| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 02:08 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. Perhaps even better to note is the Ask an Elder (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=569305) thread. This initiative by LLMadCow (ye grand master of Size 7...) has already produced some worthwhile rulings. The deadline is in under 2 hours - so finish up! |
| SoulLord01-18-06, 02:26 PM | Gasp must get my arrows of Half-orc slaying Soon. |
| Caterane01-18-06, 02:27 PM | There've been some slight changes on this board that I made during the last week. Nothing that affects the rules. You've surely seen the new Battles II thread. This one however has a new feature: a navigation system. If you read the second post of this thread, you can see a post called "The Pairings". Here, you will find links to the individual pairings post that I make on the battles thread weekly. Each pairings post has links to all its weekly fights. If you're now looking for a fight, just find the pairings and then click on the link to the fight. Every fight is two clicks away. I've noticed that some of you use Battles thread space freely, making two posts for a Maven-like fight. Please only use 2 posts if you really need two; like for 4 player All vs All fights. The fewer Battles threads we need the better when a pruning comes. Another novelity is a change in the Pitlord List. From now on I will write the number of total fights you ran from 11 Jan on as well as how many of them were late. Missing fights get their own tag. It's a pity that I didn't do that from the beginning on because I would have loved the [Late: 0/200] tag behind my name ;) Anyway. I hope this encourages pitlords to post their fights on time. If 10% or more of your fights were late, it turns red until you fall below 10% again. In any case, it helps me to see how posts on time frequently. There's both a new Tavern and a new Prison up. The latter is still under construction. Prisonlords has to copy all his top posts into this new thread so don't post there until I remove the red sign in my top post. The Tavern is free to use. |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 03:33 PM | In case anyone's been wondering if we have enough pitlords yet... ECL 3 League 28 active out of 45 ECL 4 League 20 active out of 39 ECL 5 League 14/15 active out of 33 (The White Hand is marked active for 1/21?) ECL 6 League 9 active out of 24 ECL 7 League 8 active out of 20 ECL 8 League 3 active out of 13 ECL 9 League 1 active out of 7 (14+10+8+5+4+2+1 = 44 total fights) Altaris13 (0°) <two> [Late:3/3] Ariel23 (3°) <one> [Late:0/1] Ayrynthyn (6°) <one> [Late:0/0] Begferdeth (c_sawler (at) hotmail.com) (23°) <one> [Late:0/1] Book5 (26°) <two> [Late:1/2] Caterane (Caterane (at) gmx.de) (126°) <one> [Late:0/1] Cerebus13 (evilsticky (at) gmail.com) (11°) <one> [Late:0/1] Dr.Funk (3°) <one> [Late:0/0] DTFarstar (DariusFarhaven (at) comcast.net) (18°) <four> [Late:0/3] Gonbow (Terminus-Est (at) rock.com) (-7°) <one> [Late:1/1] Huan (oni.black.mage (at) gmail.com) (198°) <two> [Late:0/2] Iced (h2omalice (at) hotmail.com) (13°) <one> [Late:1/2] Kaigan (postfontaine04 (at) hotmail.com) (6°) <max> [Late:0/2] lonewolf (16°) <two> [Late:0/2] Luni (sylterix (at) hotmail.com) (5°) <two> [Late:0/2] Macbrea (7°) <two> [Late:0/2] MitzaVolchenko (13°) <five> [Late:0/3] Nightbanegod (Nightbanegod (at) aol.com) (0°) <two> [Late:0/0] Papapeperoni (1°) <one> [Late:0/1] Pittbull (20°) <one> [Late:0/1] SauroGrenom (20°) <one> [Late:0/2] shadowmaster (0°) <two> [Late:0/0] Skojar (rexrebstock (at) msn.com) (3°) <one> [Late:0/1] Snommelp (28°) <three> [Late:0/3] TelinArtho (starstealer (at) comcast.net) (51°) <max> [Late:0/4] Turin (3°) <one> [Late:0/1] Usurpator (pitlord (at) unther.com) (28°) <one> [Late:0/1] Vathelokai (greyfacemail (at) gmail.com) (16°) <one> [Late:0/1] Warclone (warclone (at) ev1.net) (4°) <three> [Late:0/3] Zevox (3°) <one> [Late:0/1] 47 + 2 max - this is excellent! |
| Snommelp01-18-06, 03:53 PM | We have an excess of pitlords? This is new and exciting! I'm tempted to activate a new character now... but there's no way he'd be ready by the deadline, which everyone should note is in about two minutes or so. |
| Caterane01-18-06, 03:58 PM | Okay, it's 9 PM in England so stop editing please. I have to take a shower :raincloud and mix a good cocktail :pint: first though else I fall asleep. Back in 30 :ghosted: @Snommelp: Send me the link to Pitlords. It's okay this time. |
| Usurpator01-18-06, 04:17 PM | And if three ECL 3 characters are prepared to take on Kitaya we need even less Pitlords! :D |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 04:21 PM | Ummm. Looks like Kitaya has a bit of a duplication problem... you have almost your entire sheet posted twice in that one post... Also - your Will save is listed incorrectly as +7 (+11). It should be +9 (+11)... |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 04:35 PM | Hopefully everyone will notice this and plan accordingly: Downtime (http://boards1.wizards.com/announcement.php?f=483) on Tuesday and Wedsnesday will probably affect late fights this week and pairings for next week. @Cat - Are you planning on anything special to change the schedule around this? |
| Snommelp01-18-06, 04:48 PM | @Snommelp: Send me the link to Pitlords. It's okay this time.Tempting, but since I built the character on 3e profiler and haven't even started trying to transfer him over to a CoCo style sheet yet, I think I'd rather just save him for next week. You'd probably be almost done with pairings by the time he was ready. |
| Book501-18-06, 04:50 PM | in the NICK of time! heh @Narcs - Anyone want .1c run over tan with a vacuume and you should find at least a few errors (including an edit 8 mins after Cat's call :rolleyes:) |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 05:01 PM | I'm grabbing all of the character sheets for my 3 quests starting this week now. Introductions will be up shortly thereafter. Good luck to my questors this week: Bring out yer Dead - The Pulverizer and the Phantom Lord (successful) Terror By the Sea - Crovax (unsuccessful in week 1) Ode to a Pearl - Zamier (unsuccessful in week 1) Climbing an Elf's Back - Torgirr (unsuccessful in week 1) Defiler in Jindl Forest - Talari Leafwhisperer (successful) Brother's Blood Runs Black - Galagith the Gatekeeper (successful) The Battle of Fael Daed - Anixx the Warbringer (unsuccessful in week 1) The Battle of Fael Daed (take 2) - Anixx the Warbringer (successful) Old Bones and Good Times - Kage Nightwind and Pard Longfellow (frozen quest - successful kind of...) Memoirs of a Mother - Hennan the Orphan (unsuccessful in week 3) Trials and Tribulations - Zassl (successful) The Silver Acorn - Lortavos and Maeril (successful) Stirrings of Darkness - Feradeth (unsuccessful in week 1) |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 05:24 PM | The Love of Murder (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571109) (EL9) - Virgo and Nell Fine Dining (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571112) (EL6) - Shakari The Darkness of Light (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571111) (EL1+) - Samuel Highground All of my quests are now open and ready for the above questors. Good luck once again. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-18-06, 05:54 PM | @ lonewolf Education Gone Awry (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571237) is open and ready for ya. |
| Snommelp01-18-06, 07:43 PM | :rofl: They're not even in the same league, and still Hennan's beating Tan up this week! ...I'm starting to feel a bit like a school bully... |
| Pitlords01-18-06, 07:44 PM | PAIRINGS DONE! I'll assign credits tomorow. Some things: Pitlords: Please use only 1 post for your fight if you only need one. There's no need to crowd the Battles thread faster than necessary. Pitlords: When there's a change in the outcome, please PM me. At least the players should tell me when an outcome has changed. If the roster isn't updated to reflect your fight, then there's no need to PM me. Downtime: There'll be a downtime next wednesday. We can now either say we do pairings on tuesday but then all fights should be done by then (which they are supposed to be anyway), or we postpone it to thursday. Pitlords: better be quick than not. Inter-League Fights: I think we should make use of this fight type more often but as it is now only requests to fight a league higher lead to Inter-League fights. I am thinking of making rules to extend that. What do you think is an appropriate cross-league encounter? 2xECL vs 1xECL+1? Or 3xECL vs 1xECL+1? Or 2xECL vs 1xECL+2? Does anyone want to write the Gladius Weekly for this week? Worth a credit. Okay, have fun Cat |
| NiQil01-18-06, 07:50 PM | @ Pitlords: I am curious about your decision regarding some of the pairings... You have a team fight at ECL 3 that includes one ECL 4 fighter. You have an inter-league fight at ECL 5 that includes an ECL 4 fighter. Wouldn't it have made more sense, and made it easier on everyone, to take the two ECL 4 fighters and pair them up, and then turn the team fight at ECL 3 into an FFA or Hunter fight and add the ECL 5 fighter to a pairing in ECL 5and make another FFA/Hunter fight? I know it doesn't seem like a big thing, but sometimes figuring interleague xp/gp can be troublesome, and combining that with a team fight makes it doubly so. Seems like my scenerio would be an easier solution. |
| Pitlords01-18-06, 07:50 PM | :rofl: They're not even in the same league, and still Hennan's beating Tan up this week! ...I'm starting to feel a bit like a school bully... Although it's not a direct rematch, you've already fought Tan when he was lvl 4 which he still is so I've changed the pairings to: Tan, Son of StyECL4 (Book5) vs Perius (Ravashack): Ayrynthyn [Inter-League] Gundir Malakas (Kaigan) vs Hennan the Orphan (Snommelp): Begferdeth Now you can bully a Great Reknown PC :D |
| Pitlords01-18-06, 07:54 PM | @ Pitlords: I am curious about your decision regarding some of the pairings... You have a team fight at ECL 3 that includes one ECL 4 fighter. You have an inter-league fight at ECL 5 that includes an ECL 4 fighter. Wouldn't it have made more sense, and made it easier on everyone, to take the two ECL 4 fighters and pair them up, and then turn the team fight at ECL 3 into an FFA or Hunter fight and add the ECL 5 fighter to a pairing in ECL 5and make another FFA/Hunter fight? I know it doesn't seem like a big thing, but sometimes figuring interleague xp/gp can be troublesome, and combining that with a team fight makes it doubly so. Seems like my scenerio would be an easier solution. All these characters were open for cross-league fights in higher leagues. The Team fight is actually 1xECL4 vs 3xECL 3 which the lonely PC has requested. He's definately the underdog so I paired them up without a second thought. Calculating XP is absolutely no problem. My reason is that we have so few Inter-League fights that if someone requests one I will give them precendence. |
| Erithmu01-18-06, 07:58 PM | Tan, Son of StyECL4 (Book5) vs Perius (Ravashack): Ayrynthyn [Inter-League] I dont think Ayr is around to pitlord fights unless you know something I don't |
| Pitlords01-18-06, 08:01 PM | I dont think Ayr is around to pitlord fights unless you know something I don't He PM'd me a few hours ago that I should set him ready. @all: Does anyone want to pick up the Gladius Weekly? It is worth a credit and it earns you the admiration of all cocoers. We all loved Usurpator's articles! |
| Book501-18-06, 08:02 PM | I. must. be. BLIND! What? Pairings are already being changed? Where? Huh? Am I missing something? I havent been able to find them in the first place... :confused: Snommelp - How do two characters keep fighting eachother like that? Its uncanny! |
| Luni01-18-06, 08:03 PM | PAIRINGS DONE! Does anyone want to write the Gladius Weekly for this week? Worth a credit. [/LIST] Okay, have fun Cat I'm willing to do the Gladius Weekly, Caterane. I've also been thinking about opening a Records Hall of Gladius too, but I'm still workign on my proposal for that. |
| Book501-18-06, 08:10 PM | I'm willing to do the Gladius Weekly, Caterane. I've also been thinking about opening a Records Hall of Gladius too, but I'm still workign on my proposal for that. Isnt the records hall - the scribelord's thread? the weekly/records would probably both fall under the "tales" heading. :D Luni the Scribelord? :D "can I call you Chief? or would you prefer Mr. White?" |
| NiQil01-18-06, 08:14 PM | All these characters were open for cross-league fights in higher leagues. The Team fight is actually 1xECL4 vs 3xECL 3 which the lonely PC has requested. He's definately the underdog so I paired them up without a second thought. Calculating XP is absolutely no problem. My reason is that we have so few Inter-League fights that if someone requests one I will give them precendence. That's all fine and good, but trying to coordinate tactics between three people is a logistical nightmare. Not to mention that Kitaya's character sheet includes two versions of itself in the same post, so we have no way to know which information is correct. Can you take a look at the character sheet? How are we to even plan around that, when we have no idea what is correct? |
| MitzaVolchenko01-18-06, 08:24 PM | Kimahri Ronso (Dr.Funk) miniquests for a tan bag of tricks: MitzaVolchenko [Miniquest] First, I have no info for what Dr.Funk is looking for beyond that. Second, an EL4 MQ for a 6300gp item is unreasonable. Was this supposed to be an ECL4 on an EL4-5 full quest? If so, I'll start writing immediately and get it posted by tomorrow morning. I have no problem putting a quest together in under 24 hours, nor do I have nay problem running another quest at the moment. |
| nightbanegod01-18-06, 08:30 PM | I'm grabbing all of the character sheets for my 3 quests starting this week now. Introductions will be up shortly thereafter. Good luck to my questors this week: Bring out yer Dead - The Pulverizer and the Phantom Lord (successful) Terror By the Sea - Crovax (unsuccessful in week 1) Ode to a Pearl - Zamier (unsuccessful in week 1) Climbing an Elf's Back - Torgirr (unsuccessful in week 1) Defiler in Jindl Forest - Talari Leafwhisperer (successful) Brother's Blood Runs Black - Galagith the Gatekeeper (successful) The Battle of Fael Daed - Anixx the Warbringer (unsuccessful in week 1) The Battle of Fael Daed (take 2) - Anixx the Warbringer (successful) Old Bones and Good Times - Kage Nightwind and Pard Longfellow (frozen quest - successful kind of...) Memoirs of a Mother - Hennan the Orphan (unsuccessful in week 3) Trials and Tribulations - Zassl (successful) The Silver Acorn - Lortavos and Maeril (successful) Stirrings of Darkness - Feradeth (unsuccessful in week 1) YEP .... odds are you will die in week one... and if you make it past... kudos, you've officially been HAZED... |
| Luni01-18-06, 08:37 PM | @Warclone: Tactics for Kara the Ghost vs Aranor have been sent. Good luck to my opponent. |
| Zevox01-18-06, 08:48 PM | @ Lonewolf: I'm going to try and have tactics for Mindrel made today, but failing that I'll certainly get them to you tomorrow. @ Cerebus13 & MitzaVolchenko: The sooner I have those tactics, the better. I've all day Friday free, so if you can get them to me before then, I can get it up then. Zevox |
| Sindorin01-18-06, 08:52 PM | Oh gosh not another ghost... |
| nightbanegod01-18-06, 08:52 PM | LOL ... just posting to pop this thread into its next page... muhahaha im devilish i know :D *edit* seriously though... thursday (tomarrow) is going to be the best day for me to run fights before sunday night monday night at latest... soo gettin tactics to me via PM or email to nightbanegod@aol.com would be just DANDY.... |
| Ravashack01-18-06, 08:53 PM | Tactics for Perius sent in to Ayrynthyn via PM. |
| DTFarstar01-18-06, 09:18 PM | @Niqil - I'm personally of the opinion that Cat hates me.(I'm listed as the pitlord) I mean Challak and Darius get really bad fights for awhile, then Challak finally gets a good fight and I get assigned this monstrosity. Heh, I really don't mind, I'll just have to make sure to have some time on Saturday to devote to it. Although, the faster everyone in there gets me the tactics, the faster I can decipher them and post the fight. |
| NiQil01-18-06, 09:19 PM | @ Luni: Tactics for Pestilence sent via PM @ DTFarstar: Tactics for War sent via PM @ Ariel23: Tactics for Death sent via PM @ Altaris13 & bgt: I have no idea how we are supposed to plan tactics vs Kitaya, with the mess that the sheet is. I have no idea what is correct. Feel free to PM me ideas, however...but until Cat resolves this somehow, I really don't see how this fight can proceed. @ Cat: Please take a look at Kitaya's sheet. I encourage you to alter this fight to a 3 person FFA and move Kitaya out of the fight with the issues there. |
| DTFarstar01-18-06, 09:19 PM | @nightbanegod - Tactics for Challak sent. @Gonbow - Going to start working on tactics for Darius vs. Hassan. I am so sorry that you have to run this fight. *sigh* |
| NiQil01-18-06, 09:24 PM | @Niqil - I'm personally of the opinion that Cat hates me.(I'm listed as the pitlord) I mean Challak and Darius get really bad fights for awhile, then Challak finally gets a good fight and I get assigned this monstrosity. Heh, I really don't mind, I'll just have to make sure to have some time on Saturday to devote to it. Although, the faster everyone in there gets me the tactics, the faster I can decipher them and post the fight. Well, I would be very surprised if we have tactics worked out by Saturday....even if there was no issue with Kitaya's sheet, coordinating tactics between two people is difficult at best, let alone three. We'll see, I guess. |
| nightbanegod01-18-06, 09:37 PM | Well, I would be very surprised if we have tactics worked out by Saturday....even if there was no issue with Kitaya's sheet, coordinating tactics between two people is difficult at best, let alone three. We'll see, I guess. set yourselves up in an instant messenger chat room.. quick and easy ... hammer it out *edit* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- @nightbanegod - Tactics for Challak sent. (received) |
| Luni01-18-06, 09:39 PM | @NiQil: Tactics received. I understand your guys frustration. Personally, I think things like 3 vs 1, should be roleplayed, decided instead of rolled on. If you guys had a week or two to plan, it would probably be easy to beat Kitaya, except the sheet is a mess. @Sindorin: Well, it was either a ghost or a half-dragon, and with ghosts being underrepresented, I went that route. |
| NiQil01-18-06, 09:42 PM | set yourselves up in an instant messenger chat room.. quick and easy ... hammer it out Except for that whole 'being online at the same time' part.... |
| MitzaVolchenko01-18-06, 09:48 PM | @Dr. Funk I have most of a quest write up for you (recycling an old event I ran on my old NWN server). If you have preferences, tonight is the time to express them as I will post the Quest thread tomorrow at the latest. If you hate RP and would prefer to do a submit tactics and leave it to me style, well fine, be that way...just let me know so that I can tell you what you are tacticking for. No notice on this one was better than short notice as it means my brainhad no time to procrastinate...just jumped right into plotting ;) @ those pitlording my fights, I'll try to get at least two sets of tactics done tonight. @my fighters for this week, soonest in=soonest posted to be picked apart and fixed as needed. My goal is to be done with the week's work by Sunday night at the lastest. Though with delaria a second week in a row, I'm not sure that is possible *grumbles about summoners and then plans to make an uber-summoner just to be annoying* |
| nightbanegod01-18-06, 09:49 PM | Except for that whole 'being online at the same time' part.... yall here now? set a time to reconviene.... this could work.... ya need not be negative... twas just a suggestion.... "cup is half full" |
| Sindorin01-18-06, 09:53 PM | @Sindorin: Well, it was either a ghost or a half-dragon, and with ghosts being underrepresented, I went that route. It's all good, I was commenting about not only Kara, but there is another character who is questing for the ghost template this week too, so it's like suddenly there are ghosts. I've been considering making a ghost character, but I don't have many credits. Good luck to you this weekend. |
| TelinArtho01-18-06, 09:53 PM | I'll be submitting my tactics tomorrow morning. @Mitza - summoners aren't so bad... I do have 5 of them (though one has already retired and one is on campaign). |
| DTFarstar01-18-06, 09:55 PM | @Gonbow - Tactics for Darius vs. Hassan sent. @Niqil - Well, as soon as you guys can get together that would be great. I realize it's going to take forever, I'm just trying to be optimistic. I'm also mildly insane and in alot of pain so I'm not thinking clearly. Which is why I probably should have waited till later or tommorrow to write my tactics. I'm pretty much handing a victory to Hassan if I don't get VERY lucky. |
| Book501-18-06, 10:01 PM | ok.. no really. I know this makes me look like a looser.. BUT Can somebody link me to the pairings post? I have looked at the battles thread several times and my post is the last one.. looked up and down the comments .. help! Am I even set as Marcos'es Questlord? Me and him talked about it.. but I cant find the post!?! |
| Zevox01-18-06, 10:04 PM | @ Lonewolf - tactics for Mindrel (vs Aerryl) sent. Heres hoping Tymora smiles on whatever dice/dice roller you use for me in that fight - I'll need it. @ Book5 - pairings can be found in the Character thread, first page. For a faster way there use the link in Pitlords' signature. Zevox |
| Macbrea01-18-06, 10:05 PM | You can always find the pairings in the sig line for Pitlords on the previous page. It is updated each week on the page that he does then the pairs are posted in the battles thread. They don't seem to be posted there at the moment. @Iced: Tactics for Lord Frost sent. That may prove to be a long fight..... |
| Sindorin01-18-06, 10:06 PM | Tactics for Aranor have been sent to Warclone. |
| MysticMonk200501-18-06, 10:13 PM | @kaigan: Tactics sent via E-Mail for Lissa. |
| DTFarstar01-18-06, 10:14 PM | I've just bookmarked the pairings post, because I end up checking it alot. |
| Gonbow01-18-06, 10:26 PM | @DTFarstar Tactics recieved. No worries. @Macbrea Tactics sent. @Telinartho Working on tactics... Harvester vrs Lortavos... Wee. I highly doubt I have a snowball's chance in hell here, but who knows. |
| Iced01-18-06, 11:29 PM | ok.. no really. I know this makes me look like a looser.. BUT Can somebody link me to the pairings post? I have looked at the battles thread several times and my post is the last one.. looked up and down the comments .. help! Am I even set as Marcos'es Questlord? Me and him talked about it.. but I cant find the post!?! Well you can start the quest anythime and it'll be put on the roster if it isn't already. I put "questing for TAO membership EL4 (Book5)" in my subject line of Marcos' character sheet. |
| Snommelp01-18-06, 11:44 PM | Tactics for Hennan, Sam, and Grik have been sent. Zevox, Featylec's quest is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571438). |
| King Uther01-19-06, 12:10 AM | Haizan was brought out of hiding this week but not paired. Is anyone free to be assassinated? |
| Iced01-19-06, 12:17 AM | Well. Galagith's free if you want to fight him. Anyone up for an EL5 miniquest to kill a couple demons? I need experience this week and Galagith wasn't paired due to old prison posts that have been corrected. He's street legal and inactive...:( If I could get a fight that'd be great, if not a miniquest would be fine. @Telinartho - Will you accept a challenge to Aquin? ~Iced |
| NiQil01-19-06, 12:21 AM | Well. Galagith's free if you want to fight him. Anyone up for an EL5 miniquest to kill a couple demons? I need experience this week and Galagith wasn't paired due to old prison posts that have been corrected. He's street legal and inactive...:( If I could get a fight that'd be great, if not a miniquest would be fine. @Telinartho - Will you accept a challenge to Aquin? ~Iced Unfortunately, Galagith is not eligible for fights this week. While you may now have corrected all of the necessary issues on him, these would need to have been done prior to pairings for him to be eligible to be paired this week. Assuming everything is corrected as you say (I have not looked), he would be eligible for pairings next week. |
| Iced01-19-06, 12:37 AM | That's my point - they were corrected before pairings - he was incorrectly labelled as a prisoner. I just forgot to link his alignment change (corrected now) which is minor and shouldn't be grounds to throw him in prison. He's been edited after deadline (alignment), but has been battle ready since pairings were originally posted. If he can't fight i'll sit this one out, but i'm looking for advancement for my character. `Iced |
| shadowmaster01-19-06, 12:50 AM | @snommelp tactics sent via pm |
| King Uther01-19-06, 01:19 AM | I'll MQ with him if you can convince the Prison Guard to let you escape. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-19-06, 01:58 AM | @Shadowmaster Zwei's tactics sent via PM |
| Erithmu01-19-06, 02:03 AM | @shadowmaster: tactics for Selene sent via PM @Dr. Funk: Tactics for Sola sent via PM @Huan: Tactics for Loddick sent via Email And I am not fighting a druid this week ..... WOO HOO!!!! |
| shadowmaster01-19-06, 02:06 AM | @ Mitza, erithmu Recieved both tactics, will begin fight shortly |
| Luni01-19-06, 02:37 AM | @Kaigan: Tactics for Ashhur sent. You aren't going to enjoy it. |
| ^Rayne^01-19-06, 02:48 AM | @shadowmaster: I sent tactics for Krayko via PM. @ALL: This has been bothering me for a few weeks but I feel I do have to say something about this. Maybe it has been pointed out earlier but the CoCo rules actually unfairly ruin low level Sorcerer builds. The spell limit at this level means a 3rd level Sorcerer casts less spells than the same level Druid, Cleric, or Wizard. The other three classes get to cast a level higher than the Sorcerer and that means they have more spell points at 3rd level. This really stinks because the advantage of a Sorcerer is nullified but CoCo rules. The only advantage is they can cast more spells and the rules here severly limit their abilities here. A wizard of the same level can cast twice as many spells, they get more versatility of spell types, an extra feat (Scribe Scroll) which makes it easier for them to cheaply add extra spells to their repetoire, and their key ability is linked to their Skills as well which puts them at a considerable advantage. I'm not even going to dive into the other two classes. What bothers me is that the rules here are one of the major factors for this unbalanced issue. I appreciate what the rules are there for, but at level 3 they unfairly handicap the Sorcerer class and make it very difficult to get a good start (record wise). A lot of players might become frustrated early on because the rules hurt Sorcerer's so much that they can rarely win in the arena. I am here for fun, but it would be nice if at least for level three the Sorcerer class be given this one level to use half their spells per fight. This can change after 3rd level because the difference is quickly nullified in farther levels. Even with half their spells they would still be shy of the other three classes in the number of spells they could cast but at least it would make things a little more fair. I hope people take a look at this because what I am saying has merit. Thanks, Karl |
| Guildmaster (EHTC)01-19-06, 02:57 AM | @shadowmaster: I sent tactics for Krayko via PM. @ALL: This has been bothering me for a few weeks but I feel I do have to say something about this. Maybe it has been pointed out earlier but the CoCo rules actually unfairly ruin low level Sorcerer builds. The spell limit at this level means a 3rd level Sorcerer casts less spells than the same level Druid, Cleric, or Wizard. The other three classes get to cast a level higher than the Sorcerer and that means they have more spell points at 3rd level. This really stinks because the advantage of a Sorcerer is nullified but CoCo rules. The only advantage is they can cast more spells and the rules here severly limit their abilities here. A wizard of the same level can cast twice as many spells, they get more versatility of spell types, an extra feat (Scribe Scroll) which makes it easier for them to cheaply add extra spells to their repetoire, and their key ability is linked to their Skills as well which puts them at a considerable advantage. I'm not even going to dive into the other two classes. What bothers me is that the rules here are one of the major factors for this unbalanced issue. I appreciate what the rules are there for, but at level 3 they unfairly handicap the Sorcerer class and make it very difficult to get a good start (record wise). A lot of players might become frustrated early on because the rules hurt Sorcerer's so much that they can rarely win in the arena. I am here for fun, but it would be nice if at least for level three the Sorcerer class be given this one level to use half their spells per fight. This can change after 3rd level because the difference is quickly nullified in farther levels. Even with half their spells they would still be shy of the other three classes in the number of spells they could cast but at least it would make things a little more fair. I hope people take a look at this because what I am saying has merit. Thanks, Karl Here, here!!! |
| Usurpator01-19-06, 03:07 AM | @ Cat: Please take a look at Kitaya's sheet. I encourage you to alter this fight to a 3 person FFA and move Kitaya out of the fight with the issues there. @NiQil: The above version is the correct one. You can check that by looking at the accounting and fight results, since the upper portion version includes 3 fights, and the lower portion 2 fights. The upper version is complete, just ignore anything below: harm)][/COLOR] Result of a copy'n'paste error. Pasted the new sheet over the old, but apparently the selection didn't include all of the old sheet. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-19-06, 03:11 AM | I hope people take a look at this because what I am saying has merit. Thanks, Karl Yep...sorcerers are nerfed at low levels anywhere but out on campaign. |
| ^Rayne^01-19-06, 03:22 AM | Yep...sorcerers are nerfed at low levels anywhere but out on campaign. I think anyone here who would take an honest look at what is going on would agree. The thing is that no one is willing to do anything about it as far as I can see. This board is for fun but it is also meant to test builds. It takes about six losses (or something like this) to get past level 3. Sorcerer's get such extreme nerfing here that it can be painful sitting through the first rounds. I accidently forgot to set my ready for date last week and I have to wait yet another week to wade through this slow methodical losing record. The boards are set up to fairly test builds, but the Sorcerer is unfairly hurt by the rules. This won't be a problem at levels from 4 on, but at level 3 it is a knife in the back. I really do believe the rules should be changed for the Sorcerer class at level 3 to make things more balanced. Personally I think they should be able to cast 3/4 of their spell power level, but that is just me. I would like to stress that the CoCo rules are not the set in stone and placed on the tallest mountain never to be changed. If they do a class a major disservice, then I think the CoCo crew should seriously consider altering them to make things more fair. Thanks, Karl |
| Kaigan01-19-06, 03:37 AM | Tactics Sent: Tactics for Emon sent to Luni via PM. Tactics for Eiletha sent to Snommelp via PM. Tactics for Rethun sent to Papapeperoni via PM. Tactics for Gundir sent to Begferdeth via PM. Tactics Received: Tactics for Sunstroke received from MindWandererB via PM. Tactics for Ashhur received from Luni via PM. Tactics for Lissa received from MysticMonk via Email. Tactics not received for Anton from TelinArtho. Tactics not received for Noxo from Maraxus. If all goes well, fights will be up on Saturday, maybe earlier. |
| Pittbull01-19-06, 03:46 AM | Characters crafting and enchanting: Barthleby (Pittbull) crafts a periapt of wisdom+3 and 2 Pearls of Power I [Week 1/1] @Pitlords: Would you change it to 2 Pearls of Power (I,II). Thank you. @Snommelp: Tactics received. @Huan: Please, sent me Dameon's tactic today. I can run the fight tomorrow. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-19-06, 04:27 AM | @Macbrea tactics for Sybil vs. Ba'al sent. I have noted errors on Ba'al's sheet in the prison thread and sent Book5 a PM about them. @Dr. Funk I went ahead and set up a quest for you. It is still a bit general, so you can toss me a PM with preferences and I can make adjustments without issue. You will find your intro here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8267715#post8267715) |
| Dracazar01-19-06, 05:10 AM | @Warclone about Namara (Usurpator) vs Drac (Dracazar): Warclone [Week 2] As discussed in Fights of the Week: January 11th there are some issue about the sharing spells, may I know how it will be ruled? |
| Pitlords01-19-06, 07:07 AM | @DTF: See it as a compliment :) @NiQil: It seems the lower version of Kitaya is her ECL 3 incarnation which Usurpator forgot to delete. Use the top version. @Iced: If you want, you can have a monster fight. Either that or you can challenge someone. Just PM me. @KingUther: As you can see, Haizan is not on the roster. I remove a character after a long period of inactivity so I cannot see if you ready him. @Dr.Funk: Please write a concrete quest info into the headline next time! |
| NiQil01-19-06, 07:15 AM | See it as a compliment :) @NiQil: It seems the lower version of Kitaya is her ECL 3 incarnation which Usurpator forgot to delete. Use the top version. @Iced: If you want, you can have a monster fight. Either that or you can challenge someone. Just PM me. I'll be perfectly honest here, Cat. I have no wish to be a part of this match. It's nothing personal against anyone involved, but this type of match should never have been randomly rolled. I am probably not going to be around for a good chunk of today, and the same for tomorrow. So that really leaves no time to coordinate tactics with anyone....and that is assuming they *happen to be around when I am. Coordinating tactics between two people is tough enough. Between three...and three random people....is nigh impossible in 2 days. I also have somewhat of an issue with the fact that this fight was granted simply because it was requested. I can all but guarantee that if I request nothing but one on one duels from now on, I won't get them. If it was requested, then it should have been done as a challenge, where everyone involved already had an idea of what was going to happen. To just be thrown into something like this is not fair to anyone. Very poor form, in my opinion. So to those involved, consider this Famine's surrender/withdrawal/suicide...however you wanna play it out. If Altaris and bgt wanna give it a go, they are more than welcome to. I won't be joining them. Aside: Also, Galagith did not meet the requirements to be released from Prison, and should not be paired. To offer a character in prison a fight like you just have undermines everything I do in the Prison. Sorta makes the whole Prison thing pointless. |
| Mal-201-19-06, 07:28 AM | @Nightbanegod: Tactics for Donak sent via PM |
| Vathelokai01-19-06, 07:30 AM | Haizan was brought out of hiding this week but not paired. Is anyone free to be assassinated? He could always miniquest to join TAO ;) . I'm a bit too busy to run it this week, but maybe... The boards are set up to fairly test builds, but the Sorcerer is unfairly hurt by the rules. Indeed. Something should be fixed about that. ------------------------- @Gonbow: Tactics for Hassan vs. Darius sent via PM. @SauroGrenom & Snommelp: Both Tactics recieved; will probably run the fight late friday night. |
| DSugui01-19-06, 08:32 AM | @Warclone: Tatics for Dronnar (vs Fjörd) sent by Email |
| waywreth01-19-06, 08:45 AM | @Shadowmaster - tactics for Histal sent via PM @DTFarstar - tactics for Gaston sent via PM |
| Stormwind01-19-06, 09:02 AM | @nightbanegod: Cyra's tactics sent by PM |
| Myrridin01-19-06, 09:05 AM | @DTFarStar - tactics for Tarik vs War have been sent. Looks like one of the easier fights to run this week, as I'm anticipating we'll both just beat the crap out of each other in melee. :) |
| Dracazar01-19-06, 09:10 AM | @Warclone, Usurpator I would like to know how the fight between Namara and Drac would be rerun: I have to send new tactic? How will be ruled the share spell? If Drac could not share spell may I change the prepared spells (to allow the sharing)? Thanks |
| Sunwolf01-19-06, 09:15 AM | I think anyone here who would take an honest look at what is going on would agree. The thing is that no one is willing to do anything about it as far as I can see. This board is for fun but it is also meant to test builds. It takes about six losses (or something like this) to get past level 3. Sorcerer's get such extreme nerfing here that it can be painful sitting through the first rounds. I accidently forgot to set my ready for date last week and I have to wait yet another week to wade through this slow methodical losing record. The boards are set up to fairly test builds, but the Sorcerer is unfairly hurt by the rules. This won't be a problem at levels from 4 on, but at level 3 it is a knife in the back. I really do believe the rules should be changed for the Sorcerer class at level 3 to make things more balanced. Personally I think they should be able to cast 3/4 of their spell power level, but that is just me. I would like to stress that the CoCo rules are not the set in stone and placed on the tallest mountain never to be changed. If they do a class a major disservice, then I think the CoCo crew should seriously consider altering them to make things more fair. Thanks, Karl I found that in taking a sorcerer from lvls 2-3 to level 4 in the arena winds up being very expensive because one must rely on expendables heavily. I wound up only getting scrolls in those levels and only late in level 3 and eary level 4 was able to start making more permanent item purchases. However, don't resign yourself to a losing record with the low level sorcerer. With a bit of luck on the fights one gets, one can get some wins early reducing the time spent at level 3. I don't see a way to win with a low level sorcerer if you don't invest in some expendables though. |
| Usurpator01-19-06, 09:33 AM | So to those involved, consider this Famine's surrender/withdrawal/suicide...however you wanna play it out. If Altaris and bgt wanna give it a go, they are more than welcome to. I won't be joining them. NiQil, why are you already posting ultimatums when there is still room for adressing your problems? You had a problem with the sheet, and I think that was adressed. Maybe we can address your other problems too? Possibly the Pitlord wants to run on monday, giving you and the others plenty of extra time. I know you prefer one-on-one fights, but realize that this is only a slightly more difficult that a 2 vs. 2 team fight. Team fights get only two days to write tactics, if you get three or four days in this case, your coordination problem should be adressed. If you have other issues, please mention them so we may be able to solve them. I don't think 'not liking the matchup' in itself is a good reason to withdraw/surrender, especially if that inconveniences your teammates. We all have unlikeable matchups that sometimes. Other solution: if you really don't want to have any part of it (for whatever reason), let Altaris13 write tactic for Famine, that would adress some of your problems as well. There have been team fights where one person was primarily responsible for writing tactics for both gladiators. If it was requested, then it should have been done as a challenge, where everyone involved already had an idea of what was going to happen. To just be thrown into something like this is not fair to anyone. Very poor form, in my opinion. As a challenge it would have been folly. If my opponents could see what they were facing in advance, I am fairly certain they would only accept if they were fairly sure of winning. I was sure Kitaya would get an exciting match against three random gladiators, not against three gladiators hand-picked to defeat her specific build. I know you don't like any form of multiple person fights, and I empathize, but all our characters will get into one sooner or later. |
| Snommelp01-19-06, 09:40 AM | I have received tactics for Eiletha and Ulfgar. I'll run that fight tomorrow (today's a very busy day... why did I decide to be a music major again?). NiQil: DTFarstar has two other fights to run, so I'm certain that if you asked he would be willing to run the 3 vs. 1 last. That would give you more time to collaborate. |
| Zevox01-19-06, 10:02 AM | @ Cerebus13 - Tactics for Pirotess recieved. @ Mitzavolchenko - If you could get me Silverfire's tactics either today or early tomorrow, I'd be quite grateful. An Elf Wizard/Psion vs a Pixie Archer-Sorcereress.... this is one fight I'm not looking forward to. :( Zevox |
| Usurpator01-19-06, 10:32 AM | @Warclone, Usurpator I would like to know how the fight between Namara and Drac would be rerun: I have to send new tactic? How will be ruled the share spell? If Drac could not share spell may I change the prepared spells (to allow the sharing)? Thanks The ruling was: you cannot share spells from items (including scrolls) with your familiar. see here for the ruling. That is also what I had gathered from the discussion a few weeks ago. Normally you cannot change your prepared spells, since you might now just select the spells that are useful to you in this specific scenario (vs. Namara). What should have happened was that the fight would be edited to account for the fact that you couldn't share spells. But since I agreed with you and DTFarstar that rule wasn't that clear and visible, and your tactics were clearly based on the fact that you could share spells from item, rather then having DTFarstar editing the fight and you ending up with inapplicable tactics, I offered a rematch with a rewrite your tactics taking into account the proper rule. Of course, I have to rewrite tactics as well, since you are now aware of my old tactics. If you can give me a good argument what other spells you would select now you know the sharing rule, and why (in general, not vs. Namara specifically) I can be persuaded to allow you to swap some spells prepared. |
| Dracazar01-19-06, 10:52 AM | @Usurpator: I would like to prepare Shocking Grasp instead of Chill Touch and Invisibility instead of Flaming Sphere. I will send the same tactic (almost). I was able to modifiy the prepared spells because I wasn't able to connect to the internet beofre the deadline. If you and Warclone agree let me know so I'll send the PM to Warclone. |
| MindWandererB01-19-06, 12:07 PM | @Lonewolf: tactics sent. |
| TroubleWolf01-19-06, 12:14 PM | @Turin: Tactics sent for Sven. @AlecKumbier: Welcome to the Core Coliseum! Good luck with Faldalek's career, and I hope the fight is a good one. :) |
| TelinArtho01-19-06, 12:32 PM | Tactics for all of my gladiators have been sent via PM: Anton Fael Anakala Faelto Ural Delaria Sir Valkin Kraegin |
| SoulLord01-19-06, 12:48 PM | @Luni Tactics for Vandelar the Red sent by E-mail as stated in the pitlord preferences list |
| Ayrynthyn01-19-06, 01:02 PM | Tan vs Perious @Rav... tactics received @Book5... still waitin on you bro. If you hook me up with Tans tactics real quick here, i may be able to get to this prior to the weekend. :D |
| DTFarstar01-19-06, 01:08 PM | @Niqil - Looking over my schedule, I will do one fight tonight, one tommorrow, and the horrible one will be done whenever you guys can get me tactics for it. If you don't want to bother with it, I would appreciate you giving permission to a teammate to write in tactics for your character to make it more fair for them. But, I'll wait as long as possible before doing the fight, it just comes at a bad time, what with the downtime later this week. Anyway, just wanted to say don't despair. Or do, just don't penalize your teammates for it. |
| Book501-19-06, 01:28 PM | @ Book5 - pairings can be found in the Character thread, first page. For a faster way there use the link in Pitlords' signature. Zevox Thank You! Somehow I compleatly forgot about that section of the character's thread. yeesh. @ Telin and Iced - Tactics Recieved. |
| King Uther01-19-06, 02:13 PM | @Altaris 13 Tactics for Ajora the Light sent via PM. |
| Book501-19-06, 03:01 PM | @Arynthyn and Macabrea (snicker) - Tan an' Ba'al tactics sent. |
| Altaris1301-19-06, 03:04 PM | Tactics rcvd from both Uther & Telin for Ajora vs Faelto. @Mitza: tactics will be sent shortly, they're easy. @Usurpator: I will not be able to send you tactics until Saturday. @DTFarstar: we are in discussion of tactics, again, you'll get my full tactics on Saturday. Both should be sent fairly early EST. Going forward, my time here will be extremely limited. RL is intruding and I will not be able to RP nor run fights for the next few weeks. |
| Abyssal Stalker01-19-06, 03:06 PM | @Ariel23: Tactics for Jonathon Raven PM'ed. |
| Usurpator01-19-06, 03:55 PM | @Usurpator: I will not be able to send you tactics until Saturday. No problem, I am going to run it sunday at the soonest. |
| Erithmu01-19-06, 04:10 PM | While I didn't run it ..... Shadowmaster's Selene vs Zewi (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8270794&postcount=55) is up. Mitza might have something to say about it. I only point to the fact between round 10 and 11 I lost 18 hps instead of 8 that I took from her crossbow. Could still turn around but I do have more hps than I say I do. The other part is that DC is a free action and I wanted to charge it on my attack. Minor changes, no need to edit them if Mitza doesn't have any major problems with it. |
| Usurpator01-19-06, 05:04 PM | @Usurpator: I would like to prepare Shocking Grasp instead of Chill Touch and Invisibility instead of Flaming Sphere. I will send the same tactic (almost). If I have your word that the changes are only due to the clarification in sharing of spells rules with familiars, then I am okay with it. It will make the fight more difficult for Namara, since I don't think flaming sphere would have been of much use to Drac in this fight. But a greater challenge will only make things more interesting. I will confirm the change in your spells to Warclone. Of course I will write new tactics, since with the shocking graps / invisible familiar danger, the old tactics will become rather risky.... You are free to write completely new tactics as well, of course.... |
| MitzaVolchenko01-19-06, 05:39 PM | While I didn't run it ..... Shadowmaster's Selene vs Zewi (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8270794&postcount=55) is up. Mitza might have something to say about it. I only point to the fact between round 10 and 11 I lost 18 hps instead of 8 that I took from her crossbow. Could still turn around but I do have more hps than I say I do. The other part is that DC is a free action and I wanted to charge it on my attack. Minor changes, no need to edit them if Mitza doesn't have any major problems with it. I am reviewing it now and have spotted a couple of errors, but I am going to have to map it to tell what is what. The second tanglefoot should have been a shot from the crossbow or at the least an alch fire if not a double move or run. There is no reason to tanglefoot an entangled opponent. The point there was to get out of reach and charge line of the sword. Selene's HP tracking is off, and should be adjusted. If I could not keep out of reach, then obviously the one hit kill is still a one hit kill. I'll look it over closer when my brain is working (need caffeine). Without a map I have trouble following movement which is crucial to this fight. Also EHTC earns 10% from Zwei and her perform is worth 39gp. |
| Macbrea01-19-06, 06:33 PM | The error I noticed in the fight is that none of the attacks took in to consideration the 20% concealment from darkness from either side. All of those attacks need a percentile dice rolled with them to see if there was a miss. |
| shadowmaster01-19-06, 06:37 PM | the darkness was put on the outfit which was dropped, to e used as a decoy. |
| bgt01-19-06, 07:28 PM | @NiQuil: I PMed you some possible tactics. Altaris likes them, so we're waiting on your input. Also, don't be so upset over this fight. Honestly, I think we stand a pretty good chance of winning. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-19-06, 07:55 PM | the darkness was put on the outfit which was dropped, to e used as a decoy. The decoy maneuver was to be used as a last ditch when cornered and then just to gain ground. In this case there was absolutley no advantage to it. I still haven't gotten the time to map the fight to see exactly how Zwei ended up toe to toe after two successful entangles but I am not that concerned just yet. Did you use an online roller? If so what is the link to the rolls? |
| MitzaVolchenko01-19-06, 08:23 PM | Mini's surrender is up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8273297&postcount=56) In the future you might want to at least hail mary an attack plan, even if you don't want to use any expendables. |
| TheMagister01-19-06, 11:10 PM | @Luni - Sdentch tactics vs. Vandelar sent via PM @Iced - The White Hand tactics vs. The Frost Lord sent via PM TM |
| DTFarstar01-19-06, 11:27 PM | Not relavent to my fight this week, but I've got to wonder, does ability burn have to heal naturally over the week? Ability Burn This is a special form of ability damage that cannot be magically or psionically healed. It is caused by the use of certain psionic feats and powers. It returns only through natural healing. I mean, even if you assume long term care and full bed rest, which I don't think it is fair to, with normal training and free activites, you still can only heal back a max of 24(long term + Bed Rest = 4 a day (4*6 days without a fight per week=24) ability burn a week. Which admittedly is alot, but could feasibly be done in one battle, I mean it might happen this week, dependent on how this fight goes. Long-Term Care Providing long-term care means treating a wounded person for a day or more. If your Heal check is successful, the patient recovers hit points or ability score points (lost to ability damage) at twice the normal rate: 2 hit points per level for a full 8 hours of rest in a day, or 4 hit points per level for each full day of complete rest; 2 ability score points for a full 8 hours of rest in a day, or 4 ability score points for each full day of complete rest. I mean, with the Body Fuel feat, it doesn't take much to rip through your STR/DEX/CON. Body Fuel [Psionic] You can expand your power point total at the expense of your health. Benefit You can recover 2 power points by taking 1 point of ability burn damage to each of your three ability scores: Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. You can recover additional power points for a proportional cost to Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution. These recovered points are added to your power point reserve as if you had gained them by resting overnight. Special Only living creatures can use this feat. You can take advantage of this feat only while in your own body. Get 18 extra PPs and potentially be damaged the next week. I mean do we just assume they are healed fully or get full bed rest and long term care? How does this work? |
| DTFarstar01-20-06, 12:13 AM | *sniff* *sniff* Are you all just avoiding me or something? *cry*....... Just kidding, but really, it's weird, I've been the last post in the Fights of the Weeks thread for over an hour, and the last post in the Tavern for over 3 hours. It's just weird. |
| TelinArtho01-20-06, 12:14 AM | Nope just busy playing poker... Of course, I just got lucky on Invisible Castle... unfortunately it was against one of my questors... Rack up another kill on my list... |
| Sindorin01-20-06, 12:18 AM | They should award questlords some credits for killing pc's. Um, what? @DTFarstar - I've noticed that the boards have been going down every so often, which might be eating some of our posts. |
| Iced01-20-06, 01:35 AM | I'll be perfectly honest here, Cat. I have no wish to be a part of this match. It's nothing personal against anyone involved, but this type of match should never have been randomly rolled. I am probably not going to be around for a good chunk of today, and the same for tomorrow. So that really leaves no time to coordinate tactics with anyone....and that is assuming they *happen to be around when I am. Coordinating tactics between two people is tough enough. Between three...and three random people....is nigh impossible in 2 days. I also have somewhat of an issue with the fact that this fight was granted simply because it was requested. I can all but guarantee that if I request nothing but one on one duels from now on, I won't get them. If it was requested, then it should have been done as a challenge, where everyone involved already had an idea of what was going to happen. To just be thrown into something like this is not fair to anyone. Very poor form, in my opinion. So to those involved, consider this Famine's surrender/withdrawal/suicide...however you wanna play it out. If Altaris and bgt wanna give it a go, they are more than welcome to. I won't be joining them. Aside: Also, Galagith did not meet the requirements to be released from Prison, and should not be paired. To offer a character in prison a fight like you just have undermines everything I do in the Prison. Sorta makes the whole Prison thing pointless. *Sigh* @NiQil - Well, I don't have to like it, but I'll respect it. Galagith will sit this pairings out to preserve the Impact of the prison tag. @All - who sent me pm's regarding fights i'll look it over and edit accordingly in the next couple of days. @Gladiators - White Hand and Lord Frost's tactics received ~Iced |
| Dracazar01-20-06, 05:34 AM | If I have your word that the changes are only due to the clarification in sharing of spells rules with familiars, then I am okay with it. It will make the fight more difficult for Namara, since I don't think flaming sphere would have been of much use to Drac in this fight. But a greater challenge will only make things more interesting. I will confirm the change in your spells to Warclone. Of course I will write new tactics, since with the shocking graps / invisible familiar danger, the old tactics will become rather risky.... You are free to write completely new tactics as well, of course.... Ok, nice to hear, I'll send the stuff soon |
| Vathelokai01-20-06, 07:22 AM | Sam Jones [Snommelp] vs Raskos the Jade Father [SauroGrenom] [ECL 6] is up. The odds were slim in the first place, but the dice gods didn't make things any easier. |
| Snommelp01-20-06, 10:26 AM | Sam Jones [Snommelp] vs Raskos the Jade Father [SauroGrenom] [ECL 6] is up. The odds were slim in the first place, but the dice gods didn't make things any easier. By shoot defensively I meant use the "fight defensively as a full round action" option. Which of course would not have changed the fight. End of round summaries would be nice, but of course that doesn't change any of the fight aspect of the fight. |
| Caterane01-20-06, 11:20 AM | I'll be perfectly honest here, Cat. I have no wish to be a part of this match. It's nothing personal against anyone involved, but this type of match should never have been randomly rolled. I am probably not going to be around for a good chunk of today, and the same for tomorrow. So that really leaves no time to coordinate tactics with anyone....and that is assuming they *happen to be around when I am. Coordinating tactics between two people is tough enough. Between three...and three random people....is nigh impossible in 2 days. Permission to post the fight without late penalty granted. 5 days to write tactics for a lvl 3 match should be enough when others can do that in 2 days for epic levels. I also have somewhat of an issue with the fact that this fight was granted simply because it was requested. I can all but guarantee that if I request nothing but one on one duels from now on, I won't get them. If it was requested, then it should have been done as a challenge, where everyone involved already had an idea of what was going to happen. To just be thrown into something like this is not fair to anyone. Very poor form, in my opinion. As I already said, a fair Inter-League Setup would be 2 ECL3 characters vs 1 ECL 5 character. You are 3 ECL 3 PCs vs 1 ECL 4 PC. Since this is heavily handicapping Kitaya, I granted that request. If you ever want to take on 3 PCs of one level lower, write it into the headline and you will get it. Your comparison to request 'only 1vs1 fights' is not adequate for multplayer fights are part of the game. So to those involved, consider this Famine's surrender/withdrawal/suicide...however you wanna play it out. If Altaris and bgt wanna give it a go, they are more than welcome to. I won't be joining them. If this is your way of trying to get what you want, you'll run against a wall. You only hurt Altaris and bgt. Not me. Aside: Also, Galagith did not meet the requirements to be released from Prison, and should not be paired. To offer a character in prison a fight like you just have undermines everything I do in the Prison. Sorta makes the whole Prison thing pointless. NiQil, we've discussed this by PM and it was a misunderstanding. As you saw, it could be easily solved, and I agreed with everything you suggested/requested in this PM. Now that I read this, I want to ask you to discuss things first before drawing conclusions or rush things. This is true for the whole of this post. NiQil, let's settle down please. All problems you mentioned have been addressed but I think they weren't the problem in the first place. You're upset because you ended in a fight you didn't want. Well, that happens. If we could gamble credits, I would immideately bet on your team. Let's see it as a new interesting experience and smile again. That's how we like to see you :) EDIT: @Telin: Tactics for the Harvester sent! |
| Turin01-20-06, 11:25 AM | Ack! What happened to the thread "Pitlord a Fight: a Template Ready to Use"!? I've been using that for my fights and didn't think to save it locally! @ AlecKumbier: if you can manage to get me your tactics in the next few hours, I'll be able to run the fight this afternoon rather than Saturday (I'm home sick :( ). |
| waywreth01-20-06, 11:28 AM | Ack! What happened to the thread "Pitlord a Fight: a Template Ready to Use"!? I've been using that for my fights and didn't think to save it locally! Ended up on the 3rd page... Link (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=551175) |
