because of a rules issue, and having me lose as result. With many rules issues either never clarified (even thought discussed) or clarified in some Elder discussion I don't know about (and reasonably cannot have known about) this makes it hard. |
| King Uther01-13-06, 12:57 PM | Essentially, going prone means you had an action. Even if it is a free action, it had to be taken at some time. Being mounted isn't an action because you were already mounted. The same with flying. Does anybody see the logic in that? If you can drop prone, than you can use any psionic power that is a swift action, or a quickened spell. |
| Kaigan01-13-06, 12:57 PM | @My Pitlords: My tactics will be sent tonight. Sorry for the lateness. |
| Pittbull01-13-06, 12:58 PM | Many of Cat's characters started prone in the past, it was never an issue. |
| Sindorin01-13-06, 12:59 PM | To follow up on my question of "why can't we start prone" I present to you the requirement for a pre buff: 16 hour duration Thus, without getting technical here and bashing any of you, one could use this rule and begin prone. They may be a bit achy after laying there for 16 hours, but by the house rules designed to regulate prebuffing, doing this fulfills all requirements. However, to do this would require you to mark it on your sheet under your prebuffs. |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:01 PM | @Usurpator I'll try to get answers this week. I can talk to Cat man to man and ask him directly the answers to everything. I'm sorry I haven't been available as of late. @Anyone ever As of now, ask me anything. If I don't know or am wrong, I can always ask the Boss. PM me the details and I'll get back to you as quickly as I can. |
| Book501-13-06, 01:01 PM | @ emeraldstreak and BGT - Recived.. :shrug: :looks: |
| Usurpator01-13-06, 01:02 PM | We discussed it for some time, and resolved that if your character would naturally be doing it most of the time without needing an action to do so,(Flyers would fly, Mounted riders would be mounted, etc....) then it would be allowed. So 'fighty' type characters cannot start with their weapons in their hands unless they have Quickdraw. Nor can 'casty' type of characters start with scrolls, or 'archy' type characters with their bow? As said by Turin, mounting normally takes an action, so no gladiators starting mounted anymore I guess. Still, it seems weird to me that you can strip your armor and put on one kept at home for a fight (certainly more than an action) but cannot start prone. |
| TelinArtho01-13-06, 01:03 PM | @Usurpator - still waiting on tactics for flamehair. Have received tactics for the other two (Hennan and somebody...) |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:04 PM | @Pittbull Although Cat is the GM here, that doesn't mean in the past things were done as accurately as possible. Merman used to get his 5 attacks while standing, despite the entry about Rake. He has say in everything, but I am almost for certain he would agree with me based on the fact that it is an action you have to do inside of the arena prior to combat. |
| NiQil01-13-06, 01:04 PM | This issue came up some time ago when Anna the Arena Ghost, ran by Jindl, wanted to start hiding because ghost's always hide. We discussed it for some time, and resolved that if your character would naturally be doing it most of the time without needing an action to do so,(Flyers would fly, Mounted riders would be mounted, etc....) then it would be allowed. A stealthy fighter needs an action to hide. So no. A character going prone prior to combat would suggest prior knowledge before ever going to the arena, as well as suggest he had the time to do so. It brings up many issues, such as getting to your starting square despite having to use full-round actions to move 5ft. You can't just move there and go prone. That gives the character an action prior to combat. @Cerebus True, issues do come up all the time. Now that I am finally getting free to work here again, I will do better to answer questions/offer insight where I can. Yes, Ajora is designed to kill as quickly as possible. His purpose is to poke holes in the random starting area rule, just as Balbanes was to the use of expendables. Here's the problem with that logic. This would also mean you can't start mounted, because this requires an action to mount the horse. That you cannot start flying, because it requires an action to begin flying. That you can't start in any square other than the default square, because that would mean you had prior knowledge of your opponent. Your logic is faulty here, King. Either we allow them all, or we allow none, and everyone start is the default square standing every fight. |
| Warclone01-13-06, 01:09 PM | @Pittbull Although Cat is the GM here, that doesn't mean in the past things were done as accurately as possible. Merman used to get his 5 attacks while standing, despite the entry about Rake. He has say in everything, but I am almost for certain he would agree with me based on the fact that it is an action you have to do inside of the arena prior to combat. Why wouldnt it be perceived as a prebuff, since being prone is an effect that lasts more than 16 hours. |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:09 PM | @Usurpator I don't think you got what I was trying to get across. But I do see a point about the caster and scrolls. Fighters can have weapons out because they expect combat, although one could argue thespecific weapon should be listed under pre-buff. Edit: I wrote this as a response to something not really required. And even if they had the Quick-Draw feat, they'd have to wait for their turn. I would argue casters cannot have scrolls out unless it's listed under pre-buff. If a character cannot go prone, then clearly he/she/it cannot pull out a scroll prior to combat. Edit: Because you wouldn't know what scroll to start with. I believe we shouldn't be allowed to change armors/weapons/anything before arena combat. While Balbanes had in every set of tactics(except 1) to leave his armor and horse at home, that was because his build idea changed before he even ever fought. I would be willing to push that idea past Cat if there was enough support. |
| Turin01-13-06, 01:10 PM | Generally, that way is not comfortable to me. I am one who likes to know clear-cut rules in advance, since that maximizes my ability to make use of said rules in building characters and thinking up tactics. I have a clear opinion about many rules issues, but *any* rule is better than an unclear or unknown rule. My ultimate frustration here is writing up a beautiful set of tactics and then the Pitlord judging my tactics invalid because of a rules issue, and having me lose as result. With many rules issues either never clarified (even thought discussed) or clarified in some Elder discussion I don't know about (and reasonably cannot have known about) this makes it hard.Ah, but shouldn't the Pitlord who says "hey, this isn't a valid tactic" be obligated to mention it to the player in question? I mean, Karen (Lonewolf) wanted to start in the arena using her tower shield for cover... I PM'd Lonewolf and said no dice for the same reason that you can't start the combat hiding (because it is an action to do so). So Lonewolf adjusts his tactics, and we're good to go without anyone getting bent out of shape (except for King Uther, who predicted a "going prone" defense and questioned it). Essentially, going prone means you had an action. Even if it is a free action, it had to be taken at some time. Being mounted isn't an action because you were already mounted. The same with flying. Does anybody see the logic in that? If you can drop prone, than you can use any psionic power that is a swift action, or a quickened spell."Essentially, being mounted means you had an action [to get mounted]. Even if it is a move action, it had to be taken at some time." Right? I think that there's an unspoken difference here between a "condition" (which requires an action to create) and an "action." I can start mounted or at a given altitude (0'), but not hiding or using my shield as cover. I would argue that being prone falls under the first category and not the second. |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:11 PM | If it was a pre-buff, then fine. But that would honestly be a little ridiculous. And against an Ajora'like character that focused on mounted combat you'd be a sitting duck(or a lying one). 5x run speed on a mount gets you pretty far. |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:13 PM | @Turin You missed my point. The mounted fighter didn't get mounted in the arena. He was already on his horse. Same thing with a flying warrior. He was already flying. |
| Book501-13-06, 01:17 PM | :smirk: I had to crawl around alll day .. . Just so I can creep into the starting block on my back. You would think the pitlords could let you sit down and pull your weapons out ..but noOoo! I can play cats cradle while standing on my head though! Thats Tumble and slight of hand.. but my point is it sounds silly to have to say as such. |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:18 PM | @Telin I agree it is a little sketchy, but less so if you consider the previous post to this, saying being mounted and flying are all started prior to entering the arena. Now, as far as starting position goes, you are right. It would have to be listed under pre-buff as well. And as far as logic goes, I will quote/paraphrase a long time Elder here. "Logic has no place in D&D" - Jindl Edit: That was supposed to be a joke. |
| Usurpator01-13-06, 01:19 PM | Ah, but shouldn't the Pitlord who says "hey, this isn't a valid tactic" be obligated to mention it to the player in question? I would prefer that, but I think a Pitlord cannot be obligated to do that. I often come across problems while I am running the fight, and getting a response (let alone a ruling on a shady issue) would mean I have to stop running the fight, while I may have only free time that afternoon to run it. Besides, getting a response may take days, not everyone check's his PM or e-mail daily, let alone hourly (with the different time zones and all). If a Pitlord points out a possible error or problem ahead of time (like Pitbull did with Nexa's last fight) I am always very appreciative of that. @TelinArtho: Will get to Flamehair's tactics tonight, first have to get out of the office now and go home and get something to eat. Unfortunately, I have four sets of tactics still to write. |
| Turin01-13-06, 01:27 PM | Fighters can have weapons out because they expect combat, although one could argue thespecific weapon should be listed under pre-buff. Edit: I wrote this as a response to something not really required. And even if they had the Quick-Draw feat, they'd have to wait for their turn. I would argue casters cannot have scrolls out unless it's listed under pre-buff. If a character cannot go prone, then clearly he/she/it cannot pull out a scroll prior to combat. Edit: Because you wouldn't know what scroll to start with. I believe we shouldn't be allowed to change armors/weapons/anything before arena combat. While Balbanes had in every set of tactics(except 1) to leave his armor and horse at home, that was because his build idea changed before he even ever fought.Hold on a second... are you actually trying to argue that every character should be required to have all his items-in-hand located in the pre-buffs, because drawing the item requires an action, but that starting mounted, which also requires an action, is perfectly okay? :rofl: I would prefer that, but I think a Pitlord cannot be obligated to do that. I often come across problems while I am running the fight, and getting a response (let alone a ruling on a shady issue) would mean I have to stop running the fight, while I may have only free time that afternoon to run it. Besides, getting a response may take days, not everyone check's his PM or e-mail daily, let alone hourly (with the different time zones and all).An excellent point... I've been fortunate not to have this problem I suppose, catching the problem for this fight early, and running my last fight early enough that when there was a problem there was plenty of time to discuss it before deadlines. Which brings us to the point that while it would be awfully nice to have a record of rulings on these various issues somewhere (like Cerebus' Community Vote thread), we all ultimately need to put our trust in the Pitlord who runs our fights. If we have a disagreement, fine, but it becomes the "Pitlord's call" eventually. Everyone just has to remember that for every time we get a questionable ruling against us, we're just as likely to have one go for us. |
| Cerebus1301-13-06, 01:37 PM | Hold on a second... are you actually trying to argue that every character should be required to have all his items-in-hand located in the pre-buffs, because drawing the item requires an action, but that starting mounted, which also requires an action, is perfectly okay? :rofl:I agree with Turin and NiQil on this one. This ruling must be absolute across the board....no exceptions allowed. Either you require players to list weapons drawn, scrolls drawn, being prone, being mounted, etc in their prebuffs.....or you allow players to choose these things within their tactics as has been the norm in the CoCo since the dawn of this place. This is a big change to a fundamental rule that we have never had problems with before. I guess I just don't see the point. "If it ain't broke don't fix it." Hmm? |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:38 PM | I put this issue up in the Council of Gladius (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8223834&postcount=862) . @Turin If you were a mounted fighter, and you knew you were going to the arena for a fight, wouldn't you already be mounted prior to even stepping into the arena? That's why you can start mounted. @Everyone Basically, I have proposed we either make pre-buffing more important, or we ignore the faulty logic that the arena imposes upon us and play on as is. But in that case going prone should be allowed. What I hope to do is have Cat make a little section defining the allowed starting actions. Can you start with a specific weapon with stating it on your sheet? Allies? Scrolls? It brings up a wealth of issues it may be easier just to ignore. |
| King Uther01-13-06, 01:42 PM | Let me be the first to say I'd like things to stay the same. It works, and everyone gets along. I would, however, like the Rules Thread to include starting actions. @Turin Let Karen start prone. If we don't, then we may have to change some things that I'd prefer not to. Like having a sword in my hand. |
| Turin01-13-06, 01:45 PM | Let me be the first to say I'd like things to stay the same. It works, and everyone gets along. I would, however, like the Rules Thread to include starting actions... Let Karen start prone. If we don't, then we may have to change some things that I'd prefer not to. Like having a sword in my hand.I agree with everything you've posted here. And as for the upcoming fight (I'll be pitlording it this Saturday night... the wife is going out with her girlfriends :D ), I don't think it's going to end up making a huge difference anyway. |
| Book501-13-06, 01:52 PM | Hmm, I agree that the prebuff and "at home" could be taken as very serious. "You are not allowed any other pre-fight actions." Its not that onerous... a little "strict" .. but not that bad... I wouldn't complain. |
| Turin01-13-06, 01:58 PM | Can I suggest for everyone's sanity that any further discussion of this issue be taken to the Council of Gladius thread where KU has taken it? A ruling has been made for purposes of the fight in question, so it's technically off-topic here now. |
| Zevox01-13-06, 03:56 PM | Leif vs Mini (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8223226&postcount=11) is up. Even with Beshaba's gaze set squarely on Leif and Tymora's smile shining on Mini the result was as both players predicted... Feel free to peck it through for errors. Zevox |
| Cerebus1301-13-06, 03:56 PM | @Mal-2 I still need tactics for Donak! Get them to me by Sunday morning, that is when I run my fights. |
| Mal-201-13-06, 04:01 PM | @Mal-2 I still need tactics for Donak! Get them to me by Sunday morning, that is when I run my fights. Sorry it's taking me so long. I haven't had a chance to sit down and think things through yet. You will absolutely have tactics from me tonight, probably within a few hours. |
| Altaris1301-13-06, 04:56 PM | Leif vs Mini (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8223226&postcount=11) is up. Even with Beshaba's gaze set squarely on Leif and Tymora's smile shining on Mini the result was as both players predicted... Feel free to peck it through for errors. Zevox I'm pleased. Freaking bird. :D Good job over all, but there's a couple of errors. Thematic rolls are kept in place, so False Life 5hp (or 6) instead of the second roll of 9hp. I'm not sure why you rolled it twice and awarded the second, higher amount, but the first roll needs to apply along with which ever modifier is correct. Readied actions reset init. So in RD7, Mini uses energy bolt and is done for the round. She then goes first going forward, so she still moves into hiding and the following round readies to fire the crossbow. No change to the fight there. However, the damage for Energy bolt is off. It should be (5d6+5)/2 for the save. I guess the 2d6+1d3+3 is the "half damage?" I don't either of those will alter the fight, so you can consider them FYI. |
| Zevox01-13-06, 05:02 PM | I'm pleased. Freaking bird. :D Good job over all, but there's a couple of errors. Thematic rolls are kept in place, so False Life 5hp (or 6) instead of the second roll of 9hp. I'm not sure why you rolled it twice and awarded the second, higher amount, but the first roll needs to apply along with which ever modifier is correct. Readied actions reset init. So in RD7, Mini uses energy bolt and is done for the round. She then goes first going forward, so she still moves into hiding and the following round readies to fire the crossbow. No change to the fight there. However, the damage for Energy bolt is off. It should be (5d6+5)/2 for the save. I guess the 2d6+1d3+3 is the "half damage?" I don't either of those will alter the fight, so you can consider them FYI. Okay. I didn't realize the first False Life roll had gone - I realized just after I hit the button that the modifier was wrong, so I put in the correct one and hit it again hoping to prevent the first from rolling. If you want I can add that, but the lower hp will just cause Leif to use one of his CLW potions and delay the match one round. And yeah, I forgot about readied actions affects on initiative - thats always a pain for me. Won't affect the fight as you say though. And yeah, the damage for the Energy Bolt is supposed to be half - I'm afraid thats how I'm used to dealing with such odd-numbered damage rolls when they're halved in my games. If you want I can reroll it, but again the only affect unless it rolls incredibly high is going to be to make Leif use one of his potions. Zevox |
| Altaris1301-13-06, 05:19 PM | Okay. I didn't realize the first False Life roll had gone - I realized just after I hit the button that the modifier was wrong, so I put in the correct one and hit it again hoping to prevent the first from rolling. If you want I can add that, but the lower hp will just cause Leif to use one of his CLW potions and delay the match one round. And yeah, I forgot about readied actions affects on initiative - thats always a pain for me. Won't affect the fight as you say though. And yeah, the damage for the Energy Bolt is supposed to be half - I'm afraid thats how I'm used to dealing with such odd-numbered damage rolls when they're halved in my games. If you want I can reroll it, but again the only affect unless it rolls incredibly high is going to be to make Leif use one of his potions. Zevox Nah, no rerolls necessary. While I wouldn't mind causing my opponent more expenses, that's just out of spite. :D And actually, comparing the average damage of 5d6+5 = 20/2 = 10 vs 2d6+1d3+3 = 11, the second way was in my favor. ;) |
| Kaigan01-13-06, 06:15 PM | Tactics Sent: Tactics for Eiletha sent to Book5 via PM. Tactics for Rethun sent to Skojar via PM. Tactics for Gundir sent to Altaris13 via PM. Tactics Received: Tactics received for Sven from TroubleWolf via PM. Tactics received for Kracknol from Saurogrenom via PM. Tactics received for Grik from Snommelp via PM. Tactics not received for Samuel from Lonewolf. My fights should be up sometime tomorrow. Tonight is for rest & relaxation, but also for gaming. Have a great evening everyone!!! |
| Mal-201-13-06, 08:06 PM | @Cerebus13: Tactics sent for Donak @Dracazar, Snommelp: tactics recieved for Cher vs Amaryllis. I'll start on the fight tomorrow. |
| Pittbull01-14-06, 05:27 AM | Galagith vs Kraegin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8229053&postcount=13) is up! |
| TelinArtho01-14-06, 10:43 AM | Now that went just as planned... Like I said Iced - I had contemplated offering terms of surrender... |
| Macbrea01-14-06, 01:05 PM | Loddick Saffrion (Erithmu) vs Aragorn (Katana): Macbrea I have tactics for Loddick and the default tactics for Aragorn are: Just use my equipment and potions the best u can and try to win. You have until Midnight this evening to PM me tactics or I will surrender this fight as unacceptable tactics sent to a pitlord. It is not the pitlords job to improvise the entire fight and figure out good tactics for your character. Your sheet also needs to be updated to link your previous fights, please do this after your fight results. Your sheet should also be titled in such a fashion that we realize your actually around. 'Ready every wednesday" is suppose to be Ready Jan 11th, 2006. To show us that you actually are around. Please send me tactics today, |
| TelinArtho01-14-06, 01:57 PM | Tatyana vs Hennan vs Flamehair (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8231300) is up. Didn't have room for pitlord comments: 1. First of all I should note that I completely forgot about Flamehair's force screen through the fight - so I had to go back and edit it in. It made a difference on two hits. 2. When two characters went down in one hit, I elected to have them both bleed out rather than have the third character go up and CDG them individually - for there was no way I could have done this fairly (I suppose I could've just rolled 1d2 and left it to chance). I made a pitlord decision on this - so no arguments on this. |
| Mal-201-14-06, 02:12 PM | Quick question. When a character is Entangled and attempting to cast a spell with a casting time of one full round (like a summoning spell), how many concentration checks do they need to make? Just one when they attempt to finish the spell? Or two, one on each round they are casting? |
| Luni01-14-06, 02:14 PM | Quick question. When a character is Entangled and attempting to cast a spell with a casting time of one full round (like a summoning spell), how many concentration checks do they need to make? Just one when they attempt to finish the spell? Or two, one on each round they are casting? Just one check. I'd say when they start casting it, though it is unlikely that their concentration mod is going to change round after round. |
| Cerebus1301-14-06, 06:08 PM | Donak vs. Thelgar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8231439&postcount=16) is up. I got sidetracked and forgot to put a map in of the fight, so I editted that in just a minute ago. Please let me know if there are any problems. |
| Mal-201-14-06, 06:40 PM | Donak vs. Thelgar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8231439&postcount=16) is up. I got sidetracked and forgot to put a map in of the fight, so I editted that in just a minute ago. Please let me know if there are any problems. Looks good to me. Evferything went pretty much how I expected. My only chance was for him to roll low on his blitz, which he didn't. These fights will go better for me once I can afford a way to deal with invisibility. |
| Skojar01-14-06, 07:57 PM | @ Papapeperoni & Kaigan:[i]I have receive everyone's tactics and will work out the fight sunday after I get off from work. |
| Book501-14-06, 08:30 PM | Elitha vs Theoricus (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8233670&postcount=17) is finished. Obviously I got the other Kaigan's tactics... but @Usurpator - tactics recived.. wish I could start and finish tonight, but I should have all day tommarow. Will post setup thread before the end of the night. hehe @All check out my "setup post and summary for this fight" (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8230398&postcount=14) neat looking? eh? eh? |
| Turin01-15-06, 01:15 AM | Karen (Lonewolf) vs Ajora (King Uther) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8235132&postcount=18) is up. Feel free to tear apart at your liesure. Ultimately it looks like the question of being prone didn't matter at all in this fight. I'd suggest both gladiators check my comments about their sheets. |
| Macbrea01-15-06, 01:24 AM | Loddick vs Aragorn (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8235197&postcount=19) is up. This was a useless week for me and pitlording. :P |
| King Uther01-15-06, 01:45 AM | @Turin 1. A pearl of brain lock does not affect animals. Read the power description. Target is 1 humanoid. It has to be augmented to affect animals. 2. In addition, Karen violated the 10 round rule. Way more than violated, actually. 3. Also, with the magical ability to see Karen, Ajora wouldn't waste his shot to fire into the tower shield. Everyone in the arena understands the purpose of tower shields. 4. You didn't use my readied action strategy, and instead had me shoot. My goal was to maintain distance and eliminate AoOs while getting the tower shield. It could have easily been done due to my superior mobility. In round 15 Ajora would ready to move when Karen closed. The readied action would trigger, and Ajora would start his turn right next to the tower shield. He would've picked it up and ran away to plug arrows into her. There are a couple of minor issues, particularly when dealing with firing into melee, but I really don't think that wouldhave even come up given the circumstances. |
| MindWandererB01-15-06, 01:52 AM | Karen (Lonewolf) vs Ajora (King Uther) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8235132&postcount=18) is up. Feel free to tear apart at your liesure. Ultimately it looks like the question of being prone didn't matter at all in this fight. I'd suggest both gladiators check my comments about their sheets.I see one major problem: Karen is using a tower shield, with which she is not proficient. So before she dropped it in round 14, either her attacks should be at -10 (armor check penalty), or her AC should be 2 lower (if she switches to a heavy shield). |
| lonewolf01-15-06, 04:24 AM | @Turin 1. A pearl of brain lock does not affect animals. Read the power description. Target is 1 humanoid. It has to be augmented to affect animals. A pearl of Brain lock does work on animals. Pearl, Brain Lock: This tiny pearly sphere speeds toward its target when hurled by its owner. He can hurl the pearl at any target within 130 feet that he can see and to which he has line of effect. If the target fails a DC 13 Will saving throw, the pearl seems to impact and then enter the flesh of the target. The target stands mentally paralyzed, as if by brain lock, for 3 rounds. The use destroys the item. Nothing is mentioned about the target has to be humanoid here. And since the pearl works differently than the power Brain lock anyway(different duration) the only thing important from the power is the effect and neither the target nor the duration of the power. 2. In addition, Karen violated the 10 round rule. Way more than violated, actually. Karen did, but so did Ajora. we both were penalized, so I dont see where you are going with this. 3. Also, with the magical ability to see Karen, Ajora wouldn't waste his shot to fire into the tower shield. Everyone in the arena understands the purpose of tower shields. Karen didnt claim total cover from the shield at this point. It was her main purpose to let you miss your first shot at her by gaining a skyhigh AC, but she knows that claiming total cover would prevent Ajora fireing that shot. 4. You didn't use my readied action strategy, and instead had me shoot. My goal was to maintain distance and eliminate AoOs while getting the tower shield. It could have easily been done due to my superior mobility. In round 15 Ajora would ready to move when Karen closed. The readied action would trigger, and Ajora would start his turn right next to the tower shield. He would've picked it up and ran away to plug arrows into her. If I understand it right, he did try this tactic, but since your horse was dazed from the Pearl of Brain lock you couldnt move without unmounting. I see one major problem: Karen is using a tower shield, with which she is not proficient. So before she dropped it in round 14, either her attacks should be at -10 (armor check penalty), or her AC should be 2 lower (if she switches to a heavy shield). Karen is indeed unproficient with the Tower Shield and so her attacks should be at -10, but fortunately Karen didnt attack while using the shield. I have also some minor nitpicks about the fight: You didnt use the powerstone of Vigor at the start. In round 14 Karen can draw the Spiked chain while moving and thus can either manifest expansion in the same round or at least move into melee distance in this round already and thus gaining an AoO. If you do edit the fight because of the things King Uther wrote, please edit this in. If you dont see another reason to edit(I dont) then dont bother. |
