Post/Author/DateTime	Post
waywreth 07-11-07, 10:27 AM	Fights of the Week: July 11th 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 MindwandererB will pair the active Characters of Gladius after the deadline. Link to pairings. Make sure that your character is not in prison. 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. If you need a quick and dirty tool to calculate distances between two points (in 2-D or 3-D), this tool used to suffice until it got taken down without giving us proper notification... the Nerve 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 Also, the council has finally figured out what to do about Handle Animal allies. Read the results here and here. Anyone who has a handle animal/purchased ally that doesn't conform to these rules is now eligible to be put in prison. Denth is coming - is everybody ready for his army? 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!
MindWandererB 07-11-07, 01:48 PM	It's going to be yet another tight week on the pitlording. We typically have 20-25 fights to be covered, and we have 15+one <max> actually covered.
stimpydoda 07-11-07, 02:02 PM	I'd be happy to take a couple more fights. This would only be my second week pitlording though and I'm only familiar with the arena.
TelinArtho 07-11-07, 02:03 PM	I've deactivated 3 of the characters that were going to be active this week in planning for a shortage. Hopefully that will help keep the number of fights down and only need a few more pitlords as a result.
Salrantol 07-11-07, 02:43 PM	I just found out I'm off Friday, so I should be able to take 1 or 2 more depending on difficulty.
Sjiggie 07-11-07, 03:07 PM	Give me 1 fight extra but not an extra MQ I'm already running Elrick Flamebrother's MQ.
MindWandererB 07-11-07, 04:19 PM	Pairings are done, once again by a small margin. Thanks to all the volunteers!
templer10 07-11-07, 04:25 PM	Pairings are done, once again by a small margin. Thanks to all the volunteers! Elrick flamebrother is ECL 8 you know - not tha it makes a diffrence.
hogarth 07-11-07, 04:33 PM	I'm looking forward to the Battle of the Failures (Balthazar Picsou vs. Razorfang). I bet it'll be a quick one, one way or the other! Picsou lucked out -- there aren't many characters in the level 5 bracket who are still susceptible to a sleep spell. :D
templer10 07-11-07, 04:36 PM	Men - i am so NOT looking forward to lorian vs reginald and his horde of allies... well at least i level either way.
MindWandererB 07-11-07, 04:43 PM	Changes: Vivi (Dr.Funk) vs. Phacce (UserNamer) : templer10 [Arena] Shanan Lighttouch (Usernamer) vs. Sabretooth (NiQil) : templer10 [Arena] Korwald Barandar (lonewolf) vs. Ymandrake (stimpydoda) : UserNamer [Arena] Credits Khaim F1 lonewolf F2 Salrantol F3 Sjiggie F3 stimpydoda F2 TelinArtho F4 Q4 A-1 G1 templer10 F3 A-3 Yitzi F2 A-1 Zevox F5 G1 Erithmu Q4 Malither76 Q2 MindWandererB A2 G1 MitzaVolchenko Q-1 C3 NiQil A-1 A1 SauroGrenom C3 A1 G1 TheMagister Q-1 G1 Usernamer F1 Vathelokai Q-1 G1
TelinArtho 07-11-07, 04:50 PM	@Yitzi - tactics for Darrgon sent. @stimpydoda - tactics for Dentik sent. @lonewolf - once you get monster info up for Kraegin - I'll write up and send out his tactics. Kraegin on the plains... a summoner's playground...
lonewolf 07-11-07, 05:31 PM	@Telin & templer: Monster fights are set up. not much information for you guys though... @Zevox: first PM regarding team tactics sent. I assume that several more will follow. :D
MindWandererB 07-11-07, 05:48 PM	@Zevox and Telin: Tactics against the twin nukers sent. Maybe I should wait a while before activating my high-level characters... ECL 10 is just deadly.
TelinArtho 07-11-07, 05:51 PM	@Telin & templer: Monster fights are set up. not much information for you guys though... @Zevox: first PM regarding team tactics sent. I assume that several more will follow. :D I don't know lonewolf - I think I have enough to work something out... based on the knowledges that Kraegin has, I can virtually narrow it down to one of 7 opponents and 2 of those aren't likely and another 2 would have given me template information I think (not sure on that part...) 05: 1 Giant, fire [CR 10] 10: 1 Naga, guardian [CR 10] 51: 1 Celestial Stone Giant [CR 10] 56: 1 Fiendish Dark Naga [CR 10] 84: 1 5th-level Half-giant Werebear Paladin [CR 10] -- maybe large size but only in hybrid or animal form 86: 1 Troll Weretyrannosaurus [CR 10] -- maybe large size, but only in troll form 89: 1 7th-level Centaur Psychic Warrior [CR 10]
lonewolf 07-11-07, 05:57 PM	@Usernamer: tactics for Korwald sent. @Telin: I wont discuss it further until I have your tactics :angelhide
MindWandererB 07-11-07, 06:04 PM	I don't know lonewolf - I think I have enough to work something out... based on the knowledges that Kraegin has, I can virtually narrow it down to one of 7 opponents and 2 of those aren't likely and another 2 would have given me template information I think (not sure on that part...) 05: 1 Giant, fire [CR 10] 10: 1 Naga, guardian [CR 10] 51: 1 Celestial Stone Giant [CR 10] 56: 1 Fiendish Dark Naga [CR 10] 84: 1 5th-level Half-giant Werebear Paladin [CR 10] -- maybe large size but only in hybrid or animal form 86: 1 Troll Weretyrannosaurus [CR 10] -- maybe large size, but only in troll form 89: 1 7th-level Centaur Psychic Warrior [CR 10] You wouldn't get the template info, oddly. Neither aberrations nor giants change type when they become celestial/fiendish. Out of the others, I think only the t-rex is unlikely--the werebear would probably be in hybrid form to start with. Edit: "Monster?" Not biped? Probably one of the nagas, then.
Sjiggie 07-11-07, 06:34 PM	Salrantol tactics for Xanaver Valassar send. Templer10 Tactics for Slade Tungsten send feel free to post some roleplay in the thread for Elrick otherwise I shall do so tomorrow.
Zevox 07-11-07, 07:32 PM	@ My teammates - I apparently have two team fights this week (Ceilia & Chameleon, Kathren & Inzin), so I may be a bit slow responding to discussions. Just a forewarning. @ MWB - Not that it matters in fact, but it looks like you forgot two parts of my credit breakdown (+1 admin, -1 character activation). Zevox
Airwhale 07-11-07, 07:55 PM	@Zevox, Tactics sent for Darfu. Also, note the following typo on my charicter sheet, which I thought I changed, but apparently the edit did not take. Great-Axe+1 +7, 1d12+5, (??-20/x?), (damage type) [+4 Str, +2 BAB, Large Size, +1 Enhancement] (when enlarged, (+8 to hit, 3d6+8)(+2 to hit and +3 damage while raging) Should be Great-Axe+1 To-hit:+7, 1d12+7, (20/x3), (slashing) (Large Size) [To hit:+4 Str, +2 BAB, +1 Enhancement] [Damage: +6 Str, +1 Enhancement] (when enlarged, (+8 to hit, 3d6+8)(+2 to hit and +3 damage while raging)
Macbrea 07-11-07, 08:38 PM	@Sjiggie: Tactics sent for Razorfang. And yes, that first statement means exactly what it says.
Zevox 07-11-07, 09:15 PM	@ My Players - Between my team fights, fights I'm pitlording, and Guild-related discussions, my PM box is filling up fast right now, so don't be too surprised if it gets full at some point. Zevox
hogarth 07-11-07, 09:20 PM	@Sjiggie: tactics (and a 2-line addendum) sent for Balthazar Picsou
Macbrea 07-11-07, 10:05 PM	Your tactics are more then two lines! Bah.. the crime.. Razorfang's are two words! ::snicker::
hogarth 07-11-07, 10:28 PM	Your tactics are more then two lines! Bah.. the crime.. Razorfang's are two words! ::snicker:: "Grapple him"? "Kill him"? "Kill! Kill!"?
Vathelokai 07-11-07, 10:40 PM	"Grapple him"? "Kill him"? "Kill! Kill!"? "I surrender"? :P Question: I have a spell prebuffed with 6 hours. The time roll was 6 hours. This means the spell expires the second before the fight starts, correct? Pretty sure that's the case, but I thought I'd check, since it sucks.
Zevox 07-11-07, 11:22 PM	Question: I have a spell prebuffed with 6 hours. The time roll was 6 hours. This means the spell expires the second before the fight starts, correct? Pretty sure that's the case, but I thought I'd check, since it sucks. You are correct sir. Your spell needs to last longer than the time roll to last, not as long as it. Zevox
Yitzi 07-11-07, 11:32 PM	It expires just as the fight begins.
NiQil 07-11-07, 11:36 PM	@ stimpydoda: Tactics for Tiris Rush sent via PM @ templer10: Tactics for Sabretooth sent via PM @ Yitzi: Tactics for War Machine sent via PM
stimpydoda 07-11-07, 11:52 PM	@ Niqil: Tactics recieved from Tiris @ Telin: Tactics recieved from Dentik @ UserNamer: Tactics for Ymandrake sent via PM @ Yitzi: Tactics for Lycidas sent via PM
Vathelokai 07-12-07, 12:51 AM	@Zevox: rules question sent via PM. @Salrantol: ideas sent for team tactics.
lonewolf 07-12-07, 03:44 AM	@Telin & Templer: because my weekend is pretty full, I will run my fights either today or on monday. So if you want your fight up soon get your tactics to me asap. :)
templer10 07-12-07, 04:14 AM	@Telin & Templer: because my weekend is pretty full, I will run my fights either today or on monday. So if you want your fight up soon get your tactics to me asap. :) Iam at work right now (iam at GMT -2) earlist i can do is Around 10-11 hours from now - i hope that's okay - but if what i guessed about the opponents is right it's not going to be 2 complicated fight to run - lady liara isnt exacly a "stealthy" (snicker) charcter.
Macbrea 07-12-07, 07:43 AM	"Grapple him"? "Kill him"? "Kill! Kill!"? Run, Bite....
Sjiggie 07-12-07, 07:57 AM	Well hogarth's tactics break down to: Activate Griffon Let the griffon kill Razorfang Try to be usefull. I shall post the tactics in a minute and run the fight.
Macbrea 07-12-07, 08:02 AM	My theory... was I have 20 hps to go through, if I ignore everything and run 4x movement across the map. I can maximize the amount of biting I can do. So.. pretty much my tactics say everything.... :P
hogarth 07-12-07, 09:31 AM	My theory... was I have 20 hps to go through, if I ignore everything and run 4x movement across the map. I can maximize the amount of biting I can do. So.. pretty much my tactics say everything.... :P I was thinking of just trying to cast Sleep and leaving the griffon alone, but I was afraid that Razorfang would just run away if he heard Picsou casting. Hindsight is 20/20!
Macbrea 07-12-07, 09:36 AM	Well, sleep only puts him to sleep.. You still have to risk a CDG. Which the griffon was a good choice to use it to do. By the dice roll it appears he did fail a will save against sleep but there still needs to be a CDG from the griffon and a fort save. Otherwise the fight appears just about done. What got me was the roll of 1 on the second AoO vs the griffon's grapples.
hogarth 07-12-07, 09:43 AM	Well, sleep only puts him to sleep.. You still have to risk a CDG. Which the griffon was a good choice to use it to do. Without any more uses of his bronze griffon, I'd estimate Picsou's probability of winning his next fight at about 0.1%...unless Razorfang wants a rematch using the same tactics, maybe. :)
Macbrea 07-12-07, 09:47 AM	Cool. my rating for him is down to 528... only 429 more to go!
Sjiggie 07-12-07, 10:22 AM	Fight is done here
templer10 07-12-07, 10:23 AM	Cool. my rating for him is down to 528... only 429 more to go! for the life of me i cant figure out why didnt you just start him at ECL 6 (i assume you are taking leadership?) - not that having a free lunch char at ECL 5 is a problem...
hogarth 07-12-07, 10:30 AM	for the life of me i cant figure out why didnt you just start him at ECL 6 (i assume you are taking leadership?) - not that having a free lunch char at ECL 5 is a problem... Is that your way of offering Macbrea 5 free credits? While you're handing them out, I'll take some too, please! ;)
Macbrea 07-12-07, 10:32 AM	Ok, I would have to have started him at ECL 7 to have 6HD. This means spending 20 credits vs 10 credits I did spend to start. Him. So, as a result I am curios how wether he will reach 99 power rating before he makes level 7. The issue at 99 power rating is as follows. Razorfang (99) vs Great Renown (1500) If Razorfang were to win at that level it would result in a broken amount. 1500/99 * 100 = 1515 As a result Razorfang's Power rating becomes 1614. And the Great renowns becomes -15. As you can notice at some point we need to determine a maximum amount of add or subtract from a characters power rating.
Macbrea 07-12-07, 10:37 AM	Fight is done here Thanks for the run Sjiggie.
Erithmu 07-12-07, 10:49 AM	for the life of me i cant figure out why didnt you just start him at ECL 6 (i assume you are taking leadership?) - not that having a free lunch char at ECL 5 is a problem... that is just how Macbrea does things ... he keeps us on our toes and he has fun exploring builds and isn't really concerned about W/L. Part of me thinks he likes the challenge ....
hogarth 07-12-07, 10:56 AM	Fight is done here One extremely minor comment: I think Picsou's gold reward should be 1600*1.32 = 2112 gp, not 2111.87. The 1.0666 ratio is only a rough approximation.
Sjiggie 07-12-07, 11:06 AM	will fix it now
Macbrea 07-12-07, 01:01 PM	In truth, I am less worried about W/L record then testing new and unusual ways to die or kill things. In truth, standard styles get very boring very fast.
SoulLord 07-12-07, 01:18 PM	Tactics for vandelar the red vs Celia, king, bishop & the chameleon sent
MitzaVolchenko 07-12-07, 01:20 PM	In truth, I am less worried about W/L record then testing new and unusual ways to die or kill things. In truth, standard styles get very boring very fast. Don't forget the fun you have annoying others and breaking systems, m'love...wouldn't want to leave out those very central themes in your building strategies.
Macbrea 07-12-07, 01:30 PM	Oh, come on.. Nothing is too broken about my build theories.. :P Izumi is light weapon enlarged two times and enlarged theory. -- Will become broken when she grows 2 times at level 10. Lord Frost will be cold using dragon who kills with fire. -- Will become slightly broken in the 15 range. Yorick is a test of a non-used race, built to over-kill stealth rules. -- Is already alittle broken under our rules. Razorfang was build to abuse leadership allies later. -- Will become broken at level 7 Lars was a test to see if soulknife is viable -- Still not sure on this guy. Marcus Tallfellow was a quest character -- Changes in quest rules changed his actions, I will get back to questing with him Mektos test of allies plus wand rules. -- Proved wands over your level are broken Relanex is pretty much straight mage type -- May become horridly broken at 13th with simlocron Varsh was a test of something which was deemed non-viable -- He was very broken in a test to see if both players needed 20s, what kind of record people would have. Note, I build alot of time for the 10-15 range. That is because that is the range I am interested in testing.
MindWandererB 07-12-07, 01:34 PM	NOTE -- Picsou cannot cast Invisibility because he was too cheap to spend money on gum arabic.I saw this and was confused, because I know he uses Sleep, which has a material component. Apparently he manages to pick up a handful of fine sand just anywhere (not just sand, which isn't naturally-occurring in many places anyway, but fine sand). That's not very probable, and besides, our convention is that if the spell has a material component, the component goes into the spell component pouch. I think you'd better buy him that pouch to avoid an argument.
TelinArtho 07-12-07, 02:19 PM	Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) vs Besthirah Lafali (MindWandererB) is up.
Zevox 07-12-07, 02:27 PM	@ Telin - Tactics for Archdevil Asran (vs Baelin the Shadow) have been PMed. Just barely didn't fit in one PM, even with a bit of trimming. Zevox
waywreth 07-12-07, 02:36 PM	Gaston Dar'ath (waywreth) vs Besthirah Lafali (MindWandererB) is up. Thanks for the run Telin. I might have him buy another Griffon. Those are fun stuff!
TelinArtho 07-12-07, 02:46 PM	@ Telin - Tactics for Archdevil Asran (vs Baelin the Shadow) have been PMed. Just barely didn't fit in one PM, even with a bit of trimming. Zevox I only received one PM.
hogarth 07-12-07, 02:49 PM	Thanks for the run Telin. I might have him buy another Griffon. Those are fun stuff! Seconded! It's not a coincidence that three out of my four characters have a bronze griffon (so far...).
Zevox 07-12-07, 03:12 PM	I only received one PM. Huh, odd. Well, good thing I keep those saved as word documents on my PC. The contingencies have been re-sent. Also, I've PMed tactics for Kathren & Inzin (vs Lightwolf). Those did fit in one PM. Zevox
Yitzi 07-12-07, 05:36 PM	Rolf vs. Darrgon is up.
TelinArtho 07-12-07, 05:49 PM	Rolf vs. Darrgon is up. Well - not much I can do when only 1 out of 4 acid arrows hit... Thanks for the run.
templer10 07-12-07, 05:52 PM	Zevox - tactics for longshot and for lord lorian sent.
stimpydoda 07-12-07, 07:09 PM	Tatsuo (Adolfo_Mondschein) vs. Tiris Rush (NiQil) : stimpydoda [Arena] is done. PM me with any comments/concerns.
NiQil 07-12-07, 09:37 PM	Tatsuo (Adolfo_Mondschein) vs. Tiris Rush (NiQil) : stimpydoda [Arena] is done. PM me with any comments/concerns. I'll send this in PM as requested as well.....Tiris' rewards are wrong. He should be receiving a bonus for the opponent's ally.
Zevox 07-13-07, 12:01 AM	@ lonewolf - Tactical thoughts/ideas for our fight with Vandelar have been PMed. @ My players - My work schedule is pretty restrictive this week, so I'm going to try and do most of my fights Saturday. Please have tactics in by then! Zevox
stimpydoda 07-13-07, 12:25 AM	Yakov (Korone) vs. Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) : stimpydoda [Arena] is done. Let me know about any problems.
Vathelokai 07-13-07, 01:57 AM	@ My players - My work schedule is pretty restrictive this week, so I'm going to try and do most of my fights Saturday. Please have tactics in by then! Zevox Getting the final draft done now...
Vathelokai 07-13-07, 03:08 AM	@ My players - My work schedule is pretty restrictive this week, so I'm going to try and do most of my fights Saturday. Please have tactics in by then! Zevox ...And done Tactics for Enoch the Prophet and Zodiac vs Longshot sent.
templer10 07-13-07, 06:06 AM	...And done Tactics for Enoch the Prophet and Zodiac vs Longshot sent. ah good- that 1 is going to end in 2 rounds 1 way or the other i think
Yitzi 07-13-07, 08:21 AM	Well - not much I can do when only 1 out of 4 acid arrows hit... Except not use acid arrows against a DEX 18 character when cover is likely...
Salrantol 07-13-07, 09:26 AM	Brassie the Unknown Monster vs. Xanaver Valassar is up!
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 09:44 AM	Yakov (Korone) vs. Dentik Earthmolder (TelinArtho) : stimpydoda [Arena] is done. Let me know about any problems. The fight's good. That's one of the first times I've seen PA used when the attacker didn't have a decent chance to hit... congrats to my opponent. Of course, max damage with the power attack didn't hurt for him either...
templer10 07-13-07, 09:44 AM	Brassie the Unknown Monster vs. Xanaver Valassar is up! err- not that it concerns me really but you did some very illegal things m8 - You gave it 2100! GP worth of expandbles when the cap is 450.... (the cap DOES apply to monsters you know). als- that dragon is tiny which means it has 0 reach so to attack it needs to enter ther defenders's squere and thus provoke an AoA on EACH ATTACK - both of those combined means you got some work to do... on the other hand - until the change in monster equpments is made - dragon get tripe loot so you got a lot more gold to spend 2 (but not on exapndables -those are per the cap)
Vathelokai 07-13-07, 10:23 AM	err- not that it concerns me really but you did some very illegal things m8 - You gave it 2100! GP worth of expandbles when the cap is 450.... (the cap DOES apply to monsters you know). als- that dragon is tiny which means it has 0 reach so to attack it needs to enter ther defenders's squere and thus provoke an AoA on EACH ATTACK - both of those combined means you got some work to do... on the other hand - until the change in monster equpments is made - dragon get tripe loot so you got a lot more gold to spend 2 (but not on exapndables -those are per the cap) Didn't read the fight, but... Dragons have longer reach with their bite than with their other weapon. Tiny dragons can bite into the next square, but can't use claws without entering. als - I thought the change in monster equipment was already official?
Salrantol 07-13-07, 10:31 AM	Change in monster equipment? If there was one, I'll change it, but don't expect too much, as the dragon would still have force screen and the +1 AC from def. prec. would just come from armor, so the AC's not changing, but it might take a couple rounds longer. As for the cap applying to monsters, I never saw any such thing, and if such can be proven, I'll change it, but again, see above.
Vathelokai 07-13-07, 10:33 AM	The 'change' in monster equipment was to ignore the treasure line in the monster entry (so no triple gold for dragons). I gather from T10's comment that you did that anyway.
Salrantol 07-13-07, 10:36 AM	Nope, no triple wealth, I used normal 2500gp for ECL 3 NPC. I just sank most of it into expendables because there isn't much under half its total wealth a dragon could use other than tattoos and potions.
templer10 07-13-07, 10:37 AM	Change in monster equipment? If there was one, I'll change it, but don't expect too much, as the dragon would still have force screen and the +1 AC from def. prec. would just come from armor, so the AC's not changing, but it might take a couple rounds longer. As for the cap applying to monsters, I never saw any such thing, and if such can be proven, I'll change it, but again, see above. the cap ALWAYS apply - otherwise you really cant beat ANY monster. btw -you do remmbe rtaht ML2 tattoes cost 200 GP...
hogarth 07-13-07, 10:38 AM	Here's the proposed change: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?p=12697276#post12697276 So basically, you're suggested to spend 75-80% of the dragon's $$$ on weapons, armor, ring of protection, cloak of resistance, amulet of natural armor and ability score boosters and only 10% on expendables and 10% on "other". In this case, that would probably mean buying a cloak of resistance +1 and getting rid of some of the expendables. I don't think it's been ratified yet, though. Change in monster equipment? If there was one, I'll change it, but don't expect too much, as the dragon would still have force screen and the +1 AC from def. prec. would just come from armor, so the AC's not changing, but it might take a couple rounds longer. As for the cap applying to monsters, I never saw any such thing, and if such can be proven, I'll change it, but again, see above.
Salrantol 07-13-07, 10:39 AM	(the cap DOES apply to monsters you know).I don't see where you're getting this, I don't see it anywhere. I checked the monster fight rules, the expendable rules--all the wording under the expendable cap is "you", apparently meaning a PC. If it's otherwise I'll change it, but again, see my above post. als- that dragon is tiny which means it has 0 reach so to attack it needs to enter ther defenders's squere and thus provoke an AoA on EACH ATTACK - both of those combined means you got some work to do...Each attack? Rather than risk that, the dragon'd waive its claw attacks, so I'll go drag it out a couple more rounds.[/quote] on the other hand - until the change in monster equpments is made - dragon get tripe loot so you got a lot more gold to spend 2if this is the case it'll certainly be interesting, but I thought that limit already went into effect.
templer10 07-13-07, 10:40 AM	als - I thought the change in monster equipment was already official? i dont see that in the "resolved" column of the council thread...
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 10:41 AM	Change in monster equipment? If there was one, I'll change it, but don't expect too much, as the dragon would still have force screen and the +1 AC from def. prec. would just come from armor, so the AC's not changing, but it might take a couple rounds longer. As for the cap applying to monsters, I never saw any such thing, and if such can be proven, I'll change it, but again, see above. Well - it hasn't been "officially" changed yet. I have started using the new monster guidelines and compare them with each fight that I run, as a sort of field test. As to the cap applying to monsters - it was never "official" before, but there is this line: Please make sure that the equipment is appropriate. That means, it has to benefit the monster in some way because equipment is included in the CR of the monster. On the other hand, you should not equip it with expendables only just because you know it has only this one fight. Think of the monster as a gladiator and try to imagine what it would buy. A list with the monster's equipment must be included in the fight! It would seem to me that you used "too many" expendables, but until the guidelines that have been proposed are accepted (or not), you didn't technically equip it wrong. Here is the post with the proposed guidelines.
templer10 07-13-07, 10:42 AM	I don't see where you're getting this, I don't see it anywhere. I checked the monster fight rules, the expendable rules--all the wording under the expendable cap is "you", apparently meaning a PC. If it's otherwise I'll change it, but again, see my above post. . CAn 2 of the elders pipe in on that? i think this was more or less understood - otherwise you might as well surrender when you get a monster fight - fighting against a monster with over 2k in expndables at ECL 3 is just nuts.
templer10 07-13-07, 10:53 AM	Pharrace Vs vivi is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13058006&postcount=1090) - result was fairly predictable.
Salrantol 07-13-07, 10:56 AM	With regards to Telin's quote of the monster equipment section:you should not equip it with expendables only just because you know it has only this one fight. Think of the monster as a gladiator and try to imagine what it would buy.Note that... 1) I equipped it with expendables as though it were to be a gladiator fighting three fights, and was also using them accordingly. 2) I had a specific reason for using expendables--they're about only thing a dragon could reasonably use (for under half of the 2500 gp it spent) other than the armor, which I did buy for it.
Macbrea 07-13-07, 10:57 AM	Monsters aren't currently lmited by expendables as per PC. We try to keep to the PC limits and each time we break those limits it almost always ends in an argument. I had the same problem with a 'Phasm armed with 20 crawling tattoo's of eqo whip". Most players felt the equipment choice was unfair as a tactic. It was a viable tactic for the monster but not something someone would want to fight in their real game. The reason we are trying to figure out a standard for monsters is because of items like this.
Salrantol 07-13-07, 10:59 AM	So everyone knows I am presently editing the fight to shift the spending away from accountables. I don't anticipate it to change anything by itself, but the removal of claw attacks might.
hogarth 07-13-07, 11:01 AM	2) I had a specific reason for using expendables--they're about only thing a dragon could reasonably use (for under half of the 2500 gp it spent) other than the armor, which I did buy for it. The other item recommended in the new guidelines would be a Cloak of Resistance +1. You could always add some more unusual item like Boots of Stomping or a Mage Hand, but the cloak is a no-brainer (even if it is a good chunk of the dragon's starting cash).
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 11:10 AM	Pharrace Vs vivi is done and here (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13058006&postcount=1090) - result was fairly predictable. @templer- there's a few errors you made in the fight. I'm in no doubt that it wouldn't change the fight, but I think you should know so you don't make the mistakes in the future: 1. Once a touch spell is held - you do not need to maintain concentration on it - the concentration part is all done. So Vivi would have never lost his spell. 2. Phacce needs to make Handle Animal checks on each animal separately. That means 5 move actions to get all of the donkeys to move to an area. 3. A small creature cannot quickmount a large creature. You can only quickmount if the mount is one size category larger. 4. Enlarge Person has a casting time of 1 round - so it takes effect just before the initiative of the character on the following round. Also - I should probably mention that Dr. Funk is not new to the CoCo - he just hasn't been around in a while.
Sunwolf 07-13-07, 11:15 AM	@Zevox 'relatively' short tactics for Leif sent by PM.
Salrantol 07-13-07, 11:29 AM	OK, the monster fight is updated. Fewer buffs made the difference--not because the dragon was any weaker, she wasn't--but because she got to Xanaver sooner, before his buffs wore down as much. *shrug* Well, that and the dragon wasn't using some sort of strange super-long claw attacks.....:confused: As far as the cloak goes--the dragon has good saves for an ECL 3 creature, so it's not something that's really important for it. Anyway, it's over, the human won, leave me alone....
templer10 07-13-07, 11:47 AM	@templer- there's a few errors you made in the fight. I'm in no doubt that it wouldn't change the fight, but I think you should know so you don't make the mistakes in the future: 1. Once a touch spell is held - you do not need to maintain concentration on it - the concentration part is all done. So Vivi would have never lost his spell. 2. Phacce needs to make Handle Animal checks on each animal separately. That means 5 move actions to get all of the donkeys to move to an area. 3. A small creature cannot quickmount a large creature. You can only quickmount if the mount is one size category larger. 4. Enlarge Person has a casting time of 1 round - so it takes effect just before the initiative of the character on the following round. Also - I should probably mention that Dr. Funk is not new to the CoCo - he just hasn't been around in a while. wasnt sure about the touch spell - good to know. the handle animal i knew- fortunently - they didnt actually move. quickmount- knew and forogot, same with enlarge - that what happenes when i start beleiving what peeps write in the tactics i guess lol. and if dr funk isnt knew he should know better then wait around for someone to come to him. guess i would have been a bit more exacting if the result on this fight wasnt so clear from before the first dice was rolled.
SoulLord 07-13-07, 12:37 PM	als- that dragon is tiny which means it has 0 reach so to attack it needs to enter ther defenders's squere and thus provoke an AoA on EACH ATTACK I saw this and have a comment on this the AoO is just for entering the opponets space think of it this way the situation is the same as if you were atacking a creature with reach. you provoke an AoO for moving through his threatened area but once you stop moving you don't provoke AoO just from attacking. otherwise pc's would provoke AoO each time they attacked a creature with reach which is not the case.
hogarth 07-13-07, 12:53 PM	@Zevox: Tactics sent for Reginald Molehusband (in 2 emails). Sorry for the lengthy tactics; I don't know if it'll help, anyways.
Macbrea 07-13-07, 01:17 PM	I saw this and have a comment on this the AoO is just for entering the opponets space think of it this way the situation is the same as if you were atacking a creature with reach. you provoke an AoO for moving through his threatened area but once you stop moving you don't provoke AoO just from attacking. otherwise pc's would provoke AoO each time they attacked a creature with reach which is not the case. Anytime you enter another characters square, you provoke and attack of opportunity from them. This can be seen in grapple, which has you make a touch attack that provokes an attack of opportunity. That touch attack is followed by you entering the square if your not hit. The rule that states this can be found here: Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them If at anytime your not three size categories smaller then the opponent and you enter the opponents square you are required to leave the square at the end of the turn. With the exception of grapple, which puts both character unable to deal with the outside world. This can be found in bull rush (another AoO for entering a square). If you fail to beat the defender’s Strength check result, you move 5 feet straight back to where you were before you moved into his space. If that space is occupied, you fall prone in that space. This is because the square your in is an illegal square for you to be able to occupy. Tiny dragons have a special rule in combat, their claws have 0 reach, while their bite has a 5ft reach. This is very similar to a tiny creature wielding a polearm with reach. They would have 0 reach with a hand weapon but 5ft reach with a glaive. Oddly, once a dragon goes up in size category, it looses it's long neck. Something that has seemed a tad odd to me.
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 01:20 PM	Oddly, once a dragon goes up in size category, it looses it's long neck. Something that has seemed a tad odd to me Actually not really - its more of a factor of the way the neck is treated. Dragons have reach according to their size, but their bite has reach according to a creature one size greater. So a tiny dragon (0ft reach) has a bite with a 5ft reach (small). A small dragon has 5ft reach and a bite with a 5ft reach (medium). A medium dragon has 5ft reach and a bite with a 5ft reach (large - long creature). A large dragon has 5ft reach and a bite with a 10ft reach (huge-long creature). etc.
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 01:24 PM	wasnt sure about the touch spell - good to know. the handle animal i knew- fortunently - they didnt actually move. quickmount- knew and forogot, same with enlarge - that what happenes when i start beleiving what peeps write in the tactics i guess lol. and if dr funk isnt knew he should know better then wait around for someone to come to him. guess i would have been a bit more exacting if the result on this fight wasnt so clear from before the first dice was rolled. I just talked with Dr. Funk and found out what happened. He sent me a PM because he didn't think he was facing the opponent he wrote tactics for. Apparently he was writing tactics before the pairing was changed (see post 11 of this thread). Originally he was facing Korwald Barandar, but I assume a few of UserNamer's character were left off of the original pairings - so things got changed. It doesn't happen often - but that sometimes happens when tactics are written early and the pairings change soon afterwards.
SoulLord 07-13-07, 02:26 PM	Anytime you enter another characters square, you provoke and attack of opportunity from them. This can be seen in grapple, which has you make a touch attack that provokes an attack of opportunity. That touch attack is followed by you entering the square if your not hit. If at anytime your not three size categories smaller then the opponent and you enter the opponents square you are required to leave the square at the end of the turn. With the exception of grapple, which puts both character unable to deal with the outside world. This can be found in bull rush (another AoO for entering a square). This is because the square your in is an illegal square for you to be able to occupy. let me see Anytime you enter another characters square, you provoke and attack of opportunity check If at anytime your not three size categories smaller then the opponent and you enter the opponents square you are required to leave the square at the end of the turn. here is where I am not yet convinced it happens this way with tiny or smaller critters Tiny, Diminutive, and Fine Creatures Very small creatures take up less than 1 square of space. This means that more than one such creature can fit into a single square. A Tiny creature typically occupies a space only 2½ feet across, so four can fit into a single square. Twenty-five Diminutive creatures or 100 Fine creatures can fit into a single square. Creatures that take up less than 1 square of space typically have a natural reach of 0 feet, meaning they can’t reach into adjacent squares. They must enter an opponent’s square to attack in melee. This provokes an attack of opportunity from the opponent. You can attack into your own square if you need to, so you can attack such creatures normally. Since they have no natural reach, they do not threaten the squares around them. You can move past them without provoking attacks of opportunity. They also can’t flank an enemy. never seen a swarm or similar that had to leave the square it was attacking. ill dig furher into the rules to confirm or deny this part
Zevox 07-13-07, 02:29 PM	@ Salrantol - A forewarning, the tactics for Ceilia & the Chameleon are going to be a little late this week. We just finished discussing them as best we could, and I'll be able to write them up and send them in tonight, but I have to work shortly, and don't have enough time to get them done before the deadline. I hope this isn't a problem. Zevox
SoulLord 07-13-07, 02:47 PM	@ Salrantol - A forewarning, the tactics for Ceilia & the Chameleon are going to be a little late this week. We just finished discussing them as best we could, and I'll be able to write them up and send them in tonight, but I have to work shortly, and don't have enough time to get them done before the deadline. I hope this isn't a problem. Zevox would be much faster and easier to write we surrender :)
Salrantol 07-13-07, 02:51 PM	@ Salrantol - A forewarning, the tactics for Ceilia & the Chameleon are going to be a little late this week. We just finished discussing them as best we could, and I'll be able to write them up and send them in tonight, but I have to work shortly, and don't have enough time to get them done before the deadline. I hope this isn't a problem.Other than the fact that I'm not working today so it'd be the best time for me to run the fight, no problems at all. I should still have time to get it done, and my house needs cleaning anyway.
Zevox 07-13-07, 02:55 PM	would be much faster and easier to write we surrender :) You overestimate your chances. That fight will be a nail-biter, but its hardly one with a certain outcome. Zevox
SoulLord 07-13-07, 02:58 PM	Actually I think it's going to be a very tough fight was just teasing you :P
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 02:59 PM	Baelin "Called the Shadow" (Malither76) vs Archdevil Asran (Zevox) is up.
Zevox 07-13-07, 03:21 PM	Baelin "Called the Shadow" (Malither76) vs Archdevil Asran (Zevox) is up. I only see minor errors at first glance, but nothing fight-changing - mainly that being attacked while unconscious actually, even just the falling damage due to going unconscious while flying should have woken Senorda up and that Baelin's ring needs to be reactivated every 7 rounds. Thanks for the run. Glad things went almost to plan. Zevox
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 03:37 PM	Note that drow sleep poison doesn't put you to sleep - it makes you unconscious. I forgot to roll in the falling damage... what the heck was I thinking. As to his ring needing to be reactivated - I believe you are incorrect. On command it blinks you as the blink spell - but it specifies nothing about needing to reactivate it every 7 rounds. Its a continuous, use activated item.
Macbrea 07-13-07, 03:38 PM	Poison Unconsciousness isn't awaken by method of just shaking the person. It puts you to a state of unconsciousness. Sleep spell puts you to unconsciousness with the caveat that you can be awaken by violent shaking or loud noise. What drow poison fails to mention is when it wears off, except in the description of drow themselves. Where it says, 'After 1 minute, the subject must succeed on another DC 13 Fortitude save or remain unconscious for 2d4 hours. ' For a RL example of the two: You go into the doctors office he tells you he needs to remove a lump from your left leg. Would you rather him say: "Can you just lay down over there and I will cut it out while you sleep?" or "We are going to give something to knock you unconscious and will be cutting it out while your in that state. You should wake up in about 3 hours." Note big difference.
Zevox 07-13-07, 03:56 PM	As to his ring needing to be reactivated - I believe you are incorrect. On command it blinks you as the blink spell - but it specifies nothing about needing to reactivate it every 7 rounds. Its a continuous, use activated item. Theres an entry in the FAQ which mentions that it is not continuous, but I don't have time to look it up right now. The ring basically gives you the ability to use Blink at-will. Zevox
Macbrea 07-13-07, 04:09 PM	Quote FAQ: --------------------------------- I’m looking at the descriptions for the various command-activated magic rings in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, and I can’t find any mention of how long these powers actually last once activated. For example, how long do you blink when you activate a ring of blinking? How long can you turn spells when you activate a ring of spell turning? What happens if I activate a ring twice? Do the durations stack? In the case of a ring (or any other item) that duplicates a spell effect, one activation functions for the same duration as the duplicated spell cast by a character of the ring’s caster level. For example, when you activate a ring of blinking you will blink for up to 7 rounds since the ring’s caster level is 7th. Since blink is a dismissible spell, you can use a standard action to deactivate the effect sooner if you like. In some cases, an item’s description specifies a different duration for a spell effect. For example, when you activate a ring of spell turning, the ring turns the next nine levels of spell cast on you, no matter how long that takes. If you activate an item again before a previous activation runs out, the two durations overlap, they do not stack. For example, of you active a ring of blinking and blink for 3 rounds, then activate it again, you wind up blinking for 10 rounds in total. In the case of a ring of spell turning, a new activation would mean the ring would turn the next nine levels of spells cast on you after the second activation (any unused turning from the previous activation would be lost). ----------------------------------- There you go.
MindWandererB 07-13-07, 04:12 PM	Theres an entry in the FAQ which mentions that it is not continuous, but I don't have time to look it up right now. The ring basically gives you the ability to use Blink at-will. Zevox Zebox is correct. Here's the quote: I’m looking at the descriptions for the various command activated magic rings in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, and I can’t find any mention of how long these powers actually last once activated. For example, how long do you blink when you activate a ring of blinking? How long can you turn spells when you activate a ring of spell turning? What happens if I activate a ring twice? Do the durations stack? In the case of a ring (or any other item) that duplicates a spell effect, one activation functions for the same duration as the duplicated spell cast by a character of the ring’s caster level. For example, when you activate a ring of blinking you will blink for up to 7 rounds since the ring’s caster level is 7th. Since blink is a dismissible spell, you can use a standard action to deactivate the effect sooner if you like. In some cases, an item’s description specifies a different duration for a spell effect. For example, when you activate a ring of spell turning, the ring turns the next nine levels of spell cast on you, no matter how long that takes. If you activate an item again before a previous activation runs out, the two durations overlap, they do not stack. For example, of you active a ring of blinking and blink for 3 rounds, then activate it again, you wind up blinking for 10 rounds in total. In the case of a ring of spell turning, a new activation would mean the ring would turn the next nine levels of spells cast on you after the second activation (any unused turning from the previous activation would be lost).This actually ends up working in Baelin's favor, since sundering the ring does not immediately end the ongoing effect! He can't reactivate it, but if any of the 7-round duration is ongoing, it continues.
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 04:13 PM	Well - I learn something new everyday. However, that does mean that the effect doesn't necessarily go away once the ring is sundered. I'll take a quick look and see how it affects things. EDIT - Okay, so the initial activation lasts until round 13. In round 10 - Asran sunders the ring, so this affects round 11-13. In round 11, Baelin attacks 3 times but misses anyway. Asran hits twice, but passes the blinking miss chances - so the bow is still sundered. In round 12, Baelin misses anyway. Asran hits once, but passes the blinking miss chance. Before Baelin's action in round 13 the blinking would end anyway. So net is no effect.
SoulLord 07-13-07, 04:22 PM	In the faq under rings (actually it mentions the ring of blinking for this question) How long do you blink when you turn on ring of blinking in the case of any ring(or any other item) which duplicates a spell effect, one activation functions as for the same duration as the duplicated spell cast by a a character of the rings caster level. for example when you activate a ring of blinking you will blink for up to 7 rounds since the ring's caster level is 7th- -snip snip- if you activate an item before a previous activation runs out the durations overlap they do not stack
Macbrea 07-13-07, 04:26 PM	:P
TelinArtho 07-13-07, 04:36 PM	@stimpydoda - you need to include Dentik's spells that he used in addition to the spell levels. Also - he actually used 4 SLs - not 2 (2 castings of Hold Person).
stimpydoda 07-13-07, 04:47 PM	@stimpydoda - you need to include Dentik's spells that he used in addition to the spell levels. Also - he actually used 4 SLs - not 2 (2 castings of Hold Person). Ah, thanks.... Done :)
templer10 07-13-07, 06:03 PM	Sabertooth Vs shanan is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13063172&postcount=1092) - silence won the day.
UserNamer 07-13-07, 06:13 PM	Sabertooth Vs shanan is done (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13063172&postcount=1092) - silence won the day. Thanks for running the fight, but I noticed something, that might change the outcome: In the my tactics I wrote the SW counter: shield of faith, full defense, and total cover. Witch means I should have had total cover in round 6 and 7, witch means I have 6 damage less, giving me two rounds of shooting.
UserNamer 07-13-07, 06:15 PM	Ow yea, and I think max damage for his spiritual weapon is 9 [1d8+1] Edit: I noticed you rolled 1d10+1 for his SW, but it should be 1d8+1, I think. This might give me another shot, for a total of 3 extra shots. Edit2: In round 8 Shanan isn't moving to neglect enemy cover. Edit3: I just read in the tavern that the t-shield doesn't protect me from MM, but still, I get 1, maybe 2 more shots, becouse of 1d8+1 damage instead of 1d10+1. I think this one should be rerolled.
templer10 07-13-07, 07:22 PM	Ow yea, and I think max damage for his spiritual weapon is 9 [1d8+1] Edit: I noticed you rolled 1d10+1 for his SW, but it should be 1d8+1, I think. This might give me another shot, for a total of 3 extra shots. Edit2: In round 8 Shanan isn't moving to neglect enemy cover. Edit3: I just read in the tavern that the t-shield doesn't protect me from MM, but still, I get 1, maybe 2 more shots, becouse of 1d8+1 damage instead of 1d10+1. I think this one should be rerolled. NM
Sjiggie 07-13-07, 07:25 PM	OK, the monster fight is updated. Fewer buffs made the difference--not because the dragon was any weaker, she wasn't--but because she got to Xanaver sooner, before his buffs wore down as much. *shrug* Well, that and the dragon wasn't using some sort of strange super-long claw attacks.....:confused: As far as the cloak goes--the dragon has good saves for an ECL 3 creature, so it's not something that's really important for it. Anyway, it's over, the human won, leave me alone.... Thanks for running the fight. When I first saw the equipment I also saw the amount of expandables he had but also you bought them as if he was going to fight 3 fights. But anyway I don't have any problems with the fight as it stands now. Xanavar has slayed a dragon! :D
Airwhale 07-13-07, 07:38 PM	his favored weapon is dwarven waraxe - which is 1d10 so it should be 1d10 spiritual weapon. Nope. SRD says it is 1d8+1 with the threat range and crit multiplier of your favored weapon. A weapon made of pure force springs into existence and attacks opponents at a distance, as you direct it, dealing 1d8 force damage per hit, +1 point per three caster levels (maximum +5 at 15th level). The weapon takes the shape of a weapon favored by your deity or a weapon with some spiritual significance or symbolism to you (see below) and has the same threat range and critical multipliers as a real weapon of its form.
Zevox 07-14-07, 12:26 AM	@ Salrantol - Team tactics for Ceilia & Chameleon vs Vandelar have been PMed. I wound up going with something quite different from what Lonewolf and I initially discussed (as he'll no doubt notice, since I forwarded the tactics to him too), but I had a bit of inspiration I'm pretty sure will give us better odds at victory overall (and be slightly less risky to Ceilia in the long run). Heres a little tidbit from it that'll probably shock everyone (especially SoulLord) and make your job easier: Ceilia left her mount behind. :angelhide :plotting: Zevox
hogarth 07-14-07, 12:49 AM	Heres a little tidbit from it that'll probably shock everyone (especially SoulLord) and make your job easier: Ceilia left her mount behind. :angelhide :plotting: If she left _all_ of her allies behind, then I'd be shocked.
Zevox 07-14-07, 02:05 AM	If she left _all_ of her allies behind, then I'd be shocked. *shrugs* I considered it - Bishop is almost sure to die in that fight - but in the end leaving him behind would be a bad idea for this match in spite of that. But in any event, shes only used him in one fight before (and he hardly contributed anything there - that was her match with Kervan), so its not like hes a major part of her success thus far. Zevox
templer10 07-14-07, 02:54 AM	about sabertooth vs shanan - i rolled new spirityual weapon dmg - didnt make a diffrence exept taking 1 more wand shot to kill shanan.
Malither76 07-14-07, 03:26 AM	Not to discredit Zevox's tactics very sound. but I thought it was discussed that items like rings and amulates were not able to be sundered, I am probably wrong on this, but this just means Baelin will be wearing 10 rings now. And if detect magic starts coming into play looks like I will have to get a permanent aura on all of them :)
MindWandererB 07-14-07, 03:31 AM	Not to discredit Zevox's tactics very sound. but I thought it was discussed that items like rings and amulates were not able to be sundered, I am probably wrong on this, but this just means Baelin will be wearing 10 rings now. And if detect magic starts coming into play looks like I will have to get a permanent aura on all of them :) Which is why most divine casters around here pack extra holy symbols. It's kind of ridiculous, but perfectly legal.
Malither76 07-14-07, 03:36 AM	Guess I will just need to add some sblocks to keep things neat, but if say you wore 10 rings, gloves then gauntlets would you first need to pick a hand, sunder that gauntlet, then that glove then pick a ring?
TheMagister 07-14-07, 04:12 AM	I agree with Malither. Sundering a Ring is pretty darned impossible in both logical and RL arenas, even if it seems possible in DnD terms. I mean, a ring is a fine object. If you hung it on an unbreakable thread and tied the thread to a tree branch outside in a fair wind, you'd need what -- an 18 to hit it? But if it's worn by a commoner, you'd only need the same 18, even if your goal is to remove the ring without doing damage to the wearer? What kind of incredible William Tell/Zorro-esque stuff is that? I think we should be guided by that line in the Adventuring section of the PHB under Smashing on Object: "Ineffective Weapons: The DM may determine that certain weapons just can't effectively deal damage to certain objects. For example, you may have a hard time chopping down a door by shooting arrows at it or cutting a rope with a club." "Using a greataxe to destroy a ring worn by a dextrous master thief who is blinking between planes while shooting arrows at you" seems to fit right in with those examples of ineffective weapons. It would be hard enough to get a pair of metal snips (the perfect tool for cutting small metal objects) on a ring in that particular situation, let alone a greataxe. It smells. I'm not saying it's wrong. But it smells.
hogarth 07-14-07, 09:53 AM	I found this comment of Zevox's (in Ceilia's tactics) very strange: - The Dragon skeleton has no skills, so it can never spot Chameleon, and can’t spot Ceilia or Bishop whenever they have cover or hear Ceilia casting. Where does it say that mindless creatures can't make skill checks? They certainly don't get any skill _ranks_, but that's not the same as saying that (for instance) a monstrous scorpion with a +4 Spot modifier can't make Spot checks.
Abyssal Stalker 07-14-07, 10:34 AM	I found this comment of Zevox's (in Ceilia's tactics) very strange: Where does it say that mindless creatures can't make skill checks? They certainly don't get any skill _ranks_, but that's not the same as saying that (for instance) a monstrous scorpion with a +4 Spot modifier can't make Spot checks. I think hogarth is right. I can't find anything in the rules that would support Zevox. It would be like a simple darkness spell would make undead automatically fail to see or hear you. You would have concealment and thus could hide and no matter how bad your hide or move silently checks were, the undead couldn't use spot or listen to notice that you are around.
Zevox 07-14-07, 12:15 PM	I'm sorry guys, but illogical as that seems at first, its the way the rules are written. The simple fact of the matter is that the skeleton and zombie templates say that those creatures "[have] no skills" - not that they get no skill points, but that they have no skills at all. Theres not even a skill entry in any of the example skeletons or zombies - nothing, nada. It seems to me that means they flat-out can't make skill checks, which means they can't spot hiding foes, jump, balance, etc. Which, to be perfectly honest, makes sense if you think about it IMO - they're mindless corpses barely able to move around thanks to magic. They don't even operate on muscle and whatnot anymore - of course they're going to be too clumsy to balance, lack the muscle to jump, the mental acumen to suspect that creatures are even able to hide, etc. As for the Ring sundering, well, I'm sure Asran would have no problem taking a few of Baelin's fingers off with it, if that makes anyone feel any better ;) (think Isildur vs Sauron, heh). Zevox
Abyssal Stalker 07-14-07, 12:52 PM	I'm sorry guys, but illogical as that seems at first, its the way the rules are written. The simple fact of the matter is that the skeleton and zombie templates say that those creatures "[have] no skills" - not that they get no skill points, but that they have no skills at all. Theres not even a skill entry in any of the example skeletons or zombies - nothing, nada. It seems to me that means they flat-out can't make skill checks, which means they can't spot hiding foes, jump, balance, etc. Which, to be perfectly honest, makes sense if you think about it IMO - they're mindless corpses barely able to move around thanks to magic. They don't even operate on muscle and whatnot anymore - of course they're going to be too clumsy to balance, lack the muscle to jump, the mental acumen to suspect that creatures are even able to hide, etc. As for the Ring sundering, well, I'm sure Asran would have no problem taking a few of Baelin's fingers off with it, if that makes anyone feel any better ;) (think Isildur vs Sauron, heh). Zevox So you are saying that moving to cover makes you automatically immune to zombies and skeletons? Because you automatically get to make a hide check when you have cover and they lack the ability to spot - so you effectively disappear and they also lack the ability to understand anything... I'm sorry but this is like saying that in the case below the zombie must walk into the lava instead of moving around it just because it's nonintelligent and the straight line goes through the lava? http://www.hwx.it/coco/coco.php;v=1;map=temple;a=Hero,M,15,21,H ero;b=Zomb,M,11,16,14,20,Zombie
hogarth 07-14-07, 12:55 PM	I'm sorry guys, but illogical as that seems at first, its the way the rules are written. The simple fact of the matter is that the skeleton and zombie templates say that those creatures "[have] no skills" - not that they get no skill points, but that they have no skills at all. Theres not even a skill entry in any of the example skeletons or zombies - nothing, nada. It seems to me that means they flat-out can't make skill checks, which means they can't spot hiding foes, jump, balance, etc. Which, to be perfectly honest, makes sense if you think about it IMO - they're mindless corpses barely able to move around thanks to magic. They don't even operate on muscle and whatnot anymore - of course they're going to be too clumsy to balance, lack the muscle to jump, the mental acumen to suspect that creatures are even able to hide, etc. The description of mindless creatures makes it obvious that mindless creatures can make skill checks and that "no skills" means "no skill ranks". Mindless creatures do not gain feats or skills, although they may have bonus feats or racial skill bonuses. So they can have skill bonuses, but can't make skill checks with them? But let's consider it Zevox's way: -Ceilia issues a spoken command to her undead buddy. (DC 0 Listen check) -Undead buddy stands there uncomprehending, unable to make a DC 0 Listen check. Uh.... EDIT: Here's a quote from the Skills section of the SRD: Generally, if your character attempts to use a skill he or she does not possess, you make a skill check as normal. So you don't need to possess a skill in order to make an untrained check.
Hirumajoe 07-14-07, 02:19 PM	But if it's worn by a commoner, you'd only need the same 18, even if your goal is to remove the ring without doing damage to the wearer? What kind of incredible William Tell/Zorro-esque stuff is that? Its fantasy Zorro-esque stuff, thats what it is. A commoner with a +0 would need to be extremely lucky to pull off an 18 AC. But a 10th level fighter with magically enhanced equipment wouldn't have a problem. What level fighter would you associate with the stuff Zorro can pull off reliably? How many feats and bonuses to hit until you start doing incredible things with a melee weapon? +10? +20? +30? This is a fantasy setting. We have wizards tossing fireballs and flying around, we have rogues able to hide right in front of your face, why is it such a stretch to have a trained swordsman (or in this case a magical interdimensional axedemon) to pull off a Zorro type manuever. I mean, sure, its not real life stuff, but its certainly the stuff of legends and fantasy worlds. As for it being illogical that it doesn't do any damage to the one being wearing it, then don't describe it that way. Just because there are no mechanical penalities, such as loss of hit points, it doesn't mean that the guy got away without a cut or a scratch. Heck, say he lost the digit with the ring. If we ignore whether its approriate to the setting or real life impossibility of it all, is there a balance issue? As it stands, melee fighter types tend to be considered weaker compared to the full caster types. Is allowing them to sunder non-weapon equipment a balance problem? You have to be in melee, you have to be using said melee attack for a sunder, you have to suffer an attack of opportunity, and then you roll to hit and damage a single item. I don't see what the balance problem with this is. Any full caster can do something similar with dispel magic for 1d4 rounds with much less personal risk. And they only need your magic item of Mindblank or Deathward down for a round to get that save or die in...
hogarth 07-14-07, 02:54 PM	My two cents on sundering rings: as Malither76 pointed out there are easy countermeasures (wear 5 rings on each finger with gloves over top, for instance). It just seems tiresome to go through all my characters and specify "I'm wearing a zillion extra rings to prevent the real ones from being sundered. Plus all of my wands are the type made out of metal, not the type made out of wood, and I have a bunch of fake ones, too. Plus I keep my spell components in a bunch of different pockets throughout my clothing, not centrally located in a spell component pouch. Plus I have 100 quivers each with 1 arrow in them, not one quiver with 100 arrows in it. Plus...[dozens of other silly countermeasures that don't cost anything to implement]" :rolleyes:
Hirumajoe 07-14-07, 03:38 PM	My two cents on sundering rings: as Malither76 pointed out there are easy countermeasures (wear 5 rings on each finger with gloves over top, for instance). It just seems tiresome to go through all my characters and specify "I'm wearing a zillion extra rings to prevent the real ones from being sundered. Plus all of my wands are the type made out of metal, not the type made out of wood, and I have a bunch of fake ones, too. Plus I keep my spell components in a bunch of different pockets throughout my clothing, not centrally located in a spell component pouch. Plus I have 100 quivers each with 1 arrow in them, not one quiver with 100 arrows in it. Plus...[dozens of other silly countermeasures that don't cost anything to implement]" :rolleyes: Here is a question: How good is our pre-fight information? Does our character (or the player) know the position of all items on his opponent? Obviously they've done their research well enough to know exactly what an opponent owns, is carrying, and their exact capabilities. Do we also know where they're stored on their opponent, at least until they enter the arena? (After which they can obviously move things around with actions -- but actions aren't exactly "free"). Does each gladiator get a "reference sheet" from the people in charge of the arena before each fight with a detailed drawing of his opponent pointing to and explaining all their equipment? I honestly don't know how thats handled. I could certainly see the equipment location being part of the pre-fight information just as much as the fact that a fighter is wearing a Scarab of Protection (which protects from death effects) and that he has a high fort save. It lets him use his sunder feat to greatest affect against a wizard with many protective magic items, just as the wizard can tailor his spell use against the fighter (using Reflex and Will save spells). If thats not the case, then the wizard is getting a double set of advantages. Not only does he have more options in general, he gets the information necessary to use those options to their fullest.
McJarvis 07-14-07, 03:48 PM	Sundering: I brought this up before regarding General Zaroff just keeping all of his arrows in different quivers...I don't think there really is a right answer per se, but if you allow the sundering of all worn objects then you eventually have to deal with the fact that sundering is such a potent attack option that everyone will have to use cheese tactics to counter it. As it is sundering is certainly powerful enough when you consider it being used to sunder bows/weapons/held items, so I'm not entirely sure the ability to sunder holy symbols/spell component pouches/rings/gloves/quivers/etc is necessary for our environment. Of course, anything restricting sundering from these activities would be a house rule: but so was our energy missile/energy ball house-ruling.
Zevox 07-14-07, 03:53 PM	Severin Dreamblade vs Darfu Spell-Axe is done. Zevox
Hirumajoe 07-14-07, 04:24 PM	Sundering: I brought this up before regarding General Zaroff just keeping all of his arrows in different quivers...I don't think there really is a right answer per se, but if you allow the sundering of all worn objects then you eventually have to deal with the fact that sundering is such a potent attack option that everyone will have to use cheese tactics to counter it. As it is sundering is certainly powerful enough when you consider it being used to sunder bows/weapons/held items, so I'm not entirely sure the ability to sunder holy symbols/spell component pouches/rings/gloves/quivers/etc is necessary for our environment. Of course, anything restricting sundering from these activities would be a house rule: but so was our energy missile/energy ball house-ruling. Hmm... If sundering is too powerful to be allowed to be used on non-weapon/held magic items, then house ruling it or simply not allowing the information for optimal use is in order. That logic I'll agree with. But for the moment (I can probably be convinced otherwise with evidence) I don't see why sundering non-weapon/non-held items is too powerful such that it requires "cheese" tactics be implimented to stop it. If your opponent is *only* sundering your non-weapon/non-held items, and they're sundering *all* of them before attacking you, thats free rounds for you to be attacking right back and presumably defeating them. Lets consider the sundering a quiver angle: If your opponent is sundering your quiver, that means as a ranged striker you've been forced to melee. If you don't have a strong melee presence, then you've arguably lost right there. He could just as easily be tripping you, which I would think is even worse for a ranged striker since you can't 5' and shoot your opponent. Or he could be grappling you. Why is sundering so much more effective than these other options? Edit: I just want to be clear, I'm not saying your wrong, I'm just saying no one has stepped forward to provide evidence as to why sundering is too powerful. So far, people have merely pointed out that there are free countermeasures which are annoying to impliment. I then asked if those counter measures actually work (which I'd still love an answer on). Personally I think either way (if we house rule you can't sunder non-held items or if let the core rules hold) that the annoying counter measures probably shouldn't be necessary nor work, simply to have a level playing field. Otherwise, I'm going to start bringing a carriage with no windows and a locked door (from the inside). Should only cost 100gp. Perfect safety for buffing. :)
Sjiggie 07-14-07, 04:37 PM	I've written tactics for slade to sunder any held items by my opponent. He is fighting a rogue wizard and he trips the wizard first and with the follow-up attack he sunders his wand/scrolls/bow if he has them in hand. This way he prevents the wizard for sneack-attacking with his spells or bow and keeps him in one place by the tripping. In this way sunder can be effective. (The fight hasn't been run yet so I still have to see how it works but I think it will work effectively)
Hirumajoe 07-14-07, 04:42 PM	I've written tactics for slade to sunder any held items by my opponent. He is fighting a rogue wizard and he trips the wizard first and with the follow-up attack he sunders his wand/scrolls/bow if he has them in hand. This way he prevents the wizard for sneack-attacking with his spells or bow and keeps him in one place by the tripping. In this way sunder can be effective. (The fight hasn't been run yet so I still have to see how it works but I think it will work effectively) Oh, I'm not saying sunder can't be effective. I guess I'm saying that I don't see it as being broken and requiring the effective house ruling (or allowing trivial counters to exist). In the case of your rogue wizard, you need to actually get to melee. And while sundering anything in hand is good, it still doesn't prevent him from drawing it and using it at least once in the first place. So he still can cast spells or use an offensive wand (once). Edit: I just realized, the carriage idea is just what Abyssal Stalker's Jonathan needs for the bright light case. Guaranteed starting in darkness and he can get up magical darkness protections from there...
McJarvis 07-14-07, 04:53 PM	Oh, I'm not saying sunder can't be effective. I guess I'm saying that I don't see it as being broken and requiring the effective house ruling (or allowing trivial counters to exist). I don't think it's impossibly broken[I believe the tone of my earlier post was that it is powerful, not broken...]: but I'd like a ruling that either invalidates these legal countermeasures or that keeps sundering to only held items/weapons. Regarding the legality of the tactics: There is little doubt in my mind that someone who is capable of holding 200+[no limit] arrows on their back with no encumbrance is capable of holding 200+ quivers with an arrow as well. As far as sundering a specific magic ring: we force gladiators to identify spells if they want to respond to them tactically. In the same way I'd imagine the gladiator would have to identify which ring is magical, or if multiple ones are- identify which one has the desired magical effect.
Hirumajoe 07-14-07, 05:01 PM	As far as sundering a specific magic ring: we force gladiators to identify spells if they want to respond to them tactically. In the same way I'd imagine the gladiator would have to identify which ring is magical, or if multiple ones are- identify which one has the desired magical effect. Not if the spell is pre-buffed we don't. You're allowed to write tactics which take into account pre-buffed spells. Is equipment placement other than the two items which start in your hands pre-buffed? We simply don't note it at the moment (since it'd be a pain) but that doesn't necessarily mean the information is unavailable. Hence my earlier question: How much information do our characters have pre-fight? Edit: On rereading your post, I think we have the same goal in mind, which is make it either unnecessary or illegal to do silly countermeasures. Perhaps taking this to the council or the courtroom may eventually be in order. Might be nice to hear from an Elder on the subject through.
stimpydoda 07-14-07, 05:12 PM	Considering how great Craft Wondrous Item and the other Craft feats are and them only being available to casters, I don't have a problem at all with sundering. I also don't see a problem with someone using 100 quivers with 1 arrow in each. I hope they can remember which they have used :)
Zevox 07-14-07, 10:16 PM	Longshot vs Zodiac & Enoch is up. Zevox
TheMagister 07-14-07, 10:38 PM	Longshot vs Zodiac & Enoch is up. Zevox Aren't we supposed to divide by two and then apply the -10 from Energy Resistance? That results in less damage for the defender.
Zevox 07-14-07, 10:48 PM	Aren't we supposed to divide by two and then apply the -10 from Energy Resistance? That results in less damage for the defender. Hm, perhaps. But in any event, it wouldn't make any difference here - Enoch would take 7 damage instead of 12 in round 3, and the 13 in round 4 would still kill him, he'd just be down to -3 instead of -8. Zevox
TheMagister 07-14-07, 11:33 PM	would it have helped Zodiac at any time?
Zevox 07-14-07, 11:34 PM	would it have helped Zodiac at any time? Given he failed his 1 save (he needed a 20 to do so, so no surprise there), no. Zevox
Vathelokai 07-14-07, 11:58 PM	Longshot vs Zodiac & Enoch is up. Zevox Looks well run. Only thing I see is that Enoch didn't use obscuring mist to hide while trying to get Zodiac's stuff. I don't see it changing anything. It's up to Salrantol there. Can't say the result wasn't expected. @ Vath - You could do with getting rid of the copies of SRD and rules of gladius info and the Red Wizard info too (could just link the TAO post with the Red Wizard info and the rules post with the intimidate info, don't you think?), though at least you have it set up so thats easy to cut. @ Vath - You know, every time I see Zodiac, I wonder just how you expect him to do well. With his dex and con, hes just so damn vulnerable. Potent spells don't mean much if you get slaughtered before you can get them off. The SRD/rules stuff is mostly for me, so I don't have to open 5 windows to write tactics or open one more when I level up. I'll think on a better solution; maybe just saving it all to one txt file. As for doing well; Zodiac is an experiment. I didn't want to spend 20 credits starting him off at higher level so he's trudging through the lower levels getting beat up. In a few more levels he'll make some str/dex boosing items to shore things up, then grab the lich template. So, no, I don't expect him to do well right now. I do expect him to do well later.
Zevox 07-15-07, 08:42 PM	Aerryl Nalladar vs Leif Goldeneye is up. Quick little exchange of spells that. And yet still in 5 rounds I had to make 4 pitlord calls... Zevox
Salrantol 07-16-07, 12:17 AM	Vandelar the Red vs. Ceilia Durrol & The Chameleon is up. I would also appreciate some help with the rewards. I haven't done an interleague fight before and couldn't find any guidelines in the Rules of Gladius.
Zevox 07-16-07, 01:10 AM	Vandelar the Red vs. Ceilia Durrol & The Chameleon is up. I would also appreciate some help with the rewards. I haven't done an interleague fight before and couldn't find any guidelines in the Rules of Gladius. Technically, you take the rewards for the lower-level characters defeating the higher-level one, then divide it by two for the two teammates, and similarly take the rewards for the higher-level defeating the lower-level foe and apply them twice for the two foes, then divide by three for the loser, then apply ally/political career adjustments. In practice though, this always works out to be the same as simply giving them rewards for defeating or losing to a foe of their level and applying adjustments, so you can just use that. Edit: Speaking of ally rewards, if you're not familiar with how those work in team/inter-league matches, the boost from the allies Ceilia brought only counts half for Vandelar (since the other half would have to come from Chameleon, if she had allies), and Chameleon takes no penalty for Ceilia's even though they're on the same team. So Vandelar gets -4.16% rewards (-16.66% his ally, + 12.5% Ceilia's), Ceilia gets -8.34% rewards (-25% her allies, + 16.66% Vandelar's), and Chameleon gets +16.66% rewards (Vandelar's ally). One note on the wrap-up: I'm fairly sure Ceilia does not lose the spells that Enervation sapped from her memory, since all negative effects from fights are removed by the Nimbus. And if they would be, well, I'll argue to get that changed in the council. Thanks a lot for running the fight. Zevox
Salrantol 07-16-07, 07:17 AM	One note on the wrap-up: I'm fairly sure Ceilia does not lose the spells that Enervation sapped from her memory, since all negative effects from fights are removed by the Nimbus. And if they would be, well, I'll argue to get that changed in the council.As I recall, though, there was a discussion last week about effects that cause a loss of pp carrying over between fights, and this would be approximately the same effect. I agree that they shouldn't carry over, but my understanding was that they did. And if pp theft does carry over but spell loss doesn't, the system needs fixing. And thanks for the info.
lonewolf 07-16-07, 08:17 AM	Is a targeted Dispel Magic a direct attack for the purpose of sanctuary? => can someone who has already failed his will save against sanctuary try to dispel it?
templer10 07-16-07, 10:27 AM	Is a targeted Dispel Magic a direct attack for the purpose of sanctuary? => can someone who has already failed his will save against sanctuary try to dispel it? i dont think it's an attack against the targeted person - it's at most an "attack" on the spell itself.
Zevox 07-16-07, 11:05 AM	As I recall, though, there was a discussion last week about effects that cause a loss of pp carrying over between fights, and this would be approximately the same effect. I agree that they shouldn't carry over, but my understanding was that they did. And if pp theft does carry over but spell loss doesn't, the system needs fixing. And thanks for the info. I don't recall such a discussion, but certainly anything which forces involuntary spell/pp loss should fall under the basic 3FC rule removing negative effects from the character after the fight. Definitely in this instance, all the other effects of Enervation get removed even though they would last 24 hours normally, so why wouldn't the spells be likewise restored? Zevox
waywreth 07-16-07, 11:08 AM	I would think the only reason pp loss would carry over would be enervation (wilder "feature") which would be self induced. I would also consider a targeted dispel to be an attack, and thus prohibited by sanctuary, just like casting a targeted dispel on a person would break invisibility.
Zevox 07-16-07, 11:13 AM	I would think the only reason pp loss would carry over would be enervation (wilder "feature") which would be self induced. I could think of a few others that would be valid (Psionic Hole, the Catapsi power, or the Wilder Volatile Mind ability driving up the cost of manifesting a power, for instance - thats not involuntary loss, its a loss you choose to take while under adverse conditions), but yeah, they're fairly few in number, and quite different from the situation Ceilia is in with negative levels sapping her spells. Zevox
hogarth 07-16-07, 11:18 AM	I don't recall such a discussion, but certainly anything which forces involuntary spell/pp loss should fall under the basic 3FC rule removing negative effects from the character after the fight. Definitely in this instance, all the other effects of Enervation get removed even though they would last 24 hours normally, so why wouldn't the spells be likewise restored? Suppose a character loses a spell when his spellcasting gets disrupted by a melee attack. Are you suggesting that the character should get his spell back in time for the next match because the effects of the melee attack are gone? That seems a bit wonky.
lonewolf 07-16-07, 11:35 AM	Lady Liara vs. 2 Ghasts is up. Kraegin vs. guardian Naga is partly up. I wait on a bit more input if the dispel which the Naga does in round 8 is viable or not until I finish up. But It probably doesnt make any difference since the naga failed her save against Insanity in the same round, so Kraegin has this fight pretty much won. Its just a matter of used resources now.
Zevox 07-16-07, 11:38 AM	Suppose a character loses a spell when his spellcasting gets disrupted by a melee attack. Are you suggesting that the character should get his spell back in time for the next match because the effects of the melee attack are gone? That seems a bit wonky. Hell no - he was already casting the spell, so its not involuntary loss, its just that the spell was prevented from working. Not the same thing. Zevox
TelinArtho 07-16-07, 11:46 AM	I would certainly consider a targetted dispel magic a direct attack against a being warded with sanctuary. As others have said - a targetted dispel on the sanctuary itself is permissible (though questionable too - it attacks directly - but technically Kraegin isn't the target of the attack, even though the spell affects him. An area dispel certainly would work - but that probably wouldn't be the option the naga would go for...
TelinArtho 07-16-07, 12:35 PM	Lady Liara vs. 2 Ghasts is up. Kraegin vs. guardian Naga is partly up. I wait on a bit more input if the dispel which the Naga does in round 8 is viable or not until I finish up. But It probably doesnt make any difference since the naga failed her save against Insanity in the same round, so Kraegin has this fight pretty much won. Its just a matter of used resources now. Couple of things that I see right now: 1. How did the naga get the improved HP? I don't see a CON boosting item on the equipment, but the naga has 11 more HP than is listed in the SRD. 2. In round 4, the spiritual weapon strikes (in the roller) for 11 points of damage. In the summary, the hp of the naga drops by only 2. With this - I think the Naga's current HP should be 59/93
templer10 07-16-07, 04:53 PM	slade vs Arbin is done and here. (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13091282&postcount=1103)
lonewolf 07-16-07, 05:17 PM	Couple of things that I see right now: 1. How did the naga get the improved HP? I don't see a CON boosting item on the equipment, but the naga has 11 more HP than is listed in the SRD. 2. In round 4, the spiritual weapon strikes (in the roller) for 11 points of damage. In the summary, the hp of the naga drops by only 2. With this - I think the Naga's current HP should be 59/93 The first is a mistake. I juggled the equipment around a bit and had thought that there was still a con booster. The second however is correct, since the Naga casts Divine Power in the same round which gives it 9 temporary HP. I will finish the fight tomorrow morning without the dispel in round 8. Anything but a win from Kraegin would REALLY suprise me.
Sjiggie 07-16-07, 05:19 PM	Thanks for the run templer10 no errors on my part. Stupid me forgetting that a spiked chain is a piercing weapon.
TelinArtho 07-16-07, 05:20 PM	The first is a mistake. I juggled the equipment around a bit and had thought that there was still a con booster. The second however is correct, since the Naga casts Divine Power in the same round which gives it 9 temporary HP. I will finish the fight tomorrow morning without the dispel in round 8. Anything but a win from Kraegin would REALLY suprise me. Ah yes - I forgot about the temp hp from that. Ok.
Yitzi 07-16-07, 06:10 PM	By the way, Sjiggie, if you were hit by glitterdust neither total defense nor combat expertise would help you, as they both give dodge bonuses, and you lose those whenever you lose your DEX bonus.
lonewolf 07-17-07, 04:07 AM	Kraegin vs. guardian Naga is up. Not many suprises after round 8.
Eluria 07-17-07, 06:43 AM	@MWB/xZerasX: Isaiah Shar (xZerasx) vs. Phaelen Ir’Kensor (Eluria) : Khaim [Arena] Doesn't look like it will be run; from what I can see, Khaim hasn't logged on since 6/29/07. Since Phaelen has little to no chance of winning, I forfeit in order to move things forward a week. Please PM me with any questions or post here. thanks! -e
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 10:10 AM	Kraegin vs. guardian Naga is up. Not many suprises after round 8. Not that it will make a huge difference (just end things sooner), but the victim of confusion (or insanity) automatically attacks the last person to have hit it in the most recent round: Any confused character who is attacked automatically attacks its attackers on its next turn, as long as it is still confused when its turn comes. Note that a confused character will not make attacks of opportunity against any creature that it is not already devoted to attacking (either because of its most recent action or because it has just been attacked). So the naga wouldn't have fled and would have instead stuck around to attack the achaierai. Still - good run. Glad I took the time to narrow down my opponents...
stimpydoda 07-17-07, 11:05 AM	@MWB/xZerasX: Isaiah Shar (xZerasx) vs. Phaelen Ir’Kensor (Eluria) : Khaim [Arena] Doesn't look like it will be run; from what I can see, Khaim hasn't logged on since 6/29/07. Since Phaelen has little to no chance of winning, I forfeit in order to move things forward a week. Please PM me with any questions or post here. thanks! -e I can run this (nothing to do ALL day). If you want to see it ran out, let me know.
xZerasx 07-17-07, 11:30 AM	If you could run it, that would be cool. I've been looking forward to this fight. I'll PM you my tactics within the hour.
lonewolf 07-17-07, 12:49 PM	@Usernamer: Can you finish the Korwald/Ymandrake fight before pairings? Because if not I would rather surrender the fight than have it held over.
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 01:03 PM	Lightwolf Phoenixstar6 (Yitzi) vs Kathren Durrol (Zevox) and Inzin Dar'ath (waywreth) [Interleague] is up.
UserNamer 07-17-07, 01:13 PM	Could someone please take over this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13069123&postcount=1096) fight?
waywreth 07-17-07, 01:14 PM	Lightwolf Phoenixstar6 (Yitzi) vs Kathren Durrol (Zevox) and Inzin Dar'ath (waywreth) [Interleague] is up. Thank you for the run Telin. Although I find it more than slightly sad, that the fight would've gone exactly the same way if Inzin sat and cooked dinner for everyone at the starting box.
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 01:22 PM	Well - his role wasn't exactly hands-on... his tactics included - casting Warp Wood, casting Entangle, casting summons spells and then using sling stones. That Lightwolf failed the Hideous Laughter and fell was a huge start of the fight...
lonewolf 07-17-07, 01:22 PM	Could someone please take over this (http://boards1.wizards.com/showpost.php?p=13069123&postcount=1096) fight? *sigh* So you have time to post a new character this week but not to run your fight? :ahem:
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 01:27 PM	I can pick up the fight - but I won't be starting on it for another hour. If someone else wants it before then - just post that you are and I won't.
Zevox 07-17-07, 01:35 PM	Lightwolf Phoenixstar6 (Yitzi) vs Kathren Durrol (Zevox) and Inzin Dar'ath (waywreth) [Interleague] is up. Looks pretty good to me. Theres only two minor errors that jumped out at me, one rules, one tactical. The rules one was that Lightwolf can't declare dodge until he has sight of the one he wants to dodge, so you were a bit early on that. The tactical one was that Kathren was supposed to use Acid Arrow just after the Hideous Laughter, but that wouldn't change anything, so it doesn't need editing for. Thanks for running it! I'm glad to see Hideous Laughter worked so well the first time I used it. Zevox
Yitzi 07-17-07, 01:44 PM	Wait, does the rule about each attack with Produce Flame decreasing the duration by one minute apply only to ranged attacks or even to melee? I thought it was only ranged, otherwise the part about 1 min/level, but decreases by 1 minute per attack seems needlessly complicated.
waywreth 07-17-07, 01:49 PM	Well - his role wasn't exactly hands-on... his tactics included - casting Warp Wood, casting Entangle, casting summons spells and then using sling stones. That Lightwolf failed the Hideous Laughter and fell was a huge start of the fight... Yeah, we figured if either warp wood on the bow, or the laughter landed, we'd win the fight fairly easily. All's well!
MindWandererB 07-17-07, 01:59 PM	The rules one was that Lightwolf can't declare dodge until he has sight of the one he wants to dodge, so you were a bit early on that. Benefit: During your action, you designate an opponent and receive a +1 dodge bonus to Armor Class against attacks from that opponent. You can select a new opponent on any action.I don't see any such requirement. It's not a targeted action; you just "designate" an opponent. Wait, does the rule about each attack with Produce Flame decreasing the duration by one minute apply only to ranged attacks or even to melee? I thought it was only ranged, otherwise the part about 1 min/level, but decreases by 1 minute per attack seems needlessly complicated.I had originally read it that way as well, but the clause is, "Each attack you make reduces the remaining duration by 1 minute." That clause immediately follows the bit on ranged attacks, but it doesn't say that it applies only to ranged attacks.
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 03:06 PM	Any attack with produce flame reduces the duration. @Zevox - well - frankly you didn't have tactics for when hideous laughter worked and warp wood hadn't happened yet. I did look at it though - you'd be firing the acid arrow versus your opponent's touch AC (15) + 4 for being prone...
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 03:40 PM	I can pick up the fight - but I won't be starting on it for another hour. If someone else wants it before then - just post that you are and I won't. Okay - starting on the fight now.
Zevox 07-17-07, 04:14 PM	@Zevox - well - frankly you didn't have tactics for when hideous laughter worked and warp wood hadn't happened yet. I did look at it though - you'd be firing the acid arrow versus your opponent's touch AC (15) + 4 for being prone... True - which is why I put that right after casting Hideous Laughter and before my "depending on if Warp Wood worked" clause - I wanted to do it regardless of what worked and what didn't. Round X+: Upon sighting Lightwolf, our readies will go off. Hopefully this will mean he is now laughing uncontrollably and his bow at least is warped, but if not, we’ll cope. Inzin will follow up with a casting of entangle, and Kathren with an acid arrow. Inzin will then drop Chill Metal and Resist Energy to summon two Hippogriffs and sick them on Lightwolf (preferably summon them next to him for full attacks or in a position where they can dive him), then use a scroll of magic stone and start slinging those stones on Lightwolf. Kathren will meanwhile attack based on if Lightwolf’s bow was warped – if it was, she’ll cast Shocking Grasp and have Zephyrus deliver it, then just get out her MM wand and attack with it until he dies. If it wasn’t, she’ll draw and cast protection from good from her scroll, then cast Scorching Ray, then have Zephyrus deliver her memorized shocking grasp while shooting her MM wand, then have Zephyrus deliver her CL 4 scroll grasp, and from there just use her MM wand. Like I said though, it can't change anything, so no need to edit for it. Edit: @ Telin - There is a minor error in the wrap-up that needs editing though. Kathren did not use a scroll of shield, but cast that from memory. Zevox
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 04:25 PM	Korwald Barandar (lonewolf) vs. Ymandrake (stimpydoda) is up. @Zevox - I'll edit that presently.
stimpydoda 07-17-07, 04:49 PM	I don't know if I'm understanding the fight cycle correctly. Is one characters fight cycle seperate from everyone else or are they schedualed on the site. For instance, the fight Telin just ran was Ymandrakes 2nd fight in his existence, his first being last week. However, Telin says it was his first of this cycle.
TelinArtho 07-17-07, 04:57 PM	Nope - its because I didn't see that he had had a fight before. Since I was working off the post that UserNamer had set up - I didn't have the title lines right there. But what I did see was this: Experience: 3,200/6,000 So I made the assumption that he hadn't been in a fight. For that matter - his first fight isn't linked in the character sheet. I'll go back and edit in that it was his second fight. You should immediately get the links into the sheet though - because you must link your fights.
stimpydoda 07-17-07, 05:03 PM	Alrighty, thanks.
Yitzi 07-17-07, 05:05 PM	Any attack with produce flame reduces the duration. So if you try to attack with it melee but miss, that can cause it to go out? Okay...
Zevox 07-17-07, 09:40 PM	The battle of the Gray Elf Telepaths or The FFA in the guise of a 1-on-1 or Reginald Molehusband vs Lord Lorian ...is done. Zevox
Yitzi 07-17-07, 10:45 PM	Wait, couldn't Lorian still theoretically win if the psicrystal doesn't kill him before Reginald's levitate runs out, and then the horses kill Reginald?
Zevox 07-17-07, 10:59 PM	Wait, couldn't Lorian still theoretically win if the psicrystal doesn't kill him before Reginald's levitate runs out, and then the horses kill Reginald? No - and Reginald wasn't even levitating yet anyway. The horses simply don't know to attack Reginald. Theres no way for them to recognize him as being holding Lorian (int 2, remember?), so their defend trick wasn't triggered. Lorian had no chance to order either to attack him. They can only defend from an obvious attacker, and that will only be the Psicrystal, who they have no chance of harming. Zevox
MindWandererB 07-18-07, 02:26 AM	The battle of the Gray Elf Telepaths or The FFA in the guise of a 1-on-1 or Reginald Molehusband vs Lord Lorian ...is done. Zevox Umm... how does a psicrystal kill anything? Its unarmed strike doesn't do anything (1d3->1d2->1->0). It has 19 uses of Acid Splash, but I don't think that's enough. I see a Matter Agitation ring on one of the extra psicrystals, but if he has to use that, it's relevant because it would be its second out of 2 uses for the day.
Zevox 07-18-07, 02:36 AM	Umm... how does a psicrystal kill anything? Its unarmed strike doesn't do anything (1d3->1d2->1->0). It has 19 uses of Acid Splash, but I don't think that's enough. I see a Matter Agitation ring on one of the extra psicrystals, but if he has to use that, it's relevant because it would be its second out of 2 uses for the day. Armor spikes. On the Gnome's crystal. Does only 1 damage per blow, but its damage nonetheless. Zevox
hogarth 07-18-07, 09:35 AM	Armor spikes. On the Gnome's crystal. Does only 1 damage per blow, but its damage nonetheless. Zevox - you forget to mention that Reginald used a smokestick in the wrap-up.
Zevox 07-18-07, 11:33 AM	Zevox - you forget to mention that Reginald used a smokestick in the wrap-up. No, no I didn't - you merely overlooked it. :incog:
hogarth 07-18-07, 12:03 PM	No, no I didn't - you merely overlooked it. :incog: One more thing, Obi-Wan -- I think the rewards are a little bit off (for Reginald at least). He should get 2100 * (1 - 0.15 + 0.24) = 2289 xp, but you have 2226 listed. Also, I calculated 2600 * (1 - 0.15 + 0.24) = 2834 gp, not 2756.
Zevox 07-18-07, 12:10 PM	One more thing, Obi-Wan -- I think the rewards are a little bit off (for Reginald at least). He should get 2100 * (1 - 0.15 + 0.24) = 2289 xp, but you have 2226 listed. Also, I calculated 2600 * (1 - 0.15 + 0.24) = 2834 gp, not 2756. Huh - now how'd that one happen? Anyway, fixed. Zevox
xZerasx 07-18-07, 03:27 PM	Hello. Pairings for the 18th are fast approaching, and Khaim still has not resolved the Isaiah vs Phaelen fight. Eluria has forfeited the match (Here), but this has not been made official in the battles thread (no fight link). Could someone please update that thread with a post so we can participate on the 18th? Thanks.