Post/Author/DateTime	Post
waywreth 01-03-07, 01:47 PM	Fights of the Week: January 3rd Please don't edit the sheet after the deadline or you will lose the match. Rules of Gladius All that you need to know is written in the Rules of Gladius. It could be useful also to give a look to the Court Decisions Part 1 and Part 2. Please do not make fake accounts or insult the Elders. Pairings GM Caterane will pair the active Characters of Gladius after the deadline. Make sure that your character is not in prison (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=571107&goto=lastpost). Pitlording You should use the CoCo Dice Roller (http://www.hwx.it/wizards.com) for the fight. If you need it, there is a nice template ready to use that will help. You could find the Battle Map Tag Generator (http://www.hwx.it/coco) for dynamic Maps very useful. You must post a link to your fight in this thread when it is complete. Another useful link is the Quick Access tables for XP and Gold. If a fight needs to be rerun, the Pitlord has to inform the Pitlords account. He cannot react to requests from Players because the other player and the pitlord might disagree. He has no time to read the fight and the discussion. Please keep that in mind. PMs from players with rerun requests won't have an impact. Recent News and Developments If you're in a guild (or just interested in it) the World Event is in its 2nd week. Also if you're interested in the guild system please vote in the "Discussion: What should the guild system be like?" An important announcement from the GM: @all: I'll be on vacation for a week, starting this thursday. Although I have internet access there, I don't want to put any time into coco and honestly, I need a time-out anyway. MWB isn't available either so we'll skip pairings for January 10. That means, the deadline to post fights for pairings Jan 03 is extended by one week. Comments & Concerns Post any comments or concerns for this weeks fights in this thread. Be kind and courteous to your fellow posters, and don't feed the pitlords. Please remember that they do hard work and consume a lot of time to let you play. Above all, have FUN! If you have questions or comments on any of the changes, please make your posts be heard in the Council of Gladius!
Macbrea 01-03-07, 01:53 PM	Just so this doesn't get lost in the shuffle: @all: I'll be on vacation for a week, starting this thursday. Although I have internet access there, I don't want to put any time into coco and honestly, I need a time-out anyway. MWB isn't available either so we'll skip pairings for January 10. That means, the deadline to post fights for pairings Jan 03 is extended by one week. Darn it! He edited before i got the post in!
waywreth 01-03-07, 02:14 PM	Just so this doesn't get lost in the shuffle: Darn it! He edited before i got the post in! You were far too slow on that one. :D
McJarvis 01-03-07, 03:03 PM	Times up!
Pitlords 01-03-07, 04:40 PM	Pairings done Credits assigned Remember that the deadline is extended by 1 week.
MitzaVolchenko 01-03-07, 04:44 PM	@My fighters...first in, first out on fights. I will accept tactics until I am done with all prior fights on my list. If I complete everything else and I still don't have tactics, I run or surrender ya.
Erithmu 01-03-07, 04:49 PM	@Zevox: Monster info is up. MQ will be up after I get back from class 7 or so hrs from now.
Hirumajoe 01-03-07, 04:49 PM	Kai Engel was intended to be doing a full activity of crafting this week, not fighting. *Especially* considering he's reorganizing his scroll selection (since you can't hold scrolls in reserve at home). He'd be fighting the 3FC with only 8 True Strike and 3 Protection from Evil castings... He can be found here. I think his title line is correct for a full activity.
Macbrea 01-03-07, 04:56 PM	@Iced: Tactics for Izumi are sent.
TelinArtho 01-03-07, 05:36 PM	@Zevox - tactics for Farig have been sent. Good luck to my opponent... @Mitza - tactics for Bulgar will likely have to wait until tomorrow morning-ish, but they should be no later than the afternoon.
MindWandererB 01-03-07, 06:45 PM	@Zevox: Tactics for Kervan have been sent. And I'll take that good luck, with a side of mashed potatoes. I think I'll need it--I'm still trying to figure out how to run the character.
Caterane 01-03-07, 06:47 PM	Kai Engel was intended to be doing a full activity of crafting this week, not fighting. *Especially* considering he's reorganizing his scroll selection (since you can't hold scrolls in reserve at home). He'd be fighting the 3FC with only 8 True Strike and 3 Protection from Evil castings... He can be found here. I think his title line is correct for a full activity. Actually it's not set to full activity. It just says crafting which can be done as a Free Activity if below 1000 and I'm not able to count all your scrolls during pairings. So please add "FULL ACTIVITY" next time to the title. Change: Rauul Darkstar (Rauul) vs. Weapon (Sutro) : TheMagister [Arena] Kai Engel crafts. Mitza -1°
Hirumajoe 01-03-07, 07:01 PM	Actually it's not set to full activity. It just says crafting which can be done as a Free Activity if below 1000 and I'm not able to count all your scrolls during pairings. So please add "FULL ACTIVITY" next time to the title. Change: Rauul Darkstar (Rauul) vs. Weapon (Sutro) : TheMagister [Arena] Kai Engel crafts. Mitza -1° Woops, sorry. I copied it directly from the default character sheet. I assumed the lack of [Fight 1] was used to identify a full activity vs a Free one. I'll do so next time. My apologies.
Zevox 01-03-07, 07:03 PM	@ MWB & Telin - Tactics recieved. Thanks for getting them in quickly - I'll run it tomorrow :) . @ Usernamer & Iced - Tactics earlier is better. I start school again next week, so I'd like to run both my fights by saturday this week. @ MWB - Just noticed you didn't have EHTC's info in the Guild Hall. Checked on that, looks like I accidentally sent it to "Guildmaster" instead of "Guildlords" :embarrass . Forwarded it to Guildlords' account for you. Zevox
Macbrea 01-03-07, 07:56 PM	@Maraxus: Relanex's tactics have been sent. Hopefully the city guard won't be annoyed.
Zevox 01-03-07, 08:05 PM	@ Sauro & DSugui - Burglary info and tactics for Featylec (vs Dudael) have both been PMed. @ Maraxus - Will work on tactics for Istima Telarc (vs Relanex Thines) next. Zevox
Maraxus 01-03-07, 08:25 PM	Got Relanex Tactics (even through I got no pop-up. Those seam to be a bit undependably) That said, tactics for Durin and Balrog are out.
Etiquette_Gnome 01-03-07, 08:58 PM	@ McJarvis & Mitza: Tactics sent
Milov 01-03-07, 09:27 PM	Tactics for Ihdald Seaslash (Milov) vs. Balrog (Maraxus) were sent. I didn't know there were Centaur in the arena. Cool. Good luck with his first arena fight!
NiQil 01-03-07, 11:16 PM	@ MitzaVolchenko: Tactics for Blizzard and Wildfire both sent via PM.
Zevox 01-04-07, 12:34 AM	@ Maraxus - Tactics for Istima Telarc (vs Relanex Thines) have been PMed. Other tactics will be forthcoming tomorrow. Zevox
Erithmu 01-04-07, 12:37 AM	@Zevox: MQ is up
UserNamer 01-04-07, 07:48 AM	@Zevox: Tactics for Mr. Ocean sent.
rowsdower44 01-04-07, 08:00 AM	@Mitza: Tactics sent for The Red Mage
Hirumajoe 01-04-07, 10:32 AM	Quick Dumb Question regarding Izumi and Kusari-gama: First, where is the Kusari-gama listed? I'm trying to figure out if its a trip/disarm/whatever type weapon. Also, I'm trying to understand why Izumi has a -4 penalty with it. Shouldn't it be only -2? As I understand it, Powerful build allows you to use a weapon one size larger without penalty. In the case of a Huge Weapon on a Medium sized powerful build character, that's only 1 size step difference and thus should only be a -2 penalty. I'm assuming a Kusari-gama is a one-handed weapon which allows this to be done. Edit: Nevermind I found it in the 3.0 SRD. However, now I'm really confused, since in the 3.0 SRD its listed as a large weapon which corresponds to a Two-handed (or Dual-Weapon) in 3.5 parlance. Which I think means Izumi can't wield a Huge Kusari-gama, only a Large Kusari-gama. Inappropriately Sized Weapons A creature can’t make optimum use of a weapon that isn’t properly sized for it. A cumulative -2 penalty applies on attack rolls for each size category of difference between the size of its intended wielder and the size of its actual wielder. If the creature isn’t proficient with the weapon a -4 nonproficiency penalty also applies. The measure of how much effort it takes to use a weapon (whether the weapon is designated as a light, one-handed, or two-handed weapon for a particular wielder) is altered by one step for each size category of difference between the wielder’s size and the size of the creature for which the weapon was designed. If a weapon’s designation would be changed to something other than light, one-handed, or two-handed by this alteration, the creature can’t wield the weapon at all. Kusari-Gama: This small sickle is attached to a length of chain. A kusari-gama is an exotic weapon that can be used either as a double weapon or as a reach weapon. A character can fight with it as if fighting with two weapons, incurring all the normal attack penalties as if using a one-handed weapon and a light weapon. If used as two weapons it can only be used to strike adjacent opponents. If used as a reach weapon, a kusari-gama can strike opponents 10 feet away. In addition, unlike other weapons with reach, it can be used against an adjacent foe. In this case, only one end of the kusari-gama can be used effectively; it cannot be used as a double weapon. The character chooses which end to use when used as a range weapon. The sickle end deals 1d6 points of damage and is a slashing weapon; the chain end deals 1d4 points of damage and is a bludgeoning weapon. A kusari-gama can be used to make trip attacks. If the wielder is tripped during his or her own trip attempt, the kusari-gama can be dropped to avoid being tripped. The kusari-gama gives a +2 bonus on the opposed attack roll when attempting to disarm an opponent (including the roll to avoid being disarmed after failing to disarm the opponent). Use the Weapon Finesse feat to apply a character's Dexterity modifier instead of the Strength modifier to attack rolls with a kusari-gama. Thus, Izumi counts as large, and can wield large two-handed weapons (or large double weapons). A Huge Two-handed weapon (or double weapon) would be a step above and thus unwieldable. Or am I misunderstanding something?
hogarth 01-04-07, 10:41 AM	The kusari-gama is in the section of the DMG dealing with oriental weapons (not in the SRD). It's a light weapon doing 1d6 damage, but is otherwise similar to the spiked chain. My understanding is that Izumi has a Gargantuan kusari-gama that he wields in two hands. That's two sizes larger than a Large kusari-gama (which he could use without penalty), so he suffers a -4 penalty. Quick Dumb Question regarding Izumi and Kusari-gama: First, where is the Kusari-gama listed? I'm trying to figure out if its a trip/disarm/whatever type weapon. Also, I'm trying to understand why Izumi has a -4 penalty with it. Shouldn't it be only -2? As I understand it, Powerful build allows you to use a weapon one size larger without penalty. In the case of a Huge Weapon on a Medium sized powerful build character, that's only 1 size step difference and thus should only be a -2 penalty. I'm assuming a Kusari-gama is a one-handed weapon which allows this to be done.
Macbrea 01-04-07, 10:49 AM	This is correct. The weapon is playing with the oversized weapon rules. Asian Weapon section of the DMG lists the Kasuri-gama as a Light Exotic Weapon. Using Powerful build she can wield a Large one as a light weapon. A huge one as a one-handed weapon with -2 penalty for oversized weapon. And a Gargantuan one as a Two-handed Weapon with a -4 oversize penalty. Moving a 1d6 weapon up 3 size categories brings it to a 3d6 weapon. When she expands it brings the weapon size to Colosal. There will be an odd issue when she finally hits 10th level. As she will be a 7th level Psychic warrior and she will be allowed to expand two times. Bringing her weapon upto size Colosal+. This isn't allowed except in the case of a Prismatic or Force Dragons. I am pretty sure the resulting decision will be the weapon grows to size Colosal and becomes a one-handed weapon again for her with only a -2 penalty. Oh, and it's rules are exactly the same as a spiked chain for trip. Basicly, it's a Light spiked chain slashing instead of piercing as it's damage type. This is the reason it may be used to sunder.
Hirumajoe 01-04-07, 10:57 AM	Edit: Reading asian rules more closely. Edit 2: Ahh... I see, 3.5 DMG not the 3.0 SRD. Gotcha. That explains my confusion. So if its treated as a light weapon right off to bat, then it all works out. Unfortunately, the 3.0 SRD lists it as a "large" weapon, hence my confusion. Edit 3: Actually, doesn't CoCo rules prevent size changes of more than 1 step *anyways*? So that your double expansion is a non-problem since you're not allowed to do it?
hogarth 01-04-07, 11:08 AM	Edit 3: Actually, doesn't CoCo rules prevent size changes of more than 1 step *anyways*? So that your double expansion is a non-problem since you're not allowed to do it? I'm pretty sure the "one step size increase" house rule is only for the Polymorph spell.
Macbrea 01-04-07, 11:13 AM	You are only allowed to be under one size increaser at a time. That isn't particularly anything unusual. The Augmentable Expansion power says: If you spend 6 additional power points, this power increases your size by two size categories instead of one. You gain a +4 size bonus to Strength, a -4 size penalty to Dexterity (to a minimum effective Dexterity score of 1), a -2 size penalty on attack rolls, and a -2 size penalty to Armor Class due to your increased size. Which means your expanded 2 size categories by one power.
Macbrea 01-04-07, 11:18 AM	My guess is as I keep playing her. Her records will probably be 20 wins and 20 losses by level 10. Most peoples strategy against her seems to be get their AC to above 27+ and hope she doesn't roll 20s. This works sometimes and seems to fail more often then not. Best strategy against her is fly. You pretty much win automaticly. As she cannot fly and you may cast spells freely at her. Her tactics are pretty much simplistic to write. Example: Valen Sky this week knows the tactics will look like: Kusuri-gama in hand, start closest to center. Manifest expansion to large for 3pp = 30 minutes Go looking for opponent When lightning (horse) is within range hit with weapon til dead. Grapple Valen and squeeze til dead. Otherwise they are sunder everything and swing at opponent til their dead.
Hirumajoe 01-04-07, 11:45 AM	I'm pretty sure the "one step size increase" house rule is only for the Polymorph spell. So wait, that limit doesn't apply to Metamorphosis? Sweeet... :D
Etiquette_Gnome 01-04-07, 01:34 PM	Wait, we're allowed to use the kusari-gama? *reads that character* Dang, my idea's already taken.