| Kaigan01-15-06, 04:41 AM | Samuel vs. Sven is up. Please look over it. I hope there aren't too many mistakes, but if there are please point them out. Thanks. Also, I wrote a simple story, not much more than a description, but still a story. Kaigan Edit: Kracknol vs. Grik is now up. There is one issue that I expressed fairly clearly in the fight, so please look that over, and give me feed back. Thanks. |
| Caterane01-15-06, 08:42 AM | That echoes a bit of my sentiment too. If only some Ruleslord or something like that stepped up. But that is ultimately for Cat and the Elders to decide. Until now we can only ask for any official ruling and hope that somebody with a more authoritive position picks it up. If my asking goes unheard for several weeks, my first instinct will be to raise my voice somewhat. Cerebus13 created a new initiative with his polls about rules issues, which I hoped would be a great incentive to get the Elders to decide on some issues with only minimal effort. Elder participation there has unfortunately been very low. I think only Pitbull voted on a couple of issues, none of the others did. I thought Elder were here to keep tabs on the rules an CoCo rulings, but there seems to be a void, with Elders only occasionally 'popping out of the woodwork' to refer to some obscure ruling apparently made in the past. Generally, that way is not comfortable to me. I am one who likes to know clear-cut rules in advance, since that maximizes my ability to make use of said rules in building characters and thinking up tactics. I have a clear opinion about many rules issues, but *any* rule is better than an unclear or unknown rule. My ultimate frustration here is writing up a beautiful set of tactics and then the Pitlord judging my tactics invalid because of a rules issue, and having me lose as result. With many rules issues either never clarified (even thought discussed) or clarified in some Elder discussion I don't know about (and reasonably cannot have known about) this makes it hard. Cerebus, please keep up your work. Coincidently, I've talked to all the Elders (except one) recently about their status. Especially LLMadCow and Tellish of Ket are missing for a long time and the growing coco cannot afford two inactive Elders. Every Elder assured me that his participation will now be in line with his responsibilities but I will judge it on actions in the coming weeks. |
| TheMagister01-15-06, 09:32 AM | Oh, wow. Just read the tactics in The White Hand vs. Cyra Val fight. I don't see how I can win (more lucky arrow crits?). Great tactics, man. TM |
| Maraxus01-15-06, 10:16 AM | Nevermind. |
| Papapeperoni01-15-06, 10:20 AM | I'm busy with the fight, and indeed, I find it ingenious to climb to the ceiling. This is going SLOW. Speed: 1 round/15min. Anyone got a pitlord speed boost? :P Ah well, it's my first time. --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's |
| Turin01-15-06, 11:16 AM | King Uther & Lonewolf... I've only just had a chance to look your comments over, but I'm not going to get a chance to review the fight until later tonight (Sunday) at best. Thanks for your patience. |
| Cerebus1301-15-06, 11:20 AM | Cerebus, please keep up your work. Coincidently, I've talked to all the Elders (except one) recently about their status. Especially LLMadCow and Tellish of Ket are missing for a long time and the growing coco cannot afford two inactive Elders. Every Elder assured me that his participation will now be in line with his responsibilities but I will judge it on actions in the coming weeks.I will tally the results and forward them onto yourself, NiQil, and King Uther being as you are the 3 most active controllers of Lord accounts (Pitlords, Prisonlords, and Scribelords respectively). Votes will typically stay up for about 2 weeks each to insure a decent sampling. |
| Papapeperoni01-15-06, 11:22 AM | In my fight, The White Hand, has a scroll and a rapier in his hand, his default tactic is to cast flame blade (the scroll) and attack Cyra Val with it, the only problem is that Cyra is hanging on the ceiling. Can I assume he brought his crossbow with him (he didn't explicitly stated it, but he also doesn't have an at home section)? Anyone knows? Thanks, --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's |
| Mal-201-15-06, 11:27 AM | In my fight, The White Hand, has a scroll and a rapier in his hand, his default tactic is to cast flame blade (the scroll) and attack Cyra Val with it, the only problem is that Cyra is hanging on the ceiling. Can I assume he brought his crossbow with him (he didn't explicitly stated it, but he also doesn't have an at home section)? Anyone knows? As long as it's listed on the character sheet and not in a "left at home" section, he should be carrying it with him. @Dracazar, Snommelp: I'm still running your fight, but I have a face to face D&D game today. I won't be able to finish until tonight at the earliest. Sorry it's taking so long. |
| MindWandererB01-15-06, 11:52 AM | Samuel vs. Sven is up. Edit: Kracknol vs. Grik is now up. There is one issue that I expressed fairly clearly in the fight, so please look that over, and give me feed back. Thanks.Re: Sam & Sven: two niggling little corrections. One, rounds 4-6 accidentally ended up in sblocks, confused the heck out of me for a while. Two, in round 4 you have Sam drinking Prot Law instead of Prot Chaos (but applied the Prot Chaos effect anyway). Re: Kracknol vs. Grick: If someone's original tactics are illegal, they should have the opportunity to change them, time permitting. However, the NPC services cost of an augmented 5 PP Dissipating Touch should be the same as a level 3 Power (since augmented power stones cost extra, so should augmented NPC services), not cheaper as SauroGrenom stated. (Also, Kracknol's Expansion duration is 50 minutes, not 5, per the errata, not that it makes any difference whatsoever.) |
| Snommelp01-15-06, 11:54 AM | Edit: Kracknol vs. Grik is now up. There is one issue that I expressed fairly clearly in the fight, so please look that over, and give me feed back. Thanks.Grik's rewards for WAR are indeed wrong. He earns 10% until next level, at which point it will be 1%. Also, guild rewards always round down. However, seeing as I didn't have Grik's guild tax in his sheet, it's understandable that you might make a mistake in that regard. My apologies. As for the tactics vs. Invisible, you did the only thing that Grik could have done. If I had remembered Invisibility, the tactics would have read exactly as you played Grik. I need some sort of See Invisibility item... @ Mal-2: No worries. Cleric vs. Druid would understandably take a while to run, especially since this cleric seems to be a summoner. The only consolation I can give you is this: Amaryllis will be retiring some time soon (I'm just using her to get a better grasp of the Druid class) and will be replaced by a character which is much easier to run. |
| Kaigan01-15-06, 12:01 PM | Re: Sam & Sven: two niggling little corrections. One, rounds 4-6 accidentally ended up in sblocks, confused the heck out of me for a while. Two, in round 4 you have Sam drinking Prot Law instead of Prot Chaos (but applied the Prot Chaos effect anyway). Re: Kracknol vs. Grick: If someone's original tactics are illegal, they should have the opportunity to change them, time permitting. However, the NPC services cost of an augmented 5 PP Dissipating Touch should be the same as a level 3 Power (since augmented power stones cost extra, so should augmented NPC services), not cheaper as SauroGrenom stated. (Also, Kracknol's Expansion duration is 50 minutes, not 5, per the errata, not that it makes any difference whatsoever.) and Grik's rewards for WAR are indeed wrong. He earns 10% until next level, at which point it will be 1%. Also, guild rewards always round down. However, seeing as I didn't have Grik's guild tax in his sheet, it's understandable that you might make a mistake in that regard. My apologies. As for the tactics vs. Invisible, you did the only thing that Grik could have done. If I had remembered Invisibility, the tactics would have read exactly as you played Grik. I need some sort of See Invisibility item... I've fixed these errors, except for the 50 minutes for expansion. I'll remember that for future fights, thanks for pointing these out. If there are any more, I'll fix it later, and I'll write a short little story. It should be funny. |
| Papapeperoni01-15-06, 01:20 PM | Well, I've got my fight up, could someone check it for errors or mistakes and comments et cetera et cetera. :) Woohoo, pitlorded my first fight, --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's |
| MindWandererB01-15-06, 01:54 PM | Well, I've got my fight up, could someone check it for errors or mistakes and comments et cetera et cetera. :) Linked (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8236047&postcount=23) for reference. Round 6: You had acid splash damage destroy all the images. Images created by Mirror Image react normally to area effects, so each one would appear to have taken acid burns but not disappear. Regarding tactics: TheMagister specifically stated "die trying." So I'm not sure why he surrendered rather than retrieving his bow and returning fire--once biofeedback ends (in another three rounds), it at least becomes feasible to win, if improbable. In any event, it is nonsensical to use up a scroll of Shield and then surrender. Also, 400 gp is the correct price for a masterwork composite longbow [+0]. So TWH is not at a -2 attack penalty. |
| Papapeperoni01-15-06, 02:15 PM | Thanks. So I'll just have to recalc Cyra's attacks to see if they hit the right one. Doesn't a duplicate disappear when it takes damage. And your probably right about the surrendering part. But I'm too tired right now (6 hours working on it). And I don't think anything changes because of the +3 (penalty gone, +1 mwk). That's less comment than I expected :D . Signing off, --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's |
| Maraxus01-15-06, 02:37 PM | Boraxx vs Rebreg is up A really exiting fight. Probably there is something to correct, if it is that close, there is allways something to correct. :rolleyes: |
| Stormwind01-15-06, 03:21 PM | Thanks. So I'll just have to recalc Cyra's attacks to see if they hit the right one. Doesn't a duplicate disappear when it takes damage. And your probably right about the surrendering part. But I'm too tired right now (6 hours working on it). And I don't think anything changes because of the +3 (penalty gone, +1 mwk). That's less comment than I expected :D . Signing off, --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's I thought that duplicates did disappear when they take damage, but after rereading the mirror image spell description, I might have to rethink. The spell states:Enemies attempting to attack you or cast spells at you must select from among indistinguishable targets. Generally, roll randomly to see whether the selected target is real or a figment. Any successful attack against an image destroys it. An image’s AC is 10 + your size modifier + your Dex modifier. Figments seem to react normally to area spells (such as looking like they’re burned or dead after being hit by a fireball). Thus it depends entirely on whether or not you consider damage to be the result of sucessful attack or not. Your call. Also a minor problem, in round 9 TWH uses the Blinding ability from his shield. However Cyra is on the ceiling (which is 50' up) and thus is well out of the 20' range of the blinding ability. So TWH would most likely do something else that round. Also, in the rewards section at the bottom you should also summarise the free actions, and any guild earnings. In this case TWH should earn 120gp from Perform(acting), Cyra should earn 115gp from Profession(spymaster), and Cyra should earn the PSI guild 10% of her arena earnings (160gp atm). As always, thanks for running the fight Stormwind |
| TheMagister01-15-06, 03:56 PM | Thanks for running the fight, Papa! They've already said everything that I would've, and you've acknowledged the flaws. Take some time off (I know how you feel [ref: Luni's Imperi] about long fights). I'm in no hurry. Otherwise, good job! p.s.: don't forget to complete TWH's buffing sequence before attacking! TM |
| Usurpator01-15-06, 04:05 PM | Tatyana vs Hennan vs Flamehair (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8231300) is up. Didn't have room for pitlord comments: 1. First of all I should note that I completely forgot about Flamehair's force screen through the fight - so I had to go back and edit it in. It made a difference on two hits. 2. When two characters went down in one hit, I elected to have them both bleed out rather than have the third character go up and CDG them individually - for there was no way I could have done this fairly (I suppose I could've just rolled 1d2 and left it to chance). I made a pitlord decision on this - so no arguments on this. Telin, thanks for running the fights. One question though: You have Flamehair at 22 AC, but she should have 23 AC (+8 armor, +1 Dex, +4 shield), in round 9 the two hits wouldn't have hit, but since they did 0 damage anyway, doesn't matter. More importantly, Tatyana used a potion of invisibility, but she doesn't have one in her inventory. I was amazed when I saw that when I read the tactics, because potions of invisibility always factor into my tactics and I could not believe I had missed that. Fortunately, I didn't. Not majorly fight affecting though. A lot of low rolls for Flamehair, can't argue with that. A classic case of two fight and the third gets away with the victory. But didn't feel much like using a delaying tactic in this fight, especially since I expected Hennan not to use one. @Gonbow: Yeah, I like the image of the wandering mage as well, still have four of them lying around somewhere I think. |
| TelinArtho01-15-06, 04:12 PM | Telin, thanks for running the fights. One question though: You have Flamehair at 22 AC, but she should have 23 AC (+8 armor, +1 Dex, +4 shield), in round 9 the two hits wouldn't have hit, but since they did 0 damage anyway, doesn't matter. More importantly, Tatyana used a potion of invisibility, but she doesn't have one in her inventory. I was amazed when I saw that when I read the tactics, because potions of invisibility always factor into my tactics and I could not believe I had missed that. Fortunately, I didn't. Not majorly fight affecting though. A lot of low rolls for Flamehair, can't argue with that. A classic case of two fight and the third gets away with the victory. But didn't feel much like using a delaying tactic in this fight, especially since I expected Hennan not to use one. @Gonbow: Yeah, I like the image of the wandering mage as well, still have four of them lying around somewhere I think. Hmmm - don't know why I screwed that part up (your AC...) - it doesn't make a difference, but well noted. The potion of invisibility similarly doesn't make a difference except that Tatyana has less used expendables (since she breaks the invisibility after she sees her first opponent in round 3. When I get a chance - I'll edit that change in. The funny thing is - Tatyana has never had a potion of Invisibility... how strange. Anyway - I'll edit that in when I get the chance as well. |
| DTFarstar01-15-06, 04:22 PM | @Papa - I would have to say that initially you would have had the images thing right if the acid flask had hit. Then the attack would have been successful and the splash would have killed the images. However, a miss is an unsuccessful attack, thus splash shouldn't get rid of the images. That is my opinion as a pitlord, anyway. |
| Kaigan01-15-06, 04:49 PM | You fire a small orb of acid at the target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack to hit your target. The orb deals 1d3 points of acid damage. This is the description of the spell Acid Splash. No where does it say that it deals splash damage to the surrounding squares. So does Acid Splash indeed make a splash? Or not? |
| MindWandererB01-15-06, 05:33 PM | This is the description of the spell Acid Splash. No where does it say that it deals splash damage to the surrounding squares. So does Acid Splash indeed make a splash? Or not?It's not the Acid Splash spell, it's the splash damage from a vial of acid. Never noticed how that spell had a confusing title, since it doesn't actually splash. The compelling argument to me is that area effect spells don't cause the images to vanish. If spells don't do it, mundane area effects shouldn't either, IMO (although a direct hit with the flask would eliminate the image it hit). |
| Usurpator01-15-06, 05:56 PM | Hmmm - don't know why I screwed that part up (your AC...) - it doesn't make a difference, but well noted. The potion of invisibility similarly doesn't make a difference except that Tatyana has less used expendables. Well, I think Gonbow should probably thank his lucky stars for that, otherwise it would probably meant a complete rerun.... |
| Usurpator01-15-06, 06:07 PM | The compelling argument to me is that area effect spells don't cause the images to vanish. If spells don't do it, mundane area effects shouldn't either, IMO (although a direct hit with the flask would eliminate the image it hit). I agree. Was the first strange thing I noticed about the fight too. A splash should not dispel mirror images. |
| SauroGrenom01-15-06, 07:51 PM | Shakari vs Aranor (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8240233) is up. Lucky critical hit by Shakari made this a quick fight. |
| Sindorin01-15-06, 08:08 PM | mmm hmm. |
| Luni01-15-06, 09:29 PM | Shakari vs Aranor (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8240233) is up. Lucky critical hit by Shakari made this a quick fight. You forgot to list Shakari's Potion of Protection from Law under items used. |
| Begferdeth01-15-06, 09:35 PM | Um, do nets have hardness? Do people inside them have to roll to hit them? |
| Luni01-15-06, 09:48 PM | Um, do nets have hardness? Do people inside them have to roll to hit them? Net A net is used to entangle enemies. When you throw a net, you make a ranged touch attack against your target. A net’s maximum range is 10 feet. If you hit, the target is entangled. An entangled creature takes a -2 penalty on attack rolls and a -4 penalty on Dexterity, can move at only half speed, and cannot charge or run. If you control the trailing rope by succeeding on an opposed Strength check while holding it, the entangled creature can move only within the limits that the rope allows. If the entangled creature attempts to cast a spell, it must make a DC 15 Concentration check or be unable to cast the spell. An entangled creature can escape with a DC 20 Escape Artist check (a full-round action). The net has 5 hit points and can be burst with a DC 25 Strength check (also a full-round action). A net is useful only against creatures within one size category of you. A net must be folded to be thrown effectively. The first time you throw your net in a fight, you make a normal ranged touch attack roll. After the net is unfolded, you take a -4 penalty on attack rolls with it. It takes 2 rounds for a proficient user to fold a net and twice that long for a nonproficient one to do so. From that, I'd say no hardness, but if someone tries to cut, they would have to use a light slashing or piercing weapon to cut it (Just as swallow whole). Just my :2cents: but not official |
| SauroGrenom01-15-06, 10:24 PM | You forgot to list Shakari's Potion of Protection from Law under items used. Nope, I didn't forget, look again it's there. |
| Luni01-15-06, 10:41 PM | Nope, I didn't forget, look again it's there. All right, so I'm blind. Thanks for running the fight, Sauro. As for Sindorin, you need to know that Protection from Arrows grants no protection against arrows from a magical bow. Shakari's bow is indeed magical. Your time could have been better spent doing something to buff your AC. When you were invisible you had all the time you could possibly want to buff with any spell immaginable. Use the time to make it harder for her ranged attacks to connect by increaseing your AC. Invisibility, doesn't slow down Shakari's arrows. :) I love not having a miss chance with my bow. |
| bgt01-15-06, 10:56 PM | Book5, there is a problem with my fight against Elitha. My astral constructs have the Trip special quality. Whenever they hit, they get a free trip attempt, without the risk of attacks of oppurtunity or getting tripped themselves. You never made these trip attempts. If they suceeded, Elitha may have never stood up again, because of the attacks of oppurtunity she provoked. You shortchanged me in this respect and I ask you fix the fight. |
| Begferdeth01-15-06, 11:20 PM | Elaine Dreamseeker vs Gorak Razorfang (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8241707&postcount=27) is up! I sense many net-related complaints coming. |
| SauroGrenom01-15-06, 11:24 PM | Invisibility, doesn't slow down Shakari's arrows. :) I love not having a miss chance with my bow. You still have to pinpoint the attack so that it targets the correct square. That's what the invisibility would be good for. |
| Luni01-15-06, 11:43 PM | You still have to pinpoint the attack so that it targets the correct square. That's what the invisibility would be good for. Spellcasting is rather noisy, and I usually don't mind taking guesses at where my opponent is and shooting. :) |
| Snommelp01-16-06, 12:44 AM | Silly question: at CL 3, does a caster get the 1d4 Mirror Images or 1d4+1? It says "plus one image per three caster levels," but I want to be absolutely sure. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-16-06, 12:54 AM | Silly question: at CL 3, does a caster get the 1d4 Mirror Images or 1d4+1? It says "plus one image per three caster levels," but I want to be absolutely sure. 1d4+1 as it does not say for every three after first. |
| Snommelp01-16-06, 12:55 AM | 1d4+1 as it does not say for every three after first. Cool. Thanks. |
| Gonbow01-16-06, 01:15 AM | Hmmm - don't know why I screwed that part up (your AC...) - it doesn't make a difference, but well noted. The potion of invisibility similarly doesn't make a difference except that Tatyana has less used expendables (since she breaks the invisibility after she sees her first opponent in round 3. When I get a chance - I'll edit that change in. The funny thing is - Tatyana has never had a potion of Invisibility... how strange. Anyway - I'll edit that in when I get the chance as well. Whoops. My bad guys! I could have sworn I had her buy one... <mutters about his failing memory> All my /other/ characters have them. I guess Tatyana doesn't need one so much >.> |
| King Uther01-16-06, 01:33 AM | @lonewolf My strategy didn't inherently violate the rule. I attempted to find you, which counts as being active. You just sat in place. Not allowed, I'm afraid. Something needs to happen to correct that, as that undermines the rules of gladitorial combat. In other words, at round 11, after never trying to engage me, something would have to happen to even the score. However, there is no rule as to what it would be. I searched for you, didn't find you, buffed, then tried to find you again. |
| Snommelp01-16-06, 01:39 AM | Pestilence vs. Histal is up. There were several de-ja-vu rolls... exact same result for the exact same roll... |
| NiQil01-16-06, 01:59 AM | Pestilence vs. Histal is up. There were several de-ja-vu rolls... exact same result for the exact same roll... As far as I can tell, all of the hits were high enough that this didn't matter, but the favored enemy bonus only counts on damage, not on attack rolls. So while the damage is correct, I was only at +7 to hit, instead of +9. As I said, however, as far as I can tell subtracting 2 from all of my attack rolls changes nothing, so no need to correct unless you have to correct for something else. |
| Book501-16-06, 02:18 AM | Book5, there is a problem ... You shortchanged me in this respect and I ask you fix the fight. OH! HELL! I wrote an entire responce. I rolled! two checks under "bgt - request" at invisible castle.. or ARG! something... :nonono: I have gremlins.. "bogons" something! I mean thats what happens. People call me with computer gremlins and I psychic them through the phone and take them home like pound puppys. ARG! If you'll take my word for it. The trip worked, but since Elitha had free move action the next round (and I rolled the attack (3) ) and the rest of the fight runs the same. @My Other fighters - I have not started the fight, and will attempt to update the setup (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8242361&postcount=28) when I do. :weep: and thats all I can do for tonight :weep: - signing off |
| Vathelokai01-16-06, 02:23 AM | I rolled! two checks under "bgt - request" at invisible castle.. or ARG! something... It's over here under "bgt - request 1/11" (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?u=bgt+-+request+1%2F11) |
| MindWandererB01-16-06, 02:23 AM | OH! HELL! I wrote an entire responce. I rolled! two checks under "bgt - request" at invisible castle.. or ARG! something... :nonono: I have gremlins.. "bogons" something! I mean thats what happens. People call me with computer gremlins and I psychic them through the phone and take them home like pound puppys. ARG! If you'll take my word for it. The trip worked, but since Elitha had free move action the next round (and I rolled the attack (3) ) and the rest of the fight runs the same.No need to take your word for it. The rolls are here (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?u=bgt+-+request+1%2F11&limit=on). Seems you weren't lying. Who woulda thunk? :D |
| MitzaVolchenko01-16-06, 03:31 AM | @Telin and Cerebus13, I apologize. I am running behind on your fight and am too tired and grumpy to work out what Pirotess should be doing in response to being sniffed by the elementals. I'll have your fight up by sometime tomorrow (probably mid afternoon EST). |
| lonewolf01-16-06, 04:08 AM | @lonewolf My strategy didn't inherently violate the rule. I attempted to find you, which counts as being active. You just sat in place. Not allowed, I'm afraid. Something needs to happen to correct that, as that undermines the rules of gladitorial combat. In other words, at round 11, after never trying to engage me, something would have to happen to even the score. However, there is no rule as to what it would be. I searched for you, didn't find you, buffed, then tried to find you again. Not so. Karen shouted aloud in round 1, so if you really were looking for me, you would have found me. Instead you also just stood there in the arena and waited for me to show up(while buffing). Not much of a difference. |
| Macbrea01-16-06, 08:07 AM | Elaine Dreamseeker vs Gorak Razorfang (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8241707&postcount=27) is up! I sense many net-related complaints coming. Nah, I am good with that fight. It happens, I figured Gorak needed an equalizer to the Power manifesting ability of the psychic warrior. He uses limited resources. What I forgot to write in my tactics was a point in which to rage. Funny. Oh, well. Good fight Ariel23. |
| Turin01-16-06, 10:02 AM | 1. A pearl of brain lock does not affect animals. Read the power description. Target is 1 humanoid. It has to be augmented to affect animals.I believe the wording of the item description indicates otherwise.2. In addition, Karen violated the 10 round rule. Way more than violated, actually.Both of you were in violation, which is why you both got lit up like Christmas trees. Your strategy was rather explicitly one of waiting to for Karen to come out and get you after you shouted. But shouting for your opponent (just as she did) is a delaying tactic, not an interactive one.3. Also, with the magical ability to see Karen, Ajora wouldn't waste his shot to fire into the tower shield. Everyone in the arena understands the purpose of tower shields.She wasn't using it for cover, she was holding it.4. You didn't use my readied action strategy, and instead had me shoot. My goal was to maintain distance and eliminate AoOs while getting the tower shield. It could have easily been done due to my superior mobility. In round 15 Ajora would ready to move when Karen closed. The readied action would trigger, and Ajora would start his turn right next to the tower shield. He would've picked it up and ran away to plug arrows into her.You were mounted on a paralyzed horse at the time your readied action was appropriate. Dismounting would have meant losing your mobility advantage and would have had the same end result, which is Ajora flat on his back getting tripped and disarmed. By waiting out the short duration of the brain lock pearl (which I'll admit should have probably required a psicraft check to realize), you had your only chance of getting to the shield and getting away without getting killed in the process. Karen just wasn't that far from her shield that she wasn't going to be able to beat on you as you tried to recover it. As for Lonewolf, I'd like to see the tower shield non-proficiency noted on your character sheet, as I did miss that. Obviously, your tactics didn't require being able to hit while carrying the tower shield so it's no big deal for this fight. I do agree about drawing the chain and expanding at the same time, but I see no reason to edit the fight at this time unless King Uther can convince me something major needs to be fixed. |