| Turin01-20-06, 11:32 AM | Could've sworn I looked there... oh well, thanks! |
| Mal-201-20-06, 11:40 AM | Speaking of the Pitlord template, how do people feel about this part: For reactive Listen/Spot and for MoveSilently/Hide I'll not roll, I'll use the Take 10 For active Listen and Spot I roll as usual. Generally only successful checks will be reported I like the idea of reactive spot and listens being a fixed number, since it reduces the number of die rolls that need to be made and linked, and simplifies the fight layout. (i.e., you can just write: Hide: 1d20+11=23 vs DC 18 instead of Hide: 1d20+11=23 vs Spot 1d20+8=19) Still, I'm not sure it's appropriate, since you're normally not allowed to Take 10 in combat situations. Automactically taking 10 gives an advantage to the person with the higher bonus, since there is less random chance involved (spot vs hide varies from 11-30 instead of 2-40) That being said, I think I'm going to adapt this rule to my home game. I really like the way it simplifies Hide and Move Silently in combat situations (especially with multiple spotters / listeners). |
| TheMagister01-20-06, 11:44 AM | Me, I like it a lot, and for the same reasons you do. I've used it several times, and have never heard someone complain. Knowing where you stand is an advantage, in my book. TM |
| Cerebus1301-20-06, 12:14 PM | I'm not a big fan of that idea at all. Making all hide/listen/spot/move silent checks a simple Take 10 completely takes the randomness out of battles and it comes down to who spent more skill ranks in Hide vs. Listen. A properly geared and twinked out character with Hide taking 10 would be essentially undetectable....whereas with rolling you still have a chance of rolling a 1 versus their 20. In addition, what is the point of Hide in Plain sight abilities or rogue's Skill Mastery that allow you to take 10 on skills in combat.....if we already are making everyone take 10 in combat? |
| NiQil01-20-06, 12:21 PM | I'm not a big fan of that idea at all. Making all hide/listen/spot/move silent checks a simple Take 10 completely takes the randomness out of battles and it comes down to who spent more skill ranks in Hide vs. Listen. A properly geared and twinked out character with Hide taking 10 would be essentially undetectable....whereas with rolling you still have a chance of rolling a 1 versus their 20. In addition, what is the point of Hide in Plain sight abilities or rogue's Skill Mastery that allow you to take 10 on skills in combat.....if we already are making everyone take 10 in combat? I posted a while ago (check the first page or 2 in the template thread) that the take 10 rule cannot be used in the arena, because it is not allowed in combat, as per the RAW. I also PM'd Dracazar with this at the time as well, and apparantly he has chosen to not remove it. Which is why we see it on more and more fights, and why more and more fights now do this incorrectly. By the RAW, it shouldn't be done. An assassin with max hide/mosi ranks should be able to be stealthy against most builds....but there should always be that chance of a low roll vs a high roll that causes him to be found. And as Cerebus said, using this option (which, again, is totally against RAW) nerfs things like Hide in Plain Sight and Skill Mastery, both of which are attractive features of the classes that receive them. |
| TelinArtho01-20-06, 12:23 PM | Although I have not voiced any issues with it before - since the issue is coming up right now - I must say I also disagree with it. I have no stealth builds - but a properly built one - with take 10 in place would be undetectable if it chooses to be that way. |
| Zevox01-20-06, 12:23 PM | I've got to agree with Cerebus on that matter. In addition to what he said, having reactive checks always take 10 means that the rogue/ranger/monk types that put several ranks into MS and Hide will nearly always win thier hiding - high dexterity is generally more important to classes that have hide and MS as class skills than high wisdom is to classes that have spot and listen as class skills, after all (the only exception being maybe the Druid), so high MS and Hide modifiers are much more common than high listen and spot modifiers. This puts the fellows who put ranks into listen/spot in a situation where thier ranks become essentially useless unless they surrender thier move action to use them, and even then theres no guarantee they'll help. In addition, on those ocassions where someone with a huge listen/spot modifier does face a rogueish character and has a higher modifier on listen/spot than he has on MS and hide, that effectively completely nullifies the rougish character's advantage unless hes far enough away for distance modifiers to negate his foe's advantage. Just not a good situation overall IMO. Zevox |
| Abyssal Stalker01-20-06, 12:31 PM | @Skojar: Tactics for Manzarf the Loathsome PM'ed! |
| TelinArtho01-20-06, 12:42 PM | You know - I keep seeing the legendary Ashenai poke his ID in here... I'm just waiting for him to say hi... He doesn't know me or anything - but since I've seen him on lately - I figured I'd give him an official invite... |
| MindWandererB01-20-06, 12:43 PM | I like the idea of reactive spot and listens being a fixed number, since it reduces the number of die rolls that need to be made and linked, and simplifies the fight layout. (i.e., you can just write: Hide: 1d20+11=23 vs DC 18 instead of Hide: 1d20+11=23 vs Spot 1d20+8=19)There are two ways to go about it, a Mal-2 inadvertently demonstrated. If both parties take 10, I agree that this is a problem. Then whoever has the higher modifier (by even a point) will always win. That's grossly unfair. However, you could just roll for one person and have the other person take 10. That preserves the randomness, for the most part, and this is much less problematic. There are still problems due to the decreased randomness. For instance, since you need to beat your opponent by 20 on Move Silent/Listen to pinpoint them, this is impossible if your modifier is 9 or fewer points lower. If both people roll, you have a much better chance. For instance, if the modifiers differ by 10, the lower modifier wins 5% of the time on one die, but on two dice it's 13.75%. A difference of 5 points yields probabilities of 25% vs. 30%. The same probabilities apply for beating your opponent by a certain amount (as for pinpointing). So basically, rolling one die favors the higher modifier, and rolling two dice increases variability (although small differences are far more probable; you're basically exchanging a bell curve for a plateau-shaped distribution). |
| Myrridin01-20-06, 12:47 PM | Or we can continue rolling the dice, per RAW. I know it's more work for the Pitlord, I used to Pitlord quite a bit; but it also preserves the integrity of the system, and the fight. I would hate to see the Take 10 option implemented. |
| SoulLord01-20-06, 12:56 PM | I have to say that even though as a pitlord I would love to roll less. It is Against the Rules As Written and not to mention Unfair toward the characters. so Keep on Rolling! |
| Mal-201-20-06, 01:03 PM | There are two ways to go about it, a Mal-2 inadvertently demonstrated. If both parties take 10, I agree that this is a problem. Then whoever has the higher modifier (by even a point) will always win. That's grossly unfair. However, you could just roll for one person and have the other person take 10. That preserves the randomness, for the most part, and this is much less problematic. Heh, sorry I guess I didn't even read the part I quoted correctly. I assumed it meant active uses of skills are always rolled and the detection part would be a fixed DC (Take 10). So... I thought it would be a Rolled Hide vs Take 10 Spot and Rolled MS vs Take 10 Listen. As people have said, it reduces randomness, which favors the person with the higher bonus. In my face to face games, that's how I'm going to do it from now on, mostly to cut down on the enourmous number of rolls required in a large melee. In our arena, I think we ought to stick with Roll vs Roll for all the reasons others have pointed out. |
| Macbrea01-20-06, 01:30 PM | Yeah, after looking through the characters and comparing to Marcus. I am pretty sure people would prefer the random rolls rather then Take 10. Marcus Hide +20, Move Silently +12 In his league the highest Spot and Listen belongs to: Gundir Spot +13, Listen +13 In the next league up from him you have: Imperia Spot +24 Kara Spot +15, Listen +15 I was thinking of taking Feat: Skill focus: Move Silently and buying Armor enhancement Silent Moves, Lesser when I finish my quest. With the level up that would make his numbers look like: Marcus Hide +21, Move Silently +21 Which would mean only Imperia could ever spot him if she was within 30ft of his location. And that assumes he doesn't use the Tattoo of Chameleon at the start of the fight for +10 hide checks. He is built to take advantage of High stealth vs spot/listen. And giving everyone always takes 10 on reactive checks would only make him more deadly. |
| SoulLord01-20-06, 01:40 PM | @Luni Your pm box is full I mailed you and the magister some concerns before the Vandelar vs Sdentch fight |
| nightbanegod01-20-06, 02:51 PM | Challack (DTFarstar) vs Lunoria Evershine (Luni): Nightbanegod Donak (Mal-2) vs Cyra Val (Stormwind): Nightbanegod @all.. all tactics received and will start running fights now thanks guys(girls) |
| Caterane01-20-06, 03:00 PM | The Take10 option for hide/move? Oh my god, don't remind me of that. We once implemented that here and this was the worst week ever. There was so much wrong with that. I'm sure some of the older guys here remember it. We dropped it after only one week. |
| NiQil01-20-06, 03:03 PM | The Take10 option for hide/move? Oh my god, don't remind me of that. We once implemented that here and this was the worst week ever. There was so much wrong with that. I'm sure some of the older guys here remember it. We dropped it after only one week. Then maybe you should mention to Dracazar to take it out of his pitlording template, since he apparantly ignored me when I posted in that thread and PM'd him that it was against RAW. Because lots of fights are getting done with that convention in mind, because that template is getting used more and more....especially by new people who think that is the way it is *supposed to be done here. |
| TelinArtho01-20-06, 03:53 PM | Well. Galagith's free if you want to fight him. Anyone up for an EL5 miniquest to kill a couple demons? I need experience this week and Galagith wasn't paired due to old prison posts that have been corrected. He's street legal and inactive...:( If I could get a fight that'd be great, if not a miniquest would be fine. @Telinartho - Will you accept a challenge to Aquin? ~Iced Well Aquin's been retired as a bad build. If you really want - I can set him to active next week if you want to pay the credit cost of the challenge. Won't be an easy fight since he'll have no problem blowing through all of his expendables to beat you... So like I said - you pay the credit for the challenge and he's all yours. |
| TelinArtho01-20-06, 03:54 PM | @DTFarstar Tactics recieved. No worries. @Macbrea Tactics sent. @Telinartho Working on tactics... Harvester vrs Lortavos... Wee. I highly doubt I have a snowball's chance in hell here, but who knows. Still haven't received tactics for Lortavos. If I don't get them in the next few hours, the fight probably won't get done until late Sunday for me. If I get them early enough tonight, I'll run it tonight. /d |
| MitzaVolchenko01-20-06, 04:03 PM | @Zevox Tactics for Sliveer sent. I am not happy with them, and I still have no answer on the primary reason I chose the pixie...memory loss arrows...so yeah, good luck with it and thanks for running it. I am afraid it is going to be a contest of delay of game. |
| Sunwolf01-20-06, 05:02 PM | @Snommelp Tactics for Leif sent by PM |
| Snommelp01-20-06, 05:28 PM | @Snommelp Tactics for Leif sent by PM Got them, and TFH's tactics. Am I even running TFH? Haven't looked at the tactics yet, but I'll try to at least glance over them and PM any potential problems back. |
| Zevox01-20-06, 06:12 PM | @Zevox Tactics for Sliveer sent. I am not happy with them, and I still have no answer on the primary reason I chose the pixie...memory loss arrows...so yeah, good luck with it and thanks for running it. I am afraid it is going to be a contest of delay of game. Your fears proved unfounded since Pirotess decided to take the initiative. Pirotess vs Silver Firebug (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8279407&postcount=60) is up. Feel free to pick at it for mistakes - I already caught myself in a few. Zevox |
| Huan01-20-06, 09:22 PM | @Pittbull Tactics for Dameon sent. @Skojar Tactics for Weiniete received, thank you. |
| shadowmaster01-20-06, 11:33 PM | Do the spells Mage Armor/shield stop all touch attacks. |
| TelinArtho01-20-06, 11:41 PM | No. Mage armor and Shield help against incorporeal attacks, but help not at all against touch attacks. Bear in mind that the wording is usually incorporeal touch attacks - but this is merely a misnomer. If the attack is coming from something incorporeal - it ignores armor and shield bonuses to ac (like a touch attack) - UNLESS they are from the Mage Armor/Inertial Armor or Shield/Force Screen. However, if you are a regular wizard making a touch attack for, say, Chill touch - no armor or shield bonus will ever apply (at least that I know of...) |
| Zevox01-20-06, 11:42 PM | Do the spells Mage Armor/shield stop all touch attacks. No - why would they? Shield stops Magic Missiles, but beyond that they just add armor and shield bonuses to AC, like regular armor and shields but without the weight or need to carry them. Zevox |
| shadowmaster01-20-06, 11:43 PM | Thanks, I wasn't sure. That saved me aout 10 rounds in this battle. Histal Dar'ath (Waywreth) vs Krayko (^Rayne^) is finished |
| NiQil01-21-06, 12:16 AM | No. Mage armor and Shield help against incorporeal attacks, but help not at all against touch attacks. Bear in mind that the wording is usually incorporeal touch attacks - but this is merely a misnomer. If the attack is coming from something incorporeal - it ignores armor and shield bonuses to ac (like a touch attack) - UNLESS they are from the Mage Armor/Inertial Armor or Shield/Force Screen. However, if you are a regular wizard making a touch attack for, say, Chill touch - no armor or shield bonus will ever apply (at least that I know of...) In core material, you are correct....there is a feat in the Dragonomicon that allows you to add your shield bonus to touch AC. |
| TelinArtho01-21-06, 12:19 AM | Damn bastards! |
| TelinArtho01-21-06, 12:24 AM | Thanks, I wasn't sure. That saved me aout 10 rounds in this battle. Histal Dar'ath (Waywreth) vs Krayko (^Rayne^) is finished @shadowmaster - according to the current ruling (which is still discussed - but it has been ruled on by Cat) - Pearls may be used to recall a specific spell and its associated spell level - but only to recast that same spell. Histal's action of casting Invisibility, Shield, Mage Armor and then recalling Shield and Mage Armor to cast Scorching Ray is not a valid set of actions (unless he had enough spell levels to cast them all in the first place). I'll dredge up the ruling (which I believe is in the prison for easy viewing...) |
| TelinArtho01-21-06, 12:28 AM | Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6942869)'s the post you need: Q: When using a Pearl of Power, can you use the spell reclaimed by this item to cast a spell other than the one that was reclaimed? A: No. When using a Pearl of Power, you do not reclaim the spell level, but rather the spell itself. This allows you to cast the spell that was reclaimed even if you have already used all allowable spells available in a match under the 1/3 rule. As an example, after casting magic missile and then recalling it with a pearl of power, the spell level used to cast the spell the first time is not reclaimed. However, you are now able to cast magic missile again, even if you have used all of the spell levels available to you in your match. |
| shadowmaster01-21-06, 12:31 AM | Invisibility was from a scroll, so it didn't count against that number. But I would have screwed that up if I had gone any further in that fight. |
| Vathelokai01-21-06, 01:48 AM | By shoot defensively I meant use the "fight defensively as a full round action" option. Which of course would not have changed the fight. End of round summaries would be nice, but of course that doesn't change any of the fight aspect of the fight. Hmmm... I could have sworn that you could only fight defensively in melee; I know now that I was wrong. Fighting Defensively as a Standard Action: You can choose to fight defensively when attacking. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round. Fighting Defensively as a Full-Round Action: You can choose to fight defensively when taking a full attack action. If you do so, you take a –4 penalty on all attacks in a round to gain a +2 dodge bonus to AC for the same round. Special: If you have 5 or more ranks in Tumble, you gain a +3 dodge bonus to AC when fighting defensively instead of the usual +2 dodge bonus to AC. I'll go look at the fight to see if that changes anything... *EDIT* Your right; dosn't change anything. If I metagamed it Sam could have avoided the shock grasp from Scathers, but would have taken more magic missile damage. I actually considered having Sam surrender after he realized Raskos had prot. arrows, but it seemed too out of character. |
| TelinArtho01-21-06, 02:22 AM | Harvester vs Lortavos (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8282682) is up. Looks to me like Harvester underestimated his opponent... |
| Snommelp01-21-06, 02:46 AM | I actually considered having Sam surrender after he realized Raskos had prot. arrows, but it seemed too out of character.At this rate, Sam's just going to become surly and maybe even slip from LG towards LE. You were right, though; surrender is out of character for him, especially since, unlike Grik, he's got enough mental energy to realize that Pro. Arrows won't last too terribly long. |
| NiQil01-21-06, 03:18 AM | At this rate, Sam's just going to become surly and maybe even slip from LG towards LE. You were right, though; surrender is out of character for him, especially since, unlike Grik, he's got enough mental energy to realize that Pro. Arrows won't last too terribly long. Would be perfectly acceptable to have him slip to LE...in fact, with my 4 candidates for The Warfare Alliance, he will soon have bretheren that can help show him the way LOL. Let me see just how far down I can bring WAR...turn you all into an evil warriors guild LOL. |
| ^Rayne^01-21-06, 04:02 AM | @shadowmaster, Overall the fight went as I expected it would. I don't have much to add, but I thought I would point out that my PC had Rapid Reload. I guess I should have noted that in my tactics (this is the first time I didn't) but it seems like you were using move actions to load it when my PC could load it as a free action and fire each round if he wanted to. So for example if he wanted to he could have reloaded as a Free Action in Round 4 then fire at his familiar again in Round 5 instead of just reload the crossbow again. The same thing would happen at the end of Round 7. So by Round 8 he would have had a loaded crossbow. I know this won't change a thing, but I thought I would mention it in case you run a fight with my PC in the future. Perhaps you will notice the feat next time (if you didn't this time) and it may come in handy. I liked your maps, and I want to thank you for posting them. They were helpful and I liked being able to look at them to tell what was going on. One more question... Shouldn't my PC only gain 300xp? You have it listed as gaining 900xp which is the reward for winning, not losing (I think). Thanks for all of your work on this fight, it is appreciated. Karl |
| Usurpator01-21-06, 04:38 AM | Here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6942869)'s the post you need: Originally Posted by Court Rulings Q: When using a Pearl of Power, can you use the spell reclaimed by this item to cast a spell other than the one that was reclaimed? A: No. When using a Pearl of Power, you do not reclaim the spell level, but rather the spell itself. This allows you to cast the spell that was reclaimed even if you have already used all allowable spells available in a match under the 1/3 rule. As an example, after casting magic missile and then recalling it with a pearl of power, the spell level used to cast the spell the first time is not reclaimed. However, you are now able to cast magic missile again, even if you have used all of the spell levels available to you in your match. Unfortunately the Court Rulings are not up to date with the Ask an Elder thread. There it is ruled that it returned you to the state as if you never cast the spell. That means that it doesn't count anymore to the limit of spells you can cast in one fight. Once again: there are no such things as spell levels, guys, that's an administrative illusion! Spell levels only exist to the judges, to determine if you have reached your limit of how much spells you can cast in a fight. Wizard's never become quasi-Sorcerers (even without pearls). If anyone thinks wizards and sorcerers somehow cast spell levels in CoCo, please speak up, I'l try to explain it more exhaustively. |
| Vathelokai01-21-06, 05:00 AM | Unfortunately the Court Rulings are not up to date with the Ask an Elder thread. There it is ruled that it returned you to the state as if you never cast the spell. That means that it doesn't count anymore to the limit of spells you can cast in one fight. The problem is that Cat ruled one way and Cow ruled the other. In Ask an Elder, Cow said to be patient, and that he would talk to Cat about it. I think that if you follow the rule that Cat's word is law, then it's one way. Common sense would indicate that the rule is still under debate. |
| NiQil01-21-06, 06:59 AM | Unfortunately the Court Rulings are not up to date with the Ask an Elder thread. There it is ruled that it returned you to the state as if you never cast the spell. That means that it doesn't count anymore to the limit of spells you can cast in one fight. Once again: there are no such things as spell levels, guys, that's an administrative illusion! Spell levels only exist to the judges, to determine if you have reached your limit of how much spells you can cast in a fight. Wizard's never become quasi-Sorcerers (even without pearls). If anyone thinks wizards and sorcerers somehow cast spell levels in CoCo, please speak up, I'l try to explain it more exhaustively. Actually, the Court Decisions post is up to date...however it is the one in Prison II, as the old one is about to be closed and I am not keeping it updated anymore. The decision that Telin quoted is the final word on the matter until Cat says otherwise, because it was his ruling in the first place. He is the only one that can change it, either by reversing himself, or by calling for an Elder vote, or something similar. But until that happens, the ruling that Telin quoted is the rule that we play by. Edit: I take it back...there is one ruling that I have not put in the Decisions yet...that being the question regarding how to calculate rewards for multiple monsters in a single fight. Other than that, everything LLMC has stated that he did not state needed further research has been added. |
| Usurpator01-21-06, 07:30 AM | Actually, the Court Decisions post is up to date...however it is the one in Prison II, as the old one is about to be closed and I am not keeping it updated anymore. The decision that Telin quoted is the final word on the matter until Cat says otherwise, because it was his ruling in the first place. He is the only one that can change it, either by reversing himself, or by calling for an Elder vote, or something similar. But until that happens, the ruling that Telin quoted is the rule that we play by. Well, NiQil, I beg to differ. To me Cat's vote does not count for more than any other Elder vote. The 'Ask an Elder' thread was specifically set up to tackle the issues, and he hasn't responded there, LLMadCow did. Besides, before it has always been played that pearls 'restored you to the situation as if you did not cast the spell at all', so if that is the established way of doing it, and a new way is suggested (as TelinArtho quoted), and a clear difference of opinion between members and Elders how it should be ruled exists, no Court Decision should occur yet. In such a case a Court Decision should occur after an Elder Vote, not before. You are now condemning the accused without due process. IMO it is also undermining the legitimity of the Court Decisions by posting rulings that actually haven't been decided on yet. You similarly pre-empted the whole 'ready shield' ruling. I very grateful that you are doing the court rulings, since I think any ruling is better than no ruling, but I do ask of you to not use the position to push through new rules that are still under debate, especially if they have a precedent of being ruled otherwise and Elders disagree about them. If you want your word to be the final word on rules matters here, please stick to proper form and procedures. |
| Caterane01-21-06, 08:27 AM | @Telin: Well, depends on how you play the Harvester. I am confident in my tactics but my hands still tremble because I cannot foresee the pitlord's actions. Example: In round 1, Harvester saw Lortavos 40ft infront of him. He was with the back to the wall. It is obvious that if he stays there he cannot 5ft step away to prevent drawing AoO's in the following rounds so he should have free-5ft stepped away from the wall. I wrote in my tactic to prevent AoO's. This is such a situation. With this I would have succeeded in casting SoF resulting in less hits throughout the fight which in turn let's me cast Doom earlier, resulting in even less hits. Anyway, I won so I won't complain. I take the 13 charges. Thanks for running the fight! PS: Lucky Lortavos that he found me right away ;) |
| Erithmu01-21-06, 10:50 AM | Just an odd question: Did Credits ever get done and posted? PS: @Cat/Pitlords: I left a campaign draft on pitlord's desk for review. |
| Huan01-21-06, 10:51 AM | @Erithmu Tactics for Loddick Saffrion received, thank you. |
| waywreth01-21-06, 10:53 AM | @shadowmaster, Overall the fight went as I expected it would. I don't have much to add, but I thought I would point out that my PC had Rapid Reload. I guess I should have noted that in my tactics (this is the first time I didn't) but it seems like you were using move actions to load it when my PC could load it as a free action and fire each round if he wanted to. @Shadowmaster - one thing I noticed that was interesting. You mentioned in your tactics that Histal got more spells per fight than you did? Well think of it this way... if we got to use all the spell levels, Histal has 11 to your 6, which shows you why there are so many specialist wizards with an intelligence of 20 in the arena. |
| Mal-201-21-06, 11:09 AM | Well think of it this way... if we got to use all the spell levels, Histal has 11 to your 6, which shows you why there are so many specialist wizards with an intelligence of 20 in the arena. Sure, but spell levels doesn't tell the whole story. Sorcerers generally get more 'spells', and wizards get more 'spell levels'. In PnP the third level sorcerer would get 4 1st level spells. The spec. wizard would get 3/2. That's 4 spells vs 5. It's true that the sorcerer still has less spells to cast, but that reverses itself pretty quickly after 3rd. The way we add up spell levels and divide favors the wizard (and cleric) over the sorcerer (or bard). The sorcerers advantage is supposed to be that he ends up with more low level spells, but lags behind on higher level spells. Since we multiply spells per day times spell level before we divide by three, the wizard (especially the specialist wizard) ends up with almost as many spell levels per fight as a sorcerer over time. For instance, if we worked by 1/3rd of spells per level per day, the sorcerer would get 2 1st level spells, the wizard would get access to 1 1st and 1 2nd. The wizard would still have the advantage in spell levels, but the difference between a sorcerer and wizard would be more like the difference between them in PnP. Take a look in the Council thread. I wrote up a chart showing how that method would work for levels 1-20. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-21-06, 12:20 PM | Your fears proved unfounded since Pirotess decided to take the initiative. Pirotess vs Silver Firebug (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8279407&postcount=60) is up. Feel free to pick at it for mistakes - I already caught myself in a few. Zevox Alright, this is a request for a re-run. Because I went over my tactics nineteen times waiting on a clarification on the arrows, I did make the mistake of not giving starting location, however I did put (hide) at the end of almost every line of them. I *can't* hide in the middle of the square and so should have been moved to cover ASAP. Next, Pirotess does *NOT* spot me at that distance winning a straight check by one in round 2 (assuming I am going to pretend I have a 6 Int instead of an 18 Int and never move to hide) Pirotess' tactics are very specific to check to move toward center and then cast detect magic. Please note the range on that spell. Next, though I state that dispelling Pirotess is a priority, at no point do I do so. It can be used as an area effect which means I do not have to pinpoint to use it. Hothead should have been getting spot/listen checks. He doesn't get half of what he should have...I picked him for that +16 spot. At the point of dispelling I then moved to MM to disrupt...again obviously not used wherein I get one shotted without ever getting my prep and tactics applied. Itis still possible for me to fail the dispel and be stuck in the same situation, but entangle is a back up that is also an AoE. Finally, the character is named Sliver not Silver...that is just me being fussy ;) This one feels like Zevox was in a hurry and did not take the time he should have...he did catch his error on distance penalties later in the fight but did not go back and fix it in the crucial round 2. I appreciate the time either way, but that is too many serious fight effecting issues to not request a re-run. |
| Zevox01-21-06, 12:34 PM | I *can't* hide in the middle of the square and so should have been moved to cover ASAP. You can hide as long as you have cover or concealment - which you had initially. I suppose I can move you to one spot or another, but since you can't see Pirotess you won't know what angle she is coming from to try and hide from it. Next, Pirotess does *NOT* spot me at that distance winning a straight check by one in round 2 (assuming I am going to pretend I have a 6 Int instead of an 18 Int and never move to hide) Pirotess' tactics are very specific to check to move toward center and then cast detect magic. Please note the range on that spell. True, I forgot about the range penalty for the spot. As that is a major turning point of the battle, I'll take your rerun request, though I have doubts about this changing anything personally. Next, though I state that dispelling Pirotess is a priority, at no point do I do so. It can be used as an area effect which means I do not have to pinpoint to use it. True, but with the small margins you beat his checks by, there was a huge radius of squares you had to choose from for his being in (see the Move Silently & Listen description here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576)). Rolling a random spot to dispel has a low likelihood of actually hitting her, but I'll do such if you wish. Hothead should have been getting spot/listen checks. He doesn't get half of what he should have...I picked him for that +16 spot. He'd get only listen checks, which admitably I forgot about. Invisibility renders spotting him without magical aid impossible short of using epic rules, which the CoCo doesn't to my knowledge. At the point of dispelling I then moved to MM to disrupt...again obviously not used wherein I get one shotted without ever getting my prep and tactics applied. Itis still possible for me to fail the dispel and be stuck in the same situation, but entangle is a back up that is also an AoE. Again, with the small margin of those listen checks you made, you'll have little idea of where to direct your spells. I'll roll for a spot to select if you insist, but in all likelihood the match won't change. As I said, I'll take the rerun request and see what happens, but the odds of anything changing are long. Thematic rolls kept means you'll have to sucessfully entangle or dispel Pirotess before she gets into range to Crystal Shard you, since that Crystal Shard will kill you. We'll just see how it goes, however. Zevox |
| Mal-201-21-06, 12:42 PM | True, but with the small margins you beat his checks by, there was a huge radius of squares you had to choose from for his being in (see the Move Silently & Listen description here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576)). Rolling a random spot to dispel has a low likelihood of actually hitting her, but I'll do such if you wish. Dispel Magic can be cast as a 20' radius burst. If she succeeded in her listen check by zero or more, she can locate a spot within 20' of her opponent. By definition, a 20' radius burst, centered within 20' of her target is going to cover him. She can't do a targetted dispel because she doesn't have line of effect, but an area dispel will catch him, guaranteed. He'd get only listen checks, which admitably I forgot about. Invisibility renders spotting him without magical aid impossible short of using epic rules, which the CoCo doesn't to my knowledge. That's not true. Look under the Hide skill: you "only" get a +20 to Hide if invisibile and moving (+40 if invisibile and standing still). Depending on her opponent's skill, a +16 Spot may be able to see an invisible person moving around. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-21-06, 12:52 PM | You can hide as long as you have cover or concealment - why you would need to hide when you're already invisible is beyond me, but you did have cover. I suppose I can move you to one spot or another, but since you can't see Pirotess you won't know what angle she is coming from to try and hide from it. Wrong. In CoCo concealment does not allow hiding, only cover does. I specified hide because I knew Pirotess could use see invisible. True, I forgot about the range penalty for the spot. As that is a major turning point of the battle, I'll take your rerun request, though I have doubts about this changing anything personally. The difference is that if she doesn't spot me, she stands around for three rounds casting detect and trying to decide whether that is me or an illusion. True, but with the small margins you beat his checks by, there was a huge radius of squares you had to choose from for his being in (see the Move Silently & Listen description here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466576)). Rolling a random spot to dispel has a low likelihood of actually hitting her, but I'll do such if you wish. He'd get only listen checks, which admitably I forgot about. Invisibility renders spotting him without magical aid impossible short of using epic rules, which the CoCo doesn't to my knowledge. Wrong again. If he is close a spot of 20+ roll lets him know that there is an invisible creature nearby and assists in getting him closer to the right area to come closer to a pinpoint. A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it. Pirotess is moving and loses most of her Invis hide bonus. As I said, I'll take the rerun request and see what happens, but the odds of anything changing are long. Thematic rolls kept means you'll have to sucessfully entangle or dispel Pirotess before she gets into range to Crystal Shard you, since that Crystal Shard will kill you. We'll just see how it goes, however. Zevox I am fine with thematic rolls being kept, though if the circumstances that allowed it change, that roll may never take place. I am disappointed with the tone of that last statement as you seem to take my loss as a forgone conclusion. I am fine with losing, but I do want to see my tactics and advantages used properly. Thanks |
| Zevox01-21-06, 01:05 PM | Wrong. In CoCo concealment does not allow hiding, only cover does. Not quite right - the CoCo house rules prohibit hiding with concealment that comes from items or magical effects/abilities. You can still hide if you gain concealment from other affects (such as natural fog that Cat is going to be implementing soon). Wrong again. If he is close a spot of 20+ roll lets him know that there is an invisible creature nearby and assists in getting him closer to the right area to come closer to a pinpoint. A Spot check result higher than 20 generally lets you become aware of an invisible creature near you, though you can’t actually see it. Pirotess is moving and loses most of her Invis hide bonus. Huh - never noticed that rule before. Makes little sense to me, but I'll incorporate it I am disappointed with the tone of that last statement as you seem to take my loss as a forgone conclusion. I'm sorry if I gave off such an indication, but understand that until Mal-2's pointing out that the radius of dispel and the maximum radius of listen checks were identical and your indication about spot chekcs giving hints about invisibility I didn't see any way you could overcome her invisibility advantage. I've no problem with the rerun, and with this information I do think it may well have a major effect on the outcome. Thats all up to the dice, however. Rerun is occuring now - we'll see what happens. Zevox |
| Pitlords01-21-06, 01:21 PM | Just an odd question: Did Credits ever get done and posted? Here they are (sorry but I worked on other things here). As always, PM me if you want a complete breakdown of your credits this week. +7: Huan +6: DTFarstar, Warclone +5: Caterane, Mitza +3: Iced, Snommelp, KingUther +2: Ariel23, Book5, Cerebus, Lonewolf, NBG, Papapeperoni, Pittbull, Sauro, Shadowmaster, Skojar, TelinArtho, Turin, Usurpator, Zevox, waywreth +1: Altaris, Ayrynthyn, Begferdeth, Gonbow, Kaigan, Macbrea, Mal2, Erithmu +0: DrFunk, Luni, Vathelokai, NiQil, Sindorin -1: Myrridin Map Credits from last week (already included above) 1 Ariel23 1 Book5 1 Cerebus 2 DTFarstar 2 Kaigan 2 Lonewolf 1 Mal-2 1 Papapeperoni 1 Pittbull 1 Skojar 1 Turin 1 Usurpator 3 Warclone 1 Zevox |
| Gonbow01-21-06, 01:21 PM | @TelinArtho Thanks for running the fight, turned out about as I expected, though with another lucky hit or two I could have won, which I didn't quite expect. @DTFarstar, Vathelokai Working on your fight today/tonight, should be up tomorrow. |
| Turin01-21-06, 02:13 PM | Faldalek vs Sven (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8285234&postcount=68) is up. Unfortunately I never got tactics from Faldalek and his sheet has no default tactics... so I don't want to hear any complaints about Faldalek from the peanut gallery! :D |
| Zevox01-21-06, 02:18 PM | A query on area dispels (yes Mitza, this could be good news for you): how does one decide which spell to dispel first with an area dispel if all spells affecting a person are of equal caster level? *Edited out another question I figured out myself. Zevox |
| Mal-201-21-06, 02:47 PM | A query on area dispels (yes Mitza, this could be good news for you): how does one decide which spell to dispel first with an area dispel if all spells affecting a person are of equal caster level? Randomly, I assume. I don't see anything in the PHB or FAQ that addresses the question. |
| MindWandererB01-21-06, 03:33 PM | Not quite right - the CoCo house rules prohibit hiding with concealment that comes from items or magical effects/abilities. You can still hide if you gain concealment from other affects (such as natural fog that Cat is going to be implementing soon).Actually, even this is not quite true. You cannot hide within an effect that gives personal concealment (or cover): "Hiding: You cannot hide within effects provided by spells or items that target you and give concealment or cover such as Blur, Concealing Amorpha and a Tower Shield." You can still hide within other magical effects or items that create concealment, such as Darkness cast nearby or on an item you are wearing. The logic is that you cannot hide if there is nothing to hide behind or within--you can't hide in a Blur spell because it's you that's blurry, not the area around you. |
| NiQil01-21-06, 03:49 PM | Well, NiQil, I beg to differ. To me Cat's vote does not count for more than any other Elder vote. The 'Ask an Elder' thread was specifically set up to tackle the issues, and he hasn't responded there, LLMadCow did. Besides, before it has always been played that pearls 'restored you to the situation as if you did not cast the spell at all', so if that is the established way of doing it, and a new way is suggested (as TelinArtho quoted), and a clear difference of opinion between members and Elders how it should be ruled exists, no Court Decision should occur yet. In such a case a Court Decision should occur after an Elder Vote, not before. You are now condemning the accused without due process. IMO it is also undermining the legitimity of the Court Decisions by posting rulings that actually haven't been decided on yet. You similarly pre-empted the whole 'ready shield' ruling. I very grateful that you are doing the court rulings, since I think any ruling is better than no ruling, but I do ask of you to not use the position to push through new rules that are still under debate, especially if they have a precedent of being ruled otherwise and Elders disagree about them. If you want your word to be the final word on rules matters here, please stick to proper form and procedures. Whether you think Cat's vote weighs less than an Elder's or not, Cat's vote is the final say. He is the DM. The Elder question thread can *always be overruled by Cat....it even says so in post 1 of the thread. Cat made his ruling in the Tavern before the Ask an Elder thread ever existed. So, if you want to talk about paying attention to procedures...well, there they are. Despite your opinion that there should be no ruling yet, there already has been. It is now a question of whether it gets changed or not. The ready shield issue was the same way. Both debates came with existing rulings already in place. This has nothing to do with my authority or the integrity of the Decisions post. I only post the rulings as they happen. If Cat decides that from now on, all fighters can not have any bonus feats....as ludicrious as that would be, since he is DM, he has that right, and that would be the ruling we have to play by if we want to play here. This forum is not, nor ever will be, a democracy. D&D has always been a dictatorship, with the DM having final say. Yours or mine or anyone else's opinions doesn't change that. And as I have said previously in other discussions...precedence does not make something correct. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-21-06, 05:46 PM | Actually, even this is not quite true. You cannot hide within an effect that gives personal concealment (or cover): "Hiding: You cannot hide within effects provided by spells or items that target you and give concealment or cover such as Blur, Concealing Amorpha and a Tower Shield." You can still hide within other magical effects or items that create concealment, such as Darkness cast nearby or on an item you are wearing. The logic is that you cannot hide if there is nothing to hide behind or within--you can't hide in a Blur spell because it's you that's blurry, not the area around you. Um, as far as I know Darkness does not apply to allow hide...if it does, I'd like Zwei's darkness to be runthat way..as I understand it for hiding in CoCo it is cover or nothing. |
| Macbrea01-21-06, 06:41 PM | @Zevox: Just want to point something you may have missed on the Pirot vs Sliver fight. The Power Crystal Shard is Metacreativity (Creation). With a description that reads: Upon manifesting this power, you propel a razor-sharp crystal shard at your target. You must succeed on a ranged touch attack with the ray to deal damage to a target. The ray deals 1d6 points of piercing damage. Under Creation you will notice: If the power has an instantaneous duration, the created object or creature is merely assembled through psionics. It lasts indefinitely and does not depend on psionics for its existence. Which means that the object is created at the point of manifesting in a similar nature to the Bolt power. The Power creates permanent crystal shards and throws them down range. The pixie has 10/cold iron DR which will protect it against the shard even if they hit. |
| MindWandererB01-21-06, 07:10 PM | Um, as far as I know Darkness does not apply to allow hide...if it does, I'd like Zwei's darkness to be runthat way..as I understand it for hiding in CoCo it is cover or nothing.Look through the CoCo rules, and you'll see many references to hiding within concealment. Nothing even implies the rule you suggest. A literal reading would say that you can't hide within darkness targeted on yourself, but you certainly can hide within darkness otherwise. @Zevox: Just want to point something you may have missed on the Pirot vs Sliver fight. The Power Crystal Shard is Metacreativity (Creation).... Which means that the object is created at the point of manifesting in a similar nature to the Bolt power. The Power creates permanent crystal shards and throws them down range. The pixie has 10/cold iron DR which will protect it against the shard even if they hit.Erk. This just doesn't work. I know what the rules say, but this is one point where the RAW and the RAI are clearly different. If this were true, you could indefinitely store acid created with Acid Splash. In fact, the FAQ has this to say: Does damage reduction help against powers that deal slashing, piercing, or bludgeoning damage, such as crystal shard (Expanded Psionics Handbook, page 89)? Spells (and powers), spell-like abilities, and energy attacks ignore damage reduction (DUNGEON MASTER’s Guide, page 292). Thus, even if a spell or power describes its damage as bludgeoning, piercing, or slashing, it is still a spell (or power) effect, and thus damage reduction does not apply (unless the spell or power’s description specifically states otherwise).The problem is, since it's a direct-damage spell, it's clearly instantaneous, and they decided (not illogically)that it would be a Creation power. The result is not what they intended. It's not the only time they've made this mistake--check out Orb of Force in Tome and Blood/Complete Arcane/Spell Compendium. The idea of "conjured force" is ludicrous enough, but the idea that a "real" ball of pure force ends up sitting on the ground after you're done is just laughable. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-21-06, 07:34 PM | @ shadowmaster I started to map the fight and quit at round 2-3. The fight is wrong. You noted movement that was never taken. The movement that you noted puts Selene in LOS with me sooner. It activates different tactics. At the point where she is in range-LOS with me and I have no cover to hide from, it should have gone immediately to shoot out or tanglefoot craziness. Ignoring that and moving to the round wherein she is entangled and manages to base me, assuming your coordinates were correct for that round, she cannot move at half of 45 and base me. I think you may have been allowing diagonal movement past corners for both of us. That is not permitted. You must make full square turns around the columns. This one really should go back to start and be worked over again. Drac has provided us with a really nifty mapping tool that will let you track everything including the moving Area of Effect darkness and lines of travel. It is also worth an extra credit per fight to map them. You can find said tool here. (http://www.hwx.it/coco/index.php?map=arena) This is the map for rounds 5-7 which is where I end up based by an entangled opponent. The green dot indicates where Selene could actually have moved to in that round and still have had an action. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;a=Sele,M,11,22,17,17,13,13; b=Zwei,M,17,15,12,13,6,14;c=Name,M,16,13 ;style=s |
| Book501-21-06, 11:03 PM | Griff vs Valkin is up! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8281987&postcount=62) The less interesting dynamaps have been converted to simple links.. eh.. any questions? |
| MindWandererB01-21-06, 11:13 PM | Griff vs Valkin is up! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8281987&postcount=62) The less interesting dynamaps have been converted to simple links.. eh.. any questions?Yeah, I have a question: why didn't Valkin wake up when he was damaged? Deep Slumber works just like Sleep, and Sleep ends whenever the target is wounded. He should have woken up the moment he fell off the horse (BTW, did you roll for that? He had a 50% chance of staying in the saddle). |
| Luni01-21-06, 11:33 PM | Griff vs Valkin is up! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8281987&postcount=62) The less interesting dynamaps have been converted to simple links.. eh.. any questions? Deep Slumber is a full round action. Also, you should randomize the target, as both Valkin and Overseer have the same HD. Overseer should wake up Valkin when he sleeps (bites for 1 non-lethal if you are picky). I also don't see Fort. Saves for stinking cloud. I also don't see Reflex saves for web. |
| Zevox01-21-06, 11:35 PM | Pirotess vs Sliver Firebug (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8279407&postcount=60) has been rerun. The outcome did indeed change - sorry Cerebus, but it appears you don't get to be the big hero at TAO this week. My apologies to Mitzavolchenko on the badly mistaken first run, and if anyone spots any glaring errors in the rerun by all means say something. With any luck I'll manage to remember this week and not make those mistakes again. Zevox |
| Mal-201-22-06, 12:51 AM | Pirotess vs Sliver Firebug (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8279407&postcount=60) has been rerun. The outcome did indeed change - sorry Cerebus, but it appears you don't get to be the big hero at TAO this week. My apologies to Mitzavolchenko on the badly mistaken first run, and if anyone spots any glaring errors in the rerun by all means say something. With any luck I'll manage to remember this week and not make those mistakes again. I just see one thing. In round 7, when Pirotess' Fly spell is dispelled, she shouldn't take any damage for falling: Should the spell duration expire while the subject is still aloft, the magic fails slowly. The subject floats downward 60 feet per round for 1d6 rounds. If it reaches the ground in that amount of time, it lands safely. If not, it falls the rest of the distance, taking 1d6 points of damage per 10 feet of fall. Since dispelling a spell effectively ends it, the subject also descends in this way if the fly spell is dispelled, but not if it is negated by an antimagic field. I don't think that changes anything else in the fight though. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-22-06, 12:57 AM | Pirotess should get her hail mary rolls for 20 to escape entangle...she might escape before one of my critters (I can drop 3 more) kills her. |
| Zevox01-22-06, 12:57 AM | I just see one thing. In round 7, when Pirotess' Fly spell is dispelled, she shouldn't take any damage for falling: I don't think that changes anything else in the fight though. Hmm... true, I missed that (need to learn to read these descriptions all the way through :rolleyes: ). Actually, it may change things a bit, since Pirotess won't need to spend her movement in round 7 standing up. Bah. If Cerebus or Mitza want me to rerun it for that, I will, but that'll have to wait for tomorrow - I need some sleep. Zevox |
| MitzaVolchenko01-22-06, 12:59 AM | It is up to Cerebus. I actually don't mind a loss as long as it is a loss by the rules. |
| Cerebus1301-22-06, 03:21 AM | Hmm... true, I missed that (need to learn to read these descriptions all the way through :rolleyes: ). Actually, it may change things a bit, since Pirotess won't need to spend her movement in round 7 standing up. Bah. If Cerebus or Mitza want me to rerun it for that, I will, but that'll have to wait for tomorrow - I need some sleep. ZevoxIf you have time I would appreciate a quick edit, even if the result doesn't change. I was planning Pirotess' level up off a win here, so I'll have to change some stuff if she loses. |
| Book501-22-06, 03:39 AM | oh no.. sleep? ok I umm, thought that damage thing was the house rule. Checking the srd... "leeping creatures are helpless. Slapping or wounding awakens an affected creature, but normal noise does not. Awakening a creature is a standard action (an application of the aid another action)." erm arg! Also, I remember rolling the saves .. will look again.. seem to be forgetting the drat! I didnt roll the save for the stinking stinking cloud! Two Times Arg! |
| Iced01-22-06, 04:33 AM | Remember that when nauseated the horse couldn't revive him because you can only take move actions while nauseated and only one per turn. |
| Zevox01-22-06, 10:15 AM | Latest edit is up on Sliver vs Pirotess - both the slow descent from the dispelled flight and the hail mary rolls for the entrapped Pirotess. No change this time, just altered the location of Pirotess' entanglement and the bloodiness of her defeat. Zevox |
| Begferdeth01-22-06, 12:16 PM | Gundir vs Hennan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8291680&postcount=70) is up! That got one-sided in a hurry. |
| Snommelp01-22-06, 01:20 PM | Gundir vs Hennan (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8291680&postcount=70) is up! That got one-sided in a hurry. Yes it did, and here's why: in round 5, Hennan should not have moved into sight if he could not attack. Note that in my tactics it says that Hennan will hide until Gundir is close enough to engage. This change will still have Hennan entangled in round 6, probably, but he will also be able to try to escape without being attacked. Also, if Hennan still gets attacked he should be using that wand of CLW when he gets knocked below 10 HP. I know that the tactics said this during the "while in the grapple" part, but I also said that if things went not according to plan, you should still use the wand. |
| SauroGrenom01-22-06, 03:48 PM | Zassl vs Kraegin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8284319&postcount=67) is up. I've reviewed it a couple times, and although there is still a minor error here and there, nothing that will change the fight. I realize that Kraegin should have used a CDG to kill Zassl in the 12th round, but for some reason I forgot all about the CDG option. None the less Kraegin won without using any expendibles, so I hope Tellin won't ask for any further edits. Maraxus you got very unlucky with the save vs Hold peson in round 11. Sorry, stuff happens. |
| Cerebus1301-22-06, 05:30 PM | Trixie vs. Anakala (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8293863&postcount=72) is up. Let me know if there are any problems. |
| Luni01-22-06, 05:44 PM | Zassl vs Kraegin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8284319&postcount=67) is up. I've reviewed it a couple times, and although there is still a minor error here and there, nothing that will change the fight. I realize that Kraegin should have used a CDG to kill Zassl in the 12th round, but for some reason I forgot all about the CDG option. None the less Kraegin won without using any expendibles, so I hope Tellin won't ask for any further edits. Maraxus you got very unlucky with the save vs Hold peson in round 11. Sorry, stuff happens. Doesn't change anything, but Kraegin's Rod of Lesser Extend can't be used for level 4 spells. Lesser and Greater Metamagic Rods Normal metamagic rods can be used with spells of 6th level or lower. Lesser rods can be used with spells of 3rd level or lower, while greater rods can be used with spells of 9th level or lower. And I'd say the familiar could use Kraegin for cover since he was in Kraegins square. |
| Maraxus01-22-06, 05:56 PM | Zassl vs Kraegin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8284319&postcount=67) is up. I've reviewed it a couple times, and although there is still a minor error here and there, nothing that will change the fight. I realize that Kraegin should have used a CDG to kill Zassl in the 12th round, but for some reason I forgot all about the CDG option. None the less Kraegin won without using any expendibles, so I hope Tellin won't ask for any further edits. Maraxus you got very unlucky with the save vs Hold peson in round 11. Sorry, stuff happens. The two saves. :) However, there are other points... Minor point: how does Kraigin's CDG deal 2d8+8? It should be 2d8-2 the +10 only comes on the save DC. ... However, I don't plan to have it come to that. Won't change anything. Minor point 2: my familiar shares my spells, including prot: evil (whether it shares false life - and if, what that means - is open to discussion). Won't change anything. Major point: One can cast a touch-range spell like shocking grasp and deliver it in the same turn (with the same standart action that is used to cast the spell). So my first shocking grasp comes in turn 8, then another one in 9 and 10, and in turn 11 I will be held and next turn killed by a CDG. And about Sanctuary: I'm quite sure it only causes one save: Any opponent attempting to strike or otherwise directly attack the warded creature, even with a targeted spell, must attempt a Will save. If the save succeeds, the opponent can attack normally and is unaffected by that casting of the spell. Okay, let's finish this. :) |
| SauroGrenom01-22-06, 06:39 PM | The two saves. :) However, there are other points... Minor point: how does Kraigin's CDG deal 2d8+8? It should be 2d8-2 the +10 only comes on the save DC. ... However, I don't plan to have it come to that. Won't change anything. Minor point 2: my familiar shares my spells, including prot: evil (whether it shares false life - and if, what that means - is open to discussion). Won't change anything. Major point: One can cast a touch-range spell like shocking grasp and deliver it in the same turn (with the same standart action that is used to cast the spell). So my first shocking grasp comes in turn 8, then another one in 9 and 10, and in turn 11 I will be held and next turn killed by a CDG. And about Sanctuary: I'm quite sure it only causes one save: Okay, let's finish this. :) Minor point 1 is correct. Sorry for that. Minor point 2 is not correct. You cannot share spells that are cast from magical items and a scroll counts as a magical item. It was covered in the "ask an elder" and the prison as well. Also you never mentioned in your tactics that you wanted any spells to be shared with the familiar. So no dice. Sorry for that, but it's something that I've been biten by in the past and its a specific that will probably have no bearing on the fight. Major point 1 is something new to me. My caster never gets into melee and always uses a familiar to deliver these attacks. I'll change that. As far as I could tell, in the fight the sanctuary has one save for each opponent that tries to attack Kraegin. |