Zevox 01-04-07, 02:22 PM	@ McJarvis - Tactics for Indrithia Celeth (vs Krug Butcher) have been PMed. Why can't Indrithia ever a get fight in the forest? *sigh* @ Abyssal Stalker - Tactics for Archdevil Asran (vs Little Daisy) have been PMed. Found a major issue on Daisy that may well cost her the fight. @ DSugui - Because that'll probably affect your tactics, you should know what it is: Daisy has no ranks in spellcraft and has not prepared a casting of Read Magic, so she cannot decipher her scrolls, which means she cannot use them. Talk about a painful oversight. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 01-04-07, 02:37 PM	@ McJarvis - Tactics for Indrithia Celeth (vs Krug Butcher) have been PMed. Why can't Indrithia ever a get fight in the forest? *sigh* @ Abyssal Stalker - Tactics for Archdevil Asran (vs Little Daisy) have been PMed. Found a major issue on Daisy that may well cost her the fight. @ DSugui - Because that'll probably affect your tactics, you should know what it is: Daisy has no ranks in spellcraft and has not prepared a casting of Read Magic, so she cannot decipher her scrolls, which means she cannot use them. Talk about a painful oversight. Zevox Answered. Please comment, I don't think it's a major issue. Decipher the Writing The writing on a scroll must be deciphered before a character can use it or know exactly what spell it contains. This requires a read magic spell or a successful Spellcraft check (DC 20 + spell level). Deciphering a scroll to determine its contents does not activate its magic unless it is a specially prepared cursed scroll. A character can decipher the writing on a scroll in advance so that he or she can proceed directly to the next step when the time comes to use the scroll. (The same thing answered to Zevox with PM) I have never required anyone to write "decipher scrolls" on their prebuffs. Daisy has access to Read Magic, so that should be enough.
hogarth 01-04-07, 02:42 PM	@ DSugui - Because that'll probably affect your tactics, you should know what it is: Daisy has no ranks in spellcraft and has not prepared a casting of Read Magic, so she cannot decipher her scrolls, which means she cannot use them. Talk about a painful oversight. In the rules it says: "If you have access to the read magic spell, you do not need to make any spellcraft checks." A druid has access to the read magic spell. The rules don't say anything about having the spell prepared.
Zevox 01-04-07, 03:13 PM	If she does not prepare the spell though, how is it that she can use it to decipher the scrolls? This isn't a one-time, permanent thing that you can just say you did some other day. In any event, my tactics did include things for if she used those scrolls (since I missed this until after those parts of the tactics were written), so its not that big of a deal to them if shes allowed to use them, but I truly feel she should not be since she didn't use either of the methods of deciphering them. Zevox
hogarth 01-04-07, 03:19 PM	If she does not prepare the spell though, how is it that she can use it to decipher the scrolls? This isn't a one-time, permanent thing that you can just say you did some other day. Sure it is. Reread the quote posted by Abyssal Stalker above: "A character can decipher the writing on a scroll in advance so that he or she can proceed directly to the next step when the time comes to use the scroll."
Sutro 01-04-07, 04:40 PM	@Magister, Mitza: Tactics for Weapon and Scallas sent.
Hirumajoe 01-04-07, 05:45 PM	@Iced: Tactics for Valen sent.
Zevox 01-04-07, 08:09 PM	Farig of Denth vs Kervan Sheharath is up. The dice Gods have spoken, and their opinions were strong. Zevox
SauroGrenom 01-04-07, 10:14 PM	DSugui, I'm waiting on tactics for Dudael to get this thing going. Zevox, Tactics for Featylec recieved.
waywreth 01-04-07, 10:40 PM	@DSugui - When you post the information for Matthis's monster fight, I'll send you tactics. Please note Matthis has ranks in many of the knowledge skills, so he might know something useful.
Vathelokai 01-05-07, 12:01 AM	@TelinArtho: Tactics for Illustrated Man and Zodiac in the final phase of revision. May take one more day to polish them.
Iced 01-05-07, 05:45 AM	I have the Izumi vs Valen tactics including the revision. @ Zevox - Tactics for Toron sent.
TheMagister 01-05-07, 07:47 AM	Farig of Denth vs Kervan Sheharath is up. The dice Gods have spoken, and their opinions were strong. Zevox Yeah, fighting a double-weapon TWF with improved trip in a phonebooth is a recipe for disaster. It's nice to see a full fighter deal the kind of damage that they're really capable of to even someone with (what's usually considered) to be a high AC. I like me them fighters. =) TM
DSugui 01-05-07, 07:57 AM	Hey there, people. My internet conection went down wednesday night and only came back now. I will be sending tactics in a couple of hours. @waywreth: I will send the monster info soon. @Iced: Solan's MQ will be up soon too.
TheMagister 01-05-07, 08:06 AM	@My Gladiators - hard deadline for tactics is Saturday morning at 0700 (US Central Time). Fights will begin to be run at that time, and if I reach your fight and have no tactics (I'll check for defaults), you lose. Of course, a PM will buy you that extra two-three hours if you need it. =) Just let me hear from you. TM
Abyssal Stalker 01-05-07, 08:12 AM	@My Gladiators - hard deadline for tactics is Saturday morning at 0700 (US Central Time). Fights will begin to be run at that time, and if I reach your fight and have no tactics (I'll check for defaults), you lose. Of course, a PM will buy you that extra two-three hours if you need it. =) Just let me hear from you. TM Tactics for mr. Taker have been sent.
DSugui 01-05-07, 08:15 AM	Setup for Matthis Dar'ath vs Unknown Monster is up HERE @Zevox: I noticed only now that my three fights this week are against you. Too bad you have better chances to win all of them :(
TelinArtho 01-05-07, 10:22 AM	Yeah, fighting a double-weapon TWF with improved trip in a phonebooth is a recipe for disaster. It's nice to see a full fighter deal the kind of damage that they're really capable of to even someone with (what's usually considered) to be a high AC. I like me them fighters. =) TM I'm quite fond of straight fighters myself. In fact - if you break out my characters you'll find (for the most part) three categories: 1. Straight fighters (or fighter/paladins...) 2. Straight clerics (with warlike tendencies...) 3. Gishes (fighter/cleric, fighter/wizard) I only have a limited number of barbarians, straight wizards and rogues. In the CoCo, I've never run a sorcerer, bard, or any of the psionic classes (except for a wilder I played around with once...). But I do tend to like warrior types, and that probably won't change any time soon...
waywreth 01-05-07, 10:29 AM	I'm quite fond of straight fighters myself. I only have a limited number of barbarians, straight wizards and rogues. In the CoCo, I've never run a sorcerer, bard, or any of the psionic classes (except for a wilder I played around with once...). But I do tend to like warrior types, and that probably won't change any time soon... You know it's funny... I'm the exact opposite. I prefer casters. Sorcerers, Bards, and Wilders are automatically eliminated for being subpar in comparison to the other classes. Most of my characters have been wizards (who suck until level 5+) and psions (who are in my opinion, the most powerful class in these settings).
TelinArtho 01-05-07, 10:39 AM	As to Zevox's comment about needing a flying mount, I'm looking into possible avenues to make it so that Farig doesn't "need" a mount to survive in the arena. Up to this point, she has used Whirlwind because of a necessity to close to melee - and I still had too many encounters where I had to switch to my bow and duke it out at range. One of the options I'm looking at is a "lesser" winged boot - 1/day fly for 5 minutes. Reversing the cost of the current winged boot generates a cost of 5333gp, while calculating it out via the formulas generates 5400gp - so I'm fairly confident that's a reasonable price. Unfortunately of course, after winning that fight she's sitting on 5200gp... That said, flying is probably not my most pressing issue - invisibility surely is, as well as speed when Whirlwind is taken down. A hand of glory will definitely fix the former, but I'm not quite sure what I'll do about the latter. Lastly, there's the issue of her own AC, which is reasonable while mounted (and able to use Whirlwind for cover), but otherwise is not too great. Meanwhile though, she's in between cycles, so I need to do some shopping to prepare for the fights at ECL6...
Macbrea 01-05-07, 11:49 AM	They should cost 5400gp. Reverse engineering allows for some silly items. Example: Celestial Armor (22,500gp) - Chainmail +3 (9,150gp) - Mithril (4,000gp) - Fly on command 1/day (6,000gp) Means the extra +3 Max Dex costs 3,350gp. Now, giving that statement Creating: Celestial Full Plate. (Armor +11, Max Dex +7, ACP -3, Arcane +15%, 25lb, Medium armor, 28,850gp) -Full Plate +3 (10500gp) -Mithril (9,000gp) -Fly 1/day on command (6,000gp) - +3 max dex (3,350gp) Not sure that would be a correct item. Possibly..
Hirumajoe 01-05-07, 11:56 AM	They should cost 5400gp. Reverse engineering allows for some silly items. Example: Celestial Armor (22,500gp) - Chainmail +3 (9,150gp) - Mithril (4,000gp) - Fly on command 1/day (6,000gp) Means the extra +3 Max Dex costs 3,350gp. Now, giving that statement Creating: Celestial Full Plate. (Armor +11, Max Dex +7, ACP -3, Arcane +15%, 25lb, Medium armor, 28,850gp) -Full Plate +3 (10500gp) -Mithril (9,000gp) -Fly 1/day on command (6,000gp) - +3 max dex (3,350gp) Not sure that would be a correct item. Possibly.. Umm.. Celestial armor is in no way Mithril base. Also, you're forgetting the reduction in Arcane spell failure chance. Of course, the way to really abuse this is to go is the other way, getting a Mithril Chain Shirt of Celestial-ness. 0% Arcane Spell failure chance (which is something I'd *love* to have for Kai Engel).
hogarth 01-05-07, 12:14 PM	They should cost 5400gp. Reverse engineering allows for some silly items. I also dislike reverse engineering. Maybe I should buy a Mace of Blood +1. Cost = 16,000 gp [mace of blood] - 18,000 gp [+3 enhancement] + 2,000 gp [+1 enhancement] = 0 gp Hey, at that price I might as well buy two!
TelinArtho 01-05-07, 12:30 PM	Well, I do reverse engineering and then do it forward with the formula in any case that I can. If the numbers come out close, then I am generally confident with asking for that price. For things that don't have a specific formula, I try to see it in terms of balance. For instance, when I asked for the charging ability on Sir Valkin's full plate, the resulting price was only 1000gp. Is that reasonable for +2d6 damage on all charges? From my perspective it is pretty cheap, but not absurdly so. +2d6 damage on the end of a charge is not a huge addition, and since it isn't multiplied with the effects of using a lance or spirited charge, then it is a static +2d6 (7 damage on average). Also, since it only applies to charges, it is unlikely to see it come up more than a handful of times during a fight - especially since people are so quick to avoid charges from Sir Valkin in the first place... (I don't know why - probably something to do with 3d8+51 on a successful hit versus an evil character... and that's without power attack...). In fact, given the frequency that Sir Valkin has even been able to charge in his career, the cost can't be much higher to be worth it to him. Certainly there are characters who are able to exploit charges much more frequently - especially if they have flight available as an option. However, it is still a case of a question as to how useful is it?
SauroGrenom 01-05-07, 01:01 PM	I like reverse engineering some items. I've often considered making a cloak for Raskos that is modeled after the +2 bonus on checks to defeat SR that is on a Robe of the Archmagi. My calculations show that's work about 8000gp. On the discussion of character types, I've only played 3 characters in CoCo. That's Kracknol, Raskos and my 1st character Rebreg. I've made a few other concept characters and posted them in the characters thread but never played them. Generally when playing computer games, I like the melee characters and especially the Monk. In a computer game, using spells doesn't work as well for my play style. In CoCo, the most sucessfull characters fall into two main classes. There are the One Trick Ponies and the Gish. Rebreg and Kracknol were both one trick ponies. Rebreg was a Grabble Guy and Krakcnol was an Alpha Strike. Against some opponents, one trick ponies just simply fail because they cannot pull the trick for some reason. Generally the Gish beat the one trick ponies when they can somehow prevent the ponies from using their trick. Raskos is my stab at making a Gish. He's got a bit of several things, arcane casting, SR, psi-like abilities, psion blasting power, self crafted equipment and a tough melee ally. I've given lots of thought to making an incorpreal character, but the equipment issues dog the build.
hogarth 01-05-07, 01:12 PM	I like reverse engineering some items. I've often considered making a cloak for Raskos that is modeled after the +2 bonus on checks to defeat SR that is on a Robe of the Archmagi. My calculations show that's work about 8000gp. My calculations (which involved looking up the price for a "Third Eye - Penetrate" in the SRD) showed it as well. :D
Abyssal Stalker 01-05-07, 01:16 PM	I like playing evil characters :) Seriously, I prefer melee characters. I guess the reason is that I like their straight-forward nature. And they are quite simple to play. My first ever DnD character was -not so long ago- a Dark Sun Mul Fighter/Barbarian. It was an easy character to begin with and get familiar with the rules. Later I discovered spellcasters. One of my favourite characters is my Evoker/Acolyte of the Skin. But still it shows my love for fighters - evokers are all about dealing damage, after all. They are the fighters of wizards. Ranged characters have never felt interesting to me, neither psionic characters. Maybe the reason I dislike psionics is that I still find them too powerful. (but let's not open that can of worms) On the other hand they don't fit my idea of a fantasy world, but I have to admit that I've found myself using psionic rules more and more. Maybe I even try them some time :)
Zevox 01-05-07, 01:18 PM	@Zevox: I noticed only now that my three fights this week are against you. Too bad you have better chances to win all of them :( All of them? You must be seeing something I'm not in Indrithia vs Krug, because I was expecting to get my ass handed to me pretty solidly in that one. No good place to hide in that map, and he beats her in melee fairly easily, plus has more hp than her in spite of his LA. Zevox
DSugui 01-05-07, 02:08 PM	All of them? You must be seeing something I'm not in Indrithia vs Krug, because I was expecting to get my ass handed to me pretty solidly in that one. No good place to hide in that map, and he beats her in melee fairly easily, plus has more hp than her in spite of his LA. Zevox You're right, this one is pretty much for Krug (I was thinking on Ceilia when I wrote that), but Featylec already won, and Daisy will have a really hard time to beat Asran. @Abyssal Stalker, Sauro, McJarvis: Tactics sent. ----- Matthis Dar'ath II (waywreth) vs. Unknown Monster is up HERE And again I protest against Monster fights as they are. You can be unlucky enough to auto lose a fight, but you can't be lucky enough to auto win the fight? That's unfair.
Abyssal Stalker 01-05-07, 02:17 PM	You're right, this one is pretty much for Krug (I was thinking on Ceilia when I wrote that), but Featylec already won, and Daisy will have a really hard time to beat Asran. @Abyssal Stalker, Sauro, McJarvis: Tactics sent. ----- Matthis Dar'ath II (waywreth) vs. Unknown Monster is up HERE And again I protest against Monster fights as they are. You can be unlucky enough to auto lose a fight, but you can't be lucky enough to auto win the fight? That's unfair. Tactics received from both of you. I'll try to start it tomorrow, but running it might take a while. There's a lot of combatants in the fight!
Zevox 01-05-07, 06:37 PM	@ Sauro - Noticed Featylec vs Dudael is up (here). Just one little note: you forgot the rewards adjustments for Dudael's cohort. Featylec gets +25% (3,000 xp and 4,250 gp) and Dudael gets -25% (600 xp and 999 gp). @ Iced & Usernamer - Tactics received. If I don't run it tonight, I will tomorrow afternoon/evening. Zevox
renlim 01-05-07, 08:15 PM	Tactics for fight (Corbin Nightwalker Reborn (renlim) vs. Bazili Stasha (Hrothmund) : MitzaVolchenko [Arena]) posted ...yesterday.
Erithmu 01-05-07, 09:04 PM	@Zevox: I know I'm not running the fight till next week but I haven't seen mention of Eraca's tactics for her monster fight yet.
Zevox 01-06-07, 12:48 AM	@Zevox: I know I'm not running the fight till next week but I haven't seen mention of Eraca's tactics for her monster fight yet. Right, sorry, forgot about that with my other tactics and running my fight yesterday. I'll do those right before running my other fight tomorrow. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 01-06-07, 08:25 AM	Part of the Asran vs Daisy is there to see. Check if you see something wrong, it's a complicated fight with difficult 3d-movement and several participants...
TheMagister 01-06-07, 08:50 AM	{Yawn} One shouldn't stay up till one-o'clock fighting dragons and their ogre-barbarian pets when one has to be at work at 0530 the next morning. Fights might be a little slow in coming, which (if I understand correctly) won't be a problem because of the extended deadline. {Yawn} Darned friends. Don't know why I have 'em. Bothersome. TM
Zevox 01-06-07, 09:16 AM	Part of the Asran vs Daisy is there to see. Check if you see something wrong, it's a complicated fight with difficult 3d-movement and several participants... Lets see here... Yes, you can start hovering 5' high to escape entangle. Check the map rules info about starting positions. This was established a while back when Daisy fought The Harvester (and his Nightmare skeleton mount). No major effect since Arynat was the only one caught, but worth noting. It is of course difficult to follow the exact movement, but that happens with 3-D movement. Seems like you've got the idea with Senorda using height to evade her foes though, so I expect there shouldn't be a problem, since her speed should easily let her evade an air-walking foe stuck ascending at 45 degree angles. From the looks of things things are about to start, probably with Senorda's MMs. Shouldn't take too long after that. Feel free to extend the "switch Asran to his bow if Daisy flies away too fast" note to to now too - looks like he won't be getting his dive so long as Daisy is focused on Senorda anyway. Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 01-06-07, 09:24 AM	Lets see here... Yes, you can start hovering 5' high to escape entangle. Check the map rules info about starting positions. This was established a while back when Daisy fought The Harvester (and his Nightmare skeleton mount). No major effect since Arynat was the only one caught, but worth noting. It is of course difficult to follow the exact movement, but that happens with 3-D movement. Seems like you've got the idea with Senorda using height to evade her foes though, so I expect there shouldn't be a problem, since her speed should easily let her evade an air-walking foe stuck ascending at 45 degree angles. From the looks of things things are about to start, probably with Senorda's MMs. Shouldn't take too long after that. Feel free to extend the "switch Asran to his bow if Daisy flies away too fast" note to to now too - looks like he won't be getting his dive so long as Daisy is focused on Senorda anyway. Zevox Oh? That was new. I only remembered the old rule that you can start hovering but you must be only an inch or so above the ground. Well, I guess it's no big deal. Yep, evading Daisy isn't hard, but the Giant Eagle is a bit harder.
DSugui 01-06-07, 10:32 AM	I have the impression that Athena is not moving everything she can. You do know her speed is 70ft, right?
Abyssal Stalker 01-06-07, 11:03 AM	Yes, but they are ascending all the time and can move only half speed with a 45 degrees angle. So when they ascend 70ft, they move horizontally 50ft (or cos45o x 70ft) and vertically 50ft (again sin45o x 70ft)... This makes 3d-fights kinda nasty. And when you have 5 combatants with different kinds of maneuverabilities, it's really hard to follow. There can be mistakes.
Abyssal Stalker 01-06-07, 11:23 AM	Well, the fight is kinda done. Still needs rewards.
NiQil 01-06-07, 02:12 PM	Oh? That was new. I only remembered the old rule that you can start hovering but you must be only an inch or so above the ground. Well, I guess it's no big deal. Yep, evading Daisy isn't hard, but the Giant Eagle is a bit harder. From the Court Decisions....and it's been there for probably 7-8 months... Q: If your character can fly, can it start it's fight in the air? A: Creatures with flight that have good or perfect maneuverability are allowed to start at a maximum height of 5 ft off the ground. Creatures with maneuverability below this start at 0 ft.
hogarth 01-06-07, 02:22 PM	With regards to the Undertaker vs. Legion fight, I noticed that the tactics included using Magic Missile against a psicrystal. Unfortunately, I don't think that will work because a 1d4+1 damage MM won't get past the psicrystal's hardness of 8. I can't find anywhere that says that spells automatically bypass hardness -- only acid and sonic attacks.
Zevox 01-06-07, 03:33 PM	Yep, evading Daisy isn't hard, but the Giant Eagle is a bit harder. Bah, that thing can't touch Asran or Senorda's ACs anyway, and it has no way to locate Arynat. Not a worry. Well, the fight is kinda done. Still needs rewards. Looks pretty good. Just one other note: Asran has the hover feat, so he could've taken a move action to start hovering any time, and afterwards rapid-shot with no trouble. For rewards, Asran gets nothing (obviously), Daisy gets her cap of 900 xp +14.29% = 1,028 xp and 1,500 gp +14.29% = 1,714 gp. @ DSugui - In addition to only being able to ascend at a 45 degree angle, Athena moves at half speed while doing so, so she really can't get all that far compared to someone who can ascend straight up at half speed with a 90' speed. @ NiQil - Huh, never saw that in the Court Decisions before (I've been referring to the note in the maps post). Seems its missing a note about characters with less maneuverability and the hover feat though - might want to add that. Zevox
TheMagister 01-06-07, 04:21 PM	With regards to the Undertaker vs. Legion fight, I noticed that the tactics included using Magic Missile against a psicrystal. Unfortunately, I don't think that will work because a 1d4+1 damage MM won't get past the psicrystal's hardness of 8. I can't find anywhere that says that spells automatically bypass hardness -- only acid and sonic attacks. Hmm. A psicrystal is a creature (a construct), so magic missile can target it. Magic Missile is force energy, a type which is not halved or quartered against objects. In fact, it's not mentioned at all. Now, this is totally my interpretation as follows: Force energy is "the best". It's type-less, affects everything, and is harder than adamantine. I can't imagine bypassing hardness with an adamantine sword but having to go through it with a force weapon (like spiritual weapon). After all, you can't hack through a wall of force with an adamantine battleaxe; the wall of force is simply immune to such mundane attack forms. At my table, the magic missiles would do full damage, bypassing the hardness because of the "type-less"-ness of their damage. Hardness vs. Energy Types doesn't say anything about Force, so I'm going to assume that Force bypasses such a mundane form of protection. Now, having said all that: the ruling was absolutely NOT fight-affecting (Legion's psicrystal wasn't even mentioned in his tactics). This would still be a good thing to get ironed out, though.
TheMagister 01-06-07, 04:22 PM	Oh, and Legion vs. The Undertaker is up here.
Zevox 01-06-07, 04:44 PM	@ Erithmu - Tactics for Eraca vs 3 Half-Fiend Displacer Beasts "Uknown Monster" have been PMed :D . Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 01-07-07, 05:22 AM	Oh, and Legion vs. The Undertaker is up here. Well, looks like bad luck. Everyone gets a share of that. One thing though, shouldn't Undertaker have concealment against those ray attacks? Legion is attacking through the bushes, and if I've understood correctly, they gice concealment.
TheMagister 01-07-07, 07:43 AM	Well, looks like bad luck. Everyone gets a share of that. One thing though, shouldn't Undertaker have concealment against those ray attacks? Legion is attacking through the bushes, and if I've understood correctly, they gice concealment. Nah. They give concealment if your target is standing in them, not just shooting through them. Concealment is an obscuring of sight from you to your target. Cover is an obstruction in the path from you to your target. The brush doesn't physically foul ranged attacks, it just makes it difficult for your opponent to see you. My fluff when I wrote, "the cold ray shatters a branch" is just that; fluff. The way they have it written up, the brush isn't like fog, which cumulatively obscures all sight that passes through the brush's AoE. It's more like the brush is only waist high and very leafy (like ferns or something). Something akin to "low cover", but it doesn't actually block shots. I dunno. All I know is that you only get the benefit of the concealment if you're standing in it. The description of the path clearly states that there's no concealment benefit if you're standing on it.
Abyssal Stalker 01-07-07, 08:08 AM	Nah. They give concealment if your target is standing in them, not just shooting through them. Concealment is an obscuring of sight from you to your target. Cover is an obstruction in the path from you to your target. The brush doesn't physically foul ranged attacks, it just makes it difficult for your opponent to see you. My fluff when I wrote, "the cold ray shatters a branch" is just that; fluff. The way they have it written up, the brush isn't like fog, which cumulatively obscures all sight that passes through the brush's AoE. It's more like the brush is only waist high and very leafy (like ferns or something). Something akin to "low cover", but it doesn't actually block shots. I dunno. All I know is that you only get the benefit of the concealment if you're standing in it. The description of the path clearly states that there's no concealment benefit if you're standing on it. I remeber some discussion about this earlier, but can't remember the details. But the concealment description in the SRD is quite clear about this: Concealment To determine whether your target has concealment from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that provides concealment, the target has concealment. The bushes give concealment. Actually, it seems also quite logical that you'd get concealment if the target is on the other side of the bushes. They are between the attacker and the target, so they block some parts of vision. It doesn't matter if the target is in the bush or behind the bush, it's still harder to shoot. Trust me, I go hunting every fall :)
TheMagister 01-07-07, 11:19 AM	You know what? I'll buy that. What I was saying earlier sounded fishy even while I wrote it. Looking around the DMG and PHB, I'm finding out some neat stuff. Check out "Forest Terrain" in the DMG (dunno where in the SRD) for some neat rules. I'll go back in and roll the concealment chances for the rays that were fired at The Undertaker. Did you know: the maximum distance that a spot check can be made for detecting the nearby presence of others in a Dense Forest is 2d6x10 feet (20-120 ft.)! Our forest map is a dense forest (the massive trees!) Edit: Done. No change. TM
TheMagister 01-07-07, 12:03 PM	@my players (except Abyssal and spasheridan) - I know that this is an extended week, but I'm limited to my computer time. If I don't receive tactics from you by Tuesday January 9th at 5:30 p.m. (US Central Time), you will forfeit your matches, since I will not have the capability to run them after that. Fair warning. TM
Abyssal Stalker 01-07-07, 12:44 PM	You know what? I'll buy that. What I was saying earlier sounded fishy even while I wrote it. Looking around the DMG and PHB, I'm finding out some neat stuff. Check out "Forest Terrain" in the DMG (dunno where in the SRD) for some neat rules. I'll go back in and roll the concealment chances for the rays that were fired at The Undertaker. Did you know: the maximum distance that a spot check can be made for detecting the nearby presence of others in a Dense Forest is 2d6x10 feet (20-120 ft.)! Our forest map is a dense forest (the massive trees!) Edit: Done. No change. TM Oh well, thanks anyway!
Zevox 01-07-07, 02:45 PM	Toron Brightstar vs Daniel Ocean is done. Better tactics and a little help from the dice won that one. Zevox
TheMagister 01-07-07, 03:10 PM	Toron Brightstar vs Daniel Ocean is done. Better tactics and a little help from the dice won that one. Zevox None of my business, but you forgot to employ Daniel Ocean's re-vigor tactic. Might buy him the time he needs. The way I figure it, it should be inserted after Daniel gets hit the second time by the quarterstaff. TM
Zevox 01-07-07, 03:29 PM	None of my business, but you forgot to employ Daniel Ocean's re-vigor tactic. Might buy him the time he needs. The way I figure it, it should be inserted after Daniel gets hit the second time by the quarterstaff. TM Toron never hit him for 9 hp in damage before the one that knocked him unconscious. Obviously I can't count the vigor hp, since theres no point in reapplying a vigor when theres still hp on the first left, and he only suffered 7 hp in damage past that. Zevox
TheMagister 01-07-07, 03:51 PM	Toron never hit him for 9 hp in damage before the one that knocked him unconscious. Obviously I can't count the vigor hp, since theres no point in reapplying a vigor when theres still hp on the first left, and he only suffered 7 hp in damage past that. Zevox You're actually going to read his instructions completely literally like that?! Dude, he obviously meant that when 9 hp had been knocked off of his 10 hp Vigor, he wanted you to refresh it so that he wouldn't lose any hp. Give him some slack b/c of the language barrier...
Zevox 01-07-07, 10:14 PM	You're actually going to read his instructions completely literally like that?! Dude, he obviously meant that when 9 hp had been knocked off of his 10 hp Vigor, he wanted you to refresh it so that he wouldn't lose any hp. Give him some slack b/c of the language barrier... It seems to me that was the intention behind it. Perhaps its simply because I find it pretty ludicrous to think someone would want to put up a new vigor when another still exists in any form, but thats how it reads to me. If Usernamer says otherwise, perhaps I'll alter it, but if what you say were the case I'd personally say he should have made it clearer, language barrier or no. Zevox
hogarth 01-07-07, 11:00 PM	It seems to me that was the intention behind it. Perhaps its simply because I find it pretty ludicrous to think someone would want to put up a new vigor when another still exists in any form, but thats how it reads to me. It's ludicrous to replace 1 temporary hit point with 10 temporary hit points? :confused:
Iced 01-07-07, 11:15 PM	The fight: Toron vs Daniel Ocean EL4 (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11109840&postcount=458) You're actually going to read his instructions completely literally like that?! Dude, he obviously meant that when 9 hp had been knocked off of his 10 hp Vigor, he wanted you to refresh it so that he wouldn't lose any hp. Give him some slack b/c of the language barrier... It seems to me that was the intention behind it. Perhaps its simply because I find it pretty ludicrous to think someone would want to put up a new vigor when another still exists in any form, but thats how it reads to me. If Usernamer says otherwise, perhaps I'll alter it, but if what you say were the case I'd personally say he should have made it clearer, language barrier or no. Zevox It's ludicrous to replace 1 temporary hit point with 10 temporary hit points? :confused: His tactics were specific: If he hits me for 9 or more damage, manifest Vigor+10hp from mind, and continue tactics. He was relying on run and gun tactics, he wasn't expecting what i threw at him and it's his fault he ended up in the situation that caused him to lose. I spent an hour writing careful tactics to give my character a chance to win this fight. It's not fair to reward Usernamer for poor tactics writing, language barrier or not. Toron has this fight and I think i deserve the win. ~Iced
Erithmu 01-07-07, 11:29 PM	Toron vs Daniel ... Guisarme = reach weapon? Round 16: step back from the horse would still draw AoO from drawing or quaffing a potion?
Zevox 01-07-07, 11:38 PM	Toron vs Daniel ... Guisarme = reach weapon? Round 16: step back from the horse would still draw AoO from drawing or quaffing a potion? Daniel was every round having the horse step back after its attacks (or after his ride check if that failed) so he could attack with the guisarme. So Toron was ending up 10' away at the beggining of every round. I didn't note those or Toron's roundly step forward since it seemed obvious they're necessary and fit in the same way every time anyway. It's ludicrous to replace 1 temporary hit point with 10 temporary hit points? Personally, I'd say so, yes. I'd wait until that 1 has run its course before renewing it so as to get maximum use from every vigor (check my tactics for my vigor monkey, Annalina Vale - I always ask to renew hers only after the previous vigor is down). As I said though, if Usernamer indicates his intention was to ignore that and count the vigor hp in his estimation, I might change things to account for the re-vigor contingency after Toron's second hit. Zevox
Iced 01-07-07, 11:58 PM	Daniel was every round having the horse step back after its attacks (or after his ride check if that failed) so he could attack with the guisarme. So Toron was ending up 10' away at the beggining of every round. I didn't note those or Toron's roundly step forward since it seemed obvious they're necessary and fit in the same way every time anyway. Personally, I'd say so, yes. I'd wait until that 1 has run its course before renewing it so as to get maximum use from every vigor (check my tactics for my vigor monkey, Annalina Vale - I always ask to renew hers only after the previous vigor is down). As I said though, if Usernamer indicates his intention was to ignore that and count the vigor hp in his estimation, I might change things to account for the re-vigor contingency after Toron's second hit. Zevox Of course he's going to say that was his intention. I still think that Toron deserves this fight. As the tactics stand they were followed and it's unfair to my character to give Usernamer a chance to add after-the-fact modifications to his tactics. Daniel suffered 7 damage. I quote the tactics once more: If he hits me for 9 or more damage, manifest Vigor+10hp from mind, and continue tactics. There is a specific number there. ~Iced
Zevox 01-08-07, 12:22 AM	Of course he's going to say that was his intention. I still think that Toron deserves this fight. As the tactics stand they were followed and it's unfair to my character to give Usernamer a chance to add after-the-fact modifications to his tactics. Daniel suffered 7 damage. I quote the tactics once more: There is a specific number there. ~Iced Personally, I'm inclined to agree with you, as I've said. However, as pitlord, I need to try and remain impartial about this, and it is true that Usernamer's tactics don't say anything about whether this damage is to include or exclude his initial vigor. If he indicates its exclude, I may edit it for that. I also may not - I'll have to consider things overall here. Zevox
UserNamer 01-08-07, 05:14 AM	I have nothing to add, I made a lot of mistakes with this build (and these tactics). Good fight Iced.
Iced 01-08-07, 05:24 AM	I have nothing to add, I made a lot of mistakes with this build (and these tactics). Good fight Iced. That's good sportsmanship. Now i feel like a complete ass. :P Sorry I lost my cool a little bit, i took a long time writing those tactics and seeing them work was awesome. I just didn't want someone to come and take it away. I apologize. ~Iced
UserNamer 01-08-07, 05:34 AM	Your tactics were obviously better and I had a made a lot of mistakes with this build anyway. I'm creating a new one right now.
McJarvis 01-08-07, 11:30 AM	That's good sportsmanship. Now i feel like a complete ass. :P Considering you're the one person on the forums that doesn't seem to ever contest fight results, I'd say your ass-hood is still up to some debate. :-) (this is the first time I've seen ya argue one)
Iced 01-08-07, 04:46 PM	Considering you're the one person on the forums that doesn't seem to ever contest fight results, I'd say your ass-hood is still up to some debate. :-) (this is the first time I've seen ya argue one) I figure fights aren't worth getting worked up about for the most part. I care about the record of my characters, but not enough to get on people's cases about it for a few small mistakes. Generally my fights are reasonably well-run and there's not much to pick at anyway. I know how it is being a pitlord and i don't aim to stress people out. I just spent far too much time on these tactics to lose... it was one of those rare prizefights between the two highest ranked gladiators in the EL4's and i've started to take a particular liking to this character. There are better gladiators out there, he's going to lose, but when he loses i want it to be because he just wasn't good enough, not because of an error or tactics interperetation. I have plans for this guy and i want him in the ironman tournament. ;)
TheMagister 01-09-07, 06:54 PM	@my gladiators: all tactics received! Thanks guys! @Sutro - my apologies for not including you in the first post. I did receive your tactics. @c00lz3 - ditto. I'll be running fights as time permits tonight and tomorrow. Good luck to all! TM
TheMagister 01-09-07, 11:06 PM	Wisp vs. Ynotar [ECL5]: Cavern is up here. Peruse for your enjoyment and critiquing pleasure. I feel like partaking in the movie experience, so my last fight will wait until tomorrow. I could get to like this every two weeks thing...if I didn't have characters to level up, that is. :D TM
Etiquette_Gnome 01-09-07, 11:43 PM	Wasn't really expecting to win that fight anyway. The only real critique is that as far as I'm aware, there is no facing, and thus the total cover gained with the shield is omni-directional; back in 3.0 it had facing, but they removed that description with the revision. Same question also goes for why Ynotar didn't take advantage of an AoO when the psicrystal entered his space with an unarmed strike (he doesn't need to use his hands to use it, as per monk).
TheMagister 01-10-07, 12:07 AM	Wasn't really expecting to win that fight anyway. The only real critique is that as far as I'm aware, there is no facing, and thus the total cover gained with the shield is omni-directional; back in 3.0 it had facing, but they removed that description with the revision. Same question also goes for why Ynotar didn't take advantage of an AoO when the psicrystal entered his space with an unarmed strike (he doesn't need to use his hands to use it, as per monk). Re: The "omni-directional" thing - Naw. They clarified that in the FAQ. You still have to pick a side of your square. Re: The AoO - In the Tower Shield description, it says that you have to give up your attacks to take total cover. If you give up your attacks, you don't threaten anywhere. If you don't threaten, you can't AoO. Also, grappling with a heavy or tower shield equipped is BAD. You end up taking the -20 penalty for grappling with one hand. TM
Etiquette_Gnome 01-10-07, 12:47 AM	Alright, do you give up attacks or do you spend a standard action, or is the tower shield an even larger piece of junk than I gave it credit for ? And the intent was to drop the shield just before beginning a grapple (thought I put that in there, woops).
TheMagister 01-10-07, 01:00 AM	Taking cover is a standard action that requires you to give up your attacks. TM
TheMagister 01-10-07, 02:33 AM	or is the tower shield an even larger piece of junk than I gave it credit for ? Not a piece of junk at all! It's all about location location location. In a 5' wide hall, a towershield is almost another wall to most normal creatures, and even some abnormal ones. Need true seeing for that displacer beast? My fighter can hold it off for a couple rounds. My enlarged fighter and the enlarged cleric (both with tower shields) can protect the whole party from dragon fire (if we ready an action to take cover if it breathes). Heck, even the rogue can pick up a tower shield and fill a gap while the cleric casts resist energy on everyone. However, in 1v1 combat, it's pretty limited. The sewer, the forest, and the cavern are about the only places it's worth anything, and that's because your opponent's movement options are somewhat limited. If they can out-flank you, then you're better off with force screen. YMMV.
hogarth 01-10-07, 08:19 AM	Also, grappling with a heavy or tower shield equipped is BAD. You end up taking the -20 penalty for grappling with one hand. TM You don't need hands to grapple (considering snakes and horses can do it). The -20 penalty refers to creatures with the Improved Grab ability: they can grapple someone and not be grappled in return if they take a -20 penalty on grapple checks.
Etiquette_Gnome 01-10-07, 01:35 PM	One final comment; I know this seems to be the expected rule in regards to being unable to start a fight with the armor removed (not arguing otherwise), but the Rules of Gladius should be more clear about it. All it says is that I have to bring any equipment not listed in the At Home section (thus possible encumberance issues), nothing about wearing/wielding. All of my tactics assumed this literally, thus the inclusion of dropping it on the ground at the start of the fight. This vagueness cost me a fight a couple weeks ago (on top of the pitlord not telling me about it, but that's a different gripe).
UserNamer 01-10-07, 01:57 PM	what the price for adding spells into your spellbook?
waywreth 01-10-07, 02:10 PM	what the price for adding spells into your spellbook? First off: Materials for writing the spell cost 100 gp per page. A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level Option 1. In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp. Option 2. Buy a scroll and copy the spell from the scroll into your spellbook. This option is only cost effective for first level spells. Please note the costs are in addition to the free spells you get at each level.
TelinArtho 01-10-07, 02:16 PM	One final comment; I know this seems to be the expected rule in regards to being unable to start a fight with the armor removed (not arguing otherwise), but the Rules of Gladius should be more clear about it. All it says is that I have to bring any equipment not listed in the At Home section (thus possible encumberance issues), nothing about wearing/wielding. All of my tactics assumed this literally, thus the inclusion of dropping it on the ground at the start of the fight. This vagueness cost me a fight a couple weeks ago (on top of the pitlord not telling me about it, but that's a different gripe). Send a PM to Cat to edit it in - that's about the best you can hope for.
UserNamer 01-10-07, 02:16 PM	First off: Materials for writing the spell cost 100 gp per page. A spell takes up one page of the spellbook per spell level Option 1. In most cases, wizards charge a fee for the privilege of copying spells from their spellbooks. This fee is usually equal to the spell’s level × 50 gp. Option 2. Buy a scroll and copy the spell from the scroll into your spellbook. This option is only cost effective for first level spells. Please note the costs are in addition to the free spells you get at each level. I don't understand option 2, why is it only for 1st lvl spells?
waywreth 01-10-07, 02:21 PM	@UserNamer - you can do it for any level, but it's only cost effective for first level spells. Option 1 - 1st level spell copying = 1*50 = 50gp + 100gp materials Option 2 - 1st level spell scroll purchase = 25gp + 100gp materials Option 2 is cheaper. Option 1 - 2nd level spell copying = 2*50 = 100gp + 200gp materials Option 2 - 2nd level scroll purchase = 150gp to 200gp + 200gp materials Option 1 is cheaper and will always be forever after.
TheMagister 01-10-07, 07:24 PM	Well, friends and neighbors, it's time for me to start up my last fight. Sutro and Rauul, look for it by midnight (US Central)! Off we go! TM
SauroGrenom 01-10-07, 09:46 PM	Alright, do you give up attacks or do you spend a standard action, or is the tower shield an even larger piece of junk than I gave it credit for ? And the intent was to drop the shield just before beginning a grapple (thought I put that in there, woops). An often neglected rule states that it is a move action to ready a large or tower shield. It is also a move action to remove a shiled of any kind. Keep in mind that removing a shield is not possible while in a grapple (there is a small list of options while grappling and that's not on the list).
TheMagister 01-10-07, 10:12 PM	Weapon (Sutro) vs. Rauul Darkstar (Rauul): [ECL3] Arena is up here. The sheer amount of 20s is impressive, even it the results of those rolls are not. :rolleyes: TM
TheMagister 01-10-07, 10:18 PM	An often neglected rule states that it is a move action to ready a large or tower shield. It is also a move action to remove a shiled of any kind. Keep in mind that removing a shield is not possible while in a grapple (there is a small list of options while grappling and that's not on the list). Right. It's possible to remove a shield and initiate a grapple in the same initiative count, but the target would have to be within 5' of you. Mssr. Hood almost beat Krug Butcher with that tactic (Krug had the tower shield, Hood waited till he got close enough and then went for the grapple: no AoO because of cover, Krug's touch AC was crap [he wasn't proficient with the shield]. Of course, Hood rolled a natural 1 and then lost.) Regarding the -20 to grappling for using only one hand: I'm sure it's in the FAQ somewhere. I only wish I could look it up myself, but the darned firewall kills that page. I'm lucky I can access the boards (without a direct link, I wouldn't be able to). TM
NiQil 01-10-07, 10:32 PM	So any sign of Mitza? We're past the halfway point of our extended pairings, and none of her 5 fights are up...haven't seen any posts in this thread confirming tactics receipt and such either...
TheMagister 01-10-07, 10:36 PM	She said we wouldn't see her till after the 10th.
McJarvis 01-11-07, 12:08 AM	She said we wouldn't see her till after the 10th. ...which is why I've been putting off the miniquest I'm doing for her. <_< >_> yeah, that's it...that's why I haven't done it yet....
Macbrea 01-11-07, 01:33 AM	She is still alive! She just has been workin' this week. Hopefully, I can get to my fight tommorrow or the next day!
TelinArtho 01-11-07, 12:40 PM	And to address any possible concerns - I've been slowly working on the Durin vs Sybil fight... painfully slow as things are getting complicated tactics-wise...
Etiquette_Gnome 01-11-07, 04:58 PM	Hmm, didn't quite expect to find this, as I was perusing the FAQ for other stuff... ...You continue to threaten the area around you while you use the shield for cover; however, it provides your opponents with the same benefits you get. You cannot make attacks through the side of your space that the shield blocks, and should you attack through the corners of that space, your foe gets cover against your attack. Since cover of any kind prevents attacks of opportunity (see page 151 in the Player’s Handbook), the shield keeps you from making attacks of opportunity in a pretty wide swath. Further on in the text, the bolded part done by me... ... A tower shield’s effects on magical attacks depend on the kind of magical attack. Any attack aimed at your equipment is aimed at you. If a magical attack has you as a specific target (that is it does not merely affect the area that contains you but is aimed right at you), the shield has no effect. All rays fall into this category, as does any spell that has a Target entry in its header and any spell that has an Effect entry and affects creatures (provided, of course, that the attacker can and does choose the shield user as a target). Magical attacks that fill areas (bursts, cones, cylinders, lines, emanations, and spreads) are subject to all the rules for cover on page 151 of the Player’s Handbook. ... I may not agree with such, but there's a decidedly solid response to its usage. Heck, I'm finding a bunch of interesting stuff in here; like grapple attempts not being able to score a critical hit (or auto-hitting with natural 20s & missing on natural 1s). It also states that you can use polymorph or alter self (and similar spells) to turn into advanced versions of creatures (higher HD, all that jazz), though recommended to avoid allowing such.
TheMagister 01-11-07, 06:45 PM	Man, I really hate that ruling. That's tantamount to ruling that (in a barfight, for example) a fighter that upended a table (for use as an improvised tower shield) could still be hit with a ray of frost, but a fighter that upended a table and dropped prone behind it (for use as total cover) could not be targeted. It's stupid. Furthermore, it's a blatant misreading of the "Aiming a Spell" rules. A ray is *not* a targeted spell. You can't cast a targeted spell into a completely dark area because you don't have a target. You *can* aim a ray into a completely dark area and hope you hit something. You don't need a target for a ray, just a direction. Let me ask this: If the creature you are attacking is around the corner from you in such a way that he would have cover from a ranged attack that you made, could you target him with a hold monster spell? Of course you could, because you can see him. You have LOS (you just need to see any part of him). If the caster aims a ray at the same creature in the same situation, would the creature get a cover bonus to AC? Absolutely! Why? Because there's a chance that the ray could hit the cover! Simple logic, right? A set tower shield mimics total cover. When you set your tower shield against an opponent in the correct position, all they can see is the tower shield. They can't even see your feet (because that would only be improved cover). There's just nothing to hit with a ray but the shield, and there are rules for targeting equipment with rays. Now, the "Aiming a Spell" rules do deal specifically with "targeted" spells (which are any spells that have a "Target:" entry in their spell header). "Targeted" spells treat a creature's equipment as part of the creature, so a spellcaster need only specify, "I cast hold person, with my target being the character holding that tower shield," and that's good enough. Rays just aren't targeted spells, because they don't have a "Target:" entry. He's just plain wrong. TM
Etiquette_Gnome 01-11-07, 07:01 PM	Just a side note, as someone who has been trying to get some use out of tower shield for some time now, I agree. It was just the only information I could find in regards to 'official' word on the tower shield.
TheMagister 01-11-07, 07:16 PM	The "he" I was referring to is the FAQ writer (his name escapes me in my rage), not you, dude. Maybe he should add the tower shield to the "There, Not There" Rules of the Game article, since the wood obviously seems to cease to exist as soon as someone picks it up.
Vathelokai 01-11-07, 07:42 PM	@Telin: Have an ETA on the ecl4 teams fight? No rush; just curious.
TelinArtho 01-11-07, 08:28 PM	ETA is sometime after I'm done with the mess of a fight between Durin and Sybil... Which is to say - likely on Monday at this point (knowing my schedule tomorrow and over the weekend). I admit it - I knew I had two weeks and ended up procrastinating... they will get done though...
McJarvis 01-12-07, 11:05 AM	During my vacation to the old country this last Christmas, Krytos commented to me that fights seem to either get done asap or they get done on Monday. There is very little in between. This two week break is just showing that off :)
hogarth 01-12-07, 11:59 AM	During my vacation to the old country this last Christmas, Krytos commented to me that fights seem to either get done asap or they get done on Monday. I would amend that to say "either get done asap or they get done on Tuesday". ;)
Erithmu 01-12-07, 01:13 PM	Just checking on something here: When activating a scroll, if the caster has ASF happen, the spell on the scroll is ruined. The spell is still used, and it is the armor that causes the spell to fizzle.
Sjiggie 01-12-07, 01:34 PM	I believe that is correct because you only get a scroll mishap when you fail on a caster level check. The scroll would be used since you tried to cast the spell from the scroll and failed to do so. To have any chance of activating a scroll spell, the scroll user must meet the following requirements. The spell must be of the correct type (arcane or divine). Arcane spellcasters (wizards, sorcerers, and bards) can only use scrolls containing arcane spells, and divine spellcasters (clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers) can only use scrolls containing divine spells. (The type of scroll a character creates is also determined by his or her class.) The user must have the spell on his or her class list. The user must have the requisite ability score. If the user meets all the requirements noted above, and her caster level is at least equal to the spell’s caster level, she can automatically activate the spell without a check. If she meets all three requirements but her own caster level is lower than the scroll spell’s caster level, then she has to make a caster level check (DC = scroll’s caster level + 1) to cast the spell successfully. If she fails, she must make a DC 5 Wisdom check to avoid a mishap (see Scroll Mishaps, below). A natural roll of 1 always fails, whatever the modifiers. Casting an Arcane Spell in Armor A character who casts an arcane spell while wearing armor must usually make an arcane spell failure roll. The number in the Arcane Spell Failure Chance column on Table: Armor and Shields is the chance that the spell fails and is ruined
Erithmu 01-12-07, 01:39 PM	Not looking at a mishap, just a 'fizzle' or failure. The CL check is not in question. @Zevox: 4 ASFs 10 rounds in ... working out the details
Sjiggie 01-12-07, 02:41 PM	The SRD also says that the writing for a activated spell dissapears from the scroll. So when the spell fails due to ASF the scroll is still activated so the writing dissapears and the scroll is used.
Erithmu 01-12-07, 05:03 PM	Eraca vs 3 Half-Fiend Displacer Beasts I dislike a monster that isn't in the SRD.
spasheridan 01-12-07, 06:24 PM	the reason that a ray of frost ignores a tower shield is the same reason that your touch AC does not include your heavy shield - magic rays go right through attended objects. In the bar fight scenario, the wizard could target the table that a fighter had dropped behind and blow it up. If the fighter was holding it, the cover is no longer targetable. This is an extension of the rules that you cannot target held items - otherwise we could drop sonic-missiles on all of your gear and destroy them rnd 1. It's a weird extension of the rules, but the gist is that an untargetable object should not give you total cover - because then it becomes an indestructable object because of it's attended status.
Zevox 01-12-07, 09:52 PM	Eraca vs 3 Half-Fiend Displacer Beasts I dislike a monster that isn't in the SRD. Looks mostly fine to me, though the darkness (and dispelling it) was pretty unnecessary since they already had 50% concealment anyway, and unless I'm mistaken multiple sources of concealment do not force multiple checks, but just use the better one. The one note is on the Pearl she used (and the two parts of it cancel each other out) - it would be a standard action, so she couldn't recall it and recast in the same round, but since she had that spell prepared twice there really wasn't any need for it anyway. Effect winds up the same as if she had cast the other then recalled it as I planned to do if she failed the ASF anyway. @Zevox: yea .... just a consideration: your armor gives +5, and Mage Armor gives +4. You buff too many spells, and at 10% you are bound to fail at least one a match. Her armor though can be further enhanced, while mage armor cannot. I intend to make it +2 so it gives +6 armor soon (and further on increase it all the way to +5 for a +9 armor bonus), and in the long run she'll probably be selling her Cloak/Boots of Elvenkind and putting Improved/Greater Shadow and Silent Moves on her armor for better bonuses to hide and MS. Since she is going to be an Arcane Archer with more focus on physical combat than magical (she'll probably never take another Wizard level at this point), the armor is worth it. As for the buffs, yeah, for that fight she needed too many to do what I wanted to do. Partially because of the number of foes, partially because I haven't yet coughed up the 2k to enchant her scythe, partially because for some reason I was convinced doing some meleeing before the archery would be a good idea. I expected to be hit by it sometime, just not that much. Zevox
Erithmu 01-12-07, 10:03 PM	Darkness was dispeled as you don't have darkvision and you couldn't see them
Zevox 01-12-07, 10:09 PM	Darkness was dispeled as you don't have darkvision and you couldn't see them Um, magical darkness like that only provides 20% concealment - take a look at the spell description. If it was actually that good, I'd be having Archdevil Asran use it a lot more than he does. Zevox
Erithmu 01-12-07, 10:14 PM	Um, magical darkness like that only provides 20% concealment - take a look at the spell description. If it was actually that good, I'd be having Archdevil Asran use it a lot more than he does. Zevox Hun ... I gave that spell more credit than it was worth. I'll go take the Dispel wand charge off the Used list.
MitzaVolchenko 01-14-07, 09:15 AM	ECL 3 is running today. Sorry to be taking this long...had a wee issue last week. I should have all fights up today/tonight. Unfortunately, I am doing them from work, so they will be with my dice rolled at my desk.
MitzaVolchenko 01-14-07, 02:25 PM	Bulgar surrenders to Blizzrd here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11177356&postcount=461)
NiQil 01-14-07, 02:35 PM	Bulgar surrenders to Blizzrd here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11177356&postcount=461) My apologies for the over-elaborate tactics...I read the wrong part of the character sheet and thought the dog would be there. Could have saved myself lots of time with those tactics if I hadn't made the error.
MitzaVolchenko 01-14-07, 07:10 PM	Gorgox surrenders to Sabra here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11182075&postcount=462) Come on guys...I work 'til 2am...gimme something to do!!!
Etiquette_Gnome 01-15-07, 12:36 AM	I don't care that two-thirds of my victories are from lack of tactics on my opponent's part, it's downright weird for Sabra to be winning so often.
MitzaVolchenko 01-15-07, 12:44 AM	I don't care that two-thirds of my victories are from lack of tactics on my opponent's part, it's downright weird for Sabra to be winning so often. Be happy that I couldn't justify running from past tactics since Ihave steadfastly refused to do so for anyone else for a very long time :)
TelinArtho 01-15-07, 12:17 PM	Durin (Maraxus) vs Sybil ap Kalten (MitzaVolchenko) is up. A surprisingly complex fight to run.
TheMagister 01-15-07, 12:33 PM	From what I understood in the tactics, the fight took place in the sewers, right? So wouldn't Slepnir (a large creature) always move at 1/2 speed (20 ft.) b/c of the water? When entangled, the horse only moves at 1/4 speed (10 ft.). How is Durin catching Sybil when Sybil has Expeditious Retreat up? Can you run through difficult terrain?
TelinArtho 01-15-07, 12:41 PM	He wasn't running. First of all - while the horse was entangled - Durin didn't catch up with Sybil. However, his tactics said to position himself midway along a corridor, while Sybil's tactics said to wait at a corner for him to turn it - fire and then move away - again ending at a corner so she can repeat it. However when the horse is no longer entangled, Durin is double moving 40ft down the hallway at normal speed, or at 60ft when Spurring his mount. With a reach weapon - he's getting the amount of movement he needs to get Sybil in range. Had the fight gone on long enough - he would eventually have killed his mount trying to close the distance, but that's the way it goes sometimes...
TheMagister 01-15-07, 02:19 PM	O.K. ... When he spurs his mount, the mount's speed increases by +10 ft., right? 60+10=70. 70 x .66 (encumbrance) = 45 ft. 45 ft. / 2 (difficult terrain) = 20 ft. 20 ft. x 2 (double move) = 40 ft. The way you're doing it, the mount is getting the +10 ft. for "free", (i.e. - not subject to conditions). Is that the way we're supposed to calculate it? (I'm not deliberately trying to be a jerk. Sorry for being so persistent.) Edit: I see where I screwed up - 70 ft. (14 squares) x .66 (encumbrance) = 45 ft. (9 squares) 45 ft. (9 squares) x 2 (double move) = 90 ft. (18 squares) 90 ft. (18 squares) / 2 (difficult terrain) = 45 ft. (9 squares) on a double move. TM
TelinArtho 01-15-07, 02:29 PM	Close - do remember that while "difficult terrain" halves your movement, it is actually just costing you 10ft per 5ft moved. That is to say - instead of moving 40 ft on a double move, it is 20ft on a single move and 45 ft on a double move. (He gets 9 5ft increments to use per move - if he does a single move, he uses 8 of them, but on a double move, he gets to use the full 18). Looking over the movement again, I think this is still enough to do as I described.
Maraxus 01-15-07, 03:44 PM	We'll neven know without maps. ;) I have done Istima vs. Relanex btw.
Zevox 01-15-07, 03:53 PM	We'll neven know without maps. ;) I have done Istima vs. Relanex btw. Looks good to me. Thanks for the run. Zevox: When you sucessfully pin your opponent, he is immoblised, setting his Dex to 0 (and obviously a modifier of -5) so in the futur, better use fire on (most) pinned opponents. For example, Relaxne's Ref save drops to -3 which is much worse then his fort save of +3. The description of being pinned doesn't seem to indicate that would be the case - it only says they take -4 to AC while pinned. In fact, if his dex were 0, he'd be helpless (and thus a viable CDG target), which it specifically says a pinned foe is not. Where do you get this from? Zevox
hogarth 01-15-07, 03:57 PM	The description of being pinned doesn't seem to indicate that would be the case - it only says they take -4 to AC while pinned. In fact, if his dex were 0, he'd be helpless (and thus a viable CDG target), which it specifically says a pinned foe is not. Where do you get this from? Zevox It's a footnote to the Combat Modifiers table: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm Pinned -44 +04 4. Treat the defender’s Dexterity as 0 (-5 modifier). Rogues can sneak attack helpless or pinned defenders. I didn't believe it myself until someone pointed it out to me.
TelinArtho 01-15-07, 04:53 PM	Progress on the team fight is ongoing, just slow since I've been very busy these last few days. I still expect to be done before the deadline tomorrow - but I will definitely finish before Wednesday.
Zevox 01-15-07, 10:15 PM	It's a footnote to the Combat Modifiers table: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/combat/combatModifiers.htm I didn't believe it myself until someone pointed it out to me. Huh - very interesting. I'll have to remember that one. Makes Telekinetic Maneuver even more useful than it already was. Zevox
nightbanegod 01-15-07, 10:31 PM	Be happy that I couldn't justify running from past tactics since Ihave steadfastly refused to do so for anyone else for a very long time :) hey. i never got any word after the fact of me asking you to use the same tactics from the last fight. i had IMed you with the request and never got a denial...
Etiquette_Gnome 01-15-07, 11:24 PM	That does seem a bit unfair, as you actually requested those set of tactics (assuming this is true). Although, it might have been easier for you to actually go through the work of copy+paste of your old tactics to minimize issues. I'm likely missing some facts here, so, I don't know...*shrug*
MitzaVolchenko 01-16-07, 02:24 AM	hey. i never got any word after the fact of me asking you to use the same tactics from the last fight. i had IMed you with the request and never got a denial... Hon, three quarters of the time I am not at my IM. I know we talked about the fact that I was running your fight, but you did not specify anything regarding tactics at that time. If you left an IM message after that time, I didn't get it. IF I have time, I will go back and run the fight presuming EG has no complaints.
Etiquette_Gnome 01-16-07, 03:22 AM	I like to think I'm reasonable most of the time (the cursed internet ruins tone, so I can come off as more whiny than I mean to be). I don't have any issues with the fight actually being run, aside from a minor concern of the possible week extension from this.
MitzaVolchenko 01-16-07, 03:33 AM	Artificer vs. Red Mage is up here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11196580&postcount=466) Wildfire vs. Scallas is here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11196851&postcount=468) @ EG and NBG there is no cause for extension. I will run it if I have time. I still have to translate my had run fights that I did at work onto maps and post them. When I am done with that, if I am still bright eyed and bushy tailed, I'll run your fight. NBG, ya know I love ya, but I am classically not really at my computer and given that my average response time to ya on IM is around 17hrs or not at all, ya know I may not get IM's.
Sutro 01-16-07, 08:44 AM	Mitza: My understanding is that my readied action should have still gone off, regardless of whether or not he actually charged. I've always played and seen it played as the readied action is for an attack when he enters a threatened square, doing double damage per core rules if he's charging when he does so; I've never seen it done differently. If this is how the ruling stands - that setting for a charge does not constitute a readied attack except against a charge - then I would like to see this ruling added to the Prison house rules. Edit: Also, after the longspear attack, I don't have to move away from him to draw my greatsword and pound per tactics (wasting a round of attacking in the process). It's drop longspear (free) rage (free) draw greatsword (move, drawing weapon does not draw AOO) attack (standard). Also, you never had me tap my tattoo of force screen per tactics, which would have voided all three attacks (18, 17 and 17) since my AC should have been 20, dropping to 18 after the rage - but I wasn't yet in rage for the first roll of 18. -Sutro
MindWandererB 01-16-07, 11:14 AM	@Sutro: The way you've "always played and seen it played" is simply wrong, by all counts. A readied action goes off when the trigger for that action is met. If you say to attack when your opponent charges, then you ignore all other forms of movement or attack. That doesn't need to be in a court decision, because it's very explicit in the rules, and especially in the FAQ.
hogarth 01-16-07, 11:23 AM	@Sutro: The way you've "always played and seen it played" is simply wrong, by all counts. A readied action goes off when the trigger for that action is met. If you say to attack when your opponent charges, then you ignore all other forms of movement or attack. That doesn't need to be in a court decision, because it's very explicit in the rules, and especially in the FAQ. Note that he didn't say "I ready an action to attack him if (and only if) he charges me." He used the "set for charge" action which is not terribly well-defined in the SRD. It could mean "only attack anyone who charges me and I do double damage" or it could mean "attack anyone who comes within range, and if they happened to be charging I do double damage". All it says is: "Spears, tridents, and certain other piercing weapons deal double damage when readied (set) and used against a charging character." and "If you use a ready action to set a longspear against a charge, you deal double damage on a successful hit against a charging character."
TelinArtho 01-16-07, 11:26 AM	Maelosh the Breaker (Hrothmund) and Linus Caldwell (UserNamer) vs The Illustrated Man (McJarvis) and Zodiac (Vathelokai) is up. Another complicated fight, but mostly with strange modifiers... Anyway - in regards to the Ready vs a charge - I agree with MWB that if he is set to receive a charge - he is not readied if the person comes into range with something other than a charge.
TheMagister 01-16-07, 11:43 AM	Hey, Telin? Why the 12.5% penalty on xp for TIM and Zodiac? Zodiac doesn't have any allies, and Dreamer is TIM's class ally. TM
TelinArtho 01-16-07, 11:44 AM	Simple clerical error... one moment please... and fixed.
MitzaVolchenko 01-16-07, 12:25 PM	Mitza: My understanding is that my readied action should have still gone off, regardless of whether or not he actually charged. I've always played and seen it played as the readied action is for an attack when he enters a threatened square, doing double damage per core rules if he's charging when he does so; I've never seen it done differently. If this is how the ruling stands - that setting for a charge does not constitute a readied attack except against a charge - then I would like to see this ruling added to the Prison house rules. Edit: Also, after the longspear attack, I don't have to move away from him to draw my greatsword and pound per tactics (wasting a round of attacking in the process). It's drop longspear (free) rage (free) draw greatsword (move, drawing weapon does not draw AOO) attack (standard). Also, you never had me tap my tattoo of force screen per tactics, which would have voided all three attacks (18, 17 and 17) since my AC should have been 20, dropping to 18 after the rage - but I wasn't yet in rage for the first roll of 18. -Sutro I'll look at the tattoo...I may have missed that trying to read the paragraph. @Telin I am trying to figure out the movement in Durin vs. Sybil. I mapped the first round and it doesn't work. The horse is slowed to half movement by the water anywhere but its start square that gives it a move of 20 or 40' doubled. I'll keep looking when I am more awake. Edit: That movement for the fight is impossible. The horse is moving through walls and Sybil is throwing things through walls if I am understanding at all. I gave up at round 4 when I couldn't figure out how the end positions could be possible with the round description. Corbin vs. Bazili is here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=11197031&postcount=469) Sorry...hit the post button only to have the boards be down for maintenance and fell asleep in my chair waiting on them to come back up.
MitzaVolchenko 01-16-07, 12:35 PM	@Sutro You are correct. I missed your force screen as I was puzzling over the diagonal...I will edit when my coffee is ready.
TelinArtho 01-16-07, 12:52 PM	I'll take a look at the movement again to be sure, but I believe they are correct. Give me a while though - work is mighty busy today.
MitzaVolchenko 01-16-07, 01:04 PM	I'll take a look at the movement again to be sure, but I believe they are correct. Give me a while though - work is mighty busy today. Take your time. I won't be editing until I get home from work @ 2:30am or so.
McJarvis 01-16-07, 01:12 PM	Regarding Artificer fight: Owwwwww........shocking!
TelinArtho 01-16-07, 01:36 PM	Okay Sybil vs Durin has been edited to include the map summaries. I did identify two errors in position, but they wouldn't have made a difference in the end.
MitzaVolchenko 01-16-07, 02:02 PM	Okay Sybil vs Durin has been edited to include the map summaries. I did identify two errors in position, but they wouldn't have made a difference in the end. I'm not going to argue it again, but I don't get withdraw in Rund 7 when she didn't need to and then take the AoO in 11 when she really didn't need to. I would have to go through and map the entire thing myself to be certain of the movement, but there does not seem to be any reason that she should ever end up based by something that moves that much slower. She isn't stupid, she does know the map, and there are plenty of places in open pathways to keep her ideal range and prevent him from basing and attacking in the same round. Durin's tactics do not include pushing his mount, but you did him the courtesy of using that though his tactics do include sending a damaged mount away. I am not happy with the way that ran, but I don't have the time to round by round it. Forgive me, but the frustration of having superior movement wasted time and again is getting to me. This is not the first loss that Sybil will be taking because for some reason superior movement means "Hit me, I like it." I am fairly certain after reading his tactics that even though he would be in delay penalty first, you moved her right into his readied action instead of forcing him to pursue which was my intention. That for lack of any better description, bites.
TheMagister 01-16-07, 02:18 PM	Can't Sybil Tumble to avoid movement-related AoOs from Durin? She's got a +8 in the skill... TM
TelinArtho 01-16-07, 03:29 PM	First off, let me address doing something that is not in his tactics to do: Spur the mount, if it looks like a good idea. Ok on to the rest: I'm not going to argue it again, but I don't get withdraw in Rund 7 when she didn't need to and then take the AoO in 11 when she really didn't need to. You withdrew in round 5 - because your opponent was threatening you with a melee reach weapon and your tactics indicated wanting to stay away as best you could: Use superior movement rate to avoid coming too close to him. In round 11, I don't see how you expect to not draw an AoO. She isn't stupid, she does know the map, and there are plenty of places in open pathways to keep her ideal range and prevent him from basing and attacking in the same round. Yes, but the same could be said of Durin - he knows the map as well and has planned well to ready to base you. If I had both of you sitting with him at the midway point of the corridor and you at a corner without LOS to either one, I hate to tell you, but Sybil is the one who is going to get hit with the penalty. Why? Because, in the spirit of the rule, you should not penalize the character who cannot overcome a proactive tactic of his/her opponent. If a flying character is above a melee character who has no ranged weapon, the melee character is not to get penalized while avoiding combat - hoping to find an edge to get in. Moreover, your tactics read to me that you wanted to engage your opponent. By sitting in a corner - you would just be using up time on your short-duration buffs. Great speed can be a good advantage. In a limited LOS and hindered terrain type map like this one - even a slow character can get the fast character if he plans right. Durin's tactics did exactly that.
Maraxus 01-16-07, 03:30 PM	I'm not going to argue it again, but I don't get withdraw in Rund 7 when she didn't need to and then take the AoO in 11 when she really didn't need to. I would have to go through and map the entire thing myself to be certain of the movement, but there does not seem to be any reason that she should ever end up based by something that moves that much slower. She isn't stupid, she does know the map, and there are plenty of places in open pathways to keep her ideal range and prevent him from basing and attacking in the same round. Durin's tactics do not include pushing his mount, but you did him the courtesy of using that though his tactics do include sending a damaged mount away. I am not happy with the way that ran, but I don't have the time to round by round it. Forgive me, but the frustration of having superior movement wasted time and again is getting to me. This is not the first loss that Sybil will be taking because for some reason superior movement means "Hit me, I like it." I am fairly certain after reading his tactics that even though he would be in delay penalty first, you moved her right into his readied action instead of forcing him to pursue which was my intention. That for lack of any better description, bites. First, I did mention to spur the mount. Then: well with 25 ft moves or double moves for 50, I can really cover a lot of area in these sewers. However, even then I did mention my intention, that if you move so fast as you did, to act. "delay 9 rounds - engage 1 round - delay 9 rounds - ..." Reducing your possible hit and run rounds to 2 or 3. And even that only with a bit of luck, because again: 50 ft with a double move? If I'm in the middle of one of those hallways, that's more then enought, they are not remotely 100 ft long.
TelinArtho 01-16-07, 03:42 PM	Just noticed that I missed a few things on the fight summary, so I added them in.
Sutro 01-16-07, 03:53 PM	Thanks for editing Mitza, but I'm still not sure why in round 4 I wasn't just able to drop longspear (free), rage (free), draw greatsword (move, drawing weapon doesn't provoke per SRD provocation table) and swing (standard.) If you're not up for editing it further, I understand, however. @MWB: What Hogarth said, who as usual explains it much more clearly than I do. The SRD does not adequately explain what "setting for a charge" actually -is-. The exact quote is "ready an action to set for a charge." Well, what's setting for a charge? Having some experience in this realm, visually, there is very little body mechanic difference between setting for a cavalry charge and "readying an action to attack." In the case of setting for a cav charge, you can either cradle the spear and tilt it downward so the butt of the spear is driven into the ground after the point has penetrated, giving you ~six inches more space before that lance splits your skull, or you can preset it into the ground and brace. "Readying an action" would have the same basic spear mechanic - carrying to the side, using two hands to constantly jab and threaten, the only difference being the spear isn't tilted downward or the butt isn't in the ground. In both cases you're still moving the spear point around to confuse the attacker of the angle. Whatever if you guys rule against this (and seeing as how on the elder count it's already 0-2, I don't see an outcome in my favor), but I strongly believe it's enough of a grey area to quantify as a house rule and be placed in the prison. I don't understand resistance to that notion, as there's rulings in there that to me are much less ambiguous than this one, and anything we can do to establish continuity and ease new player adjustment to CoCo rules is a positive. -Sutro
MitzaVolchenko 01-16-07, 04:00 PM	If I had both of you sitting with him at the midway point of the corridor and you at a corner without LOS to either one, I hate to tell you, but Sybil is the one who is going to get hit with the penalty. Why? Because, in the spirit of the rule, you should not penalize the character who cannot overcome a proactive tactic of his/her opponent. If a flying character is above a melee character who has no ranged weapon, the melee character is not to get penalized while avoiding combat - hoping to find an edge to get in. This fight aside, you are saying that you would penalize her for picking a corner and waiting but not him for standing around and forcing her to let him base her?! HE HAS A RANGED WEAPON. HE CHOSE NOT TO USE IT AND YOU PENALIZED ME FOR IT. Aside from that she has spares of all of her buffs except Expeditious which has 41 rounds of yummy goodness. That argument is bunk. Whatever. @Maraxus...missed the spur when I read your tactics. I find no fault with you. Reading Telin's commentary, I see his opinion of how that fight should go and he ran it to his satisfaction. It is lame in my eyes, but I am not the pitlord for that fight.
TelinArtho 01-16-07, 04:55 PM	I am sorry if you feel that I have slighted you in this fight Mitza, but I really don't think I deserve the comments. Maraxus had set out a specific strategy to get around your superior movement. Your tactics were urgent - in that they would fail if you took too much time. Had I run the fight differently, and instead have you delay until neither one of you had LOS, then your speed advantage would have run out. Then your tactics called for engaging in melee. This is now the second time you have clashed with me about a fight that I ran. I don't appreciate the tone you take when talking about issues with your fights.
McJarvis 01-16-07, 05:28 PM	I am sorry if you feel that I have slighted you in this fight Mitza, but I really don't think I deserve the comments. ((/me puts on his angry mask)) After what you subjected us to after UnCon you deserve everything you get! ((/me takes off mask)) O :- )
Maraxus 01-16-07, 05:57 PM	Looks like Ihdald vs Balrog is done Hm, just to my opponent: Well, my first priority was to get next to you at the end of every round. With my rider spuring me (what I also mentioned in my tactic), this could have worked on the first round, bringing me an AoO eiother for you using the scroll, or for moving. Then, in the 2nd round, I could have move around your harmless snake, without taking an AoO or loosing an action, forbitting you AoO-less shooting for 2 rounds! Well, apart from that... okay, in round 4, we are exactly 15 ft away from another, so my action to charge you with the spiked gauntlet would trigger. With +2 attack, this would have actually hit for 2d6+14 damage. But that's just coincidence, that I missed exactly by 1. As it turns out, I bet, this could have changed something. ... but basicly it's just minor stuff. Technically everything is okay and as longas the pitlord has a good reason to "adjust" my tactics (Like: OMG, there is a snake in my way, it will kill me, if I ignore it), then I'm okay with it. On the other hand I expect them to not run me like an automaton when something unexpected happens, so ... well bad luck. :) Yes, I'm just a bad looser. ;-)
Macbrea 01-16-07, 06:03 PM	The snake is a medium sized critter... you cannot enter it's square without overrunning or bull rushing it. And you faced the Snake (ally) of your opponent for 2 rounds. I wouldn't say you were treated like an automaton.
TheMagister 01-16-07, 06:12 PM	Simply because I'm currently running a speedy ranged character (Rubicanti) and because I hate seeing a speedy ranged character get based and melee'd by a slow dwarf, I'm going to look at the fight in detail. R5: Sybil does not have to withdraw. She has cover from Durin's reach weapon due to the corner of the wall. She could actually fire and then single move. R11: the AoO for movement should happen only if Sybil fails a Tumble check (DC 15). She has a +8 modifier. If successful she will not be tripped and will be able to finish her movement in whatever way seems best. Something like this would fit her tactics, using her tumble to back out of the threatened area and around a corner. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Dur,L,22,3,Duri nSlepnir;b=Sybi,M,21,4,26,12,Sybil Durin would then move Slepnir to mid-way along the corridor and ready an action to move to base on sight. Sybil would then move up to try to take a shot, and would trigger the readied move. Durin would get this far: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Dur,L,22,3,21,6 ,21,10,DurinSlepnir;b=Sybi,M,26,12,23,12 ,Sybil Note that Sybil has cover from Durin. Sybil would then move away again. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Dur,L,22,3,21,6 ,21,10,DurinSlepnir;b=Sybi,M,26,12,23,12 ,31,12,Sybil Durin, having lost sight of Sybil, would move back south and ready to move on sight. Sybil would come back, looking to make offense. Durin would move and threaten, and Sybil would either tumble away or just move away if she has cover. She would have to double move to break LOS. The dance would continue until Sybil's ER runs out, or until Telin decides to move to the "summon rats" part of Sybil's tactics. I'll have to remember the "ready to move" strategy in those sewers; that'll be handy for Tessero. Whatcha thinkin', Mitza? TM
Maraxus 01-16-07, 06:23 PM	The snake is a medium sized critter... you cannot enter it's square without overrunning or bull rushing it. And you faced the Snake (ally) of your opponent for 2 rounds. I wouldn't say you were treated like an automaton. Nono, moving around. In round 1 simply next to it, it's flatt-footed. And in round 2: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=temple;a=Name,L,29,8,29 ,3,26,3,26,4;b=Name,M,26,5;c=Name,M,27,5 45 ft of movement, so I still have my attack on whoever I want now, and my opponent takes two little or one heavy AoO. But if you did not see this, I don't expect my Int 6 Beast to see this either, so don't have a sleepless night over it. ;)
spasheridan 01-16-07, 10:22 PM	Isn't readying to move illegal in here?
NiQil 01-16-07, 10:28 PM	Isn't readying to move illegal in here? Only if you are using it to avoid attacks/spells, etc. If you are using it for something else, such as readying to move in the direction of my opponent upon gaining LOS, or readying to move to cover upon LOS of my opponent, is perfectly legal. It's all in the wording of the ready action. If you say "I want to ready to move away from my opponent as soon as LOS is gained," that is perfectly fine. If you say "I want to ready to move out of spell range as soon as he start casting," that is illegal. It's all in the wording.
Erithmu 01-16-07, 10:43 PM	The Regiment battle is done for CEF vs Gawane. Where do I post it? Battles thread or Guild hall?
Vathelokai 01-16-07, 11:24 PM	Maelosh the Breaker (Hrothmund) and Linus Caldwell (UserNamer) vs The Illustrated Man (McJarvis) and Zodiac (Vathelokai) is up. Another complicated fight, but mostly with strange modifiers... Thanks for the run! Only things of note: Zodiac was in fight 2 of his cycle. Dosn't TIM get an xp reduction for his mount?
Guildmaster_LOY 01-16-07, 11:30 PM	Thanks for the run! Only things of note: Zodiac was in fight 2 of his cycle. Dosn't TIM get an xp reduction for his mount? TIM's mount is a class ally :)
Zevox 01-17-07, 08:17 AM	@ McJarvis - Just noticed that Indrithia vs Krug is up (save rewards), and there is one comment I'd like to make: Only Krug's first and last trips were impossible for Indrithia to resist. When resisting a trip you can use either your strength or dexterity mods, whichever is higher, and Indrithia's +5 dexterity could potentially have resisted results of 22 and 23. Of course, due to how highly unlikely it is to have any effect on the fight itself, I won't ask for an edit for it, but I figured you should be aware of this for the future. Otherwise looks good, thanks for the run :) . Zevox
TelinArtho 01-17-07, 09:49 AM	Simply because I'm currently running a speedy ranged character (Rubicanti) and because I hate seeing a speedy ranged character get based and melee'd by a slow dwarf, I'm going to look at the fight in detail. R5: Sybil does not have to withdraw. She has cover from Durin's reach weapon due to the corner of the wall. She could actually fire and then single move. R11: the AoO for movement should happen only if Sybil fails a Tumble check (DC 15). She has a +8 modifier. If successful she will not be tripped and will be able to finish her movement in whatever way seems best. Something like this would fit her tactics, using her tumble to back out of the threatened area and around a corner. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Dur,L,22,3,Duri nSlepnir;b=Sybi,M,21,4,26,12,Sybil Durin would then move Slepnir to mid-way along the corridor and ready an action to move to base on sight. Sybil would then move up to try to take a shot, and would trigger the readied move. Durin would get this far: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Dur,L,22,3,21,6 ,21,10,DurinSlepnir;b=Sybi,M,26,12,23,12 ,Sybil Note that Sybil has cover from Durin. Sybil would then move away again. http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=Dur,L,22,3,21,6 ,21,10,DurinSlepnir;b=Sybi,M,26,12,23,12 ,31,12,Sybil Durin, having lost sight of Sybil, would move back south and ready to move on sight. Sybil would come back, looking to make offense. Durin would move and threaten, and Sybil would either tumble away or just move away if she has cover. She would have to double move to break LOS. The dance would continue until Sybil's ER runs out, or until Telin decides to move to the "summon rats" part of Sybil's tactics. I'll have to remember the "ready to move" strategy in those sewers; that'll be handy for Tessero. Whatcha thinkin', Mitza? TM First off, I am more than willing to fix the fight when there is an error in tactics presented. In this case, however, I don't see anything in Sybil's tactics about tumbling. Since tumbling isn't something that is used a lot - I admit I didn't think about using it. However, with the above, I'm not sure I agree about some of it. Editing in a new strategy after a fight has been posted is something I am not overly fond of. Bear in mind, had Mitza actually included something about tumbling in her tactics - I would be more than happy to edit in the changes. Without it - I am loathe to do so, but I will consider it. In the second map you posted, Sybil wouldn't have cover because the cover is closer to Durin (and in ranged combat, cover that is closer to you can be ignored for your attacks).
hogarth 01-17-07, 09:56 AM	In the second map you posted, Sybil wouldn't have cover because the cover is closer to Durin (and in ranged combat, cover that is closer to you can be ignored for your attacks). That only applies to cover from low obstacles.
TelinArtho 01-17-07, 10:13 AM	I just saw that but regardless in a situation like this: http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=sewer;a=dur,L,21,10;b=s yb,M,23,12;los=21,10,23,12,4 Sybil wouldn't have cover anyway, since he can choose the top left corner of his square and that wouldn't have cover. To determine whether your target has cover from your ranged attack, choose a corner of your square. If any line from this corner to any corner of the target’s square passes through a square or border that blocks line of effect or provides cover, or through a square occupied by a creature, the target has cover (+4 to AC). When making a melee attack against an adjacent target, your target has cover if any line from your square to the target’s square goes through a wall (including a low wall). When making a melee attack against a target that isn’t adjacent to you (such as with a reach weapon), use the rules for determining cover from ranged attacks. Just for the record, I rolled an attack for round 5, and Sybil missed. I am still determining whether Sybil should be allowed to tumble in that situation, but I have not made a decision on that matter yet. [EDIT] For that matter, given the point on pg 52 of the FAQ (12/8/2006), Durin could also use the intersection at the front of his two front squares. Also, in that third map that TM provided, Durin would still have sight on Sybil and could still spur his mount to get to (28,12) to threaten Sybil once again. I am reworking the fight to include the tumbles. If I don't have the time to finish before the deadline however, the fight will stand as is.
TelinArtho 01-17-07, 10:30 AM	I have finished editing the fight. In round 11, Sybil had to make a tumble check to escape without an AoO. Her DC was increased by +2 because she had to tumble into the water, which counts as difficult terrain. She rolled a 7+8 = 15. The fight result did not change.
TheMagister 01-17-07, 10:37 AM	Of course, your word as pitlord in this situation is law unless you directly mis-rule something. This is totally my opinion, but (to my mind) it is a pitlord's job to utilize a character's skills in their movements. Not doing so is...well...I don't know if I'd call it lazy exactly, but it's something like that. Not tumbling out of a threatened area is like not 5' stepping out of a threatened area before casting a spell; it just goes without saying. If you could have a character JUMP over the little water areas to save on movement, why wouldn't you? In Sybil's case, the speed bonus makes such Jump checks auto-successes; you wouldn't even have to roll them. Such minutae (again, this is only to my mind) doesn't need to be mentioned by a player in his tactics: the pitlord should recognize a character's abilities and use them situationally if it's in the character's best interest. Now, there's a difference between re-engineering a player's tactics and just making smart decisions: I'm just talking about making smart decisions in situations that come up. If a character can move from one side of a low wall to the other by two paths, take the shortest. If the shortest path involves jumping over the wall and the check is an auto-success, do it that way. It seems like common courtesy to me. If Sybil can tumble during her movement to avoid AoOs, doing so would seem like a foregone conclusion. Everyone pitlords differently, and I'm not (meaning to come across as) ridiculing your style at all. You personally have served the CoCo as a pitlord probably ten times as much as I have. I'm just making a suggestion and explaining my reasoning and thought process; that's all. Thanks for all your hard work! TM
TelinArtho 01-17-07, 10:51 AM	Well, the problem comes in that I don't have a lot of time and combing over the characters in question is not something I do as much as I used to (if you recall I used to do a full audit before most of my fights). Since tumbling in particular doesn't come up often - and is something I've only seen used infrequently, it is not surprising that I missed it as a possibility for movement. However, even so, mentioning it in tactics is not a bad idea. Take for instance Sir Valkin's tactics - 100% of the time I mention using ride for cover, use mounted combat to negate hits against him. No I don't think it is absolutely necessary to include it - but if a fight comes up where it isn't used - what argument would my opponent/pitlord have against having it. Not only is it on the sheet - it is also in the tactics. Explicitly. Doing a special maneuver - such as jumping and tumbling at the same time would certainly require mentioning in tactics - because it is outside of the regular realm of "what to do when you are threatened." One thing I would like to mention that since the jumping tumble is more difficult that a regular tumble - it would probably still require the +2 DC to the tumble check. I have made it quite clear throughout my pitlording career that I like things to be explicitly stated in tactics. I have a post in the pitlords thread that states as much as well: A Quick Note about Editing Fights: Just to be clear, I am not opposed to editing a fight until it is cleared by the players involved in most cases. However, I am loathe to edit a fight if the argument used is drawn on a lack of tactics. If I was forced to improvise a tactic because your own tactics were lacking or not clear enough - you can almost be guaranteed that I won't edit the fight. In other words - if I had to improvise and my improvisation didn't work out for you - sorry - that's just your luck. Next time - make sure your tactics include the contingencies needed to avoid improvisations. If I make a rules error - I will happily edit a fight, even if it doesn't look like it will change the result - as I feel that having the rules correctly used is much more important than anything else. If I am pressed for time - I might just edit in a note though. So - if you want to argue for a change in a fight - make sure you can point to clearly worded tactics that indicate that I have either missed or misread the tactic. Quoting your tactic and keeping an even "tone" will get you much more progress than chewing my head off or something similar.
TheMagister 01-17-07, 11:00 AM	Fair enough! ;)
Macbrea 01-17-07, 11:40 AM	I am not sure why tumbling for a bard/rogue should be seen as unusual normal movement when threatened. It is assumed that any warrior type riding a horse will ride for cover. It is assumed that any spellcaster/archer will take 5ft steps out of a threatened area to do their attack/spell. I guess the real problem comes in that players are going to need to write default items in their Default tactics to state the obvious. Example: Should I need to state default tactics on Izumi that says 'Please use my deflect arrow feat?' We have gotten to the point that we are starting to not use the basic abilities of the character listed. I guess it is each pitlords choice wether to run a chafacter as basicly as they wish. On predeciding fight results, I don't, I do however state aloud odds of one character beating the other. I run fights pretty sterilely with no real care who is the player. Oddly, for all the times I have run Mitza's fights she has lost. :P Mostly because I run as close to the rules as I can possibly run. I do take liberties with individuals tactics if it appears they have become broken. Example: in this weeks fight for myself. I decided that the character would take a step and read a scroll. Then basicly use archery for rest of fight. The tactics stated 'Move,shot, move, shot, ect until fight is over' if enganged in melee. I took that to mean take 5ft step and rapid shot. As the player had no chance of outrunning their opponent. Strickly by the tactics I could have taken that as take 30ft move and shoot after an AoO for moving and shooting. Which would have been ruled as absolutely stupid.
TelinArtho 01-17-07, 11:50 AM	I am not sure why tumbling for a bard/rogue should be seen as unusual normal movement when threatened. It is assumed that any warrior type riding a horse will ride for cover. It is assumed that any spellcaster/archer will take 5ft steps out of a threatened area to do their attack/spell. I guess the real problem comes in that players are going to need to right default items in their Default tactics to state the obvious. Example: Should I need to state default tactics on Izumi that says 'Please use my deflect arrow feat?' We have gotten to the point that we are starting to not use the basic abilities of the character listed. I guess it is each pitlords choice wether to run a chafacter as basicly as they wish. On predeciding fight results, I don't, I do however state aloud odds of one character beating the other. I run fights pretty sterilely with no real care who is the player. Oddly, for all the times I have run Mitza's fights she has lost. :P Mostly because I run as close to the rules as I can possibly run. I do take liberties with individuals tactics if it appears the have become broken. Example: in this weeks fight for myself. I decided that the character would take a step and read a scroll. Then basicly use archery for rest of fight. The tactics stated 'Move,shot, move, shot, ect until fight is over' if enganged in melee. I took that to mean take 5ft step and rapid shot. As the player had no chance of outrunning their opponent. Strickly by the tactics I could have taken that as take 30ft move and shoot after an AoO for moving and shooting. Which would have been ruled as absolutely stupid. Well we disagree then MacBrea. If I had my way, I would make sure both opponents had tactics to include very specific situations: 1. Grapple - what to do if you are in a grapple? 2. Threatened when you want to cast a spell? Taking a 5ft step is fine and good - but what about a touch range spell? Or what if your opponent threatens and a 5ft step can't help that? 3. Withdrawing vs Tumbling. While it isn't outside the realm of possibility that a bard/rogue would tumble - it still is rare enough that it might be missed. By including it in the tactics - we remove all doubt. In cases where it is an auto-success, I suppose it isn't that big of a deal, but I still would prefer to have it mentioned. No I don't require people to put to use their mount for cover - but do I appreciate it? You bet I do. In the case of deflect arrows - is there any harm in mentioning it in the tactics? Take for example Kraegin and Sir Valkin - they both have Adamantium Armor. How many times did pitlords have to go back and edit fights because they didn't take into account the DR from it? (at least 3 times...) How many times did I mention it in my tactics? (all but once - the first time someone forgot it) My goal in writing tactics the way I do is to be concise enough to make it so that the pitlord has as little chance for error as possible. I do this because I do not like making changes to a fight after a fight is posted, especially when the errors in question are not rules errors but a "common-sense" tactic that wasn't in the tactics to begin with. As to the matter on predeciding fights - I have summarily ignored any statements or comments about the matter. I do not predecide fights. Any comment on the matter that says I do is wrong. Any accusation that I do is hurtful. This is why I ignore such statements. I come here for enjoyment. I provide my time because I feel it is worthwhile. Statements like that make me question the value of my time.
MitzaVolchenko 01-17-07, 12:44 PM	ENOUGH @Everyone that has been so nice to support my questions, thank you. I appreciate that. @Telin If you can't take the time to run a character correctly, don't run mine. Tumble is so common on dex builds that it should be taken for granted. I will be sure that if I ever have the poor luck to have you running another of my fights, that I will detail every possible contingency. I thought that making a pitlord weep with the length of our tactics was a bad thing. I shall make an exception in your case.
Pitlords 01-17-07, 12:45 PM	Hrmpf. 3 fights unfinished despite a 2 week cycle. :mad:
Macbrea 01-17-07, 12:48 PM	My problem tactics wise is once you start writing tactic that are too precise. It appears that pitlords start ignoring sections of it. I am not exactly sure what happens but it appears to be some kind of crazy 'too many characters brain hurts' type of situation.
Abyssal Stalker 01-17-07, 01:13 PM	Without reading through everything that's involved in the Sybil vs Durin fight, I still wish to point out something. It is not always the pitlord's evil nature that causes him to miss something that the player could've done. We all are human beings (at least I think :)) and occasionally miss some details. There are always several options the character can do in a situation and the pitlord needs to pick one. If the specific situation is covered by the tactics, the pitlord should use those guidelines. Sometimes the situation isn't covered by the tactics and the pitlord has to make a judgement call. These situations seem to be those that many times cause complaints. The pitlord makes the call, but he necessary doesn't do a thorough analysis on the sheet before the call. Sometimes there would be a better choice, but the pitlord doesn't notice it. Whose fault is it? The pitlord's or the player's? Running a fight takes a lot of our precious time. Forcing the pitlord to go through every option in an unexpected situation is too much work, if you ask me. It's just like in a TT game. You don't have time to figure out every option, but you need to make a call. Sometimes you make a good one, sometimes not. If you want to take advantage of some feature, please note it. If you don't, then you shouldn't complain. Of course, all pitlords could handle these situations a little more carefully. If I make a judgement call, I try to briefly describe my reasoning. I try to point out the options that cross my mind and the make a logical decision based on those options. Sometimes I miss something, but I think that shouldn't count against me. I've tried my best, and that's it. I as a pitlord don't need to find the best solution, just like I can't always write the best tactics against another character. Not all pitlords are perfect, and that's a fact we all have to live with. :)
McJarvis 01-17-07, 01:19 PM	Hrmpf. 3 fights unfinished despite a 2 week cycle. :mad: My bad on the one I almost didn't finish. At the very least I had decided a winner by the deadline....and the rewards are up too now!
MitzaVolchenko 01-17-07, 01:54 PM	Without reading through everything that's involved in the Sybil vs Durin fight, I still wish to point out something. It is not always the pitlord's evil nature that causes him to miss something that the player could've done. We all are human beings (at least I think :)) and occasionally miss some details. There are always several options the character can do in a situation and the pitlord needs to pick one. If the specific situation is covered by the tactics, the pitlord should use those guidelines. Sometimes the situation isn't covered by the tactics and the pitlord has to make a judgement call. These situations seem to be those that many times cause complaints. The pitlord makes the call, but he necessary doesn't do a thorough analysis on the sheet before the call. Sometimes there would be a better choice, but the pitlord doesn't notice it. Whose fault is it? The pitlord's or the player's? Running a fight takes a lot of our precious time. Forcing the pitlord to go through every option in an unexpected situation is too much work, if you ask me. It's just like in a TT game. You don't have time to figure out every option, but you need to make a call. Sometimes you make a good one, sometimes not. If you want to take advantage of some feature, please note it. If you don't, then you shouldn't complain. Of course, all pitlords could handle these situations a little more carefully. If I make a judgement call, I try to briefly describe my reasoning. I try to point out the options that cross my mind and the make a logical decision based on those options. Sometimes I miss something, but I think that shouldn't count against me. I've tried my best, and that's it. I as a pitlord don't need to find the best solution, just like I can't always write the best tactics against another character. Not all pitlords are perfect, and that's a fact we all have to live with. :) I agree that Pitlords have to make calls, and sometimes they are bad ones. Gods above and below know I have nerfed my share of calls. Generally, I will edit and consider until a fight is as close as I can get it. What disturbs me with that fight is not, oddly enough, the fight. It is Telin's attitude that he owes no responsibility to use even basic things such as tumble. Furthermore, his belief that delay belongs to the person that actually has the advantage and has made an attack is bullocks. I am done with that fight, and Telin will receive extremely detailed tactics from me in the future. As a Pitlord, I want to see tactics that are as close as possible to what the person wants without making me re-read them nine thousand times to be sure I haven't missed something. I accept generalized concepts in tactics, such as 'keep at range' then I look at the character's Int and Wis scores. I then apply what is logical based on the overall goal of the gladiator. I never walk someone into an ambush when they have a fair shot of understanding that is what they are doing. As I have said before, this one is on the books. I have decided how I shall handle it going forward. Sybil's default tactics are now included, though I consider that a waste of character sheet space. I shall add defaults to my others as I get around to editing them. New week is here, new mayhem awaits!
Sutro 01-17-07, 02:45 PM	...not to interrupt anything, I guess... But did you decide that I couldn't take round four to swing on Wildfire, Mitza? I just want to make sure you saw my concern, I guess it's too late to do anything about it now. Regardless I'm still holding Sutro inactive, as he's now very close to getting the Failure tag and I need to either figure out a way to stop losing these close matches or retire him for perhaps a similar rebuild. -Sutro
MitzaVolchenko 01-17-07, 02:59 PM	...not to interrupt anything, I guess... But did you decide that I couldn't take round four to swing on Wildfire, Mitza? I just want to make sure you saw my concern, I guess it's too late to do anything about it now. Regardless I'm still holding Sutro inactive, as he's now very close to getting the Failure tag and I need to either figure out a way to stop losing these close matches or retire him for perhaps a similar rebuild. -Sutro I did, hon. I inserted it, but it came up a bare miss. Sorry, been so busy being outraged by Telin's idea of what is acceptable, that I obviously forgot to post that edit here. I wouldn't retire him due to a failure tag. He is viable, but in this case unlucky. It was completely nothing but dice for that loss. I have had to resign myself to ignoring win-loss records ;)
MindWandererB 01-17-07, 03:05 PM	Tell me about it. I have two CoDzillas that are sucking right now. And I'm still trying to figure out why. Silly that my straight, or near-straight, warrior builds are among my most successful.
hogarth 01-17-07, 03:10 PM	Tell me about it. I have two CoDzillas that are sucking right now. And I'm still trying to figure out why. Silly that my straight, or near-straight, warrior builds are among my most successful. I think the difficulty with pure caster builds here is due completely to the 3 Fight Cycle. At low levels, the small number of spells that casters have access to (per fight) pretty much limits them to hoping for a failed save on a save-or-die spell like Hold Person or Ghoul Touch.
McJarvis 01-17-07, 03:21 PM	I think the difficulty with pure caster builds here is due completely to the 3 Fight Cycle. At low levels, the small number of spells that casters have access to (per fight) pretty much limits them to hoping for a failed save on a save-or-die spell like Hold Person or Ghoul Touch. I've noticed a general lack of save-or-die wizards/clerics in the lower levels. I personally don't touch them since they are so easily countered(a simple tattoo of synesthete & potion of protection from evil[price: 150gp insurance policy] will block almost all(if not all?) save or die effects at ECL 3.) Of course, mounted druids with produce flame will always be effective at lower levels.....
McJarvis 01-17-07, 04:16 PM	Does anyone know where that regiment battle between CEF and WAR ended up? I'm interested in seeing it...
hogarth 01-17-07, 04:30 PM	I've noticed a general lack of save-or-die wizards/clerics in the lower levels. I personally don't touch them since they are so easily countered(a simple tattoo of synesthete & potion of protection from evil[price: 150gp insurance policy] will block almost all(if not all?) save or die effects at ECL 3.) Ghoul Touch is an exception (as I mentioned above). Also, I thought the FAQ clarified that Prot. from Evil doesn't work vs. Hold Person (I could be wrong on that one).
MindWandererB 01-17-07, 04:51 PM	Does anyone know where that regiment battle between CEF and WAR ended up? I'm interested in seeing it... 'Rith never posted it. It should go up in the Battles thread when he gets to his computer.
TheMagister 01-17-07, 04:55 PM	They're not my regiments. CEF sent them in against The Freedom Fighters in Gawane. I don't have the REC to mobilize anything but defensive regiments.
McJarvis 01-17-07, 04:59 PM	They're not my regiments. CEF sent them in against The Freedom Fighters in Gawane. I don't have the REC to mobilize anything but defensive regiments. Which is ironic coming from WAR...
TheMagister 01-17-07, 05:00 PM	Ironic like hell. I got headhunted to death by Ixenthor back before it was a covert op and was "peaceful". Took all of my REC to re-staff my structures/headquarters.
McJarvis 01-17-07, 05:08 PM	Ironic like hell. I got headhunted to death by Ixenthor back before it was a covert op and was "peaceful". Took all of my REC to re-staff my structures/headquarters. Ironic all the same B-) It's a shame I can't trade you surplus REC PTS that LOY has lying around...I am going to start discarding them soon...
Erithmu 01-17-07, 05:33 PM	CEF vs Gawane is here... Open forum on comments about the paladins in this battle.
Guildmaster_LOY 01-17-07, 05:35 PM	CEF vs Gawane is here... Open forum on comments about the paladins in this battle. Not that it mattered, but regiment battles have a minimum time of 10 rounds...no matter how few regiments are involved in the battle.
Erithmu 01-17-07, 05:38 PM	At the time of the end of the fight, the remaining CEF regiments withdrew off the field of battle.
Guildmaster_LOY 01-17-07, 05:41 PM	At the time of the end of the fight, the remaining CEF regiments withdrew off the field of battle. Yeah, I know. It just looked like you set the # of rounds at the beginning at 7 rounds.
MindWandererB 01-17-07, 05:44 PM	You should post CEF's tactics, there--and the unit stats would be helpful, too.
Erithmu 01-17-07, 11:56 PM	@McJ: Ahhh I see that now .... typo from my bad readings of the rules. Via PM You've used regular stats but PMGs have only Militia Regiments. Also, they cannot use the charge option without an officer. I know it's the first time such a battle happens but I've sent only 4 regiments for a reason. Please check that again and change the result accordingly. Thanks. Guildhall thread says MILITARY units (PMG -> Strength of a Group). I double checked w/ MWB on this one and he confirmed it. Those units stay. Regarding the charge: Only thing that it changes is that Achos 2 survives the fight. Will make the edit and add in the tactics and add in the unit stats @Cat: Please respond here, as this is a new type of battle and needs play testing it should be open to the public. Changes up.....
Vathelokai 01-18-07, 12:27 AM	I know the regiment fights have their own rules, but there's something wonky about a unit of paladins being frightened and fleeing the field of battle.
Always-Late 01-18-07, 12:46 AM	I know the regiment fights have their own rules, but there's something wonky about a unit of paladins being frightened and fleeing the field of battle.Too bad Aura of Courage doesn't stack. +40 Aura of Courages?
Erithmu 01-18-07, 12:53 AM	Too bad none of them had aura of courage .....
Always-Late 01-18-07, 12:56 AM	Too bad none of them had aura of courage .....Oh, whoops. Level 3. :embarrass
MindWandererB 01-18-07, 04:23 PM	Guildhall thread says MILITARY units (PMG -> Strength of a Group). I double checked w/ MWB on this one and he confirmed it. Those units stay. Not that I'm any great authority... Im not terribly comfortable with you using my opinion as an argument. However, typos can really kill you sometimes, especially when you write the rules. As for charging: the rule that units can't charge without an appropriate commander is moderately well-hidden. Expect many more people to miss that one. However, I should also point out that by that same rule, the Achosian units take a couple of AoOs, because they can't use the Withdraw action.
hogarth 01-23-07, 11:58 AM	We'll neven know without maps. ;) I have done Istima vs. Relanex btw. Er...this comment is way too late, and it wouldn't have affected the fight in question, but Istima's telekinetic grapple check should be +8, not +12: +7 from manifester level +5 from Int -4 from size A -4 size penalty? Yup, it's true: You can affect a foe by concentrating your mind upon its current status and the status you desire, once per round. You can perform a bull rush, a disarm, a grapple (including a pin), or a trip. Resolve these attempts as normal, except that they don’t provoke attacks of opportunity, you use your manifester level in place of your base attack bonus (for disarm and grapple attempts), you use your Intelligence modifier in place of your Strength modifier or Dexterity modifier, and a failed attempt doesn’t allow a reactive attempt by the target (such as normally allowed on disarm or trip attempts). No save is allowed against these attempts, but power resistance applies normally. Note that it doesn't say anything about removing a size penalty. Don't try to apply logic or common sense to power descriptions!