| bgt01-16-06, 10:49 AM | If you'll take my word for it. The trip worked, but since Elitha had free move action the next round (and I rolled the attack (3) ) and the rest of the fight runs the same. OK then. :) |
| Snommelp01-16-06, 11:47 AM | As far as I can tell, all of the hits were high enough that this didn't matter, but the favored enemy bonus only counts on damage, not on attack rolls. So while the damage is correct, I was only at +7 to hit, instead of +9. As I said, however, as far as I can tell subtracting 2 from all of my attack rolls changes nothing, so no need to correct unless you have to correct for something else. Well in that case your character sheet is wrong, because it says +9 and after the first shot (which has the -2 listed) every shot was taken inside of the first range increment. |
| Mal-201-16-06, 12:02 PM | Does Sanctuary protect versus summoned Swarms? Santuary protects you from "direct attacks", but swarms don't have attacks, they do damage by just occupying the same square as you. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-16-06, 12:13 PM | Has anyone seen Altaris? |
| TelinArtho01-16-06, 01:20 PM | @Mitza - according to Altaris13's profile, he hasn't been on since 1/14. @Mal-2 - according to the Sanctuary spell, Any opponent attempting to strike or otherwise directly attack the warded creature, even with a targeted spell, must attempt a Will save. and a swarm has the following under combat: In order to attack, a single swarm moves into opponents’ spaces, which provokes an attack of opportunity. It can occupy the same space as a creature of any size, since it crawls all over its prey, but remains a creature with a 10-foot space I would say that yes - Sanctuary will protect from Swarms - unless the swarm makes a will save to break the sanctuary. |
| NiQil01-16-06, 02:08 PM | Well in that case your character sheet is wrong, because it says +9 and after the first shot (which has the -2 listed) every shot was taken inside of the first range increment. Ack...yer right...it is wrong. You are gonna have the same issue with my other fight as well...same cut and paste typo. |
| DTFarstar01-16-06, 02:38 PM | I realize I am behind and I apologize, I have all the tactics, I think, and I will try to get them done and posted by tonight at the latest, but no promises. |
| Ariel2301-16-06, 02:41 PM | Elaine Dreamseeker vs Gorak Razorfang (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8241707&postcount=27) is up! I sense many net-related complaints coming.@begferdeath Yeah, nets are annoying (like caltrops) in that they don't really expand on how they work anywhere. I have no problem with getting 5 of them thrown at Evaine at all and I expect the pitlord to "improvise" since there's a glaring lack in the rules. Like, if Gorak had attacked with his greatax, would this have severed the net? (If not, why not?) If so, this basically gives Evaine an extra 5 HP of DR/-. [Gorak is smart enough to use his trident, so that's moot here.] I disagree about the "light weapon" thing. If I threw a net over Conan and he had his greatsword out, I'd expect him to cut through it like butter and then do the same to me. Technically, Evaine has a light weapon--a spiked gauntlet. Basically I got that for grapples and disarm/sunder, but I guess it might work against nets. Anyway, I think you did a really good job and it was a straightforward fight which I knew would be all about the rolling. Nah, I am good with that fight. It happens, I figured Gorak needed an equalizer to the Power manifesting ability of the psychic warrior. He uses limited resources. What I forgot to write in my tactics was a point in which to rage. Funny. Oh, well. @macbrea: I was extremely shocked that there was no rage. At first I thought maybe you said "Don't rage unless she breaks out of all my nets" but then I checked again. I thought it was a good fight. Evaine used a couple buffs, but otherwise it's nice to see an expendable-free fight (not to mention no Invis, Fly, etc. etc.). |
| Mal-201-16-06, 03:14 PM | Cher (Dracazar) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp): Mal-2 [ECL 4] is complete. I'm sure I screwed some stuff up, so I'd appreciate it if people would give it a once over. |
| MindWandererB01-16-06, 03:58 PM | Cher (Dracazar) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp): Mal-2 [ECL 4] is complete. I'm sure I screwed some stuff up, so I'd appreciate it if people would give it a once over. ... Pitlord Note: Sorry, I forgot you couldn't cast a full round spell while your horse is moving. You'll have to draw the scroll instead.You can take full-round actions while your mount is moving. However, neither the PHB nor the Rules of the Game article address casting full-round spells while mounted, as near as I can figure--the only statement is about single-action spells, that you don't need to make a Concentration check if your mount takes a single move, but you do if it double-moves. Nor can I find anything in the FAQ about mounted spellcasting. What's your source for this? |
| Altaris1301-16-06, 03:59 PM | Hey peoples. I will not be able to finish these fights this week. I'm sorry to those involved. I have tactics to forward, and can do so tonight. Any volunteers? If not, I can do them this coming weekend. Uilo (Dracazar) vs Savour Die (Warclone): Altaris13 Sola Nicous (Erithmu) vs Gundir (Kaigan): Altaris13 |
| Book501-16-06, 04:00 PM | OK then. :) Good concept btw bgt. The astral constructs are <I>all right</i>, particularly with the boost! Suffers a little from the standard "summoners" problem. If the creature you pull doesnt get the job done quick.. your outa luck. I would also suggest waiting until you can make your "small" constructzs medium sized to use them as trip monkeys. Poison - now poison would have gotten em I bet! Thanks for the link! @ Vath and MindwandererB! @Usurpator & Emeraldstreak - meeting friends for lunch. Will be lording over the afternoon. Using Hard Dice this time. No one will take my gremlins! I called the my personal gremlin catchers.. and they have the holiday off! |
| TelinArtho01-16-06, 04:04 PM | Hey peoples. I will not be able to finish these fights this week. I'm sorry to those involved. I have tactics to forward, and can do so tonight. Any volunteers? If not, I can do them this coming weekend. Uilo (Dracazar) vs Savour Die (Warclone): Altaris13 Sola Nicous (Erithmu) vs Gundir (Kaigan): Altaris13 Go ahead and send one or both to me and I'll get them done. |
| Mal-201-16-06, 04:06 PM | You can take full-round actions while your mount is moving. However, neither the PHB nor the Rules of the Game article address casting full-round spells while mounted, as near as I can figure--the only statement is about single-action spells, that you don't need to make a Concentration check if your mount takes a single move, but you do if it double-moves. Nor can I find anything in the FAQ about mounted spellcasting. What's your source for this? Oops. I originally ran through most of the fight with the understanding that casting a spell with a casting time of one round required a full round action. As far as I can tell, if your mount moves more than 5 feet, it takes up your movement action as well as the mount's. I eventually found the section of the SRD that explains you can use two standard actions on two consecutive rounds to complete a full round action. I went back and edited things from round 4 onward, but missed the first place it came up, in round 3. I think the action ended up fitting the tactics I was given, so I'm not going to edit that round unless I can be convinced it'll change the outcome of the fight. |
| MindWandererB01-16-06, 04:27 PM | Oops. I originally ran through most of the fight with the understanding that casting a spell with a casting time of one round required a full round action. As far as I can tell, if your mount moves more than 5 feet, it takes up your movement action as well as the mount's. I eventually found the section of the SRD that explains you can use two standard actions on two consecutive rounds to complete a full round action. I went back and edited things from round 4 onward, but missed the first place it came up, in round 3.You don't have that quite right. If you mount moves more than 5 feet, it takes as much time as your own movement action, but you still have your full complement of actions. For instance, you can make a full attack with a ranged weapon if your mount double-moves (but at a penalty because you're being jostled). Think of it in terms of time rather than actions--if your mount takes a single move, you can take a standard action either before or after the move, because the mount is standing still during that period of time (just as a character who takes a standard action and a move action is standing still for the ~3 seconds or so during which they're taking the action). Taking a standard action while your mount double-moves means that your mount is moving the whole time, so you get jostled (taking a ranged attack penalty or needing a concentration chck). While I'm on the subject, Skip seems to make one mistake here: he states that if your mount is taking the 5-foot minimum movement for extreme movement penalties, you can't make a full attack. This makes no sense: just as you can make a full ranged attack while your mount takes a double move, you should be able to make a full melee attack if your mount double-moves, as long as your mount is within your reach of the target at all times during the move. |
| Mal-201-16-06, 04:42 PM | You don't have that quite right. If you mount moves more than 5 feet, it takes as much time as your own movement action, but you still have your full complement of actions. Sigh. Right you are. I just re-read the Rules of the game articles on mounts. I was hung up on this part in the first article. When you and your mount move, the two of you use your mount's speed rating, adjusted for the mount's encumbrance and the terrain. Because your mount takes you along with it when it moves, a move for your mount also counts as a move for you. (See Rules of the Game, All About Movement for notes on what constitutes movement.) Even though you're not propelling yourself, you still spend time moving. So, for example, if you and your mount move, neither you nor your mount can take a 5-foot step during the same turn. I missed part 5 of the series where they talked about full round actions. I hate full round actions. They seem to have caused me no end of trouble in this fight, and I thought I knew how they worked :( |
| Warclone01-16-06, 05:02 PM | Ba'al of the Grave (Book5) vs Tsiuzues (Skojar): Warclone is up. |
| Warclone01-16-06, 05:07 PM | What are the status on these fights? War (NiQil) vs Solomon the Creator (Warclone): Huan Uilo (Dracazar) vs Savour Die (Warclone): Altaris13 |
| TelinArtho01-16-06, 05:21 PM | What are the status on these fights? War (NiQil) vs Solomon the Creator (Warclone): Huan Uilo (Dracazar) vs Savour Die (Warclone): Altaris13 Huan usually posts his fights a little on the late side - don't be worried - it will be posted. Altaris13 said he wouldn't be able to do his fights and that he'd forward tactics when he got a chance later tonight. I offered to take the fights off of his hands - but he hasn't sent me tactics yet. Once he does - I'll get it done. At this point - probably early tomorrow. |
| Pittbull01-16-06, 05:34 PM | @Luni: Cast Aid if you ever have a free action. Hahahaha. Be careful, even "at-will"-(sp)s require a standart action. |
| Luni01-16-06, 05:41 PM | @Luni: Be careful, even "at-will"-(sp)s require a standart action. I know. :) If it was free, I would have added them in as a prebuff. |
| Pittbull01-16-06, 05:44 PM | I know. :) If it was free, I would have added them in as a prebuff. As far as I know, are at will-abilities allowed as a prebuff. "At will" abilities or renewable effects (like a Ring of Invisibility) can be pre-buffed with. Effects with a duration of "permanent" must be listed under the Pre-buff section and also be listed as part of your equipment. They do not count against your available spell slots per fight nor against your prebuff limit. |
| Begferdeth01-16-06, 05:50 PM | Well, I was gonna have you rage anyways, but then that would have gotten rid of the only part of your tactics left: drink a potion :) It wouldnt have made the difference in the fight anyways. The damage resistance and never-ending Vigor was too much. However, if you pulled a disarm attack, then dragged her away in the net so she couldnt reach her weapon... Hmm. I feel a new character idea coming on :D Nah, I am good with that fight. It happens, I figured Gorak needed an equalizer to the Power manifesting ability of the psychic warrior. He uses limited resources. What I forgot to write in my tactics was a point in which to rage. Funny. Oh, well. Good fight Ariel23. |
| SoulLord01-16-06, 05:53 PM | @Luni Being the Arena Vandelar is in I would think locating noisy troll clerics in full plate would'nt take too long perhaps 3-4 rounds at most which would leave Vandelar 4 rounds of improved invisibility carnage on his foes. |
| Luni01-16-06, 06:09 PM | @Luni Being the Arena Vandelar is in I would think locating noisy troll clerics in full plate would'nt take too long perhaps 3-4 rounds at most which would leave Vandelar 4 rounds of improved invisibility carnage on his foes. Yep. and 59 hp is a lot to go through in 3-4 rounds. Aside; Why do you have a lot of equipment of x0 on your sheet? Scroll of scorching ray x0 [(wiz 3)] [- lbs][75 gp]C |
| SoulLord01-16-06, 06:16 PM | well whenever a fight ends the first thing I do is reduce those resources I used. Some I manage to buy back right away and some others not; at least for the time being, But that I plan to buy again in the future so I just mark them as x0 for the time being to not write the entry all over again |
| Usurpator01-16-06, 06:17 PM | I have hit a snag in my Sir Valkin vs. Raskos fight. Raskos is casting shocking grasp from a scroll and trying to designate his familiar as a toucher. This option is included under the heading 'share spells'. Two weeks ago I was slapped on the wrist by TelinArtho when Maeril tried to share endure elements from a scroll with his familiar. If you cannot have spells from scroll affect your familiar, you cannot designate your familiar as toucher from spells from scrolls either, right (sorry Sauro)? I think the last option has been 'misused' many times in the past here, though. EDIT: you can answer the question, but I see that SauroGrenom has Raskos casting shocking grasp after he already spent all his spell levels..... for this fight it doesn't matter.... |
| Usurpator01-16-06, 06:44 PM | Well, its done: Sir Valkin vs Raskos! Clear tactics and no difficult complications made it fairly easy to run, just way looooong... |
| lonewolf01-16-06, 06:52 PM | Trixie vs Destra is up. |
| Usurpator01-16-06, 06:54 PM | @Emeraldstreak: About your notes in the Almaar vs. Aramur fight: Sling damage is 1d4, not 1d6. I think I accidentally copied it from Flamehair, who has a 'large' sling I believe.... His Hide can only have 4 class ranks (ranger), not 6. This is not true. I took ranger at 3rd lvl and "If a skill is a class skill for any of a multiclass character’s classes, then character level determines a skill’s maximum rank. (The maximum rank for a class skill is 3 + character level.)" so I can put 6 ranks into it when I hit level 3. and overall he has 2 skill points more than he should. The totals are correct, the spent skill points are correct, its just the breakdown that is incorrect. Look at Craft(Siege Engines) and Handle Animal, you see 6 and 8 points in the breakdown, but only 5 and 7 ranks. Finally, I couldn't find Knockdown in the CoCo linked SRD, is it a valid feat? Yep, it is in the Divine section of the rules along with other hidden gems like Divine Might. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-16-06, 07:02 PM | @ Telin and Cerebus I have to go backand edit a serious error on your fight so it will not go up until later. Sorry about that. |
| Warclone01-16-06, 07:07 PM | Challack (DTFarstar) vs Sybil (MitzaVolchenko): Warclone is up. |
| Luni01-16-06, 07:26 PM | Vandelar and Dameon vs 4 Hound Archons and 2 Trog Clerics is up hhere (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8248350&postcount=38) Short Summary: Not having evil weapons makes it hard to kill Hound Archons in melee. |
| lonewolf01-16-06, 07:33 PM | Vandelar and Dameon vs 4 Hound Archons and 2 Trog Clerics is up hhere (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8248350&postcount=38) Short Summary: Not having evil weapons makes it hard to kill Hound Archons in melee. :teach: All the Hound Archons should have -6 to Attacks because of the unproficiency with the halfplate. :D |
| Skojar01-16-06, 07:36 PM | Rethun (Kaigan) vs Kendal (Papapeperoni) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8239409&postcount=25) finally up. Sorry for the delay. @Warclone: Thanks. Great Fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8247106). |
| Luni01-16-06, 07:36 PM | :teach: All the Hound Archons should have -6 to Attacks because of the unproficiency with the halfplate. :D They weren't wearing it. IT is for ceremonial purposes only. |
| DTFarstar01-16-06, 07:49 PM | *sigh* Challak has been in 3 fights and in every one of those fights he has had to face a Will save vs. Death. I mean, I knew it was a huge weakness, but evidently I misjudged the amount of spellcasters specializing in that and that I could rely on the occasional high roll on a will save or a fort save. *sigh* There is really nothing he can do vs. Will saves the way I have him designed right now, I just wish I could see what he could do vs. a ranged fighter or a melee fighter, or a summoner for that matter. Oh well.... maybe next week, I guess. Though I guess I should point out if she takes ALL my weapons, like stated in her tactics, then she is removing my armor(armor spikes) and I would think that would wake me up, but I realize that is reaching. I just really want to have a better chance in a fight than "Maybe IC will roll well for me and I'll pass the will save *this* time." Hehe, going to have to start spending credits to challenge people just so I don't continue this vs. Will Save thing. |
| Warclone01-16-06, 07:57 PM | *sigh* Challak has been in 3 fights and in every one of those fights he has had to face a Will save vs. Death. I mean, I knew it was a huge weakness, but evidently I misjudged the amount of spellcasters specializing in that and that I could rely on the occasional high roll on a will save or a fort save. *sigh* There is really nothing he can do vs. Will saves the way I have him designed right now, I just wish I could see what he could do vs. a ranged fighter or a melee fighter, or a summoner for that matter. Oh well.... maybe next week, I guess. Though I guess I should point out if she takes ALL my weapons, like stated in her tactics, then she is removing my armor(armor spikes) and I would think that would wake me up, but I realize that is reaching. I just really want to have a better chance in a fight than "Maybe IC will roll well for me and I'll pass the will save *this* time." Hehe, going to have to start spending credits to challenge people just so I don't continue this vs. Will Save thing. Yep, I've had a similar character for a while and those will saves are nasty. According to the description of the sleep spell..Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action).So unless she takes an 'aid another' action on you or wounds you, unfortunately, you must remain asleep. Otherwise, whenever someone has sleep cast on them, there are a myriad of things that could wake them up, from the noise of battle to some dust kicked on their face to someone free-aciton dropping an item onto them. The point is, it is a magical slumber. Think sleeping beauty. |
| Snommelp01-16-06, 08:01 PM | Cher (Dracazar) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp): Mal-2 [ECL 4] is complete. I'm sure I screwed some stuff up, so I'd appreciate it if people would give it a once over. The current copy looks fine to me. Of course, this is coming from the winner. I'll agree with whatever changes Dracazar wants to see happen. |
| DTFarstar01-16-06, 08:09 PM | I know, I know. His character type and bad luck killed me. I wasn't asking for a rerun or anything, I was just stating my opinion(If someone can wake you up without damaging you then it seems logical that rolling you around a tugging off chain armor would do it to.) Not arguing vs. the RAW, just being sad. |
| nightbanegod01-16-06, 08:13 PM | any word from huan about Zassl (Maraxus) vs JR. Pet'te F'tal (Nightbanegod): Huan im kind of curous and all.... |
| DTFarstar01-16-06, 08:25 PM | When is the deadline tommorrow? I've got the flu, or something damn near(congestion, stiff and aching joints, either a severe migraine(I normally have middle range ones{by virtue of I have them all the time so the average pain is middle range}) or something related to this making my migraine worse, as well as being really really tired. I'm going to do Anakala's fight right now, and then keep going, but hopefully the deadline isn't too early and I can get some sleep and finish tommorrow after class(3:15 GMT-6) but I think that is after deadline. If it is, then someone else is welcome to one of the other two fights I have, I'm just going to use real dice instead, not having to deal with IC AND not having to link dice rolls every time speeds things up something huge, so I'll do that. Anyway, doing Anakala vs. Two Small Air Elementals, then Drac vs. Namara, then Tarik vs. Johnathon. |
| SauroGrenom01-16-06, 08:45 PM | Well, its done: Sir Valkin vs Raskos! Clear tactics and no difficult complications made it fairly easy to run, just way looooong... Wow! Great fight! I was biting my nails there in the middle. Awesome. If the paper was still going, I think this fight would have the best chance of any that my characters have been in to get mentioned as the fight of the week. Well done Usurpator. I have no gripes about the fight. I'm not going to ask for any edits, or go looking for errors. |
| TelinArtho01-16-06, 09:12 PM | Well, its done: Sir Valkin vs Raskos! Clear tactics and no difficult complications made it fairly easy to run, just way looooong... I think in general I'm fine with the fight, except that Raskos used 4 scorching rays in the fight - only had one memorized, recalled one and cast one from a scroll. In other words - I want to see a 2nd scroll used up. Even though I lost, I reached my goal in the fight - to either take him down quickly or make him use bunches of expendables. I hope Sauro realizes that I could've pulled the same tactics I used against Thelgar and pulled off a win - I just wanted to try something different. |
| SauroGrenom01-16-06, 09:27 PM | Actually Raskos does use 4 scorching rays, but he uses 2 from memroy recalls one and uses it again then one from a scroll. He does not use two scrolls. edit: I see now your complaint. Good one, but if you insist, Usurpator will need to change the fight because I asked him to use shocking grasp using the familiare as the toucher. This way all the spell levels of Raskos are used. Otherwise he ends with 2 unused spell levels. Those edits could get rather long and invloved. I think they are unnecessary. |
| Huan01-16-06, 09:52 PM | Bare-bones of the Zassl vs JR. Pet'te F'tal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249264) fight is done. Short version: It really can't get much shorter... an achilles heel was found and blitzed. Bare-bones of Solomon vs War (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249309) is also up. Short version: See my sig: 'We live by the dice, we die by the dice' .. chalk this one up to luck. |
| Ariel2301-16-06, 09:57 PM | Tan (Book5) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249363&postcount=42) is up. I'm working on organizing the rolls, but they will be up soon. I'm sure I made mistakes, but it was mostly a matter of tactics. Tan needs some fairly minor corrections on his sheet. Please PM me if you have complaints, so that I'll know to check the FotW. |
| Mal-201-16-06, 10:02 PM | Bare-bones of the Zassl vs JR. Pet'te F'tal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249264) fight is done. Short version: It really can't get much shorter... an achilles heel was found and blitzed. @Huan: I was glancing over the fight, and I think you made a mistake. When someone casts on the defensive, they don't draw AoOs, even if they fail the concentration check. At least... that's how I've always read it. Special You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. This doesn’t apply to other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity. The DC of the check is 15 (plus the spell’s level, if casting a spell or using a spell-like ability defensively). If the Concentration check succeeds, you may attempt the action normally without provoking any attacks of opportunity. A successful Concentration check still doesn’t allow you to take 10 on another check if you are in a stressful situation; you must make the check normally. If the Concentration check fails, the related action also automatically fails (with any appropriate ramifications), and the action is wasted, just as if your concentration had been disrupted by a distraction. Casting on the Defensive Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell. I always thought the penalty for failing the concentration check was that you lost the spell, but that you still avoided AoOs. If I'm wrong about how that works, I need to know. :D |
| TelinArtho01-16-06, 10:11 PM | Actually Raskos does use 4 scorching rays, but he uses 2 from memroy recalls one and uses it again then one from a scroll. He does not use two scrolls. edit: I see now your complaint. Good one, but if you insist, Usurpator will need to change the fight because I asked him to use shocking grasp using the familiare as the toucher. This way all the spell levels of Raskos are used. Otherwise he ends with 2 unused spell levels. Those edits could get rather long and invloved. I think they are unnecessary. According to your tactics, you should have used all 3 scrolls: At this point Raskos is ready to attack. He will use scorching ray from memory and then from scrolls. When appropreat he will recall scorching ray with a pearl of power and use it a second time from memory. If those run out he will try his mind thrust ability. If Valkin still surivives, Raskos will use his Matter agitation power to heat the armor of Valkin. If Valkin survives that, Raskos will use his familare to deliver a shocking grasp and start using his wand of MM. All I'm asking for is that the one that you couldn't have cast from memory be made into a scroll. Note that shocking grasp is all the way at the bottom of the list - right before the wand. |
| Erithmu01-16-06, 10:25 PM | Hey peoples. I will not be able to finish these fights this week. I'm sorry to those involved. I have tactics to forward, and can do so tonight. Any volunteers? If not, I can do them this coming weekend. Uilo (Dracazar) vs Savour Die (Warclone): Altaris13 Sola Nicous (Erithmu) vs Gundir (Kaigan): Altaris13 Did someone pick these up? I know Telin offered to do it but did he actually get them? |
| TelinArtho01-16-06, 10:28 PM | I have not received them yet. Assuming that Altaris sends me the tactics sometime tomorrow - I'll have plenty of time to get it done - Tuesdays have historically been very lazy days for me - so picking up wads of fights has never been a problem... (alright - maybe not never - I do remember a few where it was - but tomorrow shouldn't be one...) |
| Ariel2301-16-06, 10:29 PM | @lonewolf Trixie vs Destra (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8247988&postcount=34) The chances are if you are a one-trick pony and you have to cope with two natural 20's, your one-trick isn't going to work. But the one thing I could see was Destra's attack roll (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=337755) (which precipitated my surrender) was made without: -1 range -4 (+4 AC) prone -4 firing into melee |
| Snommelp01-16-06, 10:36 PM | @Huan: I was glancing over the fight, and I think you made a mistake. When someone casts on the defensive, they don't draw AoOs, even if they fail the concentration check. At least... that's how I've always read it. Special You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. This doesn’t apply to other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity. The DC of the check is 15 (plus the spell’s level, if casting a spell or using a spell-like ability defensively). If the Concentration check succeeds, you may attempt the action normally without provoking any attacks of opportunity. A successful Concentration check still doesn’t allow you to take 10 on another check if you are in a stressful situation; you must make the check normally. If the Concentration check fails, the related action also automatically fails (with any appropriate ramifications), and the action is wasted, just as if your concentration had been disrupted by a distraction. Casting on the Defensive Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell. I always thought the penalty for failing the concentration check was that you lost the spell, but that you still avoided AoOs. If I'm wrong about how that works, I need to know. :DThat does seem accurate. However, it's up to interpretation whether the readied action triggers or not. Worst case scenario, the fight gets extended one round and the result stays the same. |
| Zevox01-16-06, 10:57 PM | Trixie vs Destra is up. Looks good. And (to address your post-match comment) you actually followed my tactics perfectly - buffs in order, Carcaruva attacking, hitting Carcaruva with a rock if she falls asleep, everything's precisely as I asked. The only things I can see are that you forgot to give Destra her extra 10' of movement from Longstrider (not a big deal the way it turned out), and you didn't include Destra's used sling bullet in the wrap-up (not a big deal, but probably worth mentioning for record-keeping sake). But the one thing I could see was Destra's attack roll (which precipitated my surrender) was made without: -1 range -4 (+4 AC) prone -4 firing into melee For the first, hes actually already factored in -2 range (else the attack would be at +2 for Destra's bab), and there is no -4 for being prone since Carcaruva is technically not prone, but rather helpless (relevant text from SRD quoted and bolded below). Further, as she is helpless (and therefore has a dex penalty of -5 to her ac), even the -4 for firing into melee won't change the attack. Helpless: A helpless character is paralyzed, held, bound, sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise completely at an opponent’s mercy. A helpless target is treated as having a Dexterity of 0 (–5 modifier). Melee attacks against a helpless target get a +4 bonus (equivalent to attacking a prone target). Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. Rogues can sneak attack helpless targets. Zevox |
| waywreth01-16-06, 11:08 PM | Tan (Book5) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249363&postcount=42) is up. I'm working on organizing the rolls, but they will be up soon. I'm sure I made mistakes, but it was mostly a matter of tactics. Tan needs some fairly minor corrections on his sheet. Please PM me if you have complaints, so that I'll know to check the FotW. Ariel23 - First off please include my free activity - crafting when you can (96gp). I'm fine with the fight, but if changes are required, please note that cold and fire missles do an extra die per level so it's 4d6+4 for cold and fire. Thanks for running it, |
| Huan01-16-06, 11:11 PM | ... |
| Huan01-16-06, 11:20 PM | Vandelar and Dameon vs 4 Hound Archons and 2 Trog Clerics is up hhere (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8248350&postcount=38) Short Summary: Not having evil weapons makes it hard to kill Hound Archons in melee. 1) HOW do the Archons SPECIFICALLY know which square we are starting in? Neither side is to know this, and the fact that he picked ours was not rolled randomly. (you also didn't roll failure chance for the telelport). If they are allowed to know our starting postion, why was this same grace not extended to us? Also, the report that we were invisible (sicne they have no way to detecting thus) is a hard sell to validity. Oh sure, he can SAY we are invisible, but that does not excuse the fact he knew our exact positions all of a sudden. How does he know he didn't teleport into the wrong square (see above)? I dare say that's metagaming. 2)If you would have been kind enough to PM us of the errors in tactics as per requested, most errors and details would have been circumvented, but this courtesy was not extended. This is quite dissapointing, really. 3) Are you sure you'e using the cavern map like you were supposed to for monster battles? Based on coordinates you have clerics walking though walls and standing in solid objects. 4) You did NOT oblige us in the most advantageous casting of Black Tentacles and instead went for the worst one. While we did say we wanted the clerics out first, we ALSO said to target clusters of them and archons, whichever was most advantagous or possible. Rather than target the nice cluster of 4 hound archons, you instead target the lone cleric. 5)By the way, the cleric did not make concentration checks while in grapple like it was supposed to. 6) All that is required of diving is 10 ft decession and 30 ft movement... this is easily accomplished in this map, and, as per tactics, I stated to manifest a greatsword for the flying form to perform the dive if the glaive was not a viable option (the Divine Might, which you also did not perform even though it was stated to, would also be multiplied since it is not extra dice). A horizontal dive, which is possible by diving 30 ft away from the ceiling, is what I stated to perform in my tactics, but you did not oblige, and instead you had Dameon foolishly hoof it out with a foe we both know he can't outdamage in flat DR. Though Vandelar may have more options or objections, I feel it is not my right to speak for him. However, understand I am not asking for a rerun, since I do not have full confidence that one would be run efficiently anyway (but, if you consider rerunning in in light of these errors, then, by all means, please do). I must express my frustration about how you did not at least oblige us to correct errors in tactics and instead ran on them without consultation. It is upsetting how our characters were ran as if unintelligent and foes were given metagame advantages. For myself, I will accept this loss, but I highly advise you to be more considerate of your players in the future. |
| Luni01-16-06, 11:45 PM | 1) Greater Teleport has no miss chance. Also, hound archons have scent, so they would have detected Dameon as soon as they entered within 30'. Also, the Hound Archons started in all 3 other squares. Even if they started all in the same square, 3 could easily teleport and check the other squares, and immediately notice the smell of their opponents. 2) All right. Maybe I should of PM you about the errors. 3) I used the cavern map.... I'll go post it, except photobucket isn't working at the moment. 4)3) Vandelar will now move towards the clerics (or at least move silently until he sees them). Once he sees one or both of them, he will cast Evard's Black Tentacles in such a spot (the most advantageous one) that both Clerics, and hopefully an Archon or two, will be caught in its clutches. If both clerics are caught, just leave them and let them be strangled. Dameon will meanwhile manifest the Force Screen Powerstone (+4 AC) and fly towards the nearest foe (dbl-moving). Obviously, avoid the tentacle area. That says to me, that you primarily wanted to get the clerics. Vandelar couldn't see the second one, but could hear him, so he gambled. Also both clerics couldn't have been caught in the reach of the spell, as they were 45' apart. 5) The non-grappled cleric cast the Dispel Magic, so he doesn't need to make a concentration check. Then, the other cleric is released from grappling, so he doesn't have to make concentration checks. 6) Diving! A creature that flies can make dive attacks. A dive attack works just like a charge, but the diving creature must move a minimum of 30 feet and descend at least 10 feet. It can make only claw or talon attacks, but these deal double damage. A creature can use the run action while flying, provided it flies in a straight line. Charging Movement During a Charge You must move before your attack, not after. You must move at least 10 feet (2 squares) and may move up to double your speed directly toward the designated opponent. You must have a clear path toward the opponent, and nothing can hinder your movement (such as difficult terrain or obstacles). Here’s what it means to have a clear path. First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent. (If this space is occupied or otherwise blocked, you can’t charge.) Second, if any line from your starting space to the ending space passes through a square that blocks movement, slows movement, or contains a creature (even an ally), you can’t charge. (Helpless creatures don’t stop a charge.) Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it says to me that you can't do any vertical descent if you can swing at man sized creatures from where you are. All right. If I randomize the teleports, they could easily locate you within the first round, possibly delaying everything by 1 round. But even if I moved the Black Tentacles to where the hound archons were, a cleric would just dispel it right away. |
| Warclone01-16-06, 11:49 PM | Barthleby (Pittbull) vs Sam Jones (Snommelp): Warclone is up. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 12:27 AM | Bare-bones of the Zassl vs JR. Pet'te F'tal (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249264) fight is done. Short version: It really can't get much shorter... an achilles heel was found and blitzed. Bare-bones of Solomon vs War (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249309) is also up. Short version: See my sig: 'We live by the dice, we die by the dice' .. chalk this one up to luck. Ummm...slight problem here with Solomon vs War. Solomon only has 7 pp to spend during a battle, and he specified to summon 3pp constructs. That means there should have been 2 of them....not five. Five constructs would mean he spent 15 pp, which is double what he has available. Also, can you add War's 63 gp in craft earnings? Edit: Nevermind...I see now upon further examination that he was using Body Fuel to gain PP....however shouldn't those PP gained also be subject to the 1/3 rule? That seemes extremely overpowered to be able to gain that many PP...especially at ECL 3. 5 contrusts at 31 hp apiece seems a touch much to me. Edit 2: Also, in round 1....how far had I moved when I gained LOS? The round doesn't indicate the coordinates for that at all. I ask because if it was 40 ft or less from my starting position, I could have taken a shot there. But the coordinates where LOS was obtained isn't listed (that I saw). Edit 3: Also, War only used 1 arrow that I can tell (round 3), not 2. Also need to know if that arrow was retrievable. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-17-06, 12:36 AM | Delarai vs. Pirotess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8222612&postcount=8) is up. I apologize for how late this is in getting posted. A friend of mine was killed in a motorcycle accident yesterday morning, and I have spent a good portion of the day getting in touch with others that knew him. I will be around to edit as needed tomorrow. |
| King Uther01-17-06, 01:01 AM | @Turin I wish my "stay at a distance" contingency would have been followed more strictly. I feel that in round 17 by moving within attack distance of Karen you were undermining my overall strategy of keeping my distance. Getting the tower shield is important, but not as important as making sure I do not get attacked needlessly. If you feel that I am mistaken in this assumption, then I trust your judgment. It's your decision to make. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-17-06, 01:46 AM | MQ: Nuns on the Run is complete and can be viewed here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8212911#post8212911) Ural of Promethia has prevailed in defending the House of Hope. Not all of the bad guys died, but she did foil their nefarious plot and uncover possible deeper corruption. @Telin Again, I am sorry that the real world interfered with my time in such a way as to have to assume your last few actions. It had little bearing on the outcome as you had already spooked the main bad guy into fleeing the city ;) |
| MitzaVolchenko01-17-06, 01:52 AM | I know, I know. His character type and bad luck killed me. I wasn't asking for a rerun or anything, I was just stating my opinion(If someone can wake you up without damaging you then it seems logical that rolling you around a tugging off chain armor would do it to.) Not arguing vs. the RAW, just being sad. I feel your losing pain (and rejoice at finally getting something other than a bloody FFA). You can thank Macbrea for the CDG courtesy of your own weapon as I was lamenting at him that even with the sleep, the likelihood of Sybil killing Challack outright with either of her weapons was low and he suggested just using your bruiser weapons. On a side note please see my signature...if by 'his charcter type' you meant me... Any road, thanks for giving me something poor little Sybil could take on. Hopefully she won't see Challack again until she has wings ;) |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 01:58 AM | Curse you, Macbrea! Heh, no I was talking about Challak's no-will save character type. Although I guess it was as much Sybil's fault as his. Level 4 for Challak will be to buy something to increase his wisdom some and take Psychic Warrior levels for Empty mind. PRobably. |
| Snommelp01-17-06, 02:04 AM | Death vs. Borodin is up. I have to be up in six hours to be ready for French class. I officially hate my life. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 02:28 AM | Death vs. Borodin is up. I have to be up in six hours to be ready for French class. I officially hate my life. When you get a chance, can you adjust Death's craft earnings from 61 gp to the correct 63 gp? Also, can you do me a favor and go ahead and roll the last damage roll? I would like there to be a damage total there, so that if there is an issue with the shocking damage given to my opponent, it can be seen whether or not the damage done on the last hit would have been enough if the shocking damage had not been there. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 03:30 AM | @Snommelp (and NiQil) Of course there is an issue with the shocking damage, there is only a delay penalty when there is no interaction. I have never before seen delay penalties when one is being shot, which is clearly interaction. Snommelp, I am amazed that you ruled this way.... why? Sorry Snommelp, Death didn't ready to move, so I was hasty: I also see NiQil moving away to gain total cover and break LOS when Borodin casts hold person, this is forbidden by the Rules of Gladius (the whole dodging of an attack). @NiQil: By the by, this is exactly why Tower Shield should be allowed, since it is just a boring tactic, I already pointed it out in the discussion, and your tactics did exactly what I described there. Snommelp, I once again don't believe what you did. Somehow I think there is a bias that somehow favors archers and fast movement avoiders in the CoCo. They never get penalized by such weird tactics as 'keep away at all times, stay at distance of x ft.' Borodin should not be penalized for getting shot at. NiQil, can you please lend your support to both of my issues? EDIT: @Snommelp: I will take a good look at the fight when I get home and represent the fight on a map to adjucate possible issues (including NiQil's wanting to stay at 140 ft.) in a relaxed manner so that I don't make anymore hasty judgements. Since the working day just started, this may take a couple of hours yet... |
| Luni01-17-06, 03:43 AM | Death vs. Borodin is up. I have to be up in six hours to be ready for French class. I officially hate my life. Snommelp, Hold Person has a casting time of Standard Action. Therefore, it is finished casting before Death can move away. Aside: Fast archers are the bane of slow melee'ers. Speed is too important in this arena. I have no idea how to correct this, without making archers useless. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 03:46 AM | Jon vs. Tarik (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250833&postcount=47) Drac vs. Namara (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250417&postcount=45) Anakala vs. 2 Air Elementals (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249500&postcount=44) There all done, now to take a shower(sweating off a fever) and hopefully get some sleep before class, if I go. If you have problem, take it up with me, but everything seemed to go pretty smoothly other than me feeling crappy and needing to roll with my own dice. |
| Luni01-17-06, 03:49 AM | Jon vs. Tarik (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250833&postcount=47) Drac vs. Namara (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250417&postcount=45) Anakala vs. 2 Air Elementals (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8249500&postcount=44) There all done, now to take a shower(sweating off a fever) and hopefully get some sleep before class, if I go. If you have problem, take it up with me, but everything seemed to go pretty smoothly other than me feeling crappy and needing to roll with my own dice. Tarik can't draw a weapon before charging. Drawing a weapon is a move action, since he doesn't have quickdraw. If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you may draw a weapon as a free action combined with a regular move. A charge isn't a regular move. Just thought I'd clairfy it for you. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 03:55 AM | @Snommelp (and NiQil) Of course there is an issue with the shocking damage, there is only a delay penalty when there is no interaction. I have never before seen delay penalties when one is being shot, which is clearly interaction. Snommelp, I am amazed that you ruled this way.... why? I also see NiQil moving away to gain total cover and break LOS when Borodin casts hold person, this is forbidden by the Rules of Gladius (the whole dodging of an attack). @NiQil: By the by, this is exactly why Tower Shield should be allowed, since it is just a boring tactic, I already pointed it out in the discussion, and your tactics did exactly what I described there. Snommelp, I once again don't believe what you did. Somehow I think there is a bias that somehow favors archers and fast movement avoiders in the CoCo. They never get penalized by such weird tactics as 'keep away at all times, stay at distance of x ft.' Borodin should not be penalized. NiQil, can you please lend your support to both of my issues? My take: I think maybe the shocking damage was a touch much. If it had been subdual, I could maybe buy that (or at least be more comfortable with it), but I think maybe the lethal damage is a bit much. Hence my request for a damage roll on the last shot. But I do think that Borodin should still receive a delay penalty, because no attempt was made to attack (such as a shot from your sling or something similar), when the means to do so existed. With regard to the dodging/hold person issue....per my tactics, I should have never been inside of 140 ft, meaning you would have never been in range to cast it at all. So to adjust one means to adjust the other. I didn't mention it because ultimately it results in the same end...me not having to make a save that I would most definitely fail. So either that issue can stand, or the movement can be redone to keep me at the range I requested. Bear in mind, however, that there was no *readied action to move to cover for your spell being cast, so this was not illegal. This was movement as a part of my normal turn. It just happened that it was done before your spell was finished. With regard to the tower shield comment....no one is outlawing tower shields. Just the readying of tower shields. If a tower shield had been in play here, and you had taken your action each round to set it, then it would still give me either my turn that same round, or my turn the following round (depending on the initiative) to try and move enough to get LOS to take a shot. Readying a tower shield for cover negates that possibility altogether and makes you unattackable from *any ranged attacks. Not just bows/crossbows/slings, but ranged touch attacks as well. Conversely, with speedy types who shoot from a distance and never close...they are not ever negating your ability to attack. The distance issue hampers your ability to close to melee...but never negates your ability to attack from melee. If you somehow manage to maneuver me into a place where you can get to me in melee, your ability to melee me is not negated. It's the overcoming of the speed difference that is the issue. This is the same as someone who uses fly regularly, and then uses color spray to cause a person to drop their bow and then flies down to pick it up. The ability to attack from range is not negated, just the means with which to do so. The other aspect to the readying/tower shield issue that I don't think you have looked at is that it can also be applied against melee attacks. If I have a tower shield, and I am in melee, should I really be able to ready to take total cover against a melee attack? That would negate the ability to attack in melee. The readying issue with tower shields is not exclusive to archers in this regard...it's just where it comes up most often. Readying to take cover vs a melee attack would work the same way. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 04:00 AM | Thank you Luni, I was a little iffy on that, and I knew I remember the drawing while moving with +1 or higher BAB, I didn't know if that could be combined with a charge or not. Well, if I go back and edit, then he will break LoE and get an AoO when Jon moves into range, keeping thematic rolls he will kill him here, or the next round when he gets an attack, not sure how thematic rolls go exactly. If people want me to edit for that, which I guess I should, I will, but let me shower first, maybe I'll feel better then. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 04:03 AM | Snommelp, Hold Person has a casting time of Standard Action. Therefore, it is finished casting before Death can move away. Aside: Fast archers are the bane of slow melee'ers. Speed is too important in this arena. I have no idea how to correct this, without making archers useless. True....the casting time on hold person was done incorrectly. However, again, per my tactics, I should never have been in range for it to land, since the max range on the spell is 130 ft, and I requested to stay at least 140 ft away. Re: Aside Speed is important in all of D&D..it's just magnified here. Speed kills. IMO, speed is the single most important number on a character sheet, because it controls so many other things. Flip this fight around for a moment. If Usurpator had been the slow archer, and I had been the fast melee'er, and he had requested to stay at range...ultimately that tactic would fail, because he would have no way to prevent me from getting close (aside from me dying before I got there, of course). Speed being important is not exclusive to archers....again, it's just where we see it most often, because it's a good combination. All of my new characters are actually melee builds....they just also happen to be decent at range. I would be stupid not to use this as a tactic if it would help me win, boring or not. I personally think that the whole fly/color spray/grab bow and force surrender tactic is pretty boring too....but it works and works well. I think the 'if he rages withdraw until it runs out' tactic is boring...but it works. For every tactic, there is a counter tactic. It's just a question of finding it, and then being able to use it. |
| Luni01-17-06, 04:04 AM | With regard to the tower shield comment....no one is outlawing tower shields. Just the readying of tower shields. If a tower shield had been in play here, and you had taken your action each round to set it, then it would still give me either my turn that same round, or my turn the following round (depending on the initiative) to try and move enough to get LOS to take a shot. Readying a tower shield for cover negates that possibility altogether and makes you unattackable from *any ranged attacks. Not just bows/crossbows/slings, but ranged touch attacks as well. NiQil, tower shields aren't that powerful. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/Luni99/Covercheck.png With the black line being the tower shield, you'll notice the unnamed blue dot can still shoot at the unnamed red dot, as there is no place the red dot can get total cover with his shield. Purple line is the LoE. Notice how it still touches red dot, even though he has his tower shield up. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 04:13 AM | My take: With regard to the dodging/hold person issue....per my tactics, I should have never been inside of 140 ft, meaning you would have never been in range to cast it at all. NiQil, I was hasty with my judgement, I am sorry. The dodging issue is not an issue at all, since the rule (obviously) only applies on readied attacks, and you did not ready..... I am not advocating the tower shield issue at all, I am all for not allowing it on a ready. I am trying to say that superior movement+ranged within an arena this roomy causes boring tactics (and somewhat boring fights) when combined with the delay rule (which is neccessary). I admit, it is not as bad as Pixie fights, but still. With regard to the dodging/hold person issue....per my tactics, I should have never been inside of 140 ft, meaning you would have never been in range to cast it at all. I chose my position so that not being within 140 ft. would mean many rounds of running in between shots because with Borodin switching 10 ft. you would have to got to the other end of the arena to get a clear shot. I guess Snommelp chose not to add that. I'll look it up with help of a map a soon as I get time. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 04:15 AM | NiQil, tower shields aren't that powerful. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/Luni99/Covercheck.png With the black line being the tower shield, you'll notice the unnamed blue dot can still shoot at the unnamed red dot, as there is no place the red dot can get total cover with his shield. Purple line is the LoE. Notice how it still touches red dot, even though he has his tower shield up. The problem with your example, Luni is that if the line is drawn as you indicate, and blue dot fires....just as blue dot fires, red dot, with his readied tower shield, can change his tower shield to cover the other line that the purple line is going through, thus negating the shot. Since the shot can now not be adjusted, there is no way for blue dot to attack red dot that round...the arrow just hits the shield that was readied. |
| Luni01-17-06, 04:20 AM | The problem with your example, Luni is that if the line is drawn as you indicate, and blue dot fires....just as blue dot fires, red dot, with his readied tower shield, can change his tower shield to cover the other line that the purple line is going through, thus negating the shot. Since the shot can now not be adjusted, there is no way for blue dot to attack red dot that round...the arrow just hits the shield that was readied. Not so. To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). Then, from the same corner, there are a bunch of new lines that appear. You pick the corner you want to shoot from. Then the rules for cover take over. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 04:20 AM | NiQil, I was hasty with my judgement, I am sorry. The dodging issue is not an issue at all, since the rule (obviously) only applies on readied attacks, and you did not ready..... I am not advocating the tower shield issue at all, I am all for not allowing it on a ready. I am trying to say that superior movement+ranged within an arena this roomy causes boring tactics (and somewhat boring fights) when combined with the delay rule (which is neccessary). I admit, it is not as bad as Pixie fights, but still. I chose my position so that not being within 140 ft. would mean many rounds of running in between shots because with Borodin switching 10 ft. you would have to got to the other end of the arena to get a clear shot. I guess Snommelp chose not to add that. I'll look it up with help of a map a soon as I get time. Honestly, I think the random arenas will help with this a great deal. If this fight had taken place in the grand hall map, for example, I would have had a hell of a time maintaining that 140 distance I set. In the Cavern map, we would have kept losing LOS of each other, and that tactic would have been near worthless. In the standard arena, with it's wide open spaces, or in the proposed Wilderness arena, with almost no cover, these tactics rule. Conversely, in the proposed Dence Forest arena, you probably would have gotten your spell off without me ever hitting you. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 04:24 AM | Not so. Then, from the same corner, there are a bunch of new lines that appear. You pick the corner you want to shoot from. Then the rules for cover take over. Except, again...once you pick your corner, you can't change the corner you shoot from or shoot at in response to a readied action, unless you have a readied action of your own. That is why readying a tower shield for full cover is so powerful. This is the same type of discussion that Usurpator and I had last week with regard to someone readying to shoot a monk at range when he is about to shoot, and whether Deflect Arrows could be applied. I stated that it would still work, because removing your hand from the bow is a free action, but Usurpator countered with the fact that you cannot take an action in response to an action unless it is readied. And he's right. So changing the corner you shoot at in response to a readied tower shield doesn't work unless you have readied to do so. If it worked the way you are saying it does, then readying would not only not be an issue, but it would be completely ineffective vs archers in a normal D&D game, instead of a quite powerful counter to archers in a normal tabletop game. |
| Luni01-17-06, 04:27 AM | Except, again...once you pick your corner, you can't change the corner you shoot from or shoot at in response to a readied action, unless you have a readied action of your own. That is why readying a tower shield for full cover is so powerful. This is the same type of discussion that Usurpator and I had last week with regard to someone readying to shoot a monk at range when he is about to shoot, and whether Deflect Arrows could be applied. I stated that it would still work, because removing your hand from the bow is a free action, but Usurpator countered with the fact that you cannot take an action in response to an action unless it is readied. And he's right. So changing the corner you shoot at in response to a readied tower shield doesn't work unless you have readied to do so. Except you don't shoot at corners. You only shoot from corners. As soon as you shoot, you check all the lines of effect. With my example above, there is always going to be at least one. Edit: Tower shields were designed in D&D as a counter for melee and ranged combat in 5'-10' dungeons. They were designed after real life. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 04:27 AM | Drac vs. Namara (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250417&postcount=45) There all done, now to take a shower(sweating off a fever) and hopefully get some sleep before class, if I go. If you have problem, take it up with me, but everything seemed to go pretty smoothly other than me feeling crappy and needing to roll with my own dice. DTFarstar, thanks for running the fight! Unfortunately, it has a big (rules) issue. I learned a couple of weeks ago (and had a discussion about this in Tavern, where everyone agreed on this) that you cannot share spells from a scroll with your familiar since you do not cast them yourself. To my amazement the rules actually consistently talk about 'activating a spell from a scroll' instead of casting. So no sharing of any kind with spells form scroll or other magic items. Of course, this changes the fight big time, since I will spot his (not invisible familiar), and it cannot make the shocking grasp attack, and makes some of Dracazar's tactics problematic. I am willing to extend the fight for a rematch as a courtesy to Dracazar, since he obviously counted on the sharing, and would really need to rewrite tactics for us to have a fair match. That is just because I really don't like losing on rules issues. Currently I have lost on a misinterpreted rule, but I also hate for Drac to lose on account of a misintepreted rule. I hope you feel better soon. |
| NiQil01-17-06, 04:31 AM | DTFarstar, thanks for running the fight! Unfortunately, it has a big (rules) issue. I learned a couple of weeks ago (and had a discussion about this in Tavern, where everyone agreed on this) that you cannot share spells from a scroll with your familiar since you do not cast them yourself. To my amazement the rules actually consistently talk about 'activating a spell from a scroll' instead of casting. So no sharing of any kind with spells form scroll or other magic items. Of course, this changes the fight big time, since I will spot his (not invisible familiar), and it cannot make the shocking grasp attack, and makes some of Dracazar's tactics problematic. I am willing to extend the fight for a rematch as a courtesy to Dracazar, since he obviously counted on the sharing, and would really need to rewrite tactics for us to have a fair match. That is just because I really don't like losing on rules issues. Currently I have lost on a misinterpreted rule, but I also hate for Drac to lose on account of a misintepreted rule. I hope you feel better soon. This is being added to the Court Decisions when I update it tomorrow. I thought it was already there, but I just checked and it wasn't. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 04:35 AM | @Luni & NiQil: This only works when the opponent is exactly on a diagonal, not in the example Luni shows. Like other kinds of cover, the shield has to have a location relative to you on the battlefield. When you use the shield for cover, choose one edge of your space (not a corner). You have total cover against any attack’s line of effect that passes through that side of your space. If an attack’s line of effect goes through the corner of the side of your space that the shield blocks, you get cover from the shield (+4 AC, +2 on Reflex saves) instead of total cover. If an attack’s line of effect passes through a side of your space that the shield does not block, you get no cover from the shield at all. To determine where the line of effect enters your space, draw a line from the attacker’s center to your center. Or, in the case of a magical effect, from the effect’s point of origin and your center. Luni has drawn the line from a corner to a corner, which is the correct method for determing cover, not for line of effect... |
| Luni01-17-06, 04:37 AM | Guess I was wrong.... |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 04:41 AM | Jonathon Raven vs. Tarik Vale (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250833&postcount=47) has been changed to agree with the rules, same result though. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 04:47 AM | Guess I was wrong.... But at least your answer made sense. Currently the FAQ is determining cover from a tower shield differently than cover from a real wall. If we house rule that cover from a tower shield works the same as having cover from a real wall, it will solve the ready problems (and makes the rules better internally consistent too). At least, it makes sense to me that for a tower shield to provide complete cover, you would have to set next to a wall or be next to two other tower shield bearers. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 04:51 AM | @DTFarstar: Namara vs. Drac Also, I am not seeing any reactive Listen checks (vs. DC 0 from the casting), and you did not factor in the +4 bonus from Synesthete. And I rolled '6' 4 times in a row? |
| NiQil01-17-06, 04:55 AM | But at least your answer made sense. Currently the FAQ is determining cover from a tower shield differently than cover from a real wall. If we house rule that cover from a tower shield works the same as having cover from a real wall, it will solve the ready problems (and makes the rules better internally consistent too). At least, it makes sense to me that for a tower shield to provide complete cover, you would have to set next to a wall or be next to two other tower shield bearers. I would agree that if we were to make a house rule that caused tower shields to be used in the manner that Luni suggested, as opposed to line of effect as the FAQ states, it would solve a lot of our problems with regard to readying, and would also be consistant with standing next to a wall for cover. The problem with that, as I said, is that it makes the total cover aspect of a tower shield near useless unless the person shooting you is in a straight line (square-wise) from you, rather than off center as Luni depicted. That would just nerf tower shields too much. I think that the elimination of being able to ready them for cover is the best compromise. |
| Guildmaster (EHTC)01-17-06, 05:24 AM | http://www.clearwisdom.net/emh/article_images/2003-6-24-evil_guy_pointing.jpg Behold, us evil people are now conforming to all of your demands. We have updated our accounting with your silly little template. Bah. Like we'd show you all of our true wealth and power in a silly little thread. Bah, I say! |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 05:32 AM | @Ursurpator - No, you didn't. I just copied and pasted and forgot to take that out. you said Then just stand there and make listen checks and wait for the invisible Drac to make his first move. Point of doing nothing is that he cannot interrupt me with a ready action. in your tactics, which I took to mean "Let him break invis, then jump him." I'll go back and roll for listen if you want, and at the very least make it look prettier. But, the way I interpretted your tactics is the way I read them. They were kind of vague and if he had done what you seemed to assume he would(Blindness) then it would have worked perfectly. I stopped actually rolling the listen when I realized if you were just going to stand there, it really didn't matter where he was. Keep in mind I've got a 102-ish fever right now, so I'm not at my most coherent, but I'm getting things done, dangit |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 05:46 AM | @ Ursurpator - Fight changed, same result, you didn't pinpoint him until he shot you with Scorching Ray, which was a little too late to do anything. Again, according to my interpretation of your tactics, you wouldn't have done anything until he was visible anyway, but even if that were not so, then there you are. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 05:49 AM | @Ursurpator - No, you didn't. I just copied and pasted and forgot to take that out. you said Then just stand there and make listen checks and wait for the invisible Drac to make his first move. Point of doing nothing is that he cannot interrupt me with a ready action. in your tactics, which I took to mean "Let him break invis, then jump him." I'll go back and roll for listen if you want, and at the very least make it look prettier. But, the way I interpretted your tactics is the way I read them. They were kind of vague and if he had done what you seemed to assume he would(Blindness) then it would have worked perfectly. I stopped actually rolling the listen when I realized if you were just going to stand there, it really didn't matter where he was. Keep in mind I've got a 102-ish fever right now, so I'm not at my most coherent, but I'm getting things done, dangit Thank you for the clarification. You don't need to add all those Listen rolls just for me, I like to, but it is a minor issue. Please just handle the other problem with the shared spells, which is much more severe. Just keep in mind that Namara is not standing there and listening for nothing. The point was the let him break invisibility, but if I can pinpoint him in the square next to me somehow.... If I did not need the Listen checks for anything, why would I specifically ask you to make them? |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 05:49 AM | Hehe, I'm very accomodating when the Barometric pressure if fluctuating(migraine trigger), and I have a 102 fever. You would think I would be a horrible person because of the pain, but I'm just too delerious to be mean right now. I think I'm about to pass out, but by all means if there are problems with what happened in the fights, Let me know, I'm happy to help. DnD is the only thing to truly occupy my mind from the pain. Ok, well, I wonder where the Darius vs. Shaz fight is at? |
| Abyssal Stalker01-17-06, 05:52 AM | Jonathon Raven vs. Tarik Vale (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250833&postcount=47) has been changed to agree with the rules, same result though. Damn stupid dice. This could've been an "epic" battle between good and evil, but it turned out quite boring. I thought I had a decent chance on this one - one just doesn't expect the opponent to crit. But hey, better luck next time, I hope... Thanks for pitlording! |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 05:54 AM | Hehe, I'm very accomodating when the Barometric pressure if fluctuating(migraine trigger), and I have a 102 fever. You would think I would be a horrible person because of the pain, but I'm just too delerious to be mean right now. I think I'm about to pass out, but by all means if there are problems with what happened in the fights, Let me know, I'm happy to help. DnD is the only thing to truly occupy my mind from the pain. Sorry to make you add those rolls, was too slow with my post. The earlier (and serious) issue I mentioned some 15 posts ago still stands though: 'you cannot share spells from items (including scrolls) with your familiar'. Sharing includes desigating your familiar as the toucher. This means (amongs others): - When Drac goes invisible, I can still see his familiar and can either pinpoint him by that or grab the familiar and kill it. - The familiar cannot deliver the shocking grasp that kills Namara. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 05:55 AM | Ok, well, I just now noticed the first post, I knew about the not sharing spells thing, I had noticed that "activating" part when it became a problem here and stopped letting people do it before the ruling. However, I was under the impression that if his familiar was riding him it would be invisible and that just because he couldn't share his invis it didn't mean he couldn't designate the familiar as the toucher. Well, crap. I'll wait till I hear from Drac before changing this, you guys can extend or whatever you decide to do. |
| lonewolf01-17-06, 07:23 AM | Manzarf vs Faelto is up. Quick and dirty fight. |
| Dracazar01-17-06, 07:36 AM | Cher (Dracazar) vs Amaryllis (Snommelp): Mal-2 [ECL 4] is complete. I'm sure I screwed some stuff up, so I'd appreciate it if people would give it a once over. Nothing to say other than the worse way to lose a fight. I have no contingency about Entangle but wasting scroll while I'm invisible (for 30 rounds) instead of escaping (scroll of grease) I think is really really stupid. |
| Dracazar01-17-06, 07:58 AM | Ok, well, I just now noticed the first post, I knew about the not sharing spells thing, I had noticed that "activating" part when it became a problem here and stopped letting people do it before the ruling. However, I was under the impression that if his familiar was riding him it would be invisible and that just because he couldn't share his invis it didn't mean he couldn't designate the familiar as the toucher. Well, crap. I'll wait till I hear from Drac before changing this, you guys can extend or whatever you decide to do. I'm aware of the Invisibility from scroll issue. I would like to have the familiar inside my clothing (gulp!), this should work for invisibility (i hope), then I could still designate my familiar as the toucher of the shocking grasp. I'm aware that Namara has an AoO befor the touch, but if the familiar is still alive after the AoO, Namara will suffer from the shocking grasp. However the main tactic will be to have Drac cast true strike + schorching ray while invisible and then continue the fight with sword or another true strike + schorching ray. I see that Namara in round 9 got the AoO against the hawk, so the fight should be correct, if there are some issues that I'm unable to see please point me. |
| Mal-201-17-06, 08:28 AM | Nothing to say other than the worse way to lose a fight. I have no contingency about Entangle but wasting scroll while I'm invisible (for 30 rounds) instead of escaping (scroll of grease) I think is really really stupid. Sigh. I missed the fact that grease would give you an escape artist bonus, and possibly allow you to escape the entangle. I suppose I should have known that, but you did bring dozens of scrolls in with you. I thought I had looked up what every one of them did, but I missed grease. Well, I'm too slow to re-run the whole fight before tomorrow. If you want, I'll be happy to re-run the fight for next week. Edit: I think this is the last fight I'll be pitlording, unless you guys want an extension. This fight took me over 20 hours to do over a long weekend, and I just don't have time to do this on a regular basis. |
| Cerebus1301-17-06, 08:35 AM | Delarai vs. Pirotess (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8222612&postcount=8) is up. I apologize for how late this is in getting posted. A friend of mine was killed in a motorcycle accident yesterday morning, and I have spent a good portion of the day getting in touch with others that knew him. I will be around to edit as needed tomorrow.Only problem is rewards are off slightly. Should be: Gladiator 1 wins and receives 1250xp/1333gc (1500xp/1600gc -17% +0%) Gladiator 2 loses and receives 583xp/622gc (500xp/533gc -0% +17%) My tactics were pretty weak so I didn't expect to win. |
| Dracazar01-17-06, 08:54 AM | Sigh. I missed the fact that grease would give you an escape artist bonus, and possibly allow you to escape the entangle. I suppose I should have known that, but you did bring dozens of scrolls in with you. I thought I had looked up what every one of them did, but I missed grease. Well, I'm too slow to re-run the whole fight before tomorrow. If you want, I'll be happy to re-run the fight for next week. Edit: I think this is the last fight I'll be pitlording, unless you guys want an extension. This fight took me over 20 hours to do over a long weekend, and I just don't have time to do this on a regular basis. My post was ugly, I don't want a rerun, You did a great job pitlording, I would like to see more fight pitlorded by you. |
| Myrridin01-17-06, 08:57 AM | Damn stupid dice. This could've been an "epic" battle between good and evil, but it turned out quite boring. I thought I had a decent chance on this one - one just doesn't expect the opponent to crit. But hey, better luck next time, I hope... Thanks for pitlording! Heh, yeah, I was all set for a huge good vs. evil battle too...and then the lucky crit on the Smiting, Divine Might Attack. I'll take it. I wasn't actually planning on going in to the arena with this character, just questing with him. But I may move in to it a little more. |
| Mal-201-17-06, 09:16 AM | My post was ugly, I don't want a rerun, You did a great job pitlording, I would like to see more fight pitlorded by you. No, I think I'm done pitlording, at least for a while. I spent way too much time on this fight, and the one I did last week. I haven't been having fun doing it. I would have much rather spent my time this weekend working on new code for the mapper. I appreciate the sentiment, though. |
| Snommelp01-17-06, 09:24 AM | Regarding Death vs. Borodin: 1) I did indeed read Hold Person wrong; it was late and I had been running the fight for a long time. 2) Damage for the last attack was 7+2 3) I stand by the shocks. I can make them subdual, but I will not take them out. Borodin's tactics were to hide and wait for twenty rounds. That's just not right. 4) After having death run around looking for windows, I miraculously found a spot that hit all three hiding places. I had Death shoot from there. At this point I probably could have had Borodin seek new shelter, but I was still feeling righteously angry about being given tactics that said hide and wait. Regardless, if Borodin had moved then Death would have still shot at him; he just would have had to move as well. 5) Once Borodin finally came out of his hiding place to try to attack Death, Death should have run to get out of Hold Person range, so the Hold Person would never have gotten off. End result: The fight's result will not change if I am forced to edit. And quite frankly, I'm surprised at you, Usurpator. You sent me tactics which specifically say to delay for ten rounds beyond the ten-round limit, and now are up in arms because I used my pitlording authority to punish your character for it in the only real effective way. I couldn't have the audience call out his position; that was already known. I could have forced him out of hiding, but according to your tactics he would have jumped right back in. If you don't want your character to be punished, don't send me tactics that say you want to hide for twenty rounds! |
| Altaris1301-17-06, 09:26 AM | Tactics were forwarded to Telin. I was not able to get back online last night, sorry. |
| Abyssal Stalker01-17-06, 09:44 AM | Manzarf vs Faelto is up. Quick and dirty fight. As much as I wanted the fight to go this way, I have to report you an error. Manzarf can't draw his scythe as a part of the charge. So he has to double move next to Faelto and draw the scythe as a part of the move. So no attack that round and the result might change. I hope Manzarf doesn't get sleepy because of this... Allthough Manzarf is a dirty little b***ard, I have to be fair in this. |
| lonewolf01-17-06, 10:02 AM | As much as I wanted the fight to go this way, I have to report you an error. Manzarf can't draw his scythe as a part of the charge. So he has to double move next to Faelto and draw the scythe as a part of the move. So no attack that round and the result might change. I hope Manzarf doesn't get sleepy because of this... Allthough Manzarf is a dirty little b***ard, I have to be fair in this. Kudos to you for saying this. However you were unlucky as Manzarf did fall sleeping and was CDG. |
| Warclone01-17-06, 10:07 AM | @TelinArtho: You should have all the tactics now from what I heard Altaris say. Good luck running the fight! |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 10:21 AM | I kept trying to post this last night, but as I said I was having net problems. @Abyssal Stalker - Yeah, I was actually looking forward to running that fight myself, I thought it would be a really good one, the temptation to fudge that crit was almost overwhelming =-P. I really wanted to run it all the way out. @Ursurpator and Drac - I'm still going to have to wait on Drac for this one, if he wants me to extend it, I will, otherwise I'll just run it with a different version of his tactics(which will most likely result in his loss). In the SRD I use, Share Spells and Deliver Touch Spells aren't nearly the same, but they use the same language(referring to casting the spell) and scrolls are activations not casting. So.... crappy for Drac, he will have to start preparing Shocking Grasp. Oh, and to be fair the only time you mention the familiar in your tactics is that it will give you an AoO so I wouldn't have you attack it no matter what. Since it seems his gear and items in it are the only things invisible with him, I'm sure he wouldn't have it on him. In light of this ruling on scrolls, Drac should probably start preparing Shocking Grasp instead of Chill Touch and Invisibility instead of Flaming Sphere(Reflex Negates makes this spell crappy IMO anyway, obviously not his opinion, but my 2cp). That would make his current(and previous) tactics work fine. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 10:31 AM | Oh.... @Dracazar - The Deliver Touch spells ability of a familiar uses the same language as the Share Spells part, you can designate him as a toucher on spells you cast. With the newfangled "using a scroll is activating a spell not casting it"(which I happen to believe in), you can't designate the familiar as the toucher from the spell, hence my suggestion that would here on out you prep Shocking Grasp instead of Chill Touch, and Invisibility instead of Flaming Sphere(which as I noted above I find next to useless myself.) If you two want a rerun without the shocking grasp(and where Drac's familiar flies off at the beginning of combat) to see how this will play out, I'll do my best to help. Otherwise, this fight will need an extension and at least one completely new set of tactics. |
| Dracazar01-17-06, 10:41 AM | Hmm, I didn't know that the familiar could not be the toucher for a shocking grasp cast from scroll. And, sincerely I didn't approve this rule 100%, because activating a scroll results in "casting" the scroll (infact the activation time is 1 round for a scroll that needs 1 round to be cast). However if I could modify the prepared spell I would agree to the proposal of DTFarstar, Shocking Grasp instead of Chill Touch, and Invisibility instead of Flaming Sphere. Are you sure that I can't bring the familiar within my clothing for the invisible matter? |
| SoulLord01-17-06, 10:46 AM | 1) Greater Teleport has no miss chance. Also, hound archons have scent, so they would have detected Dameon as soon as they entered within 30'. Also, the Hound Archons started in all 3 other squares. Even if they started all in the same square, 3 could easily teleport and check the other squares, and immediately notice the smell of their opponents. 2) All right. Maybe I should of PM you about the errors. 3) I used the cavern map.... I'll go post it, except photobucket isn't working at the moment. 4) That says to me, that you primarily wanted to get the clerics. Vandelar couldn't see the second one, but could hear him, so he gambled. Also both clerics couldn't have been caught in the reach of the spell, as they were 45' apart. 5) The non-grappled cleric cast the Dispel Magic, so he doesn't need to make a concentration check. Then, the other cleric is released from grappling, so he doesn't have to make concentration checks. 6) Diving! Charging Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but it says to me that you can't do any vertical descent if you can swing at man sized creatures from where you are. All right. If I randomize the teleports, they could easily locate you within the first round, possibly delaying everything by 1 round. But even if I moved the Black Tentacles to where the hound archons were, a cleric would just dispel it right away. Well without Dameon being able to charge there is no way that Vandelar can Dish out enough damage to take out the monsters so unless that is changed there is no point in a rerun. a notification about your concerns on the diving charge would have been nice though. As I still don't see why Dameon's charge is not possible. also I think the hound archons have plain teleport not Greater teleport |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 10:46 AM | Come to think of it, I would like to have this topic clarified a wee bit more. I just noticed something I had skipped before in the scrolls stuff and I wonder if LLMC and/or whoever ruled on it saw this or if they missed it too. Determine Effect A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way. Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise. The writing for an activated spell disappears from the scroll. Can someone explain why that would not include being able to be shared with the familiar or have the familiar designated as toucher? |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 10:48 AM | As for the familiar inside the clothing, in a table game I would definately allow it, but it specifically says items in the description(which I realize they probably didn't think through and thus didn't think creatures would ever be needed, but still RAW, items dissapeer.) |
| Abyssal Stalker01-17-06, 10:53 AM | Kudos to you for saying this. However you were unlucky as Manzarf did fall sleeping and was CDG. Just can't seem to win this week... |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 10:56 AM | Oh, and something I have been meaning to ask, Does anyone know anything about Shaz (Dracazar) vs Darius (DTFarstar): Gonbow? Just would like to get an ETA on it. Edit : @ Abyssal Stalker - Sorry man, luck is not on your side this week. |
| Dracazar01-17-06, 10:57 AM | DTFarstar I would accept any your decision about the fight, do the thing that steal less of your time. I'm still concerned about the spell by memory/scroll issue because I think that they are the same thing but I'll accept you ruling here (In table top I would allow it for sure, but CoCo seems even more different from TT). |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 11:00 AM | Come to think of it, I would like to have this topic clarified a wee bit more. I just noticed something I had skipped before in the scrolls stuff and I wonder if LLMC and/or whoever ruled on it saw this or if they missed it too. Determine Effect A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way. Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise. The writing for an activated spell disappears from the scroll. Can someone explain why that would not include being able to be shared with the familiar or have the familiar designated as toucher? Dracazar, we had this conversation a couple of weeks ago. I pointed out exactly the same passage. This is the only passage that supports the casting as sharing bit, all other evidence in the DMG and the Rules of the Game article strongly suggests otherwise. Additionally, if the quote you mention should be taken literally, then you can also argue that the spell cast from scroll should use your ability modifier instead of the minimum ability modifier. The 'exactly like' phrase is just unclear what they wanted to include in that, but probably not the sharing ability with you familiar. We can take it up in the Tavern and rehash it, but even though I assumed the same that you assumed, nobody then agreed, and reading all the sources even got me convinced that sharing spells from items (scrolls, wands whatever) is impossible. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 11:01 AM | At this point it is either luck out and have LLMC respond quickly to me, have your opponent accept me allowing you to change your spell list in light of new information, or running the fight as though the Hawk was never there and the Shocking Grasp scroll was never cast. To be honest, the least amount of time for me would be to leave the fight as is, obviously, but I don't see Ursurpator going for that. I'm going to check the threads one last time and then go back to sleep(I hate being sick) hopefully when I wake in a few hours everything will have been ruled on/answered. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 11:13 AM | Well, to me the main difference between the sharing spells and the ability modifier is that nowhere does it say you CANNOT share the spells activated off a scroll, it just uses the word cast, and this says functions as if cast. Whereas it specifically states that the ability modifier used is minimum for the spell instead of yours like it normally would be. I really don't put much, or any really, stock in the Rules of the Game articles. If anyone proofreads them, I would be surprised if those people had played DnD before, much less very rules based DnD like this. I mean, if this is the official ruling, then I have no choice but to abide by it for now and fight it whenever I can, because I truly believe that RAW it should be allowed(I know not long ago I thought the other way, but I've reviewed everything I could find and it leads me to this conclusion, where as the other time I just believed what I had been told and hadn't read into it.) and that it was probably RAI as well. Usually, sharing spells with your familiar really isn't that helpful, it doesn't suck but it isn't insanely powerful or anything. The only time it really helps is when something like Shocking Grasp is combo-ed with a ranged damage spell, but if Drac had his spell prepared like he should(seems like he uses Shocking Grasp alot) he would either not have Chill Touch or not have Cause Fear prepared and prepare shocking grasp instead. Likewise, preparing Invis(which he uses every fight) would cost him a couple spell levels, but he could still Invis + Blind if he wanted. Anyway, I'm just saying from what I have read it seems as though sharing scroll spells and being able to designate familiar as toucher for them really is RAW and RAI. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 11:14 AM | @ Ursurpator- Could you point me to what convinced you otherwise? |
| TroubleWolf01-17-06, 11:22 AM | Samuel vs. Sven is up. I have to say, this is not a fight that I expected to lose. You did a great job Pitlording, Kaigan, and I loved the story to go along with it. I certainly can't blame you for this loss. My rolls on attacks were: 2, 5, 4, 8, 12, and 9. I mean, with luck that bad, there's no one to blame! Thanks for running for us, and congrats to little Samuel. |
| Dracazar01-17-06, 11:30 AM | No, I think I'm done pitlording, at least for a while. I spent way too much time on this fight, and the one I did last week. I haven't been having fun doing it. I would have much rather spent my time this weekend working on new code for the mapper. I appreciate the sentiment, though. May I ask you only 1 question about the fight? Why you don't moved out of the Entangle area? Cher has a couple of rounds to move away from the Entangle and also she were invisible. Cher could move out even if she failed the reflex save throw. This could have saved a lot of scroll/money. Thanks |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 11:33 AM | Regarding Death vs. Borodin: 1) I did indeed read Hold Person wrong; it was late and I had been running the fight for a long time. 2) Damage for the last attack was 7+2 3) I stand by the shocks. I can make them subdual, but I will not take them out. Borodin's tactics were to hide and wait for twenty rounds. That's just not right. I think you made a subjective decision based on your feeling, not on the rules. I also think it is not right to keep running away and stay ranged, but that doesn't make against the rules. There have been many, many fights where one gladiator was attacking the other, while the other did nothing but defend himself. There was never a delay penalty introduced. If I stand there and take Total Defense against someone who attacks in melee, it shouldn't be a problem, at least not more than Fighting Defensively or using Combat Expertise. There have been also many fights where one gladiator allowed himself to be shot once every 10 rounds to avoid a delay penalty, and then assumed running/defending again. I was shot many times within 10 rounds, there is no single reason for a delay penalty. None. I think I will mention it in big letters in my tactics, but I never mean to write tactics that cause me to break the 10-round delay limit. It is just never advantageous to do so. If my character somehow breaks the limit, either I misintepreted the delay rule, my Pitlord misintepreted the delay rule or the Pitlord misinterpreted my tactics. According to you this fight would break the delay rule many times over. 4) After having death run around looking for windows, I miraculously found a spot that hit all three hiding places. I had Death shoot from there. At this point I probably could have had Borodin seek new shelter, but I was still feeling righteously angry about being given tactics that said hide and wait. Say what? You were angry about my tactics? And 'righteously' so even? If strongly suggest to any Pitlord who ever feels righteously angry about somebody's tactics, to please stop running the fight immediately, because when you feel that way there is little hope of being an objective Pitlord anymore. By the by, I don't think there is a spot that can hit the three places, unless within close range, but I will look it up later myself. But from what it appears from the way you phrased it, either you are angry/frustrated at me for my responses, my tactics, or something else. I apologize for my cause in that, but please don't run fights for my characters when you feel angry at me for whatever reason. End result: The fight's result will not change if I am forced to edit. And quite frankly, I'm surprised at you, Usurpator. Snommelp, that way you state your arguments makes it seem that you are clearly biased against me, what you just said sounds to me like a threat, and not something a fair or objective pitlord would say. I am not an idiot, if I thought my tactics would break the rule, I would obviously not have written them. Same way with Tezca's fight you ran last time. If I knew in advance you were going to rule hiding that way, I would have written different tactics. Most importantly: I would like to reconcile this in some way, since our having a good relation is way more important to me than how this stupid fight ends. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 11:43 AM | @ Ursurpator- Could you point me to what convinced you otherwise? I will when I get home. In any case, I expect it to be ruled that way, if not, I would ask for the Elders to clear up the rule first, and then do a complete rerun. I am getting a bit tired lately by losing to rules interpretation. After looking over his offensive options I felt confident there was no way he could do more than 30 damage before he became visible unless he acted on a readied action. I did the math and then felt confident Namara would have a decent chance with these tactics. If the Pitlord applies different rules than I expect (and should not have to be aware of), then tactics that were previously reasonably solid can suddenly become shaky or even completely useless. In this case the tactics become shaky, so shaky that I would have written it differently if I had been aware of it. That is why I called for more clarity on some rules several times recently, since about half of my recent fights didn't go the way I expected them to go because Ptilords applied the rules differently than I expected. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 11:44 AM | @Dracazar- About Cher and Entangle Entangle Transmutation Level: Drd 1, Plant 1, Rgr 1 Components: V, S, DF Casting Time: 1 standard action Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level) Area: Plants in a 40-ft.-radius spread Duration: 1 min./level (D) Saving Throw: Reflex partial; see text Spell Resistance: No Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement. Note: The effects of the spell may be altered somewhat, based on the nature of the entangling plants. So, full-round action in which you need a 20 to succeed for the STR check, and I believe you have 0dex mod and an ACP so you have 0 chance on the Escape Artist check, I think. I guess the DM thought time would be better spent elsewhere. With grease you would only have a +6(-2ACP and -2 from the Dex penalty from being entangled.) which is alot better than nothing I guess, but definately not a sure thing. |
| Gonbow01-17-06, 11:50 AM | Oh, and something I have been meaning to ask, Does anyone know anything about Shaz (Dracazar) vs Darius (DTFarstar): Gonbow? Just would like to get an ETA on it. Edit : @ Abyssal Stalker - Sorry man, luck is not on your side this week. I'm working on it between classes today, up sometime tonight, probably around 10:30 pm or so EST (My last class ends at 9pm EST, assuming it'll take me an hour to finish or so). Probably earlier, given how the fight is going. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 11:51 AM | @DTFarstar: Regardless if I agree with your points (and I do with a lot of them), I discussed this in Tavern, was informed how the 'share spells' should be ruled, and should expect them to be ruled that way in the future. If the rules keep switching around from Pitlord to Pitlord, I cannot write proper tactics any more. And I don't want to have a discussion about rules after each fight, because it is frustrating to Pitlord and players, and there is the general Pitlord tendency to change fight results as little as possible. I want to have things cleared up before I write tactics, and I thought this issue was sufficiently cleared up beforehand. |
| Mal-201-17-06, 11:51 AM | May I ask you only 1 question about the fight? Why you don't moved out of the Entangle area? Cher has a couple of rounds to move away from the Entangle and also she were invisible. Cher could move out even if she failed the reflex save throw. This could have saved a lot of scroll/money. Thanks I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Here's the full text of the Entangle spell: Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement. Entangled The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. So, in Round 2, when the spell was first cast, you failed your Reflex save. On your action in Round 3, the only way you can move is to take a Full Round action and succeed in either a Strength check DC 20 or an Escape Artist check DC 20. I didn't see any way you could do either one of those. Cher has Strength 10, so you could escape on a Natural 20. Cher normally has an escape artist skill of -2, and with -4 Dex for being entangled, that drops to a -4 skill, making it impossible to escape using Escape Artist. Casting grease on yourself would have given you a +10 to Escape Artist checks, but it wasn't in your tactics and I didn't think of doing it while running the fight. I am still willing to re-run the fight based on that, if you like. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 11:57 AM | @Ursurpator - I understand, I hate to see people who are obviously intelligent enough to write well-founded tactics and who took the time to do their research and write said tactics lose because of mis-interpretted rules between Pitlord and players. The main problem with this fight is that you thought the scroll stuff worked one way and Dracazar thought it worked another, and to be honest I thought it worked a third way, though now I am... well, not convinced, but pretty sure it works the way Drac thought it did. I'm still open-minded on the subject and of course if I get a Elder ruling I'll run it that way. I've said what I thought about it up there, and yeah, I think this fight is really going to warrant a re-run next week with new tactics for both fighters dependent upon the rulings given in the next day or so. I hate to see people lose off stuff like this so I would really like the rules to be nailed down and then have this be one of my fights next week so I can see it through to a good conclusion. Unless one of you wants to surrender, of course, and just move on for the sake of more XP and GP, but I think we all want to see this resolved well. Anyway, I'm sorry I didn't get to this earlier in the week, but I just didn't have the time. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 12:04 PM | @Ursurpator - I agree, you were told how it should go and should be able to base tactics off that now. The problem was that I, on the other hand, had never seen anything official on it and checked it out in the Prison thread and there was nothing there, so I ran it the way I saw it. I'm not refusing to rerun, I'm just saying if there is a re-run it needs to have a completely nailed down answer to whether or not this is possible and you and Drac both need new tactics because one of you assumed one thing and one assumed the other about the rules so it wouldn't be fair to either of you to just select one set of rules and go with them. I didn't know, when I was running the fight, that you had based your tactics off him not being able to have his familiar cast the spell on you, I thought(because of your contigency about it attacking you) that you were planning on killing it, weathering the Scorching Ray and grappling him to death. Which would have worked well had that AoO attack roll not been so low. I know now this was not the case, you probably just put that in there in case of Chill Touch with familiar as toucher. Anyway, I hope this will be satisfactorily resolved soon. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 12:56 PM | @DTFarstar: I completely agree with you. I think there is no 'right' answer to this dillema. I based my tactics on a certain assumption, Dracazar based his tactics on a certain assumption, and you ran it based on certain assumptions. None our assumptions were inherently unreasonable, and no-one should be penalized for it. The fairest solution to all parties would be: 1. Ruling on the issue to make it crystal clear for future fights 2. New tactics from both parties that can account for the ruling (which ever way it goes) 3. Rerun of the fight next week (by you or another Pitlord) In any case, I will accept a loss if I must, but I am getting somewhat more vigilant that normal lately, because I was getting a lot of losses based on rules issues. Rules issues that were not solved. Thank you for your responses, I hope your fever is getting better. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 01:23 PM | I think the fever is gone, all the achiness and stuff is still there, and I'm still exhausted though, because I only slept from 5:30-ish till 9-ish. Not nearly enough when sick. I'm glad we've been able to come to an agreement on this subject and I thank you for your concern over my health. If we don't get a ruleing from Cat or LLMC or Niqil or some other Elder willing to take responsibility and help us spread the word that that is the way it works now. I just ask that whoever looks it over pay less attention to Skip and more attention to the way it says things work in the books. As I stated earlier I don't think anyone really proofreads what he says, much less checks it for accuracy. I know he does the best he can, but surely with all of us we can do better. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-17-06, 01:32 PM | Only problem is rewards are off slightly. Should be: Gladiator 1 wins and receives 1250xp/1333gc (1500xp/1600gc -17% +0%) Gladiator 2 loses and receives 583xp/622gc (500xp/533gc -0% +17%) My tactics were pretty weak so I didn't expect to win. Corrected and up, though your number assumes rounding the percentage up early, which i don't do 1251x/1334g; 583x/621g |
| Snommelp01-17-06, 02:10 PM | I think you made a subjective decision based on your feeling, not on the rules. I also think it is not right to keep running away and stay ranged, but that doesn't make against the rules. There have been many, many fights where one gladiator was attacking the other, while the other did nothing but defend himself. There was never a delay penalty introduced. If I stand there and take Total Defense against someone who attacks in melee, it shouldn't be a problem, at least not more than Fighting Defensively or using Combat Expertise. There have been also many fights where one gladiator allowed himself to be shot once every 10 rounds to avoid a delay penalty, and then assumed running/defending again. I was shot many times within 10 rounds, there is no single reason for a delay penalty. None. I think I will mention it in big letters in my tactics, but I never mean to write tactics that cause me to break the 10-round delay limit. It is just never advantageous to do so. If my character somehow breaks the limit, either I misintepreted the delay rule, my Pitlord misintepreted the delay rule or the Pitlord misinterpreted my tactics. According to you this fight would break the delay rule many times over. 1) Who's to say that it didn't break the delay rule many times over? I would certainly say it did. 2) According to the Rules of Gladius, meaningful interaction is needed from both parties. As long as both characters are trying to attack, no penalty should be given. Borodin, however, was not trying to attack. He was specifically trying to avoid meaningful interaction, by ducking and hiding until Death got frustrated and acted stupidly in his anger. That is a delay tactic; that is in violation of the ten-round delay rule. If you ask the elders, I am 99% sure that the vast majority will agree with me. Say what? You were angry about my tactics? And 'righteously' so even? If strongly suggest to any Pitlord who ever feels righteously angry about somebody's tactics, to please stop running the fight immediately, because when you feel that way there is little hope of being an objective Pitlord anymore.I wasn't excusing or justifying my actions, only explaining. I was almost certainly wrong to not move Borodin away (even though he stayed where you wanted him to, according to your tactics). However, the movement will not change the end of the fight in the slightest. By the by, I don't think there is a spot that can hit the three places, unless within close range, but I will look it up later myself. But from what it appears from the way you phrased it, either you are angry/frustrated at me for my responses, my tactics, or something else. I apologize for my cause in that, but please don't run fights for my characters when you feel angry at me for whatever reason.Not angry at you, angry at your tactics. You recognized that NiQil was going to use the second most annoying tactic for a pitlord to run, and countered it with the only tactic that is ever more annoying. That's all beside the point, though. The spot where Death was standing was (30, 6), for your checking convenience. If I am mistaken and that spot does not in fact gain access to all three hiding spots, the fight will not change except to be longer and more annoying to run. Snommelp, that way you state your arguments makes it seem that you are clearly biased against me, what you just said sounds to me like a threat, and not something a fair or objective pitlord would say. I am not an idiot, if I thought my tactics would break the rule, I would obviously not have written them. Same way with Tezca's fight you ran last time. If I knew in advance you were going to rule hiding that way, I would have written different tactics. Most importantly: I would like to reconcile this in some way, since our having a good relation is way more important to me than how this stupid fight ends.I apologize if I sounded biased against you, but this was a very frustrating fight. One character wants to always stay 140 feet away and shoot, and the other wants to hide and wait for the first to come to him. The ten-round rule was created at least in part so that pitlords would not have to deal with such painful tactics. I am not calling you an idiot, but in all honesty, what would you have done in this same situation? Borodin was, in my eyes, quite obviously delaying, both in action and in intent. Having an audience member shout his position out, my standard penalty, would have achieved nothing. Pushing him out of hiding would have, according to your tactics, just moved him to a new hiding spot. Something had to be done, and I will stand by my punishment. As for your argument that you would have written tactics differently if you had known I would rule this way, I ask again: what else could I have done? Death was attempting meaningful interaction, and Borodin was sulking in a corner. Was I supposed to just run the fight for hundreds of rounds, letting Borodin delay away Death's arrows? I think not. I was wrong with the hiding ruling with Tezca, yes; it would have had little effect on the fight, but I was wrong. However, that does not change the fact that for this fight, you wrote delay tactics which specifically said to wait for twenty rounds, ten rounds more than the delay limit. If you would like to see reconciliation, you might start by not writing tactics with the intention of hiding undisturbed until your foe grows weary of the whole ordeal and makes a suicide run. Such tactics will be punished, as is the right of a pitlord. Lastly, I still see no reason to rerun the fight. Moving Borodin so that he continues hiding only delays the inevitable and annoys the pitlord; but in an attempt to remain impersonal, I will ignore that last part. The fight will still end exactly the same way, and unless I get a mandate from Caterane himself I will not rerun it at this point. I have classes to attend and homework to do and a guild to run, and I have no intention of rerunning a fight where one character decides to play the part of a target and the other has a 5% chance of hitting, but enough arrows to eventually kill his foe. I would not wish that on anyone. |
| King Uther01-17-06, 03:18 PM | @Turin and lonewolf Turin PMed me the link to the rolls, and in Round 12 when Ajora would've hit. The roll shows a 29, but Ajora was invisible(+2 to hit, target loses Dex). That's a total roll of 31 vs AC 28. According to Karen's tactics, she chose to hide behind the left rock. Did she know my starting box? You rolled an autoreactive spot check because LOS had been established in the 1st round. That's unnecessary. If at anytime there is LOS in the arena the enemy is spotted. If she was hiding it would be a different story. Ajora would've stopped at (0, 8) or a similar square, fire(a 29 to hit), and killed Karen outright in the first round with 36 damage. The unfortunate problem is that Turin is not required to change anything, since it's at the Pitlords discretion. |
| King Uther01-17-06, 03:21 PM | @Snommelp Do you remember when Laph fought Mer-man? Mer-man sat defensively for something like 60-80 rounds trying to make Laph waste all of his arrows and javelins and come into melee range. |
| Ariel2301-17-06, 03:21 PM | @scrolls & familiars topic: If it were a potion, I'd say clearly there's no way to share it with your familiar, but doesn't the caster of a scroll make all relevant decisions when it is cast? @zevox or lonewolf Ranged attacks gets no special bonus against helpless targets. They still get the -4 penalty. I don't think because they do not get a "special bonus" does not mean that the other (non-special) rules do not apply. And let me clarify, I do not think this is a fight-changing issue, it's just a regular argue-about-it-on-the-boards issue. |
| Pittbull01-17-06, 03:24 PM | @Snommelp Do you remember when Laph fought Mer-man? Mer-man sat defensively for something like 60-80 rounds trying to make Laph waste all of his arrows and javelins and come into melee range. GRRRRRRRR!!!!! ;) Here is the link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6298804)! |
| lonewolf01-17-06, 03:31 PM | @King Uther: In round 10 both Karen and Ajora were hit by the 10 round penalty: The lazy finger stabs down on a button and, in the arena, two glaring shafts of white light illuminate the current positions of both gladiators. The shafts of light are accompanied by the sound of loud air horns. So Ajora was not invisible and the attack misses. |
| King Uther01-17-06, 03:40 PM | That invisibility was only negated for a short moment. 10-round delay penalties do not last more than a single round, otherwise it would be unfair. Invisibility is even listed as a buff on AJora when he makes the shot. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 03:47 PM | 1) Who's to say that it didn't break the delay rule many times over? I would certainly say it did. 2) According to the Rules of Gladius, meaningful interaction is needed from both parties. Interaction *always* requires two parties, it is the essence of the word. You cannot 'meaningfully interact' on your own, either both parties are meaningfully interacting or neither is. I have never before seen Pitlords rule 'no meaningful interaction' when one is shooting at (and hitting) the other gladiator. If you don't consider that meaningful interaction, what do you consider to be meaninful interaction? As long as both characters are trying to attack, no penalty should be given. Borodin, however, was not trying to attack. I don't agree, but I will probably start to get the delaying rule clarified, since I regularly see delaying issues crop up. Also, your intervention made no sense. It did not help resolve the situation in any way, since you kept repeating the same tactics after inflicting the penalty. If delay penalties need to be inflicted, they need to resolve the situation. Your penalty changed nothing and you didn't make Borodin react to the obvious penalty in any way. If you are convinced that Borodin was delaying you should have made him react appropriately after the penalty was inflicted. Since you didn't, it looks like you are punishing out of frustration. Not angry at you, angry at your tactics. You recognized that NiQil was going to use the second most annoying tactic for a pitlord to run, and countered it with the only tactic that is ever more annoying. If I saw a better tactic, I would have chosen it, but knowing NiQil and his tactics, I wrote the best counter-tactic I knew. Why is the blame on me for this? That's all beside the point, though. The spot where Death was standing was (30, 6), for your checking convenience. If I am mistaken and that spot does not in fact gain access to all three hiding spots, the fight will not change except to be longer and more annoying to run. Well, in such a case why don't just declare a winner then and move on, why run a fight at all if you already know who is going to win and all it does is frustrate you? I would be much more happy than with a mockery fight that wasn't taken seriously by the Pitlord. I apologize if I sounded biased against you, but this was a very frustrating fight. One character wants to always stay 140 feet away and shoot, and the other wants to hide and wait for the first to come to him. The ten-round rule was created at least in part so that pitlords would not have to deal with such painful tactics. I agree that it would and can be frustrating. In this case the blame for that is shared with NiQil. Every gladiator want to fight on terms that favor him most. If Death won't come to me, and I *cannot* come to him, there is essentially a stalemate. Both parties are equally responsible for the situation. Neither one party should be punished more than the other. I am not calling you an idiot, but in all honesty, what would you have done in this same situation? Borodin was, in my eyes, quite obviously delaying, both in action and in intent. Having an audience member shout his position out, my standard penalty, would have achieved nothing. Pushing him out of hiding would have, according to your tactics, just moved him to a new hiding spot. Something had to be done, and I will stand by my punishment. I would have expected something else, since nothing was achieved by your current intervention, which you apparently took to 'achieve something' by your own words. If so, then what did you achieve? If you really felt that way, you could just have moved Borodin's tactic a few rounds forward. I just cannot imagine why you chose this, unless you were out to punish me out of frustration. That was why I was suprised. I do not agree with your decision about the delaying, and looking at past fights here in CoCo could not have reasonably expected this decision. (Like the Asshur example I gave you). If you think that in many other fights the delay rule is applied wrong, speak up so the rule can be clarified. As for your argument that you would have written tactics differently if you had known I would rule this way, I ask again: what else could I have done? Death was attempting meaningful interaction, and Borodin was sulking in a corner. Was I supposed to just run the fight for hundreds of rounds, letting Borodin delay away Death's arrows? I think not. This has been done many times before in previous fights. Would you have been satisfied if Borodin launched a sling stone from cover every 10 rounds, since that is a often attempted counter-tactic against delaying. Now *that* would have delayed the fight. I specifically wanted to save you from that, thus the clause to engage after 20 rounds. I was wrong with the hiding ruling with Tezca, yes; it would have had little effect on the fight, but I was wrong. We didn't agree, but I didn't think you were not dead wrong on that issue. I think the hiding rule was not entirely crystal clear, and the assumption you made about the rule was understandable, it was just unexpected to me, and since it completely invalidated my tactic, a bit unfair to me. However, that does not change the fact that for this fight, you wrote delay tactics which specifically said to wait for twenty rounds, ten rounds more than the delay limit. No, I said, let him shoot me for 20 rounds, that is a whole different thing. I am experimenting with tactics to counter such run-away-and-shoot builds. I like experimental and innovative tactics. I spent a long time looking at different shooting arcs, ranges and places of cover, in an attempt to write up a tactics to seduce Death to get within hold person range. My tactics may not always work, but I like to try anyway. Tactics that say 'close to melee and just kill him' or something to that effect usually make me jawn.... If you would like to see reconciliation, you might start by not writing tactics with the intention of hiding undisturbed until your foe grows weary of the whole ordeal and makes a suicide run. Such tactics will be punished, as is the right of a pitlord. Snommelp, I do not reconcile well under threats. If this continues to be your attitude I think it is better if you don't Pitlord for my characters anymore. I don't appreciate it if a Pitlord punishes me for writing tactics that frustrate them. Especially not if the say it is 'their right' and claim such things as 'righteous anger'. Please, I can understand and empathize with your frustration, but I think reconcilation is about forgiving past issues, even though you might still think the other party is in the wrong, you simply decide there are more important issues than being right. I still think I am right, but am willing to let it pass for the greater good and start the next fights with a clean slate and hopefully a little bit wiser. Since I know you get frustrated by such tactics, I will naturally keep that in mind next time you Pitlord, and if I think 'frustrating' tactics are absolutely required, I'll ask if another Pitlord will trade places with you. Lastly, I still see no reason to rerun the fight. Moving Borodin so that he continues hiding only delays the inevitable and annoys the pitlord; but in an attempt to remain impersonal, I will ignore that last part. The fight will still end exactly the same way, and unless I get a mandate from Caterane himself I will not rerun it at this point. This I agree with. I think you are in no state of mind to do a rerun. I also agree that Death will have the best odds by far to win, so I don't require a rerun for that either. As I said, I was suprised and shocked by the way you handled this and your attitude about the issue. I am not here to frustrate you, annoy you, ridicule you or something else. I just try to write the best tactics I can for my gladiators and hope they work. I am not here to see my gladiators 'punished' because a Pitlord thinks my strategies are annoying. If you or anyone thinks they are annoying, PM me, and I will change them or ask for the fight to be given to someone else. I want to lose because of good opposing builds, good tactics from my opponent and from the dice, but I do not like to lose from Pitlords or unclear rules. |
| Papapeperoni01-17-06, 04:08 PM | The fight is modified good now. Better late than never. I've been working on it for 6 hours now, so more comment can't be handled now. Stormwind, TheMagister, the outcome of the battle doesn't change, please reread it to see if you approve my decisions. Man, I'm frustrated right now. I just couldn't get Cyra to hit when TWH was at 1. :banghead: Going to bed, --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's |
| TelinArtho01-17-06, 04:40 PM | I have received the tactics from Altaris. I've hit a bit of a snag today as I seem to have caught my son's stomach bug - but assuming I can keep my stomach down - I'll be posting the fights as they get done. /d |
| NiQil01-17-06, 04:54 PM | @ Snommelp & Usurpator: First....both of you need to take a deep breath and relax. Next, shake cyberhands. Brothers in the Order of No Swapping need not argue in this fashion LOL. Sorry...had to bring some humor in. Alright...now, to the issues: Delaying: First, let me quote here the delaying rule as listed in the Rules thread. There is a non-cumulative 10-round limit to delaying tactics. Every ten rounds, you have to interact meaningfully with your opponent. If you do not, the pitlord is free to introduce some unfortunate circumstance (a random spectator yelling out your exact position, for example, or people throwing beer bottles at you) that makes you vulnerable. Note that this limit only applies if one of the characters wants to engage the other, but the other one is hiding, invisible, or out of reach. If both characters are doing their best to fight the other, no penalty should be introduced. Similarly, if a wizard is flying over the head of a melee fighter and peppering him with Magic Missiles while he is unable to do anything, no penalty should be given, since there is meaningful interaction between the gladiators. The first thing that is important here is that the delay penalty is non-cumulative. So if a delay penalty was called for, there should have been one at 10 rounds of delay, one at 20, etc. Not one every round after 10. The second, and more important issue, is whether a delay penalty was required. The key here is two lines. The first one, I have colored in red above, the second in blue. In the red line, we look at both combatants. Was Death doing his best to interact with Borodin? Yes, he was attacking. I think we can all agree on that. Was Borodin doing his best to interact with Death? This one is a little more fuzzy. I would have to say no, he wasn't. Doing his best would have been moving out towards him in a (admittedly futile) attempt to close, or to attack with his sling. In the blue line, we are given an example of a situation where there is interaction on the part of one party, and the other party is not able to interact in any way, due to the situation. Does this example apply here? I think so. I see Death as the wizard, and Borodin as the fighter. Death is running around peppering Borodin with arrows. Does Borodin have a way to reply? Yes...his sling. Has he done so? No. So Borodin does have the means with which to respond, but has chosen not to do so (as per not mentioning it in tactics at all). Given the results I have taken from this examination with respect to the red sentence and the blue sentence, it is clear (to me, at least), that Borodin did, in fact, deserve a delay penalty. Now, that being said....here's what I think should have been done. 1) Fight runs as is up to the 10 round limit. 2) Borodin receives a penalty of some kind. If it had been me, I would have hit him with a bull rush from a Bigby spell that moved him out from behind cover. 3) Since Borodin's tactics state to go for 20 rounds, at this point I would declare the remaining 10 rounds of delaying void, and use either tactics for when the 20 rounds were up (if any), or pitlord improvisation to alter Borodin's tactics, due to the delaying tactic no longer being valid. Ultimately, I think that the result of this fight would not change in any regard. Even taking away the shocking damage, the final hit was still enough to put Borodin in the negatives (if my math is correct). So I don't see where any corrections to the fight will accomplish anything at this point. But I wanted to chime in here with this, so that hopefully the two of you can examine this and decide for yourselves what might have been done differently, and could be done differently going forward. |
| Altaris1301-17-06, 05:11 PM | I have received the tactics from Altaris. I've hit a bit of a snag today as I seem to have caught my son's stomach bug - but assuming I can keep my stomach down - I'll be posting the fights as they get done. /d Thanks mate. I appreciate taking the fights. I'll PM Pitlords to make sure he catches the change. |
| Gonbow01-17-06, 05:33 PM | Darius vrs Shaz is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8255436&postcount=49). I've seen telling 20's, worthless 20's and so forth, but I think this is the first time in my fights someone has rolled a 1 at a critical moment. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 05:37 PM | In the red line, we look at both combatants. Was Death doing his best to interact with Borodin? Yes, he was attacking. I think we can all agree on that. Was Borodin doing his best to interact with Death? This one is a little more fuzzy. I would have to say no, he wasn't. He was interacting, you either interact meaningfully or you don't. He was not 'doing his best actively going out to attack the other gladiator', if that is what you mean. Doing his best would have been moving out towards him in a (admittedly futile) attempt to close, or to attack with his sling. Moving out in a futile attempt is the same as trying to jump up at a flying wizard, or try to climb the pillars to get at your spider climbing sorcerer. And do you mean to say that Borodin would not be delaying if I stated in my tactics to sunder my sling, because than I would not be able to attack at range? I don't think Fighters in the example mentioned are required to throw their greatsword into the air at said flying wizard. Nor are fighters required to enter into a entangle field to get at the druid inside that created the entangle. I knew in advance I couldn't properly get to Death, and my tactics just came down to 'don't try, you will only get shot'. This is similar if I would ask my ground-bound fighter not to try and get up to a flying opponent, but just to hunker down and defend myself against the unavoidable assault. If you can explain to me the big difference between a flying opponent that you cannot reach and a opponent with superior speed that you cannot reach, I might understand your position a little bit better. In the blue line, we are given an example of a situation where there is interaction on the part of one party, and the other party is not able to interact in any way, due to the situation. Does this example apply here? I think so. I see Death as the wizard, and Borodin as the fighter. Death is running around peppering Borodin with arrows. Does Borodin have a way to reply? Yes...his sling. Has he done so? No. So Borodin does have the means with which to respond, but has chosen not to do so (as per not mentioning it in tactics at all). Interaction *cannot* be one-sided, it is impossible to say, I have interacted with him, but he didn't interact back. Either there is meaningful interaction or there isn't. Once again, should I sunder the sling, leave it at home, and will my tactics be legal then? That would seem a very strange rule. Cripple yourself and you will not be punished, not cripple yourself and you will. Or possible you want me to start throwing my equipment (potion bottles and such) as improvised weapons.... Given the results I have taken from this examination with respect to the red sentence and the blue sentence, it is clear (to me, at least), that Borodin did, in fact, deserve a delay penalty. I beg to differ. Please respond to the arguments I have PMed you, and also that I am mentioning here. That is coupled with the fact that there are numerous examples (also mentioned in this thread an the PM) of similar situations where no delay penalties were inflicted. Where these decision wrong in your opinion? Ultimately, I think that the result of this fight would not change in any regard. I agree they probably won't change, but haven't analyzed the positioning on the map yet.... But I am not arguing this from a standpoint of 'I should have won', but more from a 'what unexpected rule decision made my tactics faulty or obsolete *again*' I am just getting tired of being sneak attacked by rules I thought I had spotted. I honestly thought I had a pretty good perception of the delaying rule, and if you shot at me at least once every 10 rounds Borodin would have nothing to worry about. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 05:42 PM | @NiQil: I also remember a fight where one of your character was grappled, and he kept on using his wand of cure light wounds while the other continued to grapple for damage. Are you of the opinion that your character should have been slapped for delaying when you used your wand 10 rounds in a row? Why or why not? |
| NiQil01-17-06, 05:50 PM | He was interacting, you either interact meaningfully or you don't. He was not 'doing his best actively going out to attack the other gladiator', if that is what you mean. Moving out in a futile attempt is the same as trying to jump up at a flying wizard, or try to climb the pillars to get at your spider climbing sorcerer. And do you mean to say that Borodin would not be delaying if I stated in my tactics to sunder my sling, because than I would not be able to attack at range? I don't think Fighters in the example mentioned are required to throw their greatsword into the air at said flying wizard. Nor are fighters required to enter into a entangle field to get at the druid inside that created the entangle. I knew in advance I couldn't properly get to Death, and my tactics just came down to 'don't try, you will only get shot'. This is similar if I would ask my ground-bound fighter not to try and get up to a flying opponent, but just to hunker down and defend myself against the unavoidable assault. If you can explain to me the big difference between a flying opponent that you cannot reach and a opponent with superior speed that you cannot reach, I might understand your position a little bit better. Interaction *cannot* be one-sided, it is impossible to say, I have interacted with him, but he didn't interact back. Either there is meaningful interaction or there isn't. Once again, should I sunder the sling, leave it at home, and will my tactics be legal then? That would seem a very strange rule. Cripple yourself and you will not be punished, not cripple yourself and you will. Or possible you want me to start throwing my equipment (potion bottles and such) as improvised weapons.... I beg to differ. Please respond to the arguments I have PMed you, and also that I am mentioning here. That is coupled with the fact that there are numerous examples (also mentioned in this thread an the PM) of similar situations where no delay penalties were inflicted. Where these decision wrong in your opinion? I agree they probably won't change, but haven't analyzed the positioning on the map yet.... But I am not arguing this from a standpoint of 'I should have won', but more from a 'what unexpected rule decision made my tactics faulty or obsolete *again*' I am just getting tired of being sneak attacked by rules I thought I had spotted. I honestly thought I had a pretty good perception of the delaying rule, and if you shot at me at least once every 10 rounds Borodin would have nothing to worry about. First and foremost...precedence in previous fights does not make an issue correct. We saw that with the bat/toad issue, among others. Now, if you had, indeed, written the tactic to sunder your own sling (putting the ludicriousness of that aside for the moment), then yes, you would have not been responsible for a delay tactic, because you would not have had any feasible way to attack me at range. As long as you possess the sling, you do. I think the crux of this issue is that you seem to interpret what 'meaningful interaction' means differently than I do. Meaningful interaction, to me, means that you are making an effort to engage your opponent to the best of your capabilities. From your posts, I gather that you take it to mean as long as one side is doing the engaging, then both sides are interacting. By my meaning, Borodin did not meaningfully interact, because he was not making an effort to engage to the best of his capabilities at least once every 10 rounds (which could have been accomplished with sling attacks). By your meaning, because he was getting shot at, he was interacting. This is where we differ. Based on how Snommelp ran the fight, I would gather that he is using my meaning, rather than yours. I would venture to say that most pitlords would lean toward my meaning, rather than yours...though I could be very much in error there. But that seems to be where this issue is springing from. But at this point I have said all I am going to say on the issue. I don't want hard feelings here because we keep arguing over semantics. Because at this point, that is all we seem to be doing. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 05:56 PM | @NiQil and Snommelp: I have analyzed the positioning: 30,6 brings Death within range of the hold person (which was my goal after all), and still gives Borodin cover against his shots. It is also against NiQil's tactics of course. But my positioning was especially designed to make NiQil's tactics next to impossible (and might possibly cause him to delay) if he chose to stay at 140 ft. Also, that place (30,6) makes it impossible for Death to get out of range of the hold person by double moving or running once Borodin came forward, and that *was* exactly my plan. So the hold person save should definitely be made, or the fight should be changed so that Death doesn't get within 140 ft. But as a poor Pitlord would notice soon enough, that would be *very, very hard* to do, and would involve circling the entire arena just trying to get of a single shot. And in that time Borodin might just have move 10 ft., forcing Death to make a complete circle in the other direction. Since you didn't provide any tactics for how Death should stay at 140 ft., and I did write specific counter tactics, I think a Pitlord should be free to get you inside the range to get a proper shot off. It is not the Pitlord's fault your 'stay at range tactics' are not able to get of a good shot thanks to my well-thought out positioning and counter-tactics. That is incendentally what I like about the CoCo. Death presented me with a *big* problem, and I analyzed the map and came up with a possible counter that NiQil would have never expected, but effectively negated his tactics. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 06:01 PM | @Gonbow - I haven't looked at the fight yet, but lemme guess? The 1 was for my Scorching Ray? I've had alot of bad luck in DnD lately(on here and at the Table). For instance this past Saturday, I needed a 5 to pass the Phantasmal Killer save(Identical Fort and Will Saves) I rolled a 3 on the Will save, then I rolled a 2 on the Fort save, used an Action Point(2d6 add the highest to the roll) and rolled a 1 and a 2, for a total of one less than needed to live. It has not been my DnD week. |
| Usurpator01-17-06, 06:06 PM | First and foremost...precedence in previous fights does not make an issue correct. We saw that with the bat/toad issue, among others. I agree Now, if you had, indeed, written the tactic to sunder your own sling (putting the ludicriousness of that aside for the moment), then yes, you would have not been responsible for a delay tactic, because you would not have had any feasible way to attack me at range. As long as you possess the sling, you do. I agree, as you said, that would be ludicrous. Which illustrates to me how ridiculous it is to interpret the delaying rule the way you do. I believe rules cannot be intended to encourage such ludicrous behaviour. It would be meta-gaming I would ashamed of if I sundered my sling to reach that effect. Like closing your eyes and then saying you are not responsible for not finding your opponent, I think that road will only lead to further weirdness. I think the crux of this issue is that you seem to interpret what 'meaningful interaction' means differently than I do. Meaningful interaction, to me, means that you are making an effort to engage your opponent to the best of your capabilities. Well, what you are saying is that 'interaction' is something you can do by yourself. That also sounds ludicrous to me. So with me intepreting 'interaction' as something that both gladiators achieve together (which is not an unreasonable position), and supported by many precendents from well known gladiators and Pitlords, why I am to blame that I felt it was an allowable tactic, well within what the delay rules permitted? Unfortunately, intepreting rules comes down largely to interpreting semantics and precedents, since I have no other basis for interpretation. Do you? So I think discussing that certainly is useful, and such discussion might require rules to be rewritten to be clearer. |
| DTFarstar01-17-06, 06:25 PM | @Gonbow - I am not asking for a re-run. Thematic rolls kept, I was screwed. However, I would like to point something out, I wanted to get AC 27 for a specific reason, with AC 27, he and his friend would both have only a 5% chance to hit me and I could essentially do what I wanted. I didn't mention concentration checks because I didn't want to make them because statistically they would miss and it wouldn't matter. Again, with the scorching ray missing I really have no chance so leaving it as is is fine, but what prevents(I may just be unfamiliar) Nightsky from 5ft stepping into Shaz's square and not provoking an AoO? So, the whole ignoring my shield spell and Nightsky getting blasted like that really don't matter when my Scorching Ray rolled a 1 on the attack, so don't worry about it, just something to keep in mind if you get my fight again sometime. Thanks for running it, I hope you didn't mind since it was so short. =-P |
| TelinArtho01-17-06, 10:19 PM | Gundir vs Sola (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8257728) is up. Starting the other one right now. |
| Snommelp01-17-06, 10:21 PM | I am going to say only a few more things about that fight. 1) The space (30, 6) would have put Death 150 feet away, and with a 40 foot move he should easily have been able to get to cover or out of range if Borodin came at him. If I am mistaken in this, though, I should not have put him there. 2) I suppose I could change the shocks to a Bigby bull rush 3) "Interaction" is an often misused word; most often the writer means to say something like "acts upon." The examples in the Rules thread would support this misinterpretation of the word. 4) The damage from the last shot would finish Borodin. Next, I would like to apologize for my harsh reaction. Stress has been building up, with auditions yesterday and preparing for the first day of classes today, as well as other things. It certainly doesn't help matters that I am taking ten classes and still trying to work. The sets of tactics I was given for this fight just pushed me over the edge. Lastly, unless both parties specifically ask for a rerun, I will not run the fight again. If I stick with tactics as written, Death will win, as Borodin's win condition can never be met. If I must rerun the fight, though, it will have to be carried over, as it is getting late and I still have duties as guildmaster to perform. Speaking of which, anyone want to earn a credit a week as guildmaster for WAR? I'm overclocked. If anyone is willing to take the position, PM me and I'll step down to second-in-command, which our guild also does not currently have. P.S. I know how you feel, bumping into things you thought you knew like that, Usurpator. It has happened to me twice with my monk, Sam; once when I assumed that mentioning a crossbow shot early in my tactics would at least start me with a loaded crossbow, and once when I assumed that it went without saying that a monk would take one hand off of his two-handed weapon in order to deflect arrows. Shot down both times. |
| Erithmu01-17-06, 10:28 PM | Gundir vs Sola (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8257728) is up. Starting the other one right now. I hate druids ... I think I need to make that my new motto ... can I get 4 fights in a row? Well run, I forgot I lose dex when I get entangled, my bad either way it is a +1 or a +1, not like I have a choice. Minor thing if you can note that Sola makes 40gp for EYE it would be appreciated. Edited the Profession error as well. |
| TelinArtho01-17-06, 11:19 PM | Savour Die vs Uilo (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8258133) is up. Off to go check a few of my own fights - but if there are errors - I'll be fixing them in the morning. |
| Book501-17-06, 11:24 PM | Tan "DRAT!" Ba'al "DRAT! SO close!" .. Me - DRAT! I would have bet credits on those! *sigh* Good fights guys! @Ariel23 - I really like that big spreadsheet deal for the rolls! @Usurpator and Emeraldstreak - posting fight now (need to go get dynamap links) @Anyone - wanna calculate the rewards for all those dogs and Horses? I'd give you .2 credit if I could :) hehe brb |
| Warclone01-17-06, 11:33 PM | Savour Die vs Uilo (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8258133) is up. Off to go check a few of my own fights - but if there are errors - I'll be fixing them in the morning. Thanks for picking up the fight. One thing I would like to request is that I dobut an animal with an intelligence of 2 (the hippogriff) would see a bat swiping its claws in the air and deduce all of the following: A) What is invisibility? B) My foe is invisible? C) Who's bat is that and what relation do I have to it? D) What is that bat doing? E) The bat attacking empty space signifies an invisible opponent is there? If the hippogriff acts its intelligence, its possible the bat would have missed 3 times in the 3 rounds it existed, at which point my character (high int + knowledge of magic) would have waited the mist out and then continued from there with renewed vigor in his plans. What do you think? |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 12:27 AM | Well, the hippogriff is acting on an attack command from its summoner. The summoner says to attack with the bat - the hippogriff merely obeys. It may be a stretch of reality - but there is little room for reality in D&D. |
| Gonbow01-18-06, 12:59 AM | @Gonbow - I am not asking for a re-run. Thematic rolls kept, I was screwed. However, I would like to point something out, I wanted to get AC 27 for a specific reason, with AC 27, he and his friend would both have only a 5% chance to hit me and I could essentially do what I wanted. I didn't mention concentration checks because I didn't want to make them because statistically they would miss and it wouldn't matter. Again, with the scorching ray missing I really have no chance so leaving it as is is fine, but what prevents(I may just be unfamiliar) Nightsky from 5ft stepping into Shaz's square and not provoking an AoO? So, the whole ignoring my shield spell and Nightsky getting blasted like that really don't matter when my Scorching Ray rolled a 1 on the attack, so don't worry about it, just something to keep in mind if you get my fight again sometime. Thanks for running it, I hope you didn't mind since it was so short. =-P A valid point, but I was just trying to play your character intelligently; I assumed that making concentration checks/etc would be preferable to risking your head getting sliced off, which was my mistake, I apologize, though as you said, it doesn't make any difference. Re: Nightsky Because he was entering a foes space, which has been qouted specifically as provoking an AoO... maybe not from Essence, so that might have changed if he was '5-stepping' (Which I have a hard time, logically seeing a creature with his kind of land-speed doing, but eh :P), but one shocking grasp, even criticaled (which would be possible) and at max damage wouldn't take down your opponent =/ Nah, I didn't mind; I wish I could have gotten it done earlier in the week though. College is hell on getting things done :P |
| DTFarstar01-18-06, 01:12 AM | @ Gonbow - I understand what you were trying to do and I appreciate it, I really do. It's my fault for not spelling out my tactics in a clearer manner. In the average fight, what you did would have been well recieved(and thanked), but in this one I really only had one chance to kill him so I was relying on luck to not completely screw me and give him a 20 or me a 1. Obviously that didn't work out too well, but again I should have explained myself better, and I appreciate you trying to play my character well. Good job, and thank you. Edit: Heh, yeah, college plays merry hell with your schedule. I realize that it doesn't matter one way or another about Nightsky, but for future experience I would really like to know if that works or not. With the Nat 1, there was pretty much no way I could win whatsoever. I needed to hit with both and then roll slightly above average to kill him. Which is why this week I bought some offensive scrolls. |
| Iced01-18-06, 02:18 AM | Hey Iced- I hate to bring up old news, but why did you incorrectly re-run the Sdentch/Kraegin/Dameon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8144910) fight and leave it as is? There are major errors here: 1) Dameon's AC is 24 at the time Sdentch's last hit 'hit' him. Sdench rolled a 20, so there is no way Dameon suffered 12 dmg and got killed. 2) Dameon, as per strict tactics would NOT have used Round 11 to ready vs a charge (even though that was a good idea, but still, no where in my tactics did it say to ready... I said when fighting sdentch, to Alter Self into and Azer), instead casting Alter Self into Azer form (this adherance to tactics would have prevented the 2nd-to-last hit vs Dameon as well, since he would have an AC of 30). 3) As per strict tactics, Dameon was to recover HP with ML4 Vigor when 22 HP or lower. You did not do this when Dameon was reduced to such, which is a grievous violation of my tactics. 4) You did NOT expend the divine mights on Sdentch like I said to. I did not object to these errors since I won earlier (so it did not make a difference), but since you saw the need to rerun it, I feel the need to point out where you also did not accurately do so. Please, these are fight-altering changes. The fight does not need to be rerun from any point. The only thing that needs to be changed is that at Round 10 Dameon draws the scroll of Alter Self after slaying Kraegin since he sees we will fight Sdentch next, and Round 11 Dameons casts this scroll (Sdentch misses anyway). The last two attacks vs Dameon do not hit, and from that point on, the two exchange blows. As a convenience to you, since both of them are going to stand in place and slug it out, here is the correct ending to the fight (I used your roller to preserve accuracy): Keep in mind Dameon's AC is 30 and has 26 HP, and Sdentch's AC is 17 (raging and he has the 2-handed wpn, so no shield) and he has 33 HP. Dameon Attacks with Charmed, Divine Might: 20 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=334717) (deals 19 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=334722) dmg); Sdentch attacks: 26 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=334717) (miss) Next Round: Dameon Attacks with Divine Might: 14 (miss); Sdentch Attacks: 20 (miss) (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=334724) Next Round: Dameon Attacks with Divine Might: 23 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=334726) (16 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=334728) dmg dealt, Sdentch falls) [Sdentch have have scored a natural 20 just now, but it was versus an image (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=334730) anyway] Unless you find a problem with any of the above, I suggest this correct ending be out in place. Please PM me with your response. -Huan I have looked over these revisions and have to side with Huan on this issue. The battles of Gladius thread has been closed so I'm going to post this in the FoTW thread so it can be linked to your respective character sheets. A PM will be sent to pitlords informing them of the change. ~Iced |
| Iced01-18-06, 02:29 AM | Dr. Hobo vs Lissa is finished and up in the fights thread. |
| Cerebus1301-18-06, 08:17 AM | Dr. Hobo vs Lissa is finished and up in the fights thread.There are a number of issues with the fight. 1) If you have time please list an end of round summary with HP values and locations. 2) Dr. Hobo's total AC is 26, with an AC of 30 if he makes a DC 15 Ride check. 3) Entropic Shield only incurs a 20% miss chance, not 50%. 3) The sequence of events and attacks in rounds 7 and 8 is very garbled, I'll lay out all of the rolls that occured in thematic order (because you rolled a lot of times extra for attacks that could not have occured...you can't rapid shoot as part of a readied action). Round 7: Lissa fires one arrow as part of a readied action, not two. [19,13] = (32) [6,6] = (12) [2] = (2) [41] = (41) So Hobo would take 14 damage and continue his action. Hobo's first ride check of 11 should apply here as well. Round 8: Lissa rapid shoots, 3 attacks. [3,13] = (16) (should be an 11 bonus, not 13) [6,6] = (12) [6] = (6) [16] = (16) Miss [19,13] = (32) (should be an 11 bonus, not 13) [2,6] = (8) [2] = (2) Possible Hit, Entropic Shield miss chance 20% must be rolled for this shot. [3,13] = (16) (should be a 6 bonus, not 13) [1,6] = (7) [6] = (6) Miss Hobo casts Warp Wood. Hobo should also get a new Ride check for cover this round. Round 9: Lissa Rapid Shoots again. [18,8] = (26) (11 bonus to attack, not 8) [4,6] = (10) [3] = (3) [4] = (4) Miss Chance possible Hit [17,11] = (28) [6,6] = (12) [3] = (3) need to roll Miss Chance, possible Hit [1,11] = (12) (6 bonus to attack, not 11) [2,6] = (8) [4] = (4) Miss Hobo would continue with this tactics if alive (likely try to heal himself). He also needs a Ride check for this round to determine if he has cover. Combat would continue after this point, please keep using all thematic attack rolls you have done. In the future I would recommend not rolling damage along with an attack, because it is not guaranteed to hit and technically any damage you roll would then need to be applied to later attacks.....which can be hard to keep track of. Also you may want to consider not adding bonuses to attack rolls because if rolls get to be out of order you have to change those bonuses later to get the proper results. Instead add them inline inside of the fight wherever you link the 1d20 roll. Please edit this material in and see if the fight result changes, but with such a rediculous series of rolls 19, 19, 18, 17 (out of 7 rolls) there is not much I can really do to counter that considering he needed a 15+ to hit me with his first two rapid shots. |
| Warclone01-18-06, 10:04 AM | Well, the hippogriff is acting on an attack command from its summoner. The summoner says to attack with the bat - the hippogriff merely obeys. It may be a stretch of reality - but there is little room for reality in D&D.It attacks your opponents to the best of its ability. If you can communicate with the creature, you can direct it not to attack, to attack particular enemies, or to perform other actions.As you can see, the hippogriff cannot be instructed to 'attack with the bat'. The ONLY information the hippogriff knows is: he's on person A's side, and person B and C are hostile. Otherwise, it is ENTIERLY up to the hippogriff what it does. Therefore I think it is beyond unrealistic and into the realm of contrary to the spell and creature description, to my detriment. The hippogriff attacks to the best of it's ability, not the best of it's summoner's ability which is how you played it. The best of it's ability does not include a chain of logical deductions including knowledge of magic. That is the reason the speak with animals spell exists. Please make this change, there is a substantial chance I may be able to pull this fight out of the fire. |
| Mal-201-18-06, 10:12 AM | I'm pretty sure it doesn't work that way. Here's the full text of the Entangle spell: Grasses, weeds, bushes, and even trees wrap, twist, and entwine about creatures in the area or those that enter the area, holding them fast and causing them to become entangled. The creature can break free and move half its normal speed by using a full-round action to make a DC 20 Strength check or a DC 20 Escape Artist check. A creature that succeeds on a Reflex save is not entangled but can still move at only half speed through the area. Each round on your turn, the plants once again attempt to entangle all creatures that have avoided or escaped entanglement. Entangled The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. So, in Round 2, when the spell was first cast, you failed your Reflex save. On your action in Round 3, the only way you can move is to take a Full Round action and succeed in either a Strength check DC 20 or an Escape Artist check DC 20. I didn't see any way you could do either one of those. Cher has Strength 10, so you could escape on a Natural 20. Cher normally has an escape artist skill of -2, and with -4 Dex for being entangled, that drops to a -4 skill, making it impossible to escape using Escape Artist. Casting grease on yourself would have given you a +10 to Escape Artist checks, but it wasn't in your tactics and I didn't think of doing it while running the fight. I am still willing to re-run the fight based on that, if you like. @Dracazar: Are you convinced? If you think I'm wrong on this, I'd like to discuss it further. I want to make sure I got that right, as it will probably come up again, either in future fights here, or in my face to face games. |
| Mal-201-18-06, 10:19 AM | @Huan: I was glancing over this fight, and I think you made a mistake. When someone casts on the defensive, they don't draw AoOs, even if they fail the concentration check. At least... that's how I've always read it. Special You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. This doesn’t apply to other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity. The DC of the check is 15 (plus the spell’s level, if casting a spell or using a spell-like ability defensively). If the Concentration check succeeds, you may attempt the action normally without provoking any attacks of opportunity. A successful Concentration check still doesn’t allow you to take 10 on another check if you are in a stressful situation; you must make the check normally. If the Concentration check fails, the related action also automatically fails (with any appropriate ramifications), and the action is wasted, just as if your concentration had been disrupted by a distraction. Casting on the Defensive Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell. I always thought the penalty for failing the concentration check was that you lost the spell, but that you still avoided AoOs. If I'm wrong about how that works, I need to know. :D Bump. I'd really like to see this addressed. Have I been wrong about how casting on the defensive works for years? |
| Altaris1301-18-06, 10:27 AM | Bump. I'd really like to see this addressed. Have I been wrong about how casting on the defensive works for years? Nope, your not wrong. As I've always understood it, and the way my group has always treated concentration, was that you had three choices when attacking in combat. 5ft step or otherwise move out of reach, and then cast. Cast and suffer the AoO and hope you make the concentration check vs the damage. Make the concentration check, dc 15 +spell level, do not suffer an AoO but if you fail the check you lose the spell. |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 10:32 AM | As you can see, the hippogriff cannot be instructed to 'attack with the bat'. The ONLY information the hippogriff knows is: he's on person A's side, and person B and C are hostile. Otherwise, it is ENTIERLY up to the hippogriff what it does. Therefore I think it is beyond unrealistic and into the realm of contrary to the spell and creature description, to my detriment. The hippogriff attacks to the best of it's ability, not the best of it's summoner's ability which is how you played it. The best of it's ability does not include a chain of logical deductions including knowledge of magic. That is the reason the speak with animals spell exists. Please make this change, there is a substantial chance I may be able to pull this fight out of the fire. Well, in that case, I'd probably have to change the hippogriff to another dire bat. Why? Because the player was assuming that once the bat was engaged, the hippogriff could attack the found target. I'll work on the changes now. |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 11:35 AM | Savour Die vs Uilo has been edited. Some expendables changed, but otherwise - the results have not. |
| Usurpator01-18-06, 12:02 PM | Make the concentration check, dc 15 +spell level, do not suffer an AoO but if you fail the check you lose the spell. We did this intially as well, because it makes sense. Unfortunately, the rules say that if you try to cast defensively and do not make the Concentration check, you don't start casting at all. No spell lost. |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 12:12 PM | Casting Defensively: If you want to cast a spell without provoking any attacks of opportunity, you must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the level of the spell you’re casting) to succeed. You lose the spell if you fail. Don't know why this is up for discussion... |
| Altaris1301-18-06, 12:17 PM | We did this intially as well, because it makes sense. Unfortunately, the rules say that if you try to cast defensively and do not make the Concentration check, you don't start casting at all. No spell lost. That is in direct contradition to the rules as quoted by Mal-2. CONCENTRATION (CON) Check: You must make a Concentration check whenever you might potentially be distracted (by taking damage, by harsh weather, and so on) while engaged in some action that requires your full attention. Such actions include casting a spell, concentrating on an active spell, directing a spell, using a spell-like ability, or using a skill that would provoke an attack of opportunity. In general, if an action wouldn’t normally provoke an attack of opportunity, you need not make a Concentration check to avoid being distracted. If the Concentration check succeeds, you may continue with the action as normal. If the check fails, the action automatically fails and is wasted. If you were in the process of casting a spell, the spell is lost. If you were concentrating on an active spell, the spell ends as if you had ceased concentrating on it. If you were directing a spell, the direction fails but the spell remains active. If you were using a spell-like ability, that use of the ability is lost. A skill use also fails, and in some cases a failed skill check may have other ramifications as well. The table below summarizes various types of distractions that cause you to make a Concentration check. If the distraction occurs while you are trying to cast a spell, you must add the level of the spell you are trying to cast to the appropriate Concentration DC. If more than one type of distraction is present, make a check for each one; any failed Concentration check indicates that the task is not completed. Concentration DC1 Distraction 10 + damage dealt Damaged during the action.2 10 + half of continuous Taking continuous damage during the damage last dealt action.3 Distracting spell’s save DC Distracted by nondamaging spell.4 10 Vigorous motion (on a moving mount, taking a bouncy wagon ride, in a small boat in rough water, belowdecks in a stormtossed ship). 15 Violent motion (on a galloping horse, taking a very rough wagon ride, in a small boat in rapids, on the deck of a storm-tossed ship). 20 Extraordinarily violent motion (earthquake). 15 Entangled. 20 Grappling or pinned. (You can cast only spells without somatic components for which you have any required material component in hand.) 5 Weather is a high wind carrying blinding rain or sleet. 10 Weather is wind-driven hail, dust, or debris. Distracting spell’s save DC Weather caused by a spell, such as storm of vengeance.4 1 If you are trying to cast, concentrate on, or direct a spell when the distraction occurs, add the level of the spell to the indicated DC. 2 Such as during the casting of a spell with a casting time of 1 round or more, or the execution of an activity that takes more than a single full-round action (such as Disable Device). Also, damage stemming from an attack of opportunity or readied attack made in response to the spell being cast (for spells with a casting time of 1 action) or the action being taken (for activities requiring no more than a full-round action). (See also Distracting Spellcasters, page 160.) 3 Such as from acid arrow. 4 If the spell allows no save, use the save DC it would have if it did allow a save. Action: None. Making a Concentration check doesn’t take an action; it is either a free action (when attempted reactively) or part of another action (when attempted actively). Try Again: Yes, though a success doesn’t cancel the effect of a previous failure, such as the loss of a spell you were casting or the disruption of a spell you were concentrating on. Special: You can use Concentration to cast a spell, use a spell-like ability, or use a skill defensively, so as to avoid attacks of opportunity altogether. This doesn’t apply to other actions that might provoke attacks of opportunity. The DC of the check is 15 (plus the spell’s level, if casting a spell or using a spell-like ability defensively). If the Concentration check succeeds, you may attempt the action normally without provoking any attacks of opportunity. A successful Concentration check still doesn’t allow you to take 10 on another check if you are in a stressful situation; you must make the check normally. If the Concentration check fails, the related action also automatically fails (with any appropriate ramifications), and the action is wasted, just as if your concentration had been disrupted by a distraction. A character with the Combat Casting feat gets a +4 bonus on Concentration checks made to cast a spell or use a spell-like ability while on the defensive or while grappling or pinned. Actions in Combat Section: Concentration: You must concentrate to cast a spell. If you can’t concentrate you can’t cast a spell. If you start casting a spell but something interferes with your concentration you must make a Concentration check or lose the spell. The check’s DC depends on what is threatening your concentration (see the Concentration skill). If you fail, the spell fizzles with no effect. If you prepare spells, it is lost from preparation. If you cast at will, it counts against your daily limit of spells even though you did not cast it successfully. Attacks of Opportunity: Generally, if you cast a spell, you provoke attacks of opportunity from threatening enemies. If you take damage from an attack of opportunity, you must make a Concentration check (DC 10 + points of damage taken + spell level) or lose the spell. Spells that require only a free action to cast don’t provoke attacks of opportunity. Casting on the Defensive: Casting a spell while on the defensive does not provoke an attack of opportunity. It does, however, require a Concentration check (DC 15 + spell level) to pull off. Failure means that you lose the spell. |
| Luni01-18-06, 12:49 PM | As you can see, the hippogriff cannot be instructed to 'attack with the bat'. The ONLY information the hippogriff knows is: he's on person A's side, and person B and C are hostile. Otherwise, it is ENTIERLY up to the hippogriff what it does. Therefore I think it is beyond unrealistic and into the realm of contrary to the spell and creature description, to my detriment. The hippogriff attacks to the best of it's ability, not the best of it's summoner's ability which is how you played it. The best of it's ability does not include a chain of logical deductions including knowledge of magic. That is the reason the speak with animals spell exists. Please make this change, there is a substantial chance I may be able to pull this fight out of the fire. Hippogriffs aren't animals though... Though, I'd let someone get away with the Hippogriff attacking the bat, by screaming and pointing at the bat, and not the other person. |
| Usurpator01-18-06, 01:15 PM | @TelinArtho & Altaris(13) Guess I was dead wrong, happens some times, mind playing tricks on me. |
| Turin01-18-06, 01:30 PM | Karen vs Ajora (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8235132&postcount=18) has been edited. Unfortunately this changes the outcome of the fight fairly late in the week. My apologies. For future reference, I would suggest to gladiators that they try to find the big errors first, rather than filling up my PM box with 1001 nitpicks that I have to consider before telling me that the fight should have been over in the first round only a day before pairings. ;) |
| lonewolf01-18-06, 01:43 PM | Karen vs Ajora (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8235132&postcount=18) has been edited. Unfortunately this changes the outcome of the fight fairly late in the week. My apologies. For future reference, I would suggest to gladiators that they try to find the big errors first, rather than filling up my PM box with 1001 nitpicks that I have to consider before telling me that the fight should have been over in the first round only a day before pairings. ;) unfortunately this is corrrect. but I must say it is quite annoying to come with this up so late in the week. I now have to unlevel Karen again and also call of the EL5 quest I was going to do this week. :pbbbtt: |
| Usurpator01-18-06, 02:07 PM | @Book5: First of all, thank you for running the Almaar vs. Aramur. There a few issues though: The most important issues first: - You did not have Aramur ready to interrupt Almaar's spellcasting in the first round, which I specifically asked for in my tactics, since it was my best bet to stop him. But I believe a natural 1 was rolled on his first regular attack. Can you confirm that? If so, it fortunately doesn't matter that you didn't follow my tactics. - If Almaar was invisible, my tactics specifically stated to "move into the central stack to prevent easy diving charges". Instead you kept on firing sling bullets at him, which was quite futile. I knew that in advance, so please try to follow my tactics. I have had this issue with you several times in the past, and I will keep calling your attention to it if you continue to ignore my tactics. You want to know why I want to move into the central stack and why it helps to prevent diving charges? Almaar has 20 ft. reach with his glaive, meaning he must attack me from 15 ft. away. He has a face of 10x10 feet. With only 50 ft. room (10 squares) between the floor and the ceiling, Almaar occupies the top two, Aramur and his horse occupy the bottom two squares. That leaves 6 squares vertically to maneuver, 3 of those squares cannot be used by Almaar because of the reach of his glaive (charging means attacking from the closest square), this means he has only 3 squares left to perform the charge. A dive attack means moving at least 30 ft. (6 squares), and since he has only 3 squares left, he must dive from at least 30 ft. away (the reach also works horizontally). If you look at the central stack, you will notice that it will be difficult (but not impossible) for someone to make a diving charge at an opponent that moves around inside the stack. I count on Almaar to be eventually able to make that dive attack, but his enlarge person may run out a few rounds sooner, and he will probably not be able to benefit from the true strike, since there are good odds he will be positioned wrong. Fortunately for this fight, it doesn't matter, since Almaar rolled high enough for his attack to hit anyway. Phew, two potential rerun points eliminated! - You have Aramur first use Total Defense (but did not add it to his AC) and then switched to cure light wounds when Almaar prepared his second dive attack. I think this is inanely stupid, while Aramur does have 14 Int. Either Aramur decides it is time to cure at 12 hp. and uses his wand, or he decides it is not yet time and uses Total Defense until another trigger event happens. You are now mix-and-matching my tactics to produce the worst possible result, that does not please me. It is not that I was not aware of the danger of dive attacks, it is right there in my tactics. In combination with my complaint above this might warrant a small edit. Minor issues: - The dogs don't get AoO's vs. Almaar when he is invisible. - I cannot see any maps inside the sblocks (and you did not include positions). - You didn't post the rewards. EDIT: - You have Almaar drawing his Glaive to soon. He would not be able to cast his other scroll spells (except for true strike), since he doesn't have a hand free for the somatic and material components. I see that emeraldstreak also made the mistake, only later, since he has you drawing his glaive before drawing and casting enlarge person. This is impossible. Generally: I think Almaar has the best odds by far to win this fight (if he was willing to use a few of his expendables). But if you don't play Aramur smartly and according to my tactics, you will rob me of the small chance of victory I had. |
| Usurpator01-18-06, 02:19 PM | Next, I would like to apologize for my harsh reaction. Stress has been building up, with auditions yesterday and preparing for the first day of classes today, as well as other things. It certainly doesn't help matters that I am taking ten classes and still trying to work. The sets of tactics I was given for this fight just pushed me over the edge. Apology accepted. Lastly, unless both parties specifically ask for a rerun, I will not run the fight again. If I stick with tactics as written, Death will win, as Borodin's win condition can never be met. I do not ask for a rerun, let it stand as is. What I do want to ask of you to discuss the fight more extensively at a later date (when you have more time and less stress). Currently what you seem to be telling me is that Borodin could not have won with my tactics, and that is to me saying 'you wrote tactics that could never win'. As I said before, I am not an idiot, and with me anticipating NiQil's tactics perfectly, you can assume that I wrote tactics that were able to give Borodin a chance of victory. If you cannot see that in my tactics, than either there is still some miscommunication remaining, and I want to rectify that for future fights. P.S. I know how you feel, bumping into things you thought you knew like that, Usurpator. It has happened to me twice with my monk, Sam; once when I assumed that mentioning a crossbow shot early in my tactics would at least start me with a loaded crossbow, and once when I assumed that it went without saying that a monk would take one hand off of his two-handed weapon in order to deflect arrows. Shot down both times. Well, not with me as your Pitlord you wouldn't! :) Although I usually specifically mention that myself to prevent Pitlords from making such decision, it is unfortunate that I have to, but sometimes I see gladiators indeed acting like stupid robots. |
| Warclone01-18-06, 02:41 PM | Well, in that case, I'd probably have to change the hippogriff to another dire bat. Why? Because the player was assuming that once the bat was engaged, the hippogriff could attack the found target. I'll work on the changes now. Thanks for the change. As you can see, it almost resulted in my character surviving. |
| Dracazar01-19-06, 04:27 AM | Entangled The character is ensnared. Being entangled impedes movement, but does not entirely prevent it unless the bonds are anchored to an immobile object or tethered by an opposing force. An entangled creature moves at half speed, cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. An entangled character who attempts to cast a spell must make a Concentration check (DC 15 + the spell’s level) or lose the spell. I think that entagle is not equal to paralyze. If you are entangled you move at half speed even with failed reflex save. The successfull reflex save, save you from the penalties: cannot run or charge, and takes a -2 penalty on all attack rolls and a -4 penalty to Dexterity. So I think that Cher could move even with failed reflex save but at half speed and with some penalties. I saw other fights that ruled this way. Please tell me if I'm wrong. |
| Dracazar01-19-06, 04:46 AM | I would like to thank all my pitlords for the fights. Only today I was able to connect to the Net (I'm a little busy here at Univ) so all my chars are not updated with the results of the 11/01 fights, I'll see pairings and send tactic pointing this to new pitlords. I would like only to hear something about the Entangle issue wrote above, thanks. Edit: just noticed that my chars were not paired, :( |