| Maraxus01-22-06, 06:45 PM | As far as I could tell, in the fight the sanctuary has one save for each opponent that tries to attack Kraegin. Okay, I just wanted to make sure, it is not one save per attack. :) I missinterpreted " I need to add in a few saves" Edit: About Point 2: Whoops, I have to add this? I think stating such obvious stuff would only distract from the important parts of my tactic. ;) But okay. About the scroll-stuff: Ah, right, too, I remember to have seen this discussion. I disagree with that interpretation but I agree, that one could also interpret it your way. As said: Does not change anything. Edit2: About the touch spells: It's just like attacks made with rays or arrows - just at touch range. Or just to add another quote: Touch Spells and Holding the Charge In most cases, if you don’t discharge a touch spell on the round you cast it, you can hold the charge |
| SauroGrenom01-22-06, 07:18 PM | Changes made. With these changes it looks like Zassl wins now. |
| TelinArtho01-22-06, 08:05 PM | Zassl vs Kraegin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8284319&postcount=67) is up. I've reviewed it a couple times, and although there is still a minor error here and there, nothing that will change the fight. I realize that Kraegin should have used a CDG to kill Zassl in the 12th round, but for some reason I forgot all about the CDG option. None the less Kraegin won without using any expendibles, so I hope Tellin won't ask for any further edits. Maraxus you got very unlucky with the save vs Hold peson in round 11. Sorry, stuff happens. Well, there's some fundamental problems with the actions I have taken in the fight. First off, you had me ready to cast Unholy Blight on hearing an opponent. While this is reasonable if all I wanted was to get a single opponent - what I wanted was to get at least one and include one specific one. If the opponent is invisible - unless they are casting or announcing - "Hey I'm Zassl" - I can't know that. In other words, I think that the ready action is against my tactics. Readying to cast Unholy Blight on sight or sound of casting from Zassl would have been valid, but not on sound of movement. If Zassl has just Buba with him and they are in sight and within range of his unholy blight (180ft), cast it on them (20ft radius). If I can only hit one of them with it, don't cast it yet and instead cast hold person on Buba. In round 8, you charge me 5 spell levels for casting Summon Monster IV with my rod. It should only be 4 spell levels. This leaves me with 2 spell levels - not 1. Lastly, you had me cast Sanctuary in the end and that was not in my cards when faced by just Zassl: For Zassl, I want to cast Doom until it works and then Hold Person until it works - recalling the spells as needed. If I cast Unholy Blight and Zassl is sickened from it - forego the doom and cast Hold Person right away. If I am forced into melee with Buba or one of Zassl's other companions, cast Sanctuary from memory in order to get a summoned monster out. If my centipedes fall and there are still other opponents out preventing me from getting to Zassl, cast Sanctuary to get past them and start using summoned monsters as needed. I would appreciate it if these points can be taken into account. |
| TelinArtho01-22-06, 08:29 PM | Griff vs Valkin is up! (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8281987&postcount=62) The less interesting dynamaps have been converted to simple links.. eh.. any questions? Well, as usual there's an issue with the fight Book. All of the above comments by other posters have been noted - but also take into account this: Since Sir Valkin activated the see invisibility of his Hand of Glory - in round 2 at some point during my move - I gain LOS to Griff - since he is not within 5ft of any cover. If I somehow managed to miss the areas that gave me LOS in that round - I definitely have LOS in round 3. If you are going to argue that I wasn't looking in that direction - bear in mind that I knew he'd be flying... |
| Macbrea01-22-06, 09:42 PM | Santos vs Ch'ch'ili (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8291219) came down to a fortitude save in round 5. |
| Skojar01-22-06, 10:33 PM | Manzarf (Abyssal Stalker) vs Ural of Promethia (TelinArtho) (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8279275&postcount=58) is done. 98.75% of the arrows brought into the arena were shot. |
| Begferdeth01-22-06, 11:01 PM | Gah!!!! He rolled a DOUBLE 20 vs my stun?!?! Dammit! I mean... DAMMIT! Of all the luck. Did you put that into the invis castle right? :( Santos vs Ch'ch'ili (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8291219) came down to a fortitude save in round 5. |
| SauroGrenom01-22-06, 11:02 PM | Zassl vs Kraegin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8284319&postcount=67) revised. Telin, after your comments I went over your tactics will a lawyers eye for precise details that trigger each contingency. I am absolutely certian that I have followed your tactics as written. I only wish that I had done so the first time around. Then I wouldn't have had to write an additional 9 rounds of combat. |
| Snommelp01-22-06, 11:04 PM | Seeing as it's been a while since you were on and since I posted this, begferdeth, I'm quoting what I posted earlier.Yes it did, and here's why: in round 5, Hennan should not have moved into sight if he could not attack. Note that in my tactics it says that Hennan will hide until Gundir is close enough to engage. This change will still have Hennan entangled in round 6, probably, but he will also be able to try to escape without being attacked. Also, if Hennan still gets attacked he should be using that wand of CLW when he gets knocked below 10 HP. I know that the tactics said this during the "while in the grapple" part, but I also said that if things went not according to plan, you should still use the wand. |
| Begferdeth01-22-06, 11:06 PM | Well... if I waited, you were still entangled, he still knew where you were, and you still got bolted to death. The only difference would be that Idrai wouldnt have attacked, saving you all of 4 damage. You could have used your CLW wand, which would have let you live for another bolt, maybe 2. Which he had. I had you run out because it seemed pretty stupid to me to hang out in the middle of an entangle spell. Yes it did, and here's why: in round 5, Hennan should not have moved into sight if he could not attack. Note that in my tactics it says that Hennan will hide until Gundir is close enough to engage. This change will still have Hennan entangled in round 6, probably, but he will also be able to try to escape without being attacked. Also, if Hennan still gets attacked he should be using that wand of CLW when he gets knocked below 10 HP. I know that the tactics said this during the "while in the grapple" part, but I also said that if things went not according to plan, you should still use the wand. |
| TelinArtho01-22-06, 11:09 PM | Well, there is a bit of an issue with the fight. The drow poison entry in the SRD: Abilities and Conditions section is incomplete. If you look under the monster entry for Elf (Drow) - you'll find the poison info: Poison (Ex): An opponent hit by a drow’s poisoned weapon must succeed on a DC 13 Fortitude save or fall unconscious. After 1 minute, the subject must succeed on another DC 13 Fortitude save or remain unconscious for 2d4 hours. A typical drow carries 1d4–1 doses of drow knockout poison. Drow typically coat arrows and crossbow bolts with this poison, but it can also be applied to a melee weapon. Note that drow have no special ability to apply poison without risking being poisoned themselves. Since this poison is not a magical effect, drow and other elves are susceptible to it. So after 1 minute, the horse should have taken another fortitude save to either wake up or stay asleep for 2d4 hours. Also, not that it matters since I hit regardless, but on a charge - why would I deliberately charge him behind cover? He's out of ranged attacks - so setting up for a charge negating that cover makes much more sense. Lastly, I don't see a link to a roller. The reason I want one is because of the starting locations - since Manzarf doesn't specify which L shaped block he wants to start in. If he starts in the opposite one - I get an auto-spot and a ride check to stop the arrow hit - plus I'd charge in the first round. If you picked arbitrarily - given how critical that decision is - I'd request a roll on that account. If you did roll it, but not indicate it - then that's fine. |
| Macbrea01-22-06, 11:12 PM | Gah!!!! He rolled a DOUBLE 20 vs my stun?!?! Dammit! I mean... DAMMIT! Of all the luck. Did you put that into the invis castle right? :( All rolls are linked to the invisible castle site. It was just random luck.. and evil die roller. Rolls (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?u=ChSan0122&limit=on) |
| Snommelp01-22-06, 11:14 PM | Well... if I waited, you were still entangled, he still knew where you were, and you still got bolted to death. The only difference would be that Idrai wouldnt have attacked, saving you all of 4 damage. You could have used your CLW wand, which would have let you live for another bolt, maybe 2. Which he had. I had you run out because it seemed pretty stupid to me to hang out in the middle of an entangle spell. True, it would be stupid to stay in an Entangle spell. It's also fairly stupid for Hennan to leave cover if he can neither attack nor escape the Entangle area. When faced with two options that seem pretty stupid, I'd think that you would choose the one that fit with the tactics better. But if you insist on improvising, why couldn't you have improvised in a ranged attack or something when Hennan got stuck? Neither using the wand nor attacking but instead choosing to spend full round actions trying to break free seems like a poor choice, given all of the options. |
| TelinArtho01-22-06, 11:18 PM | @Skojar - also - I don't see the 5% chance for Manzarf to poison himself while applying the poison. And I think I noticed the rewards do not take into account the 12.5% penalty Ural gets for bringing in Lady Esmelda. (Also the bonus for Manzarf). |
| TelinArtho01-22-06, 11:27 PM | Zassl vs Kraegin (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8284319&postcount=67) revised. Telin, after your comments I went over your tactics will a lawyers eye for precise details that trigger each contingency. I am absolutely certian that I have followed your tactics as written. I only wish that I had done so the first time around. Then I wouldn't have had to write an additional 9 rounds of combat. While I disagree that Unholy Blight shouldn't have been used - I agree that it is my wording in this case that is at fault. I am fine with the fight as is. Also as to the form of my character sheet - while it might be a slightly older version of the SI - it likely won't be changing - since in order to do so I would need to change the style for all of my character sheets. I haven't yet heard a complaint about it (other than the one you just posted) and it happens to be the format that I use. Unless the SI becomes a hard-rule - I'll probably leave it as is. |
| Begferdeth01-22-06, 11:33 PM | Ok... want me to rerun it? You can try to hit his dog, or blow a couple charges on your wand. Making ranged attacks against Gundir... well, with the -4 dex and -2 attack for being entangled, you have a pretty sad chance to hit him. Plus he has 41 HP to get through with only 1d6+1 damage. All while hes gleefully lightning bolting you and lighting you on fire. You can stay in the cover too, until he walks around the wall next round to take advantage of his entangle spell. That way you are dead set in the middle of the entangle when you get caught. If you manage to break out, you have to go 2 rounds of moving to escape it. Plenty of time for him to heal up, or burn you, or whatever. Honestly, once you got stuck, there wasnt much you could do. Like you said, if your tactics didnt work, you had a horrible chance. True, it would be stupid to stay in an Entangle spell. It's also fairly stupid for Hennan to leave cover if he can neither attack nor escape the Entangle area. When faced with two options that seem pretty stupid, I'd think that you would choose the one that fit with the tactics better. But if you insist on improvising, why couldn't you have improvised in a ranged attack or something when Hennan got stuck? Neither using the wand nor attacking but instead choosing to spend full round actions trying to break free seems like a poor choice, given all of the options. |
| Snommelp01-23-06, 12:19 AM | Ok... want me to rerun it? You can try to hit his dog, or blow a couple charges on your wand. Making ranged attacks against Gundir... well, with the -4 dex and -2 attack for being entangled, you have a pretty sad chance to hit him. Plus he has 41 HP to get through with only 1d6+1 damage. All while hes gleefully lightning bolting you and lighting you on fire. You can stay in the cover too, until he walks around the wall next round to take advantage of his entangle spell. That way you are dead set in the middle of the entangle when you get caught. If you manage to break out, you have to go 2 rounds of moving to escape it. Plenty of time for him to heal up, or burn you, or whatever. Honestly, once you got stuck, there wasnt much you could do. Like you said, if your tactics didnt work, you had a horrible chance. Yes, Begferdeth, I agree that Hennan has horrible odds. However, any tactic is better than standing stock still while getting attacked. Heck, Hennan could have grappled the dog and forced Gundir to fry his own puppy; Hennan would still have lost, but I would at least feel that he had tried. Right now, he gets entangled and gives up. My characters never give up. It's a recurring theme. |
| Ariel2301-23-06, 01:30 AM | Trixie vs. Anakala (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8293863&postcount=72) is up. Let me know if there are any problems. Thanks. It looks okay to me, but I don't usually pore over a win...I usually faint. Sorry my tactics were confusing, I probably edited one part and didn't fix it throughout. |
| Skojar01-23-06, 01:35 AM | @Telinartho: many good points. I roll manually (d4for starting block of first player, d3 for starting block of 2nd player, d2 for which side when not specified...but since it's manually I have nothing but my say to back up the fairness. Maybe I'll look into figuring out how the linked rollers work for my next fight. I totally forgot about poisoning himself. Good call. That would have changed things a lot. Thanks for pointing me to the info on Drow poison. I just went to the DMG...where it doesn't say. If the horse revives (there's a good chance) then he has to dismount you to do all that tripping. I didn't bother setting up to avoid cover because since he has a higher speed and specifically asked to keep in cover, any attempt on Ural's part would have probably been delaying the inevitable...or considered delaying tactics on his part. I'll have to think about that more but with the horse Fort save issue it will probably not be an issue. Finally, oops on the rewards. I assumed she was a class mount. I'll work on changes after work Monday. @Abyssal: If you see anything or disagree, please point them out so I can do everything at once. |
| Snommelp01-23-06, 01:54 AM | Ulfgar vs. Eiletha is up. I had to make a judgement call on an unclear rule, because I got conflicting answers when I asked in the Ask An Elder thread. I chose to side with the TAO guildmaster, but concrete evidence proving my choice incorrect will cause a rerun from the offending round. |
| Ariel2301-23-06, 02:08 AM | @AbyssalStalker @NiQil Jonathon Raven vs. Death is up! http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8297285&postcount=74 I would say that the dice decided the fight but with over 125 rolls, it's statistically unlikely. Abyssal Stalker got better d20 rolls and worse damage/healing rolls. Death had the opposite: JonR, 19 d20 rolls, average 11.42 [10 d8s, average 3.78] Horse, 55 rolls, average 10.72 [11 d4s, average 1.90] Death, 12 rolls, average 9.08 [11 d8s, average 5.09] Please make sure you PM if you post concerns in the FotW thread (and want a reply) as I don't always check it. |
| NiQil01-23-06, 03:05 AM | @AbyssalStalker @NiQil Jonathon Raven vs. Death is up! http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8297285&postcount=74 I would say that the dice decided the fight but with over 125 rolls, it's statistically unlikely. Abyssal Stalker got better d20 rolls and worse damage/healing rolls. Death had the opposite: JonR, 19 d20 rolls, average 11.42 [10 d8s, average 3.78] Horse, 55 rolls, average 10.72 [11 d4s, average 1.90] Death, 12 rolls, average 9.08 [11 d8s, average 5.09] Please make sure you PM if you post concerns in the FotW thread (and want a reply) as I don't always check it. Some issues...one of which you already touched on in your fight comments. 1) In round 1, Jonathon unhooks his shield. This would be the same as dropping it, since it is a free action, meaning he would need to dismount to retrieve it, or make an action to stow it. This is going to change the order of things from here going forward. He would have to dismount, pick it up, remount, and then reattach. That is a couple of rounds of actions, at the very least. Or, if he uses an action to stow it, then he would not be able to buff in that round, and that will also change the order of things from here on out. Edit: After doing some looking, removing a shield is actually a move action. Letting it fall is free, or stowing it would then be another move action. The points above are still an issue, this just adds to the problem. Rounds 1 and 2 are missing several actions because of the shield issue. If those actions are performed before buffing, that may change the early rounds, and if done along with buffing, that means melee is engaged nowhere near as fast as it was, which gives Death more bow shots before Jonathon and Misery close. 2) In round 8, Jonathon casts Command (standard), draws his longsword (move), drops his lance (free), and then orders his mount to command. Per the Handle Animal Skill, this requires a check (which is auto due to his high modifier), but takes a move action to perform. Too many actions in this round. Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move action 3) In round 14, you list Death as basing Jonathon and Misery after a move. In round 15, Jonathon draws a potion while still based, which should provoke an AoO, as Misery did not 5 ft step until after he had attacked Death that round. Also, since he sheathed a sword (move), drew a potion (standard) and commanded Misery to attack (which, again, requires a move action), there are too many actions in this round for Jonathon. 4) In round 16, Jonathon drinking a potion also provokes an AoO, as does drawing another potion (however Death only receives 1 AoO) since he is once again based while doing this. 5) In round 17, Jonathon also provokes an AoO for drinking a potion while based. Once all of these factors are corrected, I have a feeling the result may change. However, I would also like the fight run with no deviation from my melee tactics. I have no problem burning up all 50 charges in the wand (ask Kaigan about his 125 round monstrosity that I was involved in several weeks back LOL). So, after the above issues are corrected, if the fight has not already been decided, then picking up in round 23 where you began the deviation, I would ask that you continue to run the fight using the tactics I submitted. Per your request, this post was also sent via PM. |
| DTFarstar01-23-06, 05:00 AM | I'm assuming no matter how low(above 1) someone's con gets their total HP(not current) cannot be reduced to below their HD?(Therefore guaranteeing them 1 HP per level?) |
| DTFarstar01-23-06, 05:53 AM | Gaston vs. Solomon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8297997&postcount=75) is up. It was long and it sucked to decide on. Solomon lost because of REALLY crappy luck with the rolls. I didn't use delay rule for a specific reason, that it was directly cause one to lose with the delay punishment and that even with the running it was a pretty even fight, just alot of bad rolls for the constructs so no tripping happened. I really hope this fight can just be considered "Good Enough".... please. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-23-06, 07:16 AM | Gaston vs. Solomon (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8297997&postcount=75) is up. It was long and it sucked to decide on. Solomon lost because of REALLY crappy luck with the rolls. I didn't use delay rule for a specific reason, that it was directly cause one to lose with the delay punishment and that even with the running it was a pretty even fight, just alot of bad rolls for the constructs so no tripping happened. I really hope this fight can just be considered "Good Enough".... please. Rough fight. I agree that the delay rules need clarification. Technically, gaston shoul dahve had to go looking for Solomon, however as soon as the constructs are visible, he should ahve the right to flee them as fleeing them is not exaclty the same thing as refsuing to engage Solomon. However, it is in essence dodging all attacks without doing anything actively. the spirit of those tactics is sound, but not really in the spirit of the delay of game rules. I am sure you're going to get a huge debate from that fight, but I respect you just for running it. Both strategies were valid as far as I am concerned, and both could have been hit with delay, but what would you have done to Gaston for delaying? He is just running away...not hiding, not refusing to be in a position where he could theoretically be engaged. Solomon is engaging by sending minions, but unfortunately his minions are not quick enough...a better trick for him would have been to summon and then set up an ambush...possibly place one construct and then double move under invis to the opposite side of Gaston and drop a second. It does waste a round or two of one construct, but given that the arena is round, as long as he established himself toward center he might have created a triagulated effect where his constructs could corner Gaston. Good effort either way. That was a hideous fight to have to deal with. |
| Pittbull01-23-06, 08:30 AM | The fight Dameon vs Grik (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8292249&postcount=71) is up. It was decided by a very lucky roll. Please let me know, if there are mistakes. |
| waywreth01-23-06, 08:53 AM | I really hope this fight can just be considered "Good Enough".... please. I apologize for making you run that. I promise to have touchsight so I can see invisible creatures when I am allowed to buy it (next level). Thanks for Pitlording. |
| Sunwolf01-23-06, 09:28 AM | I'm assuming no matter how low(above 1) someone's con gets their total HP(not current) cannot be reduced to below their HD?(Therefore guaranteeing them 1 HP per level?) Correct. Everyone gets at least 1hp per level no matter how low their con is (above 0 that is). |
| Snommelp01-23-06, 10:38 AM | The fight Dameon vs Grik (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8292249&postcount=71) is up. It was decided by a very lucky roll. Please let me know, if there are mistakes. I'm not sure, but I think the tanglefoot bag goop should break off one round sooner than it did. That doesn't change the fight, though. EDIT: I don't say this enough, but thank you to all of my pitlords. This board would be very hard to pull off without y'all. |
| Abyssal Stalker01-23-06, 11:05 AM | Some issues...one of which you already touched on in your fight comments. 1) In round 1, Jonathon unhooks his shield. This would be the same as dropping it, since it is a free action, meaning he would need to dismount to retrieve it, or make an action to stow it. This is going to change the order of things from here going forward. He would have to dismount, pick it up, remount, and then reattach. That is a couple of rounds of actions, at the very least. Or, if he uses an action to stow it, then he would not be able to buff in that round, and that will also change the order of things from here on out. Edit: After doing some looking, removing a shield is actually a move action. Letting it fall is free, or stowing it would then be another move action. The points above are still an issue, this just adds to the problem. Rounds 1 and 2 are missing several actions because of the shield issue. If those actions are performed before buffing, that may change the early rounds, and if done along with buffing, that means melee is engaged nowhere near as fast as it was, which gives Death more bow shots before Jonathon and Misery close. 2) In round 8, Jonathon casts Command (standard), draws his longsword (move), drops his lance (free), and then orders his mount to command. Per the Handle Animal Skill, this requires a check (which is auto due to his high modifier), but takes a move action to perform. Too many actions in this round. 3) In round 14, you list Death as basing Jonathon and Misery after a move. In round 15, Jonathon draws a potion while still based, which should provoke an AoO, as Misery did not 5 ft step until after he had attacked Death that round. Also, since he sheathed a sword (move), drew a potion (standard) and commanded Misery to attack (which, again, requires a move action), there are too many actions in this round for Jonathon. 4) In round 16, Jonathon drinking a potion also provokes an AoO, as does drawing another potion (however Death only receives 1 AoO) since he is once again based while doing this. 5) In round 17, Jonathon also provokes an AoO for drinking a potion while based. Once all of these factors are corrected, I have a feeling the result may change. However, I would also like the fight run with no deviation from my melee tactics. I have no problem burning up all 50 charges in the wand (ask Kaigan about his 125 round monstrosity that I was involved in several weeks back LOL). So, after the above issues are corrected, if the fight has not already been decided, then picking up in round 23 where you began the deviation, I would ask that you continue to run the fight using the tactics I submitted. Per your request, this post was also sent via PM. 1) Where is it stated that using a scroll requires both hands to use? I can't find it. I have thought that it requires only one hand (=holding the scroll) and reading it. In that case the shield should be ready to use in my hand. 2) The Ride skill states that fighting with a warhorse is a free action. As Death is the apparent opponent, I don't see why Misery wouldn't attack him? 3,4&5) Stepping to prevent an AoO when drinking a healing potion should be an automatic thing to do even though I haven't written it in my tactics. It's just something that everybody does. That AoO might kill you and nobody wants that to happen. |
| SoulLord01-23-06, 11:13 AM | 1) Where is it stated that using a scroll requires both hands to use? I can't find it. I have thought that it requires only one hand (=holding the scroll) and reading it. In that case the shield should be ready to use in my hand. 2) The Ride skill states that fighting with a warhorse is a free action. As Death is the apparent opponent, I don't see why Misery wouldn't attack him? 3,4&5) Stepping to prevent an AoO when drinking a healing potion should be an automatic thing to do even though I haven't written it in my tactics. It's just something that everybody does. That AoO might kill you and nobody wants that to happen. in reference to point #1 1 hand to hold the scroll 1 hand to make the somatic part of the scroll * * unless it's a still spell |
| MindWandererB01-23-06, 11:29 AM | 1) Where is it stated that using a scroll requires both hands to use? I can't find it. I have thought that it requires only one hand (=holding the scroll) and reading it. In that case the shield should be ready to use in my hand. 2) The Ride skill states that fighting with a warhorse is a free action. As Death is the apparent opponent, I don't see why Misery wouldn't attack him? 3,4&5) Stepping to prevent an AoO when drinking a healing potion should be an automatic thing to do even though I haven't written it in my tactics. It's just something that everybody does. That AoO might kill you and nobody wants that to happen.1) Under "spell completion" items in the DMG, you'll see that using scrolls requires a verbal and somatic componenent (if the original spell had them). Thus, you have to have one hand free, which precludes the use of heavy shields and tower shields (but light shields and bucklers are okay). 2) This use of the Ride skill is called "Fight with Warhorse," not "get warhorse to fight with you." You need a Handle Animal check to command it to fight, and then a Ride check to be able to attack as well. However, the command to attack could have been given earlier. 3) Unfortunately, some pitlords play PCs as idiotic robots that follow tactics to the letter. My last fight had the same problem--for some bizarre reason, the pitlord had Aerryl fire an arrow and provoke an AoO, which resulted in a crit and her immediate demise. Of course, other pitlords improvise way out of written tactics as well. I really think some sort of standardization should be used as far as "no-brainer" tactics, but right now there isn't. |
| Ariel2301-23-06, 12:10 PM | @mindwandererB It would be nice if we had a list of "no-brainer" tactics (casting defensively, withdrawing instead of running, 5' steps to drink potions, etc). Of course, there would still be disagreement, but then at least we would have something in print to point at. If the list got big enough, we could run these fights via computer and eliminate the pitlord except to write flavor text, audit sheets, and input all the data. The fact that that would likely be impossible to achieve demonstrates that the pitlords need some discretionary power, otherwise they would not be needed. @Niqil @Abyssal Stalker 1) Edit: After doing some looking, removing a shield is actually a move action. Letting it fall is free, or stowing it would then be another move action. Since he was sitting, I had him place the shield in his lap. If Misery had taken a move, he would have had to grab it and cancel his spells. I could have very easily and legitimately PM'd AbyssalStalker, saying, "You say start with your hands full, yet you want to cast a spell. Can you please rethink this?" Instead, I tried to handle it in the most expedient way on my end. I doubt that defeating opponents via shield storage issues is part of your build for Death. At least, I hope it's not. 2) In round 8, Jonathon casts Command (standard), draws his longsword (move), drops his lance (free), and then orders his mount to command. Per the Handle Animal Skill, this requires a check (which is auto due to his high modifier), but takes a move action to perform. Too many actions in this round. Handle Animal skill Action: Varies. Handling an animal is a move actionRide Skill Varies. Mounting or dismounting normally is a move action. Other checks are a move action, a free action, or no action at all, as noted above [in the skill description]. Almost all of the "Ride" entries state: "This usage does not take an action" or "free action."Fight with Warhorse If you direct your war-trained mount to attack in battle, you can still make your own attack or attacks normally. This usage is a free action. 3) In round 15, Jonathon draws a potion while still based, which should provoke an AoO, as Misery did not 5 ft step until after he had attacked Death that round. Drawing a potion does not provoke an AoO...drinking a potion does. I'm not sure that the rules say Jonathon can't act after his mount. I coudn't find that. Also, in a pinch, Jonathon can take a move action, then ready to take his standard action after the horse moves 5'.4) In round 16, Jonathon drinking a potion also provokes an AoO, as does drawing another potion (however Death only receives 1 AoO) since he is once again based while doing this.See above 5) In round 17, Jonathon also provokes an AoO for drinking a potion while based.The reason I didn't do this here is simply laziness. I thought it would be obvious (hopefully) that Jonathon had an extra action with which to draw his sword and that he would delay to drink his potion until out of base-contact. Round 17: {SA} Jonathon readies an action to drink his potion once Misery has moved 5'. [Misery moves and Jonathon takes his ready action] Round 18: {MA} Jonathon draws his sword and {SA} attacks. However, I would also like the fight run with no deviation from my melee tactics. I disagree that I deviated (except about putting the ax in both hands, that was definitely a deviation which will be corrected). Once he gets to melee range, change to the waraxe and cure wand in my primary and off hands, respectively, and go to melee... If I ever fall to half my hp or fewer, use the healing wand.Does the phrase "If I ever" mean "Heal each and every time my current HP total = 16 or less" or does it mean, "At the time my HP drop to below 16, use the wand?" What does "go to melee" mean? To me, that means attack with your ax, which is what I did. Whether "heal"ing is a deviation of "going to melee", or vice versa, I don't know. I healed 11 times and attacked 4. According to you, it should have been 14 heals and one attack. Do you know how many players, upon seeing a loss, would go crazy if a 26 round (melee) fight had their melee dwarf attacking once? Once all of these factors are corrected, I have a feeling the result may change. Once I go back and add in multiple rounds of healing and wand charges, due to thematic rolling, the next 3 attack rolls Death makes will still be 2 misses and 1 hit for 6. Like I already said, I don't mind doing that. |
| Begferdeth01-23-06, 12:11 PM | Grapple the dog?!? Please explain how I would ever have thought that one up. Hennan DID NOT give up. He tried to escape the entangle, which is the ONLY way he could have won that fight IMHO. If you can come up with some way he could POSSIBLY win from inside the entangle spell, let me know. Grapple the dog? The dog is better at grappling! Plus I doubt Gundir would stop shooting you because the dog is in the way. Ranged attacks? You have a +2 attack vs his 18 AC, do pretty low damage, and are getting blasted every round for 3d6 damage. Attrition is not your friend there. Use the wand? Ok, blow some charges, lose anyways. Stay in cover? Well, now you are in the middle of the entangle, with the same problems as before. Except now you have no chance to make it out at all. But hey, he has to use a round to walk around to where he can destroy you. I know you dont want to lose, but hey, you got caught. Its what druids are good at. You didnt even write a contingency for the entangle into your tactics. Your only contigency was to summon a dog if his dog got annoying. Want me to do that too? Spend a full round in the hopes that you can make an (untrained) concentration check against all the damage you will take that round? Yes, Begferdeth, I agree that Hennan has horrible odds. However, any tactic is better than standing stock still while getting attacked. Heck, Hennan could have grappled the dog and forced Gundir to fry his own puppy; Hennan would still have lost, but I would at least feel that he had tried. Right now, he gets entangled and gives up. My characters never give up. It's a recurring theme. |
| NiQil01-23-06, 12:16 PM | 1) Where is it stated that using a scroll requires both hands to use? I can't find it. I have thought that it requires only one hand (=holding the scroll) and reading it. In that case the shield should be ready to use in my hand. 2) The Ride skill states that fighting with a warhorse is a free action. As Death is the apparent opponent, I don't see why Misery wouldn't attack him? 3,4&5) Stepping to prevent an AoO when drinking a healing potion should be an automatic thing to do even though I haven't written it in my tactics. It's just something that everybody does. That AoO might kill you and nobody wants that to happen. I wanted to address 3, 4 & 5 specifically here. You are correct in that a 5 ft step is something that should be an automatic for all players if it is allowed by the given conditions. However, in the fight, if you take a look at the rounds in question, each round you provoked, your horse attacked. Since the horse has no reach, it cannot 5 ft step until after it's attacks. Since your actions were listed before it's in initiative (or run on the same initiative count, if you prefer), you would still provoke. So either you can change the order of the actions, which takes away all of those horse attacks due to it 5 ft stepping away for you to heal, or you can keep the order of the actions as is and suffer the AoO. Pitlord ruling will decide that, however, since it was already done with the 5 ft steps after the attacks, I feel that the order should be kept, and the AoO performed. Points 1 and 2 have already been addressed by others as to why they have merit and need correcting. |
| Warclone01-23-06, 12:28 PM | @DTFarstar & others regarding Solomon (Warclone) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth): DTFarstar I'm sorry, large portions of this fight are going to have to be pretty much rerun. First, Gaston is not allowed to do nothing except flee for that long, and is in extreme violation of the 10 round limit, which will need to be accounted for and will completely change the fight. Whatever subjective aversions to enforcing the rules you may have (re: your post saying enforcing the rule would cause my opponent to lose), the rules are the rules and I wrote my tactics expecting them to be followed. Second, in my tactics I explicitly state make sure my constructs get an attack every round of their life. Then, you have me summoning a construct into the wild blue yonder that will never get a single attack, burning my power points away into nothingness.-Con5 materializes and double moves to close. Additionally and subjectively but importantly, there are multiple circumstances in which you could have had me summon according to the way I asked you to play my character which you did not do. I could have summoned them above him so that he cannot withdraw, I could have summoned them so that they are on the opposite side of me from him so he must withdraw towards me or waste movement going around in a large circle. I cannot account for every possible tactic that could ever be run, but I included very specific and adequate stipulations that cover a circumstance like what happened in the fight, and for the most part they were ignored. Please get back to me regarding the above as soon as possible. |
| NiQil01-23-06, 12:30 PM | @mindwandererB It would be nice if we had a list of "no-brainer" tactics (casting defensively, withdrawing instead of running, 5' steps to drink potions, etc). Of course, there would still be disagreement, but then at least we would have something in print to point at. If the list got big enough, we could run these fights via computer and eliminate the pitlord except to write flavor text, audit sheets, and input all the data. The fact that that would likely be impossible to achieve demonstrates that the pitlords need some discretionary power, otherwise they would not be needed. @Niqil @Abyssal Stalker Since he was sitting, I had him place the shield in his lap. If Misery had taken a move, he would have had to grab it and cancel his spells. But you didn't, and these actions still have to be performed. Placing the shield also takes a move action...falls into the category of stowing. @I could have very easily and legitimately PM'd AbyssalStalker, saying, "You say start with your hands full, yet you want to cast a spell. Can you please rethink this?" Instead, I tried to handle it in the most expedient way on my end. I doubt that defeating opponents via shield storage issues is part of your build for Death. At least, I hope it's not. Regardless, you still have to account for the actions. There are too many actions there. @Almost all of the "Ride" entries state: "This usage does not take an action" or "free action." These are not Ride skill actions. Controlling an animal with a trick is a Handle Animal skill action, and the Handle animal skill very specifically states that it requires a move action to do so, as I quoted. @Drawing a potion does not provoke an AoO...drinking a potion does. Incorrect. Drawing a potion falls into the Retrieving an item category and provokes an AoO, as per the table Actions in Combat in the SRD. Table: Actions in Combat Standard Action Attack of Opportunity1 Attack (melee) No Attack (ranged) Yes Attack (unarmed) Yes Activate a magic item other than a potion or oil No Aid another Maybe2 Bull rush Yes Cast a spell (1 standard action casting time) Yes Concentrate to maintain an active spell No Dismiss a spell No Draw a hidden weapon (see Sleight of Hand skill) No Drink a potion or apply an oil Yes Escape a grapple No Feint No Light a torch with a tindertwig Yes Lower spell resistance No Make a dying friend stable (see Heal skill) Yes Overrun No Read a scroll Yes Ready (triggers a standard action) No Sunder a weapon (attack) Yes Sunder an object (attack) Maybe3 Total defense No Turn or rebuke undead No Use extraordinary ability No Use skill that takes 1 action Usually Use spell-like ability Yes Use supernatural ability No Move Action Attack of Opportunity1 Move Yes Control a frightened mount Yes Direct or redirect an active spell No Draw a weapon4 No Load a hand crossbow or light crossbow Yes Open or close a door No Mount a horse or dismount No Move a heavy object Yes Pick up an item Yes Sheathe a weapon Yes Stand up from prone Yes Ready or loose a shield4 No Retrieve a stored item Yes Full-Round Action Attack of Opportunity1 Full attack No Charge5 No Deliver coup de grace Yes Escape from a net Yes Extinguish flames No Light a torch Yes Load a heavy or repeating crossbow Yes Lock or unlock weapon in locked gauntlet Yes Prepare to throw splash weapon Yes Run Yes Use skill that takes 1 round Usually Use touch spell on up to six friends Yes Withdraw5 No 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 No Action Attack of Opportunity1 Delay No 5-foot step No Action Type Varies Disarm7 Yes Grapple7 Yes Trip an opponent7 Yes Use feat8 Varies 1 Regardless of the action, if you move out of a threatened square, you usually provoke an attack of opportunity. This column indicates whether the action itself, not moving, provokes an attack of opportunity. 2 If you aid someone performing an action that would normally provoke an attack of opportunity, then the act of aiding another provokes an attack of opportunity as well. 3 If the object is being held, carried, or worn by a creature, yes. If not, no. 4 If you have a base attack bonus of +1 or higher, you can combine one of these actions with a regular move. If you have the Two- Weapon Fighting feat, you can draw two light or one-handed weapons in the time it would normally take you to draw one. 5 May be taken as a standard action if you are limited to taking only a single action in a round. 6 Unless the component is an extremely large or awkward item. 7 These attack forms substitute for a melee attack, not an action. As melee attacks, they can be used once in an attack or charge action, one or more times in a full attack action, or even as an attack of opportunity. 8 The description of a feat defines its effect. I'm not sure that the rules say Jonathon can't act after his mount. I coudn't find that. Also, in a pinch, Jonathon can take a move action, then ready to take his standard action after the horse moves 5'.See above The reason you couldn't find a rule is that either the horse and Jonathon go on their own initiative counts, or one delays to go right after the other so that they can act in concert. Even your solution of readying to perform the standard action will still cause any move actions to provoke that do so, such as drawing a potion. The reason I didn't do this here is simply laziness. I thought it would be obvious (hopefully) that Jonathon had an extra action with which to draw his sword and that he would delay to drink his potion until out of base-contact. Round 17: {SA} Jonathon readies an action to drink his potion once Misery has moved 5'. [Misery moves and Jonathon takes his ready action] Round 18: {MA} Jonathon draws his sword and {SA} attacks. Laziness or not, it still hase to be done correctly. I disagree that I deviated (except about putting the ax in both hands, that was definitely a deviation which will be corrected). Does the phrase "If I ever" mean "Heal each and every time my current HP total = 16 or less" or does it mean, "At the time my HP drop to below 16, use the wand?" What does "go to melee" mean? To me, that means attack with your ax, which is what I did. Whether "heal"ing is a deviation of "going to melee", or vice versa, I don't know. I healed 11 times and attacked 4. According to you, it should have been 14 heals and one attack. Do you know how many players, upon seeing a loss, would go crazy if a 26 round (melee) fight had their melee dwarf attacking once? Once I go back and add in multiple rounds of healing and wand charges, due to thematic rolling, the next 3 attack rolls Death makes will still be 2 misses and 1 hit for 6. Like I already said, I don't mind doing that. What I mean by deviating from my tactics is by stowing the wand in round 23 and not healing, as per my healing conditions. Yes, I want to heal anytime I get to half my hp or fewer. That is what the wand is there for, and I have no problem burning it up. I should be healing anytime my hp fall to 15 or fewer (half my hp rounded down). |
| waywreth01-23-06, 12:36 PM | @DTFarstar & others regarding Solomon (Warclone) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth): DTFarstar First, Gaston is not allowed to do nothing except flee for that long, and is in extreme violation of the 10 round limit, which will need to be accounted for. I respectfully disagree. How is Gaston, who I'd like to add isn't allowed to buy a touchsight powerstone since his ECL isn't equal to the manifest level supposed to interact with Solomon, he can never find him until invis drops. Suppose Gaston has a potion of invis, we'd spend 10 rounds staring into space? I think the withdrawing and running away until they fade is perfectly valid. In fact if you want to read it literally, Solomon is also in violation - he doesn't interact, he stays invisible the whole time (note I'm just playing devil's advocate there). However - if the tactics for Gaston are considered to be invalid by the powers that be, I would request new tactics be able to be submitted. |
| Snommelp01-23-06, 12:40 PM | Grapple the dog?!? Please explain how I would ever have thought that one up. Hennan DID NOT give up. He tried to escape the entangle, which is the ONLY way he could have won that fight IMHO. If you can come up with some way he could POSSIBLY win from inside the entangle spell, let me know. Grapple the dog? The dog is better at grappling! Plus I doubt Gundir would stop shooting you because the dog is in the way. Ranged attacks? You have a +2 attack vs his 18 AC, do pretty low damage, and are getting blasted every round for 3d6 damage. Attrition is not your friend there. Use the wand? Ok, blow some charges, lose anyways. Stay in cover? Well, now you are in the middle of the entangle, with the same problems as before. Except now you have no chance to make it out at all. But hey, he has to use a round to walk around to where he can destroy you. I know you dont want to lose, but hey, you got caught. Its what druids are good at. You didnt even write a contingency for the entangle into your tactics. Your only contigency was to summon a dog if his dog got annoying. Want me to do that too? Spend a full round in the hopes that you can make an (untrained) concentration check against all the damage you will take that round?First: deep breath. Relax. It's just a game. Now that that's taken care of, I believe that a +2 attack vs. AC 18 is better than a +2 strength check vs. DC 20, especially considering that breaking free takes a full round and the plants try to grab again every round. And since you are so insistent on Hennan leaving cover, could he not have left the area of Entangle as well? After all, your reasoning for having him leave cover was to escape the Entangle. If he had moved in another direction than around the wall, he would have escaped and perhaps had a chance to rehide and try the grapple tactic again. I admit I had no contingency for Entangle; I was overconfident in my sneaking. However, if your plan was for Hennan to get out of the area, could you please do it in such a way that he actually gets out of the area? And if you insist on keeping Hennan's movement the same so that he stays stuck, grappling the dog would certainly be a viable option. Druids are attached to their pets, so Hennan might logically think that that would afford him some protection, and it also follows the grappling theme from Hennan's tactics. The dog's better at grappling; so what? From the way you are talking, Hennan is doomed to failure anyway. |
| Warclone01-23-06, 12:52 PM | How is Gaston, who I'd like to add isn't allowed to buy a touchsight powerstone since his ECL isn't equal to the manifest level supposed to interact with Solomon, he can never find him until invis drops. There is a non-cumulative 10-round limit to delaying tactics... 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. I understand where you are coming from in your beliefs and in other circles where players are allowed to play their own characters and other factors not native to the CoCo exist, your argument might be valid. According to the rules of gladius and common sense, you are using delay tactics. You could have avoided violating the delay tactics by attacking one of the constructs, or attempting to find where I am and attack me. Whether it is easy for you to abide by the 'dont delay' rule or not has no bearing on whetheror not you violate the rule. In fact if you want to read it literally, Solomon is also in violation - he doesn't interact, he stays invisible the whole time (note I'm just playing devil's advocate there).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... I am not in violation of the delay rules, see the quote above for an example. However - if the tactics for Gaston are considered to be invalid by the powers that be, I would request new tactics be able to be submitted. If you write illegal, rules-violating, or penalty-incurring tactics (which you did), you suffer the consequences in the fight and are not allowed to change your tactics later on (especially since you have now seen my tactics). |
| Usurpator01-23-06, 01:35 PM | About the Solomon : Gaston fight The delay rule is terribly unclear and subjective, and I have bumped into it many times, and seen many players/pitlords having difficulty with it. There is supposed to be significant interaction. It is not said what satisfies that demand. Is a charge attack once every 10 rounds sufficient? Would Gaston be in violation if the constructs had been faster and were able to attack him every round? Why not? There is supposed to be the intention to engage, but that intention is not required if you cannot engage by actions of your opponent. The famous example of: 'I must engage in a ranged duel with my opponent who is a range specialist, unless I sunder my own ranged weapon, and then I am free to run away and hide.' That's just stupid. It not clear when you are required to engage your opponent, and what kind of disadvantegeous position you have to put yourself in to be attributed 'intention'. As usual, the core of the problem is having two gladiators that each want to fight the other, but only on terms that are most favorable to them, but neither being able to force the other to doing so. In my experience here I have noticed that most Pitlords solve this by having a sort of hierarchy of tactics that they find more 'despicable' than others, and the gladiator who ranks higher on 'despicableness' will be punished for delaying before the other. 1. Hiding 2. Withdrawing 3. Standing still doing nothing 4. Being invisible 5. Buffing 6. Flying / Levitating 7. Taking Total Defense Which means that if we a gladiator that Hides vs. one that Flies, the hider will be punished before the flyer and if we have a Invisible gladiator vs. one that takes Total Defense, the invisible gladiator will be punished first (and thus forced to attack the gladiator under Total Defense). I don't think such a subjective 'despicableness' rating should serve as a guideline for punishing gladiators, but I have learned the hard way that if you don't keep this in mind, your gladiators will suddenly lose the fight because the Pitlord decides he likes your tactics to engage your opponent at favorable terms less than your opponents. The hierarchy of the list may be slightly different from Pitlord to Pitlord, and some never think Flying or taking Total Defense is delaying.... I hope to make up an extensively list with thought provoking examples of delay situations to get a clear idea what people really think of delaying, and what rules it needs. For I think we do need some kind of delay rule. |
| Begferdeth01-23-06, 01:44 PM | First: deep breath. Relax. It's just a game. I am relaxed. You were the one suggesting everything and everything there. I was just trying to make a point about all these crazy suggestions youve been making. Now that that's taken care of, I believe that a +2 attack vs. AC 18 is better than a +2 strength check vs. DC 20, especially considering that breaking free takes a full round and the plants try to grab again every round. Except that you only have to succeed once vs the DC 20 to get out. Against the 18, you have to hit him a good 10 times or so. And since you are so insistent on Hennan leaving cover, could he not have left the area of Entangle as well? After all, your reasoning for having him leave cover was to escape the Entangle. If he had moved in another direction than around the wall, he would have escaped and perhaps had a chance to rehide and try the grapple tactic again. I admit I had no contingency for Entangle; I was overconfident in my sneaking. However, if your plan was for Hennan to get out of the area, could you please do it in such a way that he actually gets out of the area? Wow, a suggestion that actually makes sense to bother rerunning it! Ill go with this one, since it actually gives you some chance, instead of wasting a good 1/2 hour of my time for nothing. Stick this in your next tactics vs a druid, man. It will save much, much time. Im not going to go around trying to invent tactics for you to win. I try to stay as close to your original plan as possible. Which at the time were 'get in there and grapple'. And if you insist on keeping Hennan's movement the same so that he stays stuck, grappling the dog would certainly be a viable option. Druids are attached to their pets, so Hennan might logically think that that would afford him some protection, and it also follows the grappling theme from Hennan's tactics. The dog's better at grappling; so what? From the way you are talking, Hennan is doomed to failure anyway. Well, for a viable option, you would then have to outgrapple the dog to death. Then go and outgrapple Gundir to death. If you got out of the entangle after your amazing victory over the dog before he cooked you. It takes long enough trying to run these the first time, if you want a rerun, you gotta come up with something that has some chance of affecting the outcome more than '1 charge used off my wand' or 'the dog takes 10 damage'. Ill probably get yelled at for saying that, but really, nothing you said earlier had any real chance of affecting the fight. Ill start up the 'run the other way' approach tonite. I gotta get going to work right now. |
| Begferdeth01-23-06, 01:54 PM | Oops, double posted :( |
| Kaigan01-23-06, 01:55 PM | My first fight Sunstroke vs. Anton is up. Please look over it. My other fight will be up either in a couple of hours, or tonight. Kaigan |
| MitzaVolchenko01-23-06, 02:10 PM | If anyone has a fight they want to give up, toss me an IM or PM. I have the time for at least one more. |
| MindWandererB01-23-06, 02:26 PM | My first fight Sunstroke vs. Anton is up.No complaints from me. The odds were stacked pretty severely against me, and only by successfully grappling and spoiling his concentration, or by saving against his Mind Thrusts, did I even have a chance. Since I did neither, I was a dead duck. |
| Luni01-23-06, 02:42 PM | Emon vs Pestilence (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8300434&postcount=78) is up. I'll probably do the other fight later today. |
| NiQil01-23-06, 02:56 PM | Emon vs Pestilence (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8300434&postcount=78) is up. I'll probably do the other fight later today. This is going to require some changes, because you are incorrect about my speed. My speed is 40. Take a look at my response to your prison post. Dwarves to do not take penalties to movement for armor or encumbrance. This will affect the fight, because after that first Wild Surge, my response should be to run away, which would take me out of the range of the second Wild Surge Mind Thrust. Since my opponent is now visible, this allows me to move away and heal, keeping him at distance from another Mind Thrust. And then fire at will, while maintaining my distance, as per my tactics. I will fix the link to my other fight...looks like I transposed some numbers. Also, you have my crafting reward incorrect...it should be 63 gp. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-23-06, 03:20 PM | Karen Douglas bit her tongue and swallowed her pride when she should to pass the first week of her quest. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571237) Tune in next week to find out if accepting a geas from a strange pixie was a bad idea... |
| Ravashack01-23-06, 03:33 PM | Just a couple comments... I respectfully disagree. How is Gaston, who I'd like to add isn't allowed to buy a touchsight powerstone since his ECL isn't equal to the manifest level supposed to interact with Solomon, he can never find him until invis drops. Suppose Gaston has a potion of invis, we'd spend 10 rounds staring into space? I think the withdrawing and running away until they fade is perfectly valid. That would be valid, if you were also trying to pinpoint Solomon down, but Gaston didn't have any tactics for that. Technically, Gaston should get a 10 round violation 3 times (with the most obvious choice of a result being the Astral Construct being moved directly next to him). Second, in my tactics I explicitly state make sure my constructs get an attack every round of their life. Then, you have me summoning a construct into the wild blue yonder that will never get a single attack, burning my power points away into nothingness. It is impossible to 'make sure' your constructs get an attack every round. Gaston has a higher movement rate than them because of Skate. Once he withdraws from one it can't catch him unless he lets it catch him. Additionally and subjectively but importantly, there are multiple circumstances in which you could have had me summon according to the way I asked you to play my character which you did not do. I could have summoned them above him so that he cannot withdraw, I could have summoned them so that they are on the opposite side of me from him so he must withdraw towards me or waste movement going around in a large circle. I cannot account for every possible tactic that could ever be run, but I included very specific and adequate stipulations that cover a circumstance like what happened in the fight, and for the most part they were ignored. You cannot summon/conjure/call/whatever ANYTHING in thin air. Everything must be brought in on something solid. If you want to create something higher than the ground, you're going to need a floating platform to do so. A metacreativity power draws raw ectoplasm from the Astral Plane to create an object or creature in the place the psionic character designates (subject to the limits noted above). Objects created in this fashion are as solid and durable as normal objects, despite their originally diaphanous substance. Psionic creatures created with metacreativity powers are considered constructs, not outsiders. A creature or object brought into being cannot appear inside another creature or object, nor can it appear floating in an empty space. It must arrive in an open location on a surface capable of supporting it. The creature or object must appear within the power’s range, but it does not have to remain within the range. In addition, Astral Construct has a Short range. You can only manifest one in a 30 foot radius around you, and as a 1 round action there's not a lot your character can do while pumping them out. That also means there is no way in hell you can force Gaston to withdraw towards you. This is because in order to get to him all the Astral Constructs have to run away from you to get to him, and the rules for charge explicitly state that whatever is charging an opponent has to run -directly- at the opponent. Can't move to his left or right sides as a charge attack. If anything, sending them charging at him forces him away from you. Basically if you're going to use Astral Constructs for stuff like that, it requires you to get in close, which Solomon isn't. |
| Gonbow01-23-06, 03:52 PM | Hassan vs Darius is up here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8300073&postcount=76). I actually posted it awhile ago, but the boards went down immediately after. |
| Ariel2301-23-06, 03:59 PM | @NiQil @Abysall Stalker Note: Fight edited (somewhat) I should be healing anytime my hp fall to 15 or fewer (half my hp rounded down).You feel you should be, but your tactics do not explicitly and unequivocally state that. If I ever fall to half my hp or fewer, use the healing wand.(This means 16 HP, not 15 HP, btw, so there is another potential discrepancy.) I am not going to argue which interpretation is correct--I sincerely believe that what you are saying is what you intended. I suggest writing that for future battles as: If I ever fall to 16 hp or fewer, continue to use the healing wand until HP are 16 or greater. [Or 15, if that's what you want, etc...] You could just as easily use what you suggested (I have quoted) above: I should be healing anytime my hp fall to 15 or fewer (half my hp rounded down). In order to decide if this argument is moot I kept rolling until I achieved a bow hit and an AoO hit: http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?u=Death-Jonathon&limit=on or go to Invisiblecastle.com and put in Death-Jonathon as the character name. Missile fire to begin the fight Based on your tactics (retain cover vs charge) and Jonathon's tactics (take cover vs missile fire) every one of your shots will be through cover. You would need 9 extra bowshots to hit him once. We would need to find 18 missing move and standard actions in order to achieve that. (The table shows 14 extra shots to hit AC 23, but your 9th shot would have been after the expiration of Protection from Law to hit AC 21.) AoO's during the fight In this, you did much better. You hit him everytime with 3 AoO's but for his taking cover behind his horse. Jonathon would need to draw 3 more AoO's in order for Death to hit him once. Even if you are 100% correct, the most you would get is 2. Let me state clearly for the record (even though it is moot in this case) that I will not use a potion for Jonathon if that is going to get him 2 AoO's each time, and I hope no other pitlord (or player) reading this thread would do it, either. Meaning you will not get 2 more AoO's. Nor would I do it for Death, or anybody except perhaps a summoned monster meant as a distraction or an automaton of no INT. In my opinion, AoO's should only be occuring in fights resulting from special maneuvers (trip, sunder, grapple, etc), reach weapons, allies, or the rare spellcaster with no ranks in Concentration. [Or a player's tactics specifically stating "I don't care about AoO's."] Any other AoO is a failure on the part of the pitlord. 1) Even assuming that the 5' step does not work, the easiest way to do that is for Jonathon's mount to Withdraw 80 feet with any piece of cover between Death and Misery. You can follow, of course, but if you can't charge you can't attack. If he does this in a round where your HP are 16 or less, you will heal and not double move. 2) Another method would be to dismount to the rear of Misery {MA} and draw his potion {MA}. This would put you 15' away. In order to base him, you would have to draw an AoO from the horse yourself or give up your heal/attack for the round. 3) Also, Jonathon's tactics specifically stated to sunder the wand if he could do so without an AoO. If you use your AoO in the round, he could just as well sunder the wand as finish his other action, since you do not have Combat Reflexes. He could likewise have done so with his lance from 10' away. I considered all of the above and in a sort of Occam-esque style, went with the simplest option (5' step and ready action) rather than the most complicated option. It's all in the numbers All things being equal, your strategy was to fire at an opponent with your bow requiring 18's to hit (natural 20's to hit with Prot. from Law, but that's not your fault) and even you expected to only fire a few times. You might just as easily have started opposite Jonathon and gotten none. Once that was over, engage in melee (drawing an AoO) and heal yourself repeatedly. Once you reach the healing stage (16 HP or less) you are fighting a battle of Jonathon+Misery doing an average damage of 6.8925 damage per round, while you healed at a rate of 5.5 HP per round. This gives Jonathon a 1.3925 HP advantage per round, not to mention that your wand does not do damage no matter how good you roll, and cannot crit. In other words, your tactics (build, circumstances, opponent, etc) relied on Jonathon rolling poorly and/or you rolling well. Neither of those happened. Rolls were about average on both sides. If you had gone passively after the horse, while healing agressively, eventually the horse would have died (worse AC and HP) and then you would have been in control: .825 HP/round advantage using your Ax 1H. (more 2H) 2.2825 HP/round advantage using your wand. If you had chosen to engage solely, you would have been facing 6.8925 vs 4.4275 [a 2.465 HP disadvantage] so clearly healing needed to be part of your strategy, I'm not debating that. But "healing as offense" is an expensive proposition. You ended up healing for 18x15 = 270 gp in order to win 300 gp in an odds-against-you fight. If you had drank a Potion of Bull's Strength (or a Potion of Levitate, for that matter) for 300 gp, you would have put yourself in the statistical position to win (+2 to hit, +2 damage or +3 damage 2H) of 7.7175 damage per round (2h) vs 6.8925 = 0.825 HP/round advantage using the Ax 1-handed 2.2825 HP/round advantage using the wand Also, you would have won in Round 15, but that's hindsight, which I am trying not to rely on. The advantage from Levitate would be much harder to calculate, but I assume that it would be significant. @NiQil (unrelated) By the way, one thing I look at for healing is my opponent's average critical damage and maximum crit damage (and of course maximum standard damage). This can help to determine a HP threshhold that will guarantee you cannot go down in one round. It may not be possible against a x3 crit, but in that case, your tactics won't matter, anyway. [Actually, fighting 2H, you also would have won in Round 15 at a cost of almost no GP. Perhaps consider fighting 2H until a heal is necessary, then 5' step, and go to the Ax/Wand fighting style?] |
| waywreth01-23-06, 04:21 PM | Just a couple comments... Snip... These all seem fair to me. |
| Erithmu01-23-06, 04:26 PM | @: Mitza, Shadowmaster: Pulling this out here so that we can have easier discussion. Fight = here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8270794&postcount=55) The sniping is done incorrectly. Sniping is a full round action that is a shoot and hide (no reloading) The hide check is taken at -20 What i mean is: I will see Zewi in Round 5, and possibly in others if she is sneaking around Hide is reflexive when behind cover. I actually specify to fire from cover generally meaning to fire first, then move wherein hide becomes reflexive and not a sniping shot). Sniping is a full round action, but in any case you are correct that there are errors. Without an online dice roller being used, I cannot vouch for the rolls that were there in the first running still being there. Lemme rephrase: If you take the -20 I believe that you can remain in your same location and hide there again, so that your location is unknown If you don't take the -20 to hide then I for a split second know your location and can follow you there. I made this statement as my next movement was in the complete opposite direction from where you were located. (more of a closing factor) Tanglefoot bags are ranged touch attacs and use my touch attack AC as listed not AC5 for targeting a square which would mean it would miss. (Rnd 7 - it also looks like she doesn't take a move to draw it) I have a BAB of +1 or greater and can draw as part of a move action (they are counted as thrown weapons). However, I again can't tell you if it was orginally treated as a thrown weapon vs. Touch AC. In the first run I threw three of them. Shadowmaster, you also need to list those in the end fight summary as items used. I will have to goin and edit that on Zwei. I stated this as Shadowmaster made an attack vs AC5 which is normally the AC to hit a square with a splash weapon (rnd 7) Rnd10 - you can only run in a straight line (cant turn corners) so I would still be able to keep up w/ her It is true that I can only full run in a straight line. I gave up following the fight again as there are enough apparent errors to know that corrections need to be made. However, it should be noted that as long as I double move, you can only keep up by double moving, thus cannot attack, and if you double move to base, I get the AoO on you as an unarmed opponent because Zwei is always capable of making unarmed AoO's even if she is holding something else in her hands. I have no idea how this one will end, but Zwei originally ended up based by an entangled Selene when all of her tactics read to never permit that sword anywhere near her by moving as needed. Eventually, my thought was that Zwei keeps range edge and shoots when posible to do so without Selene ever getting the opportunity to charge with the nasty sword of doom (hence the continued use of cover etc). You can not escape indefenatly as at somepoint you will have to make a turn as the arena does not extend for an infinate distance. AoO: you do not get an AoO on entering a threatened square ... only when you are leaving. so your unarmed attacks are only if i start to run away. Reloading for you is also a move action. So we could go through 2 more tanglefoots and you could still likely kill me but we have to get through the inital problems to get to that point. @all: I think both Mitza and I would like some additional feedback. Also Shadowmaster has been very calm in handling us both. So go nice on him (it's his first fight). |
| TroubleWolf01-23-06, 04:37 PM | Never mind. NiQil has it under control. |
| NiQil01-23-06, 04:37 PM | @NiQil @Abysall Stalker Note: Fight edited (somewhat) You feel you should be, but your tactics do not explicitly and unequivocally state that. (This means 16 HP, not 15 HP, btw, so there is another potential discrepancy.) I am not going to argue which interpretation is correct--I sincerely believe that what you are saying is what you intended. I suggest writing that for future battles as: If I ever fall to 16 hp or fewer, continue to use the healing wand until HP are 16 or greater. [Or 15, if that's what you want, etc...] You could just as easily use what you suggested (I have quoted) above: I should be healing anytime my hp fall to 15 or fewer (half my hp rounded down). In order to decide if this argument is moot I kept rolling until I achieved a bow hit and an AoO hit: http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?u=Death-Jonathon&limit=on or go to Invisiblecastle.com and put in Death-Jonathon as the character name. Missile fire to begin the fight Based on your tactics (retain cover vs charge) and Jonathon's tactics (take cover vs missile fire) every one of your shots will be through cover. You would need 9 extra bowshots to hit him once. We would need to find 18 missing move and standard actions in order to achieve that. (The table shows 14 extra shots to hit AC 23, but your 9th shot would have been after the expiration of Protection from Law to hit AC 21.) AoO's during the fight In this, you did much better. You hit him everytime with 3 AoO's but for his taking cover behind his horse. Jonathon would need to draw 3 more AoO's in order for Death to hit him once. Even if you are 100% correct, the most you would get is 2. Let me state clearly for the record (even though it is moot in this case) that I will not use a potion for Jonathon if that is going to get him 2 AoO's each time, and I hope no other pitlord (or player) reading this thread would do it, either. Meaning you will not get 2 more AoO's. Nor would I do it for Death, or anybody except perhaps a summoned monster meant as a distraction or an automaton of no INT. In my opinion, AoO's should only be occuring in fights resulting from special maneuvers (trip, sunder, grapple, etc), reach weapons, allies, or the rare spellcaster with no ranks in Concentration. [Or a player's tactics specifically stating "I don't care about AoO's."] Any other AoO is a failure on the part of the pitlord. 1) Even assuming that the 5' step does not work, the easiest way to do that is for Jonathon's mount to Withdraw 80 feet with any piece of cover between Death and Misery. You can follow, of course, but if you can't charge you can't attack. If he does this in a round where your HP are 16 or less, you will heal and not double move. 2) Another method would be to dismount to the rear of Misery {MA} and draw his potion {MA}. This would put you 15' away. In order to base him, you would have to draw an AoO from the horse yourself or give up your heal/attack for the round. 3) Also, Jonathon's tactics specifically stated to sunder the wand if he could do so without an AoO. If you use your AoO in the round, he could just as well sunder the wand as finish his other action, since you do not have Combat Reflexes. He could likewise have done so with his lance from 10' away. I considered all of the above and in a sort of Occam-esque style, went with the simplest option (5' step and ready action) rather than the most complicated option. It's all in the numbers All things being equal, your strategy was to fire at an opponent with your bow requiring 18's to hit (natural 20's to hit with Prot. from Law, but that's not your fault) and even you expected to only fire a few times. You might just as easily have started opposite Jonathon and gotten none. Once that was over, engage in melee (drawing an AoO) and heal yourself repeatedly. Once you reach the healing stage (16 HP or less) you are fighting a battle of Jonathon+Misery doing an average damage of 6.8925 damage per round, while you healed at a rate of 5.5 HP per round. This gives Jonathon a 1.3925 HP advantage per round, not to mention that your wand does not do damage no matter how good you roll, and cannot crit. In other words, your tactics (build, circumstances, opponent, etc) relied on Jonathon rolling poorly and/or you rolling well. Neither of those happened. Rolls were about average on both sides. If you had gone passively after the horse, while healing agressively, eventually the horse would have died (worse AC and HP) and then you would have been in control: .825 HP/round advantage using your Ax 1H. (more 2H) 2.2825 HP/round advantage using your wand. If you had chosen to engage solely, you would have been facing 6.8925 vs 4.4275 [a 2.465 HP disadvantage] so clearly healing needed to be part of your strategy, I'm not debating that. But "healing as offense" is an expensive proposition. You ended up healing for 18x15 = 270 gp in order to win 300 gp in an odds-against-you fight. If you had drank a Potion of Bull's Strength (or a Potion of Levitate, for that matter) for 300 gp, you would have put yourself in the statistical position to win (+2 to hit, +2 damage or +3 damage 2H) of 7.7175 damage per round (2h) vs 6.8925 = 0.825 HP/round advantage using the Ax 1-handed 2.2825 HP/round advantage using the wand Also, you would have won in Round 15, but that's hindsight, which I am trying not to rely on. The advantage from Levitate would be much harder to calculate, but I assume that it would be significant. @NiQil (unrelated) By the way, one thing I look at for healing is my opponent's average critical damage and maximum crit damage (and of course maximum standard damage). This can help to determine a HP threshhold that will guarantee you cannot go down in one round. It may not be possible against a x3 crit, but in that case, your tactics won't matter, anyway. [Actually, fighting 2H, you also would have won in Round 15 at a cost of almost no GP. Perhaps consider fighting 2H until a heal is necessary, then 5' step, and go to the Ax/Wand fighting style?] At this point, I am just going to let this go. You have made it apparant that you do not feel the need to make any changes with regard to the various actions you have given my opponent, although there are still several rounds where he has received more actions in the round than he is entitled to. I would encourage you to take a look at the SRD sections on movement and skills once again, as several of these issues are easily verifyable there. But, with regard to this fight...I'm done. |
| NiQil01-23-06, 04:39 PM | I disagree on NiQil's behalf. And: Also: Breastplate is medium armor, and he is carrying a light load. Therefore his barbarian levels give him +10 movement, making his move 30. As a dwarf, this speed is not reduced by wearing medium armor. I don't know if this alters the fight or not, but thought I'd throw it out there. In addition to this, as I posted in the Prison...Speed of Thought requires psionic focus and no heavy armor to gain an additional 10 ft. This makes my speed 40. |
| Warclone01-23-06, 04:42 PM | @Ravashack & others Thanks for the interest It is impossible to 'make sure' your constructs get an attack every round. Gaston has a higher movement rate than them because of Skate. Once he withdraws from one it can't catch him unless he lets it catch him.This is true, but it is possible for every one of my constructs to get at least 1 attack during their lives, and if DTF has me summon per my instructions it is likely they will get more.You cannot summon/conjure/call/whatever ANYTHING in thin air. Everything must be brought in on something solid. If you want to create something higher than the ground, you're going to need a floating platform to do so.As per your own quote, a flying creature arrives in a surface capable of supporting it (the air). My constructs are flying creatures, and flying creatures are supported by the air. This stipulation is to prevent the summon-an-X-to-fall-on-enemy-and-kill-him scenario.In addition, Astral Construct has a Short range. You can only manifest one in a 30 foot radius around you, and as a 1 round action there's not a lot your character can do while pumping them out. That also means there is no way in hell you can force Gaston to withdraw towards you. This is because in order to get to him all the Astral Constructs have to run away from you to get to him, and the rules for charge explicitly state that whatever is charging an opponent has to run -directly- at the opponent. Can't move to his left or right sides as a charge attack. If anything, sending them charging at him forces him away from you.I am also invisible, and I can get as close to him as I want to. |
| Ravashack01-23-06, 05:21 PM | @Ravashack & others Thanks for the interest This is true, but it is possible for every one of my constructs to get at least 1 attack during their lives, and if DTF has me summon per my instructions it is likely they will get more. Was just trying to point out that he was trying to do that. The only line he can reliably carry out is "I will always summon them so that they can charge" because of the movement rate. If you had allowed the option of "Celerity" instead of "Trip" on the Constructs it wouldn't be such a waste of PP. As per your own quote, a flying creature arrives in a surface capable of supporting it (the air). My constructs are flying creatures, and flying creatures are supported by the air. This stipulation is to prevent the summon-an-X-to-fall-on-enemy-and-kill-him scenario.I am also invisible, and I can get as close to him as I want to. Uh, if you want to use air as a 'surface' you're going to have to be at a pretty high elevation with a much better Manifester level to pull it off. Surface means on something, not in something. Besides, you have to consider the fact that your Constructs have Average maneuverability. That means they a) can't hover, and b) have a minimum forward speed at half their movement rate in order to stay flying, which means that the round you spend forming them out of Ectoplasm can't be in the air anyway, even if airborne creation was allowed. I am also invisible, and I can get as close to him as I want to. You can, but you don't. Your tactics specify a keep away tactic, and with Solomon's Constructs scaring Gaston away--who runs faster than Solomon--he doesn't have a chance of getting close enough. |
| Kaigan01-23-06, 05:29 PM | hmmmm...... double post..... |
| Kaigan01-23-06, 05:30 PM | @MysticMonk, Luni and Maraxus: MitzaVolchenko is taking my fight. I thought I had time to run it tonight, but when I looked at my school workload, I won't have the time. I have 3 pre labs to write, 2 lab write-ups to write, 2 anthro assignments, 3 java programs to write, 2 midterms on friday and not to mention at least 10 chapters of material to read. Oh the joys of biochemistry! Thanks to Mitza for taking this fight, again I apologize to my gladiators and good luck. Edit: @ Luni: NiQil is right, in that he should have a 40ft movement speed. |
| Warclone01-23-06, 05:34 PM | Uh, if you want to use air as a 'surface' you're going to have to be at a pretty high elevation with a much better Manifester level to pull it off. Surface means on something, not in something. Besides, you have to consider the fact that your Constructs have Average maneuverability. That means they a) can't hover, and b) have a minimum forward speed at half their movement rate in order to stay flying, which means that the round you spend forming them out of Ectoplasm can't be in the air anyway, even if airborne creation was allowed.You determine where a spell takes effect when you finish casting it, and thus ectoplasm does not form before the monster appears. Otherwise people would see where I was creating beforehand and other things. The construct appears instantly, and creating a flying construct in the air is a legal maneuver (almost anyone would agree with the rules here). |
| MitzaVolchenko01-23-06, 05:51 PM | I am taking Kaigan's all vs. all...that is probably my limit for this week. |
| SauroGrenom01-23-06, 06:16 PM | Usurpator, Thanks for running the fight. Too bad that Altaris13 couldn't submit tactics. I'd like it if you could edit in the 144gp for Kracknol's crafting activity. Thanks again. |
| Usurpator01-23-06, 06:19 PM | Usurpator, Thanks for running the fight. Too bad that Altaris13 couldn't submit tactics. I'd like it if you could edit in the 144gp for Kracknol's crafting activity. Thanks again. Thank you. The 144 gp. has to wait, though. I haven't been able to reach the Battles thread for more than 90 minutes now.... Didn't even get the chance to check if it was posted properly.... :( |
| TelinArtho01-23-06, 06:46 PM | @Telinartho: many good points. I roll manually (d4for starting block of first player, d3 for starting block of 2nd player, d2 for which side when not specified...but since it's manually I have nothing but my say to back up the fairness. Maybe I'll look into figuring out how the linked rollers work for my next fight. I totally forgot about poisoning himself. Good call. That would have changed things a lot. Thanks for pointing me to the info on Drow poison. I just went to the DMG...where it doesn't say. If the horse revives (there's a good chance) then he has to dismount you to do all that tripping. I didn't bother setting up to avoid cover because since he has a higher speed and specifically asked to keep in cover, any attempt on Ural's part would have probably been delaying the inevitable...or considered delaying tactics on his part. I'll have to think about that more but with the horse Fort save issue it will probably not be an issue. Finally, oops on the rewards. I assumed she was a class mount. I'll work on changes after work Monday. @Abyssal: If you see anything or disagree, please point them out so I can do everything at once. Well, since there's nothing to confirm it - in the future - I might suggest including locations in your fights when you don't include a link to an online roller - that way a player can see where you made the rolls (even 1=left, 2=right; 2) or something to indicate that the thought was made and the roll performed. I also really recommend using an online roller just because it is easier for a 3rd party to verify the fight and it is easier to note when an error has occured. For instance if you roll a d20 and apply a +6 to it, but you mark it in the fight as +7 - this would be very difficult to resolve correctly (as later on you'd probably think you applied a +7 because that's how you notated it). /d |
| Ravashack01-23-06, 06:50 PM | You determine where a spell takes effect when you finish casting it, and thus ectoplasm does not form before the monster appears. Otherwise people would see where I was creating beforehand and other things. I would want to see a pointer to the appropriate place in the SRD to verify that. And in addition, this is a power, not a spell. Because "people would see" isn't a good reason--that's kind of the point of the Displays, to give away that you did or are doing something. Astral Construct happens to have a Visual Display which is *not* the default effect and tells you to look at the text, which simply states that the Construct appears where you designate, and that it's made of solidified ectoplasm. Obviously the Visual display cannot be the finished product itself (especially since there is a Astral Construct pick to give it natural invisibility), and nothing here states that the appearance itself is instantaneous (just that it attacks immediately), so the only other option is while it is forming. If you don't want to have the Display visible, you need to roll Concentration to hide it. The construct appears instantly, and creating a flying construct in the air is a legal maneuver (almost anyone would agree with the rules here). That's exactly the point Warclone. The Construct can't hover. It can't move while you're creating it. And with a maneuverability of average, it would fall first if it started in the air. Your argument would make more sense if it was for something with Good or Perfect Maneuverability (like a Half-Celestial or an Air Elemental), which CAN hover and doesn't need a minimum fly speed to stay flying. And that still doesn't take care of the fact that with tactics that emphasize on staying pretty far away and avoiding detection, there's no way the pitlord could have or would have even thought about getting you close, since it would be completely contrary to your submitted tactics. |
| Mal-201-23-06, 07:02 PM | I would want to see a pointer to the appropriate place in the SRD to verify that. It's a rather long quote, so I put it in an sblock: Manifesting Time Most powers have a manifesing time of 1 standard action. Others take 1 round or more, while a few require only a free action. A power that takes 1 round to manifest requires a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began manifesting the power. You then act normally after the power is completed. A power that takes 1 minute to manifest comes into effect just before your turn 1 minute later (and for each of those 10 rounds, you are manifesting a power as a full-round action, as noted above for 1-round manifesting times). These actions must be consecutive and uninterrupted, or the power points are lost and the power fails. When you use a power that takes 1 round or longer to manifest, you must continue the concentration from the current round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration before the manifesting time is complete, the power points are lost and the power fails. You make all pertinent decisions about a power (range, target, area, effect, version, and so forth) when the power comes into effect. I haven't followed the fight closely, but I've also allowed flying creatures to be summoned in mid-air, as I judged it an apporiate surface for a flying creature. It's a judgement call though, so I'd support whatever the pitlord decided. If summoning flying creatures in midair was specified in the tactics but the pitlord ruled it illegal, it would have been polite for the pitlord to notify the player that there was a rules problem with thier tactics and allowed them to fix it. |
| Skojar01-23-06, 07:04 PM | @Telinartho: many good points. I roll manually (d4for starting block of first player, d3 for starting block of 2nd player, d2 for which side when not specified...but since it's manually I have nothing but my say to back up the fairness. Maybe I'll look into figuring out how the linked rollers work for my next fight. I totally forgot about poisoning himself. Good call. That would have changed things a lot. Thanks for pointing me to the info on Drow poison. I just went to the DMG...where it doesn't say. If the horse revives (there's a good chance) then he has to dismount you to do all that tripping. I didn't bother setting up to avoid cover because since he has a higher speed and specifically asked to keep in cover, any attempt on Ural's part would have probably been delaying the inevitable...or considered delaying tactics on his part. I'll have to think about that more but with the horse Fort save issue it will probably not be an issue. Finally, oops on the rewards. I assumed she was a class mount. I'll work on changes after work Monday. @Abyssal: If you see anything or disagree, please point them out so I can do everything at once. I added in the rolls to correct my mistakes, and changed the rewards. There was only a 1% chance that the dwarf would have fallen unconscious from his own poison, but there was a 70% chance that the horse would wake up after a minute. I was quite suprised (and admittedly relieved) when he didn't make it. Thanks for the pointers. I didn't adjust to have Ural set up for a charge, as Telinartho pointed out, it doesn't matter in the long run because the attack hit anyway, but I'm not sure I made the right choice. Either I do it this way, potentially depriving the paladin of a hit, or I deviate from Manzarf's tactics to have him charge Ural, or I deal with the Manzarf's tactics technically asking to delay indefinately. I don't think not engaging was his intention, so there's the question of whether I'm interpreting correctly, if he charged her then all that does is make the fight end with his hit points higher. We already know he hits with his first melee attack. The +2 from charging offsets the -2 to Ural's AC. Anyway, I'm rambling and my point is that the only change this would possibly have would then open up issues with me delaying on Manzarf's part (probably against Abyssal's wishes), so I didn't try to change that. I hope this is adequate. My intention next weekend is to: 1) post the fight in stages, starting as soon as I have the tactics...I came very close to having to eliminate over 30 rounds of fight, transfering die rolls, etc. because I couldn't find some information that Telinartho located very quickly; and 2) figure out a way to record rolls that is both efficient and re-assuring. |
| Ravashack01-23-06, 07:20 PM | Thanks Mal-2, that helps. As for summoning in midair, if the Rules don't allow players to start in the arena flying without Good or Perfect Maneuverability, why should the summons get to avoid that rule? I guess that is starting to hint towards the "Ask an Elder" thread now though. |
| bgt01-23-06, 07:56 PM | As for summoning in midair, if the Rules don't allow players to start in the arena flying without Good or Perfect Maneuverability, why should the summons get to avoid that rule? Starting in the arena you would have been standing still for a bit. If you're flying at the start, that would be hovering, which only creatures with good or perfect manuverability can do. Creatures that were summoned in midair are presumed to have been in flight when the spell plucked them from whichever plane it plucked them from. |
| Ravashack01-23-06, 08:16 PM | Starting in the arena you would have been standing still for a bit. If you're flying at the start, that would be hovering, which only creatures with good or perfect manuverability can do. Creatures that were summoned in midair are presumed to have been in flight when the spell plucked them from whichever plane it plucked them from. The problem here is that his constructs aren't flying in the Astral Plane. They're all created from scratch and dissolve back into that scratch when the power is over. |
| lonewolf01-23-06, 08:43 PM | Evaine Dreamseeker vs Kendal Aphos is up. At the point the grapple started this one was nearly decided. |
| MindWandererB01-23-06, 09:11 PM | Evaine Dreamseeker vs Kendal Aphos is up. At the point the grapple started this one was nearly decided.I don't see Biofeedback being applied. With the sheer number of attacks involved, that could make a substantial difference. I also don't see Kendal making a Climb or Jump check to move onto the rock and into Evaine's square, nor does she try to move Evaine off the rock. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-23-06, 09:15 PM | Kimahri Ronso (Dr. Funk) has successfully survived his encounter witha pair of ogres, though he is a bit the worse for wear after his encounter. You can view his progress here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=8267671#post8267671) |
| lonewolf01-23-06, 09:18 PM | I don't see Biofeedback being applied. With the sheer number of attacks involved, that could make a substantial difference. I also don't see Kendal making a Climb or Jump check to move onto the rock and into Evaine's square, nor does she try to move Evaine off the rock. You should check again. Biofeedback is applied and I did make a roll for Kendal to climb onto the rock. |
| Huan01-23-06, 09:27 PM | Bare-bones of Loddick vs Wieniete (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8303375) is up. Short Version: A short exchange of ranged fire with plenty of misses and low dmg. @Pittbull, Snommelp Thanks for the fight Pittbull. Curse you, Snommelp, and your lucky nat 20 crits. :P |
| MindWandererB01-23-06, 09:28 PM | You should check again. Biofeedback is applied and I did make a roll for Kendal to climb onto the rock.I am looking for it. Kendal's grapple damage is applied as 1d8+3 every time. There's no DR 2/- being applied in any case... explicitly. Now I see it: you never mentioned it, but you did indeed reduce the damage by 2 each time. I do see the Climb check (it wasn't mentioned in the fight, but the roll is there), although it happens well after the "move into opponent's square" step of grappling. Okay, it's all cool, these two things were just going on "behind the scenes." |
| Ayrynthyn01-23-06, 10:32 PM | @Book & Rav ...sorry bout the delay getting your fight done. Had some stuff come up. Running it now. |
| DSugui01-23-06, 10:38 PM | Although Dronnar's defeat (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8303244) was due a unlucky roll, there are a few comments I'd like to make: 1. HP should be rounded up, so Dronnar's total should be 21. 2. Dronnar get +4 in his save against Hideous Laughter, since he is giant type and Fjord is humanoid type. Though none o this will change the outcome of the fiight, I think it's worth mention. :P @Begferdeth: You did what I feared most. And had a lot of luck. Good fight, though. :D |
| Macbrea01-23-06, 10:43 PM | Although Dronnar's defeat (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8303244) was due a unlucky roll, there are a few comments I'd like to make: 1. HP should be rounded up, so Dronnar's total should be 21. :D Well that isn't quite right. Here is the quote you need from the SRD: Rounding Fractions In general, if you wind up with a fraction, round down, even if the fraction is one-half or larger. Exception: Certain rolls, such as damage and hit points, have a minimum of 1. So, when halving damage. HPs round down.. unless it is 1. |
| DSugui01-23-06, 10:51 PM | True enough... I must be sleepy... |
| TelinArtho01-23-06, 11:06 PM | I added in the rolls to correct my mistakes, and changed the rewards. There was only a 1% chance that the dwarf would have fallen unconscious from his own poison, but there was a 70% chance that the horse would wake up after a minute. I was quite suprised (and admittedly relieved) when he didn't make it. Thanks for the pointers. I didn't adjust to have Ural set up for a charge, as Telinartho pointed out, it doesn't matter in the long run because the attack hit anyway, but I'm not sure I made the right choice. Either I do it this way, potentially depriving the paladin of a hit, or I deviate from Manzarf's tactics to have him charge Ural, or I deal with the Manzarf's tactics technically asking to delay indefinately. I don't think not engaging was his intention, so there's the question of whether I'm interpreting correctly, if he charged her then all that does is make the fight end with his hit points higher. We already know he hits with his first melee attack. The +2 from charging offsets the -2 to Ural's AC. Anyway, I'm rambling and my point is that the only change this would possibly have would then open up issues with me delaying on Manzarf's part (probably against Abyssal's wishes), so I didn't try to change that. I hope this is adequate. My intention next weekend is to: 1) post the fight in stages, starting as soon as I have the tactics...I came very close to having to eliminate over 30 rounds of fight, transfering die rolls, etc. because I couldn't find some information that Telinartho located very quickly; and 2) figure out a way to record rolls that is both efficient and re-assuring. Looks much better to me. One thing I just noticed (and it doesn't make a difference) is that the final crit doesn't have a confirming roll listed. Dispite that, only using the first two die rolls and a +7 mod drives Ural to -1 anyway. I don't know that I'd suggest posting the fight in stages - but a really good idea when you have a question that is simple like that - PM the player - or just post the question in the tavern. If it isn't a simple rules question - then it at least gets the question started earlier in the week to be resolved (hopefully...). As to an efficient and re-assuring record keeping of dice rolls - I really recommend either Invisible Castle or one of the others listed in the rules thread. If you've got bandwidth problems - I can certainly understand using another avenue - even a simple spreadsheet with a space for the roll, the modifier(s) and the note of the roll would be sufficient - but you'd need to find an efficient way to port it into the fight for 3rd party investigation. Anyway - good luck in the future. |
| Ravashack01-23-06, 11:13 PM | @Book & Rav ...sorry bout the delay getting your fight done. Had some stuff come up. Running it now. It happens. As long as you don't vanish off the face of the earth... |
| MitzaVolchenko01-23-06, 11:43 PM | ECL 7 FFA update...the boards keep coming and going for me about every three to five minutes. If I don't get it completed and posted by the time the boards go down, I will have it posted as soon as they come back up. |
| Snommelp01-24-06, 12:57 AM | Leif vs. the Horseman is up. Most straight-forward fight involving a mage I've ever run. |
| DTFarstar01-24-06, 01:19 AM | I don't want to bore you guys with it, but I'm having alot of personal problems the last few days, illness and other things, I'm not sure about getting the fights I have listed done, and I need to PM Pitlords and tell him I don't want any fights for this coming week. I need to concentrate on job, school, and self. I am doing you guys and myself a disservice if I keep going like this. I'll try, but I don't know what's going to happen. Chris |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 02:13 AM | @Dr. Funk regarding Sola vs. Ivangar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8301777&postcount=82) (nearly complete): As you warned, your grappling is off, way off. You have Sola doing nothing, sitting there and allowing Ivangar to grapple him to death. Sola gets a grapple check on his own initiative to escape, per his instructions. He probably won't succeed, but he gets three tries by my count before he goes down. You don't take damage for trying to escape and failing. Basically the way grappling works is, you try to do something and your opponent tries to stop you, then your opponent tries to do something and you try to stop him. Requires twice as many checks as you have rolled. |
| Iced01-24-06, 02:16 AM | The White Hand vs Lord Frost is up. |
| Luni01-24-06, 03:52 AM | Sdentch vs Vandelar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8305539&postcount=91) is up. Aside; Perhaps hireing mercenaries is too expensive. They give you an ally penalty, and they cost money to hire. :( @NiQil/Kaigan: I'll edit the fight in the morning. I see the same sentence NiQil does, I just retrieve a different meaning from it. I see can't be reduced to under 20 feet of movement... I disagree, but I'm in the minority of one, so I'll change. |
| Dracazar01-24-06, 04:28 AM | about Namara vs Drac I have this big concerns about the fight: After buff sequence complete, attack my targets with: Shocking Grasp [CL3] from memory (the hawk familiar will deliver the touch spell on next two round) True Strike from memory Scorching Ray from scroll (this attack occurs with that of the familiar) Instead: Dra moves 10ft towards Nam, drops his familiar into Nam's square (no AoO due to invisibility), the hawk hits and becomes visible, dealing 8 damage (3 after vigor). Dra casts true strike I'll be very pedant on this issue because this is my only chance to win and also this fight is a rerun. So the correct sequence would be Round 8: Drac drops familiar Round 9: Drac cast True Strike, Hawk waits Round 10: Drac attacks with Schorching Ray, Hawk attack with shocking grasp If he moves away I clearly asked to use True Strike before the ray, so I'm still invisible and I wish to cast another True Strike from memory or scroll Also: Dra draws and casts true strike from a scroll, provoking from both horse and rider but the rides misses and the horse hits an image I clearly asked to use the 5' step to cast or draw scrolls avoiding AoO. The horse need a ride check to use the AoO On Round 13 Drac did nothing? I strongly desire these corrections to the fighs, thanks and sorry for the fusiness. |
| Abyssal Stalker01-24-06, 04:38 AM | I added in the rolls to correct my mistakes, and changed the rewards. There was only a 1% chance that the dwarf would have fallen unconscious from his own poison, but there was a 70% chance that the horse would wake up after a minute. I was quite suprised (and admittedly relieved) when he didn't make it. Thanks for the pointers. I didn't adjust to have Ural set up for a charge, as Telinartho pointed out, it doesn't matter in the long run because the attack hit anyway, but I'm not sure I made the right choice. Either I do it this way, potentially depriving the paladin of a hit, or I deviate from Manzarf's tactics to have him charge Ural, or I deal with the Manzarf's tactics technically asking to delay indefinately. I don't think not engaging was his intention, so there's the question of whether I'm interpreting correctly, if he charged her then all that does is make the fight end with his hit points higher. We already know he hits with his first melee attack. The +2 from charging offsets the -2 to Ural's AC. Anyway, I'm rambling and my point is that the only change this would possibly have would then open up issues with me delaying on Manzarf's part (probably against Abyssal's wishes), so I didn't try to change that. Thanks for running the fight! Don't be too hard on yourself, little mistakes have a nasty habit of sneaking into everyones doings. You did a nice job here. Don't worry whether you ran Manzarf correctly or not, I should've been more specific on my tactics. I just didn't actually believe that I would drop the horse. It was probably some kind of a Diabolical Intervention... :devil: |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 04:52 AM | Hey Drac, I agree with you about the two-round waiting issue, that was clearly your tactic (although I think it is pushing it a bit due to the difficult to communicate and coordinate that properly with your familiar only through empathy). Unfortunately, Namara's contingency in her tactics about moving away the first two times I hear casting nearby while Drac remains invisible will foil your plan, however you look at it. I also saw 10+ other errors, but I will filter through them later when I got more time (the first charge attack was executed against regular AC instead of touch AC, so would have hit, grapple rolls were switched around, with Drac getting the +9 and Namara getting the +3, protection from law was added to the mirror images' AC etc. etc.) Also, it still makes me wonder how the share spells exacty work, because I think the way people play it is still wonky and riddled with subconscious assumptions. I always consider the share spell to produce an independent copy, but there is a school of thought that doesn't consider it a copy, and that if one spell is discharged, the other should be as well, since both are effectively the same spell/linked. School of Thought 1 - You share true strike, and if either you or the familiar attacks, it is discharged for both/ends. - You share invisibility, and if either you or the familiar attacks, it is discharged for both/ends. School of Thought 2 - You share true strike, and if either you or the familiar attacks, only its own copy discharged/ends. - You share invisibility, and if either you or the familiar attacks, only it own copy is discharged/ends. Lot of people say that adhere to School of Thought one, and don't allow true strike to be used twice, but they do allow invisibility to end separately for both parties. That just doesn't make sense. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 05:12 AM | Aside; Perhaps hireing mercenaries is too expensive. They give you an ally penalty, and they cost money to hire. :( Maybe I should start a 'Dispel Illusion' column in the Gladius Weekly. Ally penalties never cost you money directly. They just cost you speed. Really! I know you are staring at this saying to yourself "that ain't true, I clearly get less money for the fight now, do I?". That is just your mind playing logic tricks on you, don't pay attention to it. Example: you have these two fighters, Horseman A and Footsoldier B. Horseman A always fights with his horse and thus receives a ally penalty, Footsoldier B never uses allies. They start at ECL 3 in the CoCo and meet again when they both just gained lvl 5. They compare their total gold income: Horseman A: 15,000 XP and 15,200 gp. Footsoldier B: 15,000 XP and 15,200 gp. Yes, it is exactly equal! Horseman A doesn't have a penny less, even though he receive a ally penalty. Count it yourself if you want, they really will have the same gold. Now for another statistic: Horseman A: needed 11 battles for 5th lvl Footsoldier B: needed 9 battles for 5th lvl So this is what makes the difference, your levelling speed will be lower if you use allies. They don't 'cost' gold in and of themselves. Even worse, suppose that Horseman A and Footsoldier B have a decent profession skill and earn money each fight (50 gp.) as free activity: Horseman A: 15,000 XP and 15,750 gp. Footsoldier B: 15,000 XP and 15,650 gp. Now Horseman A has actually has more money when he reaches level 5 than Footsoldier B! His ally actually 'gained' him money (this is the core of the Maven abuse). EDIT: for those interested, the cost of an ally is a function of the expendables you use in a fight. The more expendables you use, the more costly your ally is. If you don't use any expendables, allies are free! (at the cost of levelling speed of course). |
| Erithmu01-24-06, 07:04 AM | @Dr. Funk regarding Sola vs. Ivangar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8301777&postcount=82) (nearly complete): As you warned, your grappling is off, way off. You have Sola doing nothing, sitting there and allowing Ivangar to grapple him to death. Sola gets a grapple check on his own initiative to escape, per his instructions. He probably won't succeed, but he gets three tries by my count before he goes down. You don't take damage for trying to escape and failing. Basically the way grappling works is, you try to do something and your opponent tries to stop you, then your opponent tries to do something and you try to stop him. Requires twice as many checks as you have rolled. I would like to add in the fact that I see no dispel checks even though Ivan should be visible due to invisiblity purge, (should be before he even charges) I also made my hide check vs his spot check, so I have no idea of how he found me before I got to use my dispel magic. Also please add in profession money made. |
| Erithmu01-24-06, 07:27 AM | @Mitza: I pulled the PM stuff into the open but I haven't seen any comments from either you or shadowmaster. If no one wants to say anything I'll PM Pitlords and push for a rerun next week. Preferably same tactics. Info is here |
| DSugui01-24-06, 07:42 AM | Ally penalties never cost you money directly. They just cost you speed. Really! [...] Horseman A: needed 11 battles for 5th lvl Footsoldier B: needed 9 battles for 5th lvl So this is what makes the difference, your levelling speed will be lower if you use allies. They don't 'cost' gold in and of themselves. Even worse, suppose that Horseman A and Footsoldier B have a decent profession skill and earn money each fight (50 gp.) as free activity: Horseman A: 15,000 XP and 15,750 gp. Footsoldier B: 15,000 XP and 15,650 gp. Now Horseman A has actually has more money when he reaches level 5 than Footsoldier B! His ally actually 'gained' him money (this is the core of the Maven abuse). The math is ok, but the statement is not quite right. After 11 weeks, Horseman A is just leveling up, and Footsoldier B has already earned money in 2 lvl 5 fights [wich pays you more gold], and has made more money with free activity (+1 rnk in skill times +1 ECL). With this, one can say that "Time is money" is true here in CoCo. :D |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 08:09 AM | With this, one can say that "Time is money" is true here in CoCo. :D That is absolutely true. Those who activate their gladiators more often, earn more money. But I don't think anyone was unaware of that fact. ;) But people talk about using allies 'costing money' as if it would make their gladiators weaker. Weaker as compared to the gladiators they fight that don't use allies, because their allies cost them money. That is simply not true. I have 10 gladiators now, but usually activate only 2-3 each week. Gladius time is not a big issue to me. Real time and credits are. If I had plenty both , I could activate all my gladiators.... |
| Mal-201-24-06, 08:19 AM | Ally penalties never cost you money directly. They just cost you speed. Really! I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. An ECL 3 Mercenary costs you 300 gp per fight and reduces your winnings (xp and gp both) by whatever percentage. If you're talking about non-mercenary allies, I agree that they (mostly) only slow down your progression, but the original post was talking about mercenaries in particular. |
| Turin01-24-06, 08:38 AM | I would like to add in the fact that I see no dispel checks even though Ivan should be visible due to invisiblity purge, (should be before he even charges) I also made my hide check vs his spot check, so I have no idea of how he found me before I got to use my dispel magic.I can't disagree with anything Erithmu is saying here (and MindWandererB's comments on grappling are also correct). I'm not sure how this would have went, though, because if I failed my Spot check there would have been no reason to move to the center pillars and into the invisibility purge zone (and then therefore setting off Sola's readied action). I'm pretty sure how this should have gone down (according to the tactics we both sent) was that Ivangar would continue to circle the arena while Sola continued to ready for him. Eventually we would get hit with the delay penalty (probably being illuminated, if precedence is any guide). This would cause Ivangar to rush towards Sola and get hit with the invisibility purge, and immediately thereafter the readied dispel magic. Depending on how the dispel went, Ivangar would then go to Contingency #1 or Contingency #2. If the former, Sola can keep moving and shooting while hiding, but will eventually be spotted (because of the -20 penalty for sniping) and grappled... whether Sola could whittle down Ivangar's hp before he was spotted would be the determining factor in victory. If #2, more or less the same result although Sola would have to deal with the crawling tattoo as well. Also, you didn't do my Contingency #3, which was if I was injured and couldn't detect Sola to heal. Obviously you have me winning the fight, so I'm not going to request a re-run :D but winning legitimately is more fun and I'm sure Erithmu would like an edit! |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 08:45 AM | I'm not sure how you come to that conclusion. An ECL 3 Mercenary costs you 300 gp per fight and reduces your winnings (xp and gp both) by whatever percentage. If you're talking about non-mercenary allies, I agree that they (mostly) only slow down your progression, but the original post was talking about mercenaries in particular. I am not talking about mercenaries solely. The original post was suggesting that if you hired a mercenary you got penalized gold-wise twice, once for paying the mercenary, and once for taking the ally penalty. Next to that this week I saw another Pitlord comment in a fight that said bringing a horse 'cost him' 225 gp. and he doubted if that was worth the victory. I have seen such comments before, just wanted to set the record straight. Because next thing you know we are making up house rules to combat imaginary problems. Effectively, mercenaries cost you 'their hiring price' + 'their hiring price' * 'ally penalty'. Thus an ECL 5 gladiator hiring an ECL 3 mercenary will effectively pay 300 + (300*25%) = 375 gp. for that mercenary. In return for this money he gets better odds to win and a slower progression rate. |
| Mal-201-24-06, 09:00 AM | Effectively, mercenaries cost you 'their hiring price' + 'their hiring price' * 'ally penalty'. Thus an ECL 5 gladiator hiring an ECL 3 mercenary will effectively pay 300 + (300*25%) = 375 gp. for that mercenary. In return for this money he gets better odds to win and a slower progression rate. Yep, I agree with all of that. It's a good deal if that 375 gp buys you more than 375 gp worth of expendables would. I've been trying to minimize my use of expendables recently, since I've got Donak saving for a new magic item, so I tend to see mercenaries as being too expensive. The risk that you take, of course, is that if you spend too much money on expendables and mercenaries, you won't save up any money for better gear down the line. Has anyone ever totalled up the wealth of some of our higher-level gladiators to see how much of thier total income has gone to expendables and how much has gone to gear? I'd be interested to see how win / loss records look for gladiators who spend lots on expendables and those who spend most of thier money on more permanent items. |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 09:08 AM | Well, Lets see which is better off after 30 weeks: Some Assumptions: Both the Footman and the Horseman are going to start at level 3 with a +10 craft skill and gain +1 per level. This is so that they can make money. We are going to assume both of them are gonig to have a 50/50 record against a same level opponent. This isn't a debate over which one actually is better. That is a build debate not a money to experience ratio debate. We are also going to assume they expend ECL * 100 in expendables per fight because that seems to be a correct ratio of expendature for CoCo. We are also assuming the horseman will upgrade from a light warhorse to a heavy warhorse at 6th level. After all, he might as well. it is his strength. Footman Horseman Week Level Exp Gold Level Exp Gold 1 3 3200 3000 3 3200 3000 2 3 4100 3663 3 4025 3588 3 3 4400 3726 3 4300 3626 4 3 5300 4389 3 5125 4214 5 3 5600 4452 3 5400 4252 6 4 6500 5015 4 6225 4740 7 4 6900 5103 4 6600 4803 8 4 8100 5991 4 7725 5616 9 4 8500 6079 4 8100 5679 10 4 9700 6967 4 9225 6492 11 5 10100 6955 4 9600 6455 12 5 11600 8170 5 10725 7168 13 5 12100 8318 5 11200 7290 14 5 13600 9533 5 12625 8425 15 5 14100 9681 5 13100 8547 16 6 15600 9862 5 14525 9582 17 6 16200 11406 6 15000 9604 18 6 18000 11616 6 16650 10982 19 6 18600 13160 6 17200 11015 20 6 20400 13370 6 18850 12393 21 7 21000 14814 6 19400 12326 22 7 23100 14980 7 21050 13604 23 7 23800 17055 7 21700 13698 24 7 25900 17396 7 23650 15588 25 7 26600 19471 7 24300 15868 26 8 28700 19712 7 26250 17658 27 8 29500 22520 7 26900 17838 28 8 31900 23061 8 28850 19628 29 8 32700 25869 8 29600 20099 30 8 35100 26410 8 31850 22695 |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 09:15 AM | I'd be interested to see how win / loss records look for gladiators who spend lots on expendables and those who spend most of thier money on more permanent items. I have many of my characters trying to save on money to buy (and even better Craft) more permanent items farther down the line as well. I doubt you will see a large effect, because even if you use few expendables, if your opponent wins by using a lot of expendables, each expendable will effectively cost you triple on a loss. I just calculate the percentages if I am going to use any expendables. If I feel expendable X gives me an extra 10% extra chance to win, and it will use up less than 10% of the gold that I get if I win, it is worth it. Problem with saving up is that other factors can be troubling. Nexa once participated in a quest above her ECL, which meant she got 1800 gp. less than she would if she had just done a quest at her ECL. Nexa maybe saved 900 gp. in her six fights before that by being conservative with expendables. Due to the manner in which differing ECL quests are rewarded, my savings had much less impact as that single quest. Also, if you get a monster fight against multiple monsters, that can also easily gain you a big net profit. 700 gp. extra fell into Tezca's lap for just such a fight. Such random windfalls rather defeat the purpose of closely controlling your expenses. Also, in higher ECL fights the gold rewards become so great, that you will hardly notice the 150 gp. you saved at the beginning of your career. What I would be interested in is getting some kind of XP to GP. ratio for each gladiator, to see how wealthy they are in relation to their fellows, and compare that to their win/loss ratings at differing levels. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 09:22 AM | . This isn't a debate over which one actually is better. That is a build debate not a money to experience ratio debate. Actually, it is. All what you are saying is that higher level (more XP) characters have more gold. I don't think anybody will be suprised at that. What I do think some people will be suprised at is to find out that two characters, one with and one without allies, are not better or worse off at a certain point in their career as the other, when it concerns amount gold earned. Your table proves the following things: - Footsolder B progresses faster than Horseman A - If you progress faster you reach a higher level sooner - If you are higher level, you have more XP and more gold than someone of lower level These are fairly self-evident. EDIT: Any appreciable difference depends on the ratio of expendables spent per fight versus the benefit you get in winning due to your ally. If you are going to factor in percentages in expendables, you should also factor extra odds in winning due to the ally. Just getting a random number like ECL*100 doesn't do any good. And my point was than allies, of and in themselves, don't cost you gold. |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 09:29 AM | No, that isn't true.. Example.. Lets look at the point that the footman has 21k of exp. 7 21000 14814 You will notice he has 14,814 gp at this point. Now. Lets look on that chart to see what gold the Horseman has around 21k exp. 7 21050 13604 13,604 gps You will notice an effect that is occuring. As we go along. The Horseman is loosing out Gold to Experience ratio wise. He is having to buy expendables more often per level. By taking more fights he is costing himself in the long run. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 09:31 AM | You will notice an effect that is occuring. As we go along. The Horseman is loosing out Gold to Experience ratio wise. He is having to buy expendables more often per level. By taking more fights he is costing himself in the long run. I read too fast, didn't know you were going in factor expendables. See edit above. |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 09:34 AM | Just getting a random number like ECL*100 doesn't do any good. Actually, you will discover that the average person does expend that much in expendables in this arena. That is 300gp at level 3. 800gp at level 8. That was a decent number to choose. It doesn't hold true of all characters in CoCo but you will discover some spend alot more then others. Gorak quit spending money on expendables. While Marcus expends 600gp per fight, in the method that I have him set up. |
| Snommelp01-24-06, 09:36 AM | No, that isn't true.. Example.. Lets look at the point that the footman has 21k of exp. 7 21000 14814 You will notice he has 14,814 gp at this point. Now. Lets look on that chart to see what gold the Horseman has around 21k exp. 7 21050 13604 13,604 gps You will notice an effect that is occuring. As we go along. The Horseman is loosing out Gold to Experience ratio wise. He is having to buy expendables more often per level. By taking more fights he is costing himself in the long run.If you're going to try to factor in such an unreliable statistic as expendables used, you should make note of the fact that mounted gladiators tend to use less expendables, and you would also be wise to account for free-action money making, which roughly half of the gladiators here are taking advantage of. You can't add just one more factor and call it a finished product. And, like Usurpator, I am curious as to how you chose ECL*100 as the amount of expendables used. EDIT: Too slow; you answered the last question. So you are using your own gladiators as the base, it seems. I could do that, too; then the projected expendables used would fall drastically. |
| Mal-201-24-06, 09:39 AM | Anyone seen Nightbanegod around this week? He posted the shells of his two fights on Thursday, but I haven't seen any sign of them being run either here or on Invisible Castle... |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 09:40 AM | If you're going to try to factor in such an unreliable statistic as expendables used, you should make note of the fact that mounted gladiators tend to use less expendables, and you would also be wise to account for free-action money making, which roughly half of the gladiators here are taking advantage of. You can't add just one more factor and call it a finished product. And, like Usurpator, I am curious as to how you chose ECL*100 as the amount of expendables used. I assumed they were taking the free action to make money every week. This isn't exactly correct and any week they choose not to do it alters the scale. |
| Snommelp01-24-06, 09:48 AM | I assumed they were taking the free action to make money every week. This isn't exactly correct and any week they choose not to do it alters the scale. Ah yes, I missed that. But again, you are oversimplifying things; both have +10 to craft at level 3, both are using ECL*100 in expendables, and yet the mounted gladiator is doing only just as well as the foot soldier. This is unrealistic. All that aside, what is the point of this, anyway? |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 09:53 AM | If we are going to debate use real-life examples, for that I have just entered the treasure totals from Aramur, one of my Horsemen/Ally User characters pur sang next to your imaginary footsoldier. Maybe you can find a similar fitting example for the footsoldier. Footman Aramur Week Level Exp Gold Level Exp Gold 1 3 3200 3000 3 3200 3000 2 3 4100 3663 3 3681 3481 3 3 4400 3726 3 4524 4324 4 3 5300 4389 3 5199 4999 5 3 5600 4452 3 5874 5674 6 4 6500 5015 4 6525 6349 7 4 6900 5103 4 6849 6702 |
| Warclone01-24-06, 10:05 AM | @everyone: DTFarstar is having some troubles in his life (previous post) and I think we all can respect that. However, the fight is unacceptable as stands, and DTF has asked others to take his fights for him. I would like to ask if anyone else would be willing to take up this fight and finish it or if I will need to end up PMing Cat. Solomon (Warclone) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth): DTFarstar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8297997) Here is a post on the issue. |
| waywreth01-24-06, 10:26 AM | @everyone: DTFarstar is having some troubles in his life (previous post) and I think we all can respect that. However, the fight is unacceptable as stands, and DTF has asked others to take his fights for him. I would like to ask if anyone else would be willing to take up this fight and finish it or if I will need to end up PMing Cat. Solomon (Warclone) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth): DTFarstar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8297997) Here is a post on the issue. And here's my response (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8299854&postcount=240) Comments by Ursurpator (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8300177&postcount=243) Comments by Ravashack (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8300786&postcount=252) |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 10:29 AM | @everyone: DTFarstar is having some troubles in his life (previous post) and I think we all can respect that. However, the fight is unacceptable as stands, and DTF has asked others to take his fights for him. I would like to ask if anyone else would be willing to take up this fight and finish it or if I will need to end up PMing Cat. Solomon (Warclone) vs Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth): DTFarstar (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8297997) Here is a post on the issue. Hey Warclone, I am glad to take it up, unfortunately, the biggest problem with the fight is the delay question, and there is not a clear answer to that IMO. I don't think you brought up any valid points about the summoning issue yet (summoning in the air, getting close to him etc.). I have lost many fights due to issues, some of them rule issues which where later clarified and/or decided in my favor, some never adressed at all. I have had Pitlords not respond to issues at all. It happens. For example, most, but not all of my issues in the FFA with Solomon and Kitaya were adressed. Some outstanding issues might have changed the fight, but new pairings were already due at that time, so there just was not enough time anymore.... Just warning you that there comes a time when you have to let go and focus your energy on future fights. I will support you in any effort to get the delay rule clarified. |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 10:52 AM | If we are going to debate use real-life examples, for that I have just entered the treasure totals from Aramur, one of my Horsemen/Ally User characters pur sang next to your imaginary footsoldier. Maybe you can find a similar fitting example for the footsoldier. Footman Aramur Week Level Exp Gold Level Exp Gold 1 3 3200 3000 3 3200 3000 2 3 4100 3663 3 3681 3481 3 3 4400 3726 3 4524 4324 4 3 5300 4389 3 5199 4999 5 3 5600 4452 3 5874 5674 6 4 6500 5015 4 6525 6349 7 4 6900 5103 4 6849 6702 Choosing three 4th level Footman. We get: Gorak Felan Turok Karen Douglas Level Exp Gold Level Exp Gold Level Exp Gold 3 3200 3000 3 3200 3000 3 3200 3000 3 3500 3162 3 4100 3686 3 4700 4360 3 3800 3312 3 4400 3672 3 5600 5120 3 4100 3462 3 4700 3948 3 5900 5420 3 4400 3762 3 6500 4963 3 6800 6180 3 5300 4662 4 6900 5225 4 8000 7305 3 5675 4477 4 8100 6337 4 9200 8089 3 6575 5377 4 9650 8623 4 6975 5777 |
| Snommelp01-24-06, 10:58 AM | Choosing three 4th level Footman. We get: Gorak Felan Turok Karen Douglas Level Exp Gold Level Exp Gold Level Exp Gold 3 3200 3000 3 3200 3000 3 3200 3000 3 3500 3162 3 4100 3686 3 4700 4360 3 3800 3312 3 4400 3672 3 5600 5120 3 4100 3462 3 4700 3948 3 5900 5420 3 4400 3762 3 6500 4963 3 6800 6180 3 5300 4662 4 6900 5225 4 8000 7305 3 5675 4477 4 8100 6337 4 9200 8089 3 6575 5377 4 9650 8623 4 6975 5777 It's a tad more difficult when one of you lists 6000 XP as level 3 and the other as level 4, but close inspection reveals that, if anything, Aramur has more GP than the average foot soldier of comparative XP. And now that that is apparently settled, will someone tell me what the point of that excercise was? |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 11:04 AM | The reason I listed 6000 at level 3 was because that was the amounts after he fought the fight. The fight was fought then the exp was won. The original claim was that allies end up costing too much in the long run. What was discovered in truth was that unless you have a horse or are willnig to expend a huge amount on expendables your record will suck. :P |
| DSugui01-24-06, 11:05 AM | And now that that is apparently settled, will someone tell me what the point of that excercise was? I think the point is that it doesn't matter if you use allies or not, you make the same gold as everyone else. |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 11:06 AM | There are a couple exceptions. But it shows up in extremes on those with huge win/loss ratios. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 11:27 AM | Choosing three 4th level Footman. We get: Thanks for the extra data, very interesting! The data pool is probably too small to make good inferences, but certainly interesting to look at. Maybe we should include power and win/loss ratio's as well at some later date. @Snommelp: My point was to say that using allies does not automatically mean you will run behind in comparison to non-ally users when it concerns treasure. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 11:39 AM | Is anyone up for taking Kitaya vs. three ECL 3's (Famine, Theoricus and Rohan)? @DTFarstar: Assuming you are not able to run this fight, of course. |
| Ayrynthyn01-24-06, 11:54 AM | @Book5 & Rav Fight's done..., If anyone would care to review it, i'll adjust as needed. I need to work out the rewards, but that will have to wait a bit. The adacity of these guys here at work, wanting me to do...work :embarrass ...anyway, i really have no idea what im doing, so feel free to critique, gripe and complain |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 11:54 AM | LEVEL 3 FIGHTS KitayaECL4 (Usurpator) vs Rohan (Altaris13) & Theoricus (bgt) & Famine (NiQil): DTFarstar [Team] [Inter-League] Challack (DTFarstar) vs Lunoria Evershine (Luni): Nightbanegod [Late] Aerryl Nalladar (MindWandererB) vs Mindrel Avhost (Zevox): Lonewolf [Late] [Running right now] Tarik Vale (Myrridin) vs War (NiQil): DTFarstar [Late] LEVEL 4 FIGHTS Rethun Woshad (Kaigan) vs Tsiuzues Pettles (Skojar): Papapeperoni [Late] Ajora, Avatar of Life (King Uther) vs Faelto (TelinArtho): Altaris13 [Late] LEVEL 5 FIGHTS Donak (Mal-2) vs Cyra Val (Stormwind): Nightbanegod [Late] LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Griff Mythral (Iced) vs Sir Valkin (TelinArtho): Book5 [Late] Still waiting on revisions LEVEL 7 FIGHTS Ashhûr (Luni) vs Noko (Maraxus) vs Lissa (MysticMonk2005): Kaigan MitzaVolchenko [All vs All] [Late] [Complete but not posted yet because of board flakiness] Unfortunately, I actually don't have enough time to take an extra fight or two today. Please - if you have the ability - volunteer to help out and pick up these late fights by requesting the tactics of both players. /d |
| lonewolf01-24-06, 12:10 PM | Im running my own late fight at the moment and should be finished sometime this night. |
| Luni01-24-06, 12:22 PM | Unfortunately, I actually don't have enough time to take an extra fight or two today. Please - if you have the ability - volunteer to help out and pick up these late fights by requesting the tactics of both players. /d I could take one fight, if someone can send me tactics. |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 12:32 PM | @Luni - I'll send you Faelto's tactics presently. Hopefully Uther will be on and can get his in to you as well. It should either be a real quick fight or one that might take a little while. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 12:35 PM | There are a couple exceptions. But it shows up in extremes on those with huge win/loss ratios.It doesn't have to be a huge win/loss ratio, it's that combined with the person's habits in expendables. If a character traditionally uses ECL*100 gp in expendables, then using any ally at all will cause a net loss of gp when the match is lost. If you use an ally (especially a mercenary), you either have to have an excellent win ratio, cut down on your expendables, or be a Profession whiz, or else your XP begins to exceed your gp. |
| Luni01-24-06, 12:55 PM | Ok. I've edited Pestilence vs Emon. The winner has changed. :( @NiQil: I don't understand why you wanted to be so close to Emon. I'll go PM all the respective parties. |
| Ravashack01-24-06, 01:02 PM | @Book5 & Rav Fight's done..., If anyone would care to review it, i'll adjust as needed. I need to work out the rewards, but that will have to wait a bit. The adacity of these guys here at work, wanting me to do...work :embarrass ...anyway, i really have no idea what im doing, so feel free to critique, gripe and complain About your comments--I just simply didn't notice he had Expeditious Retreat available, so it's my fault. In that case I would have just said to Demoralize once they got close enough. I honestly would have preferred if you HAD alternated between shooting and regaining focus however, instead of only deciding to regain focus later, when they're closer and in AOO range, despite the fact that the dice hate me tonight. In addition, there is no reason to keep rolling concentration checks once he regains focus. Psionic Focus does NOT go away from getting hurt so I have no clue why you are making him waste time making unnecessary checks. It's just 1 roll vs. DC 20 to regain focus. It's not a spell/power. If Perius achieves focus, it only goes away if he is unconscious (or worse) or uses it, or if some ability specifically gets rid of it. That means Round 10 should not have an AOO related to that at all, because he shouldn't be retrying to regain focus that he already has. |
| Begferdeth01-24-06, 01:02 PM | Hennan vs Gundir V2 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8291680&postcount=70) is up. He ran, he hid, he jumped on Gundir... In the end, it just didnt wanna work. |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 01:03 PM | Mitza has this fight done already. She just hasn't been able to get the boards to work properly to allow her to post it. LEVEL 7 FIGHTS Ashhûr (Luni) vs Noko (Maraxus) vs Lissa (MysticMonk2005): Kaigan MitzaVolchenko [All vs All] [Late] |
| Warclone01-24-06, 01:15 PM | Hey Warclone, I am glad to take it up, unfortunately, the biggest problem with the fight is the delay question, and there is not a clear answer to that IMO. I am starting to get a bit aggrevated, because I have made my point multiple times clearly and there is no unclarity in the delay rules. He is objectively in violation and I am objectively not in violation of the delay rules of Gladuis posted here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=6466659). There is a non-cumulative 10-round limit to delaying tactics... applies if one of the characters wants to engage the other(me), but the other one is hiding, invisible, or out of reach(him)... No interpretation is neccisary. His tactics were to "stay out of reach" and "not engage me," while doing NOTHING ELSE. This is simple enough for a child to understand, but maybe it is my fault for not explaining clearly. if a wizard is flying over the head(me=invisible) of a melee fighter and peppering him with Magic Missiles(me=summoning) while he is unable to do anything, no penalty should be givenWhile, as you can see, my tactic was completely valid. I am in a position in which he cannot attack me, but I AM attacking him. He is in a position where I cannot attack him, but he is NOT attacking me. There is no vagarity or room for interpretation in these rules, and the argument "the rules do not address this issue" is false. I wrote my tactics with the above rules in mind, and if they are not enforced I will not drop the issue until Caternae himself tells me to shove it or the fight is changed fairly. Now, will anyone rerun this fight? If not, I will send a PM to Caternae later today. |
| Dracazar01-24-06, 01:19 PM | Hey Drac, I agree with you about the two-round waiting issue, that was clearly your tactic (although I think it is pushing it a bit due to the difficult to communicate and coordinate that properly with your familiar only through empathy).. Nice to hear, we are waiting for Warclone... Unfortunately, Namara's contingency in her tactics about moving away the first two times I hear casting nearby while Drac remains invisible will foil your plan, however you look at it. Yes but Drac has 2 scroll and 2 spell leves. Also, it still makes me wonder how the share spells exacty work, because I think the way people play it is still wonky and riddled with subconscious assumptions. I always consider the share spell to produce an independent copy, but there is a school of thought that doesn't consider it a copy, and that if one spell is discharged, the other should be as well, since both are effectively the same spell/linked. School of Thought 1 - You share true strike, and if either you or the familiar attacks, it is discharged for both/ends. - You share invisibility, and if either you or the familiar attacks, it is discharged for both/ends. School of Thought 2 - You share true strike, and if either you or the familiar attacks, only its own copy discharged/ends. - You share invisibility, and if either you or the familiar attacks, only it own copy is discharged/ends. Lot of people say that adhere to School of Thought one, and don't allow true strike to be used twice, but they do allow invisibility to end separately for both parties. That just doesn't make sense. Try to post in Tavern or Ask an Elder? |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 01:20 PM | First though, let me remind everyone to remain calm and courteous as always (Warclone - your post was very acidic). Now, Solomon is invisible. He has no intent on engaging his opponent except via his summons. By doing this, he remains impossible to detect by his opponent - so his opponent is akin to the fighter who cannot reach the flying opponent. His opponent therefore is not in violation. That being said, Solomon is not in violation that I can think of - though this is less clear - because he is only interacting with his opponent via a 2nd medium (the summons). |
| Warclone01-24-06, 01:24 PM | Actually Warclone - you are in violation. That being said, Solomon is not in violation that I can think of I don't understand this, Solomon is my character. |
| Turin01-24-06, 01:24 PM | Was it settled how the downtime is going to affect the character editing or pairings schedule? There was mention by Cat early last week that pairings might happen early. The reason I ask is that Erithmu and I have concerns over our fight run by Dr. Funk and he hasn't yet had a chance to respond. I don't want to run out of time for the fight and my character to be edited and then unintentionally miss pairings. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 01:27 PM | Actually Warclone - you are in violation.Actually, I'm not so sure. It has never been clearly defined as to whether a character who has summons/allies attack, but who stays hidden himself, is in violation. I brought this up last week in Mektos vs. Ch'ch'ili, and nothing came of it, because it was decided that Ch'ch'ili wouldn't have won anyway. This would be a good issue to bring up in Ask an Elder, but precedent allows Warclone to do exactly what he did. As for whether Drac was in violation, that's also debatable, although my opinion is that running away from an opponent whose lifespan is numbered in rounds is a perfectly acceptable way of dealing with it. |
| Begferdeth01-24-06, 01:27 PM | WOOO! Fjord won! :D He should totally get a bit of bonus money there, for the 10-round air-guitar concert in mid-battle, eh? Thats gotta be some serious circumstance bonus to his perform check :) Although Dronnar's defeat (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8303244) was due a unlucky roll, there are a few comments I'd like to make: 1. HP should be rounded up, so Dronnar's total should be 21. 2. Dronnar get +4 in his save against Hideous Laughter, since he is giant type and Fjord is humanoid type. Though none o this will change the outcome of the fiight, I think it's worth mention. :P @Begferdeth: You did what I feared most. And had a lot of luck. Good fight, though. :D |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 01:33 PM | @Warclone I suggest cooling down a bit. If several people don't agree with you (for example I, the Pitlord, and the person who wrote the tactics), it should be fairly obvious that the rule isn't at all that clear as you want it to be. And certainly it doesn't qualify as an 'objective violation', if such a thing could even exist. I am not saying that it was not a violation, I was just contending that the rule leaves to room for individual intepretation. This is exactly a recipe for such indignation as you feel now. I have felt that way several times before too, when Pitlords applied the rule differently than I expected. Please try to look at it from the other parties point of view, I think the Pitlord was not deliberately trying to disadvantage you, nor was the other player looking to violate the delay rule. There was a difference of interpretation. I have supported my position with arguments, and you did not respond to them. Just continuing hammering at your point doesn't make it more clear. As I pointed out, I have had fights where concerned parties came over to my point of view, but still the fight didn't change, usually because there was no more time to edit it, or the discussion was resolved after new pairings. It happens. Besides that, your post comes dangerously close to calling me (and others) stupid. Insulting me won't get you what you want. At least, not with me. The rule here is that a Pitlord's call is final, even though it might be horribly and terribly wrong, faulty and nonsense in your own perspective. Pitlords are not required to edit or rerun fight, but can do so as a courtesy to the parties. Just keep that in mind. |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 01:37 PM | I don't understand this, Solomon is my character. That's because after looking through the fight some more I realized that I didn't think either character was in violation. I'll edit the post to reflect my thinking. However, bear in mind that Solomon's opponent isn't by definition of the example given of the fighter and the flying opponent; Solomon might be in violation since it is not himself who is interacting, but rather his summons. |
| Erithmu01-24-06, 01:42 PM | Was it settled how the downtime is going to affect the character editing or pairings schedule? There was mention by Cat early last week that pairings might happen early. The reason I ask is that Erithmu and I have concerns over our fight run by Dr. Funk and he hasn't yet had a chance to respond. I don't want to run out of time for the fight and my character to be edited and then unintentionally miss pairings. I'm not that concerned. Once you get me in a grapple you have the upper hand and can always pull me back in. All the inital rolls are in non expanded form. Take the win (I already took the loss) I do need rewards to be put in correctly though. Where Sola makes money for his profession. In Addition: I am not in agreement with the final ruling on the fight between Selene and Zewi This is bolded because it is the the third time I have said something, and I have not heard back from either Mitza (Zewi) or Shadowmaster(pitlord) about remedying the situation. Information is located here. If these can not be resolved I would request a rerun next week with the same tactics. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 01:46 PM | I don't understand this, Solomon is my character. As I pointed out in a previous post, it is difficult to determine the violator with the current delay rules. If your opponent cast all manners of buffs on himself, and Solomon stayed invisible, only summoning a 1 pp. construct to attack after 9 rounds, waited for another 9, and summoned another 1 pp. construct, both construct obviously unable to hurt the other player besides some miraculous luck. Would Solomon be in violation? What if they were 2 pp. constructs, or 3 pp.? (but still unable to hit their opponent besides rolling a 20) What if Solomon didn't wait for 9, but for 6 rounds? At what point is his intention delaying? Does the amount of effort count, or the effectiveness of the effort? Can an invisible wizard send out his familiar after 9 rounds to attack his opponent and thus be considered not delaying? Would it matter if said familiar can kill the opponent, or if it was charged with shocking graps, for 1d6, 5d6, against an opponent that has immunity to electricity? These are all difficult factors to consider where Pitlords must atributte 'the intention to engage' and 'significant interaction' both terribly subjective terms. There is no clear answer to such quandaries. As I pitlord I could claim: 'Well Solomon just stayed invisible and sent out constructs that would never be able to reach his opponent because of his superior speed. WarClone could have known that in advance, and thus only made a token effort. He hoped that his opponent would stay and fight, but was beaten by superior tactics. After 10 rounds of such ineffectual summoning, he should be slapped for delaying, because he was just postponing his eventual defeat.' Stupid ruling? probably. Supported by the delay rule? yes. |
| lonewolf01-24-06, 01:47 PM | I just lost the first half of the fight for the 2nd time because of board lags(I know I should have saved it.) So dont expect it to be up any time soon. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 01:52 PM | I'm not that concerned. Once you get me in a grapple you have the upper hand and can always pull me back in. All the inital rolls are in non expanded form. Take the win (I already took the loss) I do need rewards to be put in correctly though. Where Sola makes money for his profession. In Addition: I am not in agreement with the final ruling on the fight between Selene and Zewi This is bolded because it is the the third time I have said something, and I have not heard back from either Mitza (Zewi) or Shadowmaster(pitlord) about remedying the situation. Information is located here. If these can not be resolved I would request a rerun next week with the same tactics. Alright, first, Eirthmu, I agree that it needs another edit. Second, you PM'd your concerns to me and shadowmaster, I PM'd both of you back. On consideration it is likely that whoever was listed second in both cases did not get the PM. Second, the character name is Zwei. Finally, I really hate having a character pulled for a week. That fight comes down to whether or not Selene can close with Zwei not Zewi (Zwei und'Vierzig=Two and Forty=42). My tactics are to avoid that, yours are to base. It becomes a foot race wherein I can double move ahead of you until your enhanced movement goes down and then can move and shoot at my leisure. I have no objection to a re-run, but I do object to a carry over. The first version was worse than the second in that NONE of the movement was right for either character. I don't mind losing by the rules. Additionally, shadowmaster does not use an online die roller, and I do not believe he kept the rolls from the first fight. The ECL 7 FFA Noko vs. Lissa vs. Ashhur may be up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8301765&postcount=81) It is hard for me to tell asmost pages are not really loading, but my posts were makig it through last night withthe same sort of page reaction. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 01:52 PM | @Warclone I suggest cooling down a bit. If several people don't agree with you (for example I, the Pitlord, and the person who wrote the tactics), it should be fairly obvious that the rule isn't at all that clear as you want it to be. And certainly it doesn't qualify as an 'objective violation', if such a thing could even exist. I am not saying that it was not a violation, I was just contending that the rule leaves to room for individual intepretation. This is exactly a recipe for such indignation as you feel now. I have felt that way several times before too, when Pitlords applied the rule differently than I expected. Please try to look at it from the other parties point of view, I think the Pitlord was not deliberately trying to disadvantage you, nor was the other player looking to violate the delay rule. There was a difference of interpretation. I have supported my position with arguments, and you did not respond to them. Just continuing hammering at your point doesn't make it more clear. As I pointed out, I have had fights where concerned parties came over to my point of view, but still the fight didn't change, usually because there was no more time to edit it, or the discussion was resolved after new pairings. It happens. Besides that, your post comes dangerously close to calling me (and others) stupid. Insulting me won't get you what you want. At least, not with me. The rule here is that a Pitlord's call is final, even though it might be horribly and terribly wrong, faulty and nonsense in your own perspective. Pitlords are not required to edit or rerun fight, but can do so as a courtesy to the parties. Just keep that in mind. Then I could take <max> fights, filp a coin to decide who wins, and rake in the credits while refusing any requests for a rerun. This is what happened, even if it to a lesser extreme. DTFarstar did not intentionally try to hurt my character. What did happen, is that he was having a very tough week. He had to do this stupid 'pilording' thing on the internet when he had 10 different more pressing issues. He had the choice between not enforcing a difficult rule and getting the fight over with or taking the time to make up what would happen once the rule is violated, since it does not give the punishment but only the criteria for violation. So, he subconciously and incorrectly chose the former, and here we are. wayreth does not agree with me because it is his character and he would much prefer a win over a loss. I don't blame him for this belief, but it is a false one. You do not agree with me but you also do not disagree with me. You claim I have not responded to your points, but you only made one. Sooo here we go. "don't think you brought up any valid points about the summoning issue yet" Nobody believes you can't manifest into the air except Ravashack, who was ignorant on critical rules regarding the issue multiple times and changed his core argument each time. I don't consider his opinion very moving on the subject. I'm not sure what you believe on this issue, but it seems you like to side with the underdog on points of logic. "I have lost many fights due to issues..." "...It happens." This is not an argument. "For example..." "...focus your energy on future fights." This is also not an argument. "I will support you in any effort to get the delay rule clarified." This is also not an argument. |
| Ayrynthyn01-24-06, 01:55 PM | In addition, there is no reason to keep rolling concentration checks once he regains focus. Psionic Focus does NOT go away from getting hurt so I have no clue why you are making him waste time making unnecessary checks. It's just 1 roll vs. DC 20 to regain focus. It's not a spell/power. If Perius achieves focus, it only goes away if he is unconscious (or worse) or uses it, or if some ability specifically gets rid of it. That means Round 10 should not have an AOO related to that at all, because he shouldn't be retrying to regain focus that he already has.Yeah, i was kinda out of my element on all this, and kept bouncing around the SRD lookin up all this um... "core" stuff. I had questioned it my self, but it is a full round action to regain focus. I determined that since it was a full round action, that any damage taken in that round would require a concentration check or interupt the action (per the "10 + damage dealt " and "Damaged during the action."). Since it was an easier check than the regain focus in the first place, i didn't anticipate it being a problem. The dice didnt agree with me or you in this case. If this is an incorrect intrupretation, i'd like to see a cite if you could. Providing that, i'd have no issue with adjusting it... Full Round Action - A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step. |
| Erithmu01-24-06, 02:02 PM | Alright, first, Eirthmu, I agree that it needs another edit. Second, you PM'd your concerns to me and shadowmaster, I PM'd both of you back. On consideration it is likely that whoever was listed second in both cases did not get the PM. Second, the character name is Zwei. Finally, I really hate having a character pulled for a week. That fight comes down to whether or not Selene can close with Zwei not Zewi (Zwei und'Vierzig=Two and Forty=42). My tactics are to avoid that, yours are to base. It becomes a foot race wherein I can double move ahead of you until your enhanced movement goes down and then can move and shoot at my leisure. I have no objection to a re-run, but I do object to a carry over. The first version was worse than the second in that NONE of the movement was right for either character. I don't mind losing by the rules. Additionally, shadowmaster does not use an online die roller, and I do not believe he kept the rolls from the first fight. Do you have an alternate suggestion to the rerun? I don't want the loss and both of us had a win at some point for this fight. If shadowmaster can't get a result that we are both happy with I must request a rerun. I don't want to, but I feel like the things wrong with the fight are not something that I can overlook. Also if you move/shoot I can close and then you have to move/reload due to the crossbow. I think I can still close on you. My appoligies on the incorrect spelling of Zwei. |
| Mal-201-24-06, 02:04 PM | Nobody believes you can't manifest into the air except Ravashack, who was ignorant on critical rules regarding the issue multiple times and changed his core argument each time. I don't consider his opinion very moving on the subject. I'm not sure what you believe on this issue, but it seems you like to side with the underdog on points of logic. I've posted (several times) that I believe it's well within a pitlord's discretion to disallow summoning in mid-air. If anything, allowing you to summon in mid-air is bending the rules. I posted all the appropriate rules cites for that in the Ask an Elder thread. I understand that you don't like the outcome of the fight. Still, I think trying to get someone else to run it at the last minute because you don't like the way your assigned pitlord did it is wrong. If you and your opponent both think it was wrong, ask Cat to have it held for a re-run next week. If you and your opponent can't agree on that, you'll have to chalk it up to a fight lost due to pitlord error. You won't be the first or the last to have to do that. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 02:05 PM | If your opponent cast all manners of buffs on himself, and Solomon stayed invisible, only summoning a 1 pp. construct to attack after 9 rounds, waited for another 9, and summoned another 1 pp. construct, both construct obviously unable to hurt the other player besides some miraculous luck. Would Solomon be in violation? No, Solomon would not be in violation. Solomon is interacting meainingfully with his opponent, and many fights have no hope beyond nat20s. The difference between this and what he did is he did not interact with me, while I am creating attack rolls to be rolled against him. At what point is his intention delaying? Does the amount of effort count, or the effectiveness of the effort?All you must do is interact meaninfully with an opponent. Running and waiting for timed spells to run out is not meaningfull or else going invisible and hiding in a corner for 2 hours to waste your opponent's buffs would be an allowable tactic, which it is not. Can an invisible wizard send out his familiar after 9 rounds to attack his opponent and thus be considered not delaying? Yes, he can. However, his familiar would likely be killed and he would have nothing to send out the next time the delay counter expires. 'Well Solomon just stayed invisible and sent out constructs that would never be able to reach his opponent because of his superior speed. WarClone could have known that in advance, and thus only made a token effort. He hoped that his opponent would stay and fight, but was beaten by superior tactics. After 10 rounds of such ineffectual summoning, he should be slapped for delaying, because he was just postponing his eventual defeat.'Each of your arguments ignores a different part of the rules. I am trying to engange him to the best of my ability, while he is trying to not engage me to the best of his ability. This is called delaying tactics, and is prohibited. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 02:08 PM | @Warclone While I see your arguments as having validity, I can assure you that your assessment of DTFarstar's treatment of the fight is not correct. He did post looking for opinions and didn't get any. I do not consider an invis and summon strat to be a delay of game. Summoning creatures to fight for you is a valid strategy (see my Sliver with all of 4 HP's...you think I am gonna go toe to toe with anyone?). However, I also do not see running from a summon while seeking the summoner (even if you can't win...which there is always a chance that you will get a 20 on spot and know that they are nearby) as delaying. It is a tough issue and one that the elders need to look at. Neither of you could be hit with delay penalty fairly so he decided to not use it. Either of you could have made a meaningless gesture to negate the delay timer once every ten rounds. |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 02:18 PM | @Warclone - I've reviewed the fight once more and the applicable rules that you want. Here's the Delay rule, for reference: 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. In the fight, Gaston wants to engage Solomon - but can't due to Solomon being invisible. Since Gaston has no effective means to interact with Solomon while Solomon is invisible - he cannot be held in violation per this rule. On the same note, while Invisible, Solomon is interacting with Gaston because of the summons. Since the summons are doing their best to take down Gaston - Solomon will not be in violation. So, since neither one will be in violation, the only solution for Gaston is to run away until either a) you run out of PP to summon with or b) your invisibility fades. If there is a valid argument beyond this issue - let me know - for I don't believe this issue is going to be changed in the fight according to my knowledge of the delay rule. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 02:20 PM | @Warclone While I see your arguments as having validity, I can assure you that your assessment of DTFarstar's treatment of the fight is not correct. He did post looking for opinions and didn't get any. I do not consider an invis and summon strat to be a delay of game. Summoning creatures to fight for you is a valid strategy (see my Sliver with all of 4 HP's...you think I am gonna go toe to toe with anyone?). However, I also do not see running from a summon while seeking the summoner (even if you can't win...which there is always a chance that you will get a 20 on spot and know that they are nearby) as delaying. It is a tough issue and one that the elders need to look at. Neither of you could be hit with delay penalty fairly so he decided to not use it. Either of you could have made a meaningless gesture to negate the delay timer once every ten rounds. Your argument as to why he is not delaying is the same as the others: because there is nothing he can do otherwise, and it logically makes sense running to waste duration should be an OK tactic. The fact is, just because he can't do anything but attack my constructs, does NOT mean he is immune to the delay rule. In his circumstance, the only action he could take safely is attack my constructs, which is the entire point of my character. Running to waste duration of spells is not a legitimate tactic, or else I could use invisibility/burrow/spider climb/etc to waste the duration of every single one of my opponent's buffs before I ever fight. Running and doing nothing else is delaying, even if it is the smart thing to do otherwise. Usually delaying is the smart thing to do, or else we wouldnt bother making a rule about it. |
| Papapeperoni01-24-06, 02:26 PM | So sorry this is so late, but I cannot run the fight between Rethun Woshad (Kaigan) vs. Evaine Dreamseeker (Ariel23) [ECL4]. Pitlords informed me that someone else could run the fight for me. Is anyone willing to take this task on him/her? I would be very grateful. Thanks and sorry, --Papapeperoni, God of Pizza's |
| Luni01-24-06, 02:26 PM | The ECL 7 FFA Noko vs. Lissa vs. Ashhur may be up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8301765&postcount=81) It is hard for me to tell asmost pages are not really loading, but my posts were makig it through last night withthe same sort of page reaction. Cough, Cough. Oops. A 2 would of ended Ashhur anyways, because you forgot to inclue the Armor Check Penalty. Hrm. I know I didn't specify it, but I think Ashhur would of stayed prone against Lissa, instead of jumping to the statue. I only wanted the cover if both was shooting at me. I actually didn't think Lissa would beat Noko. |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 02:27 PM | @Warclone: Gaston is not required to interact with your summons - they are not his opponents. His opponent is Solomon. The only way he gets in violation is if he fails to meaningfully interact with Solomon when he has the ability to. Since Solomon is invisible - and he has no way to thwart it - his only reasonable option is to evade until Solomon appears. I repeat - he is not required to interact with summons - they are not his opponents. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 02:30 PM | Cough, Cough. Oops. A 2 would of ended Ashhur anyways, because you forgot to inclue the Armor Check Penalty. Hrm. I know I didn't specify it, but I think Ashhur would of stayed prone against Lissa, instead of jumping to the statue. I only wanted the cover if both was shooting at me. I actually didn't think Lissa would beat Noko. Yep...I missed the ACP (you may want to list all of your untrained skills on the sheet so that it is easy to spot that). I was kinda surprised that Lissa beat Noko as well, but Lissa was a little crit monster in this one. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 02:32 PM | @Warclone - I've reviewed the fight once more and the applicable rules that you want. Here's the Delay rule, for reference: In the fight, Gaston wants to engage Solomon - but can't due to Solomon being invisible. Since Gaston has no effective means to interact with Solomon while Solomon is invisible - he cannot be held in violation per this rule. On the same note, while Invisible, Solomon is interacting with Gaston because of the summons. Since the summons are doing their best to take down Gaston - Solomon will not be in violation. So, since neither one will be in violation, the only solution for Gaston is to run away until either a) you run out of PP to summon with or b) your invisibility fades. If there is a valid argument beyond this issue - let me know - for I don't believe this issue is going to be changed in the fight according to my knowledge of the delay rule. Gaston can interact meaningfully with me. The same logic that says summoned creatures are a legitimate interaction for me says that summoned creatures are a legitimate interaction for him. Therefore, since he has nothing else to do, the only course of action he can take without delaying is attack my constructs. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 02:34 PM | Your argument as to why he is not delaying is the same as the others: because there is nothing he can do otherwise, and it logically makes sense running to waste duration should be an OK tactic. The fact is, just because he can't do anything but attack my constructs, does NOT mean he is immune to the delay rule. In his circumstance, the only action he could take safely is attack my constructs, which is the entire point of my character. Running to waste duration of spells is not a legitimate tactic, or else I could use invisibility/burrow/spider climb/etc to waste the duration of every single one of my opponent's buffs before I ever fight. Running and doing nothing else is delaying, even if it is the smart thing to do otherwise. Usually delaying is the smart thing to do, or else we wouldnt bother making a rule about it.Attacking the constructs is not the same thing as "interacting meaninfully with your opponent." The constructs are weapons, not opponents, and thus one does not have to engage them. Delaying to make an opponent's buffs wear off is different, presuming that one actually has the ability to engage with that person (delaying to make an opponent's Invisibilty wear off is another story). I would consider your argument just as strong if you had cast Wall of Fire instead of Astral Construct. By your terms, since your opponent couldn't interact with you, he should step into the wall of fire and take his lumps, because that's the only thing he can do that has anything to do with you. Defeating Astral Constructs does not contribute to defeating you, and that's what the delay rule insists he attempt to do. My point isn't that you're wrong (although I believe you are), it's that the rule is in no way as clear as you think it is. In this situation, the pitlord has discretion for the current fight, and you're free to take it up with the Elders for the future. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 02:35 PM | @Warclone: Gaston is not required to interact with your summons - they are not his opponents. His opponent is Solomon. The only way he gets in violation is if he fails to meaningfully interact with Solomon when he has the ability to. Since Solomon is invisible - and he has no way to thwart it - his only reasonable option is to evade until Solomon appears. I repeat - he is not required to interact with summons - they are not his opponents. The constructs ARE his opponents. You are trying to use common sense to contradict the rules and justify your point of view, but then you say a bunch of enemies attacking him are not his opponent. |
| King Uther01-24-06, 02:39 PM | @Luni, Telin I am crafting tactics as we speak. If you want to run the first round as I write them to save time, Ajora will obviously try to find Faelto and shoot him to end it immediately if possible. +9 to hit, 1d8+3+8d6 damage. +11 initiative and Far Shot. Single Move only before firing. Edit: He does ready top fire upon sight if he cannot see him on his turn round 1. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 02:40 PM | The issue is moot. Most of your have the view that no conclusion can be reached by discussion, while it is now mine that no consensus can be reached by discussion. Therefore, I have taken the steps neccisary to produce both a conclusion and a consensus. Unless DTF corrects these mistakes or another pitlord steps up and runs it in the next 12 hours before the boards go down, I will schedule it for a rerun. |
| NiQil01-24-06, 02:44 PM | Your argument as to why he is not delaying is the same as the others: because there is nothing he can do otherwise, and it logically makes sense running to waste duration should be an OK tactic. The fact is, just because he can't do anything but attack my constructs, does NOT mean he is immune to the delay rule. In his circumstance, the only action he could take safely is attack my constructs, which is the entire point of my character. Running to waste duration of spells is not a legitimate tactic, or else I could use invisibility/burrow/spider climb/etc to waste the duration of every single one of my opponent's buffs before I ever fight. Running and doing nothing else is delaying, even if it is the smart thing to do otherwise. Usually delaying is the smart thing to do, or else we wouldnt bother making a rule about it. Let me throw my 2 coppers into the kitty here... I agree 100% with Telin's latest assessment. Neither party were in violation of the 10 round delay rule, for all of the reasons Telin listed. I couldn't have said it better. As to running to waste durations....this is 100% a legitimite and often used tactic. Heck, the most popular tactic against barbarians is to withdraw while they rage and then re-engage when they become fatigued. If you have the ability to wait out your opponents buffs with little to no risk to yourself, and you can do so without delaying, you would be passing up a great winning tactic by not doing it. I can't tell you how many times I have had characters who used little 10 round buff spells/powers like force screen or shield that my opponents would just try and wait out in order to make me waist it. It sucks for the person that it happens to, but it is a valid tactic, as long as you can do it inside of the delay rules. |
| waywreth01-24-06, 02:46 PM | The issue is moot. Most of your have the view that no conclusion can be reached by discussion, while it is now mine that no consensus can be reached by discussion. Therefore, I have taken the steps neccisary to produce both a conclusion and a consensus. Did Pitlords post that? I'm just thinking a rerun is rather pointless until we get an official ruling on if Waywreth's (mine) tactics are legal or he is forced to interact with the constructs. If so, I think it'd be fair for the new pitlord (and it would require a rerun in that case) to get new tactics since those aren't allowed. Either way I'd like a decision if possible, as I'd like to MQ to join PSI next week if this is settled. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 02:48 PM | No, Solomon would not be in violation. Solomon is interacting meainingfully with his opponent, and many fights have no hope beyond nat20s. The difference between this and what he did is he did not interact with me, while I am creating attack rolls to be rolled against him. That is a crux in this issue. Many people have different ideas about meaningful interaction. Otherwise we wouldn't be even arguing this matter. In any case, what exactly was 'meaningful' about your interaction? The rule apparently is not that you need to interact meaninfully, but that either party needs to 'try to interact meaningfully'. All you must do is interact meaninfully with an opponent. Running and waiting for timed spells to run out is not meaningfull or else going invisible and hiding in a corner for 2 hours to waste your opponent's buffs would be an allowable tactic, which it is not. Which of the following would be 'trying to interact meaningfully to you'? a. Yelling at Solomon to come out and fight? b. Throwing a dagger after 9 rounds of withdrawing at a random location, hoping to hit Solomon despite not having heard him (say 1 in 80,000 chance of hitting)? c. Throwing a dagger after 9 rounds of withdrawing at Solomon's suspected location, having used a reactive Listen to locate it within 20 ft. (say 1 in 8,000 chance of hitting)? d. Throwing a dagger after 9 rounds of withdrawing at Solomon's suspected location, having used a reactive Listen to locate it within 5 ft. (say 1 in 400 chance of hitting)? e. Throwing a dagger after 9 rounds of withdrawing at Solomon's location, after having used a reactive Listen to pinpoint Solomon. (say 1 in 5 chance of hitting)? 1. Does it matter in the above examples if Solomon has DR 5/silver and his opponent is throwing a non-silver dagger which cannot possibly hurt Solomon (while the opponent *is* carrying a silver dagger? 2. Does it matter in the above examples if Solomon has DR 5/silver and his opponent is throwing a non-silver dagger which cannot possibly hurt Solomon and the opponent does not have a silver dagger. 3. What if the opponent has a single silver dagger, but he dropped it in the first round of combat, or threw it (futily) at one of the constructs. 4. What if Solomon is a grappler, and the opponent want's to preserve his only silver dagger in case he is grappled. 5. What if Solomon has DR 10/admantine, but the opponent doesn't know about that and throws the dagger. Is it different of the opponent does know? f. Can the opponent hide in obscuring mist for 30 rounds, blindly shooting arrows at Solomon by using Listen checks. Does it make any difference if said person has a bow of seeking and acute hearing (+30 Listen check) and hits 50% of the time? What about +20 Listen, or just a +1 bow (non-seeking) Each of your arguments ignores a different part of the rules. I am trying to engange him to the best of my ability, while he is trying to not engage me to the best of his ability. This is called delaying tactics, and is prohibited. Well, Solomon could have used Mind Thrust, Ego Whip or Energy Ray as soon as he saw that his first construct wasn't able to reach the enemy. But obviously he didn't want too, since that would risk his invisibility. He chose a tactic with minimal risk to himself, persevering in this while he had other options. 'trying your best' is another subjective term in the delay rule, and will cause differences in interpretation. |
| King Uther01-24-06, 02:49 PM | @Luni Tactics for Ajora re-sent. I hope it is complete enough for such quick notice. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 03:01 PM | Nice to hear, we are waiting for Warclone... Yes but Drac has 2 scroll and 2 spell leves. Try to post in Tavern or Ask an Elder? Unfortunately, I knew exactly what you were trying to do in your tactics. However, if I had you do exactly what your tactics wrote you would lose the shocking grasp in your familiar. Deliver Touch Spells (Su) If the master is 3rd level or higher, a familiar can deliver touch spells for him. If the master and the familiar are in contact at the time the master casts a touch spell, he can designate his familiar as the "toucher." The familiar can then deliver the touch spell just as the master could. As usual, if the master casts another spell before the touch is delivered, the touch spell dissipates. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 03:19 PM | Did Pitlords post that? I'm just thinking a rerun is rather pointless until we get an official ruling on if Waywreth's (mine) tactics are legal or he is forced to interact with the constructs. If so, I think it'd be fair for the new pitlord (and it would require a rerun in that case) to get new tactics since those aren't allowed. Either way I'd like a decision if possible, as I'd like to MQ to join PSI next week if this is settled. That was a PM from the Pitlords. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure whether you will be allowed to send different tactics. But if you are, I will as well. If nobody steps up and runs the fight before midnight tonight, I think the fight will carry over (although I may be wrong). If it does, you wont be able to run your MQ. |
| Dracazar01-24-06, 03:21 PM | Unfortunately, I knew exactly what you were trying to do in your tactics. However, if I had you do exactly what your tactics wrote you would lose the shocking grasp in your familiar. Damn, I'm not aware of it, thank you for teaching me this. I think that perhaps also Usurpator isn't aware of this. But there are some other issues, as you can read in my previous post. The most important is that I wish to use schorching ray only with true strike (it is stated 2 times in the tactic, 1st time in the rounds summary, 2nd time about the chance to hit). So I kindly ask you if you could continue using true strike from scroll and memory until out of it and use schorching ray without true strike only if out of true strike. Thank you. |
| Ravashack01-24-06, 03:23 PM | Yeah, i was kinda out of my element on all this, and kept bouncing around the SRD lookin up all this um... "core" stuff. I had questioned it my self, but it is a full round action to regain focus. I determined that since it was a full round action, that any damage taken in that round would require a concentration check or interupt the action (per the "10 + damage dealt " and "Damaged during the action."). Since it was an easier check than the regain focus in the first place, i didn't anticipate it being a problem. The dice didnt agree with me or you in this case. If this is an incorrect intrupretation, i'd like to see a cite if you could. Providing that, i'd have no issue with adjusting it... Oh, I see what you're using now. But you're still applying it incorrectly. If you're applying "Damaged during the action", only the AOO applies. Full-round actions are finished in the same round on the same turn. To illustrate, making a full attack is a full-round action. Obviously you don't finish a full attack after an opponent goes (if you went first). 1 Round actions are the ones you can do that to. |
| NiQil01-24-06, 03:24 PM | LEVEL 3 FIGHTS KitayaECL4 (Usurpator) vs Rohan (Altaris13) & Theoricus (bgt) & Famine (NiQil): DTFarstar [Team] [Inter-League] Challack (DTFarstar) vs Lunoria Evershine (Luni): Nightbanegod [Late] Aerryl Nalladar (MindWandererB) vs Mindrel Avhost (Zevox): Lonewolf [Late] [Running right now] Tarik Vale (Myrridin) vs War (NiQil): DTFarstar [Late] LEVEL 4 FIGHTS Rethun Woshad (Kaigan) vs Tsiuzues Pettles (Skojar): Papapeperoni [Late] Ajora, Avatar of Life (King Uther) vs Faelto (TelinArtho): Altaris13 [Late] Luni LEVEL 5 FIGHTS Donak (Mal-2) vs Cyra Val (Stormwind): Nightbanegod [Late] LEVEL 6 FIGHTS Griff Mythral (Iced) vs Sir Valkin (TelinArtho): Book5 [Late] Still waiting on revisions As far as I can tell, here is where we stand now... I can forward tactics to someone for the War vs Tarik Vale fight, but without Myrridin to do the same I am guessing it gets held over. With regard to the Kitaya monstrosity at the top....I'm not even sure if tactics were submitted by Altaris and/or bgt or not. If so, bgt would probably be the only one who could forward tactics to anyone else. If nightbanegod has posted his tactics already like he normally does (I think I saw them in there, though I could be mistaken), someone could snag those if they had time... |
| Ariel2301-24-06, 03:25 PM | @lonewolf @papapepperoni Well, obviously it's hard to overcome the dice. It's too bad that I couldn't hit with the sword, but his AC must have been at 25, so that's not surprising, even if I'd been rolling better. Here are my concerns: In Round 8, Kendal deals a critical with his grapple touch attack. That's not possible, as the touch attack does not deal damage. Its only effect is to initiate the grapple. After the touch attack succeeds, then you may deal damage after making an opposed grapple check. I.e., the damage results from an opposed grapple check, not an attack roll. If (for argument's sake) Kendal were to use Improved Trip on me and hit with the Touch attack (which deals no damage), would he then do critical damage on his free follow-up melee attack? Step 2 Grab. You make a melee touch attack to grab the target. If you fail to hit the target, the grapple attempt fails. If you succeed, proceed to Step 3. Step 3 Hold. Make an opposed grapple check as a free action. If you succeed [on the opposed grapple check], you and your target are now grappling, and you deal damage to the target as if with an unarmed strike. Damage Your Opponent While grappling, you can deal damage to your opponent equivalent to an unarmed strike. Make an opposed grapple check in place of an attack. If you win, you deal nonlethal damage as normal for your unarmed strike...etc.Can you crit on a grapple check? It's not an attack roll. If it were an attack roll, a 20 would always win, and I'm not sure that's the case. It's definitely an opposed roll and a check, in place of an attack. It doesn't say "make an unarmed attack using your grapple check in place of your usual attack bonus." How did Kendal move into my square to maintain the grapple? Step 4 Maintain Grapple. To maintain the grapple for later rounds, you must move into the target’s space.As I see it, he would have to "Move the grapple" winning an opposed check (not hard) and using a standard action (lose attacks for 1 round). Once Evaine is moved, obviously it wouldn't come up again. I can't remember if you're one of those pitlords that hates PMs, so I'm going to PM you about this post. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 03:38 PM | @Warclone & Dracazar: Issues I noticed when reading over Namara vs. Drac: Round 1 You have Drac casting from a scroll, this should be from memory (or he couldn't have shared). Round 2 You have Namara manifesting vigor from a ML2 augmented stone, but you treated it as ML1 (only 5 temporary hp. and lasting 10 rounds instead of +10 for 20 rounds) Round 8 You have the familiar attack touch AC 15, but I think it should be touch AC 16 (+3 Wis, +2 deflection, +1 insight from defensive precognition), and since the hawk hits 15 exactly, he should miss. At any time Drac would be within 5 ft. of Namara (close enough to drop his familiar into her square) scent from Namara's horse would not only pick him up, but pinpoint him. I cannot say how the horse would react, but Drac's tactics seem to have ignored the horse (which was my hope/expectation), so it is your call. Round 9 What happened to the familiar, did it flee? Edit: Round 10 I see Drac trying to hit AC 15. I think this should be 16 (as pointed out previously) and you didn't make any Ride checks for cover. This is not really a problem, since I am fine with you not making Ride checks if it is already apparent the attack is not going to hit anyway. Round 11 You have Namara charge to grapple. Grappling means hitting Drac's touch AC, which is 15 (10 +3 Dex +2 deflection) or his mirror images' touch AC, which is 13 (10 +3 Dex). His mirror image do not benefit from protection from law (or any other buffs), just size and Dex. Namara rolls a 10, which hits AC 17 (10 +5 unarmed strike +2 charge +1 higher ground), and thus should hit. Drac steps 5 ft. back. My tactics explicitly said Namara was holding the glaive to prevent such tactics. She can take her glaive in two hands (as a free action) after the charge, and thus threaten at 5 ft. and 10 ft. (see my tactics) and thus get an AoO against Drac. Why doesn't the horse attack? After all, the horse charges, Namara just gets the benefits and penalties of the charge (see Mounted Combat rules) Round 12 Namara hits AC 15 with one of her blows. The mirror images have touch AC 13, why doesn't she hit? Why doesn't the horse attack in this round, the Defend trick should have kicked in automatically (also, see my tactics)? Round 13 You accidentally switched grapple checks, giving Namara 1d20+3 and Drac 1d20+9, it should be the other way, and Namara should succesfully do damage in the grapple. In invisible castle I see you rolling a natural 20 for the very first attack Namara's horse makes, but I am not seeing any results from that in the fight, where the horse's attack miss. It should at least disable one mirror image. In general That is what I saw on the first go. Of course, didn't meticously compare the fight with the tactics that Dracazar wrote, and largely looked at errors from Namara's point of view, of course. There were a lot of minor errors though, most of which were to Drac's advantage, but Namara won despite these. |
| nightbanegod01-24-06, 03:40 PM | As far as I can tell, here is where we stand now... I can forward tactics to someone for the War vs Tarik Vale fight, but without Myrridin to do the same I am guessing it gets held over. With regard to the Kitaya monstrosity at the top....I'm not even sure if tactics were submitted by Altaris and/or bgt or not. If so, bgt would probably be the only one who could forward tactics to anyone else. If nightbanegod has posted his tactics already like he normally does (I think I saw them in there, though I could be mistaken), someone could snag those if they had time... actually running said fights right now ... give me a minute (or a few) |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 03:43 PM | Damn, I'm not aware of it, thank you for teaching me this. I think that perhaps also Usurpator isn't aware of this. I am not aware, at least, I am aware of the 'not allowing to hold the charge if you cast another spell' rule, but I have no idea if this is also true if you share a touch spell with your familiar. As already became apparent from just the fight between Namara and Drac, there is some room for misinterpretation in the sharing rules. We already discovered three problems just by our fight alone. EDIT: make that true problems, since the text Warclone quoted solved the issue. |
| NiQil01-24-06, 03:50 PM | @lonewolf @papapepperoni Well, obviously it's hard to overcome the dice. It's too bad that I couldn't hit with the sword, but his AC must have been at 25, so that's not surprising, even if I'd been rolling better. Here are my concerns: In Round 8, Kendal deals a critical with his grapple touch attack. That's not possible, as the touch attack does not deal damage. Its only effect is to initiate the grapple. After the touch attack succeeds, then you may deal damage after making an opposed grapple check. I.e., the damage results from an opposed grapple check, not an attack roll. If (for argument's sake) Kendal were to use Improved Trip on me and hit with the Touch attack (which deals no damage), would he then do critical damage on his free follow-up melee attack? Can you crit on a grapple check? It's not an attack roll. If it were an attack roll, a 20 would always win, and I'm not sure that's the case. It's definitely an opposed roll and a check, in place of an attack. It doesn't say "make an unarmed attack using your grapple check in place of your usual attack bonus." How did Kendal move into my square to maintain the grapple?As I see it, he would have to "Move the grapple" winning an opposed check (not hard) and using a standard action (lose attacks for 1 round). Once Evaine is moved, obviously it wouldn't come up again. I can't remember if you're one of those pitlords that hates PMs, so I'm going to PM you about this post. Yes, you can critically succeed on a grapple. Comparing it to trip is a bad example, because grapple deals damage...trips don't. This is covered in the Court Decisions post, but I will elaborate here for clarity. If the initial melee touch attack roll threatens a critical, you then roll a confirmation roll just like any other threatening attack roll, which goes against the victim's touch AC just like the initial roll. If it is confirmed, you then deal critical damage if you succeed on your opposed grapple check. If you fail your opposed grapple check, you deal no damage at all. The reason the trip comparison does not work is because with the initial touch attack to trip being a critical success (which is possible), there is no damage dealt on the opposed trip rolls. Generally speaking, any attack that requires an attack roll and deals damage can score a critical success. Bear in mind also that, while you are correct about the opposed grapple checks not being attack rolls, the initiating touch attack *is an attack roll, and this is where the critical can happen. The grapple checks are to deal damage and to hold your opponent in a grapple. |
| TroubleWolf01-24-06, 03:51 PM | NM |
| lonewolf01-24-06, 03:53 PM | In Round 8, Kendal deals a critical with his grapple touch attack. That's not possible, as the touch attack does not deal damage. Its only effect is to initiate the grapple. I think that I saw a rule somewhere that if you manage to crit on a touch attack for initiating the grapple that your first grapple damage is indeed considered a critical. Unfortunately I dont have the time to check this now since I have to finish my other fight which is already late. Can someone else confirm this? How did Kendal move into my square to maintain the grapple?As I see it, he would have to "Move the grapple" winning an opposed check (not hard) and using a standard action (lose attacks for 1 round). Once Evaine is moved, obviously it wouldn't come up again. He moved into your square by making a climb check. That was the most reasonable idea that I came up with and made a post about this in either this thread or the Tavern(dont remember) and the responses there were positive. Anyway, I highly doubt that I will have the time to edit the fight before the downtime, so if you feel seriously wronged, I fear there is no other way than to extend this fight. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 03:56 PM | Here are my concerns: In Round 8, Kendal deals a critical with his grapple touch attack. That's not possible, as the touch attack does not deal damage.... Unfortunately for your argument, this has been brought up in the CoCo before, and the Court Decisions in the Prison lists the following:Q: Can you score a critical hit on a grapple? A: Yes, on the initial touch attack needed to start a grapple. If it is confirmed as a critical hit, a successful grapple check will deal double damage.How did Kendal move into my square to maintain the grapple?As I see it, he would have to "Move the grapple" winning an opposed check (not hard) and using a standard action (lose attacks for 1 round). Once Evaine is moved, obviously it wouldn't come up again.Although the pitlord did not mention it, he had Kendal make a Climb check to move into Evaine's square. This ruling was supported in a (brief) discussion in the Tavern, so while you should feel free to argue it for future instances, your chance to argue the point before the fight was finished came up days ago, and there's no time now. Edit: Too slow, waaay too slow. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 03:59 PM | Erithmu and I have chatted about the Selene vs. Zwei fight and agreed that hold over is counterproductive at ECL3. We have agreed to let it stand and Rith will take the loss to bad pitlording as there is no way to easily edit the fight given that the orginal (first running) rolls are unavailable. @erithmu thanks for not forcing the hold over. I really really really did not wnat to take that option. I wish you would've had the time to run it between you and I online today...woulda been fun. @shadowmaster If you want to run your next fight with an IM open to ask questions and post round by round as you go, I am willing to take the time and walk through it with you as you run it. |
| Skojar01-24-06, 03:59 PM | I'm kind of curious about the critting with a grapple too. I don't see how that makes any sense, so please post any reference...I might make an improved crit grappler. @Huan (RE: Weiniete vs Loddick (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8303375&postcount=86)): I'm having trouble visualizing the fight. Did Weiniete never have his chance to full out run to Loddick, which was the key to any possibel win? I'm not saying it would have worked (as his tactics specify to counteract it) but I would have liked to have tried. Some rounds Wein didn't even move at all. I realize that the result would have been the same (or worse), but he's not moving nearly as much as I had intended. No need to make changes, I just want advice on how the pitlords deal with my tactics. |
| King Uther01-24-06, 04:00 PM | You can crit with the first grapple attempt if your touch roll is a nat 20. EDIT: I got beat to the punch. |
| Warclone01-24-06, 04:14 PM | Round 1 You have Drac casting from a scroll, this should be from memory (or he couldn't have shared). Correct, he has the spell points left to do it and it changes whats used, I'll credit Drax 1xInvis Scroll Round 2 You have Namara manifesting vigor from a ML2 augmented stone, but you treated it as ML1 (only 5 temporary hp. and lasting 10 rounds instead of +10 for 20 rounds)You aren't allowed to have a ML above base without spending credits, and I could not find where you linked your confirmed credit expendiature. If you have this on your character sheet in error, please correct it. Round 8 You have the familiar attack touch AC 15, but I think it should be touch AC 16 (+3 Wis, +2 deflection, +1 insight from defensive precognition), and since the hawk hits 15 exactly, he should miss. At any time Drac would be within 5 ft. of Namara (close enough to drop his familiar into her square) scent from Namara's horse would not only pick him up, but pinpoint him. I cannot say how the horse would react, but Drac's tactics seem to have ignored the horse (which was my hope/expectation), so it is your call.You won, so the horse's actions stand. Your your flat touch AC is 15, because the familiar is an invisible attacker so you are denied your dex. If caught in a situation where your Dexterity bonus isn’t applied to your Armor Class, this bonus to AC and saving throws does not apply. Round 9 What happened to the familiar, did it flee?I wrote in somewhere that the familiar charged you after you withdrew and you killed it on the AoO, but I can't find it now, perhaps due to some oversight it didn't get included, but that's what happened. Edit: Round 10 I see Drac trying to hit AC 15. I think this should be 16 (as pointed out previously) and you didn't make any Ride checks for cover. This is not really a problem, since I am fine with you not making Ride checks if it is already apparent the attack is not going to hit anyway.Your FF Touch is 15, because defensive precog does not apply when you have no dex to your ac which you don't in that situation. You cannot make a ride check to negate an attack you do not see incoming, just as you cannot use deflect arrows on an invisible attack etc. Round 11 You have Namara charge to grapple. Grappling means hitting Drac's touch AC, which is 15 (10 +3 Dex +2 deflection) or his mirror images' touch AC, which is 13 (10 +3 Dex). His mirror image do not benefit from protection from law (or any other buffs), just size and Dex. Namara rolls a 10, which hits AC 17 (10 +5 unarmed strike +2 charge +1 higher ground), and thus should hit. Drac steps 5 ft. back. My tactics explicitly said Namara was holding the glaive to prevent such tactics. She can take her glaive in two hands (as a free action) after the charge, and thus threaten at 5 ft. and 10 ft. (see my tactics) and thus get an AoO against Drac. Why doesn't the horse attack? After all, the horse charges, Namara just gets the benefits and penalties of the charge (see Mounted Combat rules)I made some oversights here that I was going to correct but I had a feeling you would win so I decided to wait and see if you lost to correct them. You won. Round 12 Namara hits AC 15 with one of her blows. The mirror images have touch AC 13, why doesn't she hit? Why doesn't the horse attack in this round, the Defend trick should have kicked in automatically (also, see my tactics)?see above Round 13 You accidentally switched grapple checks, giving Namara 1d20+3 and Drac 1d20+9, it should be the other way, and Namara should succesfully do damage in the grapple. In invisible castle I see you rolling a natural 20 for the very first attack Namara's horse makes, but I am not seeing any results from that in the fight, where the horse's attack miss. It should at least disable one mirror image."Nam grapple, Dra opposed (1d20+9=23, 1d20+2=6)" is the roll on the fight. That is correct, i always do attacker 1st defender 2nd. I usually have some unused rolls in invisible castle because I start a character doing 1 thing and then I realize they have to do another instead. |
| Ayrynthyn01-24-06, 04:14 PM | Oh, I see what you're using now. But you're still applying it incorrectly. If you're applying "Damaged during the action", only the AOO applies. Full-round actions are finished in the same round on the same turn. To illustrate, making a full attack is a full-round action. Obviously you don't finish a full attack after an opponent goes (if you went first). 1 Round actions are the ones you can do that to. i'm with ya, and i hear what you're saying 100%. My only question for you (or anyone really) is can you show me where it says that in the SRD, PhB, or DMG. The only thing i could find when i was looking for that same answer to this was... Full Round Action - A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step.and The Combat Round Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on. This is what i based my ruling on... |
| Warclone01-24-06, 04:19 PM | Damn, I'm not aware of it, thank you for teaching me this. I think that perhaps also Usurpator isn't aware of this. But there are some other issues, as you can read in my previous post. The most important is that I wish to use schorching ray only with true strike (it is stated 2 times in the tactic, 1st time in the rounds summary, 2nd time about the chance to hit). So I kindly ask you if you could continue using true strike from scroll and memory until out of it and use schorching ray without true strike only if out of true strike. Thank you. Namara's tactic: - Assuming he’s invisible: If I hear Drac casting nearby (roughly 20-40 ft.), have Wernicke move away from his suspected location (on my turn, I don’t want to ready). If he casts true strike he should not become visible and I should have enough distance to prevent him from coming into range on his turn. Repeat this tactic as long as he keeps casting and remains invisible. I was cutting you a break and saying your character realized that every time you cast a spell such as that Namara was moving away. This was to prevent you from blowing all your spells/scrolls. Either way, you had 2 spell levels left over that had to be used on invis or else your familiar wouldnt have gotten to attack. |
| Luni01-24-06, 04:23 PM | Ajora vs Faelto is done, I just can't open the battle thread to post it. :( Unfortunately, I won't be back on til tomorrow, so heres the fight summary in case of any problems. I cut out the tactics part. Fight Set-up: Ajora starts in the west (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344834), mounted and carrying his bow. Faelto starts in the north (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344835) mounted. Initiative [ur;=http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344836] Faelto 4, Ajora 29. Ajora (-23,1) 25/25 hp; 4 PP; Psionic Focus; Mounted Avenger 22/22 hp Faelto (-4,30) 19/19 hp; Druid 3; Wizard 1; Mounted Sauria 32/32 hp The Fight: Round 1: Ajora moves forward, sees Faelto and shoots expending focus and charging his bow. 13 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344838) +9 vs Faelto AC 13+4 Cover = 17. Hits. Damage (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344834) 8 +16 acid+7 Psi Weapon +3 Deep Crystal Charge. = 34 damage. Fealto dies. Ajora wins and gains +1200 xp/gp -12.5%=1050 xp/gp. He used 1 arrow. Faelto loses and gains +400 gp/xp +12.5%=450 xp/gp. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/Luni99/Faelto-Ajora.jpg |
| Maraxus01-24-06, 04:31 PM | Yep...I missed the ACP (you may want to list all of your untrained skills on the sheet so that it is easy to spot that). I was kinda surprised that Lissa beat Noko as well, but Lissa was a little crit monster in this one. Hey, did't Lissa want to "Always use max number of shots possible"? With that the 20-19crit on the itterative attack had not confirmed. ;) No seriously, looks like I could not do anything here. Bad luck can kill everyone. PS: Damn, I should have had spend the last week making money with profession, then I could now affort that item I'm saving my money for, two levels now. :( |
| Ravashack01-24-06, 04:33 PM | i'm with ya, and i hear what you're saying 100%. My only question for you (or anyone really) is can you show me where it says that in the SRD, PhB, or DMG. The only thing i could find when i was looking for that same answer to this was... and Here is an example of a 1 round action. From the Cast A Spell part of the Combat Basics section. When you begin a spell that takes 1 round or longer to cast, you must continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration from one round to just before your turn in the next round (at least). If you lose concentration after starting the spell and before it is complete, you lose the spell. It takes a full-round action to do, but you continue casting past the round. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 04:45 PM | You aren't allowed to have a ML above base without spending credits, and I could not find where you linked your confirmed credit expendiature. If you have this on your character sheet in error, please correct it. Unfortunately, that is not the rule. You are not allowed powerstone with an ML above your ECL. Since Namara has ECL 3, she is allowed powerstones up to ML 3. Besides that, the rule hasn't kicked in yet, there was a transistion period to allow gladiators that had such expendables to use them up (or level quickly enough). Here's the relevant quote from the Rules of Gladius. Scrolls and Powerstones: The Caster level or Manifesterlevel (CL/ML) of these items are restricted to your ECL. You may buy higher CL/ML scrolls and powerstones at the Blackmarket. You won, so the horse's actions stand. Your your flat touch AC is 15, because the familiar is an invisible attacker so you are denied your dex. You are absolutely right about the invisibility of course, I completely forgot, sorrt! I am fine with the horse actions being as they are now, since I have won, but in case Drac's comments should force a rerun the problems should be mentioned. I usually have a policy not mentioning minor errors which will only be to my character's advantage if I won. But since Drac was asking for an edit, they might matter. I wrote in somewhere that the familiar charged you after you withdrew and you killed it on the AoO, but I can't find it now, perhaps due to some oversight it didn't get included, but that's what happened. Your FF Touch is 15, because defensive precog does not apply when you have no dex to your ac which you don't in that situation. You cannot make a ride check to negate an attack you do not see incoming, just as you cannot use deflect arrows on an invisible attack etc. I am still of the opinion though that an insight bonus adds to touch AC, just as a luck bonus does. It says in the DMG that an insight bonus presents a precognitive ability. Precognition is not foiled by invisibility (neither is luck for that matter). I am supported in this view by the SRD: Touch Attacks: Some attacks disregard armor, including shields and natural armor. In these cases, the attacker makes a touch attack roll (either ranged or melee). When you are the target of a touch attack, your AC doesn’t include any armor bonus, shield bonus, or natural armor bonus. All other modifiers, such as your size modifier, Dexterity modifier, and deflection bonus (if any) apply normally. I made some oversights here that I was going to correct but I had a feeling you would win so I decided to wait and see if you lost to correct them. You won. That is true, but solving such issues might also make Dracazar conclude that Drac couldn't have won even with an extra true strike factored in. Since with corrections made, Drac will now only have one shot with the scorching ray against 30 hp. from Namara (since the shocking graps misses, vigor should be +10, and his subsequent scroll will not take place because Namara hit on her first attack. @Drac: I hope you can see now that even with the scorching ray done as you want it too, Drac cannot hope to win, and you will accept his defeat. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 04:48 PM | You aren't allowed to have a ML above base without spending credits, and I could not find where you linked your confirmed credit expendiature. If you have this on your character sheet in error, please correct it.This is not true. Looking through the rules thread, you will find that although potions and tattoos are restricted to both the minimum caster level and your ECL, scrolls and powerstones are restricted to only your ECL. Augmented powerstones are perfectly legal to buy without credits. Scrolls and Powerstones: The Caster level or Manifesterlevel (CL/ML) of these items are restricted to your ECL. You may buy higher CL/ML scrolls and powerstones at the Blackmarket. Tattoos and Potions: These items are restricted to the minimum CL/ML. In case of potions only those listed in the DMG are available, and if a potion is specifically listed having a higher CL then it can be purchased aswell. You may buy potions and oils not listed in the DMG at the Blackmarket. Tattoos are always minimum ML. |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 04:52 PM | Ajora vs Faelto is done, I just can't open the battle thread to post it. :( Unfortunately, I won't be back on til tomorrow, so heres the fight summary in case of any problems. I cut out the tactics part. Fight Set-up: Ajora starts in the west (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344834), mounted and carrying his bow. Faelto starts in the north (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344835) mounted. Initiative [ur;=http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344836] Faelto 4, Ajora 29. Ajora (-23,1) 25/25 hp; 4 PP; Psionic Focus; Mounted Avenger 22/22 hp Faelto (-4,30) 19/19 hp; Druid 3; Wizard 1; Mounted Sauria 32/32 hp The Fight: Round 1: Ajora moves forward, sees Faelto and shoots expending focus and charging his bow. 13 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344838) +9 vs Faelto AC 13+4 Cover = 17. Hits. Damage (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=344834) 8 +16 acid+7 Psi Weapon +3 Deep Crystal Charge. = 34 damage. Fealto dies. Ajora wins and gains +1200 xp/gp -12.5%=1050 xp/gp. He used 1 arrow. Faelto loses and gains +400 gp/xp +12.5%=450 xp/gp. http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a16/Luni99/Faelto-Ajora.jpg Thanks Luni for picking up the fight. Until you get a chance to post it to the battles thread I'll link that post. Can you add in Faelto's profession income please (+84gp)? Thanks. |
| Ayrynthyn01-24-06, 05:01 PM | Here is an example of a 1 round action. From the Cast A Spell part of the Combat Basics section. It takes a full-round action to do, but you continue casting past the round. sorta... yeah. i...think Cast a Spell A spell that takes 1 round to cast is a full-round action. It comes into effect just before the beginning of your turn in the round after you began casting the spell. You then act normally after the spell is completed. Gain Psionic Focus Merely holding a reservoir of psionic power points in mind gives psionic characters a special energy. Psionic characters can put that energy to work without actually paying a power point cost—they can become psionically focused as a special use of the Concentration skill. If you have 1 or more power points available, you can meditate to attempt to become psionically focused. The DC to become psionically focused is 20. Meditating is a full-round action that provokes attacks of opportunity. 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. A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step. ...so, um. Does this mean that we're in agreement? Basically my ruling is this. If it's a full round action, and it requires some form of concentration or provokes an AoO, anything that occurs in that round (That round is defined as "prior to your next action") that may distract the action will require a concentration check. Im still looking for something that counters this point... definition of a round came from... For almost all purposes, there is no relevance to the end of a round or the beginning of a round. A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round. Effects that last a certain number of rounds end just before the same initiative count that they began on. ...i must emphasise, that my questioning your response in no way implies disrespect or disbelief. I'm just hoping to get a better understanding of the rules. If anyone else cares to chime in on this, i'd appreciate the insight... |
| NiQil01-24-06, 05:25 PM | Nevermind...beaten to the punch. |
| Usurpator01-24-06, 05:25 PM | ...i must emphasise, that my questioning your response in no way implies disrespect or disbelief. I'm just hoping to get a better understanding of the rules. If anyone else cares to chime in on this, i'd appreciate the insight... Something that takes more than 1 action to complete only triggers an AoO for starting the action (inferred from ruling about Casting a Spell, PHB p. 143) and not for continuing it, even if the action takes 10 minutes to complete. You must make a concentration check whenever you are potentially distracted while engaged in some action that requires your full concentration (PHB. p. 69, repeated in many specific places, such as in the spellcasting section). I hope that answers your questions |
| Warclone01-24-06, 05:28 PM | Sounds good, turns out you had +10 hp the whole time. |
| Ravashack01-24-06, 05:28 PM | sorta... yeah. i...think ...so, um. Does this mean that we're in agreement? Basically my ruling is this. If it's a full round action, and it requires some form of concentration or provokes an AoO, anything that occurs in that round (That round is defined as "prior to your next action") that may distract the action will require a concentration check. Im still looking for something that counters this point... ...i must emphasise, that my questioning your response in no way implies disrespect or disbelief. I'm just hoping to get a better understanding of the rules. If anyone else cares to chime in on this, i'd appreciate the insight... OK, let me try again. A sorcerer casting a metamagicked spell takes a full-round action to do so. A sorcerer casting a Summon X spell has to take 1 round to do so. When you take a full-round action, it still finishes on your initiative. You just don't have the time to do much else. When you do something that takes 1 round, you continue doing so until just before you go again the next round. If you look at the Casting a Metamagic Spell section in the same file, it illustrates this as well. Casting a Metamagic Spell: Sorcerers and bards must take more time to cast a metamagic spell (one enhanced by a metamagic feat) than a regular spell. If a spell’s normal casting time is 1 standard action, casting a metamagic version of the spell is a full-round action for a sorcerer or bard. Note that this isn’t the same as a spell with a 1-round casting time—the spell takes effect in the same round that you begin casting, and you aren’t required to continue the invocations, gestures, and concentration until your next turn. For spells with a longer casting time, it takes an extra full-round action to cast the metamagic spell. There isn't a concentration requirement. |
| Book501-24-06, 05:44 PM | "do what thou wilt" Perhaps you have read liber777, and reviewed book4.. but dare you \|||/ Book5? ;) :mage: :D Fixed.. please say it is fixed! @Telin - since your here.. and your so fast! could you chack for the rewards and thats stuff - [size=1]I should have rolled percents with every arrow, and you didnt really use anything else.... wow Iced .... you might want to rethink that "go ahead and use expendables if they are gonna do more damage deal" Missing = 0 damage ...so... I went through a few scrolls. :gah: I applied "a penalty" for your tactics btw. sorry. |
| Ayrynthyn01-24-06, 06:06 PM | When you take a full-round action, it still finishes on your initiative. You just don't have the time to do much else. ...im not trying to be difficult. Really. You show me something that says that, and i'll buy it. Heck, get me something that's close to it, and i'll listen to it. Your sorcerer meta magic spell example shows me a very specific exception to the rule, that to me deals with sorcerer meta magic feats and the odd way inwhich they are crammed into a Vancian Prepared Casting model. A Full-Round action takes the entire round to complete by RAW. The entire round is defined as from your point in this round to just before your point in the next By RAW. Your opponents actions occur in that time period. If your action requires concentration, it can be disturbed. Making a concentration check to regain psionc focus, to me, "requires concentration", regardless there's the caveat about "generally skills that provoke AoO" requiring a concentration check. I can delve into spell casting lfor an example to my point as well. Concentrating on a Spell is a standard action. Yet taking damamge in your opponents "phase" of initiative will cause you to make a concentration check to maintain your spell. It's not even a full round action. A standard action requires this. I dunno... im heading home. The hour drive ahead of me may help this get through my thick skull. A second opinion on this would be greatly appreciated.... |
| King Uther01-24-06, 06:17 PM | @Arynthyn You are confusing the difference between say....a spell that takes a full-round action and a spell that takes 1 round. Sleep takes 1 round to cast, meaning the spell doesn't actually "go off" until the beginning of your initiative on the following turn. Getting your psionic focus is a full-round action, meaning you can do that on your initiative and still take a 5ft step, but not much else. It doesn't take any longer than your turn, however. |
| Ayrynthyn01-24-06, 06:20 PM | Something that takes more than 1 action to complete only triggers an AoO for starting the action (inferred from ruling about Casting a Spell, PHB p. 143) and not for continuing it, even if the action takes 10 minutes to complete. You must make a concentration check whenever you are potentially distracted while engaged in some action that requires your full concentration (PHB. p. 69, repeated in many specific places, such as in the spellcasting section). I hope that answers your questions Usurp... sorry, missed this. Thanks for chimming in. Here's how it played out: Round X Perius - Goes concheck to regain focus provoking AoO from Tan Tan - AoO Hits, for 6 Dam Perius - Concentration check for Damage taken DC 16 - succeeds Tan - Normal Attack Action Hits for 6 Dam Perius - Concentration check for Damage take DC 22 (6+6) fails ...regain focus innturpted. Psionic Focus is NOT regained. @King... im really not cufusing it. I understand whats being said, i'm just looking for a Cite. Something that goes against A full-round action requires an entire round to complete. Thus, it can’t be coupled with a standard or a move action, though if it does not involve moving any distance, you can take a 5-foot step. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 06:22 PM | ...im not trying to be difficult. Really. You show me something that says that, and i'll buy it. Heck, get me something that's close to it, and i'll listen to it. Your sorcerer meta magic spell example shows me a very specific exception to the rule, that to me deals with sorcerer meta magic feats and the odd way inwhich they are crammed into a Vancian Prepared Casting model. A Full-Round action takes the entire round to complete by RAW. The entire round is defined as from your point in this round to just before your point in the next By RAW. Your opponents actions occur in that time period. If your action requires concentration, it can be disturbed. Making a concentration check to regain psionc focus, to me, "requires concentration", regardless there's the caveat about "generally skills that provoke AoO" requiring a concentration check. I can delve into spell casting lfor an example to my point as well. Concentrating on a Spell is a standard action. Yet taking damamge in your opponents "phase" of initiative will cause you to make a concentration check to maintain your spell. It's not even a full round action. A standard action requires this. I dunno... im heading home. The hour drive ahead of me may help this get through my thick skull. A second opinion on this would be greatly appreciated....By this logic, a full attack does not resolve until the beginning of the following round, and can be interrupted (by tripping, grappling, or simply moving out of the way). A charge would be the same. Same with a CdG, or worse, with a run or withdraw action. (aside: I just noticed that "prepare to throw splash weapon" is a full-round action. I think most people are doing it wrong.) The glossary states only that "when using a full-round action to cast a spell whose casting time is one round, the spell is not completed until the beginning of the caster's next turn." This is further elaborated upon in "cast a spell" under "Full-round Actions." So that's the exception, not the metamagiced spells. Otherwise, full-round actions just "consume all of a character's effort during a round." |
| TelinArtho01-24-06, 06:23 PM | Perhaps you have read liber777, and reviewed book4.. but dare you \|||/ Book5? ;) :mage: :D Fixed.. please say it is fixed! @Telin - since your here.. and your so fast! could you chack for the rewards and thats stuff - [size=1]I should have rolled percents with every arrow, and you didnt really use anything else.... wow Iced .... you might want to rethink that "go ahead and use expendables if they are gonna do more damage deal" Missing = 0 damage ...so... I went through a few scrolls. :gah: I applied "a penalty" for your tactics btw. sorry. As I have always had issues with fights that you have run Book - I can't say I'm satisfied with the fight as is - and frankly I can't see any reason not to have it rerun - except that Sir Valkin has a slim chance to begin with. As to "assessing a penalty" for my tactics - as has been discussed ad nauseum today - Sir Valkin has very limited means with which to engage Griff and I gave what those actions should be (namely to ready to fire to disrupt). This way I am only using my crossbow bolts when and if Griff is casting. However, given the late hour, I am not going to ask for a rerun. Get the rewards in there and I'll just chalk it up to another loss from a flying wizard. That problem is fixed as of next week. |
| Ravashack01-24-06, 06:35 PM | OK. Let's take it from the top section then. Combat basics. An action’s type essentially tells you how long the action takes to perform (within the framework of the 6-second combat round) and how movement is treated. There are four types of actions: standard actions, move actions, full-round actions, and free actions. In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action. You can also perform one or more free actions. You can always take a move action in place of a standard action. In some situations (such as in a surprise round), you may be limited to taking only a single move action or standard action. Standard Action: A standard action allows you to do something, most commonly make an attack or cast a spell. See Table: Actions in Combat for other standard actions. Move Action: A move action allows you to move your speed or perform an action that takes a similar amount of time. See Table: Actions in Combat. You can take a move action in place of a standard action. If you move no actual distance in a round (commonly because you have swapped your move for one or more equivalent actions), you can take one 5-foot step either before, during, or after the action. Full-Round Action: A full-round action consumes all your effort during a round. The only movement you can take during a full-round action is a 5-foot step before, during, or after the action. You can also perform free actions (see below). Some full-round actions do not allow you to take a 5-foot step. Some full-round actions can be taken as standard actions, but only in situations when you are limited to performing only a standard action during your round. The descriptions of specific actions, below, detail which actions allow this option. Nothing here mentions anything about being able to interrupt full round actions by disrupting concentration. As a matter of fact, the beginning emphasizes that you have time to take a full-round action during a round. That means anything that is designated a full-round action can be done in a round. Regaining Psionic Focus is a full-round action. The situation you are using for Perius is that of something that takes 1 round to do, which Regaining Psionic Focus does not. Your confusion of 1 round and full-round action is the main sticking point. I really can't wait to get Psionic Meditation. |
| lonewolf01-24-06, 06:42 PM | Aerryl Nalladar vs Mindrel Avhost is up at last. there were several technical problems which delayed everything a bit and I had to rerun a good part of it because of a mistake I made, so there are quite a few unused rolls. |
| Book501-24-06, 06:44 PM | @Arynthyn You are confusing the difference between say....a spell that takes a full-round action and a spell that takes 1 round. Sleep takes 1 round to cast, meaning the spell doesn't actually "go off" until the beginning of your initiative on the following turn. Getting your psionic focus is a full-round action, meaning you can do that on your initiative and still take a 5ft step, but not much else. It doesn't take any longer than your turn, however. A full attack is a full round action, a full move is a "full round" action. Both are compleated on your turn. I cannot think of anyother "1 round" action than casting certain spells. But nonetheless. If it says full round that means it ends on your turn, not the begging of your next turn aka on that round not the next. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 06:56 PM | Donak vs. Cyra is up. Tactics (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8279452&postcount=61) and Fight (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8310670&postcount=95) If there are any errors that need fixing please drop me a PM or better yet an IM. |
| Mal-201-24-06, 07:01 PM | A second opinion on this would be greatly appreciated.... Sure, I'm always happy to pontificate on D&D rules :D Here's the basic definition of a combat round: The Combat Round Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) So, the general rule is that you take all of your actions at once, on your initiative in the round. If you take a look down the list of Full Round Actions, you'll see that they're all things that are resolved on your initiative count (charging, full attacks, reloading a heavy crossbow, running, etc.) We also know there are some special cases. They mention AoOs and Special Initiative actions like Delay or Ready. Another special case are spells with a casting time of "1-round". Those spells take even longer than a full round action to complete. They take a full round action and continue on until the beginning of your next action. Regaining Psionic Focus is a special use of the Concentration skill that requires a full round action. It doesn't require 1 full round. |
| nightbanegod01-24-06, 07:29 PM | actually running said fights right now ... give me a minute (or a few) as it stands, due to unscheduled complications, the fight Challack (DTFarstar) vs Lunoria Evershine (Luni): Nightbanegod [Late] (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8279385&postcount=59) is up for grabs follow the link and then its only slot A, tab B. connect the dots and its yours *edit*Thanks for pitlording, hopefully this won't be too bad. My main concern is either her somehow finding a way to trip me and keep me down or find a way to make it ranged. I would like to start front and center in my box, with my potion of bull's strength and potion of protection from law in my hands. Round 1 : Drink Potion of Bull's Strength(+2 attacks, +3 damage-Str=26) draw tower shield. Round 2 : Drink potion of Pro Law and move forward Round 3 : Activate tattoo of Skate and draw Glaive(only holding it in 1 hand so not threatening far out yet) while moving clockwise around the arena looking for Luni. Round 4+ : Continue moving around the arena looking for Luni, when I see her drop tower shield(free), put other hand on glaive(free) and double move(or charge or run whatever gets me to her fastest). If she has a ranged weapon out, seek to base her so I get at least one AoO even if she withdraws(withdraw only negates for stepping out of the first threatened square). If she has any weapon out, try to sunder it. (armor spikes if it's a bow, glaive for everything else.) If I haven't moved that turn, always 5ft step to base after hitting with glaive so she can't back up and draw a weapon or anything like that without getting attacked for it. Only rage if I need the HP or if I'm about to hit her and she looks severely injured,mainly if I need the HP. I'm hoping with my 55ft move speed vs. her 30 ft move speed I can chase her down and kill her. I get a +20 on my sunder rolls and a +16 on my disarm(the glaive anyway, and she can't take my armor spikes). Really, if she doesn't get very lucky with dice this looks good for me. Oh, contrary to above, ignore the siangham and kama as far as weapons to break, she can hit me with those if she wants. Mainly I want to break her reach weapons and the weapons that help her disarm. If she is stabbing me with the weapons don't waste rounds breaking them, if she isn't using her special attack, don't use mine and we'll just see who stays standing the longest. Essentially, base and take away her weapons if they are bothering me, hurt her if she is trying to hurt me. I don't see any way she can keep away from me for a long period of time, so hopefully I didn't miss anything. Really simplistic, get the bow out of the way and throw down. Hope you can have fun with this. Thanks again! Hi! I hired Barak Wolfskinner (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=7941089) so don't forget about him. Have Barak stand in the front center, and I'll be beside him, carrying my ranseur. Have my glaive at my feet so I'm not over my weight limit. We'll move out and look for Challack. Once found, move to flanking, use any AoO to disarm him, and hit him down. Also use a disarm on my first swing. If he bases me, use TWF for a stunning fist, 5' step back, hit with ranseur. IF he bases me again, drop guisarme, use TWF & Flurry and punch him down. Have fun, Luni If I disarm him, try to disarm his next weapon as well. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 07:33 PM | I am working on the Challack fight |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 07:42 PM | Hey, I have a question: Do you get your free actions during the weeks your on quest? |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 07:51 PM | Hey, I have a question: Do you get your free actions during the weeks your on quest?This should answer your question:First of all, Free Activities can only be used in conjunction with the character being active. Most of the time, this is an arena fight or a miniquest. On Quests and Campaigns, it is up to the Questlord/Campaignlord to decide, wether you can make use of a Free Activity. While you might be able to earn money by performing in a tavern, you surely cannot benefit from that while in the wilderness. |
| Ayrynthyn01-24-06, 08:20 PM | Sure, I'm always happy to pontificate on D&D rules :D Here's the basic definition of a combat round: The Combat Round Each round represents 6 seconds in the game world. A round presents an opportunity for each character involved in a combat situation to take an action. Each round’s activity begins with the character with the highest initiative result and then proceeds, in order, from there. Each round of a combat uses the same initiative order. When a character’s turn comes up in the initiative sequence, that character performs his entire round’s worth of actions. (For exceptions, see Attacks of Opportunity and Special Initiative Actions.) So, the general rule is that you take all of your actions at once, on your initiative in the round. If you take a look down the list of Full Round Actions, you'll see that they're all things that are resolved on your initiative count (charging, full attacks, reloading a heavy crossbow, running, etc.) We also know there are some special cases. They mention AoOs and Special Initiative actions like Delay or Ready. Another special case are spells with a casting time of "1-round". Those spells take even longer than a full round action to complete. They take a full round action and continue on until the beginning of your next action. Regaining Psionic Focus is a special use of the Concentration skill that requires a full round action. It doesn't require 1 full round. ...ok guys. Appreciate all the insight. I'm still getting hung up on the verbiage "Full-Round action takes the entire round." and "A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round." But i can move on. I've modified the fight accordingly, although it changed little, as this occured in the last round of the fight. Bottom line is there's not too much outside the scope of spell casting that Concentration helps out with. Got it :cool: :D |
| DTFarstar01-24-06, 08:26 PM | I am not going to be able to finish these last two fights. I'm still recovering from a bout of asthmatic bronchitus(thus sleeping WAY more than I should thanks to the meds, as well as being really tired and fuzzy headed while I'm awake, of course at least I can mostly breath now) and a severe bout of chronic migraines. Not to mention restarting school and having a test tommorrow that I cannot postpone and for which I have only been able to attend 1 of the classes. SO... Tactics for War vs Tarik Vale To borrow from Muhammed Ali...float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Start me front and center with bow in hand. I never want to be closer to him than 50 ft if I can help it. This supercedes anything else below. If there is ever a choice between performing another action and retreating to keep that range barrier, chose retreating (withdrawing or running if necessary). From the time I leave my box until the time I have LOS to him, use active listen checks to try and get a bearing on his location. Once LOS is obtained, pump him full of arrows. If for some reason I am forced to melee combat, draw the waraxe and cure wand so they are both in hand and use them. This is a very unlikely scenerio, however, as he has no way to match my speed bonus. This should be a ranged match. Never drop equipment if forced to change...always stow it. If I ever drop to half my hp or fewer, use the healing wand. If you have any questions, PM me. Default Tarik vs. War Well, this looks like a pretty straight forward fight. Enter with the potion of Protection from Evil in hand. Drink that Round 1 Cast Enlarge Person Round 2 Go hunting for War. If he wants to melee, that is my preferred choice. Otherwise, use my longbow, and return fire. Try to find cover whenever possible if this becomes a ranged battle. Hopefully he wants to get in to melee combat, and if so, try to charge him if possible, and Smite+Divine Might on that attack. If I can't charge him, then just Smite+Divine Might on my next attack. Use Divine Might until I'm out of turning attempts. When I'm large, my Grapple modifier increases to +9 (+4 more size, and +1 more from Strength). Use the light steel shield in grapples to damage him. If I'm below 10 HP, draw and drink the potion of CMW, unless I'm in a grapple, then continue to grapple with him. Let me know if you have any questions. I haven't received all the tactics for this fight, I'll post what I have. Tactics for Kitaya (one vs. three) part I Hi DTFarstar, lets see how this rumble goes! If there are any questions ot issues with my tactics, or notes from my opponents that question some of the things on my sheet, please contact me in advance to avoid discussion later. Thanks for Pitlording! Analysis Theoricus: somewhat dangerous if allowed to swamp me with constructs. Weak points: low hit points, limited offensive capability (two 3rd lvl constructs at best, a few ranged options). Will probably be invisible most of the time. Rohan: dangerous if allowed to snipe and throw flasks at range. Weak points: low hit points, few alternative offensive options. Famine: dangerous if allowed to keep curing himself. Weak points: no alternatives to straight melee or ranged. Goals My goal is simple, avoid being swarmed early and then on buff up sufficiently to take them out one by one with as little risk to myself as possible. Start + Buffing Start me of with scroll of invisibility in hand at the center of my starting box. This should give good cover and initially break LOS from all directions. They don’t know what starting box their allies are in initially, so this could cause some confusion in the first round. 1. Invisibility from arcane scroll G (move first to gain cover from the statues in the unlikely event that somebody has readied a bow on me, move away after casting if someone ran into my corner of the hall on the first turn, draw scroll of fly otherwise) 2. Fly from divine scroll E (fly up and out towards statue) 3. Fly towards statue if not in air yet, otherwise, make 5 ft. steps in the air going higher and towards statue while continuing buffing. 4. Alter Self from arcane scroll J (Troglodyte) 5. Mage Armor from arcane scroll B 6. Shield from arcane scroll B 7. Magic Weapon from arcane scroll B on self. 8. Divine Favor from arcane scroll B If I am interrupted during buffing, use movement and cover to avoid attacks and continue buffing as well as possible. This is especially true if they ready attacks on my casting. Once I am flying, move away from the edge please use the center statue to break LOS or provide cover from any ranged attacks from my opponent’s suspect location. After buffing Kitaya should have AC 30(31), touch 16(17), flat 27(28). Main Tactic - In general I want to defeat them in this order: Rohan, Theoricus, Famine. I also want to engage while most buffs are still up. Ranged touch attacks will be the most dangerous to Kitaya (flasks, entangling ectoplasm). - Generally, I want to use Fly (and superior mobility) to get me out of tight spots, and put some distance between my and my opponents (use withdraw). This will get me out of range of many spells and I might be able to break LOS or seek cover vs. ranged attacks. Use common sense when adjucating if Kitaya is in a tight spot, since I cannot predict all variables and write contingecies for everything. If necessary, try to cure after getting away. If necessary and severely wounded/pressed, use another scroll of invisibility to regain the advantage. - If they are hidden/invisible, they might have some trouble communicating. They don’t have telepathic links, one cannot see what the other does. They can of course start yelling at each other to communicate, but that should make it easier for Kitaya do determine where her targets are hiding. Tactics for Kitaya (one vs. three) part II vs. Rohan - Look for him, he is probably hiding. One circle around the center statue will allow me to spot him if he’s hiding near the statues near the center of the arena. If I cannot spot him there, make a circuit around the outer wall of the arena (as high as possible, one square away from the wall), double moving. This will allow me to see all other hiding spots (autospot) in a matter of a few rounds. - Once I spot him, draw a scroll of shocking grasp and cast it. Then attack him next round with a regular unarmed attack (no touch) to inflict regular damage too. The initial attack should be at +14 (+6 base, +1 divine favor, +1 magic weapon, +2 invisible, +3 from shocking grasp since studded is covered with close-set metal rivets, +1 higher ground) for 5d6+6 damage vs. flat-footed AC. - I want to be sure Rohan is dead, and not eligible to be cured by Famine’s wand. So next round pick up his body (holding him by the scruff of his neck in one hand) as standard action, and then fly over the lava (move action, move a bit down to get extra speed if necessary) and drop him in it (free action). His is so light that Kitaya can easily pick him up and still be at a light load. - If I cannot find Rohan after doing a full circle, use the shocking grasp attack from above on Famine instead, (see for specific tactics vs. Famine). vs. Famine - Once Rohan is down, I will take the longspear in one hand and fly over the center of the arena, looking for Famine. I am assuming Famine will stay in the upper/outer part of the arena. If he comes down to the lower part, feel free to use a dive attack with the longspear for double damage against him instead of tactics below. - Approach Famine and cast command ‘fall’ at him from memory (casting from within longspear reach, but out of his melee reach if possible). Next turn, grab longspear with both hands, 5 ft. step towards him and flurry with unarmed attack. The longspear’s purpose is to gain AoO when he tries to back away. - When in melee with Famine, I desire to use him as (soft) cover if any others start attacking me. So move around him appropriately (and use tumble if needed). - If Famine falls, grab his CLW wand and start curing myself until full (if necessary). - If Famine drops his CLW wand at any time, also grab it (taking the AoO), and start curing (if neccesary) - If I cannot kill Famine within a few rounds, break off combat and put away longspear. Slug it out at range with my longbow, always moving to deny him the benefit of cover. If my Fly spell is about to expire, buff in advance with magic weapon, enlarge person and inflict light wounds (discarding a spell) and then attempt to start a grapple, flurring for damage (and releasing the inflict). vs. Theoricus - I suspected him to be invisibile as long as possible. Normally I want to target him after Rohan, but I might have to save him for last because I cannot find him. - If he shows himself, fly towards him and end exactly above him (take any AoO from him if neccesary) and attack, flurry if possible, and use the second flurry attack to start a grapple. Break off melee with Famine to get to him if necessary. Flying exactly above him makes it impossible for him to 5 ft. step to avoid AoO’s on manifesting. - Entangling Ectoplasm/Crystal Shard: Hopefully I am in melee when he tries to hit Kitaya with those, and thus he takes a -4 penalty for shooting into melee. Entangling ectoplasm might entangle Kitaya, but does not fix her into place since it is not tethered anywhere (see entangle). - Astral constructs: they should be able to hit only on a 20. If Kitaya is really swamped by constructs (plus possibly Famine/Rohan) withdraw (using tumble if necessary) from that area to a safer place. With only a 20 ft. flying speed, they should not be able to reach me next round. - Matter Agitation: this attack should make him visible. If I am burning up, attack Theoricus as quickly as possible (use tactics above). - If I kill/disable Theoricus, grab any potion remaining on his body and use it, it should be invisibility. If Famine comes around to cure him, attack him from invisibility. If there are no potions left, and Famine is still around, make sure he is really dead and will not be cured back to full healh (attack his body, flurry if possible) Tactics for Kitaya (one vs. three) part III Delaying - Kitaya never desires to be penalized for delaying. I think I have written my tactics so that no delaying penalty should ever accrue. If a situation comes up in which you think a delaying penalty should apply to Kitaya, please take the most effective action in the spirit of my tactics that avoids the penalty. - Some of my opponents might accrue penalties for delaying, especially Theoricus and Rohan. If they stay hidden or invisible without attempting to engage. As I understand the delay rule, both can try to attack Kitaya when she is invisible (especially because she will often be heard, when casting for example). If they do not, I think they are considered to be delaying. Personally I think delaying is still a vague rule, however. Contingencies - Grappled: In most cases, I don’t want to be grappled, certainly not at the start of the match, so try to escape. Escaping is not an attack, and should not break invisibility. - Shield spell goes down: recast it after moving away under Total Defense to a fairly safe spot (center statue?) IF opportune. Once again, use common sense, if I have almost killed Famine, don’t move away to recast the shield and allow him the opportunity to cure back. Notes - Use tumble or 5 ft. steps to avoid AoO’s when opportune. Don’t forget this, please pretty please.... - Use dodge feat for +1 on AC against most threatening opponent. - If Flying, don’t forget to add +1 to attack from attacking from higher ground. - Kitaya has Deflect Arrows, which will deflect any missiles (including flasks) if she has a hand free to do so. She can have a hand free inside grapples as well. - Don’t waste the shocking grasp, attack someone with it! (I once had a Pitlord wasting a shocking grasp because he literally followed a portion of my tactics). - I have mixed in divine spells on the latest arcane scroll (B) bought since last week. I am not seeing any rule against it, but consider B two separate scrolls (one with divine spells, one with arcane spells) if it is not allowed somehow. - Don’t forget to make caster level checks for some of the scrolls. The scroll of Fly is divine, and I can cast it since I have the Travel domain, so add +2 to the CL check. Spells are only lost if I fail the CL check and the subsequent Wis check. - Fly spell should protect me from Trip attacks by constructs. - I forgot to correct encumbrance statistics, they show totals as if Kitaya has 17 Str, not 18. - Sneak attack doesn’t work when Kitaya’s invisible, courtesy of concealment. Tactics This is my part of the tactics we've worked out so far. NiQuil has yet to voice his opinion on it, but Altaris13 and I both agree on it. I'm going to PM Altaris and Niquil to send you their parts. Pre-fight: Gain Focus Theoricus will open by manifesting two level three Astral Costructs. Use the stats I provided in my charachter sheet. Rohan, Famine, and I will then attempt to meet and locate Kitaya. When we do, I'll instruct the constructs to to attack. Famine will join them. Ideally, they'll box Kitaya in (a charachter to her left, right, front, and back). I'll then manifest matter aggitation, using the power point in my cognizance crystal. With luck, Kitaya will be be spending most of her time flaming on the ground, getting sneak attacked like crazy. [/sblock] I apologize to all fighters and the players behind them. Life kicked me in the junk(if I may be so vulgar) this past couple weeks, I barely managed last week and failed this week. I have requested to be assigned one or no fights this week depending on need. I fear I will be very much less in evidence over the next couple of weeks till things get more settled in my life, provided of course I do get things settled down. I think the alternative is my head exploding, so let's hope. Again, I know this is a major inconveinience to all involved and I apologize, I have been told my running of the fight earlier this week was sub-par and inacceptable to those involved. I will say it was a difficult fight and I was not in the best mind frame. My decisions were made based on the fact that waywreth's character had no chance to find his opponent, and was hoping, as per his tactics, to fight him, but refused to waste resources and his health standing and fighting. If I delay penaltied him, I felt it would be unfair not to hit Warclone's character with a delay as well. If I made Solomon appear, then waywreth's character would immediately kill him with minimum damage, so I chose to abolish delay penalties for the match. If you track the movement on the chart and the range of the power then you will notice that none of the summons are placed badly FOR THE TIME THE POWER WAS STARTED. It is my understanding you make your choices then and the power comes into effect right before your next action which means his opponent got a full round between when he decided where to construct and when the construct arrived. Maybe this is wrong, as I said, I have been unable to think clearly all week. As for giving them an attack every round of their life, with his opponent's superior move, unless they tripped him they just got left behind. Bad rolls said that his opponent never got tripped, with average rolls or a little luck it would have been a win for Solomon even with his opponent trying to withdraw every round, but the dice said no. If someone wants to rerun, feel free, I won't be hurt. That is all I have the time to say right now, again, I apologize. I hope to see you all around. Chris |
| Ariel2301-24-06, 08:40 PM | At this point, I am just going to let this go. You have made it apparant that you do not feel the need to make any changes with regard to the various actions you have given my opponent, although there are still several rounds where he has received more actions in the round than he is entitled to. I would encourage you to take a look at the SRD sections on movement and skills once again, as several of these issues are easily verifyable there. But, with regard to this fight...I'm done. The above statement is true. What you are requesting amount to superficial text changes. I've made some and not made others. I've spent at least 12 hours on this fight already, including responding to your concerns. Regardless of if I were to find a plethora of errors and go back and spend 6 hours editing the text of the fight to reflect these changes, the outcome will remain the same. I've already shown that, and even used Invisible Castle in case someone were to think that I had an interest in who wins or loses the fight. What would be the point, other than to use more of my time? Come Wednesday, the odds are high that no one will ever read this fight again, except perhaps a very studious opponent of Jonathon's. Of course no one wants to lose, but generally speaking, half these boards lose every week. At least in your case, even though the ally contributed to your defeat, it also gave you more GP/XP in the loss. I guarantee you that Death would have won if Jonathon had not had his mount.That's something, at least. At ECL 3, if a minor ally raises your ECL by 1 [to ECL 4], in one sense this makes your opponent 33% more powerful than you. If it were a minor ally of an ECL 10, the difference between ECL 10 and ECL 11 is not as pronounced. |
| Ariel2301-24-06, 08:43 PM | @Lonewolf: Let me be clear that I think you did a great job with the fight. I was never asking for a rerun. I hate reruns. If you had not applied Evaine's DR, that would be reason for a "re-run", but even that would simply be a HP adjustment each round and picking up in the final round with her new HP total. I.e., tacking on a couple extra rounds. For example, if the critical hit were reversed, all that would be required is a few additional attacks by Kendal at the bottom of the fight, so I don't mind asking about that. If such things had occured, you could just do the rolling and let me know what happened--there wouldn't even be a reason to change the text unless the outcome had changed. Either way, it goes on my sheets as a loss 400 gp/400 xp. Pitlording sucks, no need to make it worse for people donating their time to make the CoCo work. In general, I post a loss as a loss and a win as a win on my sheet as soon as I see the fight results; I just come to the FotW for clarifications. Run-of-the-mill "concerns" are not a reason to re-run or even edit a fight, IMHO. The reason Evaine lost the fight, honestly, is 2 critical hits and the Flurry/Grapple houserule (that I voted against :P ). Nitpicking is not going to overcome an inherent mathematical disadvantage (Improved Grapple plus 2 crits) unless the nit can somehow eliminate one of those disadvantages. This was a completely fair fight (and a worthy opponent), I hope I never implied otherwise. I wonder why if grapple damage is based on your touch attack roll, when you crit on the touch attack it isn't applied to all damage dealt while in the grapple for the remainder of the grapple...? This is totally unrelated to anything, it just bothered me: This ruling was supported in a (brief) discussion in the Tavern, so while you should feel free to argue it for future instances, your chance to argue the point before the fight was finished came up days ago, and there's no time now.I must disagree that not reading Tavern posts is the same as relinquishing one's right to a fair fight. (If one had not been fairly run, which is not the case here). |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 09:13 PM | This is totally unrelated to anything, it just bothered me: I must disagree that not reading Tavern posts is the same as relinquishing one's right to a fair fight. (If one had not been fairly run, which is not the case here).I agree in principle, but when a pitlord posts such a question, multiple people respond, and the pitlord proceeds, it's pretty frustrating when someone jumps in at zero hour and asks for corrections. If I were such a pitlord, I would be highly resistant to such a complaint, unless it was an obvious and unequivocal mistake on my part. |
| Stormwind01-24-06, 09:32 PM | @MitzaVolchenko: Thanks for running the fight (Cyra Val vs Donak), especially at such short notice, however I have some serious issues with the fight and would like them addressed (rerun if necessary). Round 2: Cyra hide check at the end of round 2 is 1d20+21, not 1d20+11. Thus Donak does not spot her and the fight from here on changes dramatically. Round 3: Donak cannot move and rapid shot in the same round. Rapid shot is a full round action. Round 5: Donak cannot move and rapid shot in the same round. Rapid shot is a full round action. Note: Once on the ceiling Cyra can simply maneuver around the square pillar (moving either 10 or 15ft), to break line of sight. This prevents Donak from using any rapid shot (which is a full round action) |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 09:36 PM | Under mounted Combat in the SRD You can use ranged weapons while your mount is taking a double move, but at a -4 penalty on the attack roll. You can use ranged weapons while your mount is running (quadruple speed), at a -8 penalty. In either case, you make the attack roll when your mount has completed half its movement. You can make a full attack with a ranged weapon while your mount is moving. Likewise, you can take move actions normally |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 09:42 PM | Challack vs. Luni & Barak the Barbarian is here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8311193&postcount=96) Let me know if I need to fix something preferrably via PM so I know to look for it as I do not always read every post in here. |
| Macbrea01-24-06, 09:46 PM | Round 2: Cyra hide check at the end of round 2 is 1d20+21, not 1d20+11. Thus Donak does not spot her and the fight from here on changes dramatically. Round 02 Donak moves to regain LOS and fires at Cyra (1d20+10=25) scoring a hit in spite of the cover bonus and dealing (13) points of damage. Donak Spot 1d20+11=17 vs. Cyra Hide (1d20+11=13) range penalty is 4..spot still suceeds. Cyra moves to the central obstacles taking cover and taps a tattoo of chameleon hiding by the central pillar. That doesn't look like you had the tattoo tapped yet. I would think his spot check would occur at your +11 hide skill, then you would tap the tattoo adding to your hide skill. I could be wrong. But I believe his initiative goes before yours. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 09:49 PM | @MitzaVolchenko: Thanks for running the fight (Cyra Val vs Donak), especially at such short notice, however I have some serious issues with the fight and would like them addressed (rerun if necessary). Round 2: Cyra hide check at the end of round 2 is 1d20+21, not 1d20+11. Thus Donak does not spot her and the fight from here on changes dramatically. Cyra is not at +21 until the ned of that round as she had not yet tapped the tattoo. Round 3: Donak cannot move and rapid shot in the same round. Rapid shot is a full round action. Round 5: Donak cannot move and rapid shot in the same round. Rapid shot is a full round action. Note: Once on the ceiling Cyra can simply maneuver around the square pillar (moving either 10 or 15ft), to break line of sight. This prevents Donak from using any rapid shot (which is a full round action) Donak takes a penalty for doing so. He is autosuccess on his ride checks. I will check again to make sure that I applied the full penalties...I admit for some reason I just couldn't seem to keep the mental math going in that one...prolly because my sugar was in the basement. |
| Zevox01-24-06, 09:51 PM | Aerryl Nalladar vs Mindrel Avhost is up at last. there were several technical problems which delayed everything a bit and I had to rerun a good part of it because of a mistake I made, so there are quite a few unused rolls. Went about as I expected (well, thats not entirely true - I'm shocked to see that Mindrel made both saves vs Entangle). No major complaints - 'twas a fairly straightforward fight to begin with anyway. I would point out that Aeryll made no mention of firing on Laciendi in his tactics, but considering the trouble you already went through and the healing Aeryll was using I won't bother with it. *sigh* Mindrel's had some rotten luck with his battles. Maybe I ought to consider retiring him and starting a Cleric to go Mystic Theurge with instead... Zevox |
| Ravashack01-24-06, 09:55 PM | ...ok guys. Appreciate all the insight. I'm still getting hung up on the verbiage "Full-Round action takes the entire round." and "A round can be a segment of game time starting with the first character to act and ending with the last, but it usually means a span of time from one round to the same initiative count in the next round." But i can move on. I've modified the fight accordingly, although it changed little, as this occured in the last round of the fight. Bottom line is there's not too much outside the scope of spell casting that Concentration helps out with. Got it :cool: :D Thanks. :) I don't mind losing (or I would have scrapped Perius a loooong time ago), but I do mind having minor confusion like that sorted out as much as possible. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 09:57 PM | @Stormwind I went back and checked ot be sure that I had taken -4 in every round that he rapid shot after double move and hte -2 for rapid. I did. If there are any other errors, don't hesitate to ask me to look at them. |
| Stormwind01-24-06, 09:59 PM | ... |
| Stormwind01-24-06, 10:00 PM | Cyra is not at +21 until the end of that round as she had not yet tapped the tattoo. Sorry, you're right .... however at the end of round 2 Cyra should have moved at least 1 or 2 squares further north (as she has the movement) which enables her to hide in case Donak comes around the corner (which he obviously will do so). Thus she would have an additional chance to hide here (and hopefully avoid some of the carnage) @Macbrea: hmmm ... thanks for that. I didn't realise that. Oh well, another lesson for next time. |
| Begferdeth01-24-06, 10:04 PM | Wow. Thats got to be the worst misapplication of the 10-round delay rule ever. Especially since Valkin had just shot his opponent 2 rounds before, so he had another 8 before you should have thought of it. And then hitting him with a pile of lethal damage for it. Just... wow. Fixed.. please say it is fixed! @Telin - since your here.. and your so fast! could you chack for the rewards and thats stuff - [size=1]I should have rolled percents with every arrow, and you didnt really use anything else.... wow Iced .... you might want to rethink that "go ahead and use expendables if they are gonna do more damage deal" Missing = 0 damage ...so... I went through a few scrolls. :gah: I applied "a penalty" for your tactics btw. sorry. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 10:08 PM | I would point out that Aeryll made no mention of firing on Laciendi in his tactics, but considering the trouble you already went through and the healing Aeryll was using I won't bother with it. Just to make you feel better, you missed this line in my tactics: If the bird comes flying at me, shoot it.Both you and I predicted each other's tactics exactly, so all it came down to was the fact that my wand could outlast your missiles. Might want to invest in a wand of magic missiles, or indeed go with a cleric (either a future MT or one of those nifty Magic domain clerics). |
| MysticMonk200501-24-06, 10:13 PM | I actually didn't think Lissa would beat Noko. I was kinda surprised that Lissa beat Noko as well, but Lissa was a little crit monster in this one. *cough* Its good to see I'm not underestimated in the arena :P I had forgoten that we were in a different arena untill I read the posted tactics so it was too late to fix. Still its pretty hard to mess up my intention of stay away from melee and shoot. Thanks for running the fight. |
| Stormwind01-24-06, 10:15 PM | @Stormwind I went back and checked ot be sure that I had taken -4 in every round that he rapid shot after double move and hte -2 for rapid. I did. If there are any other errors, don't hesitate to ask me to look at them. Thanks again for your patience. in round 5 Cyra doesn't seem to get a hide check vs Donak spot (she only would need to roll a 2) in round 6 & 7 Cyra is within 5ft of cover (diagonaly: actual distance not move distance as per ruling) and would have another chance to remain hidden (not autospotted as she is within ranks of cover) |
| NiQil01-24-06, 10:15 PM | I am not going to be able to finish these last two fights. I'm still recovering from a bout of asthmatic bronchitus(thus sleeping WAY more than I should thanks to the meds, as well as being really tired and fuzzy headed while I'm awake, of course at least I can mostly breath now) and a severe bout of chronic migraines. Not to mention restarting school and having a test tommorrow that I cannot postpone and for which I have only been able to attend 1 of the classes. SO... Tactics for War vs Tarik Vale To borrow from Muhammed Ali...float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. Start me front and center with bow in hand. I never want to be closer to him than 50 ft if I can help it. This supercedes anything else below. If there is ever a choice between performing another action and retreating to keep that range barrier, chose retreating (withdrawing or running if necessary). From the time I leave my box until the time I have LOS to him, use active listen checks to try and get a bearing on his location. Once LOS is obtained, pump him full of arrows. If for some reason I am forced to melee combat, draw the waraxe and cure wand so they are both in hand and use them. This is a very unlikely scenerio, however, as he has no way to match my speed bonus. This should be a ranged match. Never drop equipment if forced to change...always stow it. If I ever drop to half my hp or fewer, use the healing wand. If you have any questions, PM me. Default Tarik vs. War Well, this looks like a pretty straight forward fight. Enter with the potion of Protection from Evil in hand. Drink that Round 1 Cast Enlarge Person Round 2 Go hunting for War. If he wants to melee, that is my preferred choice. Otherwise, use my longbow, and return fire. Try to find cover whenever possible if this becomes a ranged battle. Hopefully he wants to get in to melee combat, and if so, try to charge him if possible, and Smite+Divine Might on that attack. If I can't charge him, then just Smite+Divine Might on my next attack. Use Divine Might until I'm out of turning attempts. When I'm large, my Grapple modifier increases to +9 (+4 more size, and +1 more from Strength). Use the light steel shield in grapples to damage him. If I'm below 10 HP, draw and drink the potion of CMW, unless I'm in a grapple, then continue to grapple with him. Let me know if you have any questions. I haven't received all the tactics for this fight, I'll post what I have. Tactics for Kitaya (one vs. three) part I Hi DTFarstar, lets see how this rumble goes! If there are any questions ot issues with my tactics, or notes from my opponents that question some of the things on my sheet, please contact me in advance to avoid discussion later. Thanks for Pitlording! Analysis Theoricus: somewhat dangerous if allowed to swamp me with constructs. Weak points: low hit points, limited offensive capability (two 3rd lvl constructs at best, a few ranged options). Will probably be invisible most of the time. Rohan: dangerous if allowed to snipe and throw flasks at range. Weak points: low hit points, few alternative offensive options. Famine: dangerous if allowed to keep curing himself. Weak points: no alternatives to straight melee or ranged. Goals My goal is simple, avoid being swarmed early and then on buff up sufficiently to take them out one by one with as little risk to myself as possible. Start + Buffing Start me of with scroll of invisibility in hand at the center of my starting box. This should give good cover and initially break LOS from all directions. They don’t know what starting box their allies are in initially, so this could cause some confusion in the first round. 1. Invisibility from arcane scroll G (move first to gain cover from the statues in the unlikely event that somebody has readied a bow on me, move away after casting if someone ran into my corner of the hall on the first turn, draw scroll of fly otherwise) 2. Fly from divine scroll E (fly up and out towards statue) 3. Fly towards statue if not in air yet, otherwise, make 5 ft. steps in the air going higher and towards statue while continuing buffing. 4. Alter Self from arcane scroll J (Troglodyte) 5. Mage Armor from arcane scroll B 6. Shield from arcane scroll B 7. Magic Weapon from arcane scroll B on self. 8. Divine Favor from arcane scroll B If I am interrupted during buffing, use movement and cover to avoid attacks and continue buffing as well as possible. This is especially true if they ready attacks on my casting. Once I am flying, move away from the edge please use the center statue to break LOS or provide cover from any ranged attacks from my opponent’s suspect location. After buffing Kitaya should have AC 30(31), touch 16(17), flat 27(28). Main Tactic - In general I want to defeat them in this order: Rohan, Theoricus, Famine. I also want to engage while most buffs are still up. Ranged touch attacks will be the most dangerous to Kitaya (flasks, entangling ectoplasm). - Generally, I want to use Fly (and superior mobility) to get me out of tight spots, and put some distance between my and my opponents (use withdraw). This will get me out of range of many spells and I might be able to break LOS or seek cover vs. ranged attacks. Use common sense when adjucating if Kitaya is in a tight spot, since I cannot predict all variables and write contingecies for everything. If necessary, try to cure after getting away. If necessary and severely wounded/pressed, use another scroll of invisibility to regain the advantage. - If they are hidden/invisible, they might have some trouble communicating. They don’t have telepathic links, one cannot see what the other does. They can of course start yelling at each other to communicate, but that should make it easier for Kitaya do determine where her targets are hiding. Tactics for Kitaya (one vs. three) part II vs. Rohan - Look for him, he is probably hiding. One circle around the center statue will allow me to spot him if he’s hiding near the statues near the center of the arena. If I cannot spot him there, make a circuit around the outer wall of the arena (as high as possible, one square away from the wall), double moving. This will allow me to see all other hiding spots (autospot) in a matter of a few rounds. - Once I spot him, draw a scroll of shocking grasp and cast it. Then attack him next round with a regular unarmed attack (no touch) to inflict regular damage too. The initial attack should be at +14 (+6 base, +1 divine favor, +1 magic weapon, +2 invisible, +3 from shocking grasp since studded is covered with close-set metal rivets, +1 higher ground) for 5d6+6 damage vs. flat-footed AC. - I want to be sure Rohan is dead, and not eligible to be cured by Famine’s wand. So next round pick up his body (holding him by the scruff of his neck in one hand) as standard action, and then fly over the lava (move action, move a bit down to get extra speed if necessary) and drop him in it (free action). His is so light that Kitaya can easily pick him up and still be at a light load. - If I cannot find Rohan after doing a full circle, use the shocking grasp attack from above on Famine instead, (see for specific tactics vs. Famine). vs. Famine - Once Rohan is down, I will take the longspear in one hand and fly over the center of the arena, looking for Famine. I am assuming Famine will stay in the upper/outer part of the arena. If he comes down to the lower part, feel free to use a dive attack with the longspear for double damage against him instead of tactics below. - Approach Famine and cast command ‘fall’ at him from memory (casting from within longspear reach, but out of his melee reach if possible). Next turn, grab longspear with both hands, 5 ft. step towards him and flurry with unarmed attack. The longspear’s purpose is to gain AoO when he tries to back away. - When in melee with Famine, I desire to use him as (soft) cover if any others start attacking me. So move around him appropriately (and use tumble if needed). - If Famine falls, grab his CLW wand and start curing myself until full (if necessary). - If Famine drops his CLW wand at any time, also grab it (taking the AoO), and start curing (if neccesary) - If I cannot kill Famine within a few rounds, break off combat and put away longspear. Slug it out at range with my longbow, always moving to deny him the benefit of cover. If my Fly spell is about to expire, buff in advance with magic weapon, enlarge person and inflict light wounds (discarding a spell) and then attempt to start a grapple, flurring for damage (and releasing the inflict). vs. Theoricus - I suspected him to be invisibile as long as possible. Normally I want to target him after Rohan, but I might have to save him for last because I cannot find him. - If he shows himself, fly towards him and end exactly above him (take any AoO from him if neccesary) and attack, flurry if possible, and use the second flurry attack to start a grapple. Break off melee with Famine to get to him if necessary. Flying exactly above him makes it impossible for him to 5 ft. step to avoid AoO’s on manifesting. - Entangling Ectoplasm/Crystal Shard: Hopefully I am in melee when he tries to hit Kitaya with those, and thus he takes a -4 penalty for shooting into melee. Entangling ectoplasm might entangle Kitaya, but does not fix her into place since it is not tethered anywhere (see entangle). - Astral constructs: they should be able to hit only on a 20. If Kitaya is really swamped by constructs (plus possibly Famine/Rohan) withdraw (using tumble if necessary) from that area to a safer place. With only a 20 ft. flying speed, they should not be able to reach me next round. - Matter Agitation: this attack should make him visible. If I am burning up, attack Theoricus as quickly as possible (use tactics above). - If I kill/disable Theoricus, grab any potion remaining on his body and use it, it should be invisibility. If Famine comes around to cure him, attack him from invisibility. If there are no potions left, and Famine is still around, make sure he is really dead and will not be cured back to full healh (attack his body, flurry if possible) Tactics for Kitaya (one vs. three) part III Delaying - Kitaya never desires to be penalized for delaying. I think I have written my tactics so that no delaying penalty should ever accrue. If a situation comes up in which you think a delaying penalty should apply to Kitaya, please take the most effective action in the spirit of my tactics that avoids the penalty. - Some of my opponents might accrue penalties for delaying, especially Theoricus and Rohan. If they stay hidden or invisible without attempting to engage. As I understand the delay rule, both can try to attack Kitaya when she is invisible (especially because she will often be heard, when casting for example). If they do not, I think they are considered to be delaying. Personally I think delaying is still a vague rule, however. Contingencies - Grappled: In most cases, I don’t want to be grappled, certainly not at the start of the match, so try to escape. Escaping is not an attack, and should not break invisibility. - Shield spell goes down: recast it after moving away under Total Defense to a fairly safe spot (center statue?) IF opportune. Once again, use common sense, if I have almost killed Famine, don’t move away to recast the shield and allow him the opportunity to cure back. Notes - Use tumble or 5 ft. steps to avoid AoO’s when opportune. Don’t forget this, please pretty please.... - Use dodge feat for +1 on AC against most threatening opponent. - If Flying, don’t forget to add +1 to attack from attacking from higher ground. - Kitaya has Deflect Arrows, which will deflect any missiles (including flasks) if she has a hand free to do so. She can have a hand free inside grapples as well. - Don’t waste the shocking grasp, attack someone with it! (I once had a Pitlord wasting a shocking grasp because he literally followed a portion of my tactics). - I have mixed in divine spells on the latest arcane scroll (B) bought since last week. I am not seeing any rule against it, but consider B two separate scrolls (one with divine spells, one with arcane spells) if it is not allowed somehow. - Don’t forget to make caster level checks for some of the scrolls. The scroll of Fly is divine, and I can cast it since I have the Travel domain, so add +2 to the CL check. Spells are only lost if I fail the CL check and the subsequent Wis check. - Fly spell should protect me from Trip attacks by constructs. - I forgot to correct encumbrance statistics, they show totals as if Kitaya has 17 Str, not 18. - Sneak attack doesn’t work when Kitaya’s invisible, courtesy of concealment. Tactics This is my part of the tactics we've worked out so far. NiQuil has yet to voice his opinion on it, but Altaris13 and I both agree on it. I'm going to PM Altaris and Niquil to send you their parts. Pre-fight: Gain Focus Theoricus will open by manifesting two level three Astral Costructs. Use the stats I provided in my charachter sheet. Rohan, Famine, and I will then attempt to meet and locate Kitaya. When we do, I'll instruct the constructs to to attack. Famine will join them. Ideally, they'll box Kitaya in (a charachter to her left, right, front, and back). I'll then manifest matter aggitation, using the power point in my cognizance crystal. With luck, Kitaya will be be spending most of her time flaming on the ground, getting sneak attacked like crazy. [/sblock] I apologize to all fighters and the players behind them. Life kicked me in the junk(if I may be so vulgar) this past couple weeks, I barely managed last week and failed this week. I have requested to be assigned one or no fights this week depending on need. I fear I will be very much less in evidence over the next couple of weeks till things get more settled in my life, provided of course I do get things settled down. I think the alternative is my head exploding, so let's hope. Again, I know this is a major inconveinience to all involved and I apologize, I have been told my running of the fight earlier this week was sub-par and inacceptable to those involved. I will say it was a difficult fight and I was not in the best mind frame. My decisions were made based on the fact that waywreth's character had no chance to find his opponent, and was hoping, as per his tactics, to fight him, but refused to waste resources and his health standing and fighting. If I delay penaltied him, I felt it would be unfair not to hit Warclone's character with a delay as well. If I made Solomon appear, then waywreth's character would immediately kill him with minimum damage, so I chose to abolish delay penalties for the match. If you track the movement on the chart and the range of the power then you will notice that none of the summons are placed badly FOR THE TIME THE POWER WAS STARTED. It is my understanding you make your choices then and the power comes into effect right before your next action which means his opponent got a full round between when he decided where to construct and when the construct arrived. Maybe this is wrong, as I said, I have been unable to think clearly all week. As for giving them an attack every round of their life, with his opponent's superior move, unless they tripped him they just got left behind. Bad rolls said that his opponent never got tripped, with average rolls or a little luck it would have been a win for Solomon even with his opponent trying to withdraw every round, but the dice said no. If someone wants to rerun, feel free, I won't be hurt. That is all I have the time to say right now, again, I apologize. I hope to see you all around. Chris I just wanted to bump this forward....I would really appreciate it if anyone could pick up one or both of these...even though the boards will be down starting at 2 am eastern until 2 pm eastern, that still leaves 2 hours before pairings to post them, if you were able to collect info now...not to mention still about 4 hours left before the boards go down. I would really like to not have either of my fighters held over if at all possible. Please? Pretty please? With sprinkles? And a cherry on top? Edit: And with this announcement... Pairings will be postponed to thursday this week due to the long board maintance that begins in about 5 hours. Although the boards are supposed to be running from Wed 7 PM GMT on again, people only have 2 hours to ready their sheets. Additionally, the boards will go down again a good part of thursday. Again: Pairings moved to Thursday 9 PM GMT this week! Gladius Weekly: I think I will give Luni a credit pot, let's say there are 2 in there and she can grant them to whoever she thinks contributed the best (she sends me a weekly PM anyway and will mention the names in there). It should be an article about the city or events or anything that improves roleplaying, not a fight description. We also have to do something about map credits. I love to see all those maps but the map credits become too good an income source; making credits less attractive. I don't want to miss the maps though. Any idea? ...this allows even more time for the two fights listed above...any takers? |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 10:16 PM | Sorry, you're right .... however at the end of round 2 Cyra should have moved at least 1 or 2 squares further north (as she has the movement) which enables her to hide in case Donak comes around the corner (which he obviously will do so). Thus she would have an additional chance to hide here (and hopefully avoid some of the carnage) @Macbrea: hmmm ... thanks for that. I didn't realise that. Oh well, another lesson for next time. You are correct. It looks like I square moved her and shorted her 5'. I do not believe that it made any difference in the fight. The objective listed in your tactics was end at the rock, and the position I placed her in gave her the ability to shift to either side of the rock and avoid a charge. Admittedly his tactics did not say to charge and run Cyra down with the mount, but it was an option under his general 'be aggressive' tactics. |
| Mal-201-24-06, 10:18 PM | @MitzaVolchenko: Thanks for running the fight (Cyra Val vs Donak), especially at such short notice, however I have some serious issues with the fight and would like them addressed (rerun if necessary). Round 2: Cyra hide check at the end of round 2 is 1d20+21, not 1d20+11. Thus Donak does not spot her and the fight from here on changes dramatically. Round 3: Donak cannot move and rapid shot in the same round. Rapid shot is a full round action. I agree that you have a +21 Hide check at the end of round two, but I could see where you went and moved to completely negate your cover in round 3, thus auto-spotting. Donak can Rapid Shot (which is a full round action) while his mount moves. There are negatives if my mount double moves or runs, and restrictions on where along the movement I can take my attack though. I think Round 7 was the only one where I double moved and attacked. If my mount double moves, I can only take my shots at the halfway point of the movement. Since the coordinates aren't updated for that round, I can't tell if that was taken into account or not. Full Ranged Attack: You can make a full ranged attack from your moving mount. If your mount makes a single move, you make all your ranged attacks either before or after the movement, and the rules assume your mount is stationary when you shoot. If your mount makes a double move, you can still make a full ranged attack, but you're shooting while the mount is moving and you take a -4 penalty on your attack roll. If your mount runs, you take a -8 penalty on ranged attacks. In either case, you make all your attack rolls when your mount has completed half its movement for the turn. Edit: Oops, I somehow missed a whole page of discussion before posting. Everything I said has already been covered. |
| MindWandererB01-24-06, 10:20 PM | Wow. Thats got to be the worst misapplication of the 10-round delay rule ever. Especially since Valkin had just shot his opponent 2 rounds before, so he had another 8 before you should have thought of it. And then hitting him with a pile of lethal damage for it. Just... wow.I have to agree, the 10-round delay penalty shouldn't be applied just because someone -intends- to delay, only if they actually -do-. And plinking a flying opponent every few rounds, or every time they start casting, is a perfectly valid tactic. Since Telin is gracefully accepting the defeat, no correction is necessary, but this was a big boo-boo. |
| DTFarstar01-24-06, 10:20 PM | @Mitza : As I have mentioned several times, I've been under alot of pressure and just flat out missed that she had hired the barbarian. I definately didn't intend to ignore an ally, I just didn't know he was going to be there. Oh well, Challack is glacially moving forward. Probably get retired eventually, just not viable in this caster heavy environment. |
| Zevox01-24-06, 10:24 PM | Just to make you feel better, you missed this line in my tactics: Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out. I'm kinda fatigued at the moment (just spent 6 hours at school [including 2 1/2 in an honors class], plus 4 at work immediately thereafter, so its been a long day for me), so I shouldn't be surprised that I missed it while skimming your tactics. Both you and I predicted each other's tactics exactly, so all it came down to was the fact that my wand could outlast your missiles. Might want to invest in a wand of magic missiles, or indeed go with a cleric (either a future MT or one of those nifty Magic domain clerics). Like I said, 'twas a fairly straightforward fight. I don't know about a wand of magic missiles - I'd tend to see a CL 1 version as not worth the price (750gp for 2-5 damage per shot?), and the CL 3 version is far out of Mindrel's price range until he hits level 4 at least. I think I may seriously consider replacing Mindrel - I had originally created him to multiclass as a Cleric of Tyr and join the CEF, but since I made Sir Alboreth and now already have a CEF member that would seem a bit redundant (to me at least - I know theres a few people who put multiple characters into the same guild). Yeah, I'm thinking another way to the Mystic Theurge class may be in order. Still going to keep the Raven familiar though - I like the concept of having a familiar I can talk to :D . Zevox |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 10:27 PM | Thanks again for your patience. in round 5 Cyra doesn't seem to get a hide check vs Donak spot (she only would need to roll a 2) in round 6 & 7 Cyra is within 5ft of cover (diagonaly: actual distance not move distance as per ruling) and would have another chance to remain hidden (not autospotted as she is within ranks of cover) In round 5 he is based off of your previous round's hide check as nothing has changed for you at that point. Hide checks stand until the hider changes something that they are doing. For instance, you could just hunker down after a particularly nice hide roll and not move at all...then the high roll stands and they test using the distance modifiers but having no conditional modifier change from you so the DC stays the same. As far as the move vs. actual distance goes, I have been ruled in my own fights that it is move distance. If there is an elder clarification somewhere for that one, send me a PM with the link, and I will be happy to look it over and make changes. That has frustrated my sneaky little wenches more than once. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 10:29 PM | @Mitza : As I have mentioned several times, I've been under alot of pressure and just flat out missed that she had hired the barbarian. I definately didn't intend to ignore an ally, I just didn't know he was going to be there. Oh well, Challack is glacially moving forward. Probably get retired eventually, just not viable in this caster heavy environment. One on one he had a great chance at Luni. The merc made the difference. You might consider taking him out on a quest where he can be more selective and creative with how he handles his fights. |
| Mal-201-24-06, 10:29 PM | in round 5 Cyra doesn't seem to get a hide check vs Donak spot (she only would need to roll a 2) in round 6 & 7 Cyra is within 5ft of cover (diagonaly: actual distance not move distance as per ruling) and would have another chance to remain hidden (not autospotted as she is within ranks of cover) I think your Hide roll from Round 4 carried over into round 5. I'm pretty sure you only re-roll on your turn, as an automatic action as part of your movement (if any). I agree about the cover in round 6. The cover in round 7 depends on where I moved. If I came right up underneath you, I don't think there was anywhere you could get cover. Edit: As far as the move vs. actual distance goes, I have been ruled in my own fights that it is move distance. If there is an elder clarification somewhere for that one, send me a PM with the link, and I will be happy to look it over and make changes. That has frustrated my sneaky little wenches more than once. It's in the prison thread, under the court decisions: Q: How is the distance measured when determining the number of feet away from cover or concealment you are when attempting to hide, since you can hide up to 1 ft/Hide rank away from cover or concealment? A: The ACTUAL distance is what matters. This would be the distance 'as the crow flies', rather than the distance you would have to actually move to reach cover or concealment. |
| Stormwind01-24-06, 10:30 PM | @Mitza: Also I forgot entirely but doesn't cover give a +4 bonus to hide .... that would mean Cyra is not spotted in round 2 .... @Mal-2: Happens ... ;) |
| Stormwind01-24-06, 10:35 PM | In round 5 he is based off of your previous round's hide check as nothing has changed for you at that point. Hide checks stand until the hider changes something that they are doing. For instance, you could just hunker down after a particularly nice hide roll and not move at all...then the high roll stands and they test using the distance modifiers but having no conditional modifier change from you so the DC stays the same. As far as the move vs. actual distance goes, I have been ruled in my own fights that it is move distance. If there is an elder clarification somewhere for that one, send me a PM with the link, and I will be happy to look it over and make changes. That has frustrated my sneaky little wenches more than once. There is an Elder ruling in the Ask an Elder thread here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8250506&postcount=16) Edit: Didn't notice that Mal had psoted this link too .... oh well beaten to the punch ... ;) |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 10:38 PM | @Mitza: Also I forgot entirely but doesn't cover give a +4 bonus to hide .... that would mean Cyra is not spotted in round 2 .... @Mal-2: Happens ... ;) Alright I read through the court decisions and found the last question in the last update to hold true for the cover issue being within X feet rather than movement distance (too bad I can't force re-runs back to the very first FFA's for my girls). I am looking over the movement options to negate to see if there is any difference in Donak's hits. Honestly, it is late and I am tired and I am not really wanting to re-run but if I find that it makes a significant difference, I will do so. *yay! who is the slowest typist? Mitza is the slowest typist* @NiQil any other week, I'd give it a stab, but not tonight. |
| Mal-201-24-06, 10:43 PM | Alright I read through the court decisions and found the last question in the last update to hold true for the cover issue being within X feet rather than movement distance (too bad I can't force re-runs back to the very first FFA's for my girls). I am looking over the movement options to negate to see if there is any difference in Donak's hits. Honestly, it is late and I am tired and I am not really wanting to re-run but if I find that it makes a significant difference, I will do so. Thank you very much for all the effort you've put in on picking up a late fight. |
| Stormwind01-24-06, 10:54 PM | @Mitza: As Mal said, Thank you very much for all the effort you've put in on picking up a late fight. It really is appreciated. I have just realised that according to the description of cover and improved cover in the standard arena and the fact that Cyra is less than 5ft high, she actually qualifies for improved cover when she is behind that rock (round 2 again) .... I know this likely messes things up for you Mitza and my apologies for that. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 11:07 PM | Thank you very much for all the effort you've put in on picking up a late fight. You are welcome. Round 6-Donak has LOS to both her current position and the square she would move into for cover/hide. I used the large representation because of moving the riding deer around. Round 7 he is looking directly up at her. Sorry about not including the move numbers and map for round 7...I have updated that and inserted the map. While the mount takes up a 2*2 square he can actually be considered to be anywhere on it. It is one of those vagaries that there is no way to make a map show and still represent the space he has to have to get his mount around the columns. Frankly I have never seen a 10' wide horse but welcome to D & D. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-24-06, 11:12 PM | @Mitza: As Mal said, Thank you very much for all the effort you've put in on picking up a late fight. It really is appreciated. I have just realised that according to the description of cover and improved cover in the standard arena and the fact that Cyra is less than 5ft high, she actually qualifies for improved cover when she is behind that rock (round 2 again) .... I know this likely messes things up for you Mitza and my apologies for that. Rocks provide only cover (+4 cover Ac, +2 reflex vs front attacks) to medium or smaller creatures standing behind them Cyra is medium no matter what her flavor text height is. |
| Snommelp01-24-06, 11:29 PM | Hennan vs Gundir V2 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8291680&postcount=70) is up. He ran, he hid, he jumped on Gundir... In the end, it just didnt wanna work. Thank you so much for rerunning the fight, Begferdeth. There's just two more things, which I'm almost sorry to mention. In the new fight, Idrai should not hit in round 7 on a roll of 24 against Hennan's AC of 26. Then, in round 9, Hennan should have tried again to initiate a grapple. How this will affect the fight, I don't know; it could make it shorter, or it could end it with a miraculous victory for Hennan. EDIT: In case you're wondering about how I got AC 26: 19+1 dodge makes 20, and the amulet of natural armor does not give a natural armor bonus, but rather an enhancement bonus to natural armor, which means it stacks with the +6 from being a troglodyte. This also means that the AC 24 earlier should be AC 25. |
| TheMagister01-24-06, 11:41 PM | @Luni - Some issues with the fight. 1) Vandelar didn't successfully dispel the Fly spell. The DC for dispel is 16 [11 + 5 (CL)] and he rolled a 7. 2) Fly pretty much cancels out Evards. I mean, it works like Entangle, right? So it only grabs landbound targets (which Sdentch wasn't if she was 25' off the ground as I asked in tactics. 3) The Dust of Tracelessness covers everything in 10 years worth of dust (walls, floor, ceiling, whatever). Whether or not you allow it to cover people (I don't see how it couldn't, but that's your call), it shows footprints and movement like a heavy dusting of snow. Pinpointing Vandelar's position by sight shouldn't be hard if he's in the field of dust. 4) Where's my lion? After it roars to show V's position, it should attack! I mean, I'm only facing one enemy...who else is it going to find? 5) I don't believe that fatigue prevents rage (I could be wrong). A barb can't rage after he's raged once already and is fatigued, but there's nothing that prevents him from raging WHILE fatigued. Please double check this. 6) In round 7 when Fly is dispelled (IF it's dispelled) Sdentch should fall slowly to the ground, just as if the spell ends when its duration expires. Sdentch keeps the 65' movement until that happens, and should be able to avoid the tentacles. That's all I can think of. TM |
| TheMagister01-24-06, 11:55 PM | @Iced - Issues with the Lord Frost v. The White Hand fight: 1) Why didn't you complete my buffing sequence? It was imperitive that I get all my buffs up to win this fight, and there's no reason to stop just because he bases me! 5' steps would have solved the problem nicely. Flame blade would make TWH's attacks hit with much more regularity (not to mention damage!). 2) TWH sneak attacks for 2d6 damage, not 1d6. That's about it. See what the extra AC and buffs do for TWH's chances. Thanks! TM |
| MitzaVolchenko01-25-06, 01:00 AM | Alright, War vs. Tarik is simple enough...no crazy hiding just some cover. I'll pick that one up as I cannot seem to get to sleep. |
| Iced01-25-06, 01:08 AM | @Iced - Issues with the Lord Frost v. The White Hand fight: 1) Why didn't you complete my buffing sequence? It was imperitive that I get all my buffs up to win this fight, and there's no reason to stop just because he bases me! 5' steps would have solved the problem nicely. Flame blade would make TWH's attacks hit with much more regularity (not to mention damage!). 2) TWH sneak attacks for 2d6 damage, not 1d6. That's about it. See what the extra AC and buffs do for TWH's chances. Thanks! TM I'll edit for the damage from SA. A suggestion - put all your levels of rogue together. It's less confusing then Rogue 1/Paladin 2/Rogue 2. I discontinued buffing because I figured it'd be better to save you resources. You'd have to succeed in a UMD check to even get them up and then it doesn't help your offense very much. If I have time after finals tomorrow I'll run through it with a finished buff sequence, but if i do and lose you lose the extra expendables. ~Iced |
| TelinArtho01-25-06, 11:23 AM | I just wanted to bump this forward....I would really appreciate it if anyone could pick up one or both of these...even though the boards will be down starting at 2 am eastern until 2 pm eastern, that still leaves 2 hours before pairings to post them, if you were able to collect info now...not to mention still about 4 hours left before the boards go down. I would really like to not have either of my fighters held over if at all possible. Please? Pretty please? With sprinkles? And a cherry on top? Edit: And with this announcement... ...this allows even more time for the two fights listed above...any takers? I'll take the other fight. Frankly NiQil - I'm disappointed that you didn't even submit tactics for the fight - but hey - I guess I'll do what I can. At least Altaris has an excuse. |
| Dracazar01-25-06, 11:50 AM | @Warclone Any news about the things asked for Namara vs Drac? I give you a summary to avoid you digging: I clearly asked to use True Strike before the ray, so I'm still invisible and I wish to cast another True Strike from memory or scroll until out of them. I clearly asked to use the 5' step to cast or draw scrolls avoiding AoO. The horse need a ride check to use the AoO On Round 13 Drac did nothing? Namara's contingency in her tactics about moving away the first two times I hear casting nearby I know that you are very busy this week, so I'll wait, no prob. Thanks |
| SoulLord01-25-06, 11:56 AM | @Luni - Some issues with the fight. 1) Vandelar didn't successfully dispel the Fly spell. The DC for dispel is 16 [11 + 5 (CL)] and he rolled a 7. 2) Fly pretty much cancels out Evards. I mean, it works like Entangle, right? So it only grabs landbound targets (which Sdentch wasn't if she was 25' off the ground as I asked in tactics. 3) The Dust of Tracelessness covers everything in 10 years worth of dust (walls, floor, ceiling, whatever). Whether or not you allow it to cover people (I don't see how it couldn't, but that's your call), it shows footprints and movement like a heavy dusting of snow. Pinpointing Vandelar's position by sight shouldn't be hard if he's in the field of dust. 4) Where's my lion? After it roars to show V's position, it should attack! I mean, I'm only facing one enemy...who else is it going to find? 5) I don't believe that fatigue prevents rage (I could be wrong). A barb can't rage after he's raged once already and is fatigued, but there's nothing that prevents him from raging WHILE fatigued. Please double check this. 6) In round 7 when Fly is dispelled (IF it's dispelled) Sdentch should fall slowly to the ground, just as if the spell ends when its duration expires. Sdentch keeps the 65' movement until that happens, and should be able to avoid the tentacles. That's all I can think of. TM 1).-Evards grab targets up to 10 feet in height not just characters on the ground 2).-Vandelar has potion of pass without trace in case the lion decides to track him down 3).-A barbarian cannot rage while fatigued 4).-you can't control the descent of the former flying sdentch so he will land on the evard's again Even if the fly was not sucessfully dispelled all it would generate if the fight follows its course of action that sdentch doesn't take 9 points of damage from the tentacles so insted of finishing at -15 hp he would be at -6 hp once the Empowered scorching ray hits him. |
| Huan01-25-06, 12:03 PM | What is the reward like for an inter-league match? Suppose an EL 3 fought an EL 4. The fight is obviously grouped with the EL 4 league matches. However, say the EL 4 char lost. The EL 3 gets the rewards for fighting the EL 4, but does the EL 4 get the loser rewards for fighting the EL 4 match he was in, or losing rewards vs an EL 3 opponent? |
| Macbrea01-25-06, 12:04 PM | @Iced - Issues with the Lord Frost v. The White Hand fight: 1) Why didn't you complete my buffing sequence? It was imperitive that I get all my buffs up to win this fight, and there's no reason to stop just because he bases me! 5' steps would have solved the problem nicely. Flame blade would make TWH's attacks hit with much more regularity (not to mention damage!). TM Actually, a 5ft step doesn't do much for you. I am in your square and also have a 5ft reach. Taking a 5ft step out of my square into the next one doesn't save you against the attack of oppurtunity. Feinting is a standard action, which I would have argued for you not getting to attack in the same round if I didn't keep entering your square and drawing an AoO. So, please do alter it to draw a scroll each round and attempt to cast a spell while in melee with a dragon. I am perfectly fine with adding an extra bite each round while you attempt to finish your buffing cycle and not taking a single attack of oppurtinity. It should make for a much shorter fight. |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 12:36 PM | What is the reward like for an inter-league match? Suppose an EL 3 fought an EL 4. The fight is obviously grouped with the EL 4 league matches. However, say the EL 4 char lost. The EL 3 gets the rewards for fighting the EL 4, but does the EL 4 get the loser rewards for fighting the EL 4 match he was in, or losing rewards vs an EL 3 opponent? - If the EL 4 character wins, he gets the winners rewards for an EL 3 opponent: 800 XP & 900 gold - If the EL4 character loses, he gets one-third of the winners rewards: 266 XP & 300 gold |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 12:47 PM | I'll take the other fight. Frankly NiQil - I'm disappointed that you didn't even submit tactics for the fight - but hey - I guess I'll do what I can. At least Altaris has an excuse. Thanks for taking the fight Telin! I am a bit shocked seeing the brevity of my opponents tactics. :eek: I knew NiQil wouldn't submit any, but expected Altaris13 and bgt to create some nasty tactics together, especially since bgt commented that he thought they would have a good chance. I mean, I realize I prefer writing lengthy and complicated tactics, but the tactics for my single character are like 20 times longer than the tactics for my three opponents together. Had I known in advance I could probably have cut my tactics down by 75% as well. No hiding, no invisibility, just: "Summon two astral constructs and swamp her." I guess it is a viable tactic, but you have to get pretty lucky for it to work, IMO. Well, at least I can laugh at Kitaya's useless contingencies for devious tactics I thought my opponents might use, since there were plenty option too. |
| DSugui01-25-06, 12:52 PM | Thanks for taking the fight Telin! I am a bit shocked seeing the brevity of my opponents tactics. :eek: I knew NiQil wouldn't submit any, but expected Altaris13 and bgt to create some nasty tactics together, especially since bgt commented that he thought they would have a good chance. I mean, I realize I prefer writing lengthy and complicated tactics, but the tactics for my single character are like 20 times longer than the tactics for my three opponents together. Had I known in advance I could probably have cut my tactics down by 75% as well. No hiding, no invisibility, just: "Summon two astral constructs and swamp her." I guess it is a viable tactic, but you have to get pretty lucky for it to work, IMO. Well, at least I can laugh at Kitaya's useless contingencies for devious tactics I thought my opponents might use, since there were plenty option too. Tell me about lenghty tatics... I wrote the whole Bible in my tatics to lose the fight in a failed Will save... From now on I will write simpler tatics... |
| TelinArtho01-25-06, 12:57 PM | For the record I think this type of fight should really be arranged ahead of time. Here's why: The person who asks for the challenge is setting him/herself up for either a great win or a huge loss (a loss means max losing XP and ECLgp - so in Kitaya's case, she'll get 300xp/400gp. The win would be 3xXP and GP for the opponents ECL = 900xp/gp * 3 = 2700xp/gp. But here's the problem - the people who are involved on the other side get royally screwed no matter what: If they win - they take winner rewards and divide them equally (assuming the same ECL anyway). In this case, they take 1200/1200 and divide it by 3 = 400xp/400gp. If they lose - they take the loser rewards and divide them as well though: 133xp/133gp. Once I'm done with the fight I will publicly denounce this as a random assignment because of these reasons. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-25-06, 01:02 PM | *tiredly* War vs. Tarik is up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8314605&postcount=98) |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 01:03 PM | But here's the problem - the people who are involved on the other side get royally screwed no matter what: I agree, I think they should get more, regardless if they win or a lose. Cat said something about that he would make sure they would get suitable rewards. I hope that means increasing the default rewards somewhat. Obviously, with the current reward system, no three ECL3 gladiators would think to accept such a challenge, because they gain nearly nothing even if they win. Let alone if they plan on using lots of expendables, they might easily come out at a net loss despite their victory. Oh, and Telin, ECL3 opponents are worth 800 XP apiece to Kitaya, so that would mean 2400 XP / 2700 gp. |
| NiQil01-25-06, 01:11 PM | *tiredly* War vs. Tarik is up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8314605&postcount=98) First....thank you very much for picking up the fight. Second....I spotted a math error that could have saved you several rounds of work LOL. The reason I bring it up is that it will save both sides some expendables. Round 06 War moves for LOS and shoots (1d20+7=23) doing (1d8+2=6) points of damage. Tarik fires (1d20+1=15+1MWrk=16) but misses and then moves to gain cover again. War (-12,28) HP 23/32 AC 19 Tarik (-3,20) HP 10/26 AC 19 Spells 0/1 Protection from Evil (11) enlarge (12) Round 07 War moves to gain LOS and fires (1d20+7=23) hitting for (1d8+2=4) Tarik fires at War (1d20+2=17) but misses. and moves toward cover and nearer to War. War (-17,22) HP 23/32 AC 19 Tarik (-6,16) HP 10/26 should be 6/26 based on damage done this round AC 19 Spells 0/1 Protection from Evil (11) enlarge (12) Round 08 War shoots (1d20+7=24) doing (1d8+2=6) points of damage. Tarik shoots( 1d20+2=4) and goes behind cover. War (-17,22) HP 23/32 AC 19 Tarik (-9,14) HP 4/26 should now be -2/26 based on corrected damage from last round...fight over AC 19 Spells 0/1 Protection from Evil (11) enlarge (12) My corrections are in red above. If you could fix that, that is going to save both sides some expendables, as the fight would be over in round 8. |
| Skojar01-25-06, 01:30 PM | I wonder why if grapple damage is based on your touch attack roll, when you crit on the touch attack it isn't applied to all damage dealt while in the grapple for the remainder of the grapple...? This is the logical conclusion of the reasoning that a nat 20 on the initial touch doubles the damage, and the reason I was asking for more than just a quote from CoCo judgements. The touch to start a grapple and the damage during a grapple are completely unrelated, as far as I can tell, and the logic that allows for this judgement opens up a lot of issues. |
| MitzaVolchenko01-25-06, 01:50 PM | First....thank you very much for picking up the fight. Second....I spotted a math error that could have saved you several rounds of work LOL. The reason I bring it up is that it will save both sides some expendables. My corrections are in red above. If you could fix that, that is going to save both sides some expendables, as the fight would be over in round 8. 6-6=0 not -2. I have put in the edit and left it with Tarik shooting a last ditch shot, however, he has the right to ask that I insert a cure minor to stay active at that point. If he doesn,'t the new resource total stands. If he does, I go back and run resource use,etc. until he is hit again (which is pretty much what happened anyway). |
| TroubleWolf01-25-06, 01:54 PM | *tiredly* War vs. Tarik is up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8314605&postcount=98) It's great of you to take extra fights, Mitza. Thanks so much for helping out all the time! |
| NiQil01-25-06, 01:54 PM | 6-6=0 not -2. I have put in the edit and left it with Tarik shooting a last ditch shot, however, he has the right to ask that I insert a cure minor to stay active at that point. If he doesn,'t the new resource total stands. If he does, I go back and run resource use,etc. until he is hit again (which is pretty much what happened anyway). D'oh...yer right...I subtracted from your total instead of my corrected total LOL. Leave it to me to point out a math error and then correct it with another math error LOL |
| TheMagister01-25-06, 01:56 PM | @Soullord - Sdentch should be 25' up when the Evards goes off, per her tactics. At the least, she should be 10' above your head (15' off the ground) and ready to attack you on spellcasting (you moved first, so the attack wouldn't go off, but that's beside the point). One more round that it would take you to draw a potion of pass without trace and drink it is the one round it would take for you to appear (you appeared on round 10). Once you're visible, it's downhill QUICK for you b/c of the lion and Sdentch with her readied actions and superior movement and Combat Reflexes. There remains the issue of the dust showing your movements (and thus your square), and the application of Sdentch's blindfight feats in conjunction with the ready action to disrupt spellcasting. I'd like Luni to at least respond to these questions, and I request the fight be held over to the next week to resolve them, if necessary. (Nothing against Luni, but this is, like, the 5th week in a row that my fights have posted on a Tuesday...it's frustrating! Again, nothing against Luni!) @Iced/Macbrea - You're tiny?! Then where are my AoO for you entering my square? Wait...there AREN'T any! That must mean that you're adjacent to me and attacking with your bite! That must mean that 5' steps and castings wouldn't provoke AoO! Iced would have to leave everything else the same (all things being equal) and complete my buffing sequence, OR add in a BUNCH of AoOs for TWH. Either way, the flame blade is super-important because it eliminates all of the dragon's natural and normal AC bonuses, AND it's fire based, so ALL damage (normal and SA) is multiplied by 1.5! Definately gives TWH a fighting chance! I'd want this one held over if it can't be modified by deadline as well. TM |
| TelinArtho01-25-06, 02:06 PM | Kitaya vs 3 others (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8315180) is up. I'm PMing Pitlords now to make sure that this setup never happens again (as it is now. If rewards are adjusted, I think it is a fine fight - so stop complaining right now Niqil...). |
| Mal-201-25-06, 02:08 PM | @Iced/Macbrea - You're tiny?! Then where are my AoO for you entering my square? Wait...there AREN'T any! That must mean that you're adjacent to me and attacking with your bite! That must mean that 5' steps and castings wouldn't provoke AoO! Iced would have to leave everything else the same (all things being equal) and complete my buffing sequence, OR add in a BUNCH of AoOs for TWH. Either way, the flame blade is super-important because it eliminates all of the dragon's natural and normal AC bonuses, AND it's fire based, so ALL damage (normal and SA) is multiplied by 1.5! Definately gives TWH a fighting chance! I'd want this one held over if it can't be modified by deadline as well. I don't see any rounds where you could have gotten AoOs against the dragon when he entered your square. In round 3, you didn't have a weapon in hand, so didn't threaten. In the later rounds, can't the dragon 5' step into your square without drawning an AoO, then attack? |
| bgt01-25-06, 02:11 PM | Thanks for taking the fight Telin! I am a bit shocked seeing the brevity of my opponents tactics. :eek: I knew NiQil wouldn't submit any, but expected Altaris13 and bgt to create some nasty tactics together, especially since bgt commented that he thought they would have a good chance. In my defense, I was writing those tactics as I wlked out the door for a camping trip. I thought it would be good to get some tactics to the pitlord, incase the fight was run while I was away. |
| Macbrea01-25-06, 02:16 PM | @Iced/Macbrea - You're tiny?! Then where are my AoO for you entering my square? Wait...there AREN'T any! That must mean that you're adjacent to me and attacking with your bite! That must mean that 5' steps and castings wouldn't provoke AoO! Iced would have to leave everything else the same (all things being equal) and complete my buffing sequence, OR add in a BUNCH of AoOs for TWH. Either way, the flame blade is super-important because it eliminates all of the dragon's natural and normal AC bonuses, AND it's fire based, so ALL damage (normal and SA) is multiplied by 1.5! Definately gives TWH a fighting chance! I'd want this one held over if it can't be modified by deadline as well. TM Actually, A white wyrmling is tiny. But has a 5ft reach with bite. You took a standard action to Feint and a AoO to attack me every round as I entered the square. Which, if i hadn't entered the square I would have argued. In the first round you had an empty hand and a scroll in the other hand so that you could invoke a scroll. As you lack any natural weapons or improved unarmed combat that means no AoOs. Now, I do feel you should make a 5ft step out of my square and continue to attempt to invoke your scrolls. This should give me an AoO on your with a bite attack on rounds 4+. Until such time you manage to actually get the flame blade to go off. Following my exact tactics from that point I should retreat up into the air and breath on you every 1d4 rounds until your flame blade ends. |
| NiQil01-25-06, 02:24 PM | Kitaya vs 3 others (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8315180) is up. I'm PMing Pitlords now to make sure that this setup never happens again (as it is now. If rewards are adjusted, I think it is a fine fight - so stop complaining right now Niqil...). Yes, father. :P Can you add in Famine's skill earnings? |
| TelinArtho01-25-06, 02:25 PM | They are there - what are you talking about...? [Free Activities] Kitaya makes 88gp from being a judge Rohan makes 60gp for being a cook Theoricus makes 66gp from sculpting Famine makes 63gp for masonry work. |
| SoulLord01-25-06, 02:28 PM | @Soullord - Sdentch should be 25' up when the Evards goes off, per her tactics. At the least, she should be 10' above your head (15' off the ground) and ready to attack you on spellcasting (you moved first, so the attack wouldn't go off, but that's beside the point). One more round that it would take you to draw a potion of pass without trace and drink it is the one round it would take for you to appear (you appeared on round 10). Once you're visible, it's downhill QUICK for you b/c of the lion and Sdentch with her readied actions and superior movement and Combat Reflexes. There remains the issue of the dust showing your movements (and thus your square), and the application of Sdentch's blindfight feats in conjunction with the ready action to disrupt spellcasting. I'd like Luni to at least respond to these questions, and I request the fight be held over to the next week to resolve them, if necessary. (Nothing against Luni, but this is, like, the 5th week in a row that my fights have posted on a Tuesday...it's frustrating! Again, nothing against Luni!) TM Well I would rather not be held a week and thus loose tha chance to have vandelar fight 1) by your tactics you tried to find vandelar that's when the he hit you with the evard's when you closed on to him 2) Vandelar Should have casted Greater invisibility only after he had found you so plenty of duration for it If things change and you don't get dispeled fly the only thing that changes is that sdentch takes less damage from evards. the scorching ray is still enough to bring sdentch to negatives I would like for the fight to stand as it is as I don't see the possible change on it affecting the outcome of the match. as for the dust Dust of Tracelessness This normal-seeming dust is actually a magic powder that can conceal the passage of its possessor and his companions. Tossing a handful of this dust into the air causes a chamber of up to 100 square feet of floor space to become as dusty, dirty, and cobweb-laden as if it had been abandoned and disused for a decade. A handful of dust sprinkled along a trail causes evidence of the passage of as many as a dozen men and horses to be obliterated for 250 feet back into the distance. The results of the dust are instantaneous, and no magical aura lingers afterward from this use of the dust. Survival checks made to track a quarry across an area affected by this dust have a DC 20 higher than normal. Faint transmutation; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, pass without trace; Price 250 gp If you want dust to make Vandelar visible use dust of appearance |
| NiQil01-25-06, 02:29 PM | They are there - what are you talking about...? Meh...they weren't there when I looked...maybe you edited them in after I looked but before I posted. Let us know if the rewards change (though I don't expect them to). I'm just glad to have this debacle off my plate. |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 02:31 PM | Kitaya vs 3 others (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=8315180) is up. I'm PMing Pitlords now to make sure that this setup never happens again (as it is now. If rewards are adjusted, I think it is a fine fight - so stop complaining right now Niqil...). Telin, thank you for running it at this late hour! Mostly the fight looks good, I suspect you skipped the divine favor so as not to break the delaying rule, which is fine with me. In my opinion dropping Rohan into the the lava takes several rounds too long though. If Kitaya can touch or grapple him from 5 ft. away, surely she can pick him up from 5 ft. away. Also, Kitaya still has a move action left when she attacks Rohan, and picking something up from the ground is normally move action. Also, with 24 squares of movement, I should be able to move over the lava in a single round and drop him (dropping something is normally a free action). That means that Kitaya should drop Rohan 2 rounds earlier than you have her do now, saving two rounds of matter agitation damage (I had a specific contingency for that, so Kitaya should be in a hurry). No need to edit it of course, unless my opponents complain about the outcome. I'll support any request to get them a bigger reward. |
| Macbrea01-25-06, 02:38 PM | Actually, A white wyrmling is tiny. But has a 5ft reach with bite. You took a standard action to Feint and a AoO to attack me every round as I entered the square. Which, if i hadn't entered the square I would have argued. I just noticed you had Improved Feint. So, either you need to get your AoOs or you need to finish your buffing cycle. I prefer you attempt to finish your buffing cycle. As any spell you are hit by my AoO will result in you loosing the scroll for and also gvies no chance of return damage. My tactics are written to assume your going to cast flame blade. This will leave you with a flame blade in your hand when I go up into the air. Then your tactics state you will drop the flame blade and cast magic weapon on a bow. Which I will immediately come back down and start fighting you again. I am fine either way with how you wish to do this one. If your insistant on holding it over I am going to ask that the Tactics be followed exactly to the letter. |
| TelinArtho01-25-06, 02:40 PM | Telin, thank you for running it at this late hour! Mostly the fight looks good, I suspect you skipped the divine favor so as not to break the delaying rule, which is fine with me. In my opinion dropping Rohan into the the lava takes several rounds too long though. If Kitaya can touch or grapple him from 5 ft. away, surely she can pick him up from 5 ft. away. Also, Kitaya still has a move action left when she attacks Rohan, and picking something up from the ground is normally move action. Also, with 24 squares of movement, I should be able to move over the lava in a single round and drop him (dropping something is normally a free action). That means that Kitaya should drop Rohan 2 rounds earlier than you have her do now, saving two rounds of matter agitation damage (I had a specific contingency for that, so Kitaya should be in a hurry). No need to edit it of course, unless my opponents complain about the outcome. I'll support any request to get them a bigger reward. Well first of all, if I had the time to discuss the tactics with you I would have told you that this was a team fight - not an all vs all - so the map was the normal arena map... therefore - no lava. As to the picking up of Rohan - you needed to land with a 5ft step, pick up Rohan (move action) - but now you can't move further because you took the 5ft step. Regardless - as soon as you pick up Rohan - Famine is there to threaten you - so - given your not wanting to provoke AoO - I had to use 5ft steps in order to rise. It definitely wasn't perfect - but I was only following what you gave me. As to "being in a hurry" because of the matter agitation - remember that this was a late fight to begin with and the matter agitation - to me - was buried - so I didn't see it until later. And yes - I skipped Divine Favor because you had 2 rounds of failing to cast Fly. Also - remember as well that when you are invisible and drop an item - it becomes visible - so be careful when casting from scrolls. |
| Warclone01-25-06, 02:59 PM | @Warclone Any news about the things asked for Namara vs Drac? I give you a summary to avoid you digging: I clearly asked to use True Strike before the ray, so I'm still invisible and I wish to cast another True Strike from memory or scroll until out of them. I clearly asked to use the 5' step to cast or draw scrolls avoiding AoO. The horse need a ride check to use the AoO On Round 13 Drac did nothing? Namara's contingency in her tactics about moving away the first two times I hear casting nearby I know that you are very busy this week, so I'll wait, no prob. Thanks I responded to some of these issues, but let me take the time to address them all at once. 1) Namara's tactics are to run away and wait a round any time you cast a spell that doesnt make you visible while near her. Using this tactic, you will never get a true striked scorching ray off. I had your character use his high intelligence to realize this after she did it once. 2) You can't use a 5' step to preven provoking AoOs when your opponent has 10ft reach and is adjacent to you. 3) Now I see where some of the confusion was coming from. Round 13 on your turn reads "nam attempts to deal grapple damage but fails." I meant DRAC attempts to deal grapple damage but fails (as you can see by the grapple mods). Your tactics read "If grappled try to combat to deal damage" which is strange for a wizard and a bit confusing to read, but I interpreted it as you were trying to deal damage if you were caught in a grapple, which I had you do. You failed your grapple check. 4)- Assuming he’s invisible: If I hear Drac casting nearby (roughly 20-40 ft.), have Wernicke move away from his suspected location (on my turn, I don’t want to ready). If he casts true strike he should not become visible and I should have enough distance to prevent him from coming into range on his turn. Repeat this tactic as long as he keeps casting and remains invisible. |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 03:11 PM | Well first of all, if I had the time to discuss the tactics with you I would have told you that this was a team fight - not an all vs all - so the map was the normal arena map... therefore - no lava. I understand, that would probably have made the fight only easier for Kitaya, with much more distance between her and her opponents, and more room to maneuver. And there wouldn't have the suboptimal 3 rounds picking up and dropping procedure. I thought adding that touch was fun, a bit of RP if you might, and I thought it wouldn't cost me anything extra. Now it almost lost me the match. As to the picking up of Rohan - you needed to land with a 5ft step, pick up Rohan (move action) - but now you can't move further because you took the 5ft step. Regardless - as soon as you pick up Rohan - Famine is there to threaten you - so - given your not wanting to provoke AoO - I had to use 5ft steps in order to rise. It definitely wasn't perfect - but I was only following what you gave me. As to "being in a hurry" because of the matter agitation - remember that this was a late fight to begin with and the matter agitation - to me - was buried - so I didn't see it until later. I don't see why I need to land, I think I can pick him up from 5 ft. away, as I said before. If I can grapple him from 5 ft. up, shouldn't I be able to grab him otherwise? Also Kitaya could have used the Tumble skill to avoid the AoO's. And Famine's 5% hit AoO was a much smaller danger than the continuous 1d6 automatic damage from coming from Theoricus, don't you think? Also, Kitaya ends up next to Rohan the round before. So she should at least have made the 5 ft. step that round, if you insist on doing it that way, since she has only made a single attack. My surprise was that you took the letter of my tactic, combined it with an unexpected ruling and choices (causing the picking up and dumping process to take 3 rounds). My goal was obvious (as I stated in my tactics), Kitaya wanted to make sure Rohan was dead. If I were to watch this scene as a bystander, I would assume Kitaya was rather stupid for doing it that way. Why would she spent three rounds in picking up the body, while an extra (flurry) attack would have also made sure he was killed? Especially since she was burning up from matter agitation at the time? The way it now played out just wouldn't make sense to impartial bystanders. It also (sadly) means next time I have to write even more tactics to prevent such things from occuring. And yes - I skipped Divine Favor because you had 2 rounds of failing to cast Fly. Also - remember as well that when you are invisible and drop an item - it becomes visible - so be careful when casting from scrolls. I be sure to keep that in mind! No need to edit the fight, or even respond further to my issues, unless my opponents see other issues that might turn around the fight. |
| Dracazar01-25-06, 03:41 PM | I responded to some of these issues, but let me take the time to address them all at once. 1) Namara's tactics are to run away and wait a round any time you cast a spell that doesnt make you visible while near her. Using this tactic, you will never get a true striked scorching ray off. I had your character use his high intelligence to realize this after she did it once. 2) You can't use a 5' step to preven provoking AoOs when your opponent has 10ft reach and is adjacent to you. 3) Now I see where some of the confusion was coming from. Round 13 on your turn reads "nam attempts to deal grapple damage but fails." I meant DRAC attempts to deal grapple damage but fails (as you can see by the grapple mods). Your tactics read "If grappled try to combat to deal damage" which is strange for a wizard and a bit confusing to read, but I interpreted it as you were trying to deal damage if you were caught in a grapple, which I had you do. You failed your grapple check. 1) Yes, but Namara could not hear always. Drac could use true strike a bit away from her, he has more than 2 chance to cast True Strike. 2) Ok, but without 5' step would threat also adjacent squares? 3) On round 13 you have the true strike buff, there is no way to use that buff to deal damage? |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 04:04 PM | 1) Yes, but Namara could not hear always. Drac could use true strike a bit away from her, he has more than 2 chance to cast True Strike. With a +11 to Listen vs. DC 0 + possible some range penalties (-1 to -5), Namara will always hear Drac casting. 2) Ok, but without 5' step would threat also adjacent squares? That is what unarmed strike is for, Namara can kick Drac with her feet from 5 ft. away and stab him with her longspear from 10 ft. Also, the horse cam attack Drac too. 3) On round 13 you have the true strike buff, there is no way to use that buff to deal damage? If you see my earlier comments, there were a number of things that were ruledwrong, and those issues were all to Namara's advantage. Warclone said that he would not edit them, since I won anyway. Please reread my comments and Warclone's responses about the fight, it might help illuminate Warclone's unwillingness to edit. In any case, the shocking graps attack from your familiar missed Namara. Even if we ignore all the rest of my issues, and let everything go the way you want it from there, the magic missile attack (assuming that you were able to cast it defensively) does 8 damage. That means you should do 22+ damage on your 4d6 scorching ray to fell Namara. Which is not likely. But, I am feeling generous, and will go to invisible castle and roll the 4d6 myself to see what kind of damage could theoretically have done: theoretical scorching ray (4d6=17) (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=346001) 1. My tactic foiled yours. I agree with you that Warclone could have improvised some, but he is not under any obligation to do so, and the improvisation would not achieve the desired effect anyway. 2. Ignoring all this, even if you did hit with true strike+scorching ray for 4d6, Namara's first attack hits Drac (Warclone accidentally used regular AC instead of touch AC for the grapple attack, so he had her miss instead of hit). 3. Drac will be grappled to death (and trampled by the horse) as seen from rolls that were already made. I would really like it if you feel the fight did justice to you, your character and your tactics, but the errors in the fight are currently more unfair to Namara then they are to Drac, and I don't see any possibility for Drac to pull this out of the fire with the rolls and tactics as they are. |
| Dracazar01-25-06, 04:18 PM | @Usurpator: Thanks for your generosity. @Warclone: I have no more comments on the fight, give the win to Namara. |
| Iced01-25-06, 04:34 PM | @Iced/Macbrea - You're tiny?! Then where are my AoO for you entering my square? Wait...there AREN'T any! That must mean that you're adjacent to me and attacking with your bite! That must mean that 5' steps and castings wouldn't provoke AoO! Iced would have to leave everything else the same (all things being equal) and complete my buffing sequence, OR add in a BUNCH of AoOs for TWH. Either way, the flame blade is super-important because it eliminates all of the dragon's natural and normal AC bonuses, AND it's fire based, so ALL damage (normal and SA) is multiplied by 1.5! Definately gives TWH a fighting chance! I'd want this one held over if it can't be modified by deadline as well. TM 5' steps don't provoke. When you have a scroll in hand you can't take AoO's. Lord Frost entered your square with his initial charge. You couldn't take an AoO because you didn't have a melee weapon out, you had a scroll. Lord Frost's bite attack threatens within 5' so 5' stepping in any direction won't take you out of range of his bite attack. Lord Frost also has superior speed so retreating will only allow him either a charge and +2 to hit or be a complete waste of a round for you. Casting in melee without provoking is a DC15 concentration check. Last time I checked The White Hand's concentration modifier is +1. Not only would you have to succeed in the concentration check, you'd have to activate the scroll in the first place which is a DC 21 check with (I think) a +14 UMD. Flame Blade would have caused Lord Frost to retreat until the spell ended, waste of spell - it wouldn't help. The best course seemed to be drawing the rapier and hoping for a lucky strike. I'm going to modify the fight to include the extra D6 from SA. ~Iced |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 04:44 PM | @Iced, I am no party in this fight, and didn't really follow the discussion, but these things jumped out at me as wrong: Lord Frost entered your square with his initial charge. Lord Frost's bite attack threatens within 5' First, you must move to the closest space from which you can attack the opponent If Lord of Frost can attack from 5 ft. distant, and he charged, he cannot end his charge within the White Hand's space. He must attack from 5 ft. according to the charge rules, which is the closest space from which the Lord can attack. |
| Macbrea01-25-06, 04:52 PM | A white wyrmling has 0 feet reach claws and 5ft reach bite attack. His inital attack was with a diving charge which can only be done with claws. Therefore, his first attack was with a charge into the square with the claws. On the following rounds the dragon is allowed to bite and claw with his light weapons. If my opponent steps from the square and attempt to read a scroll in the adjacent square he will provoke an AoO. The issue came in that on round 1 I flew upwords and spotted my opponent. On round two I did a diving charge and began melee. My opponent had 4 rounds of buffing he wished done. That assumes he can make the UMD checks to read each of the scrolls. He suddenly found himself caught in a melee. With his only option as retreat (30ft movement vs 150ft movement), step take the AoO and read his scrolls, or Drop his buffing cycle and defend himself with his weapon. The Pitlord decided that the odds of him getting off the spells against the assault was low and that running away would serve no purpose except helping the dragon get charges. So, we are left with the complaint that a Pitlord who could see the scene choose to defend the character rather then spend the 3 to 5 more rounds attempting to buff in the middle of melee. Personally, I am all for the character attempting to finish his buffing cycle with scroll in the middle of an assault from the tiny dragon. |
| Macbrea01-25-06, 04:59 PM | To support my comment about claws: 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. As you can see, according to that write-up it can only be done with claw or talon. It has been ruled somewhere that you can also do it with a melee weapon. Therefore, the dragon would need to do it with his claws. |
| Snommelp01-25-06, 05:08 PM | I believe this may have been missed, so I am restating it. Begferdeth, if you could edit these in that would be great, but if you can't then I'll take the loss, since neither justifies carrying the fight over another week. Thank you so much for rerunning the fight, Begferdeth. There's just two more things, which I'm almost sorry to mention. In the new fight, Idrai should not hit in round 7 on a roll of 24 against Hennan's AC of 26. Then, in round 9, Hennan should have tried again to initiate a grapple. How this will affect the fight, I don't know; it could make it shorter, or it could end it with a miraculous victory for Hennan. EDIT: In case you're wondering about how I got AC 26: 19+1 dodge makes 20, and the amulet of natural armor does not give a natural armor bonus, but rather an enhancement bonus to natural armor, which means it stacks with the +6 from being a troglodyte. This also means that the AC 24 earlier should be AC 25. |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 05:19 PM | As you can see, according to that write-up it can only be done with claw or talon. It has been ruled somewhere that you can also do it with a melee weapon. Therefore, the dragon would need to do it with his claws. I think that is quite reasonable. I don't know if it has been modified to also allow other kinds of weapons (possibly including a bite), but in any case, it wouldn't be fair to you if Lord Frost is forced to attack with the bite if you thought he was not able to do so. All these rules can get pretty complicated... |
| Iced01-25-06, 05:21 PM | I added the damage for the SA's and it comes out to 5 (http://invisiblecastle.com/find.py?id=346030). This puts Lord Frost at a little under half hp total. I don't see a reason to make modifications to the fight except maybe to correct the initial charge for double claw damage. Attempting to cast will bring AoO's. |
| Ariel2301-25-06, 05:59 PM | This is kind of one of those intellectual/philosophical debates that are mentally fun but in reality probably a great waste of time. So, I guess I have too much time on my hands. :) I agree in principle, but when a pitlord posts such a question, multiple people respond, and the pitlord proceeds, it's pretty frustrating when someone jumps in at zero hour and asks for corrections. If I were such a pitlord, I would be highly resistant to such a complaint, unless it was an obvious and unequivocal mistake on my part. I guess I'm not sure what it is the pitlord is needing in the Tavern that he is not getting from the participant. The Tavern is not really where a pitlord should go to talk to his fighters. If it's a rules debate, then it should be debated by anyone who's interested. If the debate ends in an incorrectly applied rule, I don't see what the gladiator has to do with that. Generally you don't ask a participant to rule interpret his own fight. You can assume that the gladiator is pro-himself in every rules debate, and his opponent is con. If it's a question about the character itself or its tactics, then a PM is necessary, not a Tavern post. If it's input of any kind that is required from a participant in order to continue the fight or run it correctly, then that should be sent via PM or posted in the FotW thread (or both). I still don't believe that gladiators which don't hang out in the Tavern but which check the FotW and their mailbox are not entitled to fair fights, which is what I read in that original comment. [And I might I understand the "zero hour" concern, but that goes for anything--in other words, simple courtesy to the pitlord--it shouldn't be related to Tavern discussions. Also, let's be fair--a large number of fights go up at or near the zero hour. That's another issue entirely, but I don't see how the contestants can be faulted if the fight goes up in the last 12-24 hours, and they would like it reviewed. (I want to be clear that AFAIK we are discussing a hypothetical pitlord, not a real one from any real fight.) |
| Usurpator01-25-06, 06:15 PM | Generally you don't ask a participant to rule interpret his own fight. You can assume that the gladiator is pro-himself in every rules debate, and his opponent is con. That's funny, I always assume that every participant wants to see the fight ruled *fairly* first, in their favor second (until proven otherwise). I like to judge each argument on its own merit, regardless of the source. I do assume every player will spend more time examining and pursuing issues that are in their disadvantage and less time examining and pursuing issues that might be to their opponents advantage. |
| Macbrea01-25-06, 06:33 PM | Generally, speaking I end up researching the results in the SRD alot of the time. But if I cannot easily find the ruling on something I normally IM various other people such as Mal-2 or Mitza and ask them rules questions. They do the same to me. I will pretty much never contact the player themselves and ask them a rules question about how something works unless their sheet was unclear. If I have gotten to a point I really need to search for a rule I will post the fight upto that point. Generally, speaking that normally results in one or two people sending me an IM/PM that round X had an error in it. Or such and such should normally happen at this point. If anyone has questions and would like a second opinion they are free to send me an IM. My IMs are in the top of my posts. |
| Skojar01-25-06, 08:35 PM | So...it looks pretty definite that my fight {Rethun Woshad (Kaigan) vs Tsiuzues Pettles (Skojar): Papapeperoni (ECL 4)} won't be up in time for me to set Tsiuzues set to Ready for the next pairings. Does this mean I'm just out of luck? Since I have no interest in buying expendables or anything, can I just go ahead and edit the character's title to 'Ready Jan 26' or are we pretty sure that fight will be held over? If it's held over, that's one thing, but I'd hate to miss a week just becuase I have to sleep and work and stuff (after checking the boards religiously on my day off). Anyone have any advice? |
| MitzaVolchenko01-25-06, 08:49 PM | So...it looks pretty definite that my fight {Rethun Woshad (Kaigan) vs Tsiuzues Pettles (Skojar): Papapeperoni (ECL 4)} won't be up in time for me to set Tsiuzues set to Ready for the next pairings. Does this mean I'm just out of luck? Since I have no interest in buying expendables or anything, can I just go ahead and edit the character's title to 'Ready Jan 26' or are we pretty sure that fight will be held over? If it's held over, that's one thing, but I'd hate to miss a week just becuase I have to sleep and work and stuff (after checking the boards religiously on my day off). Anyone have any advice? It will be held over if it isn't done. Do not edit unless you are willing to forfeit. |
| TheMagister01-25-06, 10:37 PM | @Iced/SoulLord - You're both right. Without the flame blade, TWH's chances drop to 0% (not even 20s can save him). I withdraw my arguments as they are irrelevant. Thanks for clarifying that stuff for me! TM |
| TheMagister01-25-06, 10:54 PM | Well I would rather not be held a week and thus loose tha chance to have vandelar fight Me either. But there's enough wrong with this one that I want Sdentch to have a fair shake at it. 1) by your tactics you tried to find vandelar that's when the he hit you with the evard's when you closed on to him. Sdentch shouldn't be any lower when she closes on you (she can't determine your square to target you with a diving charge). The only reason to get closer to you is to catch you in the AoE of the dust. 2) Vandelar Should have casted Greater invisibility only after he had found you so plenty of duration for it And you did! You began your offense the round after Vandelar cast greater invisibility. You can't ask for more than that. However, Sdentch had two ways to deal with invisibility: dust and kitty. Neither one of them profited her anything, which is just not right. I'll get to the dust in a minute... If things change and you don't get dispeled fly the only thing that changes is that sdentch takes less damage from evards. Quite true, but not ALL true. All that changes is that Sdentch doesn't have to waste a round grappling and moving out of the tentacle field. That's one round earlier for her to spew dust and close on you. One round could make all the difference (barring a fumble). the scorching ray is still enough to bring sdentch to negatives If you get it off, which is doubtful since you'll be pinpointed because of footprints in dust or kitty chewing on your arm. Coupled with a ready action AND combat reflexes giving an AoO due to spellcasting AND blindfight to give only a 25% miss chance, Sdentch's chances are pretty good at hitting you with enough damage to cause you to lose the spell. I would like for the fight to stand as it is as I don't see the possible change on it affecting the outcome of the match. I hope I've changed your mind. as for the dust If you want dust to make Vandelar visible use dust of appearance I don't want to make him visible (well, I DID want to, but since Luni ruled that it's only walls and floors and such, I will give that up) I just want to use it to pinpoint his square! If people aren't covered, then Vandelar's footprints (and subsequent movements) should show up plain as day to a character with as perfect a vantage point as Sdentch's (25' up above the AoE). Since V is pinpointed, Sdentch can diving charge (with a 25% miss chance [50% reduced by blindfight]) and then use a ready action to prevent further castings. It could change EVERYTHING. It might not, but it COULD. My strategy is sound, I think. Especially with the extra round bought back from Evards and the keeping of the Fly spell. EDIT: AND the round that V would spend drawing and drinking a potion of pass without trace once kitty gets involved, as it says to do in your tactics. I hold to my desire for editting. I feel Sdentch has a definite shot at winning. TM |
| Mal-201-26-06, 11:41 AM | I don't want to make him visible (well, I DID want to, but since Luni ruled that it's only walls and floors and such, I will give that up) I just want to use it to pinpoint his square! If people aren't covered, then Vandelar's footprints (and subsequent movements) should show up plain as day to a character with as perfect a vantage point as Sdentch's (25' up above the AoE). Well... following someone's tracks through thick dust isn't automatic. Take a look at the chart with the Track feat. It looks to me like it should be a Survival check, DC 5 to follow a medium humanoid's tracks through thick dust. You can use Survival untrained as long as the DC is 10 or less. I don't know if there should be any negatives due to distance from the tracks, and I'm not sure what kind of action it is (move, free, standard?) to track someone. It looks like maybe tracking can be done as part of movement, based on the "You move at half your normal speed (or at your normal speed with a -5 penalty on the check, or at up to twice your normal speed with a -20 penalty on the check)" comment. |
| Myrridin01-26-06, 11:56 AM | 6-6=0 not -2. I have put in the edit and left it with Tarik shooting a last ditch shot, however, he has the right to ask that I insert a cure minor to stay active at that point. If he doesn,'t the new resource total stands. If he does, I go back and run resource use,etc. until he is hit again (which is pretty much what happened anyway). Nah, no more expendables used please. Stupid staying at range. *sigh* I should've written something about dismissing the Enlarge Person if that happens, so I'm a smaller target. Ah well, I thought that *War* might engage in melee...coward. :) |
| TheMagister01-26-06, 12:00 PM | Track DC 5. Looking over the Track feat, "thick dust" is even mentioned in the entry. Sounds reasonable to me. TM |
| SoulLord01-26-06, 12:33 PM | Ok let's say that works. You throw the dust and land to start tracking. there goes your extra round end result the same |
| TheMagister01-26-06, 01:41 PM | Ok let's say that works. You throw the dust and land to start tracking. there goes your extra round end result the same Why on earth should Sdentch land to start tracking? If everything in 100ft is covered in Dust, your two footprints, the dust you kick up while you move, and your new footprints should show up like neon lights! Other things: the dust that collects on your robes/pants/shoes as you walk. Man, it's like standing in ~1 inch of water! Sure, it's unorthodox, but it WORKS. @mal-2: I was thinking more along the lines of a -20 to your hide check while invisible (standing still, you'd have a 1d20+20+Vandelar's hide skill mod, moving you'd have a 1d20+0+hide skill mod-movement mods). To my mind, THAT is more how to handle it. The Tracking thing is to follow tracks. Spot should be used in a battle situation. Were I DMing, I'd apply a cumulative -1 mod to V's hide check every round he's in the dust to account for the accumulation of the dust he kicks up while he moves settling on his clothing and body, but that's just me. C'mon. People are using bags of FLOUR as splash weapons to try and detect invisible foes. Sdentch went out and bought a 250gp bag of flour with a 100' splash radius. Personally (as I mentioned before) I don't see why Luni wouldn't let it cover all things in 100' with dust instead of just floors and walls. It'd look pretty odd, don't you think, to use this dust in a clean room and have ONLY dusty floors, ceilings and wall, and perfectly clean furniture? Kind've defeats the purpose of the item, no? Where's Luni in all this, anyways? I feel like I'm talking to a wall. Between you and I, SoulLord, we can't resolve anything. TM |
| SoulLord01-26-06, 02:01 PM | 1.- you are trying to use your dust as if it were a dust of appearance an item with a 1,800 gp value and an area of effect of 10 foot radius If you intend to Track Vandelar using your dust I note this portion of the dust Survival checks made to track a quarry across an area affected by this dust have a DC 20 higher than normal. And even then you would lose a round doing it and you know what happens next round so i still don't see it affecting the outcome of the match. I'll go ahead and prepare Vandelar for the next fight |
| Mal-201-26-06, 02:24 PM | C'mon. People are using bags of FLOUR as splash weapons to try and detect invisible foes. Sdentch went out and bought a 250gp bag of flour with a 100' splash radius. Personally (as I mentioned before) I don't see why Luni wouldn't let it cover all things in 100' with dust instead of just floors and walls. It'd look pretty odd, don't you think, to use this dust in a clean room and have ONLY dusty floors, ceilings and wall, and perfectly clean furniture? Kind've defeats the purpose of the item, no? I don't think I followed this whole thread, and I didn't look up the item before I posted, which I should have. We're talking about Dust of Tracelessness? Dust of Tracelessness This normal-seeming dust is actually a magic powder that can conceal the passage of its possessor and his companions. Tossing a handful of this dust into the air causes a chamber of up to 100 square feet of floor space to become as dusty, dirty, and cobweb-laden as if it had been abandoned and disused for a decade. A handful of dust sprinkled along a trail causes evidence of the passage of as many as a dozen men and horses to be obliterated for 250 feet back into the distance. The results of the dust are instantaneous, and no magical aura lingers afterward from this use of the dust. Survival checks made to track a quarry across an area affected by this dust have a DC 20 higher than normal. Faint transmutation; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, pass without trace; Price 250 gp. First, 100 square feet is nowhere near a 100' radius. One hundred square feet is four 5' x 5' squares. Second, I don't think Dust of Tracelessness should be anywhere near as useful as Dust of Appearance at ferreting out invisible people. For one thing, it's specifically designed to make people hard to track. |
| TheMagister01-26-06, 03:30 PM | I don't think I followed this whole thread, and I didn't look up the item before I posted, which I should have. We're talking about Dust of Tracelessness? Dust of Tracelessness This normal-seeming dust is actually a magic powder that can conceal the passage of its possessor and his companions. Tossing a handful of this dust into the air causes a chamber of up to 100 square feet of floor space to become as dusty, dirty, and cobweb-laden as if it had been abandoned and disused for a decade. A handful of dust sprinkled along a trail causes evidence of the passage of as many as a dozen men and horses to be obliterated for 250 feet back into the distance. The results of the dust are instantaneous, and no magical aura lingers afterward from this use of the dust. Survival checks made to track a quarry across an area affected by this dust have a DC 20 higher than normal. Faint transmutation; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, pass without trace; Price 250 gp. First, 100 square feet is nowhere near a 100' radius. One hundred square feet is four 5' x 5' squares. Second, I don't think Dust of Tracelessness should be anywhere near as useful as Dust of Appearance at ferreting out invisible people. For one thing, it's specifically designed to make people hard to track. yeah! Hard to track if they lay it down AFTER they pass over the area they want to conceal (like a moderate dusting of snow across a trail you're following). If the dust is already THERE, people/creatures travelling across it leave CLEARER tracks...it's common sense. You're right about the square footage. Man, I just wasted money when I bought that stuff. I'd be better off with the flour and TWF, and just bomb an area with three bags of flour a round. I'd cover more area. Sigh. @SoulLord - No, Dust of Appearance actually dispels the invisibility. Dust of Tracelessness merely helps pinpoint your square. Quite a large difference. As for the tracking thing, I beleive I explained that already. However, I can do so again. Example: If I were attempting to evade a person chasing me through a long-abandoned dungeon, I could pass through a room, leaving tracks in the dust. Then, I could pause and toss a handful of the dust in the air and lay down NEW dust to obliterate my tracks. The person chasing me would have a +20 to the DC of his tracking check to see that I went through that room. However, if HE went through that room that had been Dusted, a person following HIM would have a VERY easy time following his tracks, because he left tracks in the heavy dust on the floor. Do you see? TM |
| Luni01-26-06, 09:00 PM | @Luni - Some issues with the fight. 1) Vandelar didn't successfully dispel the Fly spell. The DC for dispel is 16 [11 + 5 (CL)] and he rolled a 7. 2) Fly pretty much cancels out Evards. I mean, it works like Entangle, right? So it only grabs landbound targets (which Sdentch wasn't if she was 25' off the ground as I asked in tactics. 3) The Dust of Tracelessness covers everything in 10 years worth of dust (walls, floor, ceiling, whatever). Whether or not you allow it to cover people (I don't see how it couldn't, but that's your call), it shows footprints and movement like a heavy dusting of snow. Pinpointing Vandelar's position by sight shouldn't be hard if he's in the field of dust. 4) Where's my lion? After it roars to show V's position, it should attack! I mean, I'm only facing one enemy...who else is it going to find? 5) I don't believe that fatigue prevents rage (I could be wrong). A barb can't rage after he's raged once already and is fatigued, but there's nothing that prevents him from raging WHILE fatigued. Please double check this. 6) In round 7 when Fly is dispelled (IF it's dispelled) Sdentch should fall slowly to the ground, just as if the spell ends when its duration expires. Sdentch keeps the 65' movement until that happens, and should be able to avoid the tentacles. That's all I can think of. TM 1: Oops. Won't change anything as the tentacles couldn't regrapple you. Also, your fly speed is 45 ft. because you was wearing medium armor. 2: Well they grab anything 10' up. Perhaps I overlooked the black tentacle grab, but the damage won't change the fight. 3: Maybe a track check in 4 5ft squares. But as soon as he moves you lose the track. Also you can't take AoO as long as he has total concealment. 4: You never told your kitty to attack. It was told to seek, lost track of Vandelar, so it continued your last order. Your lion has no clue how many enemies are in the arena. It was just summoned there, and Sdentch can't talk to animals. 5: I can't find anything about fatigue preventing rage. Swinging vanely at invisible people isn't a wise use of rage, and most people would yell at me if I did that in a fight. 6: Well, I think you fall first, with the fall counted as your movement, and then you can continue to move if you have any movement left. As for where I was? With the downtime, and some real life stuff, this is the first chance I've had to read the arguements in the FOTW thread. I probably used Vandelar's greater invisbility to early as well. |
| Begferdeth01-26-06, 09:51 PM | Oh, sorry... Havent been able to get on here for a day or two. The first thing about the AC... is that the round right after you charge into a grapple? Theres a -2 AC there for that. The round 9 thing I was switching to your "Go heal" tactic, and I figured you would rather be under cover to heal than in between the druid and his dog. You were under your "heal me" threshhold there. Im sorry its a bit late now to be editing... :( RL just jumped up and bit me. I believe this may have been missed, so I am restating it. Begferdeth, if you could edit these in that would be great, but if you can't then I'll take the loss, since neither justifies carrying the fight over another week. |
| King Uther01-26-06, 10:50 PM | @SauroGrenom Tactics for Ajora sent via PM